2020 GT500 GT4 wing drain patent
- Thread starter Tob
- Start date
Lol ok so this is appealing to u bro? Two each his own I guess but big gay wings belong on Ricers bro NOT Mustangs.
you*
To*
Big wings belong on cars that need the extra downforce.
You're mistaking this GT4 wing for a Steeda or a $500 eBay wing that bolts on to the trunk lid for appearances only. This wing has been tunnel tested. This wing has had hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in R&D. This wing is functional.
................A wing & a prayer !!
.
.
That looks stupid, and isn't functional.
Wow! Excellent work T. Can’t wait for the finished product
@Tob this is a GT4 wing which is the same as the cftp wing correct?I'll put it here because I think it fits well. The stars aligned for just a few seconds and I was ready to pounce on an opportunity that likely won't happen again. I can't offer more detail or get into specifics but just know that it happened.
Ever since I noticed Ford engineers were playing with the real deal GT4 air foil in development I wanted one. And after seeing them in action in the respective IMSA series I knew I'd figure out a way to fit one to my own Phatass500 even after everyone said no.
GT500 CFTP aero development...
View attachment 1687098
Fitting one of these takes some understanding as everything has to be in exactly the right place. Uprights are contoured to the skin of the decklid. The dogbones have a snug, one spot only, fit to the decklid underside, and the wing has to be located in just the right lateral location. I added an R style wing to my GT350 using OEM hardware (same dogbones as the CFTP car too) and it was the same way. So I made a couple of paper templates to fit under the upright bases, taped them to each other, assembled the wing/uprights, and located it on the right spot on the decklid. Much like the engineers you see in the photo above. I attached the extra decklid I wanted to use to a table using some 'Z' brackets I bent out of aluminum to make it easy to work on by myself.
View attachment 1687099
End plates attach separately on this version. Factory OEM CFTP wing uses CF plates that are bonded to the air foil section and are not adjustable.
View attachment 1687100
Each upright base attaches with three fasteners. So that is six total holes needed. One of the holes on each side is already there so you have to figure out exactly where to drill for the dogbones, hence the template, tape, etc.
View attachment 1687101
The hole to the right in the above photo is existing and as you can see, I've centerpunched the two outboard holes which will allow the dogbones to be sandwich the decklid to the upright base.
Dogbone and some freshly drilled holes...
View attachment 1687102
Perfecto!
View attachment 1687103
Fitment is spot on. Phew!
View attachment 1687104
I was ****ing freezing my ass off. Temps in the low 20's with no gloves to be able to handle the rather small hardware this setup uses. Dogs didn't mind it though.
View attachment 1687105
I have to verify endplate fitment and pick the angle I'd like to stick with. I may make my own with some laser etching - dunno. Then disassemble, pickup some Oxford White paint, and drop the paint/decklid off to my body guy to weld up the three holes in the middle of the decklid that are exposed and to prep, prime, and paint. Air foil is raw and has no UV protection so I need to get a few coats of clear on it as well. Then reassemble, install, enjoy and move on to the next mod.
Plates are on the table in this last shot...
View attachment 1687106
if yes are you assuming you’ll get more down force than the cftp cars because the wing is higher? Therefore requiring more front down force to balance the car I get that. However since the two wings are the same (the cftp and GT4) would the increase in rear down force be that significant that a change at the front is warranted?
I’m just trying to understand your reasoning here. I too would like a cftp wing. After all Ford engineered it all to work together and with the cftp springs, sway bar and wing that is about as close to a base model will get to a cftp car.
The air foil is very close in shape between the two, yes. And I think you're definitely on track with logical thought progression on this one.
Something of note. While you can find numbers quoted for downforce that compares the CFTP wing to the Swing spoiler, you won't see a graph, just a number at a couple of differing MPH. I don't have any data on the difference between the OEM CFTP wing versus the GT4 wing at speed (though I wish I did!). But note what Andy Pilgrim says about the front aero when comparing the CFTP car to a Base/HP car at about the 8:56 mark...
He says both exhibit zero lift with "no downforce, no lift." The aero is exactly the same as the splitter/wickers are the same between the two. Center of gravity between the two cars is very close as is ride height and weight. So why is the additional downforce necessary on the CFTP car? Because of its assumed intent? Because it better balances with the springs/tires used when on-track? Because it does a better job of keeping the rear planted beyond "X" speed? All answered best by a vehicle dynamics engineer from the program.
Based on reviews by good shoes, the CFTP car performs better under duress at speed on a given track. Could it use more downforce, say by elevating into some different air? Is it cleaner or dirtier to run it just a few inches higher? What kind of drag numbers are there in a three way comparison? I'd love to know.
