Best manifold for ThermoQuad-equipped 340
- Thread starter Captainkirk
- Start date
-
Captainkirk
Old School Mopar Warrior
I've got a Weiand Action Plus laying around if you're interested.
I'm interested. PM me.....
Captainkirk
Old School Mopar Warrior
Guys, I have the Holley on the Torker 340 and ran it exclusively. Had it tuned to the nth degree. Just thought I would give the TQ a try on this next build. It's always intrigued me with those sewer-pipe secondaries and I think I'd like to give it a fair shake. I've read an awful lot of interesting stuff over the last week or so on them.
Besides, Rusty and Rumblefish like them, and those guys are never wrong!:thumleft:
If it don't work out, it's a couple bolts and gaskets to throw the Torker and Holley back on. Or the AVS. Or the Eddie. Or....:happy1:
Besides, Rusty and Rumblefish like them, and those guys are never wrong!:thumleft:
If it don't work out, it's a couple bolts and gaskets to throw the Torker and Holley back on. Or the AVS. Or the Eddie. Or....:happy1:
Locomotion
Well-Known Member
Hopefully you have a newer Torker II as opposed to the original Torker 340. The originals are not a good intake. But a dual plane should be the best style for a mild combo as well as a broad range of built engines.
Myron, the TorkerII 340 sucks worse than he original.....by a pretty fair margin. At least that;s been my direct experience and there have been many rag articles that back it up. Neither is great but the TorkerII sucks dried up dead mouse infested camel ballsacks.
Now maybe for nitrous, the TorkerII might shine a little.
Least ways, that's been my experience.
jeffnmo
Just another Mopar Maniac
Holy ****, not dried up dead mouse infested camel ballsacks!! Will I ever stop laughing.
Jeff
Jeff
LMAO! @ never wrong but hey! Thanks anyway! Wiring up the choke is a pain. Take the time to use the brain. Make sure your core is a good one.
I had the TorkerII 340 or 360 version a long time ago. Treat it like any single plane and ignore any RPM's below 300 and it'll be OKAY. Not saying anything for or against it. At the time of purchase, there was no such thing as a RPM intake.
As far as one Torker vs. another Torker style, I don't know first hand. BUT you would think it would be an improvement over the last version!
The runners sweep a little bit vs. the dead straight runners of the earlier versions.
Scampin; I have not seen any OE intake shoot outs. I don't know which TQ intake is the best BUT I'd run one without any EGR plenum ports or external egr pad for an egr valve. Even though when you go to a wide open throttle position, it closes.
The (IIRC) '72 intake has the choke "cup" that doesn't have a direct route to the underside of the intake to the exhaust gasses. A '73 might be the same? This IMO would be better to use than the choke well version that can leak exhaust gas.
The differences between the TQ and the squarebore intakes seems to be the carbs choice abilty. Not much more or less. Does it performs better than the older '69 squarebore style, that I do not know for sure ether.
The only tests I have seen the OE intake on are vs. other dual plane intakes where it fair well. As the combinations became more aggressive, the aftermarket high rise intakes did better. (RPM / Action Plus / LD-340)
I had the TorkerII 340 or 360 version a long time ago. Treat it like any single plane and ignore any RPM's below 300 and it'll be OKAY. Not saying anything for or against it. At the time of purchase, there was no such thing as a RPM intake.
As far as one Torker vs. another Torker style, I don't know first hand. BUT you would think it would be an improvement over the last version!
The runners sweep a little bit vs. the dead straight runners of the earlier versions.
Scampin; I have not seen any OE intake shoot outs. I don't know which TQ intake is the best BUT I'd run one without any EGR plenum ports or external egr pad for an egr valve. Even though when you go to a wide open throttle position, it closes.
The (IIRC) '72 intake has the choke "cup" that doesn't have a direct route to the underside of the intake to the exhaust gasses. A '73 might be the same? This IMO would be better to use than the choke well version that can leak exhaust gas.
The differences between the TQ and the squarebore intakes seems to be the carbs choice abilty. Not much more or less. Does it performs better than the older '69 squarebore style, that I do not know for sure ether.
The only tests I have seen the OE intake on are vs. other dual plane intakes where it fair well. As the combinations became more aggressive, the aftermarket high rise intakes did better. (RPM / Action Plus / LD-340)
Locomotion
Well-Known Member
lol
I was going by this Hot Rod Mag. dyno comparison. But after looking at the numbers, it is "in the hole" compared to the Air Gap below 4,800. I can't believe that the Torker II is around the Holley Strip Dominator #'s. But if you read it through, the article does say that the Torker II has been "massaged". So personally, I would throw those numbers and intake out of the comparison. I have the Strip Dominator on my engines and have been very happy. M-1 single plane should be similar. If I had any milder combo, I would go with the Air Gap from the test, or LD 340 or Stealth.
