You’d think after Streamline Moderne captivated the world in the 1930s and 1940s, automobile design would’ve been nothing but solidified slick, smooth shapes that’d cut through the air with ease from then on. Well, there were quite a few that were, however by the late 1950s you’d think that Cadillac never got the memo, because the iconic 1959 Eldorado was hilariously un-aerodynamic.
I know, the sky is blue and my pen name ought to be Captain Obvious. But really, it’s fascinating how terrible the big beautiful Caddy really was, and YouTube channel Premier Aerodynamics goes into detail about all of the many marks against it in this short-yet-informative video. The company behind this channel specializes in all things aerodynamics instruction; in fact, its website states that “the instructor of these courses has a PhD in aerodynamics, with experience in airplane aerodynamics, automotive aerodynamics, and turbomachinery aerodynamics – experimentally and numerically (CFD).” So, they’re probably well-versed in not only all of the concepts behind figuring out the Eldorado’s effect on displacing air, but also explaining it in a crystal-clear fashion.
Not only is its drag coefficient as large as its wheelbase, but there’s a bunch of similarly sized fare that’s noticeably smoother when it comes to air flow. Let’s get into it.
After running the ’59 Eldorado through a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation, there’s a lot to unpack. First, the wake of displaced air behind it at 45 mph is absolutely massive, especially above the windshield. Then, the front wheels create a wake that’s around double the size of modern cars, and the overall wake ends up being a whole car-length past its fins.
The images are fascinating to look at, too. This isn’t a scene from Akira, it’s the simulation showing exactly where all that air tumbles off to, and how, after it hits this open-top yacht:
Actually, yachts are designed to cut through water reasonably efficiently; this thing batters through nitrogen and oxygen.
All said and done, the Eldorado’s drag coefficient is 0.89. Luckily gasoline was like, half-a-penny per gallon or something back then (it was actually around 30 cents). This figure is brutal; the 2019 Ford Raptor sports a 0.59, and even the 1977 Lincoln Continental Mark V—The Prince of Malaise—had a 0.55. Owl-like compared to the Eldorado.
By comparison, some of today’s slippery-est are half of those: The aptly named Lucid Air’s is 0.197 and the latest Mercedes E Class has a 0.23. As stated in the video, the average car nowadays has a 0.27. Man, how far we’ve come.
What are some of your favorite aerodynamic and un-aerodynamic automobile designs?
Some magazine (Motor Trend?) tested a ’59 Chevy. It was better backwards.
When Chrysler debuted the Airflow, they made the point that existing cars were more aerodynamic backwards, and in fact rigged up a novelty car with the body on the chassis backwards and drove it around to illustrate the point. I saw an informational film with that once.
I was unable to find it on youtube, but I did find another film about the Airflow, which makes the same point.
This is why Tatra and Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion existed.
Great stuff. We have a few specialists at the company I work for doing this type of thing. Occasionally I have to prepare the 3d models for their simulations, particularly if it’s a complicated model. The software they use requires the model to be seamless and sometimes under a certain polygon count. The most challenging one I worked on was stitching up a combination of three flat-cars connected together with 4 total semi-trailers riding on them (two on one car, one on each of the others).
Interestingly, we have a ’59 Cadillac in our vehicle archive, although I’m pretty sure it’s a coupe. Never thought to ask one of the CFD guys to run an analysis on it, but now that I can show Autopian-famous, internet-established precedent, maybe I could get some company-demo b-roll at some point.
How many cars were on each of the semi-trailers and how many occupants in each car? Modular train to bus to car transport
During my vehicle dynamics class we caclulated the max speed of each of our cars based on estimates of weight, frontal area, and horsepower. My ’67 VW squareback was calculated to have about an 82 MPH maximum speed, and I tested it to find it accurate. I wish I could remember what CD we estimated it to have. Better than a bug for sure.
I believe Balboa was driving an Eldorado when he discovered the Pacific. Bushwhacking through the Panamanian jungle at less than one mph, aerodynamics would not matter much one way or the other.
I had a 63 Series 62 Convertible, so it was a little more aerodynamic than the iconic 59 but man last summer I was getting like 8 miles a gallon whenever I took it out. Absolutely brutal.
Kinda unfair to measure it with the top down. How does a modern convertible do in the same state?
I don’t care how un-aerodynamic it is.
It’s beautiful.
