Hood Scoop Baffle/Grille

[PaulProe]

Does anyone have any pictures, detail or info on the baffle used in the hood scoop of the S/C cars?

I understand it's purpose was to keep the motor/air cleaner/turkey pan from ingesting a slug of water. Curious how it was configured?

thanks

Paul

[Power Surge]

What baffle? There is no baffle on a big block car, just a scoop and a hole in the hood.

The small block race cars had plate in the scoop with the holes in.

Unless you are talking about something else??

[LMH]

Hey Paul
I haven't seen an BB car with a screen/baffle on the scoop with the exception of CSX3002. It wasn't an S/C of course. I do have a couple photo's of it if you want them. I can email them.
Larry

[PaulProe]

That's the info I was looking for - Baffle was only small block cars.

One less thing I have to clone

Paul

[DTurnbull]

Actually, go to the Shelby museum in Bolder Co's web site and look at CSX3032 & CSX3224. There's at least these two & the prototype that ran them.

Dave -

Here, I'll make it easier:

http://shelbyamericancollection.org/...427cobra.shtml

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by DTurnbull

...look at CSX3032 & CSX3224.

That perforated screen reflects the preference of the restorer, who did both cars, and not the original detail.

[DTurnbull]

You're probably right, but nonetheless...

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by DTurnbull

You're probably right, but nonetheless...

Nonetheless what? The cars didn't come with screens. 3224 is a street car, it didn't even come with a scoop.

[DTurnbull]

Originally Posted by Power Surge

Nonetheless what? The cars didn't come with screens. 3224 is a street car, it didn't even come with a scoop.

Nonetheless: it is there & it has been done. That's my only point. It has already been established that it's not original. Heaven forbid someone go & do a thing like that. It's no big deal. get over it.

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by DTurnbull

Nonetheless: it is there & it has been done. That's my only point. It has already been established that it's not original. Heaven forbid someone go & do a thing like that. It's no big deal. get over it.

Well, this is the originality forum, therefore things discussed here revolve around correctness. Posting about two cars that had unoriginal mods added after the fact, AFTER it's already been estabished in the thread that it's not correct, doesn't make any sense.

[DTurnbull]

Technical foul!! Somebody shoot me!!

But seriously, it made some kind of sense to me at the time since I had just found it myself. Since the 427 was never homolagated we really don't know if it's something that may have been employed or not. Maybe yes, maybe no, nonetheless, there it is in full color and someone that owns those REAL cars thought enough to go ahead and do it.

[PaulProe]

It's interesting with these cars. I am coming to learn there is no such thing as original. Each car was an entity of its own.

Just about the time you think you've found the definitive answer, someone will point at yet one more opinion or picture.

When modeling an original vehicle, do you model it as it was produced in 1965, or as it was raced in 1968 or as it exists today. All are "originals" yet each is different.

Does anyone know the purpose of the baffle? I was told it was to keep a slug of water out of the intake. But if you think about it, the holes would still let a sizable amount of water into the turkey pan - and I don't think they were positioned to "dump" the water before it got to the pan. Doubt they would keep out rocks or FOD. Might keep out chickens and small children.

? ? ?

Paul

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by PaulProe

It's interesting with these cars. I am coming to learn there is no such thing as original. Each car was an entity of its own.

Just about the time you think you've found the definitive answer, someone will point at yet one more opinion or picture.

When modeling an original vehicle, do you model it as it was produced in 1965, or as it was raced in 1968 or as it exists today. All are "originals" yet each is different.

Does anyone know the purpose of the baffle? I was told it was to keep a slug of water out of the intake. But if you think about it, the holes would still let a sizable amount of water into the turkey pan - and I don't think they were positioned to "dump" the water before it got to the pan. Doubt they would keep out rocks or FOD. Might keep out chickens and small children.

? ? ?

Paul

I thought that too at first, but when you dig deeper into the details of originality, you find that all the cars came the same way from AC, and for the most part, left Shelby fairly similar. Once they got in the racer's hands, that's a different story, but that's not as they left Shelby which is what most people are after.

As for the scoop grille on the small block race cars, I highly doubt it has to do with water ingestion. First off, it's not going to stop water ingestion, and second, why would there be a chance of water in that quantity making it's way to the top of the hood on a race track? My bet would be it was just to keep larger pieces of debris from getting in there (leaves, birds, garbage blowing around the track, etc).

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by DTurnbull

Technical foul!! Somebody shoot me!!

But seriously, it made some kind of sense to me at the time since I had just found it myself. Since the 427 was never homolagated we really don't know if it's something that may have been employed or not. Maybe yes, maybe no, nonetheless, there it is in full color and someone that owns those REAL cars thought enough to go ahead and do it.

Uh, yeah, we do know for sure. You can make up anything you like that makes you happy, but the scoops never came on big block comp or S/Cs. As a matter of fact, the original scoops weren't even aluminum, they were fiberglass.

[DTurnbull]

Well, I for one beg to differ. Yes, I'm well aware the scoops were fiberglass - is there a point to that? It's true, where 427's are concerned, the baffle was not used on anything but the prototype, but there is no way to know that it would never have been employed. It is entirely plausible that it "could" have been used had the cars been homologated though that "never" was the case. This is purely speculation, but it is logical. What purpose did it serve? I really don't know. The water thingy is the only explanation I have ever heard, but I have never seen anything in print, by credible sources, to verify that. Purely, again, out of speculation, if it did have something to do with water contamination - of any sort, and that it "worked," then there would be no logical reason to not employ it on the 427. Unless, of course, this vehicle defied the laws of physics or just scared the water away with its awesome presence.

