| Are you defining it as better down force or improved Cd? From my perspective, I'm defining aerodynamic efficiency as the latter. Even if you take the former as the definition of efficiency, I'd argue that there are more effective kits that don't look like such a caricature - again beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But I don't want to get stuck in that rhetoric. Trying to keep this fact-based and keeping the artistic side out of the discussion, I still see the following comparison as an argument in favor of keeping the OE parts and living with the aerodynamic "sacrifices" they bring with them (keep in mind this is based on my definition of aero efficiency): Stock = minimized frontal area which is better for reducing drag. The one trade-off is turbulence generated by the air that flows beneath the car. The body kit in question = over-exaggerated intakes which directs more air into the drag-intensive heat-exchangers and engine compartment. It does direct more air around the tires which is a benefit for improved aerodynamics but I think it is more than offset by the oversized intake openings. Dave
Little did Bob realize that Harold discovered the elusive "brown note" and was about to put the theory to test
 Sig Quotes: "Your sausage scares me!" - TT-XTZ 6/13/05 "Or he's having a rough week like the rest of us and decided to take out his agressions of not being breast fed on me." BigTDogg 15:45, 09/25/03 "Pick her up from day care and take her to Dairy Queen for a snow cone." YugoBernie 1/7/04 of course those are canadian bannings and beatings, which after the conversion rate is really only a "hey! stop that!" Chris(NJ) 1/14/04 see the green "n" next to my name? what's COZ? (n/m) - 300zx88 8/11/04 |
12:27:36 04/16/07