I couldn’t agree more. A ’59 Eldorado is my number-one money’s no-object dream-car I would immediately purchase should I ever suddenly acquire the means.
I’d hate to see the cd on my long nose Pete. Probably the only vehicle made with more chrome and worse aero than that caddy
Seems on purpose to show the drag with the top down – of course it will be worse. What’s it with the top up? For comparison, from a 1969 aerodynamics study:
’60 Ford Falcon 2 door sedan, CD = 0.419.
’61 Oldsmobile 88 4 door, CD = 0.421.
’64 Ford Galaxie 500 4 door, CD = 0.436.
’64 Ford mustang 2 door (non-fastback), CD = 0.475.
’66 Oldsmobile Toronado, CD = 0.380.
The 3 best in the study:
‘60(ish) Porsche 356, CD = 0.302.
’57 Citroen DS19, CD = 0.311.
’63 Aston Martin DB5, CD = 0.347.
The Ford Mustang was the 2nd worst in the study, just after the Jaguar Mk.IV (CD = 0.577).
Topless isn’t for efficiency, it’s for fashion.
Aero wasn’t a thing back then, it didn’t matter…
The irony here is that the ’59 Cadillac was styled to remind buyers of jet aircraft and rockets – which you’d think were the most aerodynamic things out there.
This reminds me of how un-aerodynamic the aircraft in the fallout series are. Their newest jet fighter has external struts and has winglets in the middle of the wing creating massive blindspots on the sides for the pilot.
Maybe it’s because they realized in a nuclear missile war, jets fighters are mostly useless.
All of Fallout’s vehicles appear as if they would have craptastic aerodynamics. Even the most slippery-looking one, the Chryslus Cherrybomb, has a shape that probably doesn’t go below a 0.5 Cd value.
Weren’t they nuclear powered? With practically unlimited energy Cd matters less right?
I do wonder what modern vehicles would look like if efficiency was meaningless paging “the Bishop”
The Chryslus Cherrybomb in Fallout 4’s lore is said to be able to break the sound barrier. Even with its 900 horsepower, it’s going to need to be very slippery to do that. In fact, it seats only one in order to cut frontal area. Except its frontal area is still large, the car is probably very heavy, and if you were to put that shape in a wind tunnel, I don’t think it would fare too well.
“All said and done, the Eldorado’s drag coefficient is 0.89. Luckily gasoline was like, half-a-penny per gallon or something back then (it was actually around 30 cents)”
$.30 in 1959 would be like $3.25 in 2024 American pesos.
Yep. The idea that “gas used to be cheap” isn’t true and never really was. Accounting for inflation, gas prices are about the same they have always been.
Worse, maybe, because US median personal income in 1959 was only about $28k in 2024 dollars, which is about half what it is today.
When you price gasoline in terms of hours of work required to afford it at both minimum wage and median wage, it is currently expensive.
Federal minimum wage in 1959 was $1/hour and median wage was about $2.40/hour. You could buy 3.3 gallons of gasoline and 8 gallons of gasoline at both an hour of minimum and median wage labor, respectively.
In 2024, federal minimum wage was $7.25/hour and median hourly wage about $23/hr, and current U.S. average for gas prices is $3.63/gallon. You can buy 2 gallons and 6.3 gallons at an hour of labor with minimum and median wages, respectively.
Yeah, but cars are a lot more efficient, a Metropolitan 1500 was about the most fuel efficient small car you could buy in 1959, at around 35mpg, but something like a Hyundai Elantra hybrid does 58mpg now, and that’s a larger compact, vs a subcompact.
A midsize sedan like a Rambler Six got maybe 20mpg, but a modern Toyota Camry gets 53mpg. You basically need to buy half as much gas to drive the same amount of miles
In terms of price, a Metropolitan was $17,600 in modern money, which is like 9 grand less than an Elantra hybrid, but they’re in different size classes, and a regular non hybrid Kia Forte, also a bigger car, is $19,900 and gets 41mpg
A Rambler Six was $20,400 in modern money, way less than a modern midsize, but modern compacts are close to the same size, and a $23,000 Corolla hybrid gets 50mpg
I think one thing that keeps getting lost in this debate is that a modern car will happily last for a decade with moderate repairs, but vintage cars would often need massive rebuilds to make it past three. There’s a reason five-digit odometers were a thing. And even if the average person only keeps a car three years, residual value matters, right? I’d like to see ‘dollar/year’ breakdown (perhaps using warantee? IDK) of inflation-corrected auto buying costs.
