Originally posted by gwellington:
Well, from a performance standpoint, you don't need downforce at the back of a front wheel drive car. As I mentioned in a post a few months back, however, I once had my friendly Pontiac dealer (who did seem to otherwise know what he was talking about) tell me that the rear "wings" raised the effective level of the tail of the car, smoothing the airflow out as it passed over the roof and off the back of the car, and helping lower overall drag. He did note that the fuel savings from the better aerodynamic efficiency might or might not be canceled out the added weight (the wing) that the car had to carry. So at best it's a wash, and it probably hurts performance because of the weight. Some people want to take them off, but they're probably the same people who remove their valve stem caps to save unsprung weight....
No offense, but I've heard the FWD cars don't need a wing thing way too much... That is a totallt wrong statment, by morons who know nothing about cars other than going in a straight line. Thw wing on the contour is just for looks, but wings are a great benifit while braking and turning.
Alot of people think rear drive cars need a wing because the wing adds downforce to the rear wheels. To get any appreciable downforce on the wing you need to be doing a pretty quick speed. How many RWD cars do you know have a problem spinning the rear tires at 50+ mph?
As a person who has had his Contour in a 4 wheel slide at over 60 mph (on purpose), I can tell you that the car needs a rear wing.... a real wing though, one that provides downforce.
