Fuelly Forums

Fuelly Forums (http://www.fuelly.com/forums/)
-   Aerodynamics (http://www.fuelly.com/forums/f14/)
-   -   New Charger Aerodynamics (http://www.fuelly.com/forums/f14/new-charger-aerodynamics-9831.html)

ron22 08-27-2008 12:17 PM

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

thisisntjared 08-27-2008 12:48 PM

.33 still leaves room for improvement....

dkjones96 08-27-2008 01:16 PM

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.

ron22 08-27-2008 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkjones96 (Post 116522)
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 08-27-2008 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thisisntjared (Post 116515)
.33 still leaves room for improvement....

Alot of room.

theholycow 08-27-2008 04:59 PM

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.

trautotuning 08-27-2008 08:14 PM

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 :) )

thisisntjared 08-28-2008 07:56 AM

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.

ron22 08-28-2008 08:00 AM

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.
http://www.fuelly.com/attachments/fo...e73fc61001.jpg

theholycow 08-28-2008 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thisisntjared (Post 116628)
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... :p

Quote:

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


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.