MoMo

I've been using a Torker II intake manifold on a 465 cubic inch Pontiac "big block" for about 3 years now. And I just bought one for my new 433 cubic inch 427 that's going into my Corvette.
A few people from the forum asked me what I thought of the Torker II and if I saw a drop in low end torque using one.

I answered that it hadn't at all, and that I was very happy with it, especially above 4500 rpm. But I referenced my book "How to Hot Rod Big Block Chevy's" anyway to see what they had to say about intake choices.
Their opinion of the Torker manifold was very good. Of course, there are dual plane (180 degree) manifolds now that rival the Torker II. Never-the-less, they described the Torker II as a single plane with its torque band lower than your average single plane. In otherwords, by tuning the intake runners, they've effectively designed a carbureted version of the GM tuned port, in single plane form. They said when you get a Torker intake and look at the small size of the runners that don't even match up with the larger oval ports in the heads, it's hard not to feel somehow cheated, like Edelbrock played some sort of a cruel joke on you. However, you must resist the strong urge to get out the die grinder and port match the intake to the heads, because you will be downgrading the designed tuned runners. One would hope the buyer will resist the urge and just bolt them on, straight out of the box. You will see your maximum gains then.

That's not an exact quote, but it is very close, as I remember it.
The outer most runners on a Torker II are narrower and longer than the inner runners. This is for the purpose of speeding up the flow of the air/fuel charge, so that the charges reach the cylinders in the same time. You get excellent torque response in the midrange because the flow rate is so extremely high entering the cylinders. Plus, you get vastly better fuel distribution to all the cylinders than is possible with a 180 degree intake design (which typically starves the outermost cylinders).

My experience with the Torker II on the big huge cube Pontiac is that it is an excellent intake with a useable street torque range. It pulls even at 2000 rpm. The natural torque talent of a 454 will more than make up for any off-the-line deficiency this intake may have compared with a Performer for example. I still get a very crisp launch every time and effortlessly roast the tires right off the line. Plus, the intake gets really beautiful above 4500 rpm where it really comes into its own.

Look at the Torker II design as a sort of "carbureted tuned port". It's much more streetable than any other single plane out there, plus it has very good upper rpm talent as well.

69 N.O.X. RATT

Marbe your experiance with the Torker is good but I have seen several dyno pulls compared to decent dual planes and it suffers. The only reason I would run a Torker is to make room under the hood.

Is the 630 HP 427 in your post going to have a torker on it, if so I would like to know how you will get that kind of power out of a Torker. I am not trying to flame anyone but there are much better intakes (Performer RPM Air Gap)

Fastguy

I am running the Torker II just for hood clearance. I had a Performer but the hood wouldn't shut. :) I forget who, but someone in C3, has dyno sheets with the Torker II and a dual plane and the difference was minimal.

MoMo

I agree. If you have a big block capable of 500 or 600 lb-ft of torque, and you pull an extra 15 or 20 lb-ft using a dual plane, but lose 7 to 10 hp because of the dual plane, is that something you actually think you'll feel, one way or the other, by the seat of your pants?

The difference IS minimal, and the articles you are reading are the same ones I am reading. In below 4500 rpm ranges, the dual planes still pull more torque under the curve. But above that, the Torker II still makes better horsepower, better air flow, and better fuel distribution.
And if you think you can actually feel the difference between, say 550 lb-ft and 570 lb-ft, then you have a more sensitive butt than I do.

You have to look at your combo and your application. If you have a torque-monster 454 that'll never see much more than 5500 rpm max, then by all means, run a dual plane.
But if you have a higher revving engine, like my 427 that you took a jab at, where the mid to high range is more important, than a single plane works better. For pure racing, I should have gotten the Victor Jr, but because I want to drive it on the street, the nod went for the lower range Torker II, which will still do better than any dual plane at 6500 rpm +.

My redline is at 7400 rpm. My cam is a solid roller Crane, that sees its peak horsepower at 6500 rpm. My torque peak is at 5500 rpm. I have a lot of money in the headwork and even more in the fully forged rotating assembly in a 4-bolt main, ARP studded block.
There is no way any dual plane out there will run those kind of rpm's.

The Torker II will, even though it's advertised up to 6500. That's 6500+.
A friend of mine routinely runs his Torker to 7200 to 7400 rpm and it still pulls hard. The engine is a 454-based 468 BBC.

So my friendly advice is don't knock it till you try it. And don't believe all the magazine articles. The Torker is not simply for hood clearance.
Hope that helps.

mountainmotor

Edelbrock took a step backwards when the introduced the Torker II.The floor is too flat .The original small block version is back by popular demand.Trust me,the old style Torker will run circles around the Torker II on both the Chevy motors.I would much rather have a dual plane on my streeter motor and I am not fond of dual planes!

