Seltsame Werksangaben | Posts 16+

olbetec wrote:

Quote from Bertil. Quote: The Vraiant likely has the worst cw value you can get. Not always. In the case of the Fabia, the Combi version also has a better drag coefficient (Cw value), and therefore, with the same frontal area, it is specified to be 2 km/h faster.

With such a steeply sloping roofline, it's no wonder...

WarLord wrote:

Why is it worse (in terms of the cw value) with a variant?

Very simple:
A boxy or wagon-style rear end doesn't allow for as clean an airflow behind the car as a gradually sloping rear. This creates more air turbulence behind the vehicle, which negatively affects the drag coefficient (Cw-value).

Hi,

The issue of mass has nothing to do with whether something is automatic or not. Any additional mass must always be accelerated with additional energy expenditure.

Incidentally, with the Trabant, the station wagon version was also more aerodynamically efficient (if one can even say that about that car ) than the notchback version, and therefore drove a few km/h faster.

Best regards,

Jan.

x world one wrote:

Nowadays, a car doesn't sell because it has a good Cd value, but rather because it looks good.

Hello,

My reaction to such announcements has been simply "The Show Must Go On" for quite some time now.
And what are shows for? To lull people to sleep + to distract them from reality .

So, if you analyze the advertising, specifically focusing on what's *not* mentioned, I'm pretty sure that in these areas, the product will at best reach the level of its predecessor – or even fall short of that.

I can find better ways to spend my time than looking at advertisements for the Golf 5. But maybe anyone interested in their next dream car should take a look at it through this filter...

Hello,

My comment on such pronouncements has been 'The Show Must Go On' for quite some time now.
And what's the purpose of shows? To lull people into a state of complacency and distract them from reality.

Exactly

If the introduction of a successor takes longer than 5 years, the relevant press immediately speculates that it is overdue and that the vehicle is slowly becoming outdated. It is simply difficult to always offer something new, especially when the 'new' is also supposed to be better. And if the manufacturer invests its development resources in improving the existing model, it is not doing itself or its workshops any favors. Often, all that remains is to lull people into a false sense of security.


So, if you analyze the advertising, specifically focusing on what's *not* mentioned, I'm quite certain that, in those areas, this product will at best reach the level of its predecessor – or even fall short of that.


Yes, that's how advertising works; otherwise, it would be bad advertising.

Hello.
Wolfgang.

ulf wrote:

...So, if you analyze the advertising, specifically focusing on what's *not* mentioned, I'm pretty sure that, in these areas, the product will at best reach the level of its predecessor - or even fall short of that. ... But perhaps everyone who is interested in their next dream car should take a look at it through these filters...

Hi Ulf,

That's exactly what I was getting at. It seems that no one wants to admit that the "new" model, while supposedly better in a straight line, actually handles curves better than the old one, but at the cost of being a "power hog" (energy waster).

Wolfgang, syncro16 wrote:

Often, all that's left to do is to soothe them.

It seems as bad as it has ever been...