Use of a Torker II on a big block
03-27-2002, 04:24 AM
#21
Re: Use of a Torker II on a big block (ddn)
Quote:
"Class dismissed."
Good:D I am glad because a Harley is not a Rat motor neither is a Offenhauser or Yamaha and none of those engines pull a charge from a common plenum like a domestic V8. The above oval port heads we have referred to are a "small port" design in the applications of use with 468-540 ci high performance engines.Very small.
If your theory somehow speaks of a relatively small port "intake manifold" going into a "large port" head the lenght of the large portion of the now extended port runners will overwhelm the smaller intake manifold port" flow wise" at higher RPM with a large piston that does the pulling as in a big ci engine especially with a small open plenum or a divided runner plenum.
ddn,take a look at the dyno runs posted by flareside and see if they do inpart reflect what I have just said although on that dyno motor,more than just that was going on.
Quote:
"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"
I believe you will still be fine.The problem you run into though with these type manifolds and the already "low" floor is lowering them any farther even further decreasing any ram effect that might have been there to start with.If the floor is low and flat,usually won't do well up top.That is why even on some of the better open plenum manifolds the faster guys epoxy the floor,blend the transitions into the ports and use spacers on top of the plenum as an extension.The benefits are two fold.More of a ram effect and moving the carb away from the floor helps stop the direct hit of the charge from the carb on the floor of the manifold giving it a better chance to direct towards the port roof as it is pulled from the carb
[Modified by mountainmotor, 3:19 AM 3/27/2002]
"Class dismissed."
Good:D I am glad because a Harley is not a Rat motor neither is a Offenhauser or Yamaha and none of those engines pull a charge from a common plenum like a domestic V8. The above oval port heads we have referred to are a "small port" design in the applications of use with 468-540 ci high performance engines.Very small.
If your theory somehow speaks of a relatively small port "intake manifold" going into a "large port" head the lenght of the large portion of the now extended port runners will overwhelm the smaller intake manifold port" flow wise" at higher RPM with a large piston that does the pulling as in a big ci engine especially with a small open plenum or a divided runner plenum.
ddn,take a look at the dyno runs posted by flareside and see if they do inpart reflect what I have just said although on that dyno motor,more than just that was going on.
Quote:
"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"
I believe you will still be fine.The problem you run into though with these type manifolds and the already "low" floor is lowering them any farther even further decreasing any ram effect that might have been there to start with.If the floor is low and flat,usually won't do well up top.That is why even on some of the better open plenum manifolds the faster guys epoxy the floor,blend the transitions into the ports and use spacers on top of the plenum as an extension.The benefits are two fold.More of a ram effect and moving the carb away from the floor helps stop the direct hit of the charge from the carb on the floor of the manifold giving it a better chance to direct towards the port roof as it is pulled from the carb
[Modified by mountainmotor, 3:19 AM 3/27/2002]
03-27-2002, 11:32 AM
#22
Re: Use of a Torker II on a big block (mountainmotor)
Just a few more somewhat rambling but pertanate thoughts and experiences with these type motors.
Momo,
I truly do wish you the best of luck.You have alot of hard earned money in the project and imo the 427 ci was a good with the heads used and the cars intended purpose.I did though reread the entire thread and saw where you told me to go ahead and run a dual plane with rectangular ports if I wished.That is something I would never do.My approach to real world camming of a BB with an open plenum is far different than the norm and has positive results.Not exactly a secret but something I have not ever shared with the forum and doubt I will in the future.Every cam of the likes that leaves here leaves with the numbers ground off.With around 400 cam cards here,I think I am experienced in camming the BB Chevy.
427HOTROD,
I have seen similar results as you when changing from the old Dominator style 180 degree manifold to a Team G on a boat.The Team G lost 50 RPM.
.
Not a direct dyno result yet simalar in that a Jet Boat is a big old water dyno.I helped a guy build a boat motor 10 years or so back.It was just a 85 mph Ski Boat that was a 468,ported large valve 781's my "X" cam and 10.5 compression.The guy had an old style Torker but I was surprised to see him at the lake with a new Torker II and had already been beat by a simalar old style Torker motor.He told me he went to buy intake gaskets and was sold this new style because it was so much better the speed shop claimed.That was a Satureday and the next day he came back with my 300-4 on the motor.A jet change resulted in an immediate 150 RPM increase.An aproximate 30 hp gain at 5200 rpm.
