The wikipedia article [1] mentions the "reference area" is part of the equation to calculate Cd.
My understanding was the the Cd is taking into consideration the area in question, that's why it's a "coefficient" [2] If it's not taking into consideration the area, surely then it's not a "coefficient" of anything, it would just be "drag".
Also worth noting that a scale model of something (plane, auto, whatever) has the same Cd as the full-size version, showing that Cd does take area into consideration.
We're not disagreeing; we understand English differently. You say "Cd does take area into consideration" to mean that area has been divided out from drag measurements to produce an area-agnostic number; I say "Cd does not take area into consideration" to mean that Cd does not vary based on area (because area has been divided out).
These are the same statements. Both underscore my point that CdA, which is (by definition!) proportional to both frontal area and to drag force, is the worthwhile figure of merit for passenger vehicles (where lesser drag force translates directly into fuel savings).
For example, the Prius has a frontal area of about 2.3 m², giving a CdA of 0.58 m². The Schlörwagen has a frontal area of closer to 2.8 m² (thanks to its nearly 7-foot width), giving a CdA of 0.42 m². Still better, but not 40% better like Cd alone would lead one to believe. (The original Insight, for reference, has a CdA of 0.47 m².)