[cls]

I pulled an older model Torker manifold off a 400ci pontiac the other day.....It is an original torker and NOT a torker 2.....Does anyone know if I can use this intake with a stock Trans Am air cleaner housing and have the shaker sit properly with appropriate hood clearance????

thanks

[steve25]

Nope but even if it did all those old torquers did is kill torque even on a 455 with helped only that size motor hook up and run faster at the track!

[Mr. P-Body]

Gotta stop reading magazines...

T-1 is VERY good when used as designed. For a Q-Jet or spread-bore carb and stock "height", T-1 is the one. And yes, T-1 "fits" under the shaker.

Steve,

I realize ther's a lot of "negative press" out there about T-1. Only SOME of it is actually true. There are "tests" publicized, some by noted Pontiac guys. In most cases, parameters of the test were altered, or the intake tested was altered. In a fwe, T-1 isn't even tested. The Holley SD is the test intake. Assumptioins are made regarding T-1, since it's "the same" (NOT!). In fact, T-1 is the ONLY aftermarket intake we've EVER tested on a flow bench, that actually INCREASES flow at the port (by about 4 CFM).

It may be "funny lookin'" and it maybe be "old'. It is NOT a bad intake, it just "has its place".

FWIW

Jim

[cls]

Thanks for the info ....it will be going on top of a 600hp 474ci with a quadrajet so it looks like a good one to use since it works with the shaker...

thanks

Lee

[Kenth]

Old Torker Article...

[Big Injun]

I ran (and still have) a Torker on my 467 in my old '67 GTO w/ a Q-Jet. I performed all of the HO Racing mods to the intake and it worked great...right along side the RPM that I swapped out. 12.04 at 114 mph.

[Tom Vaught]

A Guy named Don Kennedy welded two rear torquer 1 halves together and the story goes had a very fast intake combination.

Tom Vaught

[Skip Fix]

From personal experience yes it fits the TA Shaker(at least a 78) BUT you'd better darned sure have it straight. It is moved back about 5/8" and WILL scrape the scoop on the hood if not perfectly straight-ask me how I know.The front runners need ALOT of work to get the flow with the rear due to the taller narrower and longer runner. On my 400hp 400 it picked up 1 mph but lost so much bottom end I ran slower and never could get the Q jet set right for launch compared to my HO intake.

[GTOLou]

The TI will shift the shaker too for rearward and increase the chance of slamming the hood on the rear edge of the shaker.

I like the HSD w/ a qjet and shaker hood. Lines up perfectly. Street manners are great w/ a 455.


Heck - Tom, I'd surmise that two back halves of a TI welded together = a HSD??? Yes??

[GTOLou]

Skip beat me to it...

[Skip Fix]

Still got that scoop in the attic with the missing paint!

[Tom Vaught]

Quote:

"Heck - Tom, I'd surmise that two back halves of a TI welded together = a HSD??? Yes??"

I worked on the HSD when I worked at Holley. 3% better than the Ram Air 4 Intake everywhere on the dyno curve. Holley just wanted to say that it was BETTER everywhere and it was. Packaged a Holley Square bore carb too.

The torquer1 rear runners have a lot more volume vs a HSD.

Tom Vaught

[lust4speed]

My question is why Edelbrock designed the front and rear runners so differently on the T1? Seems that either all front design or all rear would have been simpler to design, so they must have had (or thought they had) a good reason.

I've ran a T1 with a Quadrajet for the last 23 years, and still running it on the drag car. When I installed it, there were no T2's or Performer RPM's. Guess I'm stuck in a rut since I haven't changed it out.

[steve25]

The front runners of the T1 maniflod where cast that way to deal with the high velocity of the small primarys of the Q-jet and works only with a Q-jet/spreadbore type carb.
I recall all too well two of my Pontiac buddys in the 70s who had just spent big bucks some months before on new holley DP carbs(750 and 850) only tp find out that when they shelled out yet more money for that T1 when it came out that a squarebore type carb runs like pure crap on that manifold, infact the earlyer Edelbrock PB duel plane manifold with a DP holley 750 would run better times in a 068 camed 389 gto than the T1.
Back them for the average Pontiac guy on the street whos motor would not hold up to the needed 6800 rpm of the T1s range it was not that big of a blessing when they came out!

