Which mustang is more aero?

P

ponypowa2

New Member

May 17, 2004

228

0

0

Destin, FL

Apr 2, 2005

#1

• Apr 2, 2005

• #1

I was wondering if anyone knew which of the 3 mustang bodies is more aerodynamic the 96-98 the 99-04 or the 05. I guess the 05 would be the most aerodynamic? I heard that the 96-98 were more aero then the 99-04 but have not found any "concrete" proof. Anyone ever come across anything about this?

 

W

wytstang

Mustang Master

Mar 14, 2004

4,988

4

78

Summerville,SC missing South Fl. weather :(

Apr 2, 2005

#2

• Apr 2, 2005

• #2

Guessing 00 Cobra R.

 

Mrgreen94gt

SIMMA DA NA!!!

Founding Member

Jul 16, 2002

448

0

0

West TN

Apr 2, 2005

#3

• Apr 2, 2005

• #3

I think a wingless 05 would probably take that title. Then, the Shelby GT500 when it comes out.

 

9

96darkhorse

Founding Member

Oct 2, 2001

693

0

16

wilmington, california

Apr 2, 2005

#4

• Apr 2, 2005

• #4

im guessing 94-98 since they are more roundish than the 99-04's..and i dont know ifts me but they seem to be lower than the later

 

GRGT1994

New Member

Sep 22, 2004

1,034

0

0

Apr 3, 2005

#5

• Apr 3, 2005

• #5

By "aero" you are talking coefficient of drag right? If so, I would be surprised if the '05 wins that stat, since cd is primarily a function of verticle plane surface area, and the '05 has plenty of that.

 

SN95StangMan

New Member

Jul 5, 2003

1,292

0

0

Lynwood, CA

Apr 3, 2005

#6

• Apr 3, 2005

• #6

Dont the fox body LX hatchbacks have some really low drag coefficient?

 

94_Teal_GT

Founding Member

Aug 14, 2002

405

0

0

Palm Bay, FL

Apr 3, 2005

#7

• Apr 3, 2005

• #7

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

 

Engel

Member

Apr 2, 2005

219

0

16

Currently Fort Walton Beach

Apr 3, 2005

#8

• Apr 3, 2005

• #8

wow I wouldn't have thought the 99-04 were more aero then the rest but the 05 being the worst makes sense

 

SmokinGT50

Founding Member

Jun 17, 2002

733

0

0

Atlanta, GA

Apr 3, 2005

#9

• Apr 3, 2005

• #9

94_Teal_GT said:

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

Click to expand...

What book are you quoting these figures from? I might like to pick up a copy. Any book that knows the cd of these vehicles has to be filled with other good information.

 

94_Teal_GT

Founding Member

Aug 14, 2002

405

0

0

Palm Bay, FL

Apr 3, 2005

#10

• Apr 3, 2005

• #10

SmokinGT50 said:

What book are you quoting these figures from? I might like to pick up a copy. Any book that knows the cd of these vehicles has to be filled with other good information.

Click to expand...

Ford Mustang 40 Years Of Fun
From The Auto Editors of Consumer Guide.
I think it goes for about $20.00 (I received it as a gift, so I'm not sure)
...Very nice book, lots of info, including bits about what was going on at Ford and the world at the time each model was redone. Tons of never before released pictures of 1:1 clay models, sub articles about people involved .

Model chapters are broken down as follows,
1961-1964
1965-1966
1967-1968
1969-1970
1971-1973
1974-1978
1979-1981
1982-1986
1987-1993
1994-1998
1999-2004
2005
Then there is a 1965-2005 Specifications chapter