Should I delete my spoiler?

Should I delete my spoiler?


  • Total voters
    11

Derphound01

Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.
Birdcats Supporter
Joined
Sep 22, 2023
Messages
671
Location
Tennessee
Vehicle Details
Chameleon 1995 Thunderbird LX 4.6
Country flag
As the title states, I'm debating on removing it. The paint is torched and frankly I'm not sure if I will like the spoiler once I start working on the body later this year.

Opinions and thoughts are welcome.

Pic for clicks.

Spoiler.jpg
 
I think the spoiler looks better, personally, but, it's not my car. :) I have one ready to go on. I'm working on getting some things painted, and there's some serious rust to come off first.Not the spoiler, the hood, lol. And I really need to fix Lazarus before it perfs the block. :)
 
I don't like any of the other spoilers I've seen on these cars. I also think the sc ground effects look silly on a 96/7 with their side claddings.
 
I prefer the look of the MN12 with the factory spoiler (guess why) but aftermarket or non-factory spoilers don't look quite right to me. I say さようなら to it. :smile:
 
From the picture you posted that spoiler looks alright. It's not obnoxious and seems to match the Tbird lines. I do have to agree with Brandon's post above, the factory spoiler looks better.
 
My current Thunderbird has the spoiler, and I do like it. The 3 previous Thunderbirds did not have the spoiler and I always wanted one. One time I came awfully close to buying an aftermarket one but in the end decided that it was too chunky and the factory one looked better. So now after owning one with the spoiler I can say it does take a little longer and a little more effort to wash and dry. That is the only drawback I can see.
I think it does look better with the spoiler. At the time the spoiler with the fancy built-in (slimline) LED brakelight was a coveted option if you had a '94 or '95 that did not have one. But I think everyone agrees; the aftermarket ones were trash. But the worst... the absolute worst was when someone would put a damn mustang spoiler on a MN12. :zpuke:
 
edit.... I just noticed the spoiler in question is an aftermarket... but it does not look all that bad at all.
 
I like spoilers. So I vote keep it.

If you do get rid of it though, let me know a price. I like that style.
 
I think you'd like it better if the paint was fresh. I could go either way, but it does make your car unique.
 
Here is a pic of my 95 LX that came w/o the factory spoiler, just for comparison since we have the same color paint. I opted to not install one since none of the aftermarket ones at the time looked right. Might be more options nowadays but haven't looked since it's currently taking up space in my other garage bay awaiting it's future, if there is one with me.




t-bird_0004.JPG
 
I don't dislike the spoilers. Itd be on the bottom of my priorities to remove one though. Lol we definitely don't post enough pics of our cars, I looked and your pics have it covered it snow!
 
I'm just happy no one popped up here with a huge wing, like the mustang I used to see. They tore it off one day trying to keep up with me, lol. I saw them drive past later, with it hanging down, lol. It was a 2' wide wing on 2' towers; looked stupid as hell.
 
You know John, if it weren't for the differences between the tbird/cougar trunk lids, we could swap, and save drilling/filling holes.
 
Our '97 has the factory sport style spoiler. Yours looks similar to that (sans the third brake light). I swapped decklids since the original had a weird dent in it. The new/used one didn't have a spoiler. I rode without the spoiler for about a week and decided to put the factory spoiler on since it looked naked to me without it. None of my other T-Birds have/had rear spoilers and it didn't bother me.

Just take it off and temporarily fill the holes with something to keep water out and see what you think. My guess is after looking at it for so long with the spoiler on it that it will look too plain without it.
 
I think the tbird with no spoiler is like me without the mustache; it just don't look right, lol. ymmv...
 
I'm torn about the spoilers for these cars. In general I love rear spoilers, both the pedestal type and the flush T/A Challenger style. I have wondered what a '70s style spoiler would look like on my Thunderbird but I think those are too angular for our modern smoothed out cars.

1971_Ford_Torino_spoiler.jpg

The stock MN12 spoilers are more curvy but I hate the pedestals, they seem too fat and too short (depending on style). I would want slimmer pedestals at least an inch taller so that the spoiler didn't look like it was just laying on the trunk.

It's been a while since I saw these cars new on the lot, did the stock MN12 rear spoiler have 2 pedestals or 3?

