Avanti drag coefficient

[JBOYLE]

I was reading my latest copy of Classic and Sports Car from the UK and they mentioned the drag coeficient of the 1962 Alfa sedan as .34 and comparing it to a Jaguar E-type's cd of.44 (lower numbers are better) which despite it's famous sreamlined curves seems to match the third generation VW van (which seems hard to believe).
Some modern performance cars have fairly high numbers thatnks to wide tires, fender flares and other bits that give more downforce.

Bragging about the numbers were in vogue back in the 80s, with the Audi 5000 having a respectable (for a large sedan) .30. Likewise, the first generation Ford Taurus had good numbers for the period.

Which got me to wondering...has anyone ever measured the drag coefficient of the Avanti? It seems like something Steve Blake may have done back in the day when he was exploring the Avanti's high performace potential (he was thinking of adding a turbo model and racecars).

It would be interesting to see how it compares with the E-Type.

Both cars have great looking bodies that were modern for their time, but if you look at them today, both have near-vertical windscreens...in fact my Ford truck has a greater rake to it than the Avanti.

Short of having your own wind tunnel, there are websites tyat tell you how to measure your car, but being physics challenged, I'll leave that to someone who know more about the subject than myself.

Here's a list of some cars if you 're curious how they compare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient

[mbstude]

Here ya go.

http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?58109-Aerodynamic-Flow-Resistance-of-Studebaker-Cars

[JBOYLE]

Thanks for the link, I missed that when it came out.
So it's either .45 or .31....anyone have a definative answer?

[Bo Markham]

Thanks for the link, I missed that when it came out.
So it's either .45 or .31....anyone have a definative answer?

The .31 figure would apply to the 63-64 Avanti. There were quit a few changes made to the Avanti II which lead to the .45 figure for it.

[JBOYLE]

There were quit a few changes made to the Avanti II which lead to the .45 figure for it.

Less rake?
The "cow catcher" bumper guards...dual mirrors?

[Lark Parker]

If its true the Tucker had a drag of about 27 (from the other thread) it seems like the Chicken Hawk wouldn't have been far behind.
Perhaps Ted Harbit stumbled into the best available car shape at the time for dragging.

[bezhawk]

More rake on am Avanti , makes the windshield more upright, and hurts drag ce numbers. Lowering and keeping air out from under is a much better route to go.
Jim Lange told me he lost speed when the rear was higher due to taller tires, all else being equal.

[JBOYLE]

More rake on am Avanti , makes the windshield more upright, and hurts drag ce numbers. Lowering and keeping air out from under is a much better route to go.
Jim Lange told me he lost speed when the rear was higher due to taller tires, all else being equal.

That would mean the II (with less rake) would have better lower numbers. That's the opposite of what was said in post 4.

BTW: I find the Tucker number awfully low...did it have belly pans or something to achieve that figure or would the absence of a front radiator account for it?

[Alan]

I measured mine out a few years ago to use in a computer program and with 215 X 70 X 15 tires it came out to 41.

[bezhawk]

That would mean the II (with less rake) would have better lower numbers. That's the opposite of what was said in post 4.

BTW: I find the Tucker number awfully low...did it have belly pans or something to achieve that figure or would the absence of a front radiator account for it?

I think Jim Lang would surely know what it takes for an Avanti to go fast.

[SilverHawkDan]

Bill Burke knew the most about making an Avanti go fast, 252 mph, multiple times in the 240 range and still holds the record at 239.208. I talked to Bill and Mike Cook a lot about the car and the different things they tried. Air dams big and small, bumpers on, bumpers off, flatter headlight covers, bigger air intake, smaller air intake. Bill and Mike both told me that the car ran faster with the rear end up higher when they switched to the 7.50-18 Firestones. They came to the conclusion that it changed the rake of the windshield and the front rake of the nose in a way that made the car handle better and hug the salt. Tire change was good for almost 10 mph. So it's not all about co-efficient of drag. Of course it helps when your making 1200 to 1500 HP.
Dan