Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Aerodynamics
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-06-2011, 08:57 AM   #1 (permalink)
Cd
Ultimate Fail
 
Cd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 3,585
Thanks: 2,872
Thanked 1,121 Times in 679 Posts
Lower Cd, but larger wake

How is it that cars such as the '92 - '95 Civics have a slightly higher Cd ( .32 ) in 2door sedan form over the .31 of the hatchback ?
Even though the airflow separates on the back of the sedan due to the steep angle of the window, I would think that the size of the cars wake would make up for this and lower the Cd.




Last edited by Cd; 02-06-2011 at 11:52 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 02-06-2011, 09:26 PM   #2 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
...no pictures in your post.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 11:26 PM   #3 (permalink)
Aero Deshi
 
ChazInMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vero Beach, FL
Posts: 1,065

MagMetalCivic - '04 Honda Civic Sedan EX
Last 3: 34.25 mpg (US)
Thanks: 430
Thanked 668 Times in 357 Posts
Because the hatchback more closely approximates the "Ideal Aero Template". The larger back surface area (So counterintuitive that 90% of the people in this forum who think they know better will argue) does not matter, it is how close we come to the template that matters, rear surface/wake area be damned.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 11:34 PM   #4 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
AeroModder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 471

Tank - '96 Ford Aspire 4 door
Team Ford
90 day: 46.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 48 Posts
It's the virtual boattail effect.
__________________
In Reason we Trust
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 11:37 PM   #5 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT View Post
Because the hatchback more closely approximates the "Ideal Aero Template". The larger back surface area (So counterintuitive that 90% of the people in this forum who think they know better will argue) does not matter, it is how close we come to the template that matters, rear surface/wake area be damned.
Er... hah?

The rear surface/wake area is THE DEAL MAKER.

BTW, how are the roof spoilers coming along?
__________________



Last edited by Frank Lee; 02-07-2011 at 12:17 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 06:46 AM   #6 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JasonG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charlotte NC / York SC
Posts: 728

05 DMax - '05 Chevrolet 2500HD
90 day: 18.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 120
Thanked 56 Times in 52 Posts
Spelling

Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroModder View Post
It's the virtual boattail effect.
Look at your Avatar Cd.
It may be a larger wake area, but it reattaches smoothly.
The reverse eddies are what create the backwards suction we call drag.
__________________



I can't understand why my MPG's are so low..........
21,000lb, 41' Toy Haulers are rough on FE!
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 12:48 PM   #7 (permalink)
Cd
Ultimate Fail
 
Cd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 3,585
Thanks: 2,872
Thanked 1,121 Times in 679 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonG View Post
Look at your Avatar Cd.
It may be a larger wake area, but it reattaches smoothly.
The reverse eddies are what create the backwards suction we call drag.
And more eddies equal more drag and a higher Cd right ?
The sedan ( actually coupe ) would have less of these eddies due to a smaller wake, as well as having the air re-attach just behind the trunk / boot.

Perhaps it is all just a misprint ?

I used to collect much of the same literature as Aerohead.
I had a sales brochure from Saturn that had the Cd figures for their cars and remember being puzzled at how that the Saturn station wagons had the same Cd as the SC-2 .
( it was either the SC-1 or the SC-2 . I can't remember after all these years. )
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 02:23 PM   #8 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
AeroModder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 471

Tank - '96 Ford Aspire 4 door
Team Ford
90 day: 46.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 15
Thanked 65 Times in 48 Posts
I think you need to start looking at CdA figures as well. The Cd can be the same for large and small cars, but when the frontal area is factored in, the drag numbers change.
__________________
In Reason we Trust
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 03:20 PM   #9 (permalink)
Cd
Ultimate Fail
 
Cd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 3,585
Thanks: 2,872
Thanked 1,121 Times in 679 Posts
It's the exact same car. The only difference is one is a coupe and the other a hatchback.
Frontal area stays the same. Same with the example of the Saturn coupe verus station wagon.
on early 90s Saturns, the front end was the same on both cars, as well as the frontal area.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 05:15 PM   #10 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JasonG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charlotte NC / York SC
Posts: 728

05 DMax - '05 Chevrolet 2500HD
90 day: 18.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 120
Thanked 56 Times in 52 Posts
The way I'm seing it is this,
The coupe/sedan rear shape creates more eddies creating a negative pressure area on the rear window and trunk.
With the wagon, the airflow seperates more cleanly. This leaves a neutral pressure zone without the reverse holding currrent.


As a Saturn nut, the sc1/sc2 are the same body, the engine is the difference. Single vs dual cams. Same goes for the sw (wagon) and the sl (sedan, sl was the manual everything stripped model, 40 mpg hwy in a 1995).
Sorry to drift OT.

__________________



I can't understand why my MPG's are so low..........
21,000lb, 41' Toy Haulers are rough on FE!

Last edited by JasonG; 02-10-2011 at 10:05 PM.. Reason: Spelling
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com