This is probably lost to the ages, but I was wondering how actually good the aerodynamics were on the Double-Enders, Bullet-Noses, Lowey Coupes, and Hawks, how so-so on the Larks, and if Zip Vans and wide-bed Champs are as awful as they look? Then there was that brick prototype that Studebaker made with Westinghouse....
-
1963 Champ "Stu Bludebaker"- sometimes driver
1957 Silver Hawk "Josie"- picking up the pieces after an unreliable body man let it rot for 11 years from an almost driver to a basket case
1951 Land Cruiser "Bunnie Ketcher" only 47M miles!
1951 Commander Starlight "Dale"- basket case
1947 Champion "Sally"- basket case
1941 Commander Land Cruiser "Ursula"- basket case -
Well we know the Loewy coupes were/are as slick as glass because they are the choice of many a racer at Bonneville and in the Carrera Panamerica race in Mexico. I'm not sure of the actual drag coefficients.Mike Davis
1964 Champ 8E7-122 "Stuey" -
Studebakers were better than most by the standards of their time, but terrible by today's standards. The upright windshield was the worst offender. The Avanti looked much more aero-efficient than it actually was; again, the upright windshield. Compare it to the recent Camaros.
jack vinesPackardV8Comment
-
I know the Avanti set a lot of speed records and I love their look, but they don't look very aerodynamic to me. But perhaps the front bumper splits the air and makes more of it go over the top instead of underneath, reducing drag and adding downforce.
The Hawks look much more streamlined, tapering lower and narrower in back, but looks don't necessarily mean much. Have these cars ever been wind tunnel tested for drag coefficient? I would expect lowering them would make a difference, and the 53/54 C/Ks front nose looks sooo clean.
The Bullet Noses look soo smooth without the front bumper, but then direct a huge amount of air under. See attached picture. What would be really cool, Flip the front end upside down, with the bullet and lights right above the ground, then taper the hood back and up to the windshield, with a chopped top? Any photoshopper here?
Rafe HollisterAttached FilesComment
-
-
The big "bathtub" Nash cars from 49-51 were said to be pretty slippery, wind-wise.Comment
-
Very good for the day, but again, the big upright windshield is holding them back.Originally posted by RadioRoy View Post
Compare this to the 2000s Camaro laid back windshield.
jack vinesPackardV8Comment
-
While not so pretty, this was one of the early best, at cutting through the air.
A few years back, I guy built one here in SoCal (the orange one below) for drag racing. He ran it in a couple of different classes. While it was on the track for more than a few years, I haven't seen it in a while.
MikeComment
-
WHY would anyone care about Aerodynamics? Fuel was only 24.9 cents a Gallon!
Of course not being Airplanes, no Cars were tested probably in the last Century.
A Brick worked Fine at under a 100 MPH.StudeRich
Second Generation Stude Driver,
Proud '54 Starliner Owner
SDC Member Since 1967Comment
-
In bold above...Originally posted by StudeRich View PostWHY would anyone care about Aerodynamics? Fuel was only 24.9 cents a Gallon!
Of course not being Airplanes, no Cars were tested probably in the last Century.
A Brick worked Fine at under a 100 MPH.
Um yeah...not so much, there Batman !
Back in about 1971, a then girlfriend bought a, used, low miles,1969, Chevrolet, Z-28 from the dealership that sold it originally. This means that with a single question, they gave us all of the original paperwork that they had on hand, so we (I) could verify what the car had/has for options vs. what it was supposed to have for options. There was no "Carfax's" back then !
OK...so. Being that the Z-28's of the time had virtually no power equipment, and could be ordered with and without certain options. For whatever reason, her new car did not (never did !) have the plastic front air dam.
At "normal", meaning 65 and 70 mph, all of a sudden, the cars steering effort went WAY down, just like it was power assisted, with Cadillac parts. You can imagine what it felt like at faster speeds ! So I bought the factory, plastic airdam, the supports and all of the factory fasteners. If you've not seen one, they are/were nothing to write home about. They didn't even go all the way across the front of the car.
Anyway... All of a sudden at the same 65-70mph, the car steering effort was as difficult to work at is was in town at 20mph !!
So yeah...you DON"T need to be going 100mph to feel the effects of very simple...aerodynamics.
Mike
Comment
-
Few look at aerodynamics from any other angle than from the side, but looking at a Panhard Z, Citroen DS or SAAB 99 / 900 from top you might get another idea about the stuff, especially the Z's & DS's front, even thou the windshield is the most obvious, thou seeing the windshield of the SAAB or Citroen from the side sure is different.
Comment
-
Gary Ash
Dartmouth, Mass.
'32 Indy car replica (in progress)
’41 Commander Land Cruiser
'48 M5
'65 Wagonaire Commander
'63 Wagonaire Standard
web site atComment
-
Fuel may have been “24.9 cents a Gallon!” But what were the average hourly wages? I suspect at $5.00 a gallon today that gas is probably less of a percentage of the average hourly wage.
Comment
-
Not so. I remember gas being at 22 -25 cents a gallon in the late 60's. They called it "Gas Wars" where every station was trying to undercut the prices of the next. At that time $2.25/hr was a typical wage so a gallon of gas was about one nineth of an hour's pay. This means I'd have to be making $58.50 an hour today to break even with then. Which isn't even close; if I made that kind of money I might be able to afford to drive my Stude and eat.Originally posted by Guido View Post
Lately I've been riding my '82 Honda CM250, it gets 80 mpg. It's still unnerving to spend $20+ to fill it when two years ago it cost $9.Comment
-
I remember paying 18.9 cents/gallon in the late '60s at a no-name gas station. The name brands were of course several cents per gallon higher.Poet...Mystic...Soldier of Fortune. As always...self-absorbed, adversarial, cocky and in general a malcontent.Comment
-
I did read an article on the Nash and similar looking 48 Packard. The article used foot pounds of drag and the Nash won hands down. I guess the point is that style does not always equal to being aerodynamic. I guess regards of "airflow" I pick the designs of the Studebaker stylists.
Bob Miles
53 Starlight"it doesn't cut much air" Floyd Clymer road testComment
Comment