Ninety Fo' LS Holla! :)
 

So who else drives one of these white bullets?

http://vraa.gotdns.com/Pictures/2-23...%20car%203.JPG

I certainly don't. :lol:

You mean bread-box? After all, it has the same CdA as a loaf of bread! :D

--Dan

You wish. It's got better cda then ur car!

What sort of English is "Ninety Fo' LS Holla!"?

4.3 litre lexus ?

I'm with you. I don't even know what the hell he just said to us.
What I do know is that he posted a picture of a big ass land yacht.

gosh if it wasnt for the wheel, i woulda thought it was a jetta.

awesome dude. glad to see you do research before you talk. I think we should let him find out what a dumbass he is on his own.

edit:
my bad :(

Gigdy: easy on him. He's just jibing me... this is a running joke between the two of us.

--Dan

Ebonics....? :?: :?:

I think he means 1994 LS holler!

Sounds very wiggerish to me

Sounds like you guys are taking it way to serious. It's obviously a joke.

[quote="666fast"]Sounds like you guys are taking it way to serious. It's obviously a joke.[/quot]

Well Im not taking it serisoly. I couldnt care less.... :lol:

Everso: what drag coefficients did you look up? Also, what is the frontal area by which that Cd must be multiplied? I'm curious, because I've never seen the real number for the 550.

--Dan

engrish mush wigga ?

BTW if the drag coefficients posted by everso are correct, I fear they measured the 550 one with the car turned in the opposite direction :D

In the wind-tunnel a stationary ground gives models and full-size cars a flattering Cd figure - Cd being the standard term for the drag coefficient. That's just an expression of how much resistance a body will generate as it passes through the air. CdA is then the "real-world" figure for a car shape's total drag, because that's the drag coefficient multiplied by the cross-sectional area of the shape in question - so the CdA is the figure which really is significant. Some people call it the Cx, but it's the same thing.

So, if you look at the claimed figured by manufacturers, take a few things into account: 1) these numbers are actually flawed. It's like if I took a dyno in antarctica with a jet fan blowing cold air at your intake...you'll get a nice number, but it's not real. By the same measure, you need to take REAL resistance into effect, which includes physics modeling of airflow, and also a ROLLING car, not a still car.

And having a higher Cx number does not mean a car is slower, it just means more power is required to keep it at a certain speed against certain wind force, rolling resistance, etc. That's why it is becomes almost exponentially harder to go from 170mph -> 180 than 160 -> 170, and so on. The faster you try to go, the more power you need. Also explains why a lot of cars fall WAY short of their claimed top numbers.

What's also important is to take into account the CoP. But that'll be for another lecture.

--Dan

BTW, most of those numbers are actually false. For example, the Ferrari F40 has a claimed Cd of 0.38, whereas if you take a REAL WORLD measurement, it is actually 0.49.

--Dan

I recall McLaren did a number of real-world tests on various cars. Perhaps I can ask a friend close to the factory for those numbers. In the meanwhile, I believe the McLaren book had some of them layed out. I will dig out my copy later on and post accordingly.

--Dan

It's partially a line from a song Outkast made a while back.

Nope, 4 liter.

Yessir, I only know of one car that has a smoother ride :)

Toyota goes through a lot of testing to make sure their cars are very quiet. Tunnel testing helps ensure that as the air slips over the car without causing any wind shrills. :) Or something along those lines. The LS430 has dimples on the bottom of the car to help air pass underneth it smoothly.

Partially in a joke with Dan, partially because this is the "What do you drive or ride" forum.

Dan.. THAT is your breadbox!

I'm up for it! Knowledge is power :)

I'm extremely interested! If you need help just holla! :D

Man I'm loving this place already!