Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: Greetings from Whitledge Designs!

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Visalia, CA
    Posts
    123
    Real Name
    Chris
    I think from a pure aerodynamic and noise point of view id take the new mercedes cla180 over the 918. Aero wise, the 918 is worse than most modern eco cars, with a cd of .30. The new cla180 has a cd of .24 for the regular version and. 22-23 for the efficiency version, and being a mercedes, is probably equally quiet. Then again my next vehicle will be a truck.

  2. #62
    Senior Member cvjoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    801
    Real Name
    George
    Quote Originally Posted by TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL View Post
    I think from a pure aerodynamic and noise point of view id take the new mercedes cla180 over the 918. Aero wise, the 918 is worse than most modern eco cars, with a cd of .30. The new cla180 has a cd of .24 for the regular version and. 22-23 for the efficiency version, and being a mercedes, is probably equally quiet. Then again my next vehicle will be a truck.
    You would really need to test these by a 3rd party is my guess. If it's not a standardized test like SAE they can claim anything. I find it unusual that the CLA would do that good, even without downforce, it's too high.
    2001 Honda S2000
    Head: Pioneer P99 + Samsung Galaxy S3
    Amplifiers: 3,000w+ Zeff class G/H power
    4 way: Aurum Cantus AST2560 Air Motion Transformers, BG Neo8-s Planar transducers, Peerless XLS 10" MAC midbass woofers, Tympany LAT700 x2

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Visalia, CA
    Posts
    123
    Real Name
    Chris
    True, but its unlikely any of them will be third party tested in stock form. The new CLA does have many similar features to the Bonneville ford fusion, which had a reported CD of .20. While its not as low to the ground as the 918, the tires are much narrower, and the full undertray negates most of the gains in drag reduction from lowering the car. There have been many non-lowered cars reach a Cd of <.20 over the years, including the Dodge Intrepid ESX and the Chevy EV1, both reached .19 SAE. One of the things that kill the 918 are the wide tires. A few years back, BMW did a study and found that a 20mm increase in tire width, from 225 to 245, raised the Cd by .02.

  4. #64
    Founding Member n_olympios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    147
    A low Cd claim doesn't necessarily mean low wind/ambient noise. It does usually mean better fuel economy though (and easier to reach top speed), ceteris paribus.

    I'm pretty sure this is completely off topic.
    Nick
    Virtus probata florescit: reversio

  5. #65
    Controller AL9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Jupiter
    Posts
    389
    Real Name
    Alan
    Why are you guys dumping on Jon's thread? He's obviously only here to help people with their non-magic-bus-related questions.

    /sarcasm


  6. #66
    Founding Member earthtodan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Mateo, CA
    Posts
    178
    If he changed the name to "science bus" or perhaps "engineering bus" I might take more of an interest. "Magic" sounds a little condescending.

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Visalia, CA
    Posts
    123
    Real Name
    Chris
    It doesn't always mean lower noise, but its often directly related. The aeromods I've made to my car have had more of an effect on noise than full coverage MLV. A huge amount of the noise from the floor of the car is actually aerodynamic related, as the air gets compressed underneath, and becomes turbulent from all the needless protrusions and rough spots on the underside of the car.

    Dodge spent most of its time in the wind tunnel on the dodge dart trying to reduce road noise. Chevy just also released a large article on the anniversary of their wind tunnel, and stated in the article that the majority of testing in the wind tunnel by them or others now days is for noise reduction. The thing is, all the manufacturers know how to improve mileage with aero, they just refuse to do it, since most people wouldn't like the way the cars would look.

  8. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    60
    Real Name
    Greg
    How about 0.19 from 1954? Alfa Romeo BAT, though Fiat managed 0.14 in the same year with a 300BHP turbine car-the Turbina

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Visalia, CA
    Posts
    123
    Real Name
    Chris
    I havent seen the turbina, but i remeber pics of the bat. It really seems like aerodynamic research for cars peaked in the early 50's, before taking a back seat to looks. Its only coming around again for gas mileage reasons.

  10. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    60
    Real Name
    Greg
    It was actually pretty good looking, better than the BATs. Advances in engine tech, particularly diesels has given the opportunity to improve MPG without sacrificing style-my dad has the BMW M535d, you wouldn't know it was a diesel until you look at the MPG, close to 40MPG and a 50-70mph time that shames "sports cars"-8 speed semi auto box helps keep it smooth while achieving silly speeds! Easily tunable to over 350BHP and 550ft/lb of torque-more than the box and drive shafts can handle...

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •