Which car is better aerodynamically ?

[Daytona R/T SE]

Which car is better aerodynamically ?

The 1969 Dodge Charger 500,

Or...

The 1971/1972 Dodge Charger ?

     

For the sake of discussion, lets assume that both cars are stock, factory Hemi four speed cars.

Stock, right down to the tires.

Which one produces less drag, and cuts through the air better ?

Which one has the better down force at speed, and which one is trying to fly ?  
 


 

[Daytona Guy]

I heard the 71-72 had a better coefficiency number. But don't know for sure.

Dane   

[Aero426]

The answer may depend on at what stage of development of the third gen body you want to use.   They had essentially seven seasons on that car.  Later on, cars like Petty's Chargers were well sorted and massaged.   But if we are talking 71-72...

The G-series wind tunnel report states that the standard 1971 Dodge set up for racing was not as good as the preceding E-series (Charger 500) race cars in terms of having greater axial force and significantly more rear lift. So there is the basic answer.

[Aero426]

The grille of the 500 compared to the 71-72 would be pretty close. 
Windshield is a little more laid back on the 71-72.
The covered by the hood cowl of the 71-72 is a disadvantage compared to the way the engine takes it's air on the 500 with the open cowl panel.
Rear window of the 500 is a significant advantage.
The flatter sides of the 69 may be an advantage.   The 71-72 body is wider.

[Daytona R/T SE]

The G-series wind tunnel report states that the standard 1971 Dodge set up for racing was not as good as the preceding E-series (Charger 500) race cars in terms of having greater axial force and significantly more rear lift. So there is the basic answer.

Thanks, Doug !

[Mike DC]

The 3rd-gen windshield is more laidback but it's also wider/bigger overall and doesn't curve back as much at the sides.  In terms of aero it's probably a step backward from the 2nd-gen windshield.

[RallyeMike]

The stock 72 Hemi car is best in all categories because its mythical.

[odcics2]

Sticking with the OPs question, it's apples and oranges.
The few reasons above, both pro and con for each style do hold water.

Look at back in the day pics of production Hemi Charger 500s.  That nose was way up in the air, if the car was at proper curb height, as specified.

Now, the 71-72 Charger nose pierces the air much lower...     I would think we all agree that lower is better.

So, a high nosed fast back with good "A" pillar air flow, versus a laid back windshield, low nosed, poor "A" pillar style.

You'd have to do a wind tunnel study to know for sure...     

Comparing purpose built race cars, I'd give the nod to the '69 500.   


p.s. Talking to Gary Romberg in 1976, he told me that by 1974, Petty was getting laminar flow over the backlight at Daytona, using rake.
      This would cause the drag number to come down to '69 Charger 500 territory...   

[Daytona R/T SE]

The stock 72 Hemi car is best in all categories because its mythical.

Oops.

I had a brain fart last night.

Let's leave the mythical '72 Hemi cars out of it.

[Daytona Guy]

Can we compare speeds? How did the 72-72 fair with the 500's with 426's in them?

Dane

[odcics2]

How would you compensate for restrictor plates which were used beginning in August 1970 at the Yankee 400 at MIS?     

The 71-72 Chargers always had them on every track. That's when Nascar was playing around with hole sizes, almost on a weekly basis!

[Daytona R/T SE]

How would you compensate for restrictor plates which were used beginning in August 1970 at the Yankee 400 at MIS?     

The 71-72 Chargers always had them on every track. That's when Nascar was playing around with hole sizes, almost on a weekly basis!

No restrictor plates on the factory original cars we are discussing.

[Ghoste]

Except the question was to compare the speeds as known and without some documented 71-72 cars with non restricted Hemi's racing how can you do that?

[Daytona R/T SE]

Except the question was to compare the speeds as known and without some documented 71-72 cars with non restricted Hemi's racing how can you do that?

Time machine

[Ghoste]

And a rule change. 

[JB400]

Lets knock some rust off a few museum cars and find out.

[odcics2]

How would you compensate for restrictor plates which were used beginning in August 1970 at the Yankee 400 at MIS?     

The 71-72 Chargers always had them on every track. That's when Nascar was playing around with hole sizes, almost on a weekly basis!

No restrictor plates on the factory original cars we are discussing.

