I am looking for a new car (this is only important because it caused me to really look at a variety of cars). And I've been looking, and I've noticed that thirdgen's (camaro's in particular) look to have the most down force out of the cars I'm looking it (which would include 2nd, 3rd, 4th gen f-bodies, fox body mustangs, Crown Victoria's, and a number of pickup trucks). I am wondering if there are any online reasources available I could use to verify this information. I guess I'm not ignorant enough to think it makes a whole lotta difference, but I know my 91 RS feels more stable (if you ignore all the vibrations) than my dad's 94 Crown Victoria LX HPP at 100, so it got me thinking... Just go ahead and flame away if this is a retarded post - I probably deserve it!!

 

You would have to drive a car at NASCAR speeds for downforce to make a difference

What makes these cars so stable with what you are comparing them with are the suspension, wheel/tire size, and aerodynamics.

 

perhapse. like i said, i was just thinking. thinking is pretty dangerous too!!

 

Only a few cars ever made no lift or actual downforce.

Ferrari, Lambo, and Lotus all make downforce at speed.

There is a new sedan on the market. It made it to the cover of a car mag, but I forget which one, that makes 0 lift. I question that, but they say it's true.

There is no reason for that though. Like Pukka said the ride quality at speed is determined more on things being tight, balanced, and properly aligned. Your poor crown vic is probably in need of some TLC. Almost all cars are heavy enough that even with all the lift they are making traction isn't a problem unless you're trying to slalom at 120. Lots of car mags do 60-70 mph slolam testing, to simulate a sudden dodge on the freeway. Unless you plan on doing serious maneuvers at racing speeds aero doesn't mean d*ck.

 

Only a few cars ever made no lift or actual downforce.

Ferrari, Lambo, and Lotus all make downforce at speed.

There is a new sedan on the market. It made it to the cover of a car mag, but I forget which one, that makes 0 lift. I question that, but they say it's true. [/QUOTE]

Actually, I think only one or two normal Ferraris make downforce; Lotus and Lambo are neutral at best. I think the 911 TT may also be neutral at speed. Those cars have the advantage or a wide track and low COG to help at high speeds - not to mention a smooth undercarriage due to rear engine platform. I figure for the $ you pay, exotics should have some token advantages.

The car with 0 lift is the new Infiniti G35 with the aero kit, an ugly (and I'm being reaaallly nice) car at best.

You can easily give a third gen downforce: just use the typical NASCAR tricks - low front spoiler, side skirts, and tall rear spoiler. I heard those cars can pull 2gs at 200mph without exotic air management. Compare to Indy cars that pull 3gs or so with a lot more power and sophisticated aerodynamic technology.

 

Here's my hundred-mile-an hour observations:

Thirdgen Camaros, especaily IROCs and RSs, with their long hoods, deep front body work and chin spoilers, side gfx, and kicked-up tails look like buisiness. Theyre also low, long wide fastbacks, as compared to the taller, narrrower Fox-Mustang.

I will compare my experiences at the century mark in three cars. All testing conducted on I-95 between Richmond and Fairfax, Virginia.

1986 Trans Am WS6. This is a pretty heavy car, so it feels pretty well glued to the road. Stiff shocks, so it doesn't feel like it 'floats' on dips and humps in the road. Stiff springs, so every bump and crack results in shudder to the whole carbody.
Verdict: Very capable, but it beats up the driver after more than 30 minutes.

1990 Nissan 300ZX. About 1000 pounds lighter than the T/A, it feels less like it's pushing down on the pavement than skimming over it. Damping is as agressive, but the springing is lighter, taking the edge off of big bumps. Small, sharp bumps, though, deflect this lighter car more, resulting in a somewhat twitchy feeling.
Verdict: Easier ride, but requires constant attention

1996 Dodge Caravan. About 600 pounds heavier than the Trans Am, it has stiff springs but softer damping, so it soaks up the little bumps without a wiggle, but feels a little floatier over the larger humps. Heavy weight returns it quickly to normal ride hight and keeps it firmly planted there.
Verdict: Good, smooth ride, unflappable on the interstate.

*of course, much of the Dodge's weight comes from having lots of sound insulation, and 8-way power seats, so it's also much quieter and comfier than the other two. Great cruise control, too.*

I have no idea what any of this had to do with the original post.
My ***, it's 5:00 in the Morning, I have to go to bed.......

 

Actually our good ol' america corvette has down force intentionally designed into it. They started this with the C4 (1984-)then the C5 (1997-). They will ride aprox. 1" lower at freeway speeds because of downforce to increase its higher speed stability.

Air traveling under a car will affect chassis stability even at 60mph.

I also own an '89 chevy 1/2ton truck that I have lowered properly unlike 99% of them out there. This truck is built basically for street roadracing type driving. Its a mild work truck but it surprises the heck out of everyone ( I love being the underdog).
Anyway, I once removed the front spoiler because of damage and noticed imediately the instability this "brick" aquired at 80 mph because more air traveling under it. It was uncomfortably scary to drive at speed because of this when you are use to it being one way.(p.s. This truck will turn 140 mph and there is not one single stock/original component under it suspension or drivetrain. Darrel Young 700r4, Carbon fiber driveshaft, Currie 9"rearend, Four whl discs, you get the picture)