NACA duct, wither goest thou?

[MaxedGTS]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JMcGuire:
Why did they lose the NACA duct and go with the amateurish-looking basic hole-in-the-hood approach? Did the designer just not know why actual race cars use the NACA duct shape?


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, It looked good on the Camaro and look how many of those they sold

Max

[Lee00blacksilverGTS]

You guys ought to buy Daniel Carney's new book DODGE VIPER.
Quoting John Fernandez on the new car... "We spent a tremendous amount of time in the wind tunnel to make sure we got the maximum amount of leverage from the style of the body. The front of the car, EVERY LITTLE DETAIL in the grill openings to the radius we're using on the fascias and each edge, was work we did in the wind tunnel. EVERY LITTLE PIECE OF AIR WE GET GOING INTO THIS THING WAS PURPOSEFUL. TO COOL THE BRAKES. TO COOL THE ENGINE. AND TO GET AIR INTO THE INTAKE SYSTEM. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE FRONT END OF THIS CAR." So... don't call me Jimmy, do you finally get it?! It's called functionality. This car will probably run over 200mph due to the wind tunnel design, and you have nothing better to do than to continue AD INFINITUM to criticize the design, you're not going to buy one, we sure know that after all the posts. If guys like you are successful in getting DC to change some of these details so that we give away top speed and cooling just so the car looks like the old one, I for one will be disappointed. And you know what really frosts my cookies? you love the competition coupe, right? I got a big surprise for ya... IT'S THE SAME CAR FROM THE DOORS FORWARD, INCLUDING THE HOOD SCOOP!!! How can you not see that? It just looks different due to the stripes! And finally, do you realize how irritating it is to us who have read up on the car, informed ourselves and have gone ahead and bought it for the performance piece it surely will be to have you continually bring this stuff up? Enough already! My mama told me "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"! By the way, the book says nothing about the rear of the car, so before anyone asks, I have no idea why the styling is so different from the comp. coupe. Oh, and I do love my GTS and I'm keeping it, so don't accuse me of not being a GEN 2 guy.

[Lee00blacksilverGTS]

Actually Marko, my driver is an M5, what's yours?

[Lee00blacksilverGTS]

Richard, your comments were right on and have been over the course of this debate. No problem.

[GTS Bruce]

Whine,whine,wine....Hey, have you new age 03 Viper guys got any cheese to go along with it?I think I'll do a complete exhaust system on my Gen II and blow you 03 guys off the road.See you in the rear view mirrors. Bruce

[Mike Brunton]

Lee,

Right on - I am with you 100%. I don't mind if people have honest questions or criticisms, but it's sad to see all the whiners complain just make silly comments trashing the car. I think any *real* car enthusiast would have respect for the car, and offer constructive criticism of what they don't like - the way GTS Dean does.


Mark O,

I think you might be happier with a 442 or an old GTO or something. If performance isn't nearly as important as looks, there are a ton of cars - available for cheap money (compared to a Viper) that will more than satisfy your reqiurement of "looks cool". I think top speed *is* important, because the car will be judged based on it's performance. How often do you accelerate from 0-100 in 9 seconds? How often do you pull &gt; 1.0g in grip? How often do you try to get the best lap time around your neighborhood? But these talents of the Viper are what make it what it is. Mark, have you checked out the new T-bird? It has less sack than an over-castrated eunich, but hey it looks REALLY REALLY COOL MAN! Maybe it's for you??? (just teasing ya Mark!)


Bruce,

If you think adding an "exhaust" to a GTS is going to make it hang, you're *sadly* mistaken. What about the weight difference? Just make that up with MORE HP? What about the revised suspension that will surely help with launches and handling? You gonna change out your suspension too? What about ABS? Oh, you can get that aftermarket. What about upgraded brakes - you gonna do that also? The SRT is going to be to the GTS what the Z06 is to the regular C5. You can upgrade a C5 to hang with a Z06, but you're talking LOTS of $$'s to compare in all performance categories. And why can't the SRT owner put an exhaust on HIS car and blow you into the weeds a little more? Then you're going to be looking at heads+cam at the least to keep up. The old "but I can just do an exhaust" bullpoopie sounds to me *exactly* like the Supra guys saying their cars are just as good because with a $2 fish tank valve they can go bpu++-++-==!-+ and hang with a Viper.


If you guys don't like the styling - that's fine... your point has been made clear - but the constant ribbing of the SRT is making some folks come across as sourpusses who are upset that their older cars are going to get spanked in performance, and they don't want to get the newest and greatest because they don't like the look. It's like they feel DC "cheated" them or something. I have a great solution... if you don't like the SRT - you don't *have* to buy one ya know! Just don't sit at VCA events huddled in a "sourpuss" group complaining about how the SRT looks while the SRT guys are running around the track and breaking all those lap times, 1/4 times, and performance #'s of the previous car.

