is there a webiste that tells the Aerodynamics of your car?

[almightybmw]

new GP's are .31, so I could assume my gen is similar, no worse than .34. Not that great, but it is really wide. Its my fat car.

[Rational]

Oh cool. Already a thread on this...!

I came across this little car here: http://home.clara.net/peterfrost/tryaneii.html
And this made me wonder if I could get the Cd of all the Japanese minicars over here.

I see Wikipedia ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...g_coefficients

... lists the GM EV1 & Honda Insight at the top of the list. Which is cool. It explains a lot about their numbers being so good. Also proven for the Insight here: http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/

But none come down as low as what the Tyrane is listing at 0.24. Which I think must actually be 2.40 CdA Ft2 as listed on Wikipedia.

But all cool nonetheless. It also explains the Honda CR-X being so good on gas... as listed here: http://jalopnik.com/395885/ten-fuel+...-can-buy-today

Makes me wonder what Cd my Toyota Estima Lucida has... Hm... let me Google it.

"The old space-egg Estima was aerodynamically efficient, with a drag coefficient number of 0.32. The new van betters it with 0.30." Link here: http://www.sae.org/automag/globalview_03-00/05.htm

See... I knew I bought it for a reason. It really is more aerodynamic. That's a relief. I gotta check my MPG in the coming weeks to see what I'm actually getting.

Hope this helps all of you with your research.

Now I'm off to figure out the best drag coefficient 660cc Japanese minicar available.

Rational

Edit: PS In case anyone was wondering the Smart Car has a drag coefficient of 0.38 as listed here: http://100mpg.ca/?p=148

"and the car?s less than optimal drag coefficient of 0.38 and its considerable frontal area are not yet fighting the wind too hard. At that speed, fuel consumption is around 2.9 or 3.0 L/100 km in normal conditions."

Seems like a cool site. But I don't know what he means by the Cd being 'less than optimal' as Wikipedia lists very few cars that good.

[theholycow]

I think lots of cars have a cd lower than .38, they're just not listed in that wiki. My VW is .32 and doesn't look particularly sleek.

Take a look at these, you may be able to calculate your drag coefficient, though it may also include non-aerodynamic drag such as rolling resistance.
http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=5904
http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=4904

[goofy1]

The Tercel has a cd o .32 and the vibe as a cd of .33/.34 but the vibe can coast for very long distances but the tercel can't coast worth copy. so weight and transmission play a part as well

[almightybmw]

Yes indeed. the AWD protege doesn't coast worth a damn, but the GP will coast for miles without loosing speed on a slight decline (given the proper speed/wind resistance ratio of course).

[atomicradish]

My car has a drag coefficient of .29. Not surprisingly, there isn't a whole lot aerodynamically that I can do to improve this car. A grill block is pretty pointless, because the grill is really small. An airdam would have to be pretty small because the car is already very low to the ground.

Gotta love when your aerodynamics come from the factory.

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

Here's a spreadsheet with a lot of european models on and a few NA ones...
http://pboursin.club.fr/res/aero.xls

AVG scanned it here and said it was safe.