Camaro's Cd (Coefficient of Drag)

[96CAMaro]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

there isn't any "one" CD for the 2nd gen.......it depends on which year -- and, in the early cars -- an RS or regular - and with or without spoilers -- each time the front changes (and the rear, for that matter -- drag --) the CD changes.

A lot of time was spent on the 5thgen -- we tried to keep it as close as possible to the concept -- but we also spent time in the wind tunnel to get the numbers lower.

The wind tunnel also allows you to 'tune' things such as mirrors and door handles - to 'quiet' the car down -- no one wants to listen to turbulence around the window seals.....

I think people are going to be surprised as to how 'upscale' and 'refined' this car feels and performs...make no mistake -- we didn't take it's performance away -- we just made the car more livable.........

Money

[stovt001]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

there isn't any "one" CD for the 2nd gen.......it depends on which year -- and, in the early cars -- an RS or regular - and with or without spoilers -- each time the front changes (and the rear, for that matter -- drag --) the CD changes.

A lot of time was spent on the 5thgen -- we tried to keep it as close as possible to the concept -- but we also spent time in the wind tunnel to get the numbers lower.

The wind tunnel also allows you to 'tune' things such as mirrors and door handles - to 'quiet' the car down -- no one wants to listen to turbulence around the window seals.....

I think people are going to be surprised as to how 'upscale' and 'refined' this car feels and performs...make no mistake -- we didn't take it's performance away -- we just made the car more livable.........

And I must say the team did a mind-boggling job. Before I saw these numbers, I looked at the design and thought the aerodynamics would be awful. I loved the looks, but the drag trade-off was a bit much, I thought. Then I saw these Cd numbers and my jaw dropped. We've been promised that the Camaro will surprise us in many ways, and it delivered that surprise for me in this area. Sure I'd love to see it lower, and improvement would just be one more thing to brag about. But the current balance of style and aerodynamics is brilliant. I can only chalk up such an achievement to black magic. Well done.

[Shifty 6]

Originally Posted by nfamous209

4th gens were capable of higher speed then 160. ive taken my z28 to 153 and i had lots of room in 5th gear left. i just didnt feel comfortable taking it any higher givin the road conditions.

A few things play into this...
going up hill or down? wind with you or against?


In 1999 the Z28 top speed was listed as 156. My car topped out at 156 indicated, I only ran it in one direction, and the speedo could have been off at those numbers. Keep in mind, the faster you are going, the more it takes to go faster. So yes you may have had more rpm left, but it would take a lot more power (rpm) to go a little bit faster.

[briannutter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...g_coefficients

They spent a lot of time tuning the shape to hit .35/.36. Pretty amazing when you campare it to my LT1 Vette for instance at .34. The c5 Z06 is astounding.

Off subject, but the ZR1 seems to have been tuned for downforce at the expense of drag if you look at it's 205mph top speed number. If you compare the power and the top speed to the Porsche Carrera GT-the drag numbers would have to be pretty similar

[AZCamaroFan]

When the third gen came out Car and Driver ( i have the issue) reported it's cd at .37 and the Firebird at .32. That seems like a huge difference just because of headlights. They also said the 2nd gen was between .41 and .45, depending on the model.
The 4th gen was .34
and actually i just read the new Maxima is .33

[theholycow]

Ok, so I just found this thread while looking for the car's Cd, and now that I know...WTF?

Here's some vehicles with lower Cd:

.349:


.32:


.28 and not even a vaguely sporty car:


No, I wouldn't want to give up the ballsy look of the Camaro, but .36 seems a bit much.

[swifttal]

Originally Posted by theholycow

Ok, so I just found this thread while looking for the car's Cd, and now that I know...WTF?

Here's some vehicles with lower Cd:

.349:


.32:


.28 and not even a vaguely sporty car:


No, I wouldn't want to give up the ballsy look of the Camaro, but .36 seems a bit much.

This is done for fuel economy - finding it hard to believe those are the correct numbers for the suburban. If they are, good for GM to find a way to do that with that monster front end. Another good reason to love their most resent redesign.

Originally Posted by radz282003

Is the SS lower than the LS/LT?! Why is it lower otherwise. Maybe the grille openings are bigger?...

Yeah, that doesn't make sense, there's more things on the SS to get caught up on - mail slot, bigger front end, spoiler... sure these numbers aren't flipped?

[DGthe3]

That isn't a 'burban, thats a Tahoe. Hybrid. It has a substantially reworked exterior to minimize aero drag.

As for the SS, I don't know about the other things, but the mail slot won't do much to hurt aero. Its closed off and doesn't protrude much from the rest of the fascia.

[camaro5]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Here's a dedicated thread to talk about it. I'm curious to see what you guys think of it.

Camaro V6: .36
Camaro SS: .35

And a few cars to compare it to.

Mustang GT500: .38

Corvette Z06: .34

4thgen Camaro: .33

EDIT: and a poll for fun

The Corvette Coupe is much more slippery. 0.28 drag coefficient. NASCAR has taught me, downforce creates drag, the Z06 needed more downforce, and got more drag as a consequence.

Same article, Z06:

Aero tuning reduces total lift and balances the front and rear lift coefficients while increasing the base Vette's 0.28 drag coefficient to 0.34.

Ed Welburn has talked about this, and he knows the Camaro is not the slipperiest car out there.

It's a RETRO design, the upright GRILL and front FASCIA are the largest culprits pushing air.

They knew that, I know that, and wouldn't change a THING!

Course I love the Camaro AND the Corvette.

Peanut Gallery: WHAT? Oh no, he's just not right...

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by camaro5

The Corvette Coupe is much more slippery. 0.28 drag coefficient[/I]

That makes much more sense than .34 for that car, and it makes sense that .34 could be the result of downforce mods.

[swifttal]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

That isn't a 'burban, thats a Tahoe. Hybrid. It has a substantially reworked exterior to minimize aero drag.

As for the SS, I don't know about the other things, but the mail slot won't do much to hurt aero. Its closed off and doesn't protrude much from the rest of the fascia.

Doesn't matter if it's closed off, it's something for air to catch on. Vs the LT not having anything there. Good call on the Tahoe, not suburban... Amazing that GM turned that big brick into something that slippery - will have to trade my 99 suburban in for one of these soon

[camaro5]

Originally Posted by swifttal

Doesn't matter if it's closed off, it's something for air to catch on. Vs the LT not having anything there. Good call on the Tahoe, not suburban... Amazing that GM turned that big brick into something that slippery - will have to trade my 99 suburban in for one of these soon

The additional drag created by the faux air scoop is minimal, and probably not even large enough to be measurable.


Bondo that badboy, and duplicolor it if desired.

[swifttal]

Originally Posted by camaro5

The additional drag created by the faux air scoop is minimal, and probably not even large enough to be measurable.


Bondo that badboy, and duplicolor it if desired.

I'm saying it doesn't make sense that the SS is reported as having a lower drag coefficient than LT - don't care about the actual drag numbers, they're fine

[camaro5]

Originally Posted by swifttal

I'm saying it doesn't make sense that the SS is reported as having a lower drag coefficient than LT - don't care about the actual drag numbers, they're fine

I don't ALWAYS read EVERY post in EVERY thread.

I commented on your post that I quoted ONLY.

That's the idea behind QUOTING.

If I wanted to comment on your other posts in this thread, I would have used the multi-quote feature.