That stupid ricer whale tale wing. Not only does it look stupid, it also hinders your rear view. Is is easily swappable with a standard Neon spoiler?

I don't own an Srt, so all you owners out there correct me if I'm wrong...there are 2 other OEM spoilers from the Neon , same design, one is low, one is slightly higher. They should be a direct swap, same bolt holes and everything.

Yeah, you can get either an SXT spoiler or an R/T spoiler, they'll bolt right on. At least i'm pretty sure, i mean an SRT-4 spoiler will bolt right up to an SXT, it's on the Mopar Accessories list, so why shouldn't it work vice cersa. But i like the spoiler on the SRT-4...it's kinda what makes the SRT-4 an SRT-4 as far as appearance goes, that and the front end. But to each his own i guess. And no, before you think it, or decide you might wanna say it, i'm not a ricer.

That "wale tail wing" is there to keep the srt's back tires on the ground when you are at high speeds. That's why those channels are on each side of the windshield. They force the air up over the car and over the wing to creat tons of down force to keep the rear tires on the ground. Anything less and your back end will start drifting when you get it up there. There is nothing ricer about it. It is all about function. Look at the team that built it. They knew what they were doing. 2 or 3 of them helped design the viper. The rest were street racers. Anyway, after a week of driving my srt, I didn't even notice it there anymore. Besides everything important you can see under it. I, also, am far from a ricer. You should do more research on a car before you go slamming it.

That's why those channels are on each side of the windshield. They force the air up over the car and over the wing

:spit: :lol: :lol: PLEASE tell me you're not talking about the damn weatherstripping that runs down both sides of the roof...

to creat tons of down force to keep the rear tires on the ground.

Do you have any evidence to support that? "Tons of downforce"? How much downforce exactly, and at what speed?

There is nothing ricer about it. It is all about function.

Just like the dual exhaust eh?

Look at the team that built it. ... The rest were street racers.

:rolleyes: Does that make you proud that "street racers" designed it? Street racers are at the absolute bottom of the racing food chain.

Do you have any evidence to support that? "Tons of downforce"? How much downforce exactly, and at what speed?

Well I was bored so I did a quick search, and I couldn't find any numbers. The closest thing I found was this guys test:

I tested the factory SRT-4 wing to see if it gave signifigant downforce at hgih speeds. I popped the trunk, then slowly started to accelerate on the highway. At about 80 mph the trunk lid stopped bouncing up and down and was pushed down(but it did not latch). I continued to accelerate(clear and open highway). I got the car up to 120 mph with a 20 mph headwaind and the trunk never latched.

I pulled off the road and latched the trunk by pushing down on it. I'd QUESTIMATE that it takes around 50-60 pounds of downforce to make the trunk latch. So, the rear wing must not provide more than 50 pounds of downforce at speeds around 120 mph.

Also, realize that the 2nd gen Neon ACR's running in SCCA Showroom Stock don't use ANY wing at all and they do just fine (real race cars on real tracks mind you).

Combined with the fact that there are a TON of 2nd gen Neons on the road WITHOUT big wings and they all seem to do a perfectly fine job of NOT flipping over, and I think you'll be quite alright with removing it.

Verdict: the wing is a flashy looks only (rice as some would say) part just like the exhaust and the car would look a lot better without both.

I couldn't find any numbers on any offical site, but did find a thread on srtfourms ( It sucks though cause I can't find it again) He said that the engineers said that the wing creats about 70 punds of down force at around 120 mph. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right. Who knows, who cares? Also I found that because of the sharp taper of the rear windshield, the wing helps the air flow "connect" back to the rear of the car and help to prevent turbulents. I also found a lot of arguements on there that argue that the wing is not effective at all. I guess It's half dozen in one, 6 in the other....... IMO it helps. By the way, I wasn't talking about the weatherstripping down the sides of the roof. I was talking about the channels up the sides of the windshield.

Oh, and comparing a 2nd gen neon to the srt 4 is like comparing, um, the smell of shit, and the smell of a rose. There is no comparason.

Oh, and comparing a 2nd gen neon to the srt 4 is like comparing, um, the smell of shit, and the smell of a rose. There is no comparason.

The SRT4 IS a 2nd gen Neon...

The ACR's I compared it to have the same bodyshell and therefore the same aerodynamics.

thats incorrect, its not the same bodyshell....

Look at the back of an srt. What do you see? Dodge SRT-4. There is no neon on the back of that car. You can't compare that car to a neon. Body style maybe, sure the sxt has a similar front bumper, and it is priced like a neon, but there is where the comparason ends. I thought of something else. How did the guy who did the testing that you found know that there were 20 mph headwinds, and that it took around 50-60 pounds of downforce to shut the trunk? I don't understand. Maybe he had a wind speed meter attatched to the roof and a couple downforce to his arms?

Anyway, I never said I was right. I just thought I was. :smile: Hey, if you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?

its a neon just like a wrx is an impreza, or like an evo is a lancer and so on.....

its a neon just like a wrx is an impreza, or like an evo is a lancer and so on.....

Exactly...

How is the body different? Just the bumpers, hood and spoiler, right?

there are three gens of neons 94-99, 2000-2002, 2003-2004 jus tto clarify........oh and lose the wing it doesnt create down force its just for looks.....