You Suck At Aerodynamics - read the corrections though!
Coefficients Of Drag Of Old Cars
Wikipedia's list of drag coefficients (but no frontal areas) for your amusement.
Some basic maths nicked from Landyzone - of course maths found on the internet is highly trustworthy!
Taking your average family runabout as an example, the Bugatti Veyron has a drag coefficient of 0.36 and a frontal area of 2.07m^2 (according to Wikipedia).
At 250mph (i.e. 111.76m/s) the aerodynamic drag will therefore be:
0.5 * 1.23 * 0.36 * 2.07 * 111.76^2
Assuming an air density of 1.23kg/m^3
That comes out at 5724N, which translates to a drag power of;
5724 * 111.76 / 1000 = 639.7kW
Assuming a driveline efficiency of 94%, that’s equivalent to an engine power requirement of;
639.7 / 0.94 = 680.6kW or 913bhp.
If Bugatti wanted to increase Vmax by (say) just 10mph, from 250 to 260mph, the new engine power requirement is:
0.5 * 1.23 * 0.36 * 2.07 * 116.23^3 / (1000*0.94) = 765.6kW or 1027bhp
So the extra 10mph on top speed would require an additional 114bhp from the engine!
Phil
Note - This ignores rolling resistance drag (generally taken as around 1.5% of the vehicle weight) because this is insignificant at high vehicle speeds compared with aerodynamic drag – though it is significant at low vehicle speeds.
This was found at https://www.liquisearch.com/automotive_aerodynamics/drag_coefficient
Drag coefficient (Cd) is a commonly published rating of a car's aerodynamic smoothness, related to the shape of the car. Multiplying Cd by the car's frontal area gives an index of total drag. The result is called drag area, and is listed below for several cars. The width and height of curvy cars lead to gross overestimation of frontal area. These numbers use the manufacturer's frontal area specifications from the Mayfield Company Homepage.
| Drag area | Year | Automobile | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imperial (Cd x Ft2) | Metric (Cd x M2) | ||
| 3.95 | 0.367 | 1996 | GM EV1 |
| 5.10 | 0.474 | 1999 | Honda Insight |
| 5.40 | 0.502 | 1989 | Opel Calibra |
| 5.54 | 0.515 | 1980 | Ferrari 308 GTB |
| 5.61 | 0.521 | 1993 | Mazda RX-7 |
| 5.61 | 0.521 | 1993 | McLaren F1 |
| 5.63 | 0.523 | 1991 | Opel Calibra |
| 5.64 | 0.524 | 1990 | Bugatti EB110 |
| 5.71 | 0.530 | 1990 | Honda CRX |
| 5.74 | 0.533 | 2002 | Acura NSX |
| 5.76 | 0.535 | 1968 | Toyota 2000GT |
| 5.88 | 0.546 | 1990 | Nissan 240SX |
| 5.86 | 0.544 | 2001 | Audi A2 1.2 TDI 3L |
| 5.92 | 0.550 | 1994 | Porsche 911 Speedster |
| 5.95 | 0.553 | 1994 | McLaren F1 |
| 6.00 | 0.557 | 1970 | Lamborghini Miura S |
| 6.00 | 0.557 | 1992 | Subaru SVX |
| 6.06 | 0.563 | 2003 | Opel Astra Coupe Turbo |
| 6.08 | 0.565 | 2008 | Nissan GTR |
| 6.13 | 0.569 | 1991 | Acura NSX |
| 6.15 | 0.571 | 1989 | Suzuki Swift GT |
| 6.17 | 0.573 | 1995 | Lamborghini Diablo |
| 6.24 | 0.580 | 2004 | Toyota Prius |
| 6.27 | 0.583 | 1986 | Porsche 911 Carrera |
| 6.27 | 0.583 | 1992 | Chevrolet Corvette |
| 6.35 | 0.590 | 1999 | Lotus Elise |
| 6.77 | 0.629 | 1995 | BMW M3 |
| 6.79 | 0.631 | 1993 | Corolla DX |
| 6.81 | 0.633 | 1989 | Subaru Legacy |
| 6.96 | 0.647 | 1988 | Porsche 944 S |
| 7.02 | 0.652 | 1992 | BMW 325I |
| 7.10 | 0.660 | 1978 | Saab 900 |
| 7.13 | 0.662 | 2007 | SSC Ultimate Aero |
| 7.48 | 0.695 | 1993 | Chevrolet Camaro Z28 |
| 7.57 | 0.703 | 1992 | Toyota Camry |
| 8.70 | 0.808 | 1990 | Volvo 740 Turbo |
| 8.71 | 0.809 | 1991 | Buick LeSabre Limited |
| 9.54 | 0.886 | 1992 | Chevy Caprice Wagon |
| 10.70 | 0.994 | 1992 | Chevrolet S-10 Blazer |
| 11.63 | 1.080 | 1991 | Jeep Cherokee |
| 13.10 | 1.217 | 1990 | Range Rover Classic |
| 13.76 | 1.278 | 1994 | Toyota T100 SR5 4×4 |
| 14.52 | 1.349 | 1994 | Toyota Land Cruiser |
| 17.43 | 1.619 | 1992 | Land Rover Discovery |
| 18.03 | 1.675 | 1992 | Land Rover Defender 90 |
| 18.06 | 1.678 | 1993 | Hummer H1 |
| 20.24 | 1.880 | 1993 | Land Rover Defender 110 |
| 26.32 | 2.445 | 2006 | Hummer H2 |
Finding the above info led me to naturally run some numbers in a spreadsheet - let's do a normal everyday comparison between an average-ish Defender (using Cd * FtM2 = 1.8) and a Bugatti Veyron:
| MPH | KPH | HP Required (at wheels) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defender | Veyron | ||
| 10 | 16 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 20 | 32 | 1.1 | 0.4 |
| 30 | 48 | 3.6 | 1.5 |
| 40 | 64 | 8.6 | 3.6 |
| 50 | 80 | 16.8 | 7 |
| 60 | 97 | 29 | 12 |
| 70 | 113 | 46.1 | 19.1 |
| 80 | 129 | 68.8 | 28.5 |
| 90 | 145 | 98 | 40.6 |
| 100 | 161 | 134.5 | 55.7 |
| 110 | 177 | 179 | 74.1 |
| 120 | 193 | 232.4 | 96.2 |
| 130 | 209 | 295.4 | 122.3 |
| 140 | 225 | 369 | 152.8 |
| 150 | 241 | 453.8 | 187.9 |
| 160 | 257 | 550.8 | 228 |
| 170 | 274 | 660.6 | 273.5 |
| 180 | 290 | 784.2 | 324.7 |
| 190 | 306 | 922.3 | 381.8 |
| 200 | 322 | 1075.7 | 445.3 |
| 210 | 338 | 1245.3 | 515.5 |
| 220 | 354 | 1431.8 | 592.8 |
| 230 | 370 | 1636 | 677.3 |
| 240 | 386 | 1858.8 | 769.6 |
| 250 | 402 | 2101 | 869.8 |
Drivetrain losses in a clunky old 4WD like a Defender could easily be 20% so the TL;DR is that if someone tells you their 200TDi Defender can do 100mph they need their speedo recalibrated or are just full of crap
as that would be asking for ~170HP out of the thing on a good day with a following wind