Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

Interesting article.

http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1080/article.html

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1110/article.html

Howard Coleman

iTrader: (6)

the first is an excellent aero article.

thanks for the link.

as someone who is proud to deliberately run the stock 93 nose w the R1 splitter and no rear spoiler i am delighted w the low drag numbers on my car and the job mazda did to get there.

perhaps mazda concluded on later models that they needed more air into the engine package (given the meltdown-prone OEM turbo package) but the aero guys at mazda that worked so hard at giving the car a small low drag frontal area must have been greatly disappointed.

perhaps the new nose came from the gold chain marketing crowd. whatever. it and 99% of the aftermarket abominations give an originally slick aero car the drag of a hummer.

i can tell you that w my setup i can run thru turn one at Brainerd at 170+ mph and the car is steady as if it were cruising at 70.

howard coleman

CMonakar

Terrific -thanks!

vkotis

I would like to see wool tuft tests on different body kits. I think for the most part alot of them would fail hard. Anyone know what kind of rims that rx7 has? Been looking for some like those.

RE-Amemiya

Nice info

NissanConvert

iTrader: (1)

That leads me to wonder what "aero" kits there are for the FD. Which ones have spent time in the wind tunnel.

And why the heck is that aussie making 400hp out of a t04 and a stock intercooler!?

rotariesrule

because he is running 21 pounds of boost!

Narfle

iTrader: (16)

RE: the second article

a stock intercooler eh?

DomFD3S

There are only a handful of bodykits that are wind tunnel tested.

C-West
AutoExe
Mazdaspeed

calculon

iTrader: (29)

does anyone know what CWest kits have been tested, and what the results were? I'm pretty set on the N1 bumper, but am now in the air, pending the answer to this question.

thanks, good info

ryan

Howard Coleman

iTrader: (6)

considering wind tunnel expense i would be highly skeptical of any claimed tunnel time.

Aero Resistance is a combination of frontal area times drag coefficient.

do you see any "aero" (joke) kits on the market w less frontal area than the stock 93-93 FD?

hey, if they look good to you bolt them on but don't rationalise them on an engineering basis.

howard coleman

DomFD3S

http://www.c-westusa.com/labs/fudo1.asp

Howard Coleman

iTrader: (6)

the test was versus the 99 front end which is much much dragier than the 93-95.

btw, i don't dispute you'll get lots more downforce w most of the kits. downforce costs lots of drag however and i would rather not make that tradeoff.

i do stand corrected as to C-west. thnx for the link.

howard coleman

Speed of light

iTrader: (8)

This can't be overstated and I couldn't of said it better myself.

magnus.rx7

The test was vs pre 99 spec. Look at the picture carefully - you'll see that the turn signal indicators are not 99 spec ones.

There is also an R1 lip.

bajaman

Too cool! I've always liked my base model's lines, and this just reinforces how GREAT that design was. Er, IS....lol!
A .29 coefficient of drag is phenomenal.

Thanks for the article!

dgeesaman

iTrader: (7)

In the second article the guy is running a 21lb through a stock intercooler and expects to turn 10s.

LOL talk about doing it the hard way.

M104-AMG

iTrader: (8)

Cool articles. I read all five installments.

I need to find/fabricate a spoiler for the top of my Mercedes wagon . . .

:-) neil

drivelikejehu

whats with those red tail lights? is the 92 s6 different? the whole rear bumper seems to be different on that car.

fdeeznutz

Yes, rear bumpers have a wider area to put the license plate on than the USDM FD's

dubulup

I believe those are rear "fog" lights

yuichiror

iTrader: (1)

Great articles! Thanks Chris!

ptrhahn

iTrader: (9)

The '99 front is "dragier", but it's also "coolier" too, and I believe that was one of Mazda's stated reasons for the design. The openings (particularly the oil coolers) are MUCH bigger to aid in cooling. You'd make the 93/95 even slipperier by closing up the openings (the way they tape off the rad. grill on winston cup cars or use smaller brake ducts in F1), but not without cost.

The thing is too, "more drag" in a different front-end design, or even "more downforce" doesn't mean efficiency relative to slipperierness. You might be getting 5% more downforce for 20% more drag. A bad trade-off. At least with the '99 or the C-West, they've run it through a tunnel and (at least w/ Mazda R&D) probably didn't allow such a tradeoff to happen... they'd have refined it to better match the gain/loss.