|
|
Veteran
Posts: 273
 
Location: Los Angeles, Ca | Does anyone out there have a list, or know the ".cd" ratings of our forward look cars?
I'm wondering just how areodynamic they really are, and having the facts is the best way to go.
If someone has a list, then I'm specifically interested in my car's body style first- the '57 4 door hardtop plymouth Belvedere.
Thanks,
-BV |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 156
Location: Baltimore, Maryland | I don't have any numbers, but from what I have heard, the cars from the middle of the roof back are pretty aerodynamic. The front end is a nightmare. Headlight pods are like driving with two five gallon buckets on the front of your car. My particular one is hindered by the large chrome overhang on the top of the front window. I believe somebody at one time designed a bullet shaped nose cone for the headlight pods and achieved about 5-6 mph more in top speed, this is all anecdote and rumor though. |
|
| |
|
  
Location: Parts Unknown | Every now and again I run across a guy in drag. Not sure how this would relate to FL cars or not, but it occurred to me these guys make a major effort, .... in other words, they are really INTO drag to get all dressed up like that.
Probably a good source to ask. 
B. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1508
Location: new york | Have you ever seen a brick in a windtunnel? they are very areodynamic styled but thats were it ends . I would rather drive a finned monster (even a GM copy) and pay for the gas than drive a new areodynamic car that has no style ... HAPPY MOTORING.... |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 6203
Location: Big pimpin' | Back in the fifties when gas was what? .15 a gallon? They didn't give a rat's a** about aerodynamics, as they were concerned with the buying public. What had style and looks in the fifties? The finned Plymouth's and Dodges!! It was a different time when the buying public was into what the car had for style, more than what kinda gas milage it got.....As said before, the only time aerodynamics came into play was RACING.....
I'm pretty sure the "Drag" of these cars was pretty darn bad!
Not much better than the Dodge Ram pick-up's today.......10 miles to the gallon........ |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 2106
Location: Idaho - where men are men and spuds are spuds | According to Bishop in D500'sville, you can improve your cd by not driving with your trunk "masted." |
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 852
Location: Etters Pa | Must not of been too awful bad on the 57-59 Plymouth line... They won the Mobil efficiency run with 2dr Ht Belvies equipped with 2 bbl Polys. all three years. I don't know the mpg's on the 57-58's but the 59 models were over 20 miles to the gallon.. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1812
Location: Slidell La. | Of course the 59 was rated better ,the windshield was redesigned and the roof did not have the large overhang that the 57 & 58 HAD , Thr new roof and windshield made for very good areodynamics .
 (car.JPG)
Attachments
----------------
 car.JPG (52KB - 88 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1539
Location: Farnborough. Hampshire. England. | Love that Petty Blue ' 59 of yours Charlie... NICE JOB !! |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1289
| 300C - 2007-04-27 8:41 PM
I don't have any numbers, but from what I have heard, the cars from the middle of the roof back are pretty aerodynamic. The front end is a nightmare. Headlight pods are like driving with two five gallon buckets on the front of your car. My particular one is hindered by the large chrome overhang on the top of the front window. I believe somebody at one time designed a bullet shaped nose cone for the headlight pods and achieved about 5-6 mph more in top speed, this is all anecdote and rumor though.
At the 1957 Speed Week at Daytona, the 300Cs did not do as well as the 300Bs the previous year (134.108 mph versus 139.373), though this has been attributed to the poor surface conditions (this event was run on the sands of Daytona Beach in those days). However, a young lady by name of Vicki Wood did hit the traps once at 138.985. Later that year, Chrysler engineers just put modeling clay in a most rudimentary fashion over the headlights and under the windshield "spoiler" of a C and with that modication the C hit 145.7 mph on Chrysler's test track. To celebrate my C's 50th birthday (January 19, 2007) I think I got ol' MD2's (MD2=Moby Dick II) speedometer to nudge it's 150 mark, but I'm sure the actual speed was less than 145 (probably barely over 140, if that) -- plus, I was driving south on I-25 from Colorado Springs to Pueblo near PPIR which is a nice straight but I think has a gentle downgrade.
Joe Godec
'57 300C, '60 Fury SonoRamic, '65 Vette Fuelie |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1506
Location: Colo Spgs | Hola Class
I have always been told the best top in 1957 MoPar was the 1957 De Soto.
