A Mini is more aerodynamic than a...

Started by BruceK, October 17, 2018, 02:33:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BruceK

... Jaguar E-Type!!!???   8.gif

I came across this illustration in a Jalopnik article about the origins of the VW Bus.  I can see that a Mini has the same coefficient of drag as a VW Bus - no big surprise there - holy crap, a Mini is more aerodynamically efficient than a sexy, swoopy Jag E-Type?  Wow. 
1988 Austin Mini
2002 MINI Cooper S
1992 Toyota LiteAce (JDM)
1997 Jeep Wrangler Sahara

MPlayle


BruceK

1988 Austin Mini
2002 MINI Cooper S
1992 Toyota LiteAce (JDM)
1997 Jeep Wrangler Sahara

BruceK

I thought we'd hear from the man who has both of these cars sitting in his workshop...
1988 Austin Mini
2002 MINI Cooper S
1992 Toyota LiteAce (JDM)
1997 Jeep Wrangler Sahara

MiniDave

What can I say?    ;D

Two different cars for two different uses (Mini and Jag E) one's more of a city car and the other is more of a long distance cruiser.
Complete failure at retirement

1989 Cooper Racing Green
2009 Clubman S
2014 Audi Allroad

BruceK

Quote from: MiniDave on October 18, 2018, 02:56:05 PM
What can I say?    ;D

Two different cars for two different uses (Mini and Jag E) one's more of a city car and the other is more of a long distance cruiser.

I know, but the Jag hails from the era of 'if it looks right, it must be right' aero design process.  And it does look so very slippery and areodynamic.  A Mini, with it's boxy shape, wind-catching external seams and big roof gutters, having a lower Cd than an E-type is so counter-intuitive. 

I wonder how un-aerodynamic a Moke is?   Massive I bet.
1988 Austin Mini
2002 MINI Cooper S
1992 Toyota LiteAce (JDM)
1997 Jeep Wrangler Sahara

MPlayle

The "estimated cd" for a 1989 Moke is 0.7 per the site linked below.  I would think most Mokes had about the same result.

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1989/1919060/mini-moke.html


MiniDave

Quote from: BruceK on October 18, 2018, 03:54:39 PM
Quote from: MiniDave on October 18, 2018, 02:56:05 PM
What can I say?    ;D

Two different cars for two different uses (Mini and Jag E) one's more of a city car and the other is more of a long distance cruiser.

I know, but the Jag hails from the era of 'if it looks right, it must be right' aero design process.  And it does look so very slippery and areodynamic.  A Mini, with it's boxy shape, wind-catching external seams and big roof gutters, having a lower Cd than an E-type is so counter-intuitive. 

I wonder how un-aerodynamic a Moke is?   Massive I bet.

I'm sure frontal area has a lot to do with it - the Mini is much smaller there?
Complete failure at retirement

1989 Cooper Racing Green
2009 Clubman S
2014 Audi Allroad

BruceK

1988 Austin Mini
2002 MINI Cooper S
1992 Toyota LiteAce (JDM)
1997 Jeep Wrangler Sahara