legacycentral bbs

Look at these numbers: http://www.mayfco.com/subaru.htm

Least aerodynamic subaru ever. Just more reason to not own one.

What is impressive though is the 1G DSM:

http://www.mayfco.com/eagle.htm
http://www.mayfco.com/mitsu.htm
http://www.mayfco.com/plymouth.htm

I don't know, Hardy . . . if it were just a track car, I'd say the coefficient of drag would be an issue. . . but when trying to keep a rally car down in the dirt, wing and body-induced drag in the form of downforce isn't a bad thing.

Take my old STi for example. That thing had the airfoil of a brick hurdling through the air. However, the hood and rear wing shapes did a lot at speed to add downforce and neutralize the balance of the car, overall. If I wanted an autobahn speed monkey, I would have looked at Prickmobiles and Ballercars, where the overall shape of the car is more slippery to acommodate higher speeds.

I bet the Forester has a Cd of .4, lol.

Impreza Cd = Justy Cd

BAC5.2 wrote:I bet the Forester has a Cd of .4, lol.

or higher.

That's just the early 90s base impreza, you should see the numbers on later models. They have huge scoops, flat bumpers, and big wings...

But who cares anyways...most of the aero parts are functional. I love how the GC impreza looks...it's not sleek at all. How many people on here have added a WRX scoop to their hood?

Coming from the guy who wants to put a GC front end on his Legacy...

Wow, because Cd ranks so high on most people's list of priorities

so it's been like two years since i even thought of that GC stuff.

And Cd is only half the story. It's like saying an engine is great if it makes 200 hp. That's a worthless comment if it only makes 200 hp for 100 rpms at 8000rpms, or if it only has 100 lb/ft tw max.

track, rally, everyday use. It doesn't matter, driving a brick is driving a brick no matter where you are driving it. It takes more energy to accellerate and continue going a speed. Downforce is good and stuff, but it's onlu good in turns. Why not try and help the car where it needs it more- straightline.

No matter, the facts are here, the impreza is weaksauce.

THAWA wrote:so it's been like two years since i even thought of that GC stuff.

And Cd is only half the story. It's like saying an engine is great if it makes 200 hp. That's a worthless comment if it only makes 200 hp for 100 rpms at 8000rpms, or if it only has 100 lb/ft tw max.

track, rally, everyday use. It doesn't matter, driving a brick is driving a brick no matter where you are driving it. It takes more energy to accellerate and continue going a speed. Downforce is good and stuff, but it's onlu good in turns. Why not try and help the car where it needs it more- straightline.

No matter, the facts are here, the impreza is weaksauce.

Haha, are you serious?

1) Imprezas are completely unlike what you describe. All eras and trim levels have had roughly the same amount of torque as power. They pretty unique for having flatter torque curves than the majority of imports.

2) Having more power at the expense of torque is considered "having your priorities in the right place", as far as most motorsports and sports car makers are concerend. So, even if the Impreza is slightly less torquey than a freakishly torquey example (the turbo BC), most people would consider better-flowing heads an improvement. You and I may prefer a car with freakish torque that is completely asmathic over a car with very good torque and better breathing heads, but that doesn't make very good torque = POS.

3) Cd matters some, but only at high speeds, so it's definitely not enough to condemn a car being a POS. If it was a big problem, then why would all those engineers make a rally car OR an economy car shaped that way?

THAWA wrote: Downforce is good and stuff, but it's onlu good in turns. Why not try and help the car where it needs it more- straightline.

Hrm, I think you may have somehow ended up on the wrong forum.

Here ya go!

http://forums.stangnet.com/index.php


Seriously, this is the first time I have seen someone diss a car because it has a higher coeffecent of drag than another. You are such a ricer, wow...I really hope this thread is a joke

I'm not sure why it really matters; even as a sports car, imprezas aren't meant to go fast. If they were, they wouldn't be awd short wheelbase cars. Yeah, the legacy (especially prefacelift ) is more aerodynamic, but either number is pretty normal for a early 90s 3 box sedan.

CD is part of the picture, frontal area is another, but at any rate CD also affects mileage. Poor CD is inefficient. There are ways of making downforce without increasing drag. Many newer exotics are doing this now. Marketing has as much to do with the poor aero as anything else. The Prius and the Insight have low-drag shapes, but look at them. Then again, the Lotus Elite also had an outstanding aero profile even for today, however, try to get people to deal with having to pop out the flush-fitting windows whenever they want ventilation today. There was the Citroen DS, also, another car ahead of its time, but too weird for most.

Anyways, a good drag profile should always be pursued, especially for an economy car as good gas mileage is considered part and parcel of the type, and especially with current gas prices. The original Legacy had a decent CD for what it is.

Sam you totally missed the analogy. Reread it again, and btw Cd, Fa, Cl, all that stuff matters at ALL speeds.

Why would they bother with the car? Money, it makes the world go around. FHI isn't going to spend an ass load of money making a compact car glide through the wind

Aspect, wether you believe it or not you go faster in a straight line than you do in a turn. The jdm engines were pretty much limted to 280 hp, so you already know the max power output the car is going to have. So why would you not try and improve the straight line acceleration? The slicker a car is, the less energy it needs to fight the wind, and so more can go to push the car forward.

This is just like weight, less weight easier to accelerate, more effecient. Everyone goes nuts trying to lose weight, but nobody cares about aero. Good ole impreza kiddies, always thinking the impreza is god.

Anyway, numbers are there. not responding anymore.

Hardy thanks for the link to this info.

I had found the Cd in some documentation, but calculated the Frontal area by hand.....wonder how close I came...

