Aerodynamic experts, SN95 vs Fox Body, which goes through the wind the easiest?

S

Speeds8erM-1

Founding Member

Sep 6, 2000

1,240

0

36

Pensacola Florida

Aug 15, 2005

#1

• Aug 15, 2005

• #1

People always compare the two, saying the fox body is lighter and such but what about this, which is actually more aerodynamic? There were several different models of the fox bodys, so lets say, an SN95 vs a Foxbody GT or a Notchback. The notchback is supposed to be less aerodynamic than an LX Hatchback, Im not sure if the GT's hatchback design would overcome the rear bumper that hangs down and the ground effects on the front.

All else being equal, only aerodynamics coming into play, which one would move away from the other at higher speeds?

 

F

fiveohh94gt

New Member

Dec 26, 2003

277

0

0

Aug 15, 2005

#2

• Aug 15, 2005

• #2

very interesting question, i'd think the sn95 would be more aero but i'd like to know if it would be enough to even make a differance at anything less that 150mph

 

94-302-vert

Active Member

Aug 16, 2004

1,947

2

36

NE CT

Aug 15, 2005

#3

• Aug 15, 2005

• #3

I am sure the sn-95 is more aero as the fox dates back to the mid-early 80's when aerodynamics were in thier infancy.

I would say that this plays a role at any speed. Especially at legal highway speeds and above.

 

T

The NJ Exile

New Member

Jul 28, 2004

81

0

0

Northern VA, Philly & Northern NJ

Aug 15, 2005

#4

• Aug 15, 2005

• #4

If I remember correctly...(in the mid 90's circa 1995 or 96) in one of the Mustang Mags. They had a article on this subject. I metter at about 60 MPH and up, the SN95 was slicker then greased owl $hit.

 

Zero Signal

Active Member

Feb 24, 2003

2,633

2

46

Tucson, AZ

Aug 15, 2005

#5

• Aug 15, 2005

• #5

I want to say we have a drag coefficient of .36 or so and the 99-04's have .35 and foxes have .36 for the notchback and .38 for the convertable.

 

zenboy99

Founding Member

May 12, 2002

2,212

0

47

Madison, WI

Aug 15, 2005

#6

• Aug 15, 2005

• #6

Zero Signal said:

I want to say we have a drag coefficient of .36 or so and the 99-04's have .35 and foxes have .36 for the notchback and .38 for the convertable.

Click to expand...

Where did you get that info?

 

Swarzkopf

Member

Sep 23, 2004

973

0

16

Pittsburgh

Aug 15, 2005

#7

• Aug 15, 2005

• #7

Quick search:

1994 Mustang: Coefficient of drag Cd .32
http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/new/reviews/wk9413.html

2002 Mustang: 2002 Ford Mustang GT .36
http://www.darklair.com/cd.html

I can't find the fox...

 

9

94GTNJ

New Member

May 1, 2003

94

0

0

Aug 15, 2005

#8

• Aug 15, 2005

• #8

The difference between a 87-93 fox body mustang to an sn95 mustang is not as big as you think. Yes the sn95 is more aerodynamic but not by much. Main reason is because the front of our car has that opening while the fox body mustang has the hood sloping down.

I cant quite recall the exact location where i read this information from but the article I was reading it from had to do with the FR500 and they mentioned this lil tid bit.

 

Engel

Member

Apr 2, 2005

219

0

16

Currently Fort Walton Beach

Aug 15, 2005

#9

• Aug 15, 2005

• #9

I posted this question a few months back, the conclusion reached was that the 99-04 are most aero followed by the sn95 and then fox bodies, with the 05 being the least aero

 

S

Speeds8erM-1

Founding Member

Sep 6, 2000

1,240

0

36

Pensacola Florida

Aug 15, 2005

#10

• Aug 15, 2005

• #10

Yea, just wonder how big of a difference it is.

 

sociopath5.0

New Member

Jul 7, 2004

155

0

0

somewhere near Louisville, KY

Aug 15, 2005

#11

• Aug 15, 2005

• #11

If what Swarzkopf posted is accurate, then our SN95's have a lower coefficient of drag and are therefore more aerodynamic than the 99-04. A cD of .32 vs .36 for the New Edge design.

 

Zero Signal

Active Member

Feb 24, 2003

2,633

2

46

Tucson, AZ

Aug 15, 2005

#12

• Aug 15, 2005

• #12

I don't know where I saw the numbers, it's just what I have in my head, they could be wrong and/or mixed around. But .32? That's really low. I think the McLaren F1 has a CD of .32 or something.

 

S

Speeds8erM-1

Founding Member

Sep 6, 2000

1,240

0

36

Pensacola Florida

Aug 15, 2005

#13

• Aug 15, 2005

• #13

I wouldnt go by that, they have the numbers different at almost every website. Thats why I asked for experts.

 

B

bimmertech

New Member

May 3, 2005

1,123

0

0

merriam, ks

Aug 15, 2005

#14

• Aug 15, 2005

• #14

i personnaly think that cd goes out the window at higher speeds(just add more power) as the main concern then is keeping the damn thing planted. as far as that goes i think they are all reasonable close, meaning not very good. look at what they had to do to the 00 r model. back on topic, the sn cars have an increased frontal area which directly affects cd, so imo the sn's would have a higher cd than a fox.

 

Engel

Member

Apr 2, 2005

219

0

16

Currently Fort Walton Beach

Aug 16, 2005

#15

• Aug 16, 2005

• #15

Engel said:

I posted this question a few months back, the conclusion reached was that the 99-04 are most aero followed by the sn95 and then fox bodies, with the 05 being the least aero

Click to expand...

Somone here had a ford history book, and claimed this in the earlier post. Hopefully he can chime in

 

18mustangs

New Member

Jun 8, 2005

533

1

0

Virginia Beach, VA

Aug 16, 2005

#16

• Aug 16, 2005

• #16

94-302-vert said:

I am sure the sn-95 is more aero as the fox dates back to the mid-early 80's when aerodynamics were in thier infancy.

Click to expand...

So the previous 60 years of aviation development and European automobile racing didn't count for anything? How did we ever get to the moon in '69 if aerodynamics were in their infancy in the '80s? The fox body style is more due to the culture of the time instead of the development of aerodynamics.

 

Zero Signal

Active Member

Feb 24, 2003

2,633

2

46

Tucson, AZ

Aug 16, 2005

#17

• Aug 16, 2005

• #17

the sn cars have an increased frontal area which directly affects cd

Click to expand...

The projected area doesn't affect the c.d. when you are finding wind resistance, the projected area is multiplied by the c.d.

 

T

The NJ Exile

New Member

Jul 28, 2004

81

0

0

Northern VA, Philly & Northern NJ

Aug 16, 2005

#18

• Aug 16, 2005

• #18

Zero Signal said:

The projected area doesn't affect the c.d. when you are finding wind resistance, the projected area is multiplied by the c.d.

Click to expand...

That makes my brain hurt I'm not to good with that stuff (ya know 1+1=3 ? )...

 

94_Teal_GT

Founding Member

Aug 14, 2002

405

0

0

Palm Bay, FL

Aug 16, 2005

#19

• Aug 16, 2005

• #19

Engel said:

Somone here had a ford history book, and claimed this in the earlier post. Hopefully he can chime in

Click to expand...

I think that would be me
94-98 .34cd wingless*
94-98 .36cd GT*
99-04 .33cd(dunno if that's with or w/o wing)
05 .43cd
You didn't ask but someone did...
87 .40cd notchback*
87 .36cd LX hatch*
87 .38cd GT *

* denotes numbers from a book I have, the others are from the 'net and subject to being incorrect
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=531361