Why does a 1935 Tatra have a lower Cd than any production car today?

[fumesucker]

Seriously.. a drag coefficient of .21.. In 1935 ..

Why can't we do better today?

[oneinchsidehop]

We can.

It's not an issue of function, it's an issue of marketing and sales. Companies have found a way to sell less function/$, so they always have a "amazing technical improvement" in their back pocket. If the buyers held back until they had an 1100lb 4 seater with a cd of 1.8 and FE +130/gal, we'd have it. As it is, they are going to give as little as possible and make it sound as big as possible. I'm not anti-corporation here, just a realistic part of business. They sell what sells.

Really? The R&D we need for FE was done almost 100 years ago, but they're not going to provide a "cure" before the disease becomes worth $$$$ to the masses.

So maybe I'm a cynic?

[theclencher]

Stupid govt regs are practically OUTLAWING lightweight car construction.

[Mike T]

I doubt it's really 0.21. And the frontal area is massive. My guess would be 0.35.

[fumesucker]

Originally Posted by Mike T

I doubt it's really 0.21. And the frontal area is massive. My guess would be 0.35.

The rear sure is smooth..

And the frontal area doesn't have anything directly to do with Cd..

[fumesucker]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Stupid govt regs are practically OUTLAWING lightweight car construction.

Weight and drag coefficient have nothing to do with each other.

[theholycow]

Look at all the length required for that aerodynamic rear. It will cost a LOT of weight, which will bring down FE, and it will cost a lot of money too. Looking at it, it looks like you don't get much trunk space for all that length either.

Anyway, considering the success of the PT Cruiser, I bet if they built it it would sell a lot. It's butt ugly to me and I'd hate to see them everywhere (and I don't usually care much about how stuff looks!). Still, a car company might be able to make it very efficient, and if they sold, it would benefit them by offsetting their SUVs for CAFE requirements. Perhaps you should suggest it to various manufacturers.

I'd guess that either Chrysler, with their success selling that era of retro styling in the PT Cruiser and the Prowler, or Toyota's Scion division could pull it off.

[67 Satellite]

[quote=theholycow;100519] Looking at it, it looks like you don't get much trunk space for all that length.
Yes,especially since there's an engine back there taking up so much space!

[VetteOwner]

ahem
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...3Doff%26sa%3DX

google a "1938 Phantom Corsair"

one of the most aero friendly cars ive seen thats 70 years old. Too bad it was only a prototype...

[JV-Tuga]

Originally Posted by VetteOwner

ahem
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...3Doff%26sa%3DX

google a "1938 Phantom Corsair"

one of the most aero friendly cars ive seen thats 70 years old. Too bad it was only a prototype...

That is way cool. It kind of looks like an old Citroen...

[fumesucker]

Then there were the Alfa Romeo "BAT" cars, for "Berlinetta Aerodinamica Tecnica."

Here is the 1954 BAT 7 with a Cd of 0.19

[oneinchsidehop]

[quote=fumesucker;100722]Then there were the Alfa Romeo "BAT" cars, for "Berlinetta Aerodinamica Tecnica."

Here is the 1954 BAT 7 with a Cd of 0.19

<snip>
__________________________________________________ _____________________


I have a model of the BAT 7 on my desk. I wish I could find an Alfa Spyder with the "long" hard top. (very close to the roofline of the BAT 7)

[VetteOwner]

back in the 30-40 the main design of cars was "streamlining" big curved hoods, fenders, rearends.

look at the cars from the 10-early 30's most of em had flat square radiators, flat square bodys, square/arched hoods, and not very aerodynamic.

now the mid 30-40 was all about slopes, curves and sleekness.

50's was fins
60's was all about power
70's was big fancy cars
80's was econocars
90's was econocars/midsize cars
late 90's-2000's suv's and huge trucks...