Is the rear wing removable?

[BhamDavid]

OK, I'll wade in on this. Obviously the OP is well away of the implications of this modification and wants to make it anyway. If his interest in the car is purely the increased acceleration and does not intend to track of drive the car at high rates of speed, I do not see a problem.

Obviously any part on a car is removable. But, the wing isn't attached with double sided tape so removing it will leave some unsightly remains like brackets, studs, holes or something that would indicate that something has been removed.

I would suggest investing in a standard M4 deck lid, have it painted and replace the entire deck assembly. The part number is 41628055039 and the best price I found was $1125.

In addition to paint, you'll need to remove the tag frame, closing handle, BMW emblem, model badge, trunk liner, wiring, tail lights, etc. to complete the modification. Four bolts hold on the deck lid and even with all the stuff that has to be moved, it looks rather simple.

If you've got the cash and the inclination, go for it.

[fuddman]

Originally Posted by BhamDavid

The part number is 41628055039 and the best price I found was $1125.

$1022.59 here http://huskerparts.com/2015-bmw-oem-...28055039-item/
And only $12.00 shippin

[Maddict3]

Originally Posted by BhamDavid

OK, I'll wade in on this. Obviously the OP is well away of the implications of this modification and wants to make it anyway. If his interest in the car is purely the increased acceleration and does not intend to track of drive the car at high rates of speed, I do not see a problem.

Obviously any part on a car is removable. But, the wing isn't attached with double sided tape so removing it will leave some unsightly remains like brackets, studs, holes or something that would indicate that something has been removed.

I would suggest investing in a standard M4 deck lid, have it painted and replace the entire deck assembly. The part number is 41628055039 and the best price I found was $1125.

In addition to paint, you'll need to remove the tag frame, closing handle, BMW emblem, model badge, trunk liner, wiring, tail lights, etc. to complete the modification. Four bolts hold on the deck lid and even with all the stuff that has to be moved, it looks rather simple.

If you've got the cash and the inclination, go for it.

Great option, thanks.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Twitch Massacre

Wow I'm impressed at how many of you badasses drive at an average of 100+mph on a daily basis. I mean is it that or are we pretending this wing actually produces any significant sort of downforce at highway cruising speeds. : no seriously some of you just crack me up. The OP is just asking if the wing is possibly detachable, as an option or an alternative for whenever he decides he doesn't need the wing, some of you are acting as if he's trying to replace it with an anvil or glue it on his hood. I guess the trend on the internet is to be up in arms when someone inquires about an "unusual" mod.

I do, it's called fetching milk.

I'm clearly not a fan of this edition since it's not something one can take to the shops, but I'm with the op on the wing. It just doesn't work visually.

[Maddict3]

Originally Posted by Lups

I do, it's called fetching milk.

I'm clearly not a fan of this edition since it's not something one can take to the shops, but I'm with the op on the wing. It just doesn't work visually.

LOL.

Make sure you don't say that too loud, Most of these guys on here will get all "trendy" and come down on you.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Maddict3

LOL.

Make sure you don't say that too loud, Most of these guys on here will get all "trendy" and come down on you.

Meh, I'm always right, check out my signature, someone has actually said that once.

[swagon]

Yeah, best way to remove it is to get an M4 trunk. Wing is not glued on.

[AsiaKid]

Yah I m sure many m4 owners will happily buy your old trunk with the wing when that happrns

[F83]

Originally Posted by CosmosMpower

You know nothing about how aero works on a race car.

Well that's an interesting statement given my education. Please good sir, enlighten me on how I am wrong that aero components designed to improve downforce are only truly necessary/helpful at higher speeds.

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by F83

Well that's an interesting statement given my education. Please good sir, enlighten me on how I am wrong that aero components designed to improve downforce are only truly necessary/helpful at higher speeds.

Aero start to work at lower speeds than most people think when it is done properly.What is your idea at of higher speeds?

[F83]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

Aero start to work at lower speeds than most people think when it is done properly.What is your idea at of higher speeds?

Start to work, sure. The point I'm getting at is that a wing is only *necessary* when the car is getting excessive lift and as such losing traction or (in in an extreme case) coming off the ground entirely. A car does not experience that kind of lift at normal (non track) driving speeds.

Will a wing provide some downforce at lower (non-track) speeds? Well yes, it starts to provide downforce at *any* relative windspeed - any at all. However the amount of downforce at low speeds is not truly material to the handling of the vehicle.

Specifically, lift (or downforce) is a function of the square of the velocity of the object and the relative windspeed (ground speed of the vehicle less the wind speed so an object moving at 70 MPH into a 30 MPH headwind has a windspeed of 100 MPH). The key here however is that the lift or downforce is a function of the *square* of this relative velocity - so a vehicle with a windspeed of 150 MPH has 4 times more lift/downforce than a vehicle with a windspeed of 75 MPH (not 2X as many believe). a vehicle with a windspeed of 200 MPH generates lift/downforce that is over 7X more powerful than a vehicle with a windspeed of 75MPH. That's why ensuring you establish downforce to counteract the natural lift of the vehicle becomes exponentially more important as you get to higher speeds.

