Is the shaker hood on a Cuda fully sealed to the carb or is it vented?

Leaf blowers are unbelievably cheap now days.
Gasoline generators,
Kw-hr meters,
hand held wind speed meters and
other test equipment
have never been as affordable as now.

These things can be tested yourself, in the style of Mythbusters.

Should i be encouraged that people have strong feelings on these subjects,
Or discouraged that
the typical high school physics classes of today
appear to be very ineffective?

Past threads about tailgate up or down
Have sadly gone down the path of this one.

What if you leave the tailgate down on your treadmill?

My hand didn't do a thing till about 230 mph, then oh yeah, felt the boost. Just did it, nothing before that though, strange???

Ram air is indeed beneficial all over in all engine related performance builds, across all, industries.

I'll bet 99% of forum members already knew that hood scoops and cool air ducts improve performance by only a small amount in real world driving.

Since lots of people think scoops look sexy, they aren't going away anytime soon, which will no doubt keep discussions like this one going.

Every NASCAR car that I have seen up close was getting intake air from the bottom of the windshield by way of a carbon fiber air box from the firewall to the carb. I'm pretty sure each and every NASCAR car has these air boxes that feed the carb cool air and supposedly higher pressure air that piles up at the bottom of the windshield at high speeds.

Hood scoops slow them down, stick your hand out the window at 60 mph, now at 200, still got a hand? Benefit of scoops are less than the drag it produces, so they use the cowl, no drag and good results. NASCAR from day one said they where not allowed.

You are implying exactly what?
And are you going to share your idea of why from the get go (1959?) why Nascar has never allowed hood scoops on "stock" cars?
Or why NHRA has recently restricted them on Pro Stocks?
I agree, this never ending thread needs to be renamed "Moparts Mythbusters".

Wow.. this is turning into the "can a propeller plane take off from a conveyer belt" fiasco.

Maybe Mythbusters can say confirmed/busted lol. Oh but they ain't on the air anymore..

"And are you going to share your idea"

Nah, look it up, I did

Some don't look anything up. Some need to get a fluid mechanics textbook.

Every airplane in the world uses a Pitot tube which is ram air to move a gauge. You are using aerodynamic concepts for compressibility in front of an airfoil. Wrong use of application, but hey what do I know? I have only worked on everything from a 747 to an F-15 to a UH-1 to a super cub.....

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Article_Pitot_Static_Blockages_02.aspx

actually it can. coming from someone who landed on a moving freight train...

The complete question was "And are you going to share your idea of why from the get go (1959?) why Nascar has never allowed hood scoops on "stock" cars?"

Then care to share what you looked up, and what you discovered, and your source, like a grown up?

You likely will find that "Nascar" adhered to the philosophy of maintaining a stock appearing car like the paying spectator drove in the late 50's, and hood scoops were not part of that look, I suspect the tradition took hold thru till today on hood scoops. Aero concerns of turbulence of air scoops was not on the radar back then in stock car racing. The cowl intake solution was a clever successful later work around.

According to Chevrolet, they couldn't figure out why there Chevrolets were slowing down as the race wore on and the Pontiacs were faster with 25 less horsepower. It was determined that the Pontiacs engine bays were running 20-30* cooler than the Chevrolets. After some experimentation at Daytona speedweek, the NASCAR cowl induction was born.

Just so happens Popular Hot Rodding magazine did a test with a NASCAR style cowl induction:

"One thing to keep in mind is that this sort of induction doesn’t really offer any true ram effect, and, in fact, most ram-air-style systems don’t either until very high speeds—and even then the pressure increase is pretty negligible. Since cooler air is denser air, and denser air makes more power, the real goal is to provide the engine with an easy source of the coolest air possible."

Well, it's clear astjp2 won the thread with an actual graph of pressure vs. airspeed.

Be careful with that conclusion, there have been graphs shown by parties here with opposing views, interpreting the graphs is the key. I'll try to find the graph of protagonist "certainty" vs intelligence.

PS read my sig link.

So you are saying that every aircraft that uses an airspeed indicator is wrong? Or that my graphic is bad data? That is where those numbers come from. The size of the opening does not change the pressure either, a 1/4" pitot and a 3" have the same pressure, the larger one has more overall force because of the cross section but the pressure inside is the same. Tim

No, what I saying is, blind faith in graphs(?) is what started this train wreck, blind faith is the problem, not the graphs.