Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

I have read many discussions on the pros and cons of each style of rear wing, and I'd like to comment…

First, the rear wing can be called a spoiler. These terms can be interchangeable, but beware that not all spoilers are rear wings.

A spoiler does more than just provide down force. A spoiler "spoils" the ability of an airfoil shape induced lift from lifting the back of the car. The Crossfire's cab and hatch longitudinal cross-section fairly closely resembles that of an airfoil more than most vehicles, and this is why our beloved Crossfire needs a spoiler.

I believe that the deployable wing on the standard model provides more down force (its angle is deeper than the srt's fixed), but the SRT's wing is wider and therefore spoils more airflow over the rear end than the standard.

It is the summation of the two forces (1. angle of wing providing down force; 2. width of wing preventing "up force" or lift) that ultimately determines the total amount of rear tire down force the car feels. I believe that the SRT's wing probably has a greater net effect at any given speed than the standard wing, simply because the increased width more than makes up for its shallower angle.

A good question from this last observation would be which car's wing actually creates more forward drag at a given velocity? My guess is that the SRT's actually creates less drag and creates more net down force. This seems counterintuitive at first, but think of it this way: If you can reduce the lift of the body without adding an angled wing to add down force, you have a more streamlined, and less drag-gy, airfoil/body.

This all, of course, assumes that you are just trying to negate the effect of lifting at speed. If one is trying to plant the rear tires down in a 120mph turn, then the greater the angle and width of the wing, the better off it is. So in this context, the deployable wing is probably superior, but I am discussing the straight-line effects of each wing.

Finally, did the Crossfire engineers actually think about these things when both wings were being designed? I'm sure it came into play. My guess is that they probably agreed that both designs created enough net down force to ensure stability at any speed. They probably agreed that deployable wing was much more interesting and deserved to be on the model that was first put into production to help capture as much interest as possible.

Judging from Crossfire sales numbers, the deployable rear wing hasn't sent people flocking to buy the Crossfire. IMO, the deployable should have been the SRT's wing, and the fixed the standard.

Just a fun little opinionated FYI...

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

I think you hit the nail on the head. Either wing would work just as well on either model. After all, top speed is the same... the SRT only gets you there faster.

I don't think a having a deployable or fixed spoiler in itself would be a big drawing card to induce sales of any vehicle. I think it would be a buyers personal taste on which one they liked.

I much prefer the original coupe over the fixed wing on the SRT or the roadster's profile, which for me neither flow with the car's original styling cues. To me the wing looks like an oversized add-on, and if I remember correctly, (something I have a hard time doing lately) when the SRT was first introduced, a large percentage of owners did not care for the fixed wings either. There are a few threads on the topic of both the SRT wing and roadster design if someone wants to do more reading on either topic... just use the search button.

But as I said above, I agree either wing would work just as well on both models.

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

Most everyone agrees that the fixed wing is not very aesthetic. I was one of them. But now that I have one, I no longer agree.

It is not that I am growing fond of it over time, but there is something about the SRT wing that I am not sure that everyone knows:

The fixed wing's surface exactly matches the hood. It has the same 6 grooves and central spine that the hood has. It is stunningly beautiful in person. It really needs to be seen for real to be appreciated. I just did a google image search for "srt crossfire" and noticed that very few pics show the detail.

I believe that many people, including me at one point, are making judgments from pictures. Once you see one in person, you just may change your mind.

But I do agree that even though I think the fixed looks nicer than the deployable, the deployable is much cooler to demonstrate and show off. It looks a little gimmicky, but it sure is pretty cool at the same time!

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

Pelked1 is absolutely correct -- the rear spoiler in person is very different (and much cooler) than it appears in photographs. It not only continues the strakes of the hood and the roof, but it also lines up perfectly with the sweep of the rear fenders from the side and with the curve of the hatch from above. Both the fixed and deployable models, however, show the kind of attention to design and manufacturing detail that drew us to these cars in the first place. Both are well integrated into a coherent mix of form and function. The fact that the Crossfire platform successfully accommodates these two very different solutions shows that the design was thought through carefully rather than haphazardly and that features were added to serve a functional purpose rather than as mere automotive ornamentation. Why these cars haven't done better in the marketplace is still a major mystery to me.

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

Fixed or deployable, it's what the individual prefers that counts. I will admit that they look better seeing them in person, but I guess for me, I'll have to get used to them like I did the old Porsche large "whale tails".

