1969 camaro hood

Dick Butler · 02-14-2014, 12:43 PM

Billy, I am truly impressed with your data. Thanks. Wonder why NHRA took 40? years to look into this? I can only guess a competitor with a slower combination. Probably will still be slower but I must admit if it didn't come on it or not available as an option on it then it shouldn't be allowed. Now apply the same reasoning to all the other small parts, fins, wings etc. people have mentioned within a month or so and all will be fair.

Billy Nees · 02-14-2014, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick Butler

Billy, I am truly impressed with your data. Thanks. Wonder why NHRA took 40? years to look into this? I can only guess a competitor with a slower combination. Probably will still be slower but I must admit if it didn't come on it or not available as an option on it then it shouldn't be allowed. Now apply the same reasoning to all the other small parts, fins, wings etc. people have mentioned within a month or so and all will be fair.

The thing that has always bugged me about the way NHRA does things is that they, quite simply, won't use the wealth of available knowledge that they and their Racers have. Just look at the old pics that Tom Kasch and others have posted on here. Don't you think that if a 66/67 Street Hemi Belvidere had a hood scoop available that Jere Stahl would have had one? Look at all of the old 6-Pack factory Challengers and Cudas. Why did Landy's car have a Shaker hood? Why wasn't the 390 Ford a competitive car when they were new? And do you realize that EVERY 1971 and later carbureted 350 Chevy combustion chamber number is wrong EXCEPT for one? The 350 truck is correct. How, at this point can NHRA fix that? It's been wrong since 71 but that is what was submitted. None of the other Manufacturers have clean hands in this either.

Rick Schilling · 02-14-2014, 01:39 PM

Are there any back to back performance comparisons available between the cowl hood and the flat?

A number of them would have been changed back by now.

HandOverFist · 02-14-2014, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Schilling

Are there any back to back performance comparisons available between the cowl hood and the flat?

A number of them would have been changed back by now.

I have not queried my buddy who used to run one on his '69 and had to swap to a flat due to protests. My guess is there would be little difference...maybe a slight advantage to the cowl under certain weather conditions.

Jason · 02-14-2014, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Schilling

Are there any back to back performance comparisons available between the cowl hood and the flat?

A number of them would have been changed back by now.

Maybe the guys running S/S with a 350/255 could tell us. They probably had to remove some carb spacers to get the flat hood to fit.

Dick Butler · 02-14-2014, 02:56 PM

Advantage of the tall hood is spacer ht and carb clearance. Some negative to air flow if used with or without ac as I understand.

HandOverFist · 02-14-2014, 03:09 PM

With a maximum of two stock base gaskets allowed I don't think that has any bearing on either hood.

Jason · 02-14-2014, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HandOverFist

With a maximum of two stock base gaskets allowed I don't think that has any bearing on either hood.

It does in Super Stock!!!!!!!!

FINESPLINE · 02-15-2014, 12:35 PM

This is getting to be a real laugher. Did the NHRA ever enforce the spoiler option on 1967 camaros as there was no option ....D80... in 1967.
I was going through a few pictures on the photo gallery and noticed a very nice 1967 Camaro in B/S with the front and rear spoilers and the pictures were posted in 2009. Is th
is legal in the year of the photo or just wasnt addressed at that time. ...... And they are concerned about the solenoid on the flapper valve on a cowl hood.
I dont want to cause no problems...... if you want to look at the car you can pm me.

Alex Denysenko · 02-14-2014, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

The thing that has always bugged me about the way NHRA does things is that they, quite simply, won't use the wealth of available knowledge that they and their Racers have. Just look at the old pics that Tom Kasch and others have posted on here. Don't you think that if a 66/67 Street Hemi Belvidere had a hood scoop available that Jere Stahl would have had one? Look at all of the old 6-Pack factory Challengers and Cudas. Why did Landy's car have a Shaker hood? Why wasn't the 390 Ford a competitive car when they were new? And do you realize that EVERY 1971 and later carbureted 350 Chevy combustion chamber number is wrong EXCEPT for one? The 350 truck is correct. How, at this point can NHRA fix that? It's been wrong since 71 but that is what was submitted. None of the other Manufacturers have clean hands in this either.

-I agree Billy, and they also allow 70-71 440 six packs to run aluminum intakes when they only came on th 69 A-12 cars but back then Chrysler was funneling lots of money to NHRA, I asked for and was not so politely denied a Shelby scooped hood for my SS 65 Mustang.

I'd love to hear Jerry Mcneish's take on this hood issue

02-14-2014, 12:43 PM	#1
Dick Butler VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Richmond Indiana Posts: 1,196 Likes: 5 Liked 32 Times in 19 Posts	Re: 1969 camaro hood Billy, I am truly impressed with your data. Thanks. Wonder why NHRA took 40? years to look into this? I can only guess a competitor with a slower combination. Probably will still be slower but I must admit if it didn't come on it or not available as an option on it then it shouldn't be allowed. Now apply the same reasoning to all the other small parts, fins, wings etc. people have mentioned within a month or so and all will be fair.

02-14-2014, 01:39 PM	#3
Rick Schilling Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Indy Posts: 103 Likes: 18 Liked 14 Times in 10 Posts	Re: 1969 camaro hood Are there any back to back performance comparisons available between the cowl hood and the flat? A number of them would have been changed back by now.

02-14-2014, 02:56 PM	#6
Dick Butler VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Richmond Indiana Posts: 1,196 Likes: 5 Liked 32 Times in 19 Posts	Re: 1969 camaro hood Advantage of the tall hood is spacer ht and carb clearance. Some negative to air flow if used with or without ac as I understand.

02-14-2014, 03:09 PM	#7
HandOverFist VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Gulf Breeze, FL Posts: 1,651 Likes: 8 Liked 33 Times in 16 Posts	Re: 1969 camaro hood With a maximum of two stock base gaskets allowed I don't think that has any bearing on either hood. __________________ Rich Taylor I/SA - 321

02-15-2014, 12:35 PM	#9
FINESPLINE Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Island of high taxes, N.Y. Posts: 541 Likes: 0 Liked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: 1969 camaro hood This is getting to be a real laugher. Did the NHRA ever enforce the spoiler option on 1967 camaros as there was no option ....D80... in 1967. I was going through a few pictures on the photo gallery and noticed a very nice 1967 Camaro in B/S with the front and rear spoilers and the pictures were posted in 2009. Is th is legal in the year of the photo or just wasnt addressed at that time. ...... And they are concerned about the solenoid on the flapper valve on a cowl hood. I dont want to cause no problems...... if you want to look at the car you can pm me. Last edited by FINESPLINE; 02-15-2014 at 12:49 PM.