The guys that run fast Pontiacs stay with the dual planes and modded center dividers or the out of production old race Edelbrock open plenum.Looks more like a Holley 300-4

Quote:
"So my friendly advice is don't knock it till you try it."

Been there with em Momo.

compuvette

Mountain, long time no see! Guess what I just bought on ebay! I just picked up an original Torquer S/B intake. Should I put it on the '71?

mountainmotor

Nope! Please sell it to me! A guy up North I am helping needs that thing :)

How is the 84 running? Probably good from what I saw in the pics!

MoMo

Well, I've been there too, and I like them. To each their own.
Yes, there are a few features I would change too, such as no exhaust crossover. But that can be blocked off with a simple Felpro intake gasket.
The fact that they are "too flat" could be how they get it to fit under a Corvette hood. Can't have everything.

The original Torker had shorter runners, less low end response, and had a very angular transition with the head ports. The Torker II has longer runners, better low rpm response, and straight transition with head ports...FYI.

If some of you guys want to run the dual planes, believe me, that's fine and good. This thread, however, is for those that want to run the Torker II single plane. I've had a number of e-mails asking about it, and this isn't meant to be a "what's better" argument. It's meant for folks that like the Torker design and want to know more about it.

:)

Flareside

Momo, have you seen this test? http://www.72chevelle.com/lashword.htm Cam and intake dyno results.

I've never tried the Torker myself, but I wouldn't be suprised if it isn't as bad as it's reputation. Anything that fits under the stock hood with acceptable performance is good stuff in my book.



[Modified by Flareside, 7:52 PM 3/25/2002]

mountainmotor

Flareside,
I am glad you posted that

.First do you wonder why they used a 1 inch spacer on the Torker II?I bet it was to help straighten the charge due to the flat floor.Virtually no ram effect from that design.What do you think the outcome would have been without the spacer that will not fit under a Vette hood?

Why do you think they picked the 830 cfm Holley?

What does the max rpm power of any of the manifolds and cams suggest to you?

Do you now think a TorkerII with or without a spacer will be making power with any kind of streetable cam/compression or even with a high compression motor and full tilt race cam at 7200 RPM and beyond with oval port heads as tested?Not just winding out,making power.

I suspect they put the early model shorter runner Torker manifold on the Dyno motor and would have yielded the same or better results without the spacer vs the Torker II.Even better with a spacer

It also tells me many on the forum think they have 530 hp Iron Head Oval Port motors that don't in reality

I realize the test was years ago,but if one has ever held that Weiand Dual Plane in there hands they will agre,it looks as if it was more for Peanut Port heads than the large oval ports.It is a wonder they got that much power out of it.The newer RPM manifold would blow that old Weiand away.

Just pointing some issues out that might be missed on the test you posted.No disrespect to MoMo's post meant


[Modified by mountainmotor, 8:16 PM 3/25/2002]

Flareside

Mountainmotor, I hadn't read the article in a long time, and forgot about the spacer. I'm not suprised, given the tiny plenum of that manifold. I've never understood why Edelbrock would raise the floor of the intake to make room for the crossover and make a bad situation worse. Seems like a bad tradeoff. I'll tell you this, I've seen a torker II up close, and the ports are WAY smaller than the ports in a good flowing 325+ cc head. Can it really make 600+ hp in an application like Momo's?

Momo, I'm a little skeptical of the "tuned port" theory. How could it be tuned to anything when Edelbrock didn't even know the final engine configuration? If it's tuned for a 427 with exhaust manifolds and 260cc oval heads that peaks at 5500, can it really work well with a roller cam 500+ cube engine with headers and huge heads that runs to 6500+?

mountainmotor

Quote:
"Can it really make 600+ hp in an application like Momo's?"

Nope.Not in the past nor in the future is that manifold capable of those kind of numbers or 7k+ rpm's and be making power..That is Tunnel Ram and a pair of 660's or 750's kind of numbers with ovals.It would take an aluminum head with raised port exhaust and and .250 long rods with at least a 300-4 Holley with high compression and race roller cam,2 1/2 inch primariy headers ran open but most likely a Dominator patterned manifold to get that done with ovals.Not carved in stone but close.If you see numbers in that area be suspicious of the actual compression and cam used.

The use of an open plenum manifold on the street will always bw debated.Please let's keep it just a debate.

