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: 53,480
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
Every 2027 Corvette Engine Explained
Joe Kucinski
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Verdad Gallardo
10 Ugly Corvettes That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