Again though we are talking of Corvette and hood clearance issues.I expect many a BB Vette is down on power needlessly for lack of information and input such as what 427Hotrod runs under his hood for induction.For those that choose to use a Torker II,a serious rethink towards camming will yield a better end result.
Momo,
I truly do wish you the best of luck.You have alot of hard earned money in the project and imo the 427 ci was a good with the heads used and the cars intended purpose.I did though reread the entire thread and saw where you told me to go ahead and run a dual plane with rectangular ports if I wished.That is something I would never do.My approach to real world camming of a BB with an open plenum is far different than the norm and has positive results.Not exactly a secret but something I have not ever shared with the forum and doubt I will in the future.Every cam of the likes that leaves here leaves with the numbers ground off.With around 400 cam cards here,I think I am experienced in camming the BB Chevy.
427HOTROD,
I have seen similar results as you when changing from the old Dominator style 180 degree manifold to a Team G on a boat.The Team G lost 50 RPM.
.
Not a direct dyno result yet simalar in that a Jet Boat is a big old water dyno.I helped a guy build a boat motor 10 years or so back.It was just a 85 mph Ski Boat that was a 468,ported large valve 781's my "X" cam and 10.5 compression.The guy had an old style Torker but I was surprised to see him at the lake with a new Torker II and had already been beat by a simalar old style Torker motor.He told me he went to buy intake gaskets and was sold this new style because it was so much better the speed shop claimed.That was a Satureday and the next day he came back with my 300-4 on the motor.A jet change resulted in an immediate 150 RPM increase.An aproximate 30 hp gain at 5200 rpm.
Again though we are talking of Corvette and hood clearance issues.I expect many a BB Vette is down on power needlessly for lack of information and input such as what 427Hotrod runs under his hood for induction.For those that choose to use a Torker II,a serious rethink towards camming will yield a better end result.
03-27-2002, 11:46 AM
#23
Safety Car
Re: Use of a Torker II on a big block (mountainmotor)
Just a few more somewhat rambling but pertanate thoughts and experiences with these type motors.
Momo,
I truly do wish you the best of luck.You have alot of hard earned money in the project and imo the 427 ci was a good with the heads used and the cars intended purpose.I did though reread the entire thread and saw where you told me to go ahead and run a dual plane with rectangular ports if I wished.That is something I would never do.My approach to real world camming of a BB with an open plenum is far different than the norm and has positive results.Not exactly a secret but something I have not ever shared with the forum and doubt I will in the future.Every cam of the likes that leaves here leaves with the numbers ground off.With around 400 cam cards here,I think I am experienced in camming the BB Chevy.
427HOTROD,
I have seen similar results as you when changing from the old Dominator style 180 degree manifold to a Team G on a boat.The Team G lost 50 RPM.
.
Not a direct dyno result yet simalar in that a Jet Boat is a big old water dyno.I helped a guy build a boat motor 10 years or so back.It was just a 85 mph Ski Boat that was a 468,ported large valve 781's my "X" cam and 10.5 compression.The guy had an old style Torker but I was surprised to see him at the lake with a new Torker II and had already been beat by a simalar old style Torker motor.He told me he went to buy intake gaskets and was sold this new style because it was so much better the speed shop claimed.That was a Satureday and the next day he came back with my 300-4 on the motor.A jet change resulted in an immediate 150 RPM increase.An aproximate 30 hp gain at 5200 rpm.
Again though we are talking of Corvette and hood clearance issues.I expect many a BB Vette is down on power needlessly for lack of information and input such as what 427Hotrod runs under his hood for induction.For those that choose to use a Torker II,a serious rethink towards camming will yield a better end result.
Momo,
I truly do wish you the best of luck.You have alot of hard earned money in the project and imo the 427 ci was a good with the heads used and the cars intended purpose.I did though reread the entire thread and saw where you told me to go ahead and run a dual plane with rectangular ports if I wished.That is something I would never do.My approach to real world camming of a BB with an open plenum is far different than the norm and has positive results.Not exactly a secret but something I have not ever shared with the forum and doubt I will in the future.Every cam of the likes that leaves here leaves with the numbers ground off.With around 400 cam cards here,I think I am experienced in camming the BB Chevy.
427HOTROD,
I have seen similar results as you when changing from the old Dominator style 180 degree manifold to a Team G on a boat.The Team G lost 50 RPM.
.
