3 ms·
Not necessarily. Windshields were less curved and more vertical, body panels were much less contoured, and features like sealed-beam headlights, mirrors (if equ
by drewzero1 4y ago
Not necessarily. Windshields were less curved and more vertical, body panels were much less contoured, and features like sealed-beam headlights, mirrors (if equipped), and windshield wipers were more protuberant. A 1980s Mercury Grand Marquis had a drag coefficient of 0.46, while a 2018 Ram 1500 is listed at 0.357 (less is better). Obviously some 80s cars fared better, mostly compacts like my '83 SAAB 900 (3.7, not on the list below) or sports cars. I just picked the Mercury as a typical full-sized family sedan.
Here's a big list, for anyone interested in some numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient
- wtallis 4y agoCoefficient of drag normalizes relative to cross sectional area. Pointing out that a modern Ram 1500 has a lower Cd than an old Mercury doesn't mean the Ram has less drag. If the Ram's cross sectional area is 30% larger, it will have more drag than the Mercury despite having a more aerodynamic shape.
- drewzero1 4y agoThanks for pointing this out; I was unaware. There's also a table of cross-sections later in the linked Wikipedia page, but I hadn't paid much attention to it because of not knowing how to perform a meaningful comparison.
- Wistar 4y agoI have heard that a Spoon Sports modified F20c can do 11k reliably. The engine has a very long stroke for its size, and stock, the piston speeds are already higher than almost any other car engine, so that it can spin as fast as it does is pretty amazing. Motorcycle engines, however… Some of those are 14-16K stock.