Drag Coefficient

[Steve_S]

Does someoen know of a resource where I can find out the drag coefficient of different old British cars? I'm specifically looking for MGC GT.

 

[Tinster]

I've had to drag my dead TR6 all kinds of places.
One time, the neighborhood kids dragged my dead 6
for about two weeks.

On my 69TR, the coefficient of drag is much greater
that the coefficient of drive.

60 weeks dead to 3 weeks drive

20:1 factor

d

 

[roofman]

What a drag....

 

[SilentUnicorn]

Before this gets too Dragged out here... I would suggest that you find an old "Road and Track", or "Car and Driver" road test article, iIRC i think they used to list the dag specs.

or you could always install a Drag Chute and catch the numbers that way......




mark

 

[Steve_S]

You guys are dragging me down to your level.

 

[Steve]

Does someoen know of a resource where I can find out the drag coefficient of different old British cars? I'm specifically looking for MGC GT.

To give the poor guy a serious answer......Steve, there may well be such information contained in old magazine road tests. Manufacturers themselves were not too concerned with publishing Cd figures until aerodynamics became a buzzword in the name of fuel economy in Europe. Audi and, most notably, Citroen started the trend, the latter in the early seventies.

Keep in mind that your MGC has those flared wheel arches and a lot less clutter than a regular production version, and so it will differ from the official figure anyway.

Here is what I found:-

Drag coefficient
Frontal Area
Cx
Viewing specifications of 1967 MG MGC

On this webpage......

<a href="https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=8052&MG">1967 MG MGC specifications</a>

There's a formula you could use, but you need to determine the frontal area of the car.


Okay, here you go........It's 0.40 for a standard car. The numbers are for an MGB GT but it will be really close.

Vehicle Year and Model '67 GT Coupe
Cd = 0.400
Area (m2 ) 1.607
Area (ft2 ) 17.30
Cd x m2 0.64
Cd x ft2 6.92

Solved!

Ask me something difficult next time /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

 

[Nunyas]

i was draggin' me arse too much to go grab me physics book and look it up..

 

[Steve_S]

Wow, thanks! Ok, you want hard? hHre ya go. Figure out the difference between the drag coefficient of that MGB GT and a CGT Sebring with the bulged hood, sebring front and rear bodywork, flared fenders, lowered suspension, single clip-on mirror, 215-width tires and de-seamed panels. Don't forget the spot lamps!

Back to reality, I wonder if anyone ever published aerodynamic data on the Sebring race cars.

 

[DrEntropy]

I didn't know. Woulda guessed lower tho: I figured the MGB-GT to be fairly slippery. 0.38~0.37 was in my mind. The +2 was designed in a wind tunnel and came out to a CD of (IIRC) 0.27... Lowest CD auto for its time.

Lotus trivia. *shrug*


OH! And if you wanna reduce the drag a bit on th' Sebring, I'll be havin' those lamps. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

 

[Steve_S]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]And if you wanna reduce the drag a bit on th' Sebring, I'll be havin' those lamps.[/QUOTE]
That's a kind offer, but I feel I must decline at this point in time. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

The MGB GT has a fairly steep and tall windshield, and the rear aerodynamics aren't the greatest. You can tell by the pattern water makes when driving at speed in the rain.