More wallpapers ...coming
Mach 1 Member
Joined: July 22, 2007
Posts: 704
Likes: 1
From: "SW" Iowa
"What The Hay, Are They?"
Have they let the young designer go, that really thought this car needed those dumb little black ricer looking spoiler things on the bottom corners of the lower front end? Downforcing right? IMHO: Visually they serve no real style function at all!! Someone explain that one to me? 
CalStang....
Hah! Feeling the heat? Here comes the 2010 fan flames!!!
CalStang.... Hah! Feeling the heat? Here comes the 2010 fan flames!!!
Last edited by CalStang'07; Dec 11, 2008 at 12:08 PM. Reason: Addition
Cobra Member
Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: NV
Have they let the young designer go, that really thought this car needed those dumb little black ricer looking spoiler things on the bottom corners of the lower front end? Downforcing right? IMHO: Visually they serve no real style function at all!! Someone explain that one to me? CalStang....
Hah! Feeling the heat? Here comes the 2010 fan flames!!!
CalStang.... Hah! Feeling the heat? Here comes the 2010 fan flames!!!
It's a modern aerodynamic aid, not a retro one like a chin spoiler, so I guess people are not used to seeing them yet. I'm sure people thought chin spoilers were ugly too when they debuted in the late '60s.
Cobra R Member
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 3
From: Florida
"What The Hay, Are They?" Have they let the young designer go, that really thought this car needed those dumb little black ricer looking spoiler things on the bottom corners of the lower front end? Downforcing right? IMHO: Visually they serve no real style function at all!! Someone explain that one to me? CalStang....
Hah! Feeling the heat? Here comes the 2010 fan flames!!!
CalStang.... Hah! Feeling the heat? Here comes the 2010 fan flames!!!
Go read My last post in the Thread "Mutton Chops" maybe you will understand them better then.
Cobra R Member
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 3
From: Florida
They are supposed to serve a real aerodynamic function, not a styling function.
It's a modern aerodynamic aid, not a retro one like a chin spoiler, so I guess people are not used to seeing them yet. I'm sure people thought chin spoilers were ugly too when they debuted in the late '60s.
It's a modern aerodynamic aid, not a retro one like a chin spoiler, so I guess people are not used to seeing them yet. I'm sure people thought chin spoilers were ugly too when they debuted in the late '60s.
This is Very True, a fact I posted about the first time these were discussed a few weeks ago.
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=475329
A Lot of People Hated the First Spoilers on the 69-73's Too. In my opinion the "Mutton Chops" are like a Modern variation on that same theme. They are Just a Modern Aerodynamic Aid, there to direct airflow around the sides of the car, as well as reduce front end lift, along with the Belly Pan they added to the GT's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8Mike
They look horrible and not aerodynamic at all. To me it looks like they would catch the air and cause drag.
They are Aerodynamic and Do Not create Drag, or Trust Me, Ford Would not Have Put Them On There. Yeah, they Catch the Air, and Direct it Right Around the Side of the Car, So it doesn't get under the car. They also help direct air around the Tires, which create more drag than they do. The Principals of Aerodynamics are Tricky like that.
Quote:
the procrastinator; I've never heard anyone gripe about the front spoilers on these cars. I've heard plenty of folks say that the pedestal mount wing spoiler didn't belong on the sportroof.
The Key word I used was "Hated" Past Tense. I was talking about when the 69-73's came out. they slowly became more acceptable by the Mid to late 70's as people began to understand the Benefit of Aerodynamics.
They also kinda remind me of the Aerodynamic Pieces found on the late 70's Firebirds, Corvettes, and Mustang II's
Originally Posted by V8Mike
They look horrible and not aerodynamic at all. To me it looks like they would catch the air and cause drag.
They are Aerodynamic and Do Not create Drag, or Trust Me, Ford Would not Have Put Them On There. Yeah, they Catch the Air, and Direct it Right Around the Side of the Car, So it doesn't get under the car. They also help direct air around the Tires, which create more drag than they do. The Principals of Aerodynamics are Tricky like that.
Quote:
the procrastinator; I've never heard anyone gripe about the front spoilers on these cars. I've heard plenty of folks say that the pedestal mount wing spoiler didn't belong on the sportroof.
The Key word I used was "Hated" Past Tense. I was talking about when the 69-73's came out. they slowly became more acceptable by the Mid to late 70's as people began to understand the Benefit of Aerodynamics.
They also kinda remind me of the Aerodynamic Pieces found on the late 70's Firebirds, Corvettes, and Mustang II's
and from the Current "Mutton Chop" thread.
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=475619
They're not really deep enough to "Catch" the air as you put it. They direct the air around the side of the car, and around the tires, thereby, along with the Belly Pan on the GT, reducing Frontal Lift by 23% over the 05- 09's, I believe they claimed. Honestly they are close to the front splitter on a GT-500 except they tied these into the new lower grill. I like them actually. They're not my favorite aspect of the 2010 but they remind me of the aerodynamic aids used in the 60's and 70's in a new and modern way. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by houtex
Thanks Tampa. Exactly what I needed on that!
Now, I have another question. How fast does the car need to be going to realize this benefit? Corollary: Why isn't this on all 2010s and not just GT if it's so awesome? Further corollary: Does this improve MPG in any way?
Thanks again!
As for the speed that one needs to be going for this to be of benefit, I would imagine anything over 50-60 mph as far as lift is concerned, as speed increases, so also does drag. The more air that can be directed over and around the car rather than under it reduces frontal lift.
