It's actually rather difficult to know exactly if these cars were indeed designed with the help of any aerodynamic tunnel. The man in charge, Leonardo Fioravanti, does not give a true answer in his memoirs; but he says that the 308 design actually dates from the year 1970, not 1975; and that he has done most of the work on it before being asked to forget about it and concentrate on what was called at the time "the super-berlinetta" and became the BB. Then, when Enzo decided in 1975 that the "246 Dino" needed a true successor after all, in the form of a strict 2 seat sportscar (the 308GT4, which was intended to be the 246 successor, had lukewarn sales in the US, Ferrari's most important market) he asked Fioravanti to design one as quick as possible, and Fioravanti took his 1970 draft and polished it. I would suspect that the 308 design got very few wind tunnel time, probably none at all. On the other hand...the late José Rosinski, one of "our" best road test driver in France (to my generation, that is...) wrote one day that he suspected the aerodynamics of the 328s - CX, SCx, to be "suspect", but later discovered that they were in fact quite good... Rgds
This LF sketch is probably from the early ‘70s (or late ‘60s even) as mentioned above as it’s got some P6 (from ‘68) design influence and what appear to be chrome bumpers: Image Unavailable, Please Login
A flush or submerged inlet—like a NACA, but not necessarily—will not achieve the same sort of ram effect as a protruding scoop but if located on a surface of increasing section will be pretty effective as a low-drag scoop solution. The Testarossa is a good example of how the rear fenders widen so the radiator cooling openings are effectively forward facing. NACA scoops are an optimized surface/flush/submerged design because they provide a good diffusion of incoming air while also creating counter-rotating vortices to help draw air into the scoop. Ultimately this benefit is not so critical on a street car so ultimately it’s style that wins out. A couple of TR design proposals had NACA type scoops and so did the 308 as evidenced here: Image Unavailable, Please Login
Yes ram air is difficult to achieve and the effects are minimal on a road. Effects are negligible below 100mph, barely measurable. Becomes notably effective at over 150 mph The mouth of the intake is only a small portion of what’s needed. An optimized ram air design located in unobstructed high pressure area is the first priority It also needs proper ducting sizing into a larger cavernous airbox behind it to “slow down” the air in order to create positive pressure at the intake tract or TB’s. Cool air is preferred over warm even if there isn’t any notable ram effect as in a 308 Yes your observations of the TR are correct. It went through a dozen body significant aero body changes to address the mid mounted radiators. It start out with a full glass fastback filling in the buttresses as well. you can see the test data here … I saw one of the 3 fiberglass proposals mock-ups back in 86. It had a half interior in it.
P6 was influential concept for the boxer exterior and the 308 interior theme. It was at pininfarina studio when I was there to see the interior in detail. here’s and early sketch of the boxer’s aileron, the section is angled with rake much like a spoiler. The actual section you can see in the development draft drawings, it shows it’s as extension of the roof profile to control the separation aft to the trailing edge. It’s not a roof spoiler in the typical sense. That’s me in the prototipo boxer years ago, Fchater’s say it wasn’t a runner but a push mobile, I assure you it was a runner Funny we have an airdam, radiator extract vent, flares and this controversial roof aileron that all ended up on a 308 succeeding production variant derived from 1977 millichioldi. It was officially called Aerodimincia by pininfarina as an aero research vehicle tested in there wind tunnel lead by Antenello Cogotti. It is now typecast as an non tested cosmetic device while the other appendages aren’t The staunch dogmatism here is alive and well… Thanks for all the fun Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
"It is now typecast as an non tested cosmetic device while the other appendages aren’t The staunch dogmatism here is alive and well…" Your info sounds good but does not address what is to me the most important indicator that moved me from the "functional" side of the argument to the "cosmetic" side... it was an option. If it served a necessary function, wouldn't it have been a standard component on all 3x8's, not an option?
All that is great info, but it addresses the Boxer which was more or less a one design. There were no GTS Boxers, no Boxers with different rear deck venting , no deep or shallow front air dam. To anyone with any aerodynamic back ground it's obvious that the 3x8 wing will alter the separation and recirculation behind the rear window, but it remains questionable whether it has any positive effect on the 3x8 performance or was simply intended for appearance, make the 308 look more Boxer like. I haven't been close to a Boxer in years, but the drawing you provide clearly show the Boxer "wing" has an airfoil shape. I don't know it that is the production shape, but I do know the 3x8 "wing" is not an airfoil. It's basically a flat plate with rounded leading and trailing edges. That kind of indicates to me that aerodynamics weren't a primary concern on the 3x8.
