Winter

i'm havign trouble finding the thread where the wind resistacnce was posted and compared agenst over vehicles and whatnot. gone through search a few times, does anyone have it saved or know what the link is? thanks.

vintage42

Don't know, but a little googling shows:
Toyota truck 1990 = 0.44
New Beetle = 0.38
xB = 0.35
Subaru WRX = 0.33
Civic = 0.31
Yaris = 0.30
Accord = 0.30
xA = 0.27
Prius = 0.26

EasysBox

impressive, a lot better than i expected.

wagonbldr

If I remember correctly, Tomas posted the list a while back.

BoxOffice

I'm, not sure if this is what you were looking for, but see page #2 of this thread:
https://www.scionlife.com/forums/vie...156029&start=0

draxcaliber

anybody know what it is for the tc?

Winter

Vintage42 - That is very simular to what i'm looking for. i'm looking for the huge list that was posted some time ago. i remember seeing the Chevy Vet and the xB had the same resistance and wanted to chow a friend cause he doesn't believe me.

SquallLHeart

for a second i thought you wanted to find this pic..:



hmm.. whatever works.. lol

Max

This one?

https://www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=129346

and according to it, the tC has a drag coefficient of 0.32

kevets

lol, the box has better wind resistance than a VW Beetle? Awesome :D

How's it compare to a PT Cruiser? I see those 2.4l Turbo models all the time.

firesquare

can't get any simpler than that!

Subcompact Culture

I just don't understand how the xB could have a lower co-efficient of drag compared to a lot of those other cars. The front end is varitably flat.

BoxOffice

And virtually, too!

Subcompact Culture

Ooops ... my bad. It is veritably flat.

peteski

It is not flat at all. Look at the top view. It is quite curved. Unlike a real cardboard box. ALso I think that the ground effects have something to do with the low drag.

draxcaliber

wow. .32, the xa has the best lowest drag co-efficient? why didn't it sell better?

BoxOffice

Au contraire!
When viewed from a frontal area perspective - aerodynamically speaking - its quite flattish and "large" for such a small vehicle.

NYCxB

0.35?! That simply cannot be correct.

Had a 3rd generation Trans Am that was 0.29.

I see the tC is 0.32.

No way the box is 0.35..

Winter

yes 0.35, and last i checked as the same as the Chevy Vet. though the vet is very aero dynamic, the resistance present on the box on it's front side while having the backdraft on the rear gives the same readings as if it were a Chevy Vet. the Vet has mainly resstance on not only it's front are,but the entire surface area of the car it's self with almost no backdraft behind it.

if you were to take a Chevy Vet, maybe down grade the engine to something simular to the xB like a 1.8L. head to head, both vehicles would be a fair match between each other. but most really arn't up to down grading from a V8 on a Vet so... that isn't gona happen any time soon, but it would still be a fair match.

peteski

We could beat this to death. While the frontal area is large, it is not flat by any means. Like I said, it curves to the sides and sligthy tilts back..

Try an experimant. Take a large flat piece of plywood and run with it. See how much wind resistance it has while perpendicular to its travel. Next take a same size piece of cardboard (so you can bend it) and curve it and tilt it to resemble the front of xB. Then run with it and check the wind resistance. There will be noticable difference.

Curving and tilting the flat piece directs the air around it instead if just causing turbulence as a flat piece would.