Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > TBI
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?

TBI Throttle Body Injection discussion and questions. L03/CFI tech and other performance enhancements.

Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-29-2002, 08:38 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ft. Lee VA
Posts: 110
Car: 91 RS
Engine: TBI 350
Transmission: 700R4

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Send a message via AIM to exdog Send a message via Yahoo to exdog
Edelbrock Torker vs Torker2

Are there any major differences in the two intakes? Flow, Heigth ect? It looks like the torker would be a better set up for rem air due to more direct air flow to the cylinders.
__________________
91 RS 350 Ram Air TBI Auto
Hypertech Thermomaster chip
Flowtech terminator "muffler" w/ open exhaust
Bosch +4 plugs
Wonder Bar
BMR 3 Point Strut Tower Brace
BMR LCA's
www.mikekey.net 's white face gauges
Hedman headers & y-pipe
Holley Pro-jection 300-66 Intake
Projection 2" bore TBI base
650 TBI
Borg Warner 3.27 Posi Disk rear
Alston Racing Subframe connectors
Comp cams 1.6 roller rockers
FUTURE MODS
Panhard rod, Tranny valve mod& Aluminum driveshaft,
exdog is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2002, 11:16 PM   #2
Tas
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 4,300

Classifieds Rating: (0)
I don't think they make the torker anymore. Holley/weiand have a similar intake to it. www.holley.com
Tas is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2002, 11:20 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Ewing, NJ
Posts: 2,142

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Send a message via AIM to NJ SPEEDER
they don't make the regular torker anymore i think, but they are always on ebay and at swap meets.
i have heard a lot fo pontiac guys say that the original torker is actually better than teh torker2, i am not sure how that applies to teh chevy stuff though.

later
tim
__________________
91 Camaro RS-LO3,Auto
New Motor Started
3rd Annual East Coast F-Body Nationals - August 16th @ Englishtown

Parts For Sale To Finance New Motor
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/e...erid=njspeeder

AIM = NJ SPEEDER
NJ SPEEDER is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2002, 11:24 PM   #4
Tas
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 4,300

Classifieds Rating: (0)
summit part number: WND-7546 Chevrolet: 265-400, 1,500 to 6,500 rpm, standard square flange, aluminum, X-CELerator intake manifold ... $109.95
Tas is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2002, 12:14 AM   #5
Moderator
 
snflupigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Queen Creek, AZ
Posts: 2,172
Car: 92 RS, 02 Tacoma, 2 73 Porsche 914s

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Send a message via AIM to snflupigus Send a message via Yahoo to snflupigus
torker = almost the same as the old tarantula intake manifold. its very old technology, but matched with the right cam/heads, you will be alright.

i think newer intakes have better airflow design. (smoother, keep fuel atomized instead of beading or returning to liquid on the walls and floor of the plenum and runners. )

both will work i think. i have the old tarantula and the new torker2. the torker2 has much more rounded smooth runners so the air is headed straight into the head instead of comming at a crossed angle like with the x style manifolds.
snflupigus is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2002, 07:09 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Silverhill,Al
Posts: 831
Car: 92 Camaro RS
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: T-5

Classifieds Rating: (0)
This may are may not apply to Chevrolet but in the July issue of MOPAR MUSCLE they tested 10 intakes on a Mopar 440 and 2 of them were the old Torker with the X type ports and the new Torker ll with the rounded ports with a straighter shot at the head port.
Torker:
Max hp: 605.8 @ 5500 RPM
Max tq: 608.4 @ 4700 RPM
Avg. hp: 564.6 - 4000-6600 RPM
Avg. tq: 565.5 " "

Torker ll:
Max hp: 627.8 @ 6300 RPM
Max tq: 593.3 @ 4900 RPM
Avg. hp: 565 - 4000-6600 RPM
Avg. tq: 563.3 " "

As you can see the old Torker made better low end hp and torque at the loss of 22 hp at the top end.
__________________
92 Camaro RS 5.0 5-Speed (Quasar Blue)
DartByU is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2002, 07:37 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 139
Car: 87 Formula
Engine: 355
Transmission: TH400
Axle/Gears: 5.00

