TfcCDR

Come to think of it, you might want to put on vortex generators to break the vacuum at the back of the car.

PNYXPRESS

You obviously know very little or nothing about airflow over a car and how wings and downforce work. Plus why would you compare a mustang to an Indy car? Why not to a NASCAR or better yet! The continental challenge mustang race car, which uses a steeda race wing!

I asked for opinions on which would look best, not which would give better functionality.

Daehawk

Its a Mustang. You're never going to be going fast enough for a wing to provide any downforce. Its all about what look you prefer.

Soldier GT

^^^^^Daehawk off the subject your car sounds really good with your exhaust set up!

Daehawk

Thanks Soldier! Its one thing I love about the car for sure.

BabyGT

I tried to go wingless once but it just didn't look right on a vert, hard tops wingless look sexy, so my vote is the blank decklid, then black out the panel.

TfcCDR

I compared a Mustang to an Indy car because Indy cars have effective aerodynamics and are designed to have the least weight, the least drag, etc. They design the whole car to have maximum efficiency. If putting a wing next to the body of a car doing 200 mph would work, they would do that to save the weight and drag that comes with putting the wing way above the car. However, they found that they have to put the wing up in the "clean" air for it to do any good. They also have to adjust the wing angles for differing conditions (car weight, air temp, track composition/traction), sometimes DURING a race, in order for it to have the right tradeoff between drag and downforce.

When you slow down, you need more wing to get the same effect, which is why the Outlaw racers (at 125 mph) have such huge wings -- and they put THOSE way up in the clear air, too.

Given all of the above, it's hard to believe that a little wing in the dirty airflow behind a Mustang would be of any use. The laws of physics are pretty definite about what does and doesn't work. Especially on a street car, whose designers traded off some efficiency for styling!

In other words, the wing on the deck lid of a Mustang has no more aerodynamic effect than do the false scoops on the sides of a Mustang.

The bottom line is that if the wing improved handling or efficiency, you wouldn't be able to buy a car without one. I don't have to be an expert on aerodynamics to know that. The manufacturers spend a lot of money paying such experts (which is why modern cars look so much alike). They squeeze every last bit of efficiency out of a design. If they got rid of the sharp edges on cars because of airflow (compare a 1971 Mustang to a 2005 Mustang), you can bet that they would put on wings if they offered any improvement.

So, getting back to your original question, I would say that which (if any) wing you put on your car is completely subjective, just like whether or not to put racing stripes on it. I like your idea of swapping them around, so when you get tired of the way one looks, you can get the "new car feeling."

TfcCDR

Hmmm. Our Q is a convertible with no wing, but we do have two small black antennas mounted on the deck lid. I can't remember what it looked like before the radios were installed, but looks good now. If I knew how to upload a photo I could show you, the thing is parked right outside my office.

BabyGT

Its all personal preference, it just looked like it was missing something off the back of the car when the top was down with no spoiler to me.

TfcCDR

Yeah, but you're supposed to be looking FORWARD . . .