Not a direct dyno result yet simalar in that a Jet Boat is a big old water dyno.I helped a guy build a boat motor 10 years or so back.It was just a 85 mph Ski Boat that was a 468,ported large valve 781's my "X" cam and 10.5 compression.The guy had an old style Torker but I was surprised to see him at the lake with a new Torker II and had already been beat by a simalar old style Torker motor.He told me he went to buy intake gaskets and was sold this new style because it was so much better the speed shop claimed.That was a Satureday and the next day he came back with my 300-4 on the motor.A jet change resulted in an immediate 150 RPM increase.An aproximate 30 hp gain at 5200 rpm.
Again though we are talking of Corvette and hood clearance issues.I expect many a BB Vette is down on power needlessly for lack of information and input such as what 427Hotrod runs under his hood for induction.For those that choose to use a Torker II,a serious rethink towards camming will yield a better end result.
Momo, your engine sounds like a real runner! I can't wait to see the dyno results.
One thing I noticed: Will this car spend more time at the track than on the street? If it's primarily a street car, I would prefer the M20. I'm currently running an M21 and 3.55 behind my 427, and the first gear ratio isn't that great. It's not tough to get going or anything, but it could certainly be better. With a 3.36 rear you're looking at a 7.39 first gear ratio. For street performance most people seem to prefer 9+. Are you planning to sacrifice stoplight acceleration for closer ratios at the track? I could understand that...
-Joe
[Modified by Flareside, 10:58 AM 3/27/2002]
03-29-2002, 12:02 AM
#24
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 1999
Posts: 3,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Use of a Torker II on a big block (Flareside)
Mountain Motor, you're pretty rough.
You are really down on the smaller displacement big blocks, particularly that run the oval port heads. I don't know you that well, but you seem to have a lot of experience with big inch "mountain motors", for lack of a better term. I'm drawing the conclusion from reading all your posts that you really do not think nor believe in any way that an oval ported 427 is worth the money spent to build it.
As 427 Hotrod said, he ran 11's on a very similarly built 427 at Bandemere, which is at something like 5,800 feet ASL. Engines here make roughly 17% less horsepower than at sealevel, so as 427Hotrod said, 11's in Denver without nitrous is really smokin'.
And that's with, I might add, a ported oval port headed 427.
Let me continue by REITERATING that those "Nintendo" power figures will be tested on an actual chassis dyno after the break in period. Then we will see. I don't actually believe I'll run 630 hp corrected. I'm only guessing by using that, and it is strictly an estimate. It will be tested, real world.
The "far superior" oval port heads you say 427Hotrod have, you have absolutely no basis in fact. Have you once asked me how my heads flow?
I had them flowbench tested, and I can get the numbers when I get back home, but I'm pretty sure they outflowed those aftermarket oval port heads by a longshot. I'll check later and post back here.
All I'm saying here is that you're making a bunch of assumptions, with a sharp tongue too, that you can't back up. I intend to back up my assumptions. I have no fear of reality here. I want to see if Mr. Gasket's Desktop Dyno is full of bull or accurate to some degree.
If you were truly interested in my engine, you would have asked, rather than automatically making some of the assumptions you're making.
This wasn't about my engine anyway, how it got that way I don't know. This was about the Torker II intake, and what one published book had to say about it. Whether you personally like the intake or not is of no concern to me, I am not posting this solely for your benefit, but rather for the benefit of the MANY others that do like the intake and want to use it.
It works. It works fairly well, and still fits under a Corvette's hood. What's so bad about that? The design is old, but it works for its intended purpose.
I intend to use a carb spacer. I never said I wouldn't. I intend to raise the floor height as much as possible with one. I'd run a 2" spacer if I could, but probably will only manage 1", if that.
You act as if I'm some stupid teenager that doesn't know a damn thing about cars. I hope someday at the strip, you are schooled by a smaller, oval ported big block or better yet, a big inch 434 small block. What do you run in the quarter? Can you do 11's at a mile high?
That's enough for tonight. I am beginning to get a little fired up.
:mad
You are really down on the smaller displacement big blocks, particularly that run the oval port heads. I don't know you that well, but you seem to have a lot of experience with big inch "mountain motors", for lack of a better term. I'm drawing the conclusion from reading all your posts that you really do not think nor believe in any way that an oval ported 427 is worth the money spent to build it.
As 427 Hotrod said, he ran 11's on a very similarly built 427 at Bandemere, which is at something like 5,800 feet ASL. Engines here make roughly 17% less horsepower than at sealevel, so as 427Hotrod said, 11's in Denver without nitrous is really smokin'.
And that's with, I might add, a ported oval port headed 427.
