Front Spoiler Only -- Which models came this way

[Jack Olsen]

Which 911 models came with a front spoiler, but no rear wing? I think I remember at least one commemorative edition coming equipped like this (75? 88?).

Does anyone know?

[stormmaster]

I dont remember any that came with a front spoiler only...as Porsche has documented the ilhandling effects of spoilers at one end without one at the other....on 70s and 80s style bumpers at least....even the "S" front bumper had spoiler tendencies....hence the developement of the duck tail....that is just my opinion...you know much more about these cars than i do....but I have been around them since i was a kid.

[Porsche Doc]

Hey Jack!
I have a customer here in Knoxville that has a 88 Turbo look Carrera.
I don't about being a commemorative edition.
But it don't have a tail on it. The cardx says spoiler package delete.
Or something like that. It doesn't have the chin spoiler either.
It looks a little odd.

[Eric Coffey]

Originally posted by Jack Olsen
Which 911 models came with a front spoiler, but no rear wing?

None that I know of. I've only seen Both or neither on factory cars.

[mshriner]

Probably not what your thinking but the 993 C4S's have the same front spoiler as the turbo without the rear wing.

[Eric Coffey]

Originally posted by mshriner
Probably not what your thinking but the 993 C4S's have the same front spoiler as the turbo without the rear wing.

True, the C2/4S cars don't have fixed rear spoilers like the TT's, but the decklid spoiler pops up when you are going fast enough for aero balance to play any part in handling.
The 993 variants could also be ordered with the factory "aero package". That did include a fixed rear wing, but also included a complimenting front bumper aero treatment as well.

[Porsche virgin]

stormmaster,
Any idea where I could get info on the "ill handling" effects of a front but no rear spoiler? I know a rear with no front is a no-no, but I've read here that a front with no rear is not a big deal.

[kqw]

The front spoiler for my carrera was an option as was the rear tail. I chose the front spoiler only.

[ZOA NOM]

I added the chin spoiler and noticed a definite improvement in high speed stability. I have no tail.

[stormmaster]

I read an article on Pano years ago....there was also a write-up on excellence....seems like I saw a post on Rennlist with particulars....I cant really remember to be sure....but there are several documented accounts....granted most problems occur well about most posted speed limits....just relaying information...I am going to be running a Ducktail on my Carrera without a front...but then I rarely get near the speeds I am talking about on the street...and the car wont be seeing any track time.

[javadog]

The issue with the spoilers is that they reduce the lift at both ends of the car by amounts proportional to the front/rear weight balance of the car. Thus, whatever understeer/oversteer balance the car has at slow speeds is maintained at higher speeds, using both spoilers. If you run a front spoiler only, you end up with an increased tendency to oversteer at higher speeds. Running a tail only does the opposite, you end up with increasing understeer.

These effects are greatest at high speeds and are pretty negligible at speeds of 50 to 60 mph, as the lift increases exponentially with speed. Given that most cars see essentially no on-the-limit cornering at speeds well above the speed limit, for the average guy it really doesn't matter much.

JR

[Zeke]

Jack, you don't count the S lip on the '73 (maybe '72 as well) as a spoiler? It definitely has more areo effect than the smoothie from the earlier cars and the T's of the same years.

No wings or tails on those except the RS.

I'm not an expert on areo balance, but just changing the ride height of you car will alter the CD, AFAIK, and add some front downforce. Couple that with a chin spoiler or other device and I think you might experience a little lightweightedness in the rear.

Many, many months ago, there was a thread about the 911 and it's handling when passing a big rig on the hiway. In essence, this is where the rubber meets the road.

Personally, if I were to lower a car and add front downforce with the addition of a device, I would be thinking of some sort of tail, mechanical or fixed. In fact, I bought a whale style for the 71 for use at a fast track like Willow because the consensus of early narrow car owners was that they tended to wiggle in turns over 100 without any aid on the back. Alas, I won't be using it now.

[Hayabusa]

"Without the addition of a front spoiler Abe found that he oscillated uncontrollably at speeds over 100mph."

[jeff1hughes]

Jack, check out the more current postings on the "Ultimate Targa thread", this recently came up and quite a few people have front spoiler only from the factory on their cars. I was quite surprised, I thought they only packaged them together.

[stormmaster]

I think the factory did most of their testing on the coupe as the shape caused more lift than the Targa or Cab bodies.

[exponence]

The 993 is different, because of the electric Spoiler....

For 911s between 1965 and 1989:

The Original Porsche Paper 911 (18 10 02 7557/1) definitely says on page 2:

My translation :

1.2 Cars before 1973 (65-73) could be equipped with front-spoiler
or front- and rear-spoiler.

1.3 For cars after MY 1974 (74-89) only front AND rear-spoiler are allowed!

---------------------------------

There is an option for the Turbo-look models without front-spoiler (and without rear-spoiler), as you can see on a lot of 89 speedsters.

That is what "spoiler package delete" means on an factory turbo-look.

A car with front and without rear spoiler (74-89) is changed later .

Front-spoiler without rear looks cool on a Turbo-look cab, but you will feel the difference between 120 and 150 mph .. the small rubber lip adds enormous weight in the front....not a big problem with normal speeds on an well aligned car- but not officially allowed in Germany.

-------
The 88 CEs came with all or without all spoilers.

Exceptions welcome-the exception proves the rule.

Jo