Bruce

My list is soley for figures tested by German magazine Sport Auto, so i can't include these, but I want to thank you very much for all of those figures (karma certainly deserved )

Bruce

Updated:

.33 - Audi 2.0 TT TFSI

Bruce

New:

.30 - Porsche 997 GT3RS

monster

Drag coefficient figures are interesting to read but these figures does not give the entire picture. To determin how aerodynamic a car is, you need to know the CdA, which is the coefficient of drag multiply by the total frontal area of the car. Cars can have a low Cd but still create significant drag if the frontal area of the car is massive. For example the Audi A3 has a Cd of 0.33 while the Golf GTi has a Cd of 0.32 but the Audi has a smaller frontal area of 2.13 m^2, the GTi 's frontal area is 2.22m^2. so the CdA of the Audi is actually lower than the GTi, 0.70 vs 0.72

Bruce

Update

.32 - AC Schnitzer 6er Tension

EnI

Exactly. CdA is much more important aerodynamics indicator.

Eg. despite same Cd (0.31) Ferrari 360 is much more aerodynamic than BMW X5 - since frontal area of X5 is much bigger than the one of F360.



Cd claims only are pure marketing manipulation. CdA on the other hand tells us much more.

bum-man

W204 C-class

Coefficient of drag Cd
0.27

Frontal area (A)
2.17 sq. m.

Air resistance (Cd x A)
0.59 sq. m.

Bruce

I'm just the data collector, so I'll leave the actual debate regarding items such as this to you guys

However, perhaps in the near future I'll gather the CdA figures from Sport Auto's supertest

Thanks bum-man, interesting figures. However I can not add that to my list. This is soley for Sport Auto and their Supertests.

bum-man

Gotchya.

EnI

For comparison:

BMW E90

Cd = 0.29 (0.3)
A = 2.11
CdA = 0.61 (0.63)




BMW E92

Cd = 0.28 (0.29) (0.3)
A = 2.08
CdA = 0.58 (0.60) (0.62)




OK, back OT!