Let me continue by REITERATING that those "Nintendo" power figures will be tested on an actual chassis dyno after the break in period. Then we will see. I don't actually believe I'll run 630 hp corrected. I'm only guessing by using that, and it is strictly an estimate. It will be tested, real world.
The "far superior" oval port heads you say 427Hotrod have, you have absolutely no basis in fact. Have you once asked me how my heads flow?
I had them flowbench tested, and I can get the numbers when I get back home, but I'm pretty sure they outflowed those aftermarket oval port heads by a longshot. I'll check later and post back here.
All I'm saying here is that you're making a bunch of assumptions, with a sharp tongue too, that you can't back up. I intend to back up my assumptions. I have no fear of reality here. I want to see if Mr. Gasket's Desktop Dyno is full of bull or accurate to some degree.
If you were truly interested in my engine, you would have asked, rather than automatically making some of the assumptions you're making.
This wasn't about my engine anyway, how it got that way I don't know. This was about the Torker II intake, and what one published book had to say about it. Whether you personally like the intake or not is of no concern to me, I am not posting this solely for your benefit, but rather for the benefit of the MANY others that do like the intake and want to use it.
It works. It works fairly well, and still fits under a Corvette's hood. What's so bad about that? The design is old, but it works for its intended purpose.
I intend to use a carb spacer. I never said I wouldn't. I intend to raise the floor height as much as possible with one. I'd run a 2" spacer if I could, but probably will only manage 1", if that.
You act as if I'm some stupid teenager that doesn't know a damn thing about cars. I hope someday at the strip, you are schooled by a smaller, oval ported big block or better yet, a big inch 434 small block. What do you run in the quarter? Can you do 11's at a mile high?
That's enough for tonight. I am beginning to get a little fired up.
:mad
03-29-2002, 10:19 AM
#25
Re: Use of a Torker II on a big block (MoMo)
Momo you have just blasted the wrong guy! You should read posts before replying to them as suggested before
Quote:
"All I'm saying here is that you're making a bunch of assumptions, with a sharp tongue too, that you can't back up"
I can back up everything I have spoke of,something you can't because you have no "real" experience with the Rat motors.You are the one in a dificult situation by blowing in here telling of the killer power numbers at ultra high RPM's that cannot be obtained with your motor ,period!
1.In my post above I said I truly wished you success and that the 427 was a wise choice in my opinion.I did not go on to say though that the oval ports would be more of a race head on a 427 than a 454.You should be able to spin it up better with those heads.A 454 makes about 50 more hp than a 427 in the same state of tune as long as a healthy cam is used to start with.
2.No matter what kind of head work you have done to your GM ovals they will not run with the raised exhaust port heads like 427hotrod has currently and so NO! I don't want to hear of your flow numbers as I have seen the best.
Quote:
" I don't actually believe I'll run 630 hp corrected. I'm only guessing by using that, and it is strictly an estimate.'
One of the first couple of posts by you suggests it's a done deal and that's what it makes.Then afterwords you admitted it was not a done deal
3.Nintendo like game it is.A 800 hp 283 can be built with it.Buid a real 800hp 283 and I will retract my statement
4,
quote:
"This wasn't about my engine anyway, how it got that way I don't know"
Read your posts,you took it there.
5.Quote: intend to use a carb spacer. I never said I wouldn't. I intend to raise the floor height as much as possible with one. I'd run a 2" spacer if I could, but probably will only manage 1", if that."
A spacer WILL NOT raise the floor height.
6.Quote:You act as if I'm some stupid teenager that doesn't know a damn thing about cars. I hope someday at the strip, you are schooled by a smaller, oval ported big block or better yet, a big inch 434 small block. What do you run in the quarter? Can you do 11's at a mile high?"
You are the one that had either 4.56 or 5.38 gears listed in your sig for the Pontiac.One day I saw where you had 3.08 gear and I asked you if you liked them better on the hiway just for conversation.You told me you discovered your tach was off all along:D Thats like 2600 or more difference in RPM on the hiway:D :D Like you could not tell?So no,I take no creedance in any of your long and rambling posts mostly quoted directly from a book. You opened this door and I have held back till now.I am glad you opened it for others to see and or read into your actual abilities:D
Bandemere is not that big a deal.No offese intended to 427hotrod.Tuned for altitude is all and NO I don't run the 11's.I run in the 7's and 8's with 2 boats I maintain on the liquid 1/4 mile and help on occasion with The Widowmaker Blown Alcohol Capsule Boat.It runs 216 mph in the 1/4
These street car motors are for lack of a better term,much easier to build.My Son has been degreeing cams since age 15.Can you?