1995-ford-thunderbird-thumb.jpg
 
I'm torn about the spoilers for these cars. In general I love rear spoilers, both the pedestal type and the flush T/A Challenger style. I have wondered what a '70s style spoiler would look like on my Thunderbird but I think those are too angular for our modern smoothed out cars.

View attachment 4306

The stock MN12 spoilers are more curvy but I hate the pedestals, they seem too fat and too short (depending on style). I would want slimmer pedestals at least an inch taller so that the spoiler didn't look like it was just laying on the trunk.

It's been a while since I saw these cars new on the lot, did the stock MN12 rear spoiler have 2 pedestals or 3?

View attachment 4307

That spoiler looks like ass on the Torino too, they never came with them from the factory either - if you wanted a spoiler on a Torino you buy a Mercury Cyclone...Spoiler :nod:

It's not just the angilar aspect, look at those muscle cars and their spoilers from a top view then look at our trunklid from the same view. Old cars are laser straight, our cars have a gentle curve bowing the center of the trunklid outward, it would look incongruous with a straight spoiler


The sport spoiler had 3 pedestals, mostly to serve as a wire feed for the CHMSL, the one posted isnt factory that's the same aftermarket one @Derphound01 has(that's too wide looking for the body IMO)
 
Last edited:
That spoiler looks like ass on the Torino too, they never came with them from the factory either - if you wanted a spoiler on a Torino you buy a Mercury Cyclone...Spoiler :nod:

Well, they must have been coming from somewhere, Ford parts counter I assume, because back then you didn't have all these aftermarket companies spitting out body parts like now, the Ford car shows I've gone to had quite a few of them visible on various Fords and Mercurys. I like that spoiler on the Torino (and Mustang, if it's the same part and not just similar looking).

It's not just the angilar aspect, look at those muscle cars and their spoilers from a top view then look at our trunklid from the same view. Old cars are laser straight, our cars have a gentle curve bowing the center of the trunklid outward, it would look incongruous with a straight spoiler

Ya, that's what I meant, from every angle the MN12 is curved in some direction so old-style spoilers would look a little out of place, too straight with sharper bends.

The sport spoiler had 3 pedestals, mostly to serve as a wire feed for the CHMSL, the one posted isnt factory that's the same aftermarket one @Derphound01 has(that's too wide looking for the body IMO)

Interesting, I almost got a spoiler for my car but I could swear it had 2 pedestals (I have the 3rd brake light so the spoiler I could have gotten didn't have the light integrated into it). I would have wanted to get the no-light spoiler and then remove that 3rd brake light, anyway, the whole hype about how those lights would solve rear-end collisions lasted like 2 years before it became obvious that all the drivers just got used to the 3rd light and ignored them as effortlessly as they ignored the standard brake lights.
 
Well, they must have been coming from somewhere, Ford parts counter I assume, because back then you didn't have all these aftermarket companies spitting out body parts like now, the Ford car shows I've gone to had quite a few of them visible on various Fords and Mercurys. I like that spoiler on the Torino (and Mustang, if it's the same part and not just similar looking).

It’s the same spoiler that came on the 69-73 boss/Mach 1 Mustangs, Cyclone Spoilers, Cougar eliminators, and optional as the “go wing” on a bunch of 70-74 era mopars. Not super difficult to find and may well have been obtainable from the aftermarket back then too. More “restored” muscle cars have that very wing than ever came with them originally. Which is a shame since most of those cars were well designed enough without the need for cluttered accessories to throw off the lines.

That particular Torino being a regular hardtop was never the muscle car body to begin with where a spoiler would at least be plausible period correct, Ford made the GT sportsroof/convertible only and Cobra sportsroof only in 70-71 so it looks extra wrong, like putting a terminator bumper on a stock V6 SN95
 
It’s the same spoiler that came on the 69-73 boss/Mach 1 Mustangs, Cyclone Spoilers, Cougar eliminators, and optional as the “go wing” on a bunch of 70-74 era mopars. Not super difficult to find and may well have been obtainable from the aftermarket back then too. More “restored” muscle cars have that very wing than ever came with them originally. Which is a shame since most of those cars were well designed enough without the need for cluttered accessories to throw off the lines.