[DTurnbull]

Originally Posted by PaulProe

It's interesting with these cars. I am coming to learn there is no such thing as original. Each car was an entity of its own.

Just about the time you think you've found the definitive answer, someone will point at yet one more opinion or picture.

When modeling an original vehicle, do you model it as it was produced in 1965, or as it was raced in 1968 or as it exists today. All are "originals" yet each is different.


Paul

I think you're absolutely correct. I guess the "purists" only want to look toward "correct" as how it left the factory, and that's ok. That is correct, no doubt about it. But, these cars did change radically from one another as each owner felt it ought to evolve at that time. Does this mean anything? Probably. Does it mean that a modern car should "only" adhere strictly to factory specifications to be worth its salt, so to speak? I don't think so. I think "period" correctness is just as valid, but that's just me & my opinion.

Imagine, if you will, being offered to buy an original "period" correct car at a price you could afford. Would you dismiss it because an owner did something non-original or would you leave it? I guess it depends on what that item is, but most likely I wouldn't change a thing if it was period correct. Also, does changing something back actually make it less original? All this "only this is right" stuff makes my head hurt and trying to defend it only goes round & round in circles.

Two other things to consider. 1) Since the factory did not keep perfect records there is no way to know what was exactly correct to each and every car. And, 2) Since Shelby would assemble - at the factory - any car to their customers specifications upon request (a practice that still goes on today), does that make those cars non-original-originals?

In the end, IMHO, if you want to build a "correct" car, then make it period correct any way you want. It's not like you're doing anything any differently than owners of that time did with their cars. It's all good.

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by DTurnbull

I think you're absolutely correct. I guess the "purists" only want to look toward "correct" as how it left the factory, and that's ok. That is correct, no doubt about it. But, these cars did change radically from one another as each owner felt it ought to evolve at that time. Does this mean anything? Probably. Does it mean that a modern car should "only" adhere strictly to factory specifications to be worth its salt, so to speak? I don't think so. I think "period" correctness is just as valid, but that's just me & my opinion.

Imagine, if you will, being offered to buy an original "period" correct car at a price you could afford. Would you dismiss it because an owner did something non-original or would you leave it? I guess it depends on what that item is, but most likely I wouldn't change a thing if it was period correct. Also, does changing something back actually make it less original? All this "only this is right" stuff makes my head hurt and trying to defend it only goes round & round in circles.

Two other things to consider. 1) Since the factory did not keep perfect records there is no way to know what was exactly correct to each and every car. And, 2) Since Shelby would assemble - at the factory - any car to their customers specifications upon request (a practice that still goes on today), does that make those cars non-original-originals?

In the end, IMHO, if you want to build a "correct" car, then make it period correct any way you want. It's not like you're doing anything any differently than owners of that time did with their cars. It's all good.

A few comments...

Nothing wrong with your comments and I agree with some of them, but this is the originality forum, so those topics would better be suited for All Cobra Talk or Shelby Racing History.

The two cars you mentioned were not modified like that in the "time period", they are modern restorations, so that doesn't really back up your point.

Whether to put a 60s car back to it's "as left Shelby" condition, would depend on the significance of why and when it was modded. If it's got a famous race history or something that goes along with those alterations, then it might be better left as is. And some people will like the alterations and leave them as is, where as other's will undo 40 years of mods to put the car back to original.

If you look at Jay Bentley's car, it's an S/Ced street car with webbers and chromed everything under the hood. The car is not very "correct", but it's beautiful and if it were mine, I'd leave it just the way it is. I know Jay himself has been kicking around taking the webbers off and repainting the car a different color.

Now if you look at 3047, it was one of two S/Cs painted Hertz gold. It was painted blue/white long ago and lives most it's life like that. That car is currently undergoing a painstaking process to remove the blue paint to expose the original gold underneath. In this case, the car has much more significance in it's original gold coat.

But if you look at 3015, the first supersnake, it was originally black but it had no problem selling for 5 million being restored in blue. However, being one of only two cars, and the more valueable of the two (carrolls personal car, comp body), it could have been painted green with brown polkadots and it still would have brought good money.

Getting back to the point of this forum.... that is to share and discuss CORRECT Cobra detailing. Telling someone who is asking for correct details that it's okay to do something because a few cars that were incorrectly restored or altered have it, is counterproductive to this forum.

That's all, no big deal.

[vanoochka]

Originally Posted by LMH

Hey Paul
I haven't seen an BB car with a screen/baffle on the scoop with the exception of CSX3002. It wasn't an S/C of course. I do have a couple photo's of it if you want them. I can email them.
Larry

I came across a photo of CSX3002 today. I'm certain that everyone who is into originality has already seen this pic, but couldn't resist the opportunity to make my first, and probably only, post to this forum.

Hope you all have a great 4th of July weekend!

[LMH]

Thats her, the most beautiful Cobra ever made! Just my opinion of course but I like that it's unique among the unique.
Larry

[Rick Parker]

The "grill in the hoodscoop" was a carry over from the 289 Comp and 289 FIA cars. It was intended to prevent "to some degree" the ingestation of small stones, gravel and other road trash that could be sucked into the open stacks of the IDA Webers as they were following the other cars closely.