AHA!!    FACTORY cars - heads up!   Gotcha!   Was thinking race....

Hey -  Here is a candidate to test!       For a grin - compare this to the Petty raked car above. 
Stock, production car appears to have a little more air above the rear tires, yet similar rake!   

[1974dodgecharger]

How fast you plan on going? 

[Ghoste]

For some reason I had been thinking all along we were talking race prepped too.

[JB400]

I was under that impression as well.  Honestly, that's what I'd rather see.  It's pretty cool watching the old Trans Am series cars duking it out still.

[Daytona R/T SE]

The G-series wind tunnel report states that the standard 1971 Dodge set up for racing was not as good as the preceding E-series (Charger 500) race cars in terms of having greater axial force and significantly more rear lift. So there is the basic answer.

I'm going to call Doug's response the definitive answer that I was looking for.


Based on this, the '69 Charger 500 will have an aerodynamic advantage over the '71/'72 body style.

[Ghoste]

Seems like the fair answer to me.

[Daytona R/T SE]

Seems like the fair answer to me.

Yep,

And it comes from an excellent source.

[odcics2]

Seems like the fair answer to me.

Yep,

And it comes from an excellent source.

So, we're back to talking about massaged race cars??   
The "G" Series report applies to purpose built race cars.   

I think a street '69 500, with the T-bars cranked way down, would be better, IMO.   

[Ghoste]

If the report was for a race prepared car and the 500 still came in better than it would be fairly definitive no?

[odcics2]

If the report was for a race prepared car and the 500 still came in better than it would be fairly definitive no?

Perhaps, but...

What do you think is more aerodynamic?  A jelly bean 1985 Ford Taurus or a boxy looking 1985 AMC Premier?

Answer is the AMC.... 

[Ghoste]

Really?  I'd have never guessed that.

[Mike DC]

 
Surprising, but I could imagine it being true. 

The AMC's details are very boxy but the overall side-view shape is good. 

And who knows what the under-chassis & wheelwell air on either car might be doing? 

   

[odcics2]

Agreed - My point is that the wind tunnel. or coast downs would have to be used to see what shape is the slickest.  Looks can be deceiving.

Another fact: SuperBirds are .32 and the 1985 T-Bird is .35!    Who would have guessed that??

Race Charger 500s with 1.5 degrees nose down, tight mesh grill and no rear spoiler were .38...       

[A383Wing]

didn't Bill Elliot drive a mid-80's T-bird that broke so many records back then?

Daytona's were .29 right? I never new what the Superbirds were....and I heard somewhere that some Firebird had .25

I'm sure someone will correct me

[JB400]

You're correct about Bill Elliot.   His Aerobird as it was called, led GM to create the Aerocoupes based off of the Monte SS and the Grand Prix. 2+2

[odcics2]

Yes, .29 for the Daytona.

Bill Elliot's guys took that .35 and massaged it, too.   It had great balance, front to rear. 
 

[Aero426]

didn't Bill Elliot drive a mid-80's T-bird that broke so many records back then?

Daytona's were .29 right? I never new what the Superbirds were....and I heard somewhere that some Firebird had .25

I'm sure someone will correct me

Elliott ran 212 at Talladega in 1987 and made up two laps under green there in 1985.   

[A383Wing]

yea...I remember that now....and isn't that when NASCAR decided to slow the cars down with restricter plates because of that lap speed?

[Aero426]

Yes, they slowed the cars down in '87 when Bobby Allison broke the fence down at Talladega.

[odcics2]

That would have been the first time with small block engines.
First time for big blocks was August, 1970. 

[Mike DC]

Has it ever been clarified (officially or not) how Elliot's car was so stupid-fast in the mid/late 1980s? 

Yeah, I know the T-bird body was slick, but it's not like Elliot had the only one on the track at the time.  When I look at his car it visually looks like the body is perhaps shortened vertically along the main fuselage.  (The rocker panels and door handles would not be far enough apart anymore.)  But I can't see a whole lot else that is blatantly cheated about it.  His advantage in that era seemed enormous.

[JB400]

According to this site, http://racersreunion.com/bill-elliotts-coors-days-1984-1985/ it claims that Bills' car was narrower than everyone else's.

