It is my understanding from reading some of the literature and documentation
that the vanagon far exceeds the previous (loaf) bus in aerodynamic
efficiency.
I have read it is also better than many passenger cars of its day.

The steep slope of the windshield  and angled rear hatch glass makes a huge
difference in drag over the earlier 68-79 bus.
Extensive modern wind tunnel tests were done on the vanagon that were not
done on the early bus.
The R&D costs on building the vanagon far exceeded any previous vw project.

One of my first impressions of the my 85 sunroof the day I bought it used in
97 and drove it home was how effortless it cruised at 70-75 compared to all
the
non vanagon busses I have owned and driven over the past 30 years.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Al and Sue Brase" <albeeee@MCHSI.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: aerodynamics, was: 101 MPH Vanagon!

> Actually,
>     Very early  Porsches 356 and 356A were very good. Some Kamm tails of
> the 60's mad things better, too.
>      Drag is actually a product obtained by multiplying 2 numbers:
> frontal area X Cx (coefficient of drag) to get a total drag number.
> So,  a Vanagon DOES have a larger frontal area than a T2 and have more
drag.
> Al Brase
>
> Steven Dodson wrote:
>
> >This doesn't surprise me, seeing that convertibles have the worst
> >coefficient of drag of nearly any vehicle. The swept windscreen crates a
> >negative pressure behind it and the open cockpit creates tons of big
> >turbulence. The pointiest front means nothing if you don't deal with the
> >vortex in the rear. The Alfa Duetto Coupe with headlight covers would be
> >another story altogether; very aerodynamic. I can see how a wing forcing
air
> >behind the Vanagon would improve it's Cd. The skirts will only work well
if
> >you lowered the van and the skirts cover equally all around the van. Put
> >belly pans on the Vanagon and that would improve the Cd even more.
> >
> >-Steven Dodson
> >Kneeland, CA
> >"Inga" the 87 Syncro
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Date:    Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:05:59 -0700
> >>From:    Mike Miller <mwmiller@CWNET.COM>
> >>Subject: Re: aerodynamics, was: 101 MPH Vanagon!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>As I understood it way back in the day my Renault R -10 had a better Cx
and
> >>Ct than the Alfa Romeo spyder.  Weird if true.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >