Intake selection

-
ham_r_down01

ham_r_down01

Is Freak Nasty
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
159
Reaction score
5
Location
MI
I have 3 different intakes,
1. Edelbrock Torker II low rise single plane
2. Holley Strip Dominator single plane
3. Knock off Edelbrock Air Gap dual plane

69 340, Stock bore/compression, Mp purple shaft .484/.484, ported X heads
904 trans, A and A manual valve body, 2200ish? mopar converter
8 3/4 rear end 4.10 ratio with a sure grip

The car is a 69 Dart as of now it runs a traction limited 13.06 @ 105
I have these intakes, the Torker (650 DP) is on the car now because thats the one i wanted to use at the time. I have been thinking about switching it up a little.... Intake, carb or both???

Comments?
 
I would say us the dual plain........but it would only cause more traction problems.

Maybe work on getting it to "hook" off the line, first.
 
I agree with the above comments. If your having traction issues now you will probably have even more with either of the other intakes. Spend you time getting it to hook up.
 
you can have all the motor in the world but if you cant get to the ground what good is it ...drag radials, a set of 9" slicks ,shock changes frt an rear , a good place to start mopar chassis book do some research . theres more to it than most people say.
 
stip dominator,they seam to have some small fueldistribution isues but not that bad.. the old torkermanifolds are junk from the few i have seen with big restrictions in some runners from making clearance for bolts,and that chinese thing dont even get me started....
 
duster340 said:
the old torkermanifolds are junk from the few i have seen with big restrictions in some runners from making clearance for bolts,....
Click to expand...
True on the intake bolt clearance issue but.....

I disagree a little bit here. He did say TorkerII not Torker. While at the time they were being made, Edelbrock didn't have a dual plane being made above (Performance wise) the Performer. Next in line above the TorkerII is a Victor. Big gap in intake selection/performance. You would have to hunt down a LD-340 or go elsewhere. (Weiand)

The T-II is ok. I wouldn't want it on a dual purpose car in the street, but it would work OK, if your ignoring the power/streetabilty below 3500 rpm.
A RPM would be much better to use.
 
dartman340ta said:
you can have all the motor in the world but if you cant get to the ground what good is it ...drag radials, a set of 9" slicks ,shock changes frt an rear , a good place to start mopar chassis book do some research . theres more to it than most people say.
Click to expand...

If i had all the dollars in the world id do that but im bored and laid off for the winter... the intakes are free because i have them, yes its a torker II. there are no bolt clearance issues, nice open runners. Street manners are good because of the short tires. The china intake im not real hip to it just looks chitty, i ground off the made in china cause i was PI$$ED and embarased it said it on it when i got it. I almost sent it back.
 
rumblefish360 said:
True on the intake bolt clearance issue but.....

I disagree a little bit here. He did say TorkerII not Torker. While at the time they were being made, Edelbrock didn't have a dual plane being made above (Performance wise) the Performer. Next in line above the TorkerII is a Victor. Big gap in intake selection/performance. You would have to hunt down a LD-340 or go elsewhere. (Weiand)

The T-II is ok. I wouldn't want it on a dual purpose car in the street, but it would work OK, if your ignoring the power/streetabilty below 3500 rpm.
A RPM would be much better to use.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've had both the original Torker and the Torker2 and the original was junk IMO but the T2 was a decent manifold that works great as long as you have a loose converter or 4 spd. with low gears.
 
"2200ish" converter, low gearset in trans and 4.10 gears add up to Torker II. You can say "if he had this", "sell um for that" all day. IMHO, the Torker II fits the bill with what he HAS. Yall gonna tell him that with a low trans gearset, a fairly loose converter and 4.10 gears he's gonna lose bottom end? I doubt it. It will be fine. It's a good match.
 
