Aero

[Shaolin Crane]

He (Ron / 95 Cobra Mustang) has a similar drive ration and drag coefficient as a C5 vette and many people report 30+ mpg with them.

[Vettezuki]

He has a similar drive ration and drag coefficient as a C5 vette and many people report 30+ mpg with them.

If you think a 0.29 vs. 0.37 is similar I'm not sure what to say. The Vette is objectively superior in every category. This is not an argument. It's a measurement.

Also, I don't put much weight in self reports.

[enkeivette]

:popcorn:

[Shaolin Crane]

If you think a 0.29 vs. 0.37 is similar I'm not sure what to say. The Vette is objectively superior in every category. This is not an argument. It's a measurement.

Also, I don't put much weight in self reports.

Sure when you use the wrong numbers its not close. But when you compared the .29(.31 FRC) To the actual .32 It's pretty close.

[Vettezuki]

Sure when you use the wrong numbers its not close. But when you compared the .29(.31 FRC) To the actual .32 It's pretty close.

Source for .32?

Here's mine for .37
http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_Drag_List

Here's another
http://www.mre-books.com/sa106/hipomustang10.html

The
aerodynamic drag of a car is expressed as a coefficient of drag or Cd figure. The Mustang has a
Cd of .36. By way of comparison, a C5 Corvette has a Cd of .29 . . .

[Shaolin Crane]

Source for .32?

Here's mine for .37
http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_Drag_List

Here's another
http://www.mre-books.com/sa106/hipomustang10.html

Yeah, they're idiots. They're classifying SN95's and New edges as the same CD. Not the case, I'll grab the links from YB and the corral later. .37 Is accurate for the 99-04 mustang, not the 94-98 mustangs.

[enkeivette]

I wonder how much dropping the C3 4.5" helped my drag.

[Vettezuki]

I wonder how much dropping the C3 4.5" helped my drag.

:huh:

But the C3 is pretty bad overall for aero except for some moderate rear down force with the rear spoiler.

[enkeivette]

:huh:

But the C3 is pretty bad overall for aero except for some moderate rear down force with the rear spoiler.

Front windshield isnt the best, but I attribute the rest to the gasser like suspension and 27" suv tires. Cut lowering springs plus smaller diameter tires brought the front end A LOT closer to the ground. 24.5" fender height vs 29" stock.

[Vettezuki]

Front windshield isnt the best, but I attribute the rest to the gasser like suspension and 27" suv tires. Cut lowering springs plus smaller diameter tires brought the front end A LOT closer to the ground. 24.5" fender height vs 29" stock.

The the gigantic front hood and bulbous flares . . . and pop-up headlights don't help.

[enkeivette]

The the gigantic front hood and bulbous flares . . . and pop-up headlights don't help.

Retort
903
904

[Vettezuki]

Retort
903
904

Irrelevant

All things equal lower drag = higher top speed.

Physics don't care about any all ya'lls precious pony feelings. Physics is a total OG.

[enkeivette]

My point was, if once slammed they make decent salt flat cars, the drag cant be that bad.

We need to move these comments to a new thread, Ill do it when I get to a comp