If I were to build a 454 or larger motor for Corvette I would opt for a Weiand Team G Dominator patterned open plenum manifold and use Holley's 750 Dominator or a 1050 depending on compression and size of the motor.They will fit under the hood as well.The type of boosters used with the 830 carb as they tested it is one of the keys to success with an open plenum manifold on the street.The various Dominators use these as well.All but some that is.But again,it is a matter of preference and I would not use anything less than a Rectangular Port head myself given that I have seen what kind of power they will make with proper cam @5k.It was obvious to me that the test motor was out of cylinder head in my opinion.

Edelbrock has done some odd things in the past.Too much to list but a brief example is they quit making one of the best manifolds ever designed for a rectangular port Chevy.It was called a Torker as well but was a 180 degree dual plane made for a Dominator.Internally it was huge!And will really get the job done.

So do I think the Torker II is absolute junk? No but there is always more than one way to skin a cat.I think a Dominator and a Weiand is a better way.

427Hotrod

Isn't this fun???

Interestingly, I was running the same setup Mountainmotor recommended on my 427. It's an old style Team G rectangular port intake with a 1050 annular Dominator( home built and modified). I was using Merlin oval ports that had been seriuosly ported and we opened them to meet the intake. Hood clearance was an issue with my '67 and this was the shortest Dominator flange intake I could find. It worked beautifully and is still in place on my 540. Though I figure it's a little small for it, until I get the hood re-done, it's what will work. It made 678 ft lbs of torque and is very driveable even with 3.36 gears.

Hp wise, it made 423 RWHP with a 288 street roller capped up with 2.5 exhaust. on the 427. Thats 475-500 on the engine dyno. Maybe 530-540 if uncapped and played with. It did pull 7000+ rpm and only was down 6 hp from the peak, so it has a broad range and the engine could have used much more cam.

There used to be an old dual plane, the C454 (dominator) and C-427 (rectangular port 4150) that made killer overall power. I've seen 9 sec door slammers running with it and back to back tests against newer style tall single planes at the track ( I mean we changed it there!) that made almost nothing in power difference as far as ET or trap speed. I believe this intake was re-introduced as a Torker something or other and Edelbrock might still sell it. It looks just like a factory dual plane 427/425 intake only bigger.

I've never run the Torker II, but I did run the old sideways Torkers and Tarantulas. I loved them. They had unreal bottom end and on a 427-454 would makepower past 6500 if cammed for it.

Once again, we don't race dynos. Use what makes the car faster. If the use of a killer tall intake chokes carb to hood or air cleaner clearance it makes no difference. Use whatever fits your application best and setup the rest of it to compliment it.

Jim

MoMo

Mountain Motor,
Did you read 427Hotrod's latest post?
Right after you said an oval port/Torker combo would never make any power or pull at high enough rpm's, he's had his pull serious power, have "unreal" low end torque, and pull on larger 454's at past 6500 rpm if cammed for it.

Here in Denver, I have a neighbor that runs the Torker single plane on a 745 hp, solid roller cammed 468 with an 825 cfm Holley. He runs 10.01 seconds at Bandemere, uncorrected, in a '69 GTO. With nitrous, he's in the 9's. He shifts his engine at 7400 rpm.
That's a lot more cubic inches than me, and a higher shift rpm than I'll typically use, but is the same Crane cam.

Keep in mind that Denver is high altitude...the 427 has less cubic inches anyway, and you simply don't need to run a rectangular port head to make a 427 fast. Many of the racers at Bandemere are using heavily ported oval ports with large valves, just like mine is set up, and they are quicker than with rectangular ports.

I got my info from "How to Hotrod Big Block Chevy's"...I didn't make it up.
If you choose not to believe it, that's fine. Run a dual plane with rectangle port heads, and be happy.

I'm just saying bigger is not necessarily better.
Where have we heard that before?

And if I end up not liking the Torker II, I will experiment with other choices, but the next choice would be a Victor Jr. I don't know why I wouldn't like it though, on the 465 cubic inch Pontiac in my 68 Firebird, it is an absolutely beautiful intake with an incredibly strong midrange.


[Modified by MoMo, 6:45 PM 3/26/2002]

MoMo

Okay,
In defense of the claimed power and torque numbers on the 427, I used Dyno2000 strictly as an estimate. I also chose the only choice Dyno2000 allows, "Single Plane intake". They make no differentiation between a narrow runner Torker II or a huge runner high rpm single plane.

But how damn hard is it to change an intake???
It's like a half hour's worth of work. IF I don't like the TII, I'll try a different one. The 427 is 90% built and on the engine stand, waiting for warmer weather to finish it up and drop it in my 68 Corvette.

