Do you really think that Ford put that spoiler on to reduce lift? I really doubt that that spoiler was designed in a wind tunnel specifically for performance. Its a cosmetic spoiler, nothing more nothing less. I love these WRX STI guys who tell you that "its a functional spoiler" OK it "functions" but at what speeds do you need to reduce lift? That monstrosity on the back of the STI does pretty much nothing till your in the 90-100 MPH range. I don't know about anyone else but my car hits 100+ not very often. Same deal with all these other gadgets that they are marketing for the Mustang. Remember PT Barnum!!
Do you really think that Ford put that spoiler on to reduce lift? I really doubt that that spoiler was designed in a wind tunnel specifically for performance. Its a cosmetic spoiler, nothing more nothing less. I love these WRX STI guys who tell you that "its a functional spoiler" OK it "functions" but at what speeds do you need to reduce lift? That monstrosity on the back of the STI does pretty much nothing till your in the 90-100 MPH range. I don't know about anyone else but my car hits 100+ not very often. Same deal with all these other gadgets that they are marketing for the Mustang. Remember PT Barnum!!
Funny, I was just thinking about that. My '65 had functional louvers. I really liked them. It was part of the fresh air circulation system where air exited the car.
My 67 had them also. There was a slider on the inside of the pillar that the rear passengers could use to open the vent in the louvers. I don't imagine it would be to tough for some company to make something like this up. You'd have to remove the window glass obviously to install it, so it would be pretty permanent. You'd just have to make sure it was sealed up real good. Hell, Shelby did the opposite on the 66, removing the louver and putting in window glass, you'd just be doing the opposite. I think this would be light years better looking than the ones that just sit over the window glass, and plus functional.