Camaro's Cd (Coefficient of Drag) - Page 2 - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

ihc95 · 09-13-2008, 07:00 AM

IMO the SS bumper is a sacrifice of design for improved aerodynamcs. To me its a pretty good comprimise. Anyone know what the Challengers Cd is? I'd expect it to be a whole number

*radz28* · 09-13-2008, 08:16 AM

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

To the question: H3LL NO I wouldn't change it, especially now, knowing it's only a little less aero' than a 4th. Gen. How in the world did they pull that off?!!!

From http://www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/challenger.html

Frontal area 25.3 sq ft (2.35 m2)
cD (drag coefficient) 0.350 (17-18 inch wheels)
0.355 (20 inch wheels)
0.353 (SRT8)

Mr Twisty · 09-13-2008, 08:34 AM

34 no to 1 yes!
I love being the underdog lol
Would you abandon the 5thgen design for improved aerodynamics?
If it were a better looking design, yes I would. Unless I misunderstand the question, if in a few years the designers decide to freshen the car up and come up with something more aerodynamic AND better looking, sure I'd abandon it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by headpunter

edit for not considering the air dam hurts CoD

and wow F1 cars can be over 1.1 cod's

I think you might be confusing downforce with drag coefficient. I've heard claims there are cars creating enough downforce they could be driven upside down.

*radz28* · 09-13-2008, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterCamaro69

34 no to 1 yes!
I love being the underdog lol
Would you abandon the 5thgen design for improved aerodynamics?
If it were a better looking design, yes I would. Unless I misunderstand the question, if in a few years the designers decide to freshen the car up and come up with something more aerodynamic AND better looking, sure I'd abandon it.

I think you might be confusing downforce with drag coefficient. I've heard claims there are cars creating enough downforce they could be driven upside down.

Blashpemy!!! j/k You have a good point. I don't have the imagination to make this car much better though, personally

headpunter · 09-13-2008, 10:34 AM

more downforce = moving more air over the top of the car with means diverting it from its nantul path. which makes the CoD larger. if you look the normal corvette is something like .28

im not complaining i still think its better then i expected

AZCamaroFan · 09-13-2008, 10:44 AM

It's certainly not amazingly low. I'm trying to remember why the Z06 is .34. The regular Vette is .28
The 1982 Camaro was .36, so it's certainly no leap forward. I'm sure there are a lot of cars lower than that.

Mr Twisty · 09-13-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headpunter

more downforce = moving more air over the top of the car with means diverting it from its nantul path. which makes the CoD larger. if you look the normal corvette is something like .28

im not complaining i still think its better then i expected

Google shows you're correct... .7 to 1.2 in F1. I'm shocked!

Mblock66 · 09-13-2008, 12:08 PM

The Z06 is .34 due to its hood scoops and it is a wide body kit. The fenders are flared much more then the standard C6 causing a little more drag.

*DGthe3* · 09-13-2008, 01:39 PM

the CoD seems to be low enough. If it were above a .45 or something I might reconsider. Aero drag is related to the product of CoD x Frontal Area. So the Camaro will still have more drag than the Corvette and a be a bit better than the Challenger. More aerodynamic styling would have a bit of an impact on highway fuel economy and also top speed. But when I calculated the theoretical top speed I found that it is likely going to be gear limited (in 5th like the Corvette) to about the same speed as its aero limit. So making it more aerodynamic wouldn't change much there either.

stovt001 · 09-13-2008, 02:27 PM

Mine is a "Yes" but I'm assuming we're talking about a 6th gen here. The 5th Gen should look as it does, but if we're tweaking things for the next gen, aero improvements would be a good way to go. Sure it is very good as it is right now. In fact it is far better than I expected given that even the designers acknowledged the design compromised aerodynamics. But, the key to making a car the benchmark for its class is to continually improve its strong points. I'm thinking a 6th gen with a grill and lights flush with the front of the car could shave a few Cd points. As fuel economy regs and consideration by the buying public goes up, aerodynamics (along with weight) will become even more important.

Nexus6 · 09-13-2008, 05:09 PM

it would be more important if you were trying to do stuff like the texas mile http://www.texasmile.net/

its lower than i thought it would be which pleases me,but even if it was higher it would not sway me from getting one.

AZCamaroFan · 09-13-2008, 05:21 PM

It would really be bad if it was .45. The second gen was .44, i believe..

Congoman775 · 09-13-2008, 06:12 PM

.1 worse than a Z06... i dont think i'll loose any sleep over it.

blackZbandit · 09-13-2008, 06:40 PM

Where did this info come from?

