 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / January 2005hood 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!! > 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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thanks, > Poppycock!! 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 > 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. FYI: Not sure what model Mach I you are referring to in this article. 1969-1972 Mach I's featured functional and non-functional hood scoops. I think the drag created by hood scoops would be insignificant in a quarter mile run. Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C featuring a functional "Shaker" hood scoop @ http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ******************** > 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.  SignatureJohn Re: >"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. " SignatureJohn ------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^--------------- 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 >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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Thanks, I think the latest mach-1 model has a functional shaker hood scoop. It's more a marketing thing than anything. I doubt you would see any increase in power. You will not get 1 or 2 seconds off the quarter. Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying opined in news:1104422968.608820.300610@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thanks, 1. any scoop properly fitted/attached (meaning many more than 4 bolts) would ADD to the integrity and rigidity of the panel, hole or not 2. a hood mounted FUNCTIONAL induction scoop mates to the air cleaner housing, radiator flow "be dammed" 3. Blunt-front designs definitely require the intake at the leading edge of hood or facing and close to the cowl to pick up the compression wave there. - unless you stick it on a pedestal like a blown drag car, that is design placement of a scoop opening on a given car isnt rocket science, either... think "manometer" which any residential/commercial heating or A/C tech carries around in his truck - rule of thumb: with cowl heater inlet, airflow into cabin with heater blower disconnected, windows up at given speed. There is less with blunt- front (eg Fairmont) than, say, the fox-mustang profile. - - - - -- - - - Thinking you missed a decimal point on that time, though that would be "best- case" in itself. Signature- Yes, I'm a crusty old geezer curmudgeon.. deal with it! - The center of the hood is actually a LOW pressure area. Probably one of the worse places to put a functional hood scoop. Unfortunately, the shaker hood scoop used on '03 and '04 Mach 1's, has it opening just about dead center on the hood. :( Because of the scoop's opening being in a low pressure area, it is quite possible that air just might get draw out, instead of in, under the right conditions. opined in news:1104422968.608820.300610@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > >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? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.