StrokerScamp said:
"2200ish" converter, low gearset in trans and 4.10 gears add up to Torker II. You can say "if he had this", "sell um for that" all day. IMHO, the Torker II fits the bill with what he HAS. Yall gonna tell him that with a low trans gearset, a fairly loose converter and 4.10 gears he's gonna lose bottom end? I doubt it. It will be fine. It's a good match.
Click to expand...
What if he goes with the torker 2 and a 1" spacer??? that would be a good combo yes no??
 
StrokerScamp, I dont think that was the thinking going on there. I like the set up myself. Sounds like a good way to get outta da hole.

I agree with a Loco. No open spacer needed there,
 
rumblefish360 said:
True on the intake bolt clearance issue but.....

I disagree a little bit here. He did say TorkerII not Torker. While at the time they were being made, Edelbrock didn't have a dual plane being made above (Performance wise) the Performer. Next in line above the TorkerII is a Victor. Big gap in intake selection/performance. You would have to hunt down a LD-340 or go elsewhere. (Weiand)

The T-II is ok. I wouldn't want it on a dual purpose car in the street, but it would work OK, if your ignoring the power/streetabilty below 3500 rpm.
A RPM would be much better to use.
Click to expand...



thanks for correcting me on that error, i thought the torkerII had the same problems there

i would still prefer the stripdominator instead had one on my old 340that was alot hotter than the one on topic but it ran very nice at low rpm when i had sorted out the ignition and carb to work with it,i cant even say that i could feel much difference when changing it for a RPM airgap that everyone says is soo good.. it ran very smoth even at rpms around 1500rpms when i still had my stock converter (that did not work very well with this engine)i think the SD is a very underestimated manifold even if it has a small funny distribution problem and that most will not feel alot of diference as long as carbselection is kept on the moderate side of things :) i just cant se that fairly big plenum with short runners work very well on a mild engine when i think the SD has longer runners and a fairly small plenum for a single plane, but if both are in your had,try both and see how they feel:) i know everyone dont like swaping manifolds just to try,im not one of them and i know im alitle odd, have tried 3manifolds in two days some years ago and one of them was tried with two diferent carbs as well,call me odd if you want:cheers:
 
Does the MP book address this fuel issue on the Holley?
 
Where do you run into the fuel distribution problems on the SD??
 
It's a problem with nearly all single plain intakes. If you follow the firing order;

18436572

5 & 7 are next to each other. 7 robs from 5., 1 robs from 2 because there close to each other.
Also, the actual port shape can use help. It has to do also with how the port is positioned in the plenum.

Holley has been known to address this issue with floor damns allready cast in the intake.
The MP books show how to fix the Offenhauser single plain port-o-sonic for use with a Holley carb.
 
rumblefish360 said:
Does the MP book address this fuel issue on the Holley?
Click to expand...

dont think so,but i could check,not using it anymore anyway since im now oficialy blown

ham_r_down01 said:
Where do you run into the fuel distribution problems on the SD??
Click to expand...

its not a big isue but something wasnt right with it this is just from looking at the plugs at low rpm it tended to run lean on some cylinders and alitle fat on others,here comes the odd thing, checking the plugs after a fullthrotle run shutting of on the top end i found that it didnt stay with the same pattern at fullthrotle diferent cylinders where lean or fat, not alot but it got me thinking alot about why that occured and i still dont realy know..
 
Oh got it, this one is cast as a spread bore too(SD), whether it matters. Ill get the car to hook when i get the cash, but i can change intakes while the snow flies. What are your thoughts on it being a spread bore. I have an open spacer, 1/16" i think. I know ive got a 4 hole spacer too 1/16". THey are the thin ones.
 
1/16 spacers or gaskets?

The intakes carb pad makes a difference in the big HP engines...AKA real race engines. When I enquired about it to a few race shops, they said to get the squarebore intake for use with a Holley. They have found a few HP in that set up over making the Holley work on a spreadbore intake.

In your case, a TQ on a TQ intake is what you need to do and leave it alone. It'll be fine like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top