Cadillacs, at least, actually had very little depreciation back then, that’s part of what kept the whole machine working, RE posting sales growth every year and getting people to trade in just because this year’s fin looks a little different than last year. They could sustain that as long as resale values remained strong, but that part stated unraveling in the ’70s and the old math didn’t work for them anymore
But that was Cadillac, didn’t really apply to anyone else
This is a fact. It was a tight race between rust and mechanical failure. Cars of the late 50’s were measurably poorer in build quality than their predecessors and it only went down from there.
My uncle would lease a new Mercury every 2 years with all service included in the lease. At the end of the lease then odometer had rolled over and the car looked like new. I doubt the dealer even put new brake shoes on his tradeins.
My grandad did the same thing only with Thunderbirds. He didn’t want to be bothered with repairs. Of course he took a bath on the trade in.
And require a TON less repairs and maintenance.
On the other, other hand (there’s a lot of hands here) there were a lot less people around and sprawl hadn’t gotten nearly as far as it has these days. Distance traveled was probably lower then than now for the average driver.
When you price, well, almost anything, against the price of wage growth, the “anything” typically has become much more expensive
True, but 8 gallons vs 6.3 isn’t really “expensive” just a bit more. It’s probably within the realm of normal month to month fluctuations from shortages, driving habits, etc.
And like the other guy said, those 6 gallons will probably get you twice as far as 8 would then.
Thank you! Spot on! Jeez… people totally forget this. Also, saved me the time of posting this:
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1959?amount=0.30
<no time saved>
Who cares about the Cd? I want to know the Approach, Breakover, and Departure angles.
The rear ends of these – especially the ’61 Cadillacs – were chronic pavement scrapers – which wasn’t a good look when pulling into the driveway of your modernist marvel in Trousdale Estates.
Who cares? Form over function any day. The 50s and 60s were the peak of automotive design… safety regs and other nonsense have made things worse sense
I’m guessing the 60s Batmobile was pretty filthy from an aerodynamic standpoint. Probably why it needed a turbine to shove it through the air (in theory, anyway; a Lincoln V8 in reality).
Some of my favorite low drag car designs(not just from a Cd perspective, but overall CdA):
-1967 Panhard CD Peugeot 66C LeMans race car (0.13 Cd)
-Jaguar D-Type and XJ13 (0.29 Cd)
-Alfa Romeo BAT7 (0.19 Cd)
-Alfa Romeo Disco Volante (0.25 Cd)
-Opel Eco Speedster (.20 Cd)
-Mercedes Vision EQXX (0.17 Cd)
-Ford Probe V (0.137 Cd)
-Ford Probe IV (0.152 Cd)
-GM Precept (0.159 Cd)
-Mercedes C111-III (0.19 Cd)
-Alfa Romeo TZ (0.29 Cd)
-Matra Djet (0.29 Cd)
-Lotus Elite (0.29 Cd)
-Daihatsu UFE-III (0.16 Cd)
-GAC Eno 146 (0.146 Cd)
-Triumph Spitfire ADU1B LeMans race car (0.32 Cd)
-Dodge Intrepid ESX2 (0.19 Cd)
-GM EV1 (0.19 Cd)
-Ford Synergy (0.19 Cd)
-Ford Prodigy (0.20 Cd)
-Solectria Sunrise (0.17 Cd)
-Chevrolet Citation IV (0.185 Cd)
-GM Ultralite (0.19 Cd)
-Auto Union V16 Streamliner
Had to Google the Citation as I remember them as fairly blocky.
-pretty cool list there
The Citation IV is what the craptastic Citation COULD have been. Imagine being able to top 130 mph with an Iron Duke, and have a car getting 60+ mpg with said Iron Duke at 55 mph. That’s the potential of aero slipperiness.
You have succeeded in raising my consciousness about aero. I should be getting a handed-down 2nd gen Prius to play with in the next few years. It’ll be getting the coroplast & gaff tape treatment just to see what I can achieve.
Then I’m going to lift it & fit aggressive tires just to freak out the local good ol’ boys on trails. 😉
2nd gen Prius is probably the most well-built one made. Taxicabs are made out of them with good reason, and most are still going. It is not the most slippery of the Prius models, but its 0.26 Cd value isn’t bad. The Cybaroque models got the Cd value down to a 0.23, but the current gen is at a 0.28.
