Join Date: Apr 2010
Thanked 438 Times in 225 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
The misconception is that the shaker is somehow "force feeding" air into the engine. This is absolutely not true. And if you think FCA actually designed the shaker around wind tunnel testing to bring the functionality of the shaker up to that level, then I couldn't laugh more.
Just because the shaker is sipping on outside air doesn't mean it's the same as a ram air effect, which has been mentioned and argued on this forum throughout the years. The shaker isn't forcing any more air into the engine than a non-shaker car would. If you think that's worth the price from a performance perspective, good luck. The only thing that makes it worth the price in my opinion is the looks factor.
And efficient and functional go hand in hand. Efficiency is a performance measure of the functionality. The shaker may technically be "functional" since it's baby bottle feeding on air around the hood rather than in the engine bay, but it's not very efficient compared to other functional systems.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
'67 Belvedere II - 426 Hemi/727/3.55
'68 Road Runner - 383/727/3.23
'69 Charger R/T - 512/727/4.10 Dana 60
'77 Monaco A38 ex cop car - 440/727/2.71
'79 'Lil Red Express - 360/727/3.55
'89 Diplomat AHB ex cop car - 408/727/3.55
'12 Challenger SRT - 392/6 speed/3.92
'16 Chrysler 200C - 3.6/ auto