One more point Patentlaw. You stated: "So the Gen V looks nothing like a Gen II? Clown shoe vs. Ferragamo? As I recall, the Gen V is LESS efficient in the wind tunnel than the Gen II." Wrong again. The Cd figure has a down force component which causes the Cd figure to be misleading. The Gen II ( Cd of .35) was and, unless modified with something like the Roe front bumper fascia cooling duct ( I had one on my supercharged Gen II), starts to lift in the front after 125 or so MPH. The stock Gen II is not in the same league as far as aerodynamic stability and down force as the Gen V (Cd of .364 because of the down force). There is Cd and CdA. CdA is far more releavnt and is what car companies use internally to determine aerodynamic efficiency. I believe the CdA of the Gen V is better than the CdA of the Gen II.
An excerpt from a post from Steve X82 on GasSavers.org:
"CdA actually considers more factors, as it is Cd (drag coefficient) multiplied by A (the frontal area of the object in question).For example: Car A has great aerodynamics (Cd=0.25), but a very tall roofline and, consequentially, a large frontal area of 3.0m^2. Car B is less slippery (Cd=0.35), but is smaller overall and has a frontal area of only 2.0m^2. At any speed, Car B will cause less aerodynamic drag and waste less energy overcoming it.
Just in case you're interested, the formula for aerodynamic drag is:
1/2 * rho * velocity^2 * Cd * A where rho is air density (which changes with temperature, altitude, etc)"