Did some searching, but couldnt find anything on the drag (wind resistance) on the S. I`m sure plenty of people here know, just not me!! Thanx!!

 

its pretty bad

 

Get a Mugen hardtop, you wont have to worry as much.

 

mugen hardtop will stop some of the flow seperation from the air going over the humps in the hard top, but that isnt going to save the day.

i dont know what the CD is for the s2000, but i can tell you some ways to improve it if you are willing to spend some money and make some homemade stuff for your s.

and thanks for asking a real goddamn question. this forum has sucked ***** latley

 

I've looked for this number and was never able to find it. i was looking into body kits for track use but no one shows numbers.

I know for a fact that our windshield is very bad for aero

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Nishant &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I've looked for this number and was never able to find it. i was looking into body kits for track use but no one shows numbers.

I know for a fact that our windshield is very bad for aero</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think it might say in the S2K book that I have at home.

 

what is it that you are hoping to accomplish with you car?

are you trying to eliminate drag to get a higher top speed or are you trying to get more downforce for better cornering?

the latter is more achievable.

and you wont need an expensive jays racing body kit if you play your card right

 

i've looked everywhere for this.. but i can't find it anywhere.. but i've realized most cars are around the 0.3x area....

 

I wasnt really looking to do anything, I was just wondering how the drag on the S was compared to other cars, I know most cars are around .3 I didnt know if the S was under that.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by trejap1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">its pretty bad</TD></TR></TABLE>

I would love to hear an educated reason behind this response.


Sure, the S is not as aero friendly as a Saab, but that's what happens when aeronautic engineers design your cars.

 

I doubt it. The 3-series and the C-class were bragging about hitting .29; I don't think the S could get under .3 with the top up or down.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ScreaminTeg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I would love to hear an educated reason behind this response.


Sure, the S is not as aero friendly as a Saab, but that's what happens when aeronautic engineers design your cars.</TD></TR></TABLE>

the rake of the winshield creates a high pressure zone that spans the width of the vehicle. the underbody has all sorts of things sticking down to interupt the flow. the lower protion of the rear bumper extends into the airflow and acts as a mini parachute. the roof line is choppy and this provides several addtional areas to make a laminar flow across the roof nearly impossible. the rear window section is too steep and it creates an area for the allready disrupted flow across the roof to become turbulent as it is swept into the vaccum that is created by this big empty space behind that potion of the vehicle, as opposed to a gradual downward slope that helps to retain a smooth flow of the air, like you get if you have a fast back or in this case, use a mooncraft hardtop.

if you look at the front of the vehicle the windsheild makes up a huge portion of the front cross section of the car percentage wise. if the windshield was angled back more extreme it would allow thye air to flow over it instead of "crashing" into it.

that pretty much sums it up

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Slideways2000 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I doubt it. The 3-series and the C-class were bragging about hitting .29; I don't think the S could get under .3 with the top up or down.</TD></TR></TABLE>

please rephrase what you said here, i am not sure what you meant by this response. thanks

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mr.E.G. &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

the rake of the winshield creates a high pressure zone that spans the width of the vehicle. the underbody has all sorts of things sticking down to interupt the flow. the lower protion of the rear bumper extends into the airflow and acts as a mini parachute. the roof line is choppy and this provides several addtional areas to make a laminar flow across the roof nearly impossible. the rear window section is too steep and it creates an area for the allready disrupted flow across the roof to become turbulent as it is swept into the vaccum that is created by this big empty space behind that potion of the vehicle, as opposed to a gradual downward slope that helps to retain a smooth flow of the air, like you get if you have a fast back or in this case, use a mooncraft hardtop.

if you look at the front of the vehicle the windsheild makes up a huge portion of the front cross section of the car percentage wise. if the windshield was angled back more extreme it would allow thye air to flow over it instead of "crashing" into it.

that pretty much sums it up</TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree with everything except the part I bolded. The underbody of the car is buttoned up real nice with the plastic guard that extends back underneath the engine compartment. It appears to have a much smoother underbody than most cars I have looked under.

