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

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

Go Back   Fuelly Forums > Fuel Talk > General Fuel Topics
Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-17-2008, 05:49 PM   #1
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 211
Country: United States
Why does a 1935 Tatra have a lower Cd than any production car today?

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

Why can't we do better today?



__________________

__________________
94 Altima 5 spd.. Stock.. 29 mpg combined with basic hypermiling techniques ..

89 Yamaha FZR400 Crotch rocket, semi naked with only the bikini fairing, no lowers, 60 plus mpg

87 Ranger 2.3 5spd.. Does not currently run..
fumesucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2008, 06:01 PM   #2
Registered Member
 
oneinchsidehop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 165
Country: United States
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?
__________________

__________________
Mike
_______________________________________________

"If you want to save gas I suggest you permanently remove the drivers seat and steering wheel. That seems to help." -Oscar Halverson

oneinchsidehop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2008, 06:04 PM   #3
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
Stupid govt regs are practically OUTLAWING lightweight car construction.
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2008, 06:52 PM   #4
Registered Member
 
Mike T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 321
Country: United States
I doubt it's really 0.21. And the frontal area is massive. My guess would be 0.35.
__________________
2008 Mercedes-Benz B 200
2006 smart fortwo BRABUS Canada 1 cdi cabriolet
2005 smart fortwo cdi pulse cabriolet
1966 Peugeot 404 Coupe Injection
Mike T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2008, 07:30 PM   #5
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 211
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T View Post
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..
__________________
94 Altima 5 spd.. Stock.. 29 mpg combined with basic hypermiling techniques ..

89 Yamaha FZR400 Crotch rocket, semi naked with only the bikini fairing, no lowers, 60 plus mpg

87 Ranger 2.3 5spd.. Does not currently run..
fumesucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2008, 07:32 PM   #6
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 211
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by theclencher View Post
Stupid govt regs are practically OUTLAWING lightweight car construction.

Weight and drag coefficient have nothing to do with each other.
__________________
94 Altima 5 spd.. Stock.. 29 mpg combined with basic hypermiling techniques ..

89 Yamaha FZR400 Crotch rocket, semi naked with only the bikini fairing, no lowers, 60 plus mpg

87 Ranger 2.3 5spd.. Does not currently run..
fumesucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2008, 04:55 AM   #7
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
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.
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2008, 05:09 AM   #8
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 30
Country: United States
[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!
67 Satellite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2008, 07:34 PM   #9
Registered Member
 
VetteOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,546
Country: United States
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...
VetteOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2008, 08:09 PM   #10
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 34
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by VetteOwner View Post
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...
__________________

JV-Tuga 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
Fuelly Mobile horribly slow on iPhone 3G danielk Fuelly Web Support and Community News 7 07-04-2011 09:26 PM
Fuelly Android App - eehokie Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 07-14-2010 09:59 PM
Fuelly for Maintenance? brandonrossl Fuelly Web Support and Community News 11 01-05-2009 04:09 AM
DIY: Wire Tuck!!! SVOboy Experiments, Modifications and DIY 11 09-21-2006 05:17 AM
Modifying exhaust to increase mileage? Matt Timion General Fuel Topics 15 01-07-2006 08:44 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:43 AM.


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