I can understand the argument against having too many cars with those Go Wings on them but they're really nice looking spoilers. It would be similar to complaining that too many restored muscle cars have Magnum 500 rims, too. Just because lots of people add them to cars that didn't come with them doesn't mean they look bad, it just means it's getting boring. But I wouldn't care about that, I'd want my car to look how I want it to look. Now, if I had a Buick Skylark then I would much prefer the GSX rear spoiler, for example, over the Go Wing.

That particular Torino being a regular hardtop was never the muscle car body to begin with where a spoiler would at least be plausible period correct, Ford made the GT sportsroof/convertible only and Cobra sportsroof only in 70-71 so it looks extra wrong, like putting a terminator bumper on a stock V6 SN95

How could it not be period correct? It's a '71 Torino, right in the middle of the era that you say that spoiler originated from.


That car actually looks great with that spoiler because it doesn't have the "normal" molded-in, full-width lip spoiler that most of the GTs had -


which would look ridiculous with a second spoiler above it. Also, some Mustangs (and I suppose the fastback Torinos) look terrible with that spoiler because it looks like it's aimed up into the sky instead of being level with the roofline. At the very least the pedestals would have to be modified so that the spoiler sat more level.

To that end I was thinking of having the stock non-3rd light MN12 spoiler on my car but with pedestals that look more like that Go Wing version, only not as tall. But taller than the pedestals that came stock because those spoilers always looked like they were too low to the truck, like they wouldn't even function as spoilers, no air could really get under the wing.
 
It’s the same spoiler that came on the 69-73 boss/Mach 1 Mustangs, Cyclone Spoilers, Cougar eliminators, and optional as the “go wing” on a bunch of 70-74 era mopars.
Why do I think that the spoiler itself was the same but the pedestals were longer on the Cyclones? :unsure:

This goes back too far for me to remember, but I was looking for a spoiler for my Mach 1 and I had to find the right one. Now that I think of it, I thought the pedestals on the 69-70 Mustangs were different than the 71-73s.

Joe
 
I can understand the argument against having too many cars with those Go Wings on them but they're really nice looking spoilers. It would be similar to complaining that too many restored muscle cars have Magnum 500 rims, too. Just because lots of people add them to cars that didn't come with them doesn't mean they look bad, it just means it's getting boring. But I wouldn't care about that, I'd want my car to look how I want it to look. Now, if I had a Buick Skylark then I would much prefer the GSX rear spoiler, for example, over the Go Wing.



How could it not be period correct? It's a '71 Torino, right in the middle of the era that you say that spoiler originated from.


That car actually looks great with that spoiler because it doesn't have the "normal" molded-in, full-width lip spoiler that most of the GTs had -


which would look ridiculous with a second spoiler above it. Also, some Mustangs (and I suppose the fastback Torinos) look terrible with that spoiler because it looks like it's aimed up into the sky instead of being level with the roofline. At the very least the pedestals would have to be modified so that the spoiler sat more level.

To that end I was thinking of having the stock non-3rd light MN12 spoiler on my car but with pedestals that look more like that Go Wing version, only not as tall. But taller than the pedestals that came stock because those spoilers always looked like they were too low to the truck, like they wouldn't even function as spoilers, no air could really get under the wing.

I tend to equate wings, chin spoilers, hood tachs, rear window louvers, non-factory/non-year correct stripes to fuzzy dice grade accessorization, only they're perminant. I pretty clearly said that spoiler plausibly fits those Torinos for period correctness, but for me it just doesn't fit the formal body that never had any sporty pretentions in the Torino line. I'm a purist with these kinds of things. A spoiler on any car called a Brougham is a ridiculous contradiction; its like wearing a tuxedo to the ball with a backwards sports hat.

I don't like reproduction 15" Magnum 500s at all, but I like the original 14" ones on original cars. I never got the appeal as this "go-to" universal wheel, period mags(cragar, torque thrust, slots) fit that criteria better.
 
Last edited:
Why do I think that the spoiler itself was the same but the pedestals were longer on the Cyclones? :unsure:

This goes back too far for me to remember, but I was looking for a spoiler for my Mach 1 and I had to find the right one. Now that I think of it, I thought the pedestals on the 69-70 Mustangs were different than the 71-73s.

Joe

Yeah I think that varies from car to car, they're taller on the Mopar versions of the basic spoiler too
 

Similar threads

Back
Top