This reminds me of my senior prom at high school. I was dating a really attractive brunette. At the prom, all the guys probably loved to point out how they were "better" than me, but you know what - I WAS WITH THE HOT GIRL! And I was having a *great* time. Same with the SRT - I like the car a lot and I'm going to like it even more when I get it. The whiners and complainers aren't going to drag my opinion down, they are just coming across as a bunch of malcontents that can't accept reality. Hey, I didn't like the C5 when it came out (and still don't), but I just didn't upgrade from my C4 to a C5 - I didn't whine about it for months on the Vette board.


Disclaimer: Jon, your original question was legit - and I think Lee answered it... my post is directed at all the folks who felt the need to turn an honest question that got an honest answer into yet *another* post whining and crying about how they don't like the SRT... waah waah waah... cry my an f-in river!

[Mike Brunton]

Jon,

"SRT love in"... hehe. Regarding the NACA duct, there was a big thread on it a while back, and at one point we had some discussion about the effectiveness of the duct. One of the aerospace guys went into all the formulae, and one of the Chrysler design engineers chimed in that they hadn't seen *any* positive pressure (ram air) effect below speeds of about 110mph or so, and it was more of a 'look cool' thing than a functional design. The topic must be in the archives, although it was probably 3 years ago now. I think I have it saved somewhere if you're interested.

Mark O,

I think Ford has something in the GT-40 - have you put a deposit down? I really don't like very many "older" cars, except for the Shelby Cobra, some of the old Mustangs, a few Vettes, and not much else. I remember seeing a GT-40 (a real one, as claimed by the owner) in a junkyard around here about 7 or 8 years ago - way in back under a tarp. It was in *really* rough shape, but the guy only wanted something like $4k for the thing - I had no idea they were worth anything. I wonder if it's still there? hmmm...

[RS27J9A]

Mark O - How about a 68 Charger? 70 Dart?

Looks or performance? Looks or performance?

Corvette gave looks up big time to take over the performance lead.
I talked to some members of the NA Oreca team at Mosport several years ago and they stated thet they had taken the car as far as they could on the old platform.
I believe all owners have felt pretty empty concerning the limited challenge given to the Corvette the past two years. My vote is to regain a competitive footing so we don't have to put up with the Corvette owners unjustified boasting.(what box do I tick for the 427 in my street Vette?)

The Comp Coupe will prove to be the tonic we all needed. The new roadster will give us a chance to drive on Mondays a close resemblance of what won on Sunday.

[Craig 201 MPH]

Mark,

Totally respectfully (one mopar nut to another) but what's the philosophy behind your HEMI wagon? Now put that and the SRT side by side.

Craig

[Craig 201 MPH]

Mark,
I couldn't agree more on the sleeper look of those cars, fast taxicab's gotta love em. I was merely going for a "the new car is more about performance" m(ala' your and fireballs wagons) than looks in my opinion. To me it looks nowhere near as good as the current cars, it's just got a different focus.

I just hope I wasn't out of line (in your opinion). I look forward to seeing your car at carlisle if I make it down when you have it there.

Craig

[Mike Brunton]

Mark,

When you finish your latest project, and I get my SRT, I say we head up to Epping and run them agaist one another for bragging rights. The fuglymobile of the 60's vs. the fuglymobile of the 21st century - whoever loses has to admit to having the worse taste in automotive design Whaddya say?

[GTS Dean]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mako:
...but opinions can and do differ on this issue.

This is a discussion FORUM where people can discuss and debate all sorts of Viper-related issues. This serves a valuable function for the users and DC--real, honest opinions.

Would you prefer a canned-propaganda DC forum?

You and others share a contrary viewpoint--no problem, but allow the rest of us Viper fans to voice our opinions as well!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mako, your Viper worldview is so far removed from reality that you should just keep quiet and read this BBS real often for a week or two. Then, come back and we'll talk about "propaganda."

[Mike Brunton]

Mark,

I think you heard wrong... my drag racing "abilities" are more like "double or nothing" than anything else. I either get real lucky and pull off a good run, or I blow it bigger than Pamela Lee on Hi8. I'd love to take lessons from an old pro like yourself, but... come to think of it... of the 40 or so times I was at the drag strip last year, I don't think I ever saw ya there! Practice makes perfect... and you can probably even overcome those tired old reflexes and limp wristed shifts - given enough practice .

As for my current ballast quotient, let's say when I need an elevator in my house, I'll be opting for the freight model, not the 1-man version . Like all large mammals, I tend to lose my winter coat come springtime - but don't worry - if you need help hooking the wagoon up, I'll gladly sit in the trunk for more weight on the rear (and get out and push if it doesn't make it the entire 1/4 mile, no extra charge)

I'd love to see the fuglymobiles line up at the strip... just for kicks of course. Do you think your wagon of doom will be done in time? I know aerodynamics and performance don't matter for cool-factor, but I won't mind if you tape up the front and fold back those mirrors (did they have folding mirrors in the 60's? I dunno... still wasn't born then).

P.S. I doubt very many have any clue what we mean when we talk about Frappes, the cape, and any other number of newengland-isms. They also don't know we have Whitey stored in an old folks home in Southie!