I built the engine myself, used nothing but the best components I could find, is fully forged with shot peened and polished forged rods, standard length, and is in a 4-bolt main 454 block. The cam is a Crane solid roller, and has 244/254 deg duration at 0.05", and 0.565"/0.585" lift if I remember correctly.

The heads are GM oval port. They are heavily ported and bowl blended, on both intake and exhaust, and have 2.30"/1.88" SS valves, and titanium spring retainers. Springs are the recommended Crane springs for that cam. The valves are unshrouded, and the stock closed combustion chamber is now a "partially closed" combustion chamber with 109 cc.

Compression is approximately 11:1. Headers are Hooker sidemount. Muffler inserts are custom, I won't run Hooker's restrictive muffler inserts.

Carburetion is a Barry Grant Gold Claw with 775 cfm sleeves installed.
I plan on using something along the lines of a 1" "Supersucker" carb spacer, but I have to see how much room is left under my custom hood scoop.

Run it on your own Dyno2000 program. You think the extra cubes of a 454 make that much more power?
This engine will not be dragraced. It is destined for road and track racing, and will be kept street legal, for pleasure use.
Because of the higher top end required for the track races, and some track speeds will be seen in excess of 160 mph on some straight aways, I kept the 3.36 gears in the rear end. I have a Muncie M21 transmission, with a Lakewood Bellhousing and 11" Centerforce dual friction clutch.
I doubt if I will see 7000 rpm too often in an application like this, and it will be more important to come out of the hole like gangbusters and charge hard in the straights.

That's why I want to try the torquier Torker II and avoid the dual planes.
I have access to a Torker I also, if I think the Torker II is stifling the engine.
This engine has cost me at least 7.5 grand to build, doing it myself piece by piece. And if I don't like the intake, that's the least of my concerns.
But if what I've read is true, the difference is relatively minor, between this intake and other intakes. We'll see.

The heavily ported oval ports will work better on this engine than a top-end only rectangular port head design will.
Now you know my engine.
A good 427 is fully capable of 600 hp range numbers. And the rod/stroke ratio is far better than a 454's.

I will see a dyno after the break in period. If Dyno2000 is high, I'll know soon enough. I'm guessing it might be a little optimistic. We'll see.

427Hotrod

Ok, just to make sure we're all together...

I don't think what I said was too far off Mountainmotor's logic.

He is doubting the Torker II's ability to make hp as compared to the old Torker I ( I'm assuming he's talking about the old angled ones that I'm referring to) or the "other" Torker whatever that I think used to be called the C-454(Dominator/rectangular) and C-427(rectangular port) and C-396 (oval port). I have never run the Torker II, but I have run all the others.

I know the others will run pretty well. The original Torkers were relatively small runner/plenum single planes that made good low end and still pulled up top. Depending on motor I'm not sure how much they were better than the old factory dual plane. We did run a back to back on an genuine 12.0 compression second design open chambered L-88 powered Nova (assembled from the GM catalog). It had a 4 speed and 4.10's. We could never tell a difference in it at the track either (within .05 et and .5 mph either way) but it was not a pure back to back test. Tests were run on different days and compared to the best it had ever done. The dual plane was a little smoother on the street, but the L-88 still puulled past 7400 with it when needed. It did have a slightly larger flat tappet cam and headers. It ran mid-high 11's. Needed much more gear, but in those days it was killer.

I've had great luck with the Holley Strip Dominators as well.

The C454 had been run in a lightened (2950 lb) '68 Camaro with a 454 and iron rectangular ports. He regularly revved it past 8000 rpm even though it probably was not needed. The car was a consistent 9.80-9.90 car. With a little NOS it went mid 9.40's. The engine was definitely not hightech by any means. We installed a Team G and found nothing at the track. We expected some MPH. The old C454 was able to flow everything it needed and moved the car down the track well. The Team G I'm sure would have outperformed it on a Dyno, but in actual acceleration the dual plane hung with it even at this level. Now, granted, no effort was made to maximize exhaust, cam etc to make the intake work. We bolted it on and did passes to confirm mixture and that was it. At the time the $200 spent really p#$^&ed us off!

So, it seems some folks have compared the old Torker to the new Torker II and not been able to tell much difference. If any one has dyno tests or real world track numbers it would be interesting. That dude just does not look like it can work that well, but I'm surprised often!

I used to live in Denver, and can attest to the fast oval port motors up there. My 427 was in a Camaro at the time and immediately went from 11.60's to 12.40s at Bandimere as compared to my sea level runs. I worked hard on it and finally got it to run 11.50's up there and mid 10's on NOS. It consisted of more compression, oval ports, more cam, more gear and the Dominator.

