Aerodynamic.

"Berang" (berang) 10/11/2018 at 04:10 • Filed to: None

2

8

Saab 96, drag coefficient of 0.37, not bad by 1960's standards. That’s the same, BTW, as a Ferrari F50. A VW Beetle had 0.48, A Citroen DS 0.36.

The original Saab 92, 0f 1949, with its lower roof and gentler rear taper had 0.30, which is still excellent even by current standards. Current model Prius? Only 0.24

Echo51 > Berang 10/11/2018 at 06:52

1

Drag coefficient isn’t that accurate a measurement, because a VW transporter has a Cd of 0.33

What you really want to compare  across different cars is Drag Area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient#Drag_area

nerd_racing > Berang 10/11/2018 at 06:58

0

And a Mazda MX3 has .31 which seems very high

bhtooefr > Echo51 10/11/2018 at 07:23

1

Drag coefficient tells you how efficient the shape is, though.

BigBlock440 > Berang 10/11/2018 at 07:32

1

This 60's model was a 0.28.

Maxima Speed > Echo51 10/11/2018 at 07:43

1

Came here to say this.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > Berang 10/11/2018 at 07:50

0

My e39 has a coefficient of .2 8, but the thriftier models have a different lower valance that reduces this to .27. Toyota, eat your heart out

Berang > Echo51 10/11/2018 at 11:10

0

It is an accurate measurement. It’s just not the measurement you in particular seem to see as useful. If we want to compare the drag of a shape of a vehicle rather than the size of a vehicle, we want to look at the drag coefficient.

RT > Berang 10/24/2018 at 06:15

1

0.29 baby!