Rodger & Gabby
COS |
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 663
Location: Oakley, Ill | What makes you think that gas mileage wasn't important in the past? Ever hear of the Mobilgas Economy Run? How about the Pure Oil Trials. There were a number of them. Know why they fell by the wayside? The factory cheating got so sophistocated that the officials couldn't keep up with it. George Romney (father of Mitt Romney) put American Motors on the map in 1958 with his ads about fighting the Dinosaur gas hogs. I recall ads for Nash 600 back in 1948 showing coast to coast for 1 penny a mile--getting 30 MPG. Ever hear of the Fish Carburator? How about ht one about someone buying a car that escaped the proving grounds and was sold as new, that got something like Oh pick a number--50 MPG 75 MPG, and the factory wanted to buy it back but he wouldn't sell, so "they" stole it? I lived in the 50s for real. The lowest I ever saw gas was 19.9, and that was RARE. It was usually around a quarter, frequently went up to 30 cents, occasionally dipped below a quarter, but not often. In 1960, I made 50 cents an hour packing groceries at Kroger. My son made $8.75 an hour packing groceries at the exact same Kroger in 2002. That is an increase of 17.5. 17.5 times 20 cents a gallon is $3.50 a gallon, a price we haven't seen yet. 17.5 times 30 cents a gallon is $5.25. They don't even have that kind of price in California.
I don't have the exact same car that I had then, but the similar one I have now is in good shape. I can't for the life of me get 15 out of it on the interstate, which didn't exist then. His car had a digital dash that showed that over its 200,000 mile life span, it averaged 23 MPG. It was a 94 Crown Victoria, not some econobox. Mine was a Shoebox Ford.
I sometimes think the first guy who calculated gas mileage did it so he could lie about it. |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 6203
Location: Big pimpin' | One word, OVERDRIVE. Those cars of the fifties were 3 speeds at best, today, well, there are 6 speed auto's now...
My General Lee with it's mighty 440-4-speed-3.23 rear, gets around the same as the newer full size Dodge Ram HEMI trucks with overdrive!
I'm in the process of converting to 5-speed overdrive to just see if I can get the R's down on the motor...NOT just for the mileage...I'm sure they were somewhat concerned about fuel mileage back then, but the "BOXES" that are coming out of Japan these days, they don't get a second look, if they do, it's just to gawk at how ugly they are...
I find it hard to believe that these boxes (Scion), get any mileage with their shape...BRICK with wheels...
All I know is when I'm cruising the General, people have stopped me for photo's, they don't do that in econo boxes built for mileage!
Ever driven a car on the street with 4.56:1 gears? I have, more R's means more gas spent no matter how boxy your car is....(4000 RPM's @ 60 MPH) |
|
| |
|
Location: Parts Unknown | It has been my experience (and a lot of tapping of motorminds greater than my own) that with any vehicle exists a balance of power to weight to aerodynamics.
My 58 Fireflite convertible with a tweaked 383 4bbl and original torqueflite and 3.23 gears managed to squeezed off an average 17.44 mpg on my last major trip in the car.
My 66 Coronet convertible with a similarly tweaked 440, torqueflite and 2.76 gears barely manages 15 mpg running downhill in a hurricane.
There is just way too much volume (displacement) to ever be able to get the economy that even a 383 does, even though they are darned near the same engine. Even at idle, the 440 is moving huge amounts of air with those giant pistons. You just can't make a 440 push a marshmallow around and get decent mileage, let alone a 3800lb. car.
The DeSoto weighs in at a whopping 5400 lbs. and still gets better mileage!
Something to be said about power to weight balance.
Since a raindrop represents about the most perfect aerodynamic form, one can get an idea of what car shapes might be better suited to allow air to travel past more freely. The 68 and later Charger body suffered aerodynamically from the indented grille cavity and the "cup" formed in the backglass area by those styled-up "C" pillars. Ma Mopar fixed that problem and came up with the Charger 500 design that put a 68 Coronet grille flush with the nose and sectioned in a flush backglass to make it a true fastback ( or truer, anyway). This still was not enough to beat the Talladega Mercs and we got the Daytona Charger as the final word in -sswhoopin' oval track aerodynamics.
Did any of this concern fuel economy ? I doubt it. Just going maximum fastimus.
My convertibles suffer the same lot as pick up trucks ... a big air catching cavity that blows aerodynamics all to hell. Hard to compare them to anything but other convertibles. But as a guy who has tried at every chance to squeeze a few more yards of pavement out of every drop of gas burned, I have given this problem serious thought for a long time. Which brings me to your second point ....