In all seriousness, I'd love to go for a ride in the car when it's done. I admit to knowing *nothing* about old cars, but there is a guy with a patchwork-ed orange Nomad for sale somewhere nearby (only know what a Nomad is from watching Home Improvement). Maybe I should get it, stick the engine in from my former GTS and have a heretic version of an old muscle car? Hmm...

[John H]

Mike, no doubt the SRT will be a stronger performer in all performance categories while being more ergonomic and having a more balanced, refined, drivable platform. That being said, I doubt it will be mopping up the old GTS at the track like you said below for one simple reason. It won't be allowed to race because it's a convertible. You will need a cage to bring the car to any track [drag or roadrace] in stock form. I have nothing against cages, but I think they look pretty silly in a convertible, while also negating whatever purpose the convertible top was originally for. Are you going to weld a cage in yours? Regardless to "legalities", I wouldn't feel safe racing on a track or simply driving "spiritly" on the street in an open top car.

I personally love EVERYTHING (with exception to the convertible top) about the SRT [improved overall performance, improved aerodynamics, fixing all the "wrong" things with the GTS, making it a more forgiving car to drive, and YES appearance]. I stressed the word "everything" so you'd know we were on the same side and wouldn't call me a GTS lover afraid of change/progress. Without a doubt, it would be my next car if it was simply offered in a coupe. I fear the SRT might take the coveted gold chain award away from the corvette convertible. I just don't see the purpose of the car as it sits. For this I am sad.

John H

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike Brunton:

Just don't sit at VCA events huddled in a "sourpuss" group complaining about how the SRT looks while the SRT guys are running around the track and breaking all those lap times, 1/4 times, and performance #'s of the previous car.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Venom Lover]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CobraCam:
So ten years down the line, when a Corvette C6 Z06, with incredible aero can beat a 550hp Viper down the track with 400hp, and can go faster in a straight line, what will you say? Like it or not, the GTS is no aerodynamic wonder, it rates a .36. The Corvette C5 is a .29! And yes, aero does come into play on the drag strip, after about 80-90mph.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I decided to put my physics degree to work tonight to see whether it is really true that .36 vs. .29 Cd makes a difference in the 1/4 mile. I decided to make a simplifying assumption that acceleration from the motor is constant over the 1/4 mile, which obviously it's not, but I don't expect the results would vary dramatically with a more sophisticated assumption. Say 0-60 in 4.5 sec (just to pick a number); that equates to accleration of about 6.0 m/sec^2 (conversion to metric). Call this acceleration a0 = 6.0 m/sec^2.

Now drag results in an acceleration of aD = -1/2*d*Cd*A/m*v^2 = -k*v^2, where
d = atmospheric density = 1.2 kg/m^3 on the earth's surface
Cd = 0.36 or 0.29 in the two cases to be studied
A = cross-sectional area into the air; i.e., front-view area, approx .85*width*height = 1.83 m^2 based on 76" width, 44" height
m = mass = 3445 lbs curb + 250 lbs driver and gas = 1678 kg
v = velocity (m/sec)
k = 1/2*d*Cd*A/m to simplify the notation

So, net acceleration a = a0 + aD. Doing a bunch of calculus and algebra results in the conclusion that, starting from a dead stop, the time T required for the vehicle to travel a distance X is given by

T = ((a0*k)^(-0.5))*arccosh(exp(k*X)), in seconds

where arccosh = inverse hyperbolic cosine, and exp(y) is 2.718281^y (i.e., the number e raised to the power y).

The 1/4 mile = 402.34 m, since I'm doing everything in metric, and plugging into the above equation results in 1/4 mile times as follows for the two cases of different drag coefficients:

With Cd = 0.36, T = 11.77 sec to the 1/4 mile
With Cd = 0.29, T = 11.80 sec to the 1/4 mile

The difference is .03 sec, which is a very small percent (a quarter of 1%). For what it's worth, if you plug in an RT/10 Cd of 0.5, you get T = 11.88 sec; still not a very big difference.

Bottom line, Cd doesn't matter a whole lot in the 1/4 mile. Of course Cd does affect terminal velocity (vT) in a bigger way; where vT = sqrt(aT/k), where aT = top-end acceleration. So, the ratio of terminal velocities for two different Cd's (Cd1 and Cd2) is sqrt(Cd2/Cd1), which is about 11.5% for Cd1 = 0.29 and Cd2 = 0.36. Meaning if my GTS has a top speed of 185 mi/hr, and if I could magically decrease Cd from 0.36 to 0.29, my top speed would go to 1.115*185 mi/hr = 206 mi/hr.

However, I happen to agree with Mark O. I will never drive anywhere near the top end of the car, so in the straight line, all I really care about is 1/4 mile time since I'm never going to be driving much above 120-130 mi/hr anyway. And in the 1/4, Cd doesn't matter a whole lot.

Again, this means I'd take more outrageous styling at the expense of Cd going from &lt;.3 to somewhere above .3.... Just another man's opinion!