"Tall Ratbag, Are there any published data on drag, frontal area, rolling resistance and so on for Land Rovers?

It was one of the 4x4 mag's back in the 80/90 that did the tests. As for sudden slowing down remember there is a ton and a half of kinetic energy in the Landy going against the air.
 
Even in my defender with more horsepower etc I mainly sit around 60-65mph in the left lane. Faster just sucks fuel up and feels ‘harsh’ even though it will go much faster it doesn’t seem to like it
 
"Tall Ratbag, Are there any published data on drag, frontal area, rolling resistance and so on for Land Rovers?

It was one of the 4x4 mag's back in the 80/90 that did the tests. As for sudden slowing down remember there is a ton and a half of kinetic energy in the Landy going against the air.

This is all a bit confused. Tons aren't a unit of pressure, nor are they a measure of kinetic energy.

Here's another way to look at it. Assuming 2 tons of force, i.e. 20,000 N, this would give a Cd x A product of about 33, which is beyond plausible. An ordinary car might have a Cd x A proiduct of 1 -> 1.5, so, for a Land Rover, 2, maybe 3 would be realistic.
 
I am not sure I would be confident the rest of the vehicle would be up to doing 70! Surely at that speed other things begin to feel unstable and worrying, even if the vehicle is in perfect condition.

Not to mention the brakes! ;)
 
I once read an article that said the coefficient of drag for an E Type Jag was worse than that of a transit van. This was also in the late 70's or 80's

Col
 
I once read a magazine and it was all about pictures that readers had sent in of their other halves. That was in the eighties anorl.
 
I once read a magazine and it was all about pictures that readers had sent in of their other halves. That was in the eighties anorl.

i think i read the same magazine, i found it in a bush behind the train station, probably in the 90's.
 

Similar threads