[Cliff R]

We dyno tested one two years ago on a 455 using 670 heads, 247/254/108 cam and Hedman early Firebird headers. It was not modified in any way and no spacer was used. The best numbers we could get from the engine with any possible tune were 401hp and 499 torque. We were using the Q-jet from my engine, so the carb was NOT the problem.

We installed the modified iron intake from my engine and the very next pull we made 457hp and 537tq. To this day I don't know why the Torker I came up so short on power? The tight LSA cam may have had something to do with it, as that engine never did run nearly as well as it should have, dyno or at the track.

The best run we ever got out of the Firebird that engine was installed in was 12.22. Right before Norwalk this year, we replaced the 670 heads with ported #62's from SD Performance, and one of Dave' HR camshafts. Right off the trailer the Firebird went 11.80's with no other changes, and picked up at least 6mph.

I've tested the Street Dominator and Tomahawk intakes at the track, and they both ran slower than my iron intake, on a 514hp engine pushing my car to mid-11's. The most interesting thing about the testing, is that all of the single plane intakes I've ran, "feel" stronger than the iron or RPM intake. The dual plane intakes have a relativly boring power curve, more locomotive like, just pulling hard clear across the rpm range.

The single plane intakes in contrast, come on like Nitrous in the upper mid-range and top end, but give up so much power on the starting line the car runs slower in ET even if it picks up a few mph.

Our new engine has much better heads and larger camshaft. To date I haven't had time for any intake testing, to see if it favors the single plane intakes better than the old engine did?........Cliff

[Rob B]

Originally Posted by Mr. P-Body

Gotta stop reading magazines...

T-1 is VERY good when used as designed. For a Q-Jet or spread-bore carb and stock "height", T-1 is the one. And yes, T-1 "fits" under the shaker.

Steve,

I realize ther's a lot of "negative press" out there about T-1. Only SOME of it is actually true. There are "tests" publicized, some by noted Pontiac guys. In most cases, parameters of the test were altered, or the intake tested was altered. In a fwe, T-1 isn't even tested. The Holley SD is the test intake. Assumptioins are made regarding T-1, since it's "the same" (NOT!). In fact, T-1 is the ONLY aftermarket intake we've EVER tested on a flow bench, that actually INCREASES flow at the port (by about 4 CFM).

It may be "funny lookin'" and it maybe be "old'. It is NOT a bad intake, it just "has its place".

FWIW

Jim

I ran one up until about 6 years ago and thought it performed great. In my previous motor combo with a Comp Cams 305 magnum Hydraulic (bought in 1986), D-ports and a T-1 with 1" spacer, the car ran in the 11.70's. This was back in the mid/late 80's and was still street driven almost daily. When I changes to E-head's in 2002, I went with a little different camshaft (solid this time) but still used the T-1 and was running 10.90's-11.0's with it. I eventually switched to a victor and made a couple other changes to get the car in the 10.60's.
A T-1 set up with the right combo will run just fine in my experience. The only thing you'll find is that I'd almost guarantee it will be cracked or someone has already welded the manifold on the bottom from the heat crossovers. Mine has been done twice when I had D-ports and didn't worry about it with the e-heads. Can't comment on the shaker because I mounted mine straight to the hood decades ago.

[Mr. P-Body]

Tom,

We're "doing" one of those "split" mainfolds right now. We had a couple of nasty T-1s laying around, so WG (my employee) agreed to it. We're calling it "Torqum 1.5"... (Argh! Argh! Humor...) He's running Enderle mechanical injection and alcohol, so it should be the "perfect fit". The plate for the throttle body is "interesting".

It appears at least SOME have experienced the same performance as I have over the years, using T-1 WITH a "spread bore" carb, which it is specifically designed for. Like anything else, when used properly, it IS very good. When used outside it's "environement', it's not very good.

Steve,

We too, have found the P4-B to be very good on 389 heads. Let the bashing begin...

Jim

[455-4+1]

"The plate for the throttle body is "interesting".

Kind of like this ?????

[71 Ventura II]

You guys are funny IIRC Pete McCarthy built that intake using the large runners of two Torker I's years ago, it became known as the "Warrior" intake. LOL Geez I thought everyone knew that..... JD

[Mr. P-Body]

Jeff,

Nope. Warrior was developed by Pontiac and produced by Doug Nash before Torker was introduced. It may be one of the first open-plenum intakes to enjoy any real degree of "success". They're really not even "similar" except the basic premise and appearance. Warrior is a very good "race" manifold for the iron heads. T-1 is a "street performance" manifold.

Jim