I have been reading all that I can on the XF. This is just a thought that might interest some owners. Especailly the owners that race their cars. One thing I read about the XF is that the NA pop-up wing was adequte up to about/over 150mph.The SRT large stationary wing would give the car much greater downforce at any speed. The writer questioned the need for the very much larger wing on the SRT. He didn't like the way it "ruined" the styling of the car. I also just read about the history of wings in a copy of Hemmings. That article talked about the 4 things w/wings: thrust, lift drag,weight. My thought was, since both wings should be adequate for the electronic limited top speed of the XF, does the increased drag/weight become a liabilty for overall performance of the car; 1/4 mile, 0-60 times? Has anyone ever tried putting a NA wing on a SRT and run them to compare times? If you guys who drag your cars could put a NA wing on a SRT, the reduced drag might give you a fraction better ET's and still provide enough downforce to transmit power to the wheels and to reduce lift. Just looking at the car, I can see why a wing was necessary for the XF. The round shape of the back of the car must create a lot of lift that would be scary at high speeds w/o a wing. The SRT wing might be useful in road racing because it would generate more downforce at slower speeds in the turns and give the car more stability. Maybe I think too much, but I was just wondering what some of you more tech types thought about this. Thanks!

 

After some years of seat time in both the Limited and the SRT, I've had the opportunity to do high-speed shenanigans with both.

My very unscientific verdict: the SRT wing makes the car feel more stable.

Some say the wing is only for aesthetics (Limited owners are quick to tout this as gospel), which I wouldn't find to be consistent with my personal placebo effect, but I don't have a pretty chart to display the difference in feel that I've observed. While it's true that the extra 160 horsepower I have (versus my old Limited) might contribute to "squatting" the rear under acceleration, I also had both wings on my Limited at one point.

The flip-spoiler yielded better gas mileage. It was also lighter, observed when closing the trunk. I had to be VERY careful not to slam the trunk with the SRT wing attached. With no other change to my Limited other than the wing, I noticed it was (incrementally) harder to accelerate past 120. This was not V-Box verified, but certainly felt. This to me would indicate a difference in drag/downforce.

More unscientific anecdotal data: I received far more compliments on the looks of my Limited with the ironing board attached.

Mike up in Ohio (+fireamx) noticed a significant increase in mileage when he rigged the spoiler to not deploy on its own. So it's a proven fact that either wing adds drag. Drag = resistance, which fights the speed you're trying to gain in the first place. This drag also equals safety. So, as you pointed out, no wing is no option if you're running at the track. Some say the SRT spoiler is fixed because the car hits unstable speeds before the spoiler is able to fully deploy. My car hits 60mph in ~4 seconds, 100mph in ~8.5. The spoiler takes 3-4 seconds to deploy, so that's plausible. I'm also not stock.

I think if the flip-spoiler was a bit wider, it could have been used on all the models. Noteworthy that the SLS AMG, which is undeniably Mercedes' flagship car at the moment, is using a very similar spoiler to that of the Limited (also interesting that the same supplier, Webasto, provided the spoiler for both the SLS and the Crossfire... things that make you go hmmmmmmm)

So, you might gain 1-2 mph in the quarter-mile by removing/replacing the spoiler, but I'd be shocked to see more than that and I wouldn't want to risk upsetting the car's balance. Not to mention, you'd be removing one of the most identifiable (and beautiful, IMO) traits of the rarest Crossfire produced.

 

I root for the N/A wing on the SRT.

 

If you are on a huge oval track at full speed... then maybe an srt wing will be more benificia than the NA wing.

At road speeds these wings just slow you down
1/4 mile... from my experience had no effect up or down on the NA.

other than that, this is the only good thing it is for

 

I make it a habit not to slam anything on my cars, but especially the trunk of the SRT6. Saying the n/a gets better mpg because of the smaller wing is rubbish. No one can drive an SRT6 conservatively (too much fun to go fast) and you don't get 330 hp AND excellent gas mileage over the n/a. Finally, I have noticed no difference in stability in either car at normal highway speeds of 70-90 or in the few high speed runs to 140-150. The SRT6 rides much harsher due to the stiffer suspension and you feel expansion joints more. Each of my Crossies has positive points that the other does not. That's why I have two.

