Torsional Rigidity VE vs FG

FalconXV · 23-12-2009, 03:53 AM

Does anyone have the Nm/ degree figures for these cars? Should give some indication of which has more chassis/safety/NVH tuning potential. Also Cd figures if anyone has them. Thanks. PS it would be cool to archive these figures, even on classic models for pseudo-engineering nerds such as myself.

:

JPFS1 · 24-12-2009, 02:28 AM

They basically stopped reporting the effectiveness of aero back at AU.

AU was the most slippery, had a CoD of 0.295.

I don't expect FG to have an improvement on this. It's highly likely that it's slightly increased, but not much more than 0.31-0.32. To make gains on the AU number, they styling would have to make a pretty significant departure to what we have at the moment.

Again, with Rigidity, they don't talk much about it. FG is certainly an improvement over BF2, but I believe VE is more rigid.

XR Martin · 24-12-2009, 03:23 AM

VE does feel pretty stiff, and it bloody should, as we all know the A-pillers could hold up a building.

Fairlane · 24-12-2009, 11:35 AM

I remember ready the figures on this cant remember where. VE is more rigid than FG. FG is a slight imporvement on BF, but not the massive leap that the BA was over the AU.

VE is very rigid, then again you would want it to be for a brand new platform.

zetec · 24-12-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairlane

I remember ready the figures on this cant remember where. VE is more rigid than FG. FG is a slight imporvement on BF, but not the massive leap that the BA was over the AU.

VE is very rigid, then again you would want it to be for a brand new platform.

Yet FG crashes better, confirming that rigidity and crash design aren't necessarily the same thing.

Road_Warrior · 24-12-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPFS1

They basically stopped reporting the effectiveness of aero back at AU.

AU was the most slippery, had a CoD of 0.295.

I don't expect FG to have an improvement on this. It's highly likely that it's slightly increased, but not much more than 0.31-0.32. To make gains on the AU number, they styling would have to make a pretty significant departure to what we have at the moment.

FG aeros would have to be quite a bit better than the BA/BF though surely?? The BA's aerodynamics contribute to a fair amount of fuel consumption I reckon.

mik · 24-12-2009, 12:48 PM

they did say that the fg`s had an advantage at race track over ve being a much more slippery shape.

JPFS1 · 24-12-2009, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

FG aeros would have to be quite a bit better than the BA/BF though surely?? The BA's aerodynamics contribute to a fair amount of fuel consumption I reckon.

Not neccessarily Road_Warrior.

The actual CoD as a measure is not actually the most important figure as it's easier to achieve lower CoD numbers as the cross sectional area of the car increases.

The more important figure is CdA.

There's allot more to aero that just looking at Cd.

The AU had a very slippery shape, the shallow raking of the screens, no sharps edges, tappered and narrowing rear etc... all these are attributes that would be functionally better in aero than FG (but asthetically allot less attractive).

**Silver Ghia** · 24-12-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

FG aeros would have to be quite a bit better than the BA/BF though surely?? The BA's aerodynamics contribute to a fair amount of fuel consumption I reckon.

Wouldn't say the FG aeros were 'quite a bit better than the BA/BF', but better anyway. But not nearly as good as the AU as JPFS1 mentioned.
Remember the FG also has a more fuel efficient engine and transmission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPFS1

The AU had a very slippery shape, the shallow raking of the screens, no sharps edges, tapered and narrowing rear etc... all these are attributes that would be functionally better in aero than FG (but aesthetically a lot less attractive).

Very true, but if the AU had the three star badge, it would have been viewed a lot differently. Rear end of a certain Merc come into mind here.

Personally I think the AU1 Fairmont front is actually most attractive, even these days.

Unfortunately excellent aerodynamics and styling dont always go hand in hand when you look at the AU rear end.

FalconXV · 24-12-2009, 05:18 PM

Hopefully now were at a level where Cd can be combined with decent style seeing as now the general market is more adventurous with styling. New Merc E-Class looks rather conservative looking but it manages 0.25 ( 0.24 coupe!). As far as torsional rigidity goes, it would determine how much life is in Orion, because it represents potential capacity for handling/safety. Would be interesting to note how Taurus compares here- I read in TGA when they compared F6 to the diesels 'here is a chassis that feels like its at the end of it's life' (although having driven FG I can attest it feels fine to me....)

**M&Ms** · 24-12-2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPFS1

They basically stopped reporting the effectiveness of aero back at AU.

AU was the most slippery, had a CoD of 0.295.

I don't expect FG to have an improvement on this. It's highly likely that it's slightly increased, but not much more than 0.31-0.32. To make gains on the AU number, they styling would have to make a pretty significant departure to what we have at the moment.

Again, with Rigidity, they don't talk much about it. FG is certainly an improvement over BF2, but I believe VE is more rigid.

Actually, the BA is a touch more slippery than the AU at a Cd of 0.292

JPFS1 · 25-12-2009, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M&Ms

Actually, the BA is a touch more slippery than the AU at a Cd of 0.292

As I said, the Cd number can be reduced by increasing frontal x-sectional area. I still believe that the AU would have a better CdA value if the cross sectional area of both were measured.

BA did get an improved lower bumper design with undercarriage benefits and the integrated aerial, so this and the larger front could have contributed to the slightly lower Cd.

FalconXV · 25-12-2009, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M&Ms

Actually, the BA is a touch more slippery than the AU at a Cd of 0.292

I find this surprising- I thought the BA's bluff nose versus the AU's sharp angle of incidence was chalk and cheese. I gotta say FG looks pretty slippery. I've noticed in AUs when it rains the wipers don't need to be as busy as the airstream catches raindrops.

Watto_Cobra · 25-12-2009, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPFS1

......... Again, with Rigidity, they don't talk much about it. FG is certainly an improvement over BF2, but I believe VE is more rigid.

If that's true, it baffles me why they went for a ski port instead of full 60/40 split fold seats?

XR Martin · 25-12-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watto_Cobra

If that's true, it baffles me why they went for a ski port instead of full 60/40 split fold seats?

Err probably to make it more rigid perhaps?

Watto_Cobra · 25-12-2009, 11:59 AM

Well, of course, but if the basic body structure was already going to be more rigid than VZ (expecially with those A-pillars), why not switch to 60/40?

Even most hatches have 60/40, Falcon has had it since (EA?). Hell of a lot more useful/functional than a ski port.

**Fordman1** · 25-12-2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watto_Cobra

Well, of course, but if the basic body structure was already going to be more rigid than VZ (expecially with those A-pillars), why not switch to 60/40?

Even most hatches have 60/40, Falcon has had it since (EA?). Hell of a lot more useful/functional than a ski port.

Holden had a target, and they couldn't add 60 / 40's to achieve that.

That's one reason why it's stiffer than FG Falcon.

XR Martin · 25-12-2009, 01:25 PM

Funny thing is Camry has split fold rear seats, but the Aurion doesnt.

GK · 25-12-2009, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

but if the AU had the three star badge, it would have been viewed a lot differently. Rear end of a certain Merc come into mind here.

Agree totally!

GK