talked to one of the 05s designers today............

I have to differ with your first point. How do you see this,
http://www.chrysler.com/300/features/exterior_photos/img/photo_3.jpg, as rounded in every direction . The grille is virtually standing vertical. The car ressembles a big block and is in no way as aerodynamically efficient as the 99 Mustang. I haven't done my calculations but I do agree that the major difference will be considerable at higher speeds.
Still, a difference no matter how negligeable it is still affects the way the car is moving and how power is dispersed.
So for the sake of argument, you have to admit by just looking at, the 99 Mustang body style is more aerodynamic than the new design despite the intakes which, due to their low profile, wouldn't disrupt the boundary layer that much.

By the way, I have taken the fluid dynamics class 2 years ago. I am a Chemical engineer.

ultimate007 said:

Sorry but I don't expect any conventional car magazine to discuss information about drag coefficients. It is a good that you did the research and found out what it is about . I posted the reply to give people a little background in the engineering of the body. I am not trying to put down the '05 Mustang but am simply doing a scientific comparision.

You do not want to tell me that the drag coefficient on the 300C is equal or lower than that of the 99-04 Mustangs.

Click to expand...

Back in the 80s when drag coefficient was all the rage, all the majors like C&D, Motor Trend, R&T, etc discussed drag quite a bit. Then suddenly, it dropped off their radar screens.

As to the Mustang and 300C:

http://www.allpar.com/cars/lx/srt8-chrysler.html

http://www.carmemories.com/cgi-bin/viewexperience.cgi?experience_id=396

Find evidence to contradict me or I call on you.

hmmm... 0.355 vs. 0.36... and the 0.36 could be a round-off... so we're talking virtually the SAME drag on the two cars. Guess appearance means nothing when it comes to determining drag. If anything, the 99+ Mustang body style creates more downforce than the 300C.

What happened to that vid!?!?! I'd LOVE to see it!

For some reason, most car websites post 2 different drag coefficients for each the V6 and the GT: 0.33 and 0.36. Though they are similar in shape for most years. I guess the aerodynamics of the 99+ Mustang GT are not better than those of the 300C.

The SRT-8 looks pretty cool with the high performance aspect.

ultimate007 said:

For some reason, most car websites post 2 different drag coefficients for each the V6 and the GT: 0.33 and 0.36. Though they are similar in shape for most years. I guess the aerodynamics of the 99+ Mustang GT are not better than those of the 300C.

The SRT-8 looks pretty cool with the high performance aspect.

Click to expand...

The GT is worse because the hood scoop, side scoops and spoiler ALL add drag.

Remeber that the F-117A flies at 600 MPH and there isn't a curve anywhere on that thing.

The 2005 Mustang is a very clean design. The front end is actually very rounded (across it front). You will be suprised at how low the drag coeficient of the 05 turns out to be.

Well now that everyone is off topic...

It's not just the drag coefficient that determines the force of drag... that's the nature of a coefficient.

What should be considered is frontal area x drag coefficient. Unfortunately it can be hard to find these specs. I did find some interesting statistics for a pretty good list of cars at one point. I'll post it later if I find it.

Video anyone???

351CJ said:

Remeber that the F-117A flies at 600 MPH and there isn't a curve anywhere on that thing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and because of that, the freakin thing gets knocked around the air by the slightest of wind currents. This is why the Skunkworks had to come up with the computerized fly-by-wire system, so that the aircraft would be even remotely fly-able.

But, as a stealth fighter, it certainly does its job.

So, who's up for making the first Stealth Mustang... invisible to police radar... anyone?

Here's the site I was talking about:
http://www.teknett.com/pwp/drmayf/tbls.htm

It has drag specs for a lot of older cars.

calypsocoral302 said:

Yeah, and because of that, the freakin thing gets knocked around the air by the slightest of wind currents. This is why the Skunkworks had to come up with the computerized fly-by-wire system, so that the aircraft would be even remotely fly-able.

Click to expand...

The basic shape of the F-117A is unstable which is why it needs fly by wire.

But the point I was trying to make was that a previous poster equated curved shapes to aerodynamically better. However that is not always the case.

02gtred said:

Video anyone???

Click to expand...

Diddo.

351CJ said:

The basic shape of the F-117A is unstable which is why it needs fly by wire.

But the point I was trying to make was that a previous poster equated curved shapes to aerodynamically better. However that is not always the case.

Click to expand...

Point taken. Heck, Chrysler states that the shape of their 300 is "aerodynamic", and it sports an enormous "out of my way, thou bloody peasant" Rolls-Royce style front fascia.

Drag Coefficient or Aero drag has little to do with how sleek or how boxy the car may look rather how efficiently it is able to overcome the work due to the aero forces.
A car like the BMW E46 or the E36 may look boxy at the front but can have very low drag coefficient, as low as 0.31 cd.
One of the contributors to low drag coefficient is low pressure under the car which allows the car to stay planted to ground and 'slice' through easily and a long roof line to create a high pressure area on top of the car.

Other factors like cleverly angled side mirrors which routes the airflow around it or smooth fenders which may be bulgy looking which deflects the air away or around the wheels wells and the wheel lips.

A boxier front need not mean a high cd & on the other hand a boxy front can be an advantage like the E36 or 300c where it can be made to create a low pressure area under the car and divert the air to the sides and at the same time cleverly designed grilles will help slow down the air for effective cooling before it hits the radiator.

Similarly a sleeker front need not mean better cd because it really just slices the air early. Because the rest of the car is not as thin as the sleek front the volume of air disrupted does not change. For good cd's this means a well raked windshield, longer hood with minimum disruptions and a relatively well formed longish roof line to complete the smooth flow of wind over the top of the car.

I suspect if the 99-04 Mustang was lower or had a lower front air dam to create that negative air pressure underneath the car, less prominent rear wheel wells and a roof spoiler to give that longish rake it may have had better deserving cd.

One of the reasons a convertible of similar front end and body angles never has a lower cd than its sedan or coupe counterpart is because of the absence of the roof.

Born4spd said:

oh yea well i talked someone who works at ford he said it is crap , it isn't as aerodynamic as the 99+ one.

Click to expand...

there's only one perfect aerodynamic shape, and if all cars strive towards this goal they are all going to look like clones. This is why so many modern cars look the same already. A car with enough power doesn't need aerodynamics!

Drag

It looks like the 05 is actually lower and similare to the LS1 camaros. Yes there are edges but are smoothed out in such a way that would have very little drag. Honestly it seems that the 05 would be slightly more silky at high speed than the pre gen stangs.