And that's my point - OP is asking if it can be removed. Many are saying the aero characteristics of the car will be disrupted and will be potentially dangerous. That is only true at track speeds, not at street speeds - even aggressive street speeds (unless he tries to drive into a hurricane).

Best retort to my point was the comment that "somebody who buys this car and doesn't track it is missing the point of the car". Maybe so but at the end of the day if the guy buys the car and removes the wing - he's not going to sail into a ditch when he tries to pass someone at 90 MPH. 140-150MPH is a different story.

[F83]

Does not happen at 90 MPH (unless you are driving into a hurricane).

[mc3456]

Originally Posted by Maddict3

Come on what?

If I manage to get an allocation I plan on driving the car. So having the option to add and remove the wing is something that I would like to know.

I get what you are asking, and no, I don't think removing the rear wing will deteriorate balance as much as others are stating if you are only planning an occasional high speed run (100 MPH+) on the highway. For normal driving, the balance of the car will be no more disrupted than when idiots put super large front splitters on their cars. Funny how people say "cool man" to that when it totally destroys the clean appearance of the car!

My advice (like other's have suggested) would be, if you can afford the GTS, then just get another trunk lid, paint it up, and add a less aggressive spoiler. That way the original is unadulterated for resale to a "purist" later on. Good luck getting the allocation, and enjoy if you do!

[mc3456]

Originally Posted by Lups

I do, it's called fetching milk.

I'm clearly not a fan of this edition since it's not something one can take to the shops, but I'm with the op on the wing. It just doesn't work visually.

No doubt. It's purposely functional but horribly unattractive if a person were just going to buy the car and drive around on the streets. There is a huge difference with seeing the more organic integration of the wing on the 911 GT3, which works well, versus this hideous monstrosity.

IMHO, BMW could have been much more creative with generating downforce than making it look like a 17 year old's Mugen ricer.

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by F83

Start to work, sure. The point I'm getting at is that a wing is only *necessary* when the car is getting excessive lift and as such losing traction or (in in an extreme case) coming off the ground entirely. A car does not experience that kind of lift at normal (non track) driving speeds.

Will a wing provide some downforce at lower (non-track) speeds? Sure, but the relative lift of the car and the relative downforce the wing will provide makes the wing at those speeds entirely optional - more aesthetics than anything.

Specifically, lift (or downforce) is a function of the square of the velocity of the object and the relative windspeed (ground speed of the vehicle less the wind speed so an object moving at 70 MPH into a 30 MPH headwind has a windspeed of 100 MPH). The key here however is that the lift or downforce is a function of the square of this relative velocity - so a vehicle traveling at 150 MPH has 4 times more lift/downforce than a vehicle traveling at 75 MPH. That's why ensuring you establish downforce to counteract the natural lift of the vehicle becomes exponentially more important as you get to higher speeds.

And that's my point - OP is asking if it can be removed. Many are saying the aero characteristics of the car will be disrupted and will be potentially dangerous. That is only true at track speeds, not at street speeds - even aggressive street speeds.

Best retort to my point was the comment that "somebody who buys this car and doesn't track it is missing the point of the car". Maybe so but at the end of the day if the guy buys the car and removes the wing - he's not going to sail into a ditch when he tries to pass someone at 90 MPH. 140-150MPH is a different story.

Ok I will buy that statement as aero at my home track makes a big difference because 50% of the corners are 100 mile an hour +.For the street probably not a big factor but once again I think a GTS is wasted on street if you do not intend to track it.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by mc3456

No doubt. It's purposely functional but horribly unattractive if a person were just going to buy the car and drive around on the streets. There is a huge difference with seeing the more organic integration of the wing on the 911 GT3, which works well, versus this hideous monstrosity.

IMHO, BMW could have been much more creative with generating downforce than making it look like a 17 year old's Mugen ricer.

Car industry does research their focus groups pretty well. Maybe 17 year olds came up as the buyers for these?

[F83]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

For the street probably not a big factor but once again I think a GTS is wasted on street if you do not intend to track it.

Well that I won't disagree with.

[mc3456]

Originally Posted by Lups

Car industry does research their focus groups pretty well. Maybe 17 year olds came up as the buyers for these?

Perhaps 17 year old trust fund babies who fancy themselves to be the Lewis Hamilton of Beverly Hills!

[Lups]

Originally Posted by mc3456

Perhaps 17 year old trust fund babies who fancy themselves to be the Lewis Hamilton of Beverly Hills!

Lol, if we are right, we will have great crash clips posted here soon enough!

[mc3456]

Originally Posted by Lups

Lol, if we are right, we will have great crash clips posted here soon enough!

Trust me, that's not a matter of "if" it is just a matter of "when", and to that I say, there is no wing large to prevent stupidity behind the wheel!

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by Lups

Car industry does research their focus groups pretty well. Maybe 17 year olds came up as the buyers for these?

Around here in Toronto you just might be correct

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

Around here in Toronto you just might be correct

Damn I was born in the wrong country and to a wrong family. At 17 I rode a buss!