New Charger Aerodynamics - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-27-2008, 01:17 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 42
Country: United States
New Charger Aerodynamics

I just bought a 2007 Dodge Charger. I know not the typical car here. For good mileage I will drive my Scooter or CRX.
Here are a few things I found intersting on the Charger. It has a belly pan under the motor. There is also small lip seals on the front doors to help eliminate the seams. It a coefficient of drag of .33 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...g_coefficients
So they tried to clean up the aerodynamics then just overpowered it so it still gets crapy meilage
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008c...umn=1&id=23609
__________________

ron22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2008, 01:48 PM   #2
|V3|2D
 
thisisntjared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,186
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to thisisntjared
.33 still leaves room for improvement....
__________________

__________________
don't waste your time or time will waste you
thisisntjared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2008, 02:16 PM   #3
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
The Impala with the 3.9L V6 has more power than your Charger and gets 18/28 as opposed to your 18/24. The problem with your Charger isn't that it has too much power, it's that it has that 3.5L Chrysler V6.
__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2008, 05:05 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 42
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkjones96 View Post
The Impala with the 3.9L V6 has more power than your Charger and gets 18/28 as opposed to your 18/24. .
You are compiring new and old numbers. MPG ratings from www.fueleconomy.gov Specs from Cars.com
2007 Impala Old numbers 20/29 New 18/26
3.9L 233 HP
CD .33
200.4" exterior length
72.9" exterior body width
58.7" exterior height
3637 Curb weight

2007 Charger Old numbers 19/27 new 17/24 3.5L 250 HP
200.1 " exterior length
74.5 " exterior body width
58.2 " exterior height
3727 Curb weight

By the way the Impala was the other car I was looking at getting.
ron22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2008, 05:06 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 42
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisisntjared View Post
.33 still leaves room for improvement....
Alot of room.
ron22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2008, 05:59 PM   #6
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
I'd say .33 is pretty good considering that the front end looks like a parachute, and the car keeps getting wider towards the rear. I'm not dissing it, the same look is found on the new Camaro that I love, just saying .33 is great considering how un-slippery the car looks.
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2008, 09:14 PM   #7
Registered Member
 
trautotuning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 135
Country: United States
Damn, it is VERY slippery considering its shape and masculine humps!!

I really never thought it would be that low on that car, well, then I guess my next mod is door seals! (Not kidding actually a good idea )
__________________
trautotuning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 08:56 AM   #8
|V3|2D
 
thisisntjared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,186
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to thisisntjared
i disagree with you guys. the feminine humps(or should i say hips) have a very smooth contour that does taper back. dont get me wrong, it is still very much a "manly" car, it just has hips and dudes dont. we are talking about a couple inches here and the real beef with it would be frontal area, not so much .cd. the rear windshield has a very nice taper as well.

i guess the sad thing is any aero mods that would significantly improve the car would make it really ugly. the only thing that wouldnt ruin the cars looks would be an upper grill block and a modification to the bottom of the rear bumper to decrease the low pressure system behind the car.
__________________
don't waste your time or time will waste you
thisisntjared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 09:00 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 42
Country: United States
I plan on blocking the lower part of the grill next. I figure it was designed with enough airflow for the HEMI so I should ok with the V6. I will watch temps on my scangauge. Winter is coming so I should be fine but I will need to watch it in the summer.
ron22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2008, 09:00 AM   #10
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisisntjared View Post
i disagree with you guys. the feminine humps
Lovely lady lumps? Maybe the car would get better FE if drivers didn't keep so much junk in the trunk...

Quote:
the real beef with it would be frontal area, not so much .cd.
What about that huge grille?
__________________

__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fuel economy question Creamycaesar General Fuel Topics 19 02-08-2010 08:37 AM
Incorrect Milage Calcuatlion PatM Fuelly Web Support and Community News 4 07-17-2009 08:21 PM
VW's Golf Diesel Hybrid Debuts. 71.4mpg RightontheMarc Hybrid Vehicles 23 06-17-2008 09:53 PM
undisclosed ethanol content in gas Rayme General Fuel Topics 20 05-08-2008 05:24 PM
Hello from another FNG FireMedic20 Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 5 07-31-2007 06:59 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.