5 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHPorsche 996 rear wing options
Leading reported evidence
Test perfected, etc
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Lots of problems as the build is never perfect, materials not be tested, perfected, etc..
Leading evidence: 'Test perfected, etc' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Check excellence)' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
there are so many manufacturers of winds and kits for 996's (check excellence) that there is much room for a range of quality.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
5 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T072535Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Hello,
I was curious if anyone has different recommendations for a rear wing on the 996...I currently have the stock aero wing that is identical to the GT3 wing except for the intake hole inside.
I am planning to upgade to a ROOCK turbo for the 996 when warranty expires next year, but the only problem I would have is they said they will need to alter the rear wing to fit the intercooler..I don't know how this would look and if it would look good at all.
Does anyone have any links or pics for other types of wings that resemble the GT3 wing and would still fit the intercooler under the engine lid?
Lots of companies offer different wings, such as TechArt, RUF, 9ff, TTP, and so on. All personal taste after that. My two cents, stay factory or dont do anything else. I just purchased a 9ff GT2 style wing for my C4S and it has just been one big headache. My car has been at the shop for almost three weeks now as they had to build on the wing and fix lots of pieces. Its definitely not worth it. Everyone else blames each other for a bad wing and so on. Lots of problems as the build is never perfect, materials not be tested, perfected, etc..
would your wing problem be mainly becuase of the place that manufactured it though, i.e. maybe not the best quality or at least finish etc.? there are so many manufacturers of winds and kits for 996's (check excellence) that there is much room for a range of quality. gt2 wings do look great though. I would like to see one on a narrow body. I have seen a turbo wing on a narrow body (techart) and it looked great.
Yeah they do look great, but lots of these top name companies do have problems. If you look very carefully at all the non factory kits they all have some type of issue with fit and finish. Such as lots of ripples and bubbles in the fiberglass, lots of ill fitment as pieces must be added to or cut to be perfect. I knew two people who got RUF products and were very unsatisfied with the wing, however, they were able to return them. Once I got my wing from 9ff and my body shop informed me that their was a problem, they refused to take it back because they said it had been slightly modified. Trust me stay stock or go for another OEM wing. It might look nice, but its after a pretty penny.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by ruey220:
[QB]
I am planning to upgade to a ROOCK turbo for the 996 when warranty expires next year, but the only problem I would have is they said they will need to alter the rear wing to fit the intercooler..I don't know how this would look and if it would look good at all.
QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">You may want to do a search on Roock before you take the jump.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
