[VIDEO] Which Corvette Generation is the Most Slippery When It Comes to Aerodynamics?

By
Keith Cornett
-
4
14126

[VIDEO] Which Corvette Generation is the Most Slippery When It Comes to Aerodynamics?

Photo Credit: Chevrolet


Does newer always mean “more slippery?”

That’s the question asked by Mark on the YouTube channel VetonVettes757 who takes a dive into the eight generations of Corvettes to determining which generation is the most aerodynamic based on drag coefficient ratings.

Drag coefficient ratings measure the way an automobile passes through the surrounding air, and every Corvette generation has a different rating based on a number of factors including its front area, downforce, lift, vehicle weight, and more.

[VIDEO] Which Corvette Generation is the Most Slippery When It Comes to Aerodynamics?


As Mark dives into the research he finds he is quickly overwhelmed by the number of various models so to keep things more simple, he bases his comparisons on the inaugural base model from each generation. So this video covers the Corvettes models in their base configuration from 1953, 1963, 1968, 1984, 1997, 2005, 2014, and 2020.

It’s an interesting comparison between the various generations as we find that the most slippery Corvette does not necessarily the newest Corvette.


Source:
VetOnVettes757 / YouTube

Related:
Every Line Matters: Aerodynamics Optimized on the All-New 2014 C7 Corvette
Today is Legendary Corvette Designer Larry Shinoda’s Birthday
[VIDEO] LMR Tests Their Texas Mile Twin Turbo Corvette in GM’s Wind Tunnel

 



-

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

4 COMMENTS

  1. 2013 C6 base coupe Cd is 0.286 in the sale brochure – lower than any numbers mentioned in the video.

  2. C5 With the lamps down, C6 with the C5’S lamp up! The C5 is the most rounded Corvette ever, not too flat anywhere. Look at the C5 concept at the museum, no Corvette was even close to that car when it came to aerodynamics. Only the Prius was more aerodynamic at that time with a 0.268 cod. The C5 was 0.29 and some change.

  3. no such thing as drag ‘coefficiency’

    the area term refers to the maximum cross-sectional area of the car, not the nose.

    So the best way of comparing cars is the product of Cd x A or drag coefficient times frontal area. Anything else is a waste of effort.

  4. The C5R and C6R GT1 had their engines air restricted to 600 Hp. Designed with hatchback and fixed lights the C5R had higher top speed at lemans than the C6R. Obviously both had waterfall Hot Air extractor in the hood to cool off the engine Radiator.

    When the C6 was being designed with a Z06 variant in the works, the frontal area was being squared off for cooling of the LS7 engine. Unfortunately the rear was also being squared off just by esthetics to equilibrate the front while increasing cargo volume in the back hatch.

    It was never my plan to buy a C6, but I fell in love with the C6 Z06 for capabilitites which no other sports car could do. Just in terms of aerodynamics and engine torq, i experimented alot by comparing to a well rounded aerodynamic car as my 1998 corolla. On highway my corolla was averaging 8 L/100 KMs @ 115 Km/h (69 mph) My Z06 was consuming 7L/100 KMs in 6th gear @ 1650 RPM. NO other sports car sold in North America could come close to this fuel efficiency and capable of 198 mph or 330 KM/h. I was disappointed when the C6 ZR1 had a top speed of 205 mph with 145 more HP than the Z06. Obviously Downforce was accentuated for the ZR1 due to potential legal suits from customers who were not qualified to drive past 200 mph LOL.

    The C7 and worse the C8 are aerodynamic bricks in terms of top speed because these are Cargo Cars. The McLaren F1 design in the early 90’s only needs 620 HP to achieve 235 mph (391KM/h). The C7 ZR1 at 755 Hp can not pass the 212 mph mark. A Ferrari Enzo at 650 Hp hits 218 mph. Take a long look at these cars and guess where the aerodynamic mistakes/ compromises were made. In my Scientific opinion, the F1 remains the Bench Mark to this day in aerodynamic efficiency for top speed below 240mph.

Comments are closed.