Quote:
Originally Posted by bloozemanAZ
My guess is that it comes down to weight as well if the M8C doesn't have a more aggressive tune as at least a few suspect given it helps justify the cost differential. Money being no factor into the equation I'd take a M8C over a M5C any day of the week from a pure aesthetics point of view. That said I thought it may be a factor, i.e., drag coefficient (and called out by Matt in the video). However, I just wasted a hour trying to find a trusted source with the specs on both cars. Best I could do on the M8C was Car and Driver and they stated .33. For the M5C ended up with a European car spec website that also claimed .33.
It seems mind boggling to me that the M8C with a total height of 53.6 inches has the same drag coefficient of the M5C at a total height of 58 inches. The roughly 4 inches in height differential should allow more air over the top of the M8C than the M5C. The .33 drag coefficient assigned to both just doesn't make sense.  |
.33 multiplied by total frontal area is the actual drag. .33 itself isn't the total amount of drag.