Aerodynamics?

[AdamantiumKnot]

I was just wondering if anyone had the coefficient of drag for the '05s? I like the way the new style looks, but is it sort of digressing in a sense, with the front end being like a brick wall?

 

[FallenPhoenix]

I was just thinking that. The cd of the '93, '98, and '04 would be nice for comparison.

 

[Motorhead6T5]

This is why people might not be seeing the trap speeds that are expected from 300+ hp.

 

[willy_sc5.0]

http://ford.jbcarpages.com/Mustang/2004/index4.php

99-04
v6- 0.33
GT- 0.36

Could not find 87-93, 94-98 or 05.

 

[AdamantiumKnot]

It's pretty interesting, for that reason alone, I don't think I'd look into the '05 as seriously as some other cars at this point.

 

[RaiderSilverGT]

I'll take the head-turning good looks and awesome power over an rounded, aerodynamic version. It's not even close. Round this car off and it's not a mustang any more. Believe me, it has plenty of ability to move air out of its way.

 

[AdamantiumKnot]

Form vs. Function

 

[peyotesands]

I'll take the head-turning good looks and awesome power over an rounded, aerodynamic version. It's not even close. Round this car off and it's not a mustang any more. Believe me, it has plenty of ability to move air out of its way.

Thank you. You put my thoughts into words perfectly.

 

[AdamantiumKnot]

It can only move so much air out of the way though. It's kind of killing the potential.

 

[TomServo92]

We've had this discussion on this forum before. You can't judge aerodynamics by looks alone. Example: the Chrysler 300C (square and upright looking) and the '04 Mustang Mach 1 (rounded and sleek looking) have exactly the same coefficient of drag (0.36).