I-spy an Ugly SUV

This is the place for posts that don't fit into any other category.

Moderator: RichardW

User avatar
CitroJim
A very naughty boy
Posts: 42211
Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 23:33
x 1255

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by CitroJim »

myglaren wrote:
19 Feb 2018, 10:06
Just shows how much notice I take - I thought the Princess and Ambassador were the same except for the badge - and I had a Princess :oops:


I suppose you could call the Ambassador a face-lifted Princess gone very badly wrong...

Yes, according to Wikipedia the CX has a Cd of 0.36!!

wheeler
Posts: 4320
Joined: 21 Sep 2002, 19:07
x 155

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by wheeler »

wurlycorner wrote:
18 Feb 2018, 10:52
white exec wrote:
17 Feb 2018, 19:04
And another Nissan - the Elgrand - not actually available in UK.
Unsafe at anything over 50mph and gas-guzzling, although luxuriously equipped inside.
Back end as attractive as a Rodius.

Nissan Elgrand.JPG

Image


I agree, it's not in the slightest a looker, but it does have one massive redeeming feature... The 240 (or 300) bhp 3.5l V6 engine! For such a big bus, the thing moves like s**t off a shovel...


:rofl2:

(it also has a massive following and very active owners club)

Yes the Elgrand's are actually quite popular here & many are converted to campervans. They don't look that great on the outside but are usually very high spec.

User avatar
Stickyfinger
Donor 2016
Posts: 10005
Joined: 28 Mar 2013, 22:05
x 734

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by Stickyfinger »

Let's be fair to Suv's, that is just a big Van

User avatar
NewcastleFalcon
Posts: 12681
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 11:40
x 1177

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by NewcastleFalcon »

The SUV made it into a couple of episodes of the Simpsons at least.....Homer bought a Canyonero

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Canyonero

Nice comment in this one! "Don't worry about the SUV's there's a gentle curve up ahead!"



Regards Neil

User avatar
Stickyfinger
Donor 2016
Posts: 10005
Joined: 28 Mar 2013, 22:05
x 734

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by Stickyfinger »

LOL

harryp
Donor 2016
Posts: 648
Joined: 07 May 2011, 16:03
x 28

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by harryp »

Interestingly, a wedge has a better drag coefficient with the square end leading into the airflow than the thin pointy end :shock: - very strange I thought. I can only think that the difference was miniscule.

wurlycorner
Posts: 1402
Joined: 30 Oct 2012, 23:37
x 59

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by wurlycorner »

I can't remember back 20 years to when I last did thermodynamics et al, so can't remember what is considered in calculating CD... But if you take the literal meaning of drag, it's not that surprising that blunt end leading would be better...
Blunt end at the back will create a void (area of low pressure) immediately behind the shape as the air passing over the shape flows off the back of it, which will in effect 'drag' the thing back.
Blunt end leading will leave a nice clean flow off the back with no 'void' to create an area of low pressure. It will result in a bow wave of high pressure in front, which isn't aerodynamicaly efficient, but isn't technically 'drag' either?

User avatar
myglaren
Forum Admin Team
Posts: 18241
Joined: 02 Mar 2008, 14:30
x 1047

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by myglaren »

CitroJim wrote:
19 Feb 2018, 10:38
myglaren wrote:
19 Feb 2018, 10:06
Just shows how much notice I take - I thought the Princess and Ambassador were the same except for the badge - and I had a Princess :oops:


I suppose you could call the Ambassador a face-lifted Princess gone very badly wrong...

Yes, according to Wikipedia the CX has a Cd of 0.36!!


I thought I remembered 0.27 but then thought it couldn't be that low.

User avatar
white exec
Moderating Team
Posts: 6245
Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 13:46
x 1053

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by white exec »

I thought 'drag' was a measure of the reluctance of the object to move through air, and this was a combination of high pressure 'ram' at the front and low pressure 'back-drag' at the rear, along with other resistances. Interesting how a wedge would behave differently, depending on which way it's moving, and that blunt-end forward could be better . . . really anti-intuitive!

User avatar
NewcastleFalcon
Posts: 12681
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 11:40
x 1177

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by NewcastleFalcon »

An unlikely contender for the worst drag co-efficient in motoring! (according to wiki)
While the car's frontal area is small, the Lotus Seven has the highest drag coefficient of any known production car—ranging from 0.65 to 0.75, depending on bodywork.[citation needed]
Image
1965LotusSevenSeriesII [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], by dave_7 (Flickr), from Wikimedia Commons

regards Neil

User avatar
myglaren
Forum Admin Team
Posts: 18241
Joined: 02 Mar 2008, 14:30
x 1047

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by myglaren »

That just reads all wrong when current Audis are around 3.0.

User avatar
white exec
Moderating Team
Posts: 6245
Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 13:46
x 1053

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by white exec »

XM is 2.8 / 3.0

User avatar
Paul-R
Donor 2020
Posts: 4153
Joined: 07 May 2009, 16:24
x 426

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by Paul-R »

I don't understand where some of these figures are coming from. All the Cd figures I've ever seen are between 0 and 1 with most in the 0.3 region.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobil ... efficients

So, these other figures of 2.something and 3.something are confusing me. Are they simply a misplaced decimal point or are they quoting something different?

User avatar
NewcastleFalcon
Posts: 12681
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 11:40
x 1177

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by NewcastleFalcon »

Not sure what the drag co-efficient of the Canyonero is...bit boxy but then again "The Federal Highway Commission has ruled the Canyonero unsafe for highway or city drining" so its aerodynamics are not a problem :-D

Hank Williams Jr supplies the song!



Regards Neil

harryp
Donor 2016
Posts: 648
Joined: 07 May 2011, 16:03
x 28

Re: I-spy an Ugly SUV

Post by harryp »

Apologies, I had the decimal point in the wrong place - of course they are all below 1.0.
Not at all surprised that the co-efficient for the Lotus7 is so high looking at is bitsa construction. In my biking days (long, long ago) friend of mine reckoned that in the wet a motorbike was drier; concluding that on a bike at least you were dressed for it :-D . Apparently, water used to drive through the floor and insinuate itself up his trouser leg :shock: . Oh the fun to be had in those far off days :rofl2: ,
Following on from earlier comments, that Lexus looks very Darth Vader - back to kids toys? Seems that the streamlined design of aerodynamically efficient cars is a thing of the past :cry: .