View Poll Results: Would you abandon the 5thgen design for improved aerodynamics?
Yes	27	10.51%
No	230	89.49%
Voters: 257. You may not vote on this poll

09-13-2008, 08:16 AM	#16
radz28 Petro-sexual Drives: Ultra-Grin Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Crazy Coast Posts: 15,198 View My Garage	Is the SS lower than the LS/LT?! Why is it lower otherwise. Maybe the grille openings are bigger?... To the question: H3LL NO I wouldn't change it, especially now, knowing it's only a little less aero' than a 4th. Gen. How in the world did they pull that off?!!! From http://www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/challenger.html Frontal area 25.3 sq ft (2.35 m2) cD (drag coefficient) 0.350 (17-18 inch wheels) 0.355 (20 inch wheels) 0.353 (SRT8) __________________ '20 ZL1 Black "Fury" A10, PDR, Exposed CF Extractor Magnuson Magnum DI TVS2650R // RFBG // Soler 103 // TooHighPSI Port Injection // THPSI Billet Lid // FF // Katech Drop-In // PLM Heat Exchanger // ZLE Cradle bushings // BMR Chassis-Suspension Stuff // aFe Bars // Diode Dynamics LEDs // ACS Composites Guards // CF Dash // Aeroforce // tint // other stuffs

09-13-2008, 10:34 AM	#19
headpunter Not That sad..considering Drives: Man Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: the part of washington the capital forgot about. Posts: 3,747 View My Garage	more downforce = moving more air over the top of the car with means diverting it from its nantul path. which makes the CoD larger. if you look the normal corvette is something like .28 im not complaining i still think its better then i expected __________________ Stop Whinging

09-13-2008, 01:39 PM	#23
DGthe3 Moderator.ca Drives: 05 Grand Am GT Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Niagara, Canada Posts: 25,372	the CoD seems to be low enough. If it were above a .45 or something I might reconsider. Aero drag is related to the product of CoD x Frontal Area. So the Camaro will still have more drag than the Corvette and a be a bit better than the Challenger. More aerodynamic styling would have a bit of an impact on highway fuel economy and also top speed. But when I calculated the theoretical top speed I found that it is likely going to be gear limited (in 5th like the Corvette) to about the same speed as its aero limit. So making it more aerodynamic wouldn't change much there either. __________________ Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them __________________ Originally Posted by FbodFather My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors...... ........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!! __________________ Camaro Fest sub-forum

09-13-2008, 02:27 PM	#24
stovt001 Drives: 2006 Cobalt, 2004 Taurus wagon Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: California Posts: 3,812	Mine is a "Yes" but I'm assuming we're talking about a 6th gen here. The 5th Gen should look as it does, but if we're tweaking things for the next gen, aero improvements would be a good way to go. Sure it is very good as it is right now. In fact it is far better than I expected given that even the designers acknowledged the design compromised aerodynamics. But, the key to making a car the benchmark for its class is to continually improve its strong points. I'm thinking a 6th gen with a grill and lights flush with the front of the car could shave a few Cd points. As fuel economy regs and consideration by the buying public goes up, aerodynamics (along with weight) will become even more important. __________________ "It's kind of fun to do the impossible" - Walt Disney There's a great big beautiful tomorrow shining at the end of every day There's a great big beautiful tomorrow Just a dream away

09-13-2008, 07:00 AM	#15
ihc95 Drives: 2018 GT PP1 A10 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 673	IMO the SS bumper is a sacrifice of design for improved aerodynamcs. To me its a pretty good comprimise. Anyone know what the Challengers Cd is? I'd expect it to be a whole number

09-13-2008, 10:44 AM	#20
AZCamaroFan Camaro6 2016-2018 Drives: sometimes Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phoenix Posts: 18,450	It's certainly not amazingly low. I'm trying to remember why the Z06 is .34. The regular Vette is .28 The 1982 Camaro was .36, so it's certainly no leap forward. I'm sure there are a lot of cars lower than that.

09-13-2008, 12:08 PM	#22
Mblock66 Drives: 2005 Subaru Legacy GT Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 312	The Z06 is .34 due to its hood scoops and it is a wide body kit. The fenders are flared much more then the standard C6 causing a little more drag.

09-13-2008, 05:09 PM	#25
Nexus6 More human than human Drives: 2010 IOM 2SS/RS Join Date: May 2008 Location: The mouth of hell Posts: 1,887 View My Garage	it would be more important if you were trying to do stuff like the texas mile http://www.texasmile.net/ its lower than i thought it would be which pleases me,but even if it was higher it would not sway me from getting one.

09-13-2008, 05:21 PM	#26
AZCamaroFan Camaro6 2016-2018 Drives: sometimes Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phoenix Posts: 18,450	It would really be bad if it was .45. The second gen was .44, i believe..

09-13-2008, 06:12 PM	#27
Congoman775 Drives: Muscle Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 1,315	.1 worse than a Z06... i dont think i'll loose any sleep over it.

09-13-2008, 06:40 PM	#28
blackZbandit Drives: BLACK ON BLACK 2012 CAMARO SS Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: LOS ANGELES, CA Posts: 743 View My Garage	Where did this info come from?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Camaro's lineup?	.Hack	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	66	10-13-2008 07:06 AM
80,000-100,000 Camaros per year	Txturbo	Camaro Price \| Ordering \| Tracking \| Dealers Discussions	28	08-16-2008 11:44 PM
Please Help...!!!???!!!! 572 drag motor	CaptianSam	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	29	04-17-2008 01:03 AM
LA Times: Design Changes Delay Camaro's Return to the Muscle-Car Race	JustinZS	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	36	04-01-2008 05:15 PM
New photos of two prototype Camaros shipped into LAX Airport !	cesmieu	Camaro Photos \| Spyshots \| Video \| Media Gallery	96	02-09-2008 10:06 PM