And as far as being "schooled" by a oval port motor or a 434 thats not ever going to happen, so just hold your breath and keep hoping !
Expect you in the future,especially as Moderator should refrain from the flames and to not put words in my mouth.Sharp tongue you say I have?I was an Umpire in the Major Leages.I call em like I see um:DAgain,reread all posts by all.Then the flames you have shot towards me will show to be unjustified.Unless the content of all this is over your head.LOL
You were on the Defensive before my first post when 69 NOX Ratt told of actual dyno pulls!.Read it.Right there in black and white
Factoring in the variables with the ci heads cam,ect I expect your motor to make no more than this 454 did.If it makes that. http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/index.html
[Modified by mountainmotor, 12:39 PM 3/29/2002]
[Modified by mountainmotor, 12:49 PM 3/29/2002]
Quote:
"All I'm saying here is that you're making a bunch of assumptions, with a sharp tongue too, that you can't back up"
I can back up everything I have spoke of,something you can't because you have no "real" experience with the Rat motors.You are the one in a dificult situation by blowing in here telling of the killer power numbers at ultra high RPM's that cannot be obtained with your motor ,period!
1.In my post above I said I truly wished you success and that the 427 was a wise choice in my opinion.I did not go on to say though that the oval ports would be more of a race head on a 427 than a 454.You should be able to spin it up better with those heads.A 454 makes about 50 more hp than a 427 in the same state of tune as long as a healthy cam is used to start with.
2.No matter what kind of head work you have done to your GM ovals they will not run with the raised exhaust port heads like 427hotrod has currently and so NO! I don't want to hear of your flow numbers as I have seen the best.
Quote:
" I don't actually believe I'll run 630 hp corrected. I'm only guessing by using that, and it is strictly an estimate.'
One of the first couple of posts by you suggests it's a done deal and that's what it makes.Then afterwords you admitted it was not a done deal
3.Nintendo like game it is.A 800 hp 283 can be built with it.Buid a real 800hp 283 and I will retract my statement
4,
quote:
"This wasn't about my engine anyway, how it got that way I don't know"
Read your posts,you took it there.
5.Quote: intend to use a carb spacer. I never said I wouldn't. I intend to raise the floor height as much as possible with one. I'd run a 2" spacer if I could, but probably will only manage 1", if that."
A spacer WILL NOT raise the floor height.
6.Quote:You act as if I'm some stupid teenager that doesn't know a damn thing about cars. I hope someday at the strip, you are schooled by a smaller, oval ported big block or better yet, a big inch 434 small block. What do you run in the quarter? Can you do 11's at a mile high?"
You are the one that had either 4.56 or 5.38 gears listed in your sig for the Pontiac.One day I saw where you had 3.08 gear and I asked you if you liked them better on the hiway just for conversation.You told me you discovered your tach was off all along:D Thats like 2600 or more difference in RPM on the hiway:D :D Like you could not tell?So no,I take no creedance in any of your long and rambling posts mostly quoted directly from a book. You opened this door and I have held back till now.I am glad you opened it for others to see and or read into your actual abilities:D
Bandemere is not that big a deal.No offese intended to 427hotrod.Tuned for altitude is all and NO I don't run the 11's.I run in the 7's and 8's with 2 boats I maintain on the liquid 1/4 mile and help on occasion with The Widowmaker Blown Alcohol Capsule Boat.It runs 216 mph in the 1/4
These street car motors are for lack of a better term,much easier to build.My Son has been degreeing cams since age 15.Can you?
And as far as being "schooled" by a oval port motor or a 434 thats not ever going to happen, so just hold your breath and keep hoping !
Expect you in the future,especially as Moderator should refrain from the flames and to not put words in my mouth.Sharp tongue you say I have?I was an Umpire in the Major Leages.I call em like I see um:DAgain,reread all posts by all.Then the flames you have shot towards me will show to be unjustified.Unless the content of all this is over your head.LOL
You were on the Defensive before my first post when 69 NOX Ratt told of actual dyno pulls!.Read it.Right there in black and white
Factoring in the variables with the ci heads cam,ect I expect your motor to make no more than this 454 did.If it makes that. http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/index.html
[Modified by mountainmotor, 12:39 PM 3/29/2002]
[Modified by mountainmotor, 12:49 PM 3/29/2002]
