Re: Drag Coefficients For Fox Mustangs

They are also probably the best priced high performance you can buy for the buck. Bar none.

Ya don't have to convince us, Bob... that's why we're all here. Well, most of us anyway. ;-)

JS

Just some geewiz numbers... today's trivia. (Aerodynamics is free horsepower.) And some people are amazed that a GT with all its "aero aids" is less aerodynamic than a plainer LX.

As for being "bricks on wheels", yeah, by today's standards the Fox body's numbers are not very good. (But no worse than the '94-'03 Mustangs.) Slippery cars have CDs under .30. An average for today for cars, I'd guess, would be in the low .3Xs... .32, .33. Trucks, SUVs, and vans, obviously would be much higher.

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

I'm not overly amazed. There's more nose on the front of a GT that really isn't scluplted that well. More flat areas for the air to want to stop against. The only thing I think that could help the GT over the LX hatch would be the spoiler... where some of the air can at least go under the thing.

A few winters back I found it interesting that, when snow was left on the GT wing, very little of it was removed by the air in the complete center of the wing, and also on the outsides. I could see how the air tracked at an angle off of the top of the car and over the wing in two distinct paths towards each other.

JS

At least they are faster (more aerodynamic) going forward. Remember the Porsche 928...It was actually faster (more aerodynamic) going backwards. Just a little internal humor us Porsche owners used to snicker about.

Thinking back, one of my favorite Porsches was the old Speedster. Sort of looked like an inflated bug on steroids. Very cool car. Here's a '56:

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in news:W snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com: