Journalist praises 2010 Camaro's "slick" drag coefficient of 0.37
 

This is not a joke. (April 2 was too late to be April Fools...)

Jeremy Cato, the chief auto writer for Canada's biggest newspaper, says:

http://images.theglobeandmail.com/ar...ro02wh3big.jpg

Source: globeandmail.com: globeauto.com An asphalt-melting, tire-smoking blast of fun


Sad, sad, sad - on several levels.

Well, it LOOKS slick, so it must BE slick, right? :rolleyes:

Maybe because it actually looks worse than .37?

If he hadn't linked "slick" to "0.37", I'd have no problem with it. Slick is subjective; 0.37 isn't.

Or if he'd qualified it as a relative statement by beginning with, "Compared to a Hummer (or a barn), the body is pretty slick, coming in at 0.37 for its drag coefficient."

GM engineers are so much better than this. They could have optimised details to end up with a less embarrassing Cd - without affecting the overall styling - if they'd wanted to. Maybe the bean counters held them back.

This is another (acceptable by me) example of form leading function. They aren't trying to make efficient cars. They are trying to get people to give them money and that classic hotrod styling will do that.

The writer of the article is a dolt though. That's like bragging about the RX8 being good on gas at 17mpg.

p.s. I <3 mazdas and the RX8.

Well, it is "slicker" than a Durango! (0.37 vs 0.39) :rolleyes:

How do you figure? They wanted the square nose and notchback body. How would they reduce the drag of that?

My Miata has a shark nose and smooth lines, but the convertible/notchback causes the cD to be 0.38

The front end of the Camaro (grille & headlight area) is like a parachute.

Haha.

& more haha.

Pretty SLICK!

Probably a whole lot better than a 1967-1969 that came in closer to .45 or worse.

What that the ugly car I followed at a stop light yesterday? I guess so.