EL5DEMON340
Well-Known Member
Well the best is the factory 6 pack, but NHRA revised the hp up I think 10hp or so on the 71 due to a combo of the intake / carb. Only thing different other than that from the early 340's are the pass side exhaust manifold
In that intake shoot out article the TorkerII acted as I said, like a typical single plane.
The Holley Strip Dom and MoPar M1 are really great in the performance range. As there intended for. For ha ha's, I want to try a TQ up top of one.
The TorkerII has been described as an "Inbetween" or "Tweener" manifold. Well labeled I think.
The Holley Strip Dom and MoPar M1 are really great in the performance range. As there intended for. For ha ha's, I want to try a TQ up top of one.
The TorkerII has been described as an "Inbetween" or "Tweener" manifold. Well labeled I think.
Locomotion
Well-Known Member
I'd have to dig them out, but I believe I read in the Mopar Performance Race Manuals that the Holley Strip Dominator replaced the Offenhouser Port-O-Sonic as the manifold of choice for Super Stock racing back in the day, which only allows TQ's on 340's & 360's since 1971 (Until the trucks got Q-jets.) But while the Offy intake required the "popsicle stick" fix for proper fuel distribution with a TQ, the Holley did not! But I have no dyno tests or other info for more details.
I did have a Mopar M-1 single plane which I hoped to test on my IHRA crate motor Stocker, and which is suppose to be very similar to the Holley. But time, money and emphasis on a new project (An NHRA legal 360 Stocker) forced me to abandon the plan and sell the M-1.
Oh dang! Did I miss the M1? I have one for a W5. Not standard heads.
The M1 replaced the Holley. Basically a improved copy. (or should be) The Holley did replace the Offy.
The M1 replaced the Holley. Basically a improved copy. (or should be) The Holley did replace the Offy.
mderoy340
Well-Known Member
I have a 73 340 OEM manifold, no EGR, 72 cast date that I removed due to intake leak and swapped in an Eddy Performer that was sitting on the shelf. I think I lost a little top end doing the swap. I run a larger 71 TQ off a 440. I bolted on a Holley 750 VS 3310C and went back to the TQ. Both carbs are dialed in to 12.3 AFR at WOT and the TQ pulls harder hands down.
That IS an EGR intake. It uses EGR jets instead of a valve.
True RRR but I myself was wondering about the EGR valve on the outside/passenger side. The floor jets can be drilled and tapped easy enough. The EGR on the outside just needs to be left without a hose.
Captainkirk
Old School Mopar Warrior
My Torker is the early Torker 340...straight runners. Ran damn strong upstairs of 2K but vacuum sucked at idle. (no pun intended). No qualms about the cast 340 ('72) manifold, other than (groan!) that weight....50 friggin' pounds!
I would prefer a lighter aluminum intake if I can jerry-rig a manual choke up for the TQ. Some of you might remember my stock manifold is only 'half-ported' as I burned up the rotary grinder about halfway through the task and gave up...LOL!
I would prefer a lighter aluminum intake if I can jerry-rig a manual choke up for the TQ. Some of you might remember my stock manifold is only 'half-ported' as I burned up the rotary grinder about halfway through the task and gave up...LOL!
Captainkirk
Old School Mopar Warrior
Well, looks like somebody sniped the Action Plus Fred offered me after seeing it on this thread. Just when I was trying to close the deal. Damn. Backbiters....
I got one. Ain't nobody gonna snipe it from me cause I'll tell um to get frigged. PM me.
Fred that was dirty pool.
mderoy340
Well-Known Member
Anyone know if an eddy airgap has enough meat in it to open up with a cutter, bolt a TQ on; without using an adapter?
It can not be done. Use an adapter or an earlier intake such as the Weiand Action plus or carve up a Edelbrock LD340.
Captainkirk
Old School Mopar Warrior
A good adapter will not disrupt airflow that much and will actually improve the "high-rise" effect.
Don't carve up any good manifold....you are basically scrapping it in terms of resale.
Actually, the cast-iron manifold the TQ came bolted to was pretty damn good from what I've read. If you ran the one in the picture you posted earlier, I'd think it would do very well. Other than that, a Weiand Stealth, Eddie Performer and a few others are spreadbore-ready out of the box.
If you do choose an adapter, get the ones that are full-open and blended. They flow the best.
Don't carve up any good manifold....you are basically scrapping it in terms of resale.
Actually, the cast-iron manifold the TQ came bolted to was pretty damn good from what I've read. If you ran the one in the picture you posted earlier, I'd think it would do very well. Other than that, a Weiand Stealth, Eddie Performer and a few others are spreadbore-ready out of the box.
If you do choose an adapter, get the ones that are full-open and blended. They flow the best.
-
