We have the RPM air gap and it works great I recomend it highly, the car is making 347 Hp @ 5700 at the flywheel. That's with stock bore, RPM heads (1.90/1.60 valves) holley 600 vac secondary, 10/1 compression, roller lifters and rockers, Accel blue print stock distributor, heddman shorty headers 1 1/2" primary 2 1/2" collector and a e-303 cam (220 dur @ .050 .498 lift) Nothing fancy here just a good running car
i don't know i've run all edlebocks when my car was almost stock to the way it is now.... the preformer rpm, torker, preformer air gap, the smog legal performer, victor jr. $ for $ the RPM is the best your gonna get as long as you don't have this all out crazy race engine buzzing to like 7000 rpms you know work even if the car is a bit stock with just a 4bbl i'd still go with the RPM ! the regular performer is not much more then a 4 bbl stock manifold! i'd say changing from the regular performer to the rpm i noticed a differance... i you know me i don't belive in "yeah i felt the differance qoute" but yes its a better manifold hands down... besides if you go further with the motor and i know you will just get the right thing in the first place . other wise you'll be stuck with a shelf full of manifolds like me. as far as the torker is conserned personally i don't like it. i know ratio411 loves it but aint that in a 351? maybe it responds better in that that i don't know nothing about. anyways i ran with a almost stock motor just a RV cam and headers. and use to run my car the the track.. the change just with the RPM really picked up a few 10ths... not much.. better? maybe my driving proably not . also if you look the power band of that manifold IMO i don't think its the best. but thats just me... also i've seen some tests at work with this manifold on dyno numbers on like the fox body mustangs that are like stock numbers are way better! i know maverick stock motors have less HP but the idea here is you'll be adding to it later. also my friend who writes for Race Pages (mustang newspaper and Chevy High) swares by that maninford as well... even he's a bit too hard core for me but he builds some killer stuff as well as smog legal everyday mild drivers. anyways just my
I had a Torker II on an otherwise stock 302 and it sucked.Maybe with more cam,gear,etc it'd worked better,bottom end was a bit soggy but it did pull harder from about 2500-up.I like the stealth for the money,they're usually a bit cheaper than the Edelbrock brand and work just as well.You mentioned going to 351w heads later,just pickup a pair of E7's from '87-93 5.0 mustangs,cleanup the exhaust side and they'll work well for little cash(last set I picked up for $75).Yea I know you guys are probably tired of hearing what a deal the E7's are,but my mildly ported E7's outrun plenty of gt40's,Darts & such.I'm sure that was more because of those other guy's mismatched combos that my E7's being great,but it felt good to kill a car w/aftermarket this & that with little more than a basically a stock motor,3500 st & 3.55's.Sorry for the long winded rant.
I agree about the RPM...It's got the best of both worlds between the Performer and the Torker. On another note; you guys keep bringing up the fact that the Performer is not much different than a stock 4-V manifold. Well that is completely true, however the stock 4-V manifold performs quite well---especially over the original 2-barrel that our cars came with. It's really all you need, unless you're wanting to spin more than 5500 RPM, which obviously will require something different. The Performer combines the proven performance of the original 4-V manifild with the advantage of aluminum, which is light-weight, corrosion proof, and dissipates heat more quickly. It also has the benefit of being a direct bolt-on with the correct height and provisions for the original throttle linkage and vacuum, and water fittings. It's actually a little bit taller than the stock 4-V manifold, which requires a 1-inch spacer ( I know this because I had one) for the correct height, whereas our original 2-V equipped cars had a 1-inch EGR spacer...
I don't know if you guys are confusing the Torker2 (or Torker 302 as it was called at one time) with the Torker 289... They are 2 totally different acting intakes. The Torker 2 uses a much larger plenum, and we all know how that affects a single plane intake. I have run my Torker 289 on stock, RV, and fairly stout hydraulic cams and it always adapted well. With an RV cam it produced more low end torque than the car could handle. It burned the tires down when I got on it... Granted that was radial tires with on only slapper bars to help. It also had a stock converter... It has a lot to do with how light our cars are too. I might not be so happy with this intake if it was on any car bigger than a 66 Stang. Dave
What happened between the Torker and the Torker II that makes the II so...unsavory? You would expect that "Anything" II would be better than it's predecessor, especially from someone as reputable as Edelbrock.
The Torker was redesigned with many things in mind other than performance... Hood clearance Relocated bosses Redesigned water passages On the performance end, it recieved a larger plenum and shorter runners, both of which soften torque production and throttle response. The Torker 289 had a small plenum with the runners arranged in a circle under the carb. The runners were longer and cast smaller than more radical intakes, combining for great tip in response and low rpm power. Dave Fwiw: The Weiand single plane is even more mild... I can't speak for that one though, never ran one.
Wow our set ups are really close. I have a little more compression at 10.4 to1 and I have roush 200 heads with the 2.02 valves intake. E303 cam now but thinking about a bigger cam soon. I have a 3200 stall converter as well. Runs good for a basic budget set up. Best 1/4 12.90 and there is more there. have you ran yours????
Ratio, thanks for the quick response. I was suprised at the "Yeas" for the Torker 289, but all the "Nays" for the Torker II. Your explanation was very straightforward and informative. Makes sense. Hood clearance and such is not a restriction for me. I currently have the Performer 289 with a 2" open spacer, topped with a 600cfm Edelbrock. Still have 1-1/2" left to play with. But, I have the rear of my hood jacked up an inch as a "cowl" to permit larger carb/intake combos and to get that hot air out of there.
Man,, this is just the best thread... very informative. I have nothing to compare to and have been running my f4b since 1975. Always wondered how they stacked up against modern stuff. Once a year at roundup I take my motor up to 8000 rpms. Reason one,, just to hear it,, reason two,, to see if this is gonna be the last run for the old motor. Motor was built in 1992 and cant believe it hasnt grenaded yet.
I guess since I havent chimed in on this yet,I'll add my we have an original shelby intake on the 77 . works good at pretty much all rpms that I've seen
That is the F4B. Made by Edelbrock for Ford/Shelby. That is the intake that, IMO, the original posting member should use... Very broad range for a dual plane.
ah your right.. now i know which one your talking about! the one where the carb sits at a slight angle right? well yeah never had that one. that would make sense then.. but yeah guys stay away from the TORKER II... good points!
I am not trying to be hard, but I have never had trouble with these items on any manifold I have used... Well, I did have an XF-8 once, that didn't seem like it would work with anything stock except the valve covers... I never got to run that one. The stock 4v intake came from the factory with a 1" spacer. If you get an iron intake that doesn't have a metal 1" spacer, you didn't get all the parts with the intake.
