Does anyone have information on the most aerodynamic firebird nose? I'm not sure if there is a significant difference, but I was planning on changing my 86 nose to an earlier, 82-84 style. Do those grills in front increase drag?

On a side note, has anyone ever smoothed the later front bumper cover to eliminate the black inserts? I thought that might give it an interesting look. Thanks!

 

I used to operate a wind tunnel, I put my 86 T/A (Gone now. *SNIFF*)and a buddys 91 GTA in there and his car had .o3 more drag. Dont know if that helps...

 

I've heard that ground effects can often increase drag unless the car sits VERY low to the ground. Mainly, I'm curious if the vents cause a lot of drag or if I should block them off with filler panels.

 

We thought that as the reason his car wasnt as "Slippery". When we ran the "smoke" there was disturbance at the front end of the car. Leaving us to believe the area where the foglights/parking lights are recessed into was the culprit.

 

Im CERTAINLY not an expert, But I Believe the 82-84 Model will be the most aerodynamic. I Happen to own an 84

 

You may be right. I never had the chance to test one of those...

 

Car & Driver used to talk about this good bit. They covered a twin turbo build up for a 200mph run in the salt falts. I think the car was an 84 Firebird/Trans Am. Drag coefficient was low .3x stock or something like that...maybe .32

FWIW some 4th Gen's are in the .5 range & a 1984 Corvette was .34

BTW - Night time with the headlights on any 3rd Gen Camaro has low drag coefficient. :-)

 

As a complete package the stock 1983 DT500 has the lowest drag coeffecient of .29 and change.



Yes without the light bar.

 

.29 is sick! Was it the wheels that made the difference? There's not much else that could have...plus it's hard to believe those ground effects would reduce drag...

 

That's funny...I always understood that the 91/91 'birds wee the most aerodynamic 'birds. .29 cd vs .32cd of the earlier 'birds.

 

I would think the knight rider front bumper on a 82 or maybe 84 but thats not stock.

 

.296 or so loaded

.306 unloaded

The following from Alexx's Site.

Alexx's DT500 Site

 

Everyone has to understand that the ground FX and bumpers will make a slight difference in aerodynamics, but nothing major.

The real gains are underneath the car and also the cooling air management. GM skimped on both very badly to save $ on production since we don't normally drive at Autobahn speeds in the US.

You can probably drop a thirdgen (either model) into the .25 range with a clean underside, covering up the tires from the airflow, and venting the radiatior air up and around the car - not under.

 

Lowering a car will also reduce drag by shrinking the frontal area, right? And what's the best way to vent radiator air up instead of under the car?

 

Hood vents.

I pulled my rear seal off the hood on day 1 &have never had a problem with water getting in. In fact, I've done that to ALL my 3rd gen before & never had a problem.

 

Vented air going under a car is the worst place to put it, over the top or around the sides is absolutely preferable.

A small bit of frontal area is reduced - the cross section of the tires that is covered up... A third gen being lowered by 1" will decrease frontal area about .07ft^2.

You can pick up a bit in CoD also by having less air going under the car, plus you can pick up a bit in "ground effect" airflow, which is something the Russians experimented with in airplanes back in the cold war days.
----------
You need hood vents that are at least as big as the radiator air inlets for that to work, no third gen ever came with that big of a vent.

I'm sure some air is being vented out the removed seal void, but not nearly enough...