Subject	"it was accept-able in the 80's!" (n/m)
Posted by	Irocsx2002 on July 06, 2009 at 9:24 AM
	This message has been viewed 53 times.
In Reply To	Because it wasn't designed in the freakin' 80s. (n/m) posted by BradZ (UF) on July 06, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Message
Follow Ups	How does the 2009 GTR have such a low Cd? - SnivesZ32 00:04:40 07/06/09 im sure one way is underbody work - AntiHero 00:06:46 07/06/09 Re: im sure one way is underbody work - SnivesZ32 00:34:33 07/06/09 They designed that thing extremely carefully - BannonZ 11:29:55 07/06/09 my first thought as well (n/m) - d_flore 00:54:53 07/06/09 Apparently... - collegeboy 00:08:50 07/06/09 Because it wasn't designed in the freakin' 80s. (n/m) - BradZ (UF) 00:10:52 07/06/09 Bingo! (n/m) - jmw23712 00:39:44 07/06/09 "it was accept-able in the 80's!" (n/m) - Irocsx2002 09:24:08 07/06/09 Mk3 Supra was the only thing acceptable out of the 80s! (n/m) - BradZ (UF) 10:11:39 07/06/09 The early 80's Z31 has a lower Cd than the late 80's Z32 - vorpalZ 09:36:07 07/06/09 LOL, nice! (n/m) - BradZ (UF) 09:49:28 07/06/09 Hell, the 89-94 Maxima has a cD of .32!!! (n/m) - zfreak(Dallas) 10:46:03 07/06/09 9 month in the wind tunnel should show some results (n/m) - Halo Z 01:22:07 07/06/09 big can be aerodynamic, take a 747 for instance (n/m) - LJZTT 01:34:56 07/06/09 You answered your own question... - ZX 2B U 01:47:03 07/06/09 I would imagine it has more to do with small things - FuerGrissa 03:02:21 07/06/09 Mirrors do have more effect than you'd expect - BobbyT 04:00:12 07/06/09 Perhaps the same reason rain doesn't run off the back window - BCs300z 03:43:05 07/06/09 ditto...sorta - Insomniac (VA) 07:21:01 07/06/09 indeed (n/m) - BCs300z 09:04:53 07/06/09 In case nobody has seen the underside of one: - MegamanMk2 10:51:42 07/06/09 That's one sexy up-skirt shot... (n/m) - thejoneZ (Sacto, CA) 17:55:35 07/06/09 Car aerodynamics entail much more than smooth lines - Zarcasm(Hfd, CT) 19:41:15 07/06/09
Post a Followup	You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.