By Jeff Glucker
One of my favorite cars, period, is actually two cars. I have this unabashed desire to own either a Dodge Daytona or Plymouth Superbird someday. These cars were built for hot nasty speed during a unique period in NASCAR history. Outright displacement wasn’t the answer for victory. The cars needed something else… and that’s why both the Superbird and Daytona wear massive nosecones and wings. Aerodynamic upgrades that allowed the cars to go faster than anyone else.
These are rare machines today. A homologation special destined to wind up in the hands of those in the know. And that’s where the cars reside today.
Road & Track has a great story on the love for the aero cars. It’s comprised of Elana Scherr’s great words and DW Burnett’s beautiful photos. If you need a great read on this odd Thursday that you’re home from work, you should head there now.
As a lover of all things malaise there is a thing that we are ignoring here. This wasn’t the only time that NASCAR messed with homoglation. There are the GM aero cars of the eighties. These are gaining in value with things like that rear glass being nearly impossible to replace. There is some love for the Monte Carlo Aero. There is also something like this.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/972460d4fd188495d127cdceef64947779b98ac05b78b87c74f63f43897c5d8f.jpg
Maybe it’s just the exoticness of it from a European perspective but that’s oddly alluring.
I had the opportunity to be in the passenger seat of a ‘bird going through a 35 mph stretch of road at quadruple that speed (the construction of that segment was in its final stages, so didn’t have workers present any more but had not yet been opened to public use). Fun experience, highly recommend (where legal).
The nosecone makes the car faster. The rear window makes the car faster. That giant wing out back? It actually slows the car down. It’s purpose is to generate downforce; otherwise the nosecone and window mods turn the cross-section of the car into something that looks like an airplane wing, and the rear tires can lose contact with the ground at high speeds.
Cars of the 60s generally have a shape that encourages lift rather than downforce. I remember as a teenager getting my ’66 Mercury up to about 120 mph, where it felt sickeningly light. It literally felt like each tire was carrying maybe 100 lbs. I never got it into triple digits again, after that.
Yes, but the nosecones further exaggerated those effects at the same speeds, and also made even higher speeds possible.
Yes, but the nosecones further exaggerated those effects at the same speeds, and also made even higher speeds possible.
I prefer mine wingless, tyvm.
https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/ME0Pw/s1/ringbrothers-defector-1969-dodge-charger.jpg
Love the stance, hate the dog dishes.
Ha! I love dog-dish hubcaps– especially when modified to fit steelies of modern dimensions. I like base-model aesthetics coupled with high-performance goodies underneath, for a sleeper look.
Dog dishes are not my favorite look, but I can appreciate them. These look like they’re oversize and the offset in the front make them stick out. The proportions are all wrong.
I love the style, but agree with you on the offset disparity. That bugs me, too. I think it’s a result of the considerable wheel width in the rear, which are pretty deep-dish. They’re probably 13″ wide, at least. The fronts probably have a high positive offset to tuck into the wide suspension, making the caps sit farther to the outside.
Good to see Elana’s byline, love her writing.
Just a minor correction: Daytona and Superbird are both aerodynamically descendants of Jim Halls Chaparral. (Superbird and Road Runner even by name). No car engineer in the world will ever laugh about a Chaparral racer.
Don’t forget the late ’60’s Ford Torino Talladega. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bf909b405e5c3f4112c2373e341f55951267ec6c73ae1a8a4e924fab4bcd0203.jpg