Anything running 11's in Denver on pump gas without NOS is flying!

And I hope you can make 630 Hp, but it's going to be tough. Mine was not a seriously engineered piece, but it was a well thought out combo. I had slightly more compression (11.2) slightly, bigger cam, beautiful oval port Merlin heads (324 cfm @.600), 2" headers, 1050 carb on a single plane(OK probably too big, but it ran good). I WISH I made 600+ hp. From the one's I've built, it generally takes 12.5-13.0 compression, rectangular port heads that are ported nicely and a solid roller. RPM HP peak in the 7400-7600+ range. Could be done with a flat tappet, but it will be hard on parts. You're talking the 1.47 hp per cube area. Granted, the smaller cubes, high R/S ratio all help with HP per cube, but that's still serious territory.

Hey MoMo.... do you know Brian Maki? Used to have a Teal green '70 Camaro with an alcohol 572 in it with pink lettering. Ran low 9's up there. Used stack injectors setup by Tak. He has a new car now he's building. I think its a tube chassis Monte Carlo.
Or how 'bout the Swartswoods? I think that's right, something like that, been a long time... 9 second red '69 injected Camaro?


Jim


[Modified by 427Hotrod, 7:17 PM 3/26/2002]

mountainmotor

Quote:
"Mountain Motor,
Did you read 427Hotrod's latest post?
Right after you said an oval port/Torker combo would never make any power or pull at high enough rpm's, he's had his pull serious power, have "unreal" low end torque, and pull on larger 454's at past 6500 rpm if cammed for it."

Yeah I read it and you should reread it.He used a 4500 Dominator Flanged Weiand and the far superior after market heads.Two different animals there.
While we are at it,the dual plane we both spoke of is not your run of the mill 180 degree manifold either. They are made for a Dominator carb

Quote:
"My redline is at 7400 rpm. My cam is a solid roller Crane, that sees its peak horsepower at 6500 rpm. My torque peak is at 5500 rpm. I have a lot of money in the headwork and even more in the fully forged rotating assembly in a 4-bolt main, ARP studded block.
There is no way any dual plane out there will run those kind of rpm's."

That part of your post sounds like it is a running driving car with this engine in it.

Quote:
"A friend of mine routinely runs his Torker to 7200 to 7400 rpm and it still pulls hard. The engine is a 454-based 468 BBC."

I would like to see that engine on a dyno.Not the Nintendo style either.

:)


[Modified by mountainmotor, 8:01 PM 3/26/2002]

gdh

Wow what an incredible dialogue, guys for me this thread is what all should be about. I have read, made notes and stand in utter amazement at the knowledge and expertice of you all. Man I gotta get me a Torker, if only all posts could be this informative. Life is nothing without passion, and mods are definately about true passionand differences in opinions tend to bring out the most. Damn, MountainMotor are there any houses for sale on your street. :cheers: all

ddecart

Don't get out the die grinder? NOW he tells me!! I took a grinder to mine and port matched it a couple years ago.

My car is a small block, but I can't feel any difference between the Torker II and the Performer manifolds I have.

ddn

Interestingly enough, no one has talked about WHY smaller ports can be better yet. For my diatribe, let's simplify things, and look at the Harley 80-inch V-twin engine.

It's a big motor, that puts out nice grunt, with people that think BIG that ride it. So when someone brings their Harley to a performance shop to add some ponies, most tuners hog out the ports, slap a bigger carb on it, and send it on the way with the same amount of power or less.

Differ, Geoffrey Gaites of www.cycledoctor.com. Geoff has learned from the best, and from that he has learned that making the ports BIGGER on a Harley just drops power. He welds in material, and then shapes the ports, and selects the right carb. All based on tons of dyno research.

But now you're like "Ok, what the hell, what's his point, and why does making the ports smaller make any difference?"

Put a high speed pressure sensor into a cylinder. When the intake valve opens, the piston pulls a deep vacuum. Air starts moving after the huge pressure drop, and the pressure starts building slowly. With big ports, at BDC, the piston changes direction, starts coming up, stops the intake of air, and stops the cylinder filling. To stop it from backing up, you must close the intake valve early.

Now, if on the other hand, you tune the ports to have the highest possible (ratio of course) intake velocity. As the pistons hits BDC, the intake charge does NOT stop, but because the velocity is greater than the pressure exerted by the piston returning up, the intake charge continues to come in and fill the cylinder. The higher the intake velocity, the longer you can keep the intake valve open. You can use Bernoulli's principle that moving air has less pressure than still air to calculate the amount of time it will take to stop the charge.

Class dismissed.