Legacy777 wrote:I had found the Cd in some documentation, but calculated the Frontal area by hand.....wonder how close I came...

http://www.mayfco.com/cdmodel.htm
seen that? its on the same page.

btw hardy, im pretty sure i showed you that page several years ago.


drag squares (or something like that) with speed, so for a car that isn't expected to see high speeds, aero isn't very important. Weight, on the other hand, is more significant than drag at lower speeds. The impreza IS god, at least for what low power awd cars (ie: all subarus) do well.

You guy's think too much. Driving used to be fun 'til all this math and other science jive came into my equations. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

scottzg wrote:drag squares (or something like that) with speed, so for a car that isn't expected to see high speeds, aero isn't very important. Weight, on the other hand, is more significant than drag at lower speeds. The impreza IS god, at least for what low power awd cars (ie: all subarus) do well.

Yup. Drag (force) is a square function of speed, which means power loss due to drag is a CUBIC function of speed - (i.e. even more steep).


Anyways, my point is that everyone's entitled to their opinion and to discuss it here, but Thawa's post is needlessly aggressive and devisive. Especially when you consider that Imprezas are amost identical to our cars relatively speaking, so most people who love one tend to love both. It's really a stretch to find a difference between them that lets you love one and feel superior to the other - e.g. this whole Cd = POS argument.

coefficient of drag requires 60% of the needed power to cruise at highway speeds. Regardless of whether it is making downforce or no, a lower CD will increase mileage. Top speeds in many cars are based on the CD as well.

THAWA wrote:Aspect, wether you believe it or not you go faster in a straight line than you do in a turn. The jdm engines were pretty much limted to 280 hp, so you already know the max power output the car is going to have. So why would you not try and improve the straight line acceleration? The slicker a car is, the less energy it needs to fight the wind, and so more can go to push the car forward.

Your arguement is absurd...the CD numbers you posted arn't even from an impreza that was equipped with a turbo engine. Do you know exactly what the CD would be when you factor in the lower sti front bumper? Or what the drag effects are of having a large rear wing? I certainly don't. And who ever said the impreza was designed to go fast in a straight line? The body is set up to allow 4 doors while maintaining a short wheelbase (boxy), to allow for pressurized air to be fed into the hood (drag), and to let people mount huge fog lights in the front bumper and on the hood (more drag). Driving position is another consideration. My friend's GC8 rally car has a much, much better driving position than my legacy, which makes it easier to drive fast.

It's a rally car, not a sportscar.

It also shares the same body in white between the fast models and the slow ones, so there are obviously going to be compromises.

rallysam wrote:Anyways, my point is that everyone's entitled to their opinion and to discuss it here, but Thawa's post is needlessly aggressive and devisive. Especially when you consider that Imprezas are amost identical to our cars relatively speaking, so most people who love one tend to love both. It's really a stretch to find a difference between them that lets you love one and feel superior to the other - e.g. this whole Cd = POS argument.

Exactly, who the hell cares. It's just a random fact that has very, very little to do with the actual car, and is taken completely out of context. If the impreza had the highest CD of any car in its class, or had like twice as much as a legacy then yeah it would be something to talk about. But it's basically a random variation in design that you are making into this huge deal for no reason. The irrelevence of this topic boggles my mind.

In the original post you say that the 1g DSM is impressive. Have you ever driven one? You can barely see over the dash.

Oh yeah, and they overheat like crazy because there is virtually no airflow into the engine bay due to the long curving hood and lack of a grille. Great for aero, bad for engine. Oh wait I forgot, they are better cars because they have a lower CD, the overheating doesn't matter.

Why are there a handful of people on this board that hate imprezas? Are you just loyal fanboys that dismiss anything but the car you drive? I'm guessing you bought a 15 year old legacy because it was better in every way than a newer impreza, not because you couldn't afford the new car, right?

Never have I seen the level of animosity between two virtually identical cars as I have seen on this board over the years.

aspect wrote:In the original post you say that the 1g DSM is impressive. Have you ever driven one? You can barely see over the dash.

you must be really short.

scottzg wrote:

aspect wrote:In the original post you say that the 1g DSM is impressive. Have you ever driven one? You can barely see over the dash.

you must be really short.

I hate DSM dashes. I'm 5'8".

It's not the cars, it's a lot of the owners. I will never own a BMW or a Camaro for the same reasons. I've had friends who've owned all the above, but there also seems to be an unfortunate higher than normal douche bag quotient on certain cars. I liked Subaru better when nobody knew a damn thing about them and only professors and lesbians owned them. I personally have no problem with Imprezas as a car and would've bought one instead of the damn Mazda except for the association with the crooked-hatters that I'd much rather avoid. The Legacy GT was just more than I wanted to spend on a regular car I was going to slam with high miles. The Mazda slips under the radar better than a WRX anyway.

THAWA wrote:FHI isn't going to spend an ass load of money making a compact car glide through the wind.

Yeah, coz the XT is SOOOO bad for aerodynamics

Not to be ignorant, but I agree with John. Big f'ing deal. If it pisses you off that much, fabricate a complete new GC/GF front end from scratch.

Then you will REALLY grasp the concept of spending way too much money on a small performance benefit...

LaureltheQueen wrote:coefficient of drag requires 60% of the needed power to cruise at highway speeds. Regardless of whether it is making downforce or no, a lower CD will increase mileage. Top speeds in many cars are based on the CD as well.

You're correct about all of that. But BC-BF's get much WORSE gas mileage than a GC So, even though a low Cd is good for all the reasons you say, there must be some other things that are more important.