Re: Shaker Hood, CFM Comparisons, Questions..Sorry Long

From: KURTZ ERIC (erics5.9@home.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 1999 - 00:08:34 EDT


The Viper Hood scoop is called a NACA duct. It works good on a Viper
because of its aerodynamics, but Im not to sure how it well it work on
our trucks.
Eric

Jeff Durling wrote:
>
> Sorry couldn't tell from the pics. Still looks good though. On the hood vents I think i'm going to
> try to find the part # for them from DC. I don't know if you have acess but if I have a problem
> finding out do you have acess to the part #'s at work? Just curious, if you don't no prob, if you do
> then great. BTW, it might not look good though but what about one of the vents at the very front of
> the hood that the Viper GTS uses to force feed air? I know it delivers alot of air for the v-10
> lurking under there and it would be in a perfect spot at the very leading edge of the hood for the
> airflow. I am not saying for you to try this but it does give ideas, just have to dwesign a hood and
> find a way to get it fiberglassed for a prototype. Maybe even one on either side between the
> centerline and the accent line....hmmm. Let me know what you think.
>
> Jeff Durling
> '96 RC Sport
>
> KURTZ ERIC wrote:
>
> > Each scoop has its own tunnel for about a foot, then it blends into the
> > area that surrounds the TB. The Grand Cherokee 5.9 hood louvers where
> > just screwed or bolted over a hole Im pretty sure. Its just shooting
> > the louver to the contour of your hood. No big deal really.
> > Eric
> >
> > durling@ibm.net wrote:
> > >
> > > Whoever posted it before might be right...get in touch with Keystone. Hey, maybe you've got a
> > > product. It's at least worth checking into. Another idea on the hood...instead of making one
> > > large high area why not do it like the mid 70's trams am's. Where each vent at the front of
> > > the hood has its own tunnel going back. You would have to lower the hieght back on top of the
> > > tb for asthetics but it woud look really cool on a dak. BTW, it would still keep the same
> > > concept for the ram air that you have. Just a thought. Your hoods still a ood idea though ad
> > > has several design possibilities for different tastes.
> > >
> > > Jeff Durling
> > > '96 RC Sport
> > >
> > > p.s. How about accidently picking up a set of those hood vents. hehe. Seriously, did they have
> > > a piece on the bottom side of the hood to complete the unit or was the hood molded around
> > > them? I am seriously considering this. I live in hot-as-hell florida and that's not even
> > > couting the damn humidity.
> > >
> > > KURTZ ERIC wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah, those Grand Cherokee vents certainly work. I work in the Jeep
> > > > design studio so I know that first hand! Believe me, no offense takin
> > > > on buying Terry's hood!! I would like to sell a mass of these, but it
> > > > will be tough doing it out of my garage!
> > > > Eric
> > > >
> > > > durling@ibm.net wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For a guy that's doing all of the work himself at home you have come up with a pretty
> > > > > decent hood. Keep up the good work and keeps us posted. BTW, that is another similar
> > > > > design that I would consider. The only problem though is that down the road I might put
> > > > > an SC in and the hood would be useless. I still like the look of a custom hood but not
> > > > > sure what the future may bring. No offense, but since there is already a proven use of
> > > > > Terry's hood for the '91-'96 daks if I get one I'll probably go there if I decide on the
> > > > > hood route.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also have to ask, Weren't you also involved in the discussion about drawing the heat
> > > > > out of the engine compartment a couple of weeks ago. I was wondering about grafting the
> > > > > vents from I believe a '96-'97 Grand Cherokee 5.9 would work. The '91-'96 daks had a
> > > > > flat hood like the Cherokee and they are already proven to work by DC engineers. Unless
> > > > > they were fake but I remember readung that they were added because the engine produced
> > > > > more heat than the 318 so they had to get it out of the engine compartment. Sorry for
> > > > > the long post just looking for yours or anybodys opinion on this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeff Durling
> > > > > '96 RC Sport
> > > > >
> > > > > KURTZ ERIC wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Check out the nasty pics of my ram air hood. Until paint gets on it
> > > > > > you wont be able to see the details, but check out the pictures that Jon
> > > > > > so graciously put on the pic list for me.
