supercar cowl induction tid bit..

[black69]

Maybe ram air rules the day for drag racing up to 100-110, but go faster than that, and drag takes over. I still dont get how the 68 L88 beats the 67 by 7 seconds. same engine. 68 is heavier (I think). that leaves aerodynamics (drag) and the differences in the scoops. Did the stinger on the 67 vette add too much drag? 7 seconds is a HUGE difference in times. btw, I dont buy the tire difference between a 67 vette and a 68 being significant part of the potential time difference, for example a 67 hemi gtx took the best FAST times on skinny 14inch redlines. I would concede maybe a second or 2 at best in the time to get to 140 on the tire difference front. Engine setback differences are lost once the car is launched, and that would only buy tenths of seconds in a difference in 0 to 140 times.

One very interesting thing, I noticed in the baldwin motion pictures, the 69 camaro stinger scoop was opened up on the BACK to take air maybe from front and back of the scoop. rosen was playing both sides of the fence with his scoop. To me he was not betting on ram air, but more on taking air from the windshield area.

[black69]

wouldn't it be cool if they could mimic in FAST drags where they could get supercars up to 140mph? then you could see which factory car reigns supreme...a corvette 68-69 L88 or a superbird/daytona hemi [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/smile.gif[/img]

lets go to an airport and find a vacant landing strip....

[StealthBird]

When comparing the 67 vs 68 Corvette L-88, I can actually see how the 68 was 7 seconds faster to 140 mph. I'd bet up to 110 mph, the cars were nearly identical. Then beyond that, the better aerodynamics of the 68 begin to show. I'd bet from 130 to 140, the 67 was hitting an aerodynamic brick wall, and the 68 cruised to 140 mph much easier.

Aerodynamics play a huge part over 100 mph. Under 100, aerodynamics are more important for fuel mileage, but over 100 mph, the horsepower required to overcome aerodynamics goes up exponentially.

[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif[/img]

[markjohnson]

I have to agree about 1963-67 mid-year Corvettes being terribly un-aerodynamic regardless of how &quot;swoopy&quot; they look. As much as I think that they are the most beautiful car the General ever released, stand to the side of one someday and check out the side profile of that near-vertical windshield and a front nose that pushes as much air under the car as over it. I've seen reference to that 7-second reduction time before and it makes me wonder if some automotive writer mis-quoted Zora and meant to say 7 tenths, because that would actually be believable especially if you go by that basic rule of thumb that says a tenth is a car length at the top end. It's not to hard to imagine a 7 car length/7 tenths difference between two cars but think about how big the gap is between two roundy-round cars that finish 7 seconds apart! That's a big gap!

[StealthBird]

Well, what I was trying to say in the earlier post (not sure if I conveyed this properly) is that the 67 and 68 may have been within a car length of each other up to around 125-130 mph. At that point, the 67 may have taken another 20 seconds to get from 130 to 140 mph, while the 68 may have taken 13 seconds, thanks to the better aerodynamics.

The speeds quoted would have been at the limit of these cars top speeds back then, so I would imagine that the 7 extra seconds for the 67 model was all from 130 to 140 mph.