10 Of The Least Aerodynamic Cars Ever Made

[CBuff]

Well, at least we beat the Model T.

 

Read More: https://www.jalopnik.com/2104944/least-aerodynamic-cars-ever-made/

 

Don't trade blows with the air; learn to slice through it. This low-drag philosophy is almost as old as automobiles. Skeptical? Camille Jenatzy, a Belgian race driver, shaped his battery-electric "Red Devil" racecar like a bullet to cut through the air more efficiently — in 1899! As a result, he was the first to break the 100 km/h (62 mph) barrier, reaching 105.85 km/h (65.25 mph).

Then, in 1921, Zeppelin designer Paul Jaray started working on streamlined cars, while Edmond Ruppler showed an extremely slippery prototype, called the Rumpler Tropfenwagen, the world's first streamlined car. The car was shaped like a teardrop and even had wings to channel air more efficiently, boasting an aerodynamic coefficient of just 0.28 Cd. Later, in the 1930s, Wunibald Kamm introduced the easy-to-implement "Kamm-tail" that dramatically reduced aerodynamic drag. It's even present in modern vehicles like the Ferrari 812, Toyota Prius, Tesla Model Y — the list goes on. Unfortunately, many automakers seem to have missed the memo. Yes, overall, aerodynamic efficiency improved over the years, but implementing it in regular cars was challenging. In fact, it was common for early 1900s cars to have a brick-like drag of over 1.0 Cd.

Two important notices: first, we excluded SUVs and trucks; secondly, drag coefficient data for most vehicles isn't available, particularly for early cars. So, this list only contains cars for which we could find verifiable drag coefficient data.

Read More: https://www.jalopnik.com/2104944/least-aerodynamic-cars-ever-made/

[Vovchandr]

Good read. They picked good examples. 

 

I knew 7s were bad but didn't know it was THAT bad. 

[EdWills]

19 hours ago, CBuff said:

In fact, it was common for early 1900s cars to have a brick-like drag of over 1.0 Cd.

 

That's why Rob Cox-Allison named his racing 7 in the U.K. 'Black Brick' due to its colour and its less than desirable aerodynamics.  Although he added spoilers front and rear, and fitted a hard top, he was seriously compromised on speed.  Tom Robertson added a spoiler to the nose cone of his championship winning Lotus Seven in 1977 (and beat the more streamlined TR7s of the Triumph team), but it seems that Lotus in the U.K. never went this route.  Many racers there and in North America kept the clam shells, and the couple of Lotus factory racers (Type 37 and 7X) never fitted spoilers or made the cars more aerodynamic as-built from the factory.  When Tim Goss drove the race winning 7X, the nose cone that originally appeared  on the car (and was very similar to the Series 4), was later given more of a droop, but otherwise remained as factory assembled. Barry Foley then took it over and rebuilt the car making it much more streamlined, but looking nothing like a Seven of any stripe.  W.

Edited February 24 by EdWills

[Reiver]

Perfect really.... given how well they perform they are fighting the odds.

[Grady]

They left the Jeep out. The Viper should not be there because its drag is functional. 

[mrmustang]

1979-1993 Mustangs, my own 82 Mustang GT road race car (stock body shape) being an aerodynamic brick at anything above 128mph.

 

 

 

[Reiver]

Hey, my r400 has those little whiskers on the nose cone.... like a hot knife thru butter that thing is