For automakers on the cusp of the 1990s, interest in aerodynamic efficiency was high. This yielded popular cars—the 1988 Honda CRX, the 1989 Ford Thunderbird, the 1990 Mazda RX-7—with drag coefficients (Cd) around 0.32. This aerodynamic sculpting also yielded, to my eye, good-looking and well-proportioned cars.
In the 1990s, the rise of the SUV seemed to deprioritize aerodynamics, as we climbed into ever-more blocky-looking trucks. For example, the bestselling SUV of the ’90s was the Ford Explorer, with a Cd of 0.43.
In the 2000s, the crossover began to emerge. Initially, these had the same lousy aerodynamics as SUVs. Honda’s 2002 CR-V, for instance, had a Cd of 0.45.
But throughout the 2000s and into the 2010s, U.S. fuel standards—driven in no small part by California’s stringent requirements and outsized influence—drove automakers to seek efficiency gains, again through aerodynamic refinement. I’ll use Honda as an example again. Their CR-V went from 0.45 to just 0.33, with their 2023 CR-V.
The weird thing is, the 2023 CR-V doesn’t look very aerodynamic. Consider that the 1988 CR-X we looked at above has a Cd of 0.32. Look at the two cars side-by side: Would you guess they both have nearly the same co-efficient of drag?
So how is this possible? The short answer is that the world’s automotive designers and engineers have figured out how to achieve multiple tiny gains across the entire vehicle. Subtle radii across the surface transitions, carefully-shaped A-pillars and mirror housings, more precise panel gaps, subtly-sculpted wheel arches, smooth underbody panels.
What this means is, today we have aerodynamic vehicles that don’t look particularly aerodynamic. One standout segment, however, is EVs. EV buyers have range concerns that gas-powered-car buyers don’t, and thus EV makers have to resort to more extreme aerodynamic styling. Take the Tesla Model Y. It has a Cd of just 0.22, and it looks it.
Volkswagen has gone even further, with their newly-unveiled Mission Efficiency project.
This was an initiative to assemble an EV with off-the-shelf production parts, but radically style the aerodynamics to improve range. The development team borrowed parts from the ID.Polo and ID.Cross, two of their Euro-market EVs, to build a car. Then they wrapped it in this flowing form for testing:
Incredibly, the designers achieved a Cd of 0.158. In real-world road testing, this achieved some remarkable feats. The Mission Efficiency vehicle uses more than 30% less energy than the Polo. That means the ME can travel at 87 mph (140 km/h) using the same amount of energy it takes the Polo to travel at 62 mph (100 km/h).
In terms of range, that means the Mission Efficiency can travel nearly double the distance of the Polo, using the same amount of energy. Using the same 54.9 kWh battery, the Mission Efficiency could make 495 miles (797 km) whereas the Polo would only achieve 257 miles (413 km).
While this was just an experiment, and not a precursor to a confirmed production vehicle, other EV makers are sure to notice VW’s accomplishment. We can safely assume the aerodynamic look will be popular in future, at least with EVs.