If you want 40 mpg, accept the reality that V-8 power and big iron just aren't going to touch that and go buy a Civic.
If you want a styling ride FIRST, and as good of fuel economy as possible SECOND, then that is a whole different realm of potentials! But you can get that notion of 40 mpg out of your head straight up.
No one will get too excited seeing a Civic. It is just another bar of soap on the road.
You will put a smile of the faces of the kind of people who get all warm-n-fuzzy over old things when they see you roll past in some cool old car. Does that have the least bit to do with aerodynamics and fuel economy ? Not a bit !
The Toyota Prius is said to get 55 mpg with its tortoise shell aerodynamics and hybrid drive. A boil on a crackhead's butt looks better than that ugly Prius, so who cares if it gets 300 mpg ? No one at my house! But I see them all over the road, so SOMEONE thinks they are worth signing on the dotted line over!
Thanks, .... I'll stick to driving cars with looks FIRST, go fast SECOND, and try and drive them / build them in such a way as to get the best fuel economy possible as a close THIRD. Afterall, they is what they is - big, old 50's cars. If we didn't like that FIRST, we'd be driving something else, right ?
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1302
Location: Skaneateles,NY(summer)/Port St.Lucie,FL(winter) | Roger,
Yes, the DeSoto DID beat the Chrysler 300 on it's first run...which was into the wind. However, the Chrysler people "informed" the DeSoto people at Daytona that the DeSoto would NOT win the run over the Chrysler. On the return run...WITH the wind, the DeSoto ran 10 mph slower, allowing Chrysler the win. I have a bone Stock '57 Adventurer engine in my '55 DeSoto, and I can tell you that it's a BEAR of an engine. The engine was rated at 345hp from the Factory, but I'd be willing to bet that it's a bit more... |
|
| |
|
Location: Parts Unknown | " My 58 Fireflite convertible with a tweaked 383 4bbl and original torqueflite and 3.23 gears managed to squeezed off an average 17.44 mpg on my last major trip in the car.
My 66 Coronet convertible with a similarly tweaked 440, torqueflite and 2.76 gears barely manages 15 mpg running downhill in a hurricane.
There is just way too much volume (displacement) to ever be able to get the economy that even a 383 does, even though they are darned near the same engine. Even at idle, the 440 is moving huge amounts of air with those giant pistons. You just can't make a 440 push a marshmallow around and get decent mileage, let alone a 3800lb. car.
The DeSoto weighs in at a whopping 5400 lbs. and still gets better mileage! "
**************************
Continuing this ....
The Coronet is an original D-code car (273 2bbl). I drove this car for 2 years before doing the engine swap. With the 273, this same car ran at about an average of 10 mpg.
I had a similar experience years ago that set me to thinking about these things. I was driving a very nice original 58 Buick Special 2HT with a bone stock 364 and 2bbl carb. This car ran 10 mpg on average. I rebuilt a stock 4bbl system off a Century and swapped it onto the car and mileage jumped up to between 15 and 18 mpg !
Near as I could figure, the 2bbl simply required having "your foot in it" all the time to move the beast, while the 4bbl ran more economically because it gave power on demand, but was easier on gas while at cruising speeds. The car simply needed more power to meet that "balance" of weight to power and aerodynamics.
I have since done this maneuver on a number of cars and had similar results. Heck, my crossram 383 60 DeSoto got better fuel economy than an identical 361 2bbl car I had !
|
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 852
Location: Etters Pa | I can relate to these mileage issues I had a 69 Deville conv with a 472 that got the same MPG on a mixture of city and highway driving as my 96 Dodge Dakota 4x4 with a 3.9 V6 . Only difference was the Dakota uses regular and the Caddy used Hi Test
The last over the road trip I took with my 72 Catalina conv Did 18 MPG at a steady speed of 74 MPH on a 180 mile trip with the top down.. I can't wait to see what this 60 Dodge is going to do with the 361 PF this summer, (I bet it won't be to great) ?! |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 273
Location: Los Angeles, Ca | I was just curious on the CD of these cars. wow. As for fuel mileage- it'll be interesting to see what my car pulls off as Im adding the fuel injection to it as well as an overdrive. If/ when I can drive my car I'll be interested to compare the mpg ratings versus a stock one.
I'm not scared about paying for gas, or I too would be driving a Toyota Prius.
BTW- gas in Los Angeles is around $3.61 a gallon for 91 octane where I live. Some places charge more.
|
|
| |
coefficient of drag
