|
|
hood scoop theory 101 ??
My baby is finally done at the body shop.The shelby side scoops and
mach1 hoodscoop look awsome! I was perswaded not to cut a hole in the hood for a hoodscoop for 2 reasons. compromising the structural integrity might cause flexing that could warp the hood and damage the paint job. and i was told, dont know if true, that theres so much air comin thru the radiator anyway that it would actualy force air back out the hood scoop. can anyone confirm that? also with nonfunctional side scoops and hood scoop im worried how they will affect the car at speed. ive read that all factory mach1 hood scoops are nonfunctional, tho have seen a pic of one that was, so it cant be that bad. im sure they would take a second or two off quarter mile time. eventually i want to do some fabrication and make the side scoops functional but just thinking about the now. Thanks, |
Poppycock!!
> wrote in message oups.com... > My baby is finally done at the body shop.The shelby side scoops and > mach1 hoodscoop look awsome! I was perswaded not to cut a hole in the > hood for a hoodscoop for 2 reasons. compromising the structural > integrity might cause flexing that could warp the hood and damage the > paint job. and i was told, dont know if true, that theres so much air > comin thru the radiator anyway that it would actualy force air back out > the hood scoop. can anyone confirm that? > > also with nonfunctional side scoops and hood scoop im worried how they > will affect the car at speed. ive read that all factory mach1 hood > scoops are nonfunctional, tho have seen a pic of one that was, so it > cant be that bad. im sure they would take a second or two off quarter > mile time. eventually i want to do some fabrication and make the side > scoops functional but just thinking about the now. > > Thanks, > |
"Mark" > wrote in message news:e86Bd.288278$V41.144585@attbi_s52... > Poppycock!! > > > > wrote in message > oups.com... so it >> cant be that bad. im sure they would take a second or two off quarter >> mile time. A second or two?? In your wildest dreams:) Doubt you would see or feel the difference. Al |
I have heard that a scoop in the middle of the hood is NOT
functional.Primary reason is that at speed,the flow of air is sent OVER this location after inpacting the front of the car.This is supposedly why GM came up with the reverse scoop facing the windshield (on what,the firebird?)where there actually is some pressure to be utilized. But in either case I think it was mainly a marketing ploy. Best....Brian O. ******************** |
The 1984 Mustang GT employed this as well. I'm still not sure it really
helps . I know there's a little air pressure there, but the idea is to get the ram-air effect, which is impossible if it has to curl back behind the scoop. I doubt that all of the air is directed above the middle of the hood, and that it depends on the shape of the nose. The more aerodynamic the nose, the more air that will be travelling straight down the hood. JS "Brian Orion" > wrote in message ... > I have heard that a scoop in the middle of the hood is NOT > functional.Primary reason is that at speed,the flow of air is sent OVER > this location after inpacting the front of the car.This is supposedly > why GM came up with the reverse scoop facing the windshield (on what,the > firebird?)where there actually is some pressure to be utilized. But in > either case I think it was mainly a marketing ploy. > Best....Brian O. > > ******************** > > |
"Brian Orion" > wrote in message
... > I have heard that a scoop in the middle of the hood is NOT > functional.Primary reason is that at speed,the flow of air is sent OVER > this location after inpacting the front of the car.This is supposedly > why GM came up with the reverse scoop facing the windshield (on what,the > firebird?) Cowl induction on the Chevelles and el Caminos. Firebirds had the scoops placed way up on the front of the hood. Olds had their intakes under the front bumper. Also, Chrysler raised their front-facing scoops about an inch to place them into that deflected airflow. Of course this was on non aerodynamic styles. Today's vehicles are so areodynamic I'd thing the flush-mount scoop would work fine. -- John |
>"Cowl induction on the Chevelles and el > Caminos. Firebirds had the scoops > placed way up on the front of the hood. > Olds had their intakes under the front > bumper. >Also, Chrysler raised their front-facing > scoops about an inch to place them into > that deflected airflow. Of course this > was on non aerodynamic styles. Today's > vehicles are so areodynamic I'd thing > the flush-mount scoop would work fine. " -- John ------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^--------------- I think you're right John. My source was a documentary on (i think) the old GTO where they had one of the orig.engineers or some other notable expert commenting on the scoop being at about the worst position possible on that model as it completely missed the air-stream. Best..Brian O. .. ******************** |
As far as the structual integrity of the hood is concerned; as long as the
scoop was installed correctly it's not an issue. As far as what the scoop in the center of the hood will do for you is negligible and possibly even hurt. Getting any significant boost to offset the drag is almost impossible. Most of the available boost is at the windshield from the other direction... And under 100mph it is unlikely you would see any significant boost. It's for looks only. As far as taking a "second or two off quarter mile times" forget it with ANY form of ambient boost. Jim SR Racing |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AutoBanter.com