> > > > > > erics5.9@home.com/">http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/www/dakota/attachments/erics5.9@home.com/
> > > > > > Eric
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jeff Durling wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would also be interested in a somewhat guess for Terry's ram-air hood for the
> > > > > > > older daks (I know some DML'ers have these). I currently run a 14x3 setup and like
> > > > > > > the ram-air hood but I am also looking at a quick-d intake. From the chart I would
> > > > > > > have to go with a 8" cone. If there is not very much difference in the 14x3
> > > > > > > ram-air hood and the quick-d intake then i'm going with the quick-d only because
> > > > > > > it's cheaper. Either setup would go well with the stage I tb but I just want the
> > > > > > > best possible setup for the money. I think that some of the other genII owners
> > > > > > > would probably be interested to right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > GS- wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For those of us seriously considering a shaker hood
> > > > > > > > in the future. I thought it might be wise to pull in
> > > > > > > > as many FACTS as possible on the shaker hood design.
> > > > > > > > Mainly CFM and compare them with say the newer FIPK
> > > > > > > > (large cone and tube).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I know there has already been some discussion on looks
> > > > > > > > and earlier Cuda shaker design efficiency. Some were
> > > > > > > > a little vague. Basically we can't compare the cone
> > > > > > > > and the 14x2.5 element because of the different environment
> > > > > > > > the shaker offers (Ram Air). I'm not trying to scare everyone
> > > > > > > > away. If its to early to get the facts, I'll settle for a
> > > > > > > > little theory and or experience. Here are some basics to
> > > > > > > > start out with anyway:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 14" K&N 2 1/2" tall: 109.9 Square inches (662.7 CFM)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 8" cone 138.16 Square inches (833.1 CFM)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (Cudos to Charles Smith, I'm borrowing his calculations)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The question now is "What is the CFM (14x2.5)when RAM AIR is added?"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There has to be tons of variables involved in this question.
> > > > > > > > so I'll take an average "best guess" from some of the gurus.
> > > > > > > > Frank, BruceB, Eric, Patrick, Bernd, Shaun?, Charles, Jon?
> > > > > > > > Bill (Tier), Bob, Doc ? Hehe....Jules...?(shocker!)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > GS -
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PS
> > > > > > > > Just for grins, heres the great post of CONE, FABM's CFM from Charles:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have done calculations of a bunch of air intakes. Using info found here:
> > > > > > > > > http://www.knfilter.com/affacts.htm#SELECT
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here are my findings:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stock paper filter: 71.875 Square inches (355.78 CFM)
> > > > > > > > > K&N Drop in filter: 71.875 Square inches. (433.40 CFM)
> > > > > > > > > 10" K&N 2" tall: 62.8 Square inches (378.84 CFM)
> > > > > > > > > 10" K&N 2 1/2" tall: 78.5 Square inches (473.35 CFM)
> > > > > > > > > 10" K&N 2 3/4" tall: 86.35 Square inches (520.69 CFM)
> > > > > > > > > 10" K&N 3" tall: 94.2 Square inches (555.97 CFM)
> > > > > > > > > 14" K&N 2 1/2" tall: 109.9 Square inches (662.7 CFM)
> > > > > > > > > 14" K&N 2 3/4" tall: 120.89 Square inches (728.96 CFM)
> > > > > > > > > 14" K&N 3" tall (needs mod to rad hose to fit):131.88 Square inches (795.23)
> > > > > > > > > 6" cone (The one I have) 103.63 Square inches (787.7 CFM)
> > > > > > > > > 8" cone (I will buy if the need arises) 138.16 Square inches (833.1 CFM)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here are some more interesting numbers:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (CFM ratings on Bruce and Frank's Throttle Bodies)
> > > > > > > > > Stage II is around 700cfm. Stage one is around 640cfm. factory is around
> > > > > > > > > 565 cfm... Havnt been back to ;the bench" in a while, but thats what I
> > > > > > > > > recall as the breakdown...
> > > > > > > > > BKB
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Charles smith
> > > > > > > > > 1999 Dakota R/T RC
> > > > > > > > > 15.0@95 mph (g-tech)
> > > > > > > > > Ican2u7176@aol.com (or) Dak99rt@aol.com
> > > > > > > > > http://hometown.aol.com/ican2u7176/index.htm



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:16:15 EDT