[A383Wing]

I heard it also had something to do with the back window design?

[odcics2]

Rear window had enough slope to get air on the back of the lid without a bunch of turbulence.
There is an Elliot  T-Bird at "The Ford" Museum in Dearborn, MI.    It looks 7/8 scale, IMO. 
Supposedly, it's the one that ran 212 at Talladega, but how would could you know for sure?     

[Mike DC]

            
The slick T-bird shape might explain why all the Ford guys were in the lead.  But it doesn't explain why Elliot was lapping all the other Ford guys too.  Elliot was a good driver but that doesn't cover it.  Something was up with his car.  


His cars do look "small".  

It couldn't have really been 7/8ths scale, not with NASCAR using the big long bumper-to-bumper template on the middle of the cars for 20 years already by then.  But I would believe Elliot's car was somehow lower & narrower than legit.  It strikes me as possible just from photos.  

Whatever they did was covered up pretty well.  No specific area of the bodies looks wrong.  That front end & hood shape would not have been easy to narrow without giving it away either. 

Maybe there was more going on than just aero work.  

 

[djcarguy]

I  think the 67-69 cuda fastback   will beat those 2 in a wind drag test? opionions we all got em.


    cuda is narrower and smoother  rear window an area flow , looks too smaller grill area an drag,,than c-500 or 3rd gen??

      well least its a mopar to talk about instead of bout 30 yr old furd turdbird. 



               now lets picture a 68 cuda with wing an nose cone   ,,oh and hemi on closed track,,,heaven on wheels.   HAVE A GREAT DAY 

[pettybird]

I  think the 67-69 cuda fastback   will beat those 2 in a wind drag test? opionions we all got em.

You're entitled to your opinion, as long as you don't mind being wrong.

[Daytona R/T SE]

I  think the 67-69 cuda fastback   will beat those 2 in a wind drag test? opionions we all got em.


   cuda is narrower and smoother  rear window an area flow , looks too smaller grill area an drag,,than c-500 or 3rd gen??

     well least its a mopar to talk about instead of bout 30 yr old furd turdbird.  



              now lets picture a 68 cuda with wing an nose cone   ,,oh and hemi on closed track,,,heaven on wheels.  HAVE A GREAT DAY  

Yeah...

But...

Winged "A" bodies suck.  

[JB400]

They don't look too bad if done right.

Factory version isn't bad either

[Daytona R/T SE]

They don't look too bad if done right.

That's like saying ...

"It's only a little turd floating in the punch bowl"

[maxwellwedge]

Lower the ass end on the pink one and it would be very cool.

[Aero426]

Take the wing off the white one and it would look pretty nice.

[JB400]

They don't look too bad if done right.

That's like saying ...

"It's only a little turd floating in the punch bowl"

There's no need in slapping me bub.

[odcics2]

 

[Daytona R/T SE]

They don't look too bad if done right.

That's like saying ...

"It's only a little turd floating in the punch bowl"

There's no need in slapping me bub.

I'll do the slappin'  

You do the strokin'     

[JB400]

They don't look too bad if done right.

That's like saying ...

"It's only a little turd floating in the punch bowl"

There's no need in slapping me bub.

I'll do the slappin'  

You do the strokin'      

No thank you.

[A383Wing]

Me -->   <-- anyone else

[djcarguy]

       Cant we all get alone???           have a great day,the is sun is shining out west.

[djcarguy]

I  think the 67-69 cuda fastback   will beat those 2 in a wind drag test? opionions we all got em.


    cuda is narrower and smoother  rear window an area flow , looks too smaller grill area an drag,,than c-500 or 3rd gen??

      well least its a mopar to talk about instead of bout 30 yr old furd turdbird. 



               now lets picture a 68 cuda with wing an nose cone   ,,oh and hemi on closed track,,,heaven on wheels.   HAVE A GREAT DAY 

[djcarguy]

  so which mopar 19 64 too 74 do think is  or has the smoothest,  less drag air flow roof an rear window???

  smallest nose area to push thru the air??   just asking an try to have something to look at this weekend beside---  the 1-3-5   Word games an answer a? with a ? and now the never ending game threads?


          well my interest on this site is way more too the cars than word games.  love mopars and wing cars.DJ