22 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHGoing wingless?
Leading reported evidence
Replace between both setups
Suggestion or failed attempt
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 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
I've ran this configuration for some time and haven't noticed any dramatic changes between both setups.
Leading evidence: 'Replace between both setups' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace between both setups' (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.
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.
22 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: 20261026T203514Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I'm thinking of removing my taco wing (oem mk1 aero kit) and going with a stock deck lid with no spoiler. Will this hinder performance or aerodynamics in any way? Do you think I will regret it?
It really depends on how you drive it. It will definitely have an effect on aerodynamics at high speeds(that's what it's there for...) - I would think anything over 75 or 80 miles an hour. At even higher speeds, say 120 on up, I would think the car could/would get downright unstable. * this is pure speculation on my part as I haven't driven at those speeds - nor would I try it without a "complete" aero package. Obviously, if you're just driving around town with a little highway driving thrown in, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
As long as you have the stock retractable spoiler, you'll be fine. I've ran this configuration for some time and haven't noticed any dramatic changes between both setups.
When you say a stock deck lid with no spoiler.....are you referring to no spoiler at all or the retractable spoiler?
Theoretically the car will be quicker if you eliminate the spoiler and drag created by the downforce. There has to be a stability impact at some speed but not sure where it becomes significant. You may never exceed that speed. There were plenty of 911's sold back in the day that did not have spoilers or spoilers were optional that were capable of exceeding 120 mph.
It sounded to me like OP means no spoiler at all - and I think this is a bad idea. Unlike most cars, the 996 has a spoiler because it actually NEEDS one, especially (as pointed out by a couple of others) if you plan to drive at higher speeds.
It sure is - just watch a car race where a couple clip and watch as they start to have trouble through loss of down force. How quickly the team take steps to address the issue with a new nose cone or tail fin. The Daytona 24 last week had a Porsche lose a tail and they went out pretty quick. Although it did appear to be acting as a wind brake... I am happy for Porsche owners to do what they want but in this case I think its not a great idea.
PS Look at the history of
911 tails here
and you will see that people expect it
All just my view, that you asked for! I mean not to impose my view and I often talk crap..
When you dive into turn one at Auto Club Speedway at a buck fifty - you'll wish you had that taco back.
Short of that....I don't really think you'll even notice.
That left a lot of history on the table. And didn't the 993 have a wing that was also referred to as a whale tail (contrary to the article saying it went away a long time ago)?
I don't know if it comes from owning one for so long, but "modern" 911s (993s and on, but even the 964s too) just look naked without a wing of some sort.
I'm obviously biased, but ascetically speaking I think the Taco is the best looking wing Porsche has done. I just think the reverse-C profile complements the lines of the car perfectly.
I will most likely be going to a retractable spoiler due to the fact that I am just not a big fan of spoilers. I love the factory aero kit that came on the car, but I am on the hunt for a black deck lid. I just didn't want to sell it if one day they would be scarce and deter potential buyers. Whale tales just add so much money to the price of cars for example.
A Rennlist search provided the formula below I believe on a GT2. I'll let you guys decide if that's significant.
Another said the turbo has 9 kilos (20mph) of downforce at 190 MPH. So not apples to apples with a 996 but directionally says the spoiler is for looks. Y'all can find some more data so our discussion can be based on facts.
L = 1/2 p V^2 S Cl, we can make a rough calculation;
where L = Lift, what we want to find
p = density of air 1.225 Kg/M^2
V = velocity say 33 m/s (around 119kmph or 74mph)
S = Plan surface area say .15m^2 (around 1m by .15m)
Cl = lift coefficient say 1.5 which is a good high value for this size and speed
the equation looks like
.5*1.225*33^2*(1*.15) which yields 61 newtons or 6.2 kg's (13.2 lbs) of downforce at 75mph.
This comports well with Paul Frere's statement in the 911 story (excellent book by the way) where he states about the GT2:
“Porsche claims that a front down force of 2.2 kg and a rear down force of 7.5 kg at 200 kph (124 mph) are produced. Corresponding forces at 300 kph (186 mph) would be 5 and 17 kg respectively”.
Since our spoiler is smaller than a GT2 then the numbers are pretty close. Most pilots also know that you cannot have lift without drag so a better way to make downforce is to create suction with a smooth underbody and thus take advantage of Bertonian and Newtonian effects.
