Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, just want to start off with some drag coefficient values:

Nissan R32 GTR = 0.4 Cd

Nissan R33 GTR = 0.35 Cd

Nissan R34 GTR = 0.34 Cd

Subaru Impreza STi 2004 = 0.33 Cd

Nissan Cube = 0.35 Cd

A freaken Impreza (peanut/tear drop eye) STi with it's massive scoop, 4 doors, bulky appearance is better than the aerodynamics of the R32, despite the sleek look. I feel that on the freeway i gotta give it a bit more gas than my previous Impreza because of the drag is creates. Is the aerodynamics a big issue for anybody else? How important is this in motorsport/track days? Just feel that the R32 has so much more potential if it were more aerodynamic.

Edited by TyresBro
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/335727-how-come-r32s-have-such-crappy-drag/
Share on other sites

It certainly effects them a lot, but the issue is also that at that point the car had to be designed to work on the race track with out any body modifications, and race cars need down force, which creates drag, this is my theory. Pretty sure the other reason might be that it was not to well thought out or designed..... I am actually thinking about removing rear wing and trying reduce drag a bit next time I go to the strip to see what diff it makes

You're comparing a 1989 shape car with a 2004 impreza???

I think there's your answer.

Cd is more than just a sleek look. eg Lambo Countach - 0.42

That aside though, I've honestly never felt it. And I'm going to a 32 GTR from a car with a 0.27Cd - V35 Coupe.

lol Dewds, I can pick out a lot of cars made around 1992 for a lot less Cd (eg. RX-7, Supra as mentioned, Civic, 180SX etc). It's just that there seem to be 2 different types of Cd, one for crappy body design, and the other is downforce. Read around and apparently the area of the front has a major role in aerodynamics too. Feels like such a handicap...

On the other note, would LOVE to see some wind tunnel testing of an R32 to determine if it's putting the Cd to good use.

Edited by TyresBro

Even if the R32 has a slightly high drag co-efficient, it would make shit all difference at speeds up to maximum legal speed limit of 110km/h. Drag co-efficients only REALLY come into play when you are talking about serious top-end drag racing (ie 7secs and lower) or serious circuit racing like the FIA GT1 champs etc.

I highly doubt you would be able to feel the difference on the freeway.

......Feels like such a handicap...
Even if the R32 has a slightly high drag co-efficient, it would make shit all difference at speeds up to maximum legal speed limit of 110km/h. Drag co-efficients only REALLY come into play when you are talking about serious top-end drag racing (ie 7secs and lower) or serious circuit racing like the FIA GT1 champs etc.

I highly doubt you would be able to feel the difference on the freeway.

Completely agree, and what i was trying to get at. I connot feel the difference at all between the V35 and the R32. (see my post above for the difference in the two)

And thats both cars on the track at both Wakefield and Oran Park, really don't know how the OP sees it as "such a handicap"

Regardless of the Cd rating they still handed the V8 Falcons & Holdens their asses at Bathurst & every other type of vehicle they raced against when they were released-including the Cosworth Sierra's.

I dont believe that its such a handicap tho-look at Victor Bray in that old school Chev, has the aerodynamics of a house brick but it still hauls ass ,so is it really that important considering the car was made in '92

The mainly noticable differences are on the freeway and downhills. The moment you let go of the accelerator, the car starts slowing down where as other cars start coasting or even roll faster. I'm not saying it like it's running on 3 wheels, but as the air drag increases as a square of speed, it exponentially increases the resistance and feel at higher speeds. That is where we have the disadvantage compared to other cars or similar class.

Regardless of the Cd rating they still handed the V8 Falcons & Holdens their asses at Bathurst & every other type of vehicle they raced against when they were released-including the Cosworth Sierra's.

I dont believe that its such a handicap tho-look at Victor Bray in that old school Chev, has the aerodynamics of a house brick but it still hauls ass

<facepalm>

The mainly noticable differences are on the freeway and downhills. The moment you let go of the accelerator, the car starts slowing down where as other cars start coasting or even roll faster. I'm not saying it like it's running on 3 wheels, but as the air drag increases as a square of speed, it exponentially increases the resistance and feel at higher speeds. That is where we have the disadvantage compared to other cars or similar class.

so many other things be coming into play there than aerodynamics. you could have a slightly sticking brake piston, poor wheel alignment, crappy wheel bearings, tight diff, etc. the gear ratios could also come into it because of how the engine responds when just left on compression braking. the higher the revs the more it will slow down when you lift off. the width and tread pattern of tyres can also come into play.

you would really need to compare your car to another car with all the same mods and then see how it performs.

cant believe a cube has better aerodynamics than a 32. LOLZ.

but as mentioned. everything else on and about your car will have more affect than the CD at freeway speeds.

your tyres for example. wide, sticky, agressive tread pattern. that will slow you down. gearing, that will do it. fat gf, that will definitely do it. ask boz. :)

cant believe a cube has better aerodynamics than a 32. LOLZ.

but as mentioned. everything else on and about your car will have more affect than the CD at freeway speeds.

your tyres for example. wide, sticky, agressive tread pattern. that will slow you down. gearing, that will do it. fat gf, that will definitely do it. ask boz. :)

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*wipes away tear

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha

A freaken Impreza (peanut/tear drop eye) STi with it's massive scoop, 4 doors, bulky appearance is better than the aerodynamics of the R32,

Quite simple, really

Subaru >> Nissan :)

Seriously though, the aerodynamics are really onlu going to have a significant impact at speeds above 150km/h or so. At 100, you're chewing up less than 20kW in overcoming the aerodynamic drag.

Having said that, reducing drag has a much bigger impact on top speed than increasing power. A doubling of power would increase top speed by about 13% (rough rule of thumb figures - obviously a lot of other things come into play)

The CD figure is a pretty basic number used to define a car's overall aerodynamic drag. Essentially it is saying how much drag your car has compared to a house brick with the same frontal area as your car (putting it simply).

CD is a comparison of the car's actual drag to the theoretical drag which is calculated from stagnation pressure (1/2 x air density x speed^2) x frontal area. This calculation gives a drag coefficient of 1:1. Your car's drag coefficient is the actual drag divided by the theoretical (house brick) drag

edit: this is my recollection from studying this stuff 25 years ago, so I might have missed some fine details.

Edited by warps
Quite simple, really

Subaru >> Nissan :D

Seriously though, the aerodynamics are really onlu going to have a significant impact at speeds above 150km/h or so. At 100, you're chewing up less than 20kW in overcoming the aerodynamic drag.

Having said that, reducing drag has a much bigger impact on top speed than increasing power. A doubling of power would increase top speed by about 13% (rough rule of thumb figures - obviously a lot of other things come into play)

The CD figure is a pretty basic number used to define a car's overall aerodynamic drag. Essentially it is saying how much drag your car has compared to a house brick with the same frontal area as your car (putting it simply).

Thanks-that clears things a lil :D

I dont know much about this type of stuff-am hoping to understand it all a little

More to the point I guess is there any proven way to improve the cars performance with 1 type of body kit over another or perhaps or even paint finishings.

ie Kiwi yachtsmen use lanolin on their hulls to improve the boats slip through the water & powerboaters use it for better fuel economy-not possible on the car but??????????

clearly it has nothing to do with a sleek 'looking' shape - the LS400 when released had the lowest drag coefficient of any production car at the time 0.29 - and that thing has a front end on it like a tugboat.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Getting the setup right, is likely to cost multiples of the purchase price of the vehicle.
    • So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
    • It's a place for non car talk. There's whoretown which is general shit talking. But also other threads coving all sorts of stuff(a lot still semi car related)
×
×
  • Create New...