 

A lot of you may think I'm crazy, however I would have LOVED a mechanically operating SRT spoiler, as opposed to it being fixed.

 

I kept pretty good records of fuel receipts... and remember, I had both versions on my Limited for several months each.

The difference was ~2mpg less with each fill-up, with the only change being the wing.

This also aligns with research done by +fireamx, where he disabled the wing altogether and observed over 30 mpg over the course of several tanks.

So, that's two members whose variables remained constant except the wing.

It basically comes down to a styling preference. I'm sure the Plymouth Roadrunner would have looked better with a smaller spoiler, but the iconic car is remembered most for its wing.

That's why they make vanilla/chocolate.

 

x2... I'm thinking Panamera Turbo style

 

More on styling: to my eye, the wingless version is too curvy, too feminine. The fixed wing provides a horizontal break to the curves. Similarly, when deployed, the small wing just seems dainty. I find the rear end is the dominant feature without the wing, whereas many more styling elements come to the fore with the larger wing.

Quick story: when I was first buying the car, I took my (then teenaged) daughters to look at the SRT. The younger one said the car was "Very cool, in a George Clooney sort-of-way".

I'm all-in on that one...

Shawn

 

"The difference was ~2mpg less with each fill-up, with the only change being the wing."

I'm betting with that cool whalefin, you just drove the limited harder emulating an SRT6. That explains the mpg. :-)

If we are wishing for changes to the SRT6, my main wish is that it should have come with a manual transmission. Then I would have only one -- a sweet graphite roadster SRT6 with a MT6.

 

Yes, I was able to scientifically and repeatably press the pedal *just* hard enough to worsen the mileage consistently by ~2mpg on each subsequent fill-up. Even while doing constant highway speeds!! With a right foot that smart, who needs rising-rate fuel pressure regulators?

 

John, I remember reading that the main reason the 69 Charger Daytona, and 70 Plymouth Superbird's spoiler is so tall, was because it needed to be to clear the trunk lid while opening.
I think it's funny that both cars are remembered more for their spoiler than the extended nose.

 

I really wish I had an N/A spoiler in lieu of the ironing board.

 

There are a few members out there that would probably trade you. But why? It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that wing!!!! (Sung to the tune of Duke Ellington's "If it ain't got that swing") Shoo bop shoo bop

 

I actually prefer the smooth lines of the rear of the vehicle without the SRT wing. And I know its childish, but there was something about the wing deploying that was extremely satisfying to me. I will probably do this mod some day if I can find someone to trade.

 

Absolutely no doubt in my mind that the larger fixed wing on the SRT creates both more downforce and more drag than the smaller wing on the non-SRT cars. Certainly Chrysler could have reshaped the moving wing so that it included a Gurney flap (wicker bill) to increase downforce both with the wing down or up. But there's no denying that the large fixed wing of the SRT is an immediate and unmistakable clue that it's an SRT, and that probably played a big role in the decision to go that way, too, since it would be too easy for non SRTs to simply emulate an added Gurney flap.

Aesthetics are a personal thing, however, so we're all going to like and dislike what we do. That said, I love the look of the Crossfire coupe when viewed from behind when it's beautiful lines are not spoiled by the fixed wing. That's just my opinion, though. Further, based on my own opinion and my desires/wants for a weekend toy (which is what my Crossfire is) I went with the Limited Roadster because a)my toy had to be a manual gearbox car, b)it had to be a convertible and c)it couldn't have that big ol' wing on it. Two of the three nixed the SRT for me, and I don't regret it for a moment.

 

All 3 reasons exactly why I chose a Limited over an SRT.

 

https://www.crossfireforum.org/forum...ot-love-4.html

 

Anybody notice it's the majority of Limited owners that don't appreciate "OUR" awesome wing? All this hating of the SRT wing, in the SRT subforum, by mostly non-SRT owners. Haters will always hate, but they can all stare at my tail lights.........

 

Bring it on Chuk... Mwahahaha