I've seen a lot of comments about how blunt this car is how it can't be very aerodynamic. Anyone know how the CD (drag coefficient) of the 05 compares to the 04?
I don't know, but you can't really tell just by looking. It's all in the details. There are some pretty boxy looking cars with great aerodynamics. Some Volvos, Audis, etc. I don't think the new Mustang could possibly be worse than the current one, because the current one is terrible. I don't remember the specific numbers, but a 2004 is not much better than my 1986, if at all!
Haven't been able to find any numbers for the 2005 GT, but here is what I was able to dig up for some late model Mustangs (and the C6 for comparison ). I also couldn't find anything about classic Mustang aerodynamics.
It can be pretty hard to tell if a car is more aerodynamic than another just by looking, for instance: my old 1991 Camaro had better aerodynamics than its 1993 4th-Gen body style, even though they went from boxy to smotth shaping.
You are correct. Take a look at the overhead views of the 2005 Mustang and you will see that the front end is suprisingly curved. The windshield & windshield rake are very important too. And the rear end can be very important. The way the present Mustang sucks dirt and dust onto its rear bumper I'd say there's room for a lot of improvement on how air leaves the body.
You are correct. Take a look at the overhead views of the 2005 Mustang and you will see that the front end is suprisingly curved. The windshield & windshield rake are very important too. And the rear end can be very important. The way the present Mustang sucks dirt and dust onto its rear bumper I'd say there's room for a lot of improvement on how air leaves the body.
Im no expert but the mustang looks like an aerodynamic nightmare, that huge mouth it has can not be good. I think its the aerodynamics that limit the car to 140mph because it should go faster then that. My freinds 260hp cts will do that. Thats just my .02.