Terrh

iTrader: (7)

Should I get them or no?


I have a '93 touring... I am soo torn on buying these pieces, sometimes I say "hey, they'll look great" and othertimes I see them and am not so sure.


What's everyone here think of them?

7_rocket

iTrader: (6)

Get a r1 lip, the car doesnt look good with that 2 inch lip.

HKNY

iTrader: (2)

get the lip 1st, i think it makes a huge difference in the appearance of the stock bumper.You can wait on the spoiler. are you set on the R1 spoiler specifically?

rynberg

If you aren't lowered into the weeds, get the R1 lip. However, I have kept my PEP package car wingless. I think it looks better without. I would like the 99+ wing for track use but it has been copied by all the ricer companies so that nixes that too.

FDZero

iTrader: (10)

I have an R1 and of course w/ the lip and spoiler. However, I think I will go wingless eventually, very sexy. Samples below...

bstorm's car:


ROT8TN and his friend's car (Good side-by-side spoiler and wingless):

gracer7-rx7

iTrader: (16)

Get the 99 lip and stay wingless.

I have an R1 also.

C's-7

iTrader: (3)

If you are considering aerodynamics along with styling you may be interested in the article below. This was posted some time back and is pretty informative.

http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1080/article.html

GOTBANNED?

99 spec lip R1 wing or Feed or wingless

sevensix

iTrader: (1)

so why is it that fd's run wings on the track if the lift is so low already?

Terrh

iTrader: (7)

downforce?

I read today somewhere that the lift coefficients are 0.04 front and 0.01 rear... not quite what they show but similar proportionally.


I think that I'll buy the lip - but not the wing. Maybe they really are sexier without it.

sevensix

iTrader: (1)

um isn't downforce the same as lack-of-lift?

adam c

iTrader: (2)

Almost everyone agrees that a front lip is a nice improvement. The rear spoiler is a matter of personal taste. I like it better without the rear spoiler.

rynberg

No, lack of lift = no vertical forces acting on the car. Downforce is just that, the car is being pressed to the road increasing grip. Any serious track car should be running a rear wing, Mazda's own test numbers with the 99-wing show how effective it is.

And a wingless stock FD is NOT zero lift, it has lift on both ends of the car.

EDIT: What's funny about that linked article is that all they accomplished was backing up Mazda's published test data. Unfortunately that little comment about the rear wing not increasing downforce only applies to 93-95 wings, not the 99+ wing.

sevensix

iTrader: (1)

isn't lift a summation of the upward and downward forces?

rynberg

You are making this more complicated that it is.....lift is upward force, no lift is no forces, and downforce is downward force. It's that simple. A wingless FD has lift at both ends of the car.

sevensix

iTrader: (1)

^ completely understand and agree

in my earlier post i didn't mean downforce was the absence of lift, i meant that it was the opposite of it lol. don't know what i was thinking at the time

dradon03

iTrader: (2)

They weren't even using a R1 spoiler in that test looked more like the Racing Beat wing.

My last FD was wingless and I loved it but this one has a wing on it and I think I will keep it. I think the way it looks all depends on the rims, with my FM-10's wingless was hot, with my Enkeis I don't think it would look so good.