FD airflow
#1
#2
#3
Racing Rotary Since 1983
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,136
Likes: 563
From: Florence, Alabama
the first is an excellent aero article.
thanks for the link.
as someone who is proud to deliberately run the stock 93 nose w the R1 splitter and no rear spoiler i am delighted w the low drag numbers on my car and the job mazda did to get there.
perhaps mazda concluded on later models that they needed more air into the engine package (given the meltdown-prone OEM turbo package) but the aero guys at mazda that worked so hard at giving the car a small low drag frontal area must have been greatly disappointed.
perhaps the new nose came from the gold chain marketing crowd. whatever. it and 99% of the aftermarket abominations give an originally slick aero car the drag of a hummer.
i can tell you that w my setup i can run thru turn one at Brainerd at 170+ mph and the car is steady as if it were cruising at 70.
howard coleman
thanks for the link.
as someone who is proud to deliberately run the stock 93 nose w the R1 splitter and no rear spoiler i am delighted w the low drag numbers on my car and the job mazda did to get there.
perhaps mazda concluded on later models that they needed more air into the engine package (given the meltdown-prone OEM turbo package) but the aero guys at mazda that worked so hard at giving the car a small low drag frontal area must have been greatly disappointed.
perhaps the new nose came from the gold chain marketing crowd. whatever. it and 99% of the aftermarket abominations give an originally slick aero car the drag of a hummer.
i can tell you that w my setup i can run thru turn one at Brainerd at 170+ mph and the car is steady as if it were cruising at 70.
howard coleman
#7
That leads me to wonder what "aero" kits there are for the FD. Which ones have spent time in the wind tunnel.
And why the heck is that aussie making 400hp out of a t04 and a stock intercooler!?
And why the heck is that aussie making 400hp out of a t04 and a stock intercooler!?
Trending Topics
#9
Passenger
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by NissanConvert
That leads me to wonder what "aero" kits there are for the FD. Which ones have spent time in the wind tunnel.
And why the heck is that aussie making 400hp out of a t04 and a stock intercooler!?
And why the heck is that aussie making 400hp out of a t04 and a stock intercooler!?
#12
does anyone know what CWest kits have been tested, and what the results were? I'm pretty set on the N1 bumper, but am now in the air, pending the answer to this question.
thanks, good info
ryan
thanks, good info
ryan
#13
Racing Rotary Since 1983
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,136
Likes: 563
From: Florence, Alabama
considering wind tunnel expense i would be highly skeptical of any claimed tunnel time.
Aero Resistance is a combination of frontal area times drag coefficient.
do you see any "aero" (joke) kits on the market w less frontal area than the stock 93-93 FD?
hey, if they look good to you bolt them on but don't rationalise them on an engineering basis.
howard coleman
Aero Resistance is a combination of frontal area times drag coefficient.
do you see any "aero" (joke) kits on the market w less frontal area than the stock 93-93 FD?
hey, if they look good to you bolt them on but don't rationalise them on an engineering basis.
howard coleman
#14
#15
Racing Rotary Since 1983
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,136
Likes: 563
From: Florence, Alabama
the test was versus the 99 front end which is much much dragier than the 93-95.
btw, i don't dispute you'll get lots more downforce w most of the kits. downforce costs lots of drag however and i would rather not make that tradeoff.
i do stand corrected as to C-west. thnx for the link.
howard coleman
btw, i don't dispute you'll get lots more downforce w most of the kits. downforce costs lots of drag however and i would rather not make that tradeoff.
i do stand corrected as to C-west. thnx for the link.
howard coleman
#16
Originally Posted by howard coleman
the first is an excellent aero article.
thanks for the link.
as someone who is proud to deliberately run the stock 93 nose w the R1 splitter and no rear spoiler i am delighted w the low drag numbers on my car and the job mazda did to get there.
.....whatever. it and 99% of the aftermarket abominations give an originally slick aero car the drag of a hummer....
howard coleman
thanks for the link.
as someone who is proud to deliberately run the stock 93 nose w the R1 splitter and no rear spoiler i am delighted w the low drag numbers on my car and the job mazda did to get there.
.....whatever. it and 99% of the aftermarket abominations give an originally slick aero car the drag of a hummer....
howard coleman
#18
Too cool! I've always liked my base model's lines, and this just reinforces how GREAT that design was. Er, IS....lol!
A .29 coefficient of drag is phenomenal.
Thanks for the article!
A .29 coefficient of drag is phenomenal.
Thanks for the article!
#25
The '99 front is "dragier", but it's also "coolier" too, and I believe that was one of Mazda's stated reasons for the design. The openings (particularly the oil coolers) are MUCH bigger to aid in cooling. You'd make the 93/95 even slipperier by closing up the openings (the way they tape off the rad. grill on winston cup cars or use smaller brake ducts in F1), but not without cost.
The thing is too, "more drag" in a different front-end design, or even "more downforce" doesn't mean efficiency relative to slipperierness. You might be getting 5% more downforce for 20% more drag. A bad trade-off. At least with the '99 or the C-West, they've run it through a tunnel and (at least w/ Mazda R&D) probably didn't allow such a tradeoff to happen... they'd have refined it to better match the gain/loss.
The thing is too, "more drag" in a different front-end design, or even "more downforce" doesn't mean efficiency relative to slipperierness. You might be getting 5% more downforce for 20% more drag. A bad trade-off. At least with the '99 or the C-West, they've run it through a tunnel and (at least w/ Mazda R&D) probably didn't allow such a tradeoff to happen... they'd have refined it to better match the gain/loss.
Originally Posted by howard coleman
the test was versus the 99 front end which is much much dragier than the 93-95.
btw, i don't dispute you'll get lots more downforce w most of the kits. downforce costs lots of drag however and i would rather not make that tradeoff.
i do stand corrected as to C-west. thnx for the link.
howard coleman
btw, i don't dispute you'll get lots more downforce w most of the kits. downforce costs lots of drag however and i would rather not make that tradeoff.
i do stand corrected as to C-west. thnx for the link.
howard coleman