I do know that Ford has certain standards they try very hard to live by including minimizing obstruction for safety/liability (ergo spoiler or wing height) and they often emasculate performance simply based on aesthetics or warranty concerns. And as bad as fuel economy is on this car I'm certain that they would rather minimize downforce if/when they could rather than have hundreds of pounds pushing the car downward when the car isn't at max speed. They chose balance that worked for them but possibly not for maximum performance is what I'm getting at.
Having tracked the car, it feels very bloated. On large radius, steady state cornering, you can tell when the tires are at their limits. I can say with confidence that it was here that I wished for more from the tires and more aero all around. So I'm eager to try out more out back and more out front (eventually with a better track tire). Bottom line, I need to unearth some data. The press did a poor job of encouraging Ford to share more than just a few numbers here or there.
Something of note. While you can find numbers quoted for downforce that compares the CFTP wing to the Swing spoiler, you won't see a graph, just a number at a couple of differing MPH. I don't have any data on the difference between the OEM CFTP wing versus the GT4 wing at speed (though I wish I did!). But note what Andy Pilgrim says about the front aero when comparing the CFTP car to a Base/HP car at about the 8:56 mark...
He says both exhibit zero lift with "no downforce, no lift." The aero is exactly the same as the splitter/wickers are the same between the two. Center of gravity between the two cars is very close as is ride height and weight. So why is the additional downforce necessary on the CFTP car? Because of its assumed intent? Because it better balances with the springs/tires used when on-track? Because it does a better job of keeping the rear planted beyond "X" speed? All answered best by a vehicle dynamics engineer from the program.
Based on reviews by good shoes, the CFTP car performs better under duress at speed on a given track. Could it use more downforce, say by elevating into some different air? Is it cleaner or dirtier to run it just a few inches higher? What kind of drag numbers are there in a three way comparison? I'd love to know.
I do know that Ford has certain standards they try very hard to live by including minimizing obstruction for safety/liability (ergo spoiler or wing height) and they often emasculate performance simply based on aesthetics or warranty concerns. And as bad as fuel economy is on this car I'm certain that they would rather minimize downforce if/when they could rather than have hundreds of pounds pushing the car downward when the car isn't at max speed. They chose balance that worked for them but possibly not for maximum performance is what I'm getting at.
Having tracked the car, it feels very bloated. On large radius, steady state cornering, you can tell when the tires are at their limits. I can say with confidence that it was here that I wished for more from the tires and more aero all around. So I'm eager to try out more out back and more out front (eventually with a better track tire). Bottom line, I need to unearth some data. The press did a poor job of encouraging Ford to share more than just a few numbers here or there.
Something to look at.
What the computer thinks may happen...
What actually happens (to be fair, the stream isn't in the same spot)...
This second photo gives you the impression that were the wing higher in the airstream it may have the potential to be more effective.
Look closely at the first image again, focusing in the front wheelwell above the tire. The air gets dirty and is trying to escape. Makes me wish they didn't bail on the vents they ran in development (three versions) but ultimately decided against using. It has been reported that they worked well. Here is what I believe was the first version (and the most effective). The fender was actually a GT350 fender, with the upright vent blocked off with tape so the large, "above the wheel" vent could go to work.
What the computer thinks may happen...
What actually happens (to be fair, the stream isn't in the same spot)...
This second photo gives you the impression that were the wing higher in the airstream it may have the potential to be more effective.
Look closely at the first image again, focusing in the front wheelwell above the tire. The air gets dirty and is trying to escape. Makes me wish they didn't bail on the vents they ran in development (three versions) but ultimately decided against using. It has been reported that they worked well. Here is what I believe was the first version (and the most effective). The fender was actually a GT350 fender, with the upright vent blocked off with tape so the large, "above the wheel" vent could go to work.
Last edited:
Also in the second picture it looks like more hood vents and fender vents like the 350’s.
Remember several years ago when all the prototypes had vents above the front wheels. Now they are all open which lets the air out better.
Remember several years ago when all the prototypes had vents above the front wheels. Now they are all open which lets the air out better.
Looks good, can't tell from the pics, is it adjustable ??
Yes, both the AOA and the end plates. I chose slightly more angle than a CFTP wing in its "more aggressive" (of only two positions). I also reamed and rethreaded every fastened connection point for slightly larger fasteners and used tamper resistant screws/nuts. I scuffed both end plates in prep for paint but wanted to fit everything together for now just to see what it would look like.
This should give you an idea of the range of adjustment for the plates. AOA adjustment is at the top of the uprights, just beneath the air foil.
This should give you an idea of the range of adjustment for the plates. AOA adjustment is at the top of the uprights, just beneath the air foil.
Users who are viewing this thread
