3 ms·
It gets even costlier when you take into account that the purpose of the shape of those cars is to increase downforce for better handling around corners. This c
by lj3 10y ago
It gets even costlier when you take into account that the purpose of the shape of those cars is to increase downforce for better handling around corners. This causes the air drag and the fuel consumption to go through the roof, which is the opposite of what you want out of a four door Mazda.
- pixelbash 10y agoNot sure that's true. Low drag is incredibly important to the top speeds of those cars. For example a `03 Golf has a CdA of 6.89[1] while a new Ferrari 458 is 0.330[2]. Also, most modern supercars have active aerodynamics to create more downforce at higher speed. [1]http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_Drag_List http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_D... [2]http://www.autozine.org/Archive/Ferrari/old/458.html http://www.autozine.org/Archive/Ferrari/old/458.html
- seanp2k2 10y agoWhy not have both? The answer is active aero, which is also expensive to design, implement, and test. Unless it'll be on a track, be cornering at >1G, or going >140mph, it's pretty moot. A cheaper car wouldn't do any of these.
- mhandley 10y agoYou're comparing CdA for the Golf with Cd for the Ferrari. According to that table, the '03 Golf has a Cd of 0.32, actually lower than 0.33 Cd of the Ferrari. Without knowing the frontal area of the Ferrari, I don't know if its CdA is higher too.