I’ve ridden in a gen II Prius taxi driven by a clown of a driver(literally a fat juggalo), and the digital readout started in the upper 30s MPG on the trip and kept climbing to the upper 40s on the highway. The car was 10 years old at the time with over 250k on the odometer, but it impressed me. Very spacious and quiet.
I’ve never ridden in one of these…with all those vortexes after the windshield, is there a ton of buffeting for the passengers at speed when the top is down?
The first time I exceeded 100mph in a car was in the back seat of a high school buddy’s 1972 Buick Centurion 455 convertible. Which was probably more aerodynamic than this, but that’s not saying much.
The wind buffeting was *brutal*. After about 30 seconds, all I could do was try to curl into a ball in the footwell.
Thus the invention of the dual cowl phaeton from the good old days.
I have ridden in one of these; actually a 1959 Series 62 convertible. In the front it was utterly calm, and the heater easily defeated the 35 degree temperature. I’ve not been in the back of one though.
Yes. Even at moderate speeds.
On the other hand – my Mercedes-Benz W209 CLK convertible has a cd of .31 with the roof up.
It’s surely closer to .35 with the roof down, but there’s minimal penalty to fuel economy, and when the windows are up the buffeting at highway speeds up to 100mph isn’t too terrible as long as its not windy from the sides – without the use of a wind blocker.
Rain & snow tends to just flow over the passenger compartment if I can keep the speed up over 65 or 70 – when I stop to put the roof up, I get drenched.
No buffeting issues in my 63 Series 62 vert in the front seat, but there’s a reason the back seats are so big and you’re supposed to kinda sit in the corner of the seat, if you’re gonna buffet, you might as well look cool back there 🙂
The ’83 Thunderbird (“aero bird”) was a revelation, looked like nothing that came before it.
Alfa Romeo BATs, especially the 7.
Curious what the Cd would be with the top up.
That was my thought too. I would be nice in general to see the difference between a number of convertibles with top up and top down.
Has anybody checked in on Toecutter? He’s probably just had several heart attacks.
I’m still around. I want to get me a black coffin with a red velvet lined interior to sleep in though.
Adrian seems like the type to know a guy that can get you a good deal on one
Well, the Lamborghini Countach was at a .42, but nobody cares, because look at it. But, it is a well known phenomenon that cars simply styled to look like what the general public assumes is aerodynamic often aren’t, and cars that people might assume are blunt bricks can actually test at a decent Cd. The 1960s era Alfa Giulia was at .30, and the Volvo 740 wagon was identical to the Countach at .42
Yes, but what about a Countach towing a U-Haul trailer? (IYKYK)
Christina Hendricks would also do poorly in a wind tunnel, but aerodynamic efficiency is not why either is popular.
But how do we determine what her CD is?
Toecutter, where are you?
Since people are bipedal and forward facing when moving, making for a lot of wake drag, her cd wouldn’t be much different than anyone else. As she’s 5’7″, her cda would make her better aerodynamically than the average man and worse than the average woman, discounting the obese, though we’re talking in comparison to other humans which are pretty terrible aerodynamically (though still better than the Cadillac with a cd around .6).
Interestingly enough, larger assets may indeed be an asset to overall drag coefficient reduction as well as lift, as detailed in the seminal study “Analysis and Qualitative Effects of Large Breasts on Aerodynamic Performance and Wake of a Miss Kobayashi’s Dragon Maid Character”, although the applicability to real life is maybe minimal.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30181.50404/1 (highly recommend reading in it’s entirety).
Still, an average 2% reduction in drag? EV manufacturers would kill for that! I always knew that starting estrogen was a good move for me, but I had no idea of the bio-engineering potential for aerodynamic efficiency. Maybe this is how I finally justify top surgery…
This part got me:
“Keywords:
Computational fluid dynamics, ANSYS, drag
coefficient, human aerodynamics, SST k-ω
model, anime, Quetzalcoatl, titties, thicc“
The entirety of that study is a gem.
I had to double check how you’d spelt that.
This is the type of fundamental, critical science that our society should be investing in.
Thanks for sharing.
Might be hard going for a small child on the back of a bicycle she was riding.
Her Cd value will also very greatly depending upon position. If she’s swimming in a pool, her Cd Value could be halved versus walking or running upright. In free fall with arms and legs spread apart, her Cd will increase slightly versus standing upright.