nice info, learned something today, thanks

 

a good read

 

That rear bumper came on cars designated to Europe.

 

Great info. Thanks for posting.

Anyone who doubts the Gen 3s rear end tendency to "lift" at high speed only needs to view the video of Racing Beat's first attempt at the land speed record back in the early 90s with their White FD. It definitely lifts from the rear (at 230 mph), and Big Jim was fortunate to walk away from the incident. Their later "Back in Black" FD sported a Porsche-like duck tail on the back which cured the lift problem all the way to 242 mph.

 

I would love to see the differences between pre and post 99 Spec design. Has anyone published these numbers or done tests to compare them? I would like to see what the trade off really is.

 

Although you should keep in mind that aerodynamic effects on the flats are much different than a raceway - the entrained sand dust actually makes the air more viscous and dense in nature than clean air.

So the forces on the cars at bonneville don't align perfectly with normal aero designs.

Dave

 

I doubt the 93/95 numbers were done with a liscense plate, so it probably won't look good, since you can't remove it from the OE '99 bumper.

 

I don't beleive '99+, C-West or any other model would give as much downfoce as Knightsports V. My second favorite is Damd with the adjustable aluminum center flap.

 

Nice article. Also, not really related but the 87-88 sport package equipped FCs also posted a drag coefficient of .29 , so the FD isnt all that special

 

That is a great article. I've seen a few of Autospeed's other wool tuft articles, but those cars (Subarus and Skylines) had pretty poor aero, with tons of separation at the rear windows.



Drag coefficient is only part of the equation, my friends. Frontal Area is just as important.


Total drag = Coefficient of Drag * Frontal Area * 0.5 * Air density * (Velocity)^2
(see http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/drageq.html for more info)

A Cd of 0.29 isn't uncommon for modern cars (which have been designed with the help of computer aero simulation tools), but most of them have a much greater Frontal Area than the 3rd Gen. I'm not sure about the FCs: they're a bit taller, but not quite as wide.

-s-

 

Yep, that's why one of the major car magazines (C&D?) has turned to publishing the Coefficient of drag * Frontal Area instead of just the drag coefficient.

Dave