You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
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.
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.
Originally Posted by howard coleman
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.