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

Here's a picture of the brand new 2006 Porsche 911 GT3. The SRT6's rear spoiler is a better integrated design and is more aesthetically pleasing, it seems to me.

https://www.crossfireforum.org/forum...1&d=1141438327

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

My friend, you forget the functionless, purposeless brake vents just behind
the front wheels. Why these are here and not functional has been one of
my greatest questions. Considering that my front brakes seem to take the
brunt of the stopping action, I cannot understand why these "vents" are
not functional.

Coyote

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

I think The SRT6 has what I call no real marketing!!! Because they should have 2 more colors added to them RED, WHITE, and even different colors for interiors as well!!! The spoiler should have been an option fixed or not. Auto and a manual TRANNY. Lower ground effects also around sides and rear! Paint windshield surround to match car!

All these would not have cost them (DC) a cent!!!

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

Point well taken. You are absolutely right about that.

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

I have to agree, the SRT-6 spoiler looks much better than the Porsche 911 GT3s wing. Also, did anybody notice the interesting placement of the exhaust?

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

You may like the Xfire's spoiler better than the Porsche's, but the Porsche wins in every other department.

It's like saying I prefer the a/c knob in a Nissan Sentra over the new Porsche's.
:p

Either way, I don't like the look of the Xfire with the spoiler up. Isn't there any specs on downforce for each model to compare?

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

Leaving the aesthetic preferences aside, each to their own, I agree with your conclusion that the effects of the SRT6 are greater than the deployable wing but think the downforce vs. spoiler effect is the other way around.

If the deployable wing is supposed to act like a plane wing in reverse providing down force instead of lift and a steeper attack angle is better - plane wings would look more like our rear wings. Lift or downforce is only generated by the pressure difference on the two sides of the aerofoil section – hence I think the deployable “wing” should be considered primarily to be a spoiler – like the one that pops out of a Porsche which doesn’t look like a wing at all.

With regard to drag – I think you are correct in that, but also worth considering before remodeling just the back end, SRT6 has an different front spoiler, this will affect the airflow over and under the car and alter the lift caused by the shape.

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

You know Slaps, at a $106,000, I would certainly hope that the Porsche would indeed win in every other department. I was only speaking about the "aesthetic" value of the spoilers. And since the a/c knobs in either car you mentioned are not visible to the whole world as you drive down the street, then I really don't think it is the same thing. If my Viper GTS would have came with the additional "elevated" spoiler that the GTS-R came with, in all honesty, I don't think I would have bought it. But then that's just me.

We've all been so focused on the "down force" issue that I don't believe I've read anything about the actual "spoiler" effect, until Pelked1 mentioned it in his first post. Frankly, I've always thought the pop-up spoiler was more of a gimmick than anything else. But I now think Pelked1 "hit it square on the nose". The roof design of the Crossfire coupe is very conducive to lift, and disrupting the airflow by the use of a spoiler would keep the car far more stable at speed than simply the addition of massive amounts of down force.
Very nice call Pelked1. But now what are we going to argue about?

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

TASTES GREAT!!! :D

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

This fact regarding the spoiler is in the Crossfire sales brochure.

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

Oops, I must have missed it. Thanks Dan. :rolleyes:

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

...should I say it?...ok...


LESS FILLING'!

Seriously, I like them both. The clean look of the retract...and the slightly more aggressive SRT. I didn't care for the photos of the SRT fixed wing, but standing next to it and driving changed my mind.

I'm interested in knowing if anyone has a response to the question above about measured differences in the deployable vs. fixed set up in terms of downforce, etc.

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

Thank you, fireamx. My entire post was conjecture, but at least it sounded good. :-)

Kidding aside, I do believe that it is likely that what I posted is probably true. But, that too, is just my opinion!

Re: Standard's deployable wing vs. SRT's fixed wing
 

pelked1, Even though I live about 50 miles south east of Cleveland, I don't work at The "NASA" research center. But everything you said still made sense to me because of what I've seen, and read in the past.
When Chrysler debuted the Street Hemi engine in the 1966 Charger, its purpose was to be a NASCAR winner, And as it turned out, it was indeed more aerodynamic than the boxy 66 Belvedere, or the Coronet. But thanks to the extreme "fastback" roofline, it became very unstable on the high banked ovals. The "fix" was to install a flat vertical piece of metal at the trailing edge of the trunk lid. It wasn't very tall, maybe 2 or 3 inches, but it was just enough to disrupt the air flow, and help prevent lift. These cars never came from the factory with this "option", but it had to be available over the parts counter to the public to make it "legal" on the race track.
That's why I feel you were correct, and why I believe the real purpose of our respective wings, spoilers, whatever, is more to disrupt the air flow to prevent lift and create stability. Rather than cause massive amounts of "down force". I still think it was a good call on your part.