[slowbird]

I have the number here.
The RPM 60ft 1.66 330ft 4.875 660ft 7.601 at 90.01 mph
The Torker 60ft 1.721 330ft 4.897 660ft 7.588 at 90.62 mph
The Performer 60ft 1.694 330ft 4.869 660ft 7.576 at 90.00mph
On the RPM we run a 750 carb and on the others we ran a 850 carb. The Performer has been ported. I think the RPM would have been the best if we ran the 850 on it. We have never tried the Torker1 on it but from the looks of the test the dual plane intake have preformed the best. I have tested it on my 455 compared to the torker2 and I like the Torker2 the best out of the 2.

[Tom Vaught]

Bart, Some of the issues that I described are there but take a trained eye to see them. There
is also the question of what bearings were run in
the engine with some bearings showing greater wear due to oil pressure than others.
Slow Bird.
The track numbers were informative but may not be
a really good comparison of the intakes as you
had ported intakes vs stock intakes, two different
sized carbs, probably did not do all of your testing on one day, (driver might have had the
"runs" one day, just kidding). You should read some of Jim Hand's articles on how they test components and this will eliminate some possible
testing errors in your analysis. Tom V.

[slowbird]

All 3 intake were port match the Torker2 and the Performer did have more work done to them. The RPM was not our intake so we could not do anything to it. The different size carb was because the RPM that we used had been drilled for 3/8 stud so my 850 would not work on it and we had to use the guys 750 carb. This was not meant to be a test of intakes were just seeing how the intake performed so we could have an idea of which intake we wanted to use. I just put the number if anyone want to see what we did. Since my brother's combo is pretty close to some of the guys that posted about the intakes. My dad says if you want to go really fast put a tri-power on it.

[Tom Vaught]

Sorry for the confusion on my part. I though you
were trying to compare apples to oranges.
If you post "Intake #1 had these mods and this is what it ran", "Intake#2 has these mods and this is what it ran" etc, it is easier to judge on your
own stuff which catagory you fit into for the
performance gain. Tom V.

[Skip Fix]

A couple of years ago Lee Atkinson borrowed my RPM to try the exact same thing Tll or RPM. His 455 D port with and 750 DP, 231/239 Utlradyne cam, headers in a 1st gen bird ran almost idnetical times to the hundredth. Lee felt the Tll actually had a little more bottom end on his combination. Not a really radical combination but Lee has it in the 11s now.

If Lee still posts maybe he can add the exact times opn his testing.

Unfortunatley when I dynoed my RAIV 400 the RPM wasn't out yet. The HO , Torker., Tll all dynoed within 1 hp!Both single planes did have a much higher torque peak(ie no bottom end). I tried the Torker on the car later once I had added a larger cam and it definitely killed the bottom end on the 400.

[Bart]

Skip,
I'm curious about the 400. I have a few questions if you don't mind answering them.

What was the compression?
What did the car weigh?
what was the gear ratio?
what was the carb size?
How does the higher torque peak affect 1/4 mile times? Better or worse?

The reason I ask is because it would seem that if the the compression was high and the gearing was low and a high stall speed converter was used, the bottom end would still be acceptable with the torker. If I'm wrong please correct me. I'm just trying to compare it to my combo to try to figure out which intake to use.

It would seem that the torker would flow more cfm because of the single plane design. Which is exactly what I want because I will be using the Edelbrock heads in another year or 2. Does anyone know how the original torker and the Performer RPM compare as far as CFM is concerned? Will the torker outflow the RPM? I'd rather use an intake with a higher cfm rating than to have one ported.
I think the victor would be too much for my combo.

slowbird,
Thanks for posting the results of the tests. That's what I like to see! The actual numbers!

[Skip Fix]

I'll see if I still have some sheets when I flow tested a Torker and RPM on and E head. I I remember correctly the TII and RPM were pretty close. Rear runner of the Torker were slightly better , front runner slight worse and I had opened then up like th HO book talks about

400-0.030 69cc heads 0 deck hight TRW 6.6 cc valve reliefs 800 cfm Q jet or 750 #3310 Holley on the Dyno for the TII.4200 stall 4.10s. When I tried it on the car 60 fts got 0.2 seconds slower and the power brakes barely worked when I went from the HO to the Torker. I was running a 255/259 solid cam in it at that time , cranking pressure 215.It only picked up the mph, 1mph over the HO maybe with alot more tuning to get the 60 fts back up may have been worthwhile.

I'd stay wit the RPM on a 400 personally, maybe some others have some dyno results for you on teh TII and RPM.

If you are stepping up to the E heads I assume you'll add in a bigger cam, then the single planes may pick it up some.

[PROBRD]

Bart- You're right in assuming that if you use high compression, low gears , and a high stall converter that you wont notice much loss of bottom end. It will go right past the lower rpms and get up there where the Torker is making power.

I tested the T1 and the T2 but I guess it was also like slowbirds test apples and oranges since the T1 was ported to match the heads and the T2 was unported and it was done on two different weekends with different weather conditions. The test was done on a 400 with same carb same jets, it ran 7.271 at 94.65 and 60' was 1.604 with a density altitude of 3982'. The T2 ran 7.404 at 92.93 and 60' was 1.661 with a density altitude of 2676'. Since the density altitude was lower when the T2 was tested that means that the T2 was even slower by more than the actual test shows. According to my ET prediction computer in the same weather it slowed another .183 seconds for a total loss of .316 seconds. I can usually run the ET prediction and take it off the trailer and run within a hundredth of a second of what it predicts so I wouild say it is pretty accurate.

The next weekend I put the T1 back on and advanced the cam 3 degrees and it ran 7.082 at 95.99 and 60' was 1.531 with a density altitude of 2651'. Advancing the cam helped a tremendous amount.

Soooo, Im not positive if the difference was the T1 vs the T2 or it was the porting of the T1 compared to the nonporting of the T2. But there was a definte difference at the track between the two intakes and of the advancing of the cam. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Tim Swain]

All setups are differant but an 80lb pump is asking for trouble and most machanics will tell you so. The oil is always trying to find the path of least resistance and will find it or make it's oun. It can washout seals and bearings. It did on mine, came up the distributor shaft. I took it out after 1000 miles or so and it was already working on the bearings and the vally pan leaked after 200 miles.
You might say it was my seal installation was flaud, maybe, but after talking to more Pontiac machanics the consensus was wrong oil pump.60lbs why would you want anything else. There maybe a reason but if there is none I wouldn't. Ask around. Don't take my word really ask a pro.
I run my car at the track every chance I get. It is a street car I run at the track, shift at 5800.
PS the spacer probably won't work with the torker, too much plenum.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Tim Swain ]</p>