aerodynamics???
Thread Starter
Le Mans Master
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 1
aerodynamics???
which is more aerodynamic?
a 79 style coupe or a 74 style coupe with the flat back window?
i would think the 79 style...are there any drag coefficient tests?
a c5 coupe is .31 whereas a z06 is .32...not the same dropoff, but a similar setup for the rear windows...also would the weight from the difference in styles offset this better coeffiecent(if it is better) in performace?
a 79 style coupe or a 74 style coupe with the flat back window?
i would think the 79 style...are there any drag coefficient tests?
a c5 coupe is .31 whereas a z06 is .32...not the same dropoff, but a similar setup for the rear windows...also would the weight from the difference in styles offset this better coeffiecent(if it is better) in performace?
Team Owner
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,958
Likes: 0
From: Middletown Connecticut
Cruise-In IV Veteran
Re: aerodynamics??? (munday)
The 79 would definatley be more aerodynamic, thats granted. but unless you have a chin spoiler you're going to have trouble over 100.
You can only shave a brick so much :jester
BTW, a C5 is .29 drag co-efficient
You can only shave a brick so much :jester
BTW, a C5 is .29 drag co-efficient
Thread Starter
Le Mans Master
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 1
Re: aerodynamics??? (Corz)
are you sure? my GM salesguide and 2004 corvette brochure both state as my previous post.
as far as the front spoiler i really need to get one, but i'm not sure when i'll be working next....it appears the corvette forum isn't hiring
as far as the front spoiler i really need to get one, but i'm not sure when i'll be working next....it appears the corvette forum isn't hiring
Melting Slicks
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,041
Likes: 0
From: Wichita, KS
Re: aerodynamics??? (munday)
This information comes from "THE CORVETTE BLACK BOOK"
From the 1980 model information - Intergrated spoilers improved the drag coefficient from .503 to .443 compared to the 1979 model equiped with optional, non-intergrated spoilers.
From the 1979 model information - The front and rear spoilers developed as part of the 1978 Pace Car package became 1979 options. They were functional, decreasing drag by about 15% and increasing fuel economy by about a half-mile per gallon.
.503 + 15% = .578 drag for a 1978 or 1979 not equiped with a spoiler package.
[Modified by 1979toy, 1:11 AM 2/13/2004]
From the 1980 model information - Intergrated spoilers improved the drag coefficient from .503 to .443 compared to the 1979 model equiped with optional, non-intergrated spoilers.
From the 1979 model information - The front and rear spoilers developed as part of the 1978 Pace Car package became 1979 options. They were functional, decreasing drag by about 15% and increasing fuel economy by about a half-mile per gallon.
.503 + 15% = .578 drag for a 1978 or 1979 not equiped with a spoiler package.
[Modified by 1979toy, 1:11 AM 2/13/2004]
Race Director
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 11,520
Likes: 13
From: CORVETTE 77 385 C.I. TEXAS
Re: aerodynamics??? (munday)
Have posted the early ones before- .47 Cd.
All the 68-77 need is the front pace car spoiler. Installed one from the Chevy dealer so early the paint matches. The early rear spoiler was cut way down after aerodynamic studies & tests.
From a weight & handling standpoint the high heavy glass of 78- is a disadvantage.
All the 68-77 need is the front pace car spoiler. Installed one from the Chevy dealer so early the paint matches. The early rear spoiler was cut way down after aerodynamic studies & tests.
From a weight & handling standpoint the high heavy glass of 78- is a disadvantage.
Abby Normal
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,353
Likes: 92
From: Press "2" for English
Re: aerodynamics??? (Ganey)
hey ganey, i think i agree with that to an extent. the glass on the '78-'82 is a disadvantage from a handling standpoint for the reasons you mentioned but i believe it is actually an advantage to the aero. i still think that as far as the c3 body style is concerned the optimal styling would be some form of hybrid with the '80-82 front but a '68-'72 rear. as for the rear glass, one of the few motion body mods i ever liked was the sloped back glass intergrated to the swept B-pillers. ultimately, the most aerodynamically efficient body mods you could have to a c-3 is a c-4, but it doesn't look quite as sexy, now does it? ;)
Race Director
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 11,520
Likes: 13
From: CORVETTE 77 385 C.I. TEXAS
Re: aerodynamics??? (clutchdust)
Hey Clutchdust, agree the 80- front is suposed to be better aerodynamically.
I am barely getting by w/ the 77 med. rise hood & would have to change the hood on the 80-81 first thing. I like both the 68-73 & 74-77 rear treatment as well as the Motion type rear glass, that would work in Lexan. Maybe you should do it. You, GKull & others are doing fine w/ the 78- rear glass.
:cheers:
I am barely getting by w/ the 77 med. rise hood & would have to change the hood on the 80-81 first thing. I like both the 68-73 & 74-77 rear treatment as well as the Motion type rear glass, that would work in Lexan. Maybe you should do it. You, GKull & others are doing fine w/ the 78- rear glass.
:cheers:
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvette Engines RANKED by Peak Torque (70+ Years of Muscle!)
Joe Kucinski
Corvette ZR1X Will Be Pacing the Indy 500, And Could Probably Race, Too!
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvettes Coming to Mecum Indy 2026!
Brett Foote
Top 10 C9 Corvette MUST-HAVES to Fix These C8 Generation Flaws!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Revolutionary 'Corvette Firsts' Most People Don't Know
Joe Kucinski
5 Reasons to Upgrade to an LS6-Powered Corvette; 5 Reasons to Stay LT2
Michael S. Palmer