General Drag Co-efficient of a Panda?

[rmjbn1]

OK I just missed Friday 13th but this thread is back from the dead!

I was looking into this, and found the following on 4cardata:

"Version with basic specification

drag coefficient Cd - 0.33

drag coefficient by area Cd x A = 0.6738

These values are the result of road testing and measurements carried out in a wind tunnel."

INTRODUCTION - PANELS AND FRAME - Fiat - PANDA - eLearn - 4CarData

From that I make the frontal area = 2.04m2 (CdA ÷ Cd)

4cardata gives the same data for the 1.1 (ECO) and 1.2 (but doesn't provide figures for the 500 so I guess jrk's track test is still on).

 

[The Panda Nut]

All I know is that my Rover 75 2.5 gives me a consistent high 30s mpg on this stretch of motorway while the Panda is only mid 40s.
The Panda isn't uncomfortable but certainly isn't as relaxed on the open road as the 75.

Rover 75 is a really great cruiser and a much more luxury car so it will be quieter. I had one for a while and it was one car that easily managed 100 milesin an hour. I wanted to keep it but Mrs PN said no way, too expensive.

I find the Panda likes a tail wind in performace terms you can feel its faster. I am sure all thats been said about the economy is right.

 

[The Panda Nut]

It would be interesting to take a 500 & a Panda to a test track, run them parallel at the same speed, simultaneously drop them into neutral & see which one stopped first.

Ill drive a Panda for you. It would need same tyres to be fair. Write to James May and the dull men. JAMES if you read this , get on with this please!

I just tried to email him!

 

[koalar]

Same engine, same power, same tested top speed

https://zeperfs.com/en/duel1600-1912.htm

Implies same overhaul drag

I suspect pandas without engine undertray, rear spoilers, higher ride height will be slightly worse, probably not that noticeable

Difference in braking 50-0 is significant

Weights are interesting published Vs actual

 

[rmjbn1]

Well found that man!
Sorry TPN, that means the track test is off. Better write to James and let him know his services are no longer required. I'm sure he'll be devastated.

Interesting reading. I'm shocked they found an extra 132kg in the Panda that Fiat didn't know was there (and 187kg in the 500!).

I was under the impression that published curb weights already included a full tank (about 25kg for 35litres), 75kg adult driver and luggage.

Manufacturers fiddling the figures? Whodve thunk?

 

[koalar]

No idea, but they are way off

Nearly 190kg is approximately 230L if fuel or over 400Lb

My guess, probably best possible,lightest wheels and tyres combo, active has less copper wiring, simple bench seat, no Aircon and so on

I doubt it a measurement error, but could be a copy and paste from an earlier car, to improve ncap rating weights generally go up

 

[rmjbn1]

The published curb weight figures I've seen all seem to agree on:
1.1 840kg
1.2 860kg
1.3 935kg
1.4 100hp 975kg
4x4 1.2 1040kg
4x4 1.3 1135kg

https://www.carfolio.com/fiat/2049/Panda

But maybe they're all hiding some extra lard somewhere?

I like to avoid lugging around unnecessary weight and drag.

I've added a roof spoiler to my 1.2 and noticed an immediate improvement in fuel consumption.

I've removed the roof rails, probably only a tiny difference.

The underside of the car is a mess, most 169s don't have any sort of undertray. Only the 100hp and 4x4 as far as I'm aware.

I'm tempted with one of these front undertrays:

Pardon our interruption...

In my idle moments I wonder about making up a rear undertray / diffuser, but a bit tricky with that twist beam in the way.

Also keep my 155 tyres a little over-inflated at 32psi (mostly to try and alleviate high shoulder wear) and clean up the brakes every year to avoid binding.