Also, the reduced frontal area of the 2010 benefits it's aerodynamics. The front grill and headlamps are narrower and the reshaping of the bumper, along with the "Mutton Chops" as aerodynamic aids all help to reduce the frontal area. Thus decreasing it's coefficient of drag. No one Touts these C/D Numbers anymore, like they did in the 80's. The lowest I remember on a production car was a C/D of 29 for a Pontiac Firebird.
The GT has a different style than the V6, that the Designers decided to tie them into the Lower Front Grill actually making the "Mutton Chops" and the Lower Grill all one piece. The painted lower section of the front Lower Grill is a separate piece as well I believe, after looking at many Hi Res pictures.
Here is a pic of the V6, where you can see where the "Mutton Chops" evolved from. Clearly the V6 is much less of a High Performance car so The Effects of This Aid are Required less for High Speed Stability, as the GT would require a bit More.
I have a feeling the Designers intended the Front or Center Portions of the "Mutton Chops" on the GT to Be more of a Stabilizer Strut for the Lower Lip of the Splitter/Lower Grill section similar to those found on Race Cars like this Mustang.
And lastly, YES. Any amount of Aerodynamic Efficiency affects the Miles Per Gallon, you asked about. The lower the Coefficient of Drag or C/D Number is the "Slipperier" the vehicle is, thus requiring less power , and thus less fuel. That is why Ford was Leader Of the Pack in the early Eighties, when they introduced the Aero Styled Thunderbirds, and They Cleaned Up the NASCAR Tracks against their Competition.
Originally Posted by houtex
Thanks Tampa. Exactly what I needed on that!
Now, I have another question. How fast does the car need to be going to realize this benefit? Corollary: Why isn't this on all 2010s and not just GT if it's so awesome? Further corollary: Does this improve MPG in any way?
Thanks again!
As for the speed that one needs to be going for this to be of benefit, I would imagine anything over 50-60 mph as far as lift is concerned, as speed increases, so also does drag. The more air that can be directed over and around the car rather than under it reduces frontal lift.
Also, the reduced frontal area of the 2010 benefits it's aerodynamics. The front grill and headlamps are narrower and the reshaping of the bumper, along with the "Mutton Chops" as aerodynamic aids all help to reduce the frontal area. Thus decreasing it's coefficient of drag. No one Touts these C/D Numbers anymore, like they did in the 80's. The lowest I remember on a production car was a C/D of 29 for a Pontiac Firebird.
The GT has a different style than the V6, that the Designers decided to tie them into the Lower Front Grill actually making the "Mutton Chops" and the Lower Grill all one piece. The painted lower section of the front Lower Grill is a separate piece as well I believe, after looking at many Hi Res pictures.
Here is a pic of the V6, where you can see where the "Mutton Chops" evolved from. Clearly the V6 is much less of a High Performance car so The Effects of This Aid are Required less for High Speed Stability, as the GT would require a bit More.
I have a feeling the Designers intended the Front or Center Portions of the "Mutton Chops" on the GT to Be more of a Stabilizer Strut for the Lower Lip of the Splitter/Lower Grill section similar to those found on Race Cars like this Mustang.
And lastly, YES. Any amount of Aerodynamic Efficiency affects the Miles Per Gallon, you asked about. The lower the Coefficient of Drag or C/D Number is the "Slipperier" the vehicle is, thus requiring less power , and thus less fuel. That is why Ford was Leader Of the Pack in the early Eighties, when they introduced the Aero Styled Thunderbirds, and They Cleaned Up the NASCAR Tracks against their Competition.
Last edited by TampaBear67; Dec 12, 2008 at 02:23 AM.
Yeah, it's Vick Mackey! I guess he had to do something since The Shield is over.
Shelby GT350 Member
Joined: February 5, 2008
Posts: 2,339
Likes: 3
From: Chattanooga
I was just noticing that the new front end only has the illusion of being lower. All they did was raise the cutline where the bumper cover meets the fender and reduced the height of the grille with a higher bumper shelf to yeild a narrower slit accross the front. The hood and fenders are recontoured and redetailed but hang in the same plane as before. This keeps them from having to redesign expensive understructures and supports.
What is really interesting is how the lines that come from the sides of the grille fade now instead of coming up the full height of the cowl center as they did before. All designers did was use the original cowl height but bring it in more on the sides to create the raised dome for the hood.
What is really interesting is how the lines that come from the sides of the grille fade now instead of coming up the full height of the cowl center as they did before. All designers did was use the original cowl height but bring it in more on the sides to create the raised dome for the hood.
Last edited by watchdevil; Dec 16, 2008 at 08:30 AM.
Cobra Member
Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: NV
I was just noticing that the new front end only has the illusion of being lower. All they did was raise the cutline where the bumper cover meets the fender and reduced the height of the grille with a higher bumper shelf to yeild a narrower slit accross the front. The hood and fenders are recontoured and redetailed but hang in the same plane as before. This keeps them from having to redesign expensive understructures and supports.
What is really interesting is how the lines that come from the sides of the grille fade now instead of coming up the full height of the cowl center as they did before. All designers did was use the original cowl height but bring it in more on the sides to create the raised dome for the hood.
What is really interesting is how the lines that come from the sides of the grille fade now instead of coming up the full height of the cowl center as they did before. All designers did was use the original cowl height but bring it in more on the sides to create the raised dome for the hood.
Post *****
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 18,616
Likes: 3
From: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Not tooooo badly. the 05-09 does look a little bit dated, but it still has a bit of new car appeal
then again, this from a guy who drives a New Edge SN95 and a Mustang II...
then again, this from a guy who drives a New Edge SN95 and a Mustang II...