Which car is better aerodynamically ?

[odcics2]

If the report was for a race prepared car and the 500 still came in better than it would be fairly definitive no?

Perhaps, but...

What do you think is more aerodynamic?  A jelly bean 1985 Ford Taurus or a boxy looking 1985 AMC Premier?

Answer is the AMC.... 

[Ghoste]

Really?  I'd have never guessed that.

[Mike DC]

 
Surprising, but I could imagine it being true. 

The AMC's details are very boxy but the overall side-view shape is good. 

And who knows what the under-chassis & wheelwell air on either car might be doing? 

   

[odcics2]

Agreed - My point is that the wind tunnel. or coast downs would have to be used to see what shape is the slickest.  Looks can be deceiving.

Another fact: SuperBirds are .32 and the 1985 T-Bird is .35!    Who would have guessed that??

Race Charger 500s with 1.5 degrees nose down, tight mesh grill and no rear spoiler were .38...       

[A383Wing]

didn't Bill Elliot drive a mid-80's T-bird that broke so many records back then?

Daytona's were .29 right? I never new what the Superbirds were....and I heard somewhere that some Firebird had .25

I'm sure someone will correct me

[JB400]

You're correct about Bill Elliot.   His Aerobird as it was called, led GM to create the Aerocoupes based off of the Monte SS and the Grand Prix. 2+2

[odcics2]

Yes, .29 for the Daytona.

Bill Elliot's guys took that .35 and massaged it, too.   It had great balance, front to rear. 
 

[Aero426]

didn't Bill Elliot drive a mid-80's T-bird that broke so many records back then?

Daytona's were .29 right? I never new what the Superbirds were....and I heard somewhere that some Firebird had .25

I'm sure someone will correct me

Elliott ran 212 at Talladega in 1987 and made up two laps under green there in 1985.   

[A383Wing]

yea...I remember that now....and isn't that when NASCAR decided to slow the cars down with restricter plates because of that lap speed?

[Aero426]

Yes, they slowed the cars down in '87 when Bobby Allison broke the fence down at Talladega.

[odcics2]

That would have been the first time with small block engines.
First time for big blocks was August, 1970. 

[Mike DC]

Has it ever been clarified (officially or not) how Elliot's car was so stupid-fast in the mid/late 1980s? 

Yeah, I know the T-bird body was slick, but it's not like Elliot had the only one on the track at the time.  When I look at his car it visually looks like the body is perhaps shortened vertically along the main fuselage.  (The rocker panels and door handles would not be far enough apart anymore.)  But I can't see a whole lot else that is blatantly cheated about it.  His advantage in that era seemed enormous.

[JB400]

According to this site, http://racersreunion.com/bill-elliotts-coors-days-1984-1985/ it claims that Bills' car was narrower than everyone else's.

[A383Wing]

I heard it also had something to do with the back window design?

[odcics2]

Rear window had enough slope to get air on the back of the lid without a bunch of turbulence.
There is an Elliot  T-Bird at "The Ford" Museum in Dearborn, MI.    It looks 7/8 scale, IMO. 
Supposedly, it's the one that ran 212 at Talladega, but how would could you know for sure?     

[Mike DC]

            
The slick T-bird shape might explain why all the Ford guys were in the lead.  But it doesn't explain why Elliot was lapping all the other Ford guys too.  Elliot was a good driver but that doesn't cover it.  Something was up with his car.  


His cars do look "small".  

It couldn't have really been 7/8ths scale, not with NASCAR using the big long bumper-to-bumper template on the middle of the cars for 20 years already by then.  But I would believe Elliot's car was somehow lower & narrower than legit.  It strikes me as possible just from photos.  

Whatever they did was covered up pretty well.  No specific area of the bodies looks wrong.  That front end & hood shape would not have been easy to narrow without giving it away either. 

Maybe there was more going on than just aero work.  

 

[djcarguy]

I  think the 67-69 cuda fastback   will beat those 2 in a wind drag test? opionions we all got em.


    cuda is narrower and smoother  rear window an area flow , looks too smaller grill area an drag,,than c-500 or 3rd gen??

      well least its a mopar to talk about instead of bout 30 yr old furd turdbird. 



               now lets picture a 68 cuda with wing an nose cone   ,,oh and hemi on closed track,,,heaven on wheels.   HAVE A GREAT DAY 

[pettybird]

I  think the 67-69 cuda fastback   will beat those 2 in a wind drag test? opionions we all got em.

You're entitled to your opinion, as long as you don't mind being wrong.

[Daytona R/T SE]

I  think the 67-69 cuda fastback   will beat those 2 in a wind drag test? opionions we all got em.


   cuda is narrower and smoother  rear window an area flow , looks too smaller grill area an drag,,than c-500 or 3rd gen??

     well least its a mopar to talk about instead of bout 30 yr old furd turdbird.  



              now lets picture a 68 cuda with wing an nose cone   ,,oh and hemi on closed track,,,heaven on wheels.  HAVE A GREAT DAY  

Yeah...

But...

Winged "A" bodies suck.  

[JB400]

They don't look too bad if done right.

Factory version isn't bad either

[Daytona R/T SE]

They don't look too bad if done right.

That's like saying ...

"It's only a little turd floating in the punch bowl"

[maxwellwedge]

Lower the ass end on the pink one and it would be very cool.

[Aero426]

Take the wing off the white one and it would look pretty nice.

[JB400]

They don't look too bad if done right.

That's like saying ...

"It's only a little turd floating in the punch bowl"

There's no need in slapping me bub.

[odcics2]