Re: 63-67 b body- reducing drag coefficient
[Re: RustyM]
#2534235
08/10/18 03:44 PM
08/10/18 03:44 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,038 MN
JERICOGTX
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,038
MN
|
Get the car as low as possible, and put an air dam on the front, under the bumper.
69 GTX
68 Road Runner
|
|
|
Re: 63-67 b body- reducing drag coefficient
[Re: fullmetaljacket]
#2534282
08/10/18 05:14 PM
08/10/18 05:14 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 34,928 S.E. South Dakota !
bigdad
Still Posting A Lot
|
Still Posting A Lot
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 34,928
S.E. South Dakota !
|
The name of my car is the "Blunt object " It cuts right thru the air !
The lips of fools bring them strife, and their mouths invite a beating.Proverbs 18:6
|
|
|
Re: 63-67 b body- reducing drag coefficient
[Re: RustyM]
#2534286
08/10/18 05:24 PM
08/10/18 05:24 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 566 Texas
RustyM
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 566
Texas
|
indeed bigdad. Wonder what the results would be of closing up the front holes in the Kmember with light alum on one with stock kmember.
We put a Gerst suspension on the duster and one can visually see a huge difference in air catchment between it and a stock k member. I'm willing to bet even money that cars with stock k member are harder on engine cooling than cars with a Tubular k.
Last edited by RustyM; 08/10/18 05:27 PM.
|
|
|
Re: 63-67 b body- reducing drag coefficient
[Re: RustyM]
#2534334
08/10/18 07:00 PM
08/10/18 07:00 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,209 New York
polyspheric
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,209
New York
|
IIRC a panel covering the open space between the bottom of the front pan and the K member helps, but it increases oil temp. You're probably catching air under the trunk, but what to do? For best effect the dam should be as low as possible, a rubber skirt bottom (I've seen garage door skirts used) gets it closer without being wrecked when the nose dives, curbs, driveways, trailer ramps. If legal (or you don't care!), it should project forward ahead of anything else, and angle back ending at the radiator core bottom.
Boffin Emeritus
|
|
|
Re: 63-67 b body- reducing drag coefficient
[Re: RustyM]
#2534609
08/11/18 03:33 PM
08/11/18 03:33 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 34,928 S.E. South Dakota !
bigdad
Still Posting A Lot
|
Still Posting A Lot
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 34,928
S.E. South Dakota !
|
indeed bigdad. Wonder what the results would be of closing up the front holes in the Kmember with light alum on one with stock kmember.
We put a Gerst suspension on the duster and one can visually see a huge difference in air catchment between it and a stock k member. I'm willing to bet even money that cars with stock k member are harder on engine cooling than cars with a Tubular k. I have a Gerst front on mine too
The lips of fools bring them strife, and their mouths invite a beating.Proverbs 18:6
|
|
|
Re: 63-67 b body- reducing drag coefficient
[Re: RustyM]
#2534619
08/11/18 03:52 PM
08/11/18 03:52 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,826 A collage of whims
topside
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,826
A collage of whims
|
Aero works like this: oncoming air that gets into the engine compartment, hits undercarriage projections, and which eddys behind the car all create drag, lift, and slows the car; also requires a lot more power to overcome at steady high speeds. '66-'67? Look at Petty's Cup car towards the end of the '67 season: gaps closed up, sits low at about 5-degree rake, tight/faired bumpers. See also Smokey Yunick's infamous Chevelle and TransAm Camaro. Keeping the air from getting under the car (air dam) solves a lot of it, because that air hits & bounces around everything. For a drag car, not enough time is spent at high speed to make all the tricks ET-effective, plus there's weight to consider. But addressing the nose, reducing grille intake, removing or smoothing things that catch air, all help aero. A short rear spoiler also helps passing air attach to the trunk lid and cause a tapering effect behind the car, which reduces drag and reduces lift.
|
|
|
Re: 63-67 b body- reducing drag coefficient
[Re: RustyM]
#2534635
08/11/18 04:32 PM
08/11/18 04:32 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 566 Texas
RustyM
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 566
Texas
|
|
|
|
Re: 63-67 b body- reducing drag coefficient
[Re: RustyM]
#2534708
08/11/18 06:49 PM
08/11/18 06:49 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,826 A collage of whims
topside
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,826
A collage of whims
|
You're quite welcome. "But Wait, There's More", haha... Aero research on vehicles pretty much started with the Germans in the 1930s, and other sources for info would include an article by Car and Driver using a Dodge B-van, teh 2nd versionof the original '65 HemiCuda drag car, the Chrysler engineers' work with the Charger 500 & wing cars, early on in the TransAm series when they started drooping the noses, and later when the windshields were laid back a little and the upper cab subtly reshaped (Yunick's '68 Camaro) into a more fastback shape, drip channels set flush. That car & the Chevelle Cup car had a lot of underside fairing done, even with their creative ft air dam work. A 3.5" rear spoiler at a 45 on the back of Melrose Missile VII picked up about 6-7 MPH and about .4 ET IIRC, though that was a 160MPH+ car on fuel at the time. Basically the car was spinning the rear tires from lift. Bang for buck on a drag car like a '66-'67 B would likely be blanking off openings within reason, dropping the nose, and an air dam; reducing the frontal area would be nice, but a lot of work.
|
|
|
|
|