BootCamp

"Lift" is caused by air traveling faster above an (elevated) object than below it. The reduced pressure above the object (from the air passing over it faster) causes lift.
NASCAR addressed this issue (cars becoming air-borne during wrecks) by installing roof flaps on the cars. The flaps open naturally (again, from lift - air passing over the flaps faster than going through the cab / under them) when the car's "attitude" is disturbed and it equalizes the pressure that would have precipitated the car going air-borne without them.

"Downforce" is the opposite effect - air passing under the car faster than over it - and in exotics, is usually achieved by smoothing the undercarriage with a "pan" to induce faster/smoother air flow, and disturbing the air above the car with angular facets that use the air to force the car down toward the pavement. The air actually "sucks" the car toward the pavement. (An F1 car has enough downforce to keep it glued to the TOP of a tunnel at 230mph. That's pretty amazing - and helps explain why their fuel consumption is so high.)

While downforce is a positive - especially at high speeds, anything that disturbs the "slipstream" and creates downforce also creates "drag". Drag and friction are the enemy of fuel efficiency and maximum speed.
The key is to balance downforce with aero-efficiency. While some drag/downforce is necessary to maintain stability, too much makes the engine work harder and wastes fuel.
I think with the current and upcoming CAFE standards - required by law, automakers are trying to achieve a balance between styling, fuel efficiency and handling while maintaining as much power as possible. They seem to be trying to direct air "around the cars" more than over or under them now.

Do you remember the cars of the late 1970's and 1980's? They all looked like the same "wedge of cheese" with different nose and tail treatments. No one wanted the cars to look like that, but the engineering was lacking to make adjustments for fuel efficiency to the drivetrains and meet the standards that way. So the effort was concentrated in aerodynamics. Everyone got sick of seeing the same cars on every lot, and the cars that "stood out - styling-wise" started selling faster than the econo-boxes. So the automakers adjusted and tried to give everyone the best of both worlds.
I'd personally sacrifice 1 - 2 mpg to have a great looking/styled car instead of having a generic econobox that I can't find in a parking lot amongst all of the others.

Oh well - just my two cents.

RLSH700

There are ways to make aerodynamics look good. Example of that would be Chrysler products from the mid to late 90s, but I'm sure the Challenger will be fine the way it is.

awsure

Thank goodness. That's like putting gaudy jewelry on a beauty queen. She is already gorgeous...why would you want to clutter up perfection? Please...for those of you rushing over to your photo-chop resist the urge. [8D]

BootCamp

I agree 100%.
The new Challenger HAS had aerodynamic improvements implemented in it's styling while keeping the same overall appearance/shape as the original. Just the integration of the bumpers alone cuts down on drag and improves mileage - as well as lends itself to the modern take on a classic muscle car.
The dimensions have changed from the original, but the proportions look very similar because of the way the designers have incorporated modern materials, manufacturing techniques, and engineering.
It's perfect just the way it sits.

Jeremiah 29:11

My main questions are:

1. Is this car stable at high speed (remember this is 174 MPH car)?

2. Was everything tweaked so to slip through the airstream without changing the styling?

3. Was drag reduced as much as possbile again without destroying style, reducing engine performance, but assisting in MPG.

Cuda340

I have confidence in Dodge's design studio and the SRT engineering team.

The Challenger will be at least as aerodynamic as the SRT Charger which is very stable at 160+ speeds.

Jeremiah 29:11

I am glad to hear that about your confidence in Chrysler as I certainly would expect the same.

It would be good to hear about some more data about the aerodynamic changes on the car since the concept.

JJMPB

IMO the car doesn't look areodynamic at all

Jeremiah 29:11

What you think look aerodynamic vs what the air thinks is aerodynamic is two different things.

There are minor tweaks you can make to a car that will make even a box be aerodynamic.

Look at what they have done to 18 wheeler tractor rigs by rounding off edges and smoothing out curves to improve fuel efficiency.

_R$_

Hey, nice looking FFR GTM there in that wind tunnel... One of these days...

For anyone still wondering what is going on here, look at it this way. An airplane wing (airfoil).



Look Familiar?

Air A is compressed with the air on top of it (Creating drag), then is slowly uncompressed as it travels across the back side of the wing. As it is uncompressed, it speeds up, creating a low pressure system above the higher pressure system under the wing (Creating lift). Air flow B will be traveling slower than Air flow A, which will make them meet up at the same time on the other end. (The top of an airfoil is longer than the bottom.)

A car is basically an air foil. So slicing through the air WILL reduce drag, but at high speeds (which, even higher speeds are attainable with better aerodynamics), there will still be lift, which will be greater at the higher speeds attained with the lesser amount of drag produced. However, if too much lift is created (because of the higher speeds, because of the lesser drag), the car will spin out of control at a certain speed, capping its top speed. The only solution is
A.) A smaller engine, not capable of said high speeds (but in the same breath, makes the car lighter, and more susceptible of loss of control), or
B.) A non aerodynamic design, first slowing the car down, second, creating less lift, which both contribute to better stability. (Even at the same speed, a less aerodynamic car will produce less lift, contributing to stability.)

My guess is that the 6.1 Hemi is not a smaller engine, so no, I do not think it will be more aerodynamic. The Hemi will have the capability to push the car through the greater drag created by a less efficient design to 174mph, and at the same time, the less efficient design will produce less lift, offering better stability. I'm willing to bet 80% of the SRT Challenger owners will never have 'em over 115mph. I'll bet only 10% will push it to 140mph, and the last ten will have to know.

PS, the SRT-8 does have a spoiler. This creates more drag (through turbulence), less lift.
- Rich