 

I don't think the S2000 with the ragtop or topless could get under .3 CD. The other cars were used for comparison.

 

Whatever coeffient of drag a brick has, it's slightly better than that. Seriously, it's really bad for a sportscar. Converible designs are generally not very aero-friendly.

Andrew

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RyanCivic2000 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I agree with everything except the part I bolded. The underbody of the car is buttoned up real nice with the plastic guard that extends back underneath the engine compartment. It appears to have a much smoother underbody than most cars I have looked under.</TD></TR></TABLE>

i agree that the underbody is better than most, but compare the underbody of the s to the underbody of a 360 modena or whatever. i understand that they are two dirrefent cars and all that ,and the s isnt bad underbody wise but the absence of a smooth underbody does contribute to some flow disturbence even if it is minute. i just listyed as a contributing factor i didnt mean that it was a major factor, although i thing that correcting it will improve it to a decent level. sorry for the confusion, i should have claified better. if i had to list these things in order of importance i would say that the whole roof structure meaning the windsheild, the lumpy roof, and the slope of the rear window section are probably the primary contributing factors to this cars crappy coeficient of drag, but all of the other stuff does add up as well.

again, what is the original poster hoping to improve so that we can tell you what to do to accomplish your goal?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by aklucsarits &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Whatever coeffient of drag a brick has, it's slightly better than that. Seriously, it's really bad for a sportscar. Converible designs are generally not very aero-friendly.

Andrew</TD></TR></TABLE>

i agree. i really like the s2000. i like the suspension, the relatively light weight, the torqueless engine, all of it. i like it so much more than the 350z but i wish it had the body of the 350z. it is so much more aero friendly

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mr.E.G. &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

i agree that the underbody is better than most, but compare the underbody of the s to the underbody of a 360 modena or whatever. i understand that they are two dirrefent cars and all that ,and the s isnt bad underbody wise but the absence of a smooth underbody does contribute to some flow disturbence even if it is minute. </TD></TR></TABLE>

thats y 360 is much expensive than the S ...

heres something to smooth out the underbody flow ..

 

Wow..that rear splitter piece looks nice.

When I first put my s2000 up on my lift at work I was suprised how the underbody didn't appear to be very smooth at all. The new 06 VW jettas we have at work have almost completly smooth underbodies. The covers they have even have indentations like golf ***** to help the air flow underneath the car.

 

i hate to disagree with you but the golfball like dimples are not to help flow, they are to break up turbulence so that it is quiter. lexus's have them too and it does nothing for performance, its just a luxury feature.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Y2K_S2K &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">thats y 360 is much expensive than the S ...

heres something to smooth out the underbody flow ..



</TD></TR></TABLE>

the front peice is nice but you would get more use out of a rear diffuser that was angled a little steeper but then you would need a different bumper or you would have to cut the factory bumper. it is a nice alternative to leaving it stock however.

the only problem that i have with these underbody kits is that the cover the front and the rear and they dont really do much for the middle section. and since the forward portion of the rear panel doesnt fit flush against the bottom of the car it is just another little pocket to trap air, which is why a bunch of these aftermarket diffusors have a gap between the top of them and the bumper, to let that air escape.

if you bought these peices and then made a middle section then it would make a big difference but still probably not worth the few grand they probably cost

 

ASM front and rear diffusers = a couple grand...

 

i am just being overly picky now, but why did they put the rivets on the inside of the diffusers vertical plates?

it should be reversed

 

Mr. E G, I wasnt looking to improve anything, I was just wondering what the cars drag was rated at. Has no one come up with a stock #?? I see you guys know alot about things, I wouldnt have thought of like the rear bumper. But are you telling me you know for a fact that Saabs and 350z are more aerodynamic than the S?? I find that hard to believe, visually as the S is way more tapered, wedged and streamlined. Any exact aero #`s on these mentioned cars to prove that. Thanx for all the information.