Classifieds Rating: (0)
I had a torker 2 on my 84 Z28. They are really low, which is good for hood clearance. I ran a 12.59 at 109 MPH with that intake on my motor shifting at 6500 RPM's. Combo included, 350 +.060 10:1, Hyd cam 230 @.050 w/480 lift w/108 CL, Holley 650 DP, 1.6 RR, MSD Dist, 6A box, Blaster coil, 186 camel backs 194/150's, M/T slicks 28x9, Holley Blue pump, TH-350 w/3500 stahl, 1 5/8 headers, 373 gear. For the price it is worth it. Looks can be deceiving.
tommyboy is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2002, 10:23 PM   #8
Supreme Member
 
Pablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 3,032
Car: Turbo Buick
Engine: 3.8 V6

Classifieds Rating: (1)
I run a torker II aswell, the engine is a 305 .030 over with fully ported 416 heads, 214/224 cam with 1.6 rockers.. full exhaust, edel. 1405 600cfm carb. I too typically shift at around 6500 rpm i estimate it should be good for 100 mph in the quarter its a good intake and for the price I got mine at it couldnt be beat but if i was going for just any single plane and wasnt concerned with hood clearance id go witha victor Jr.

That is one big plus (and minus) about the torker II,, it is very low it actually sits lower than what the stock combo sat at in my engine bay. The negative to that is that low manifolds sacrifice power.
Pablo is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 12:20 AM   #9
Moderator
 
snflupigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Queen Creek, AZ
Posts: 2,172
Car: 92 RS, 02 Tacoma, 2 73 Porsche 914s

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Send a message via AIM to snflupigus Send a message via Yahoo to snflupigus
tommyboy, correct me if im wrong, but shouldnt you be running a tiny bit faster than 12.59?
snflupigus is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 12:57 AM   #10
Supreme Member
 
Pablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 3,032
Car: Turbo Buick
Engine: 3.8 V6

Classifieds Rating: (1)
thats a very legit time if you ask me, just the other day i saw a thirdgen combo go 12.8 at 108 mph
Pablo is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 09:36 AM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 139
Car: 87 Formula
Engine: 355
Transmission: TH400
Axle/Gears: 5.00

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Remember, this was a bone stock chassis. If I had drag shocks, Poly bushings and lift bars it "MAY" have got into the high .40's. If you do the math 1320/12.11 = 109 mph or 1320/109 = 12.11 ET.
I had a 70 Chevelle that ran 13.60 at 100 mph at Milan dragway.
The Camaro I ran at Lapeer dragway. As you can see both cars were 4+ tenths off of the math. My brothers Chevelle was running 10.50's at 130. He also was off by 4 tenths.
tommyboy is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 06:12 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ft. Lee VA
Posts: 110
Car: 91 RS
Engine: TBI 350
Transmission: 700R4

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Send a message via AIM to exdog Send a message via Yahoo to exdog
This is good info, I never thought of whether or not it was a straight shot into the heads but I guess that could make a big difference. Thanks for the numbers too, now I have to decide where I want my HP and torque. Which would be better, high end or low end? And does 22 make that much difference up there? Hood clearance is also a concern. I want this car to look pretty much stock from the outside so I don't draw unneeded attention and can catch people off guard. Will both fit with no problem, and will I still have room for a spacer if I decide to get one? I have also seen one like this that has nothing between the ports and the cover, Something like the one below. What are the advantages to this design? And also is there a beter intake out there than what I am looking at for all around performance?

Thanks a lot for all the feedback.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg intake.jpg (18.0 KB, 90 views)
exdog is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2002, 06:12 PM
ThirdGen
1992 Camaro




Paid Advertisement


Reply

Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > TBI

Tags
305, 440, cam, camshaft, chevy, edelbrock, edelbroke, ii, jr, ll, mopar, original, torker, torker2, v6, victor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


1982 Camaro '82 || 1983 Camaro '83 || 1984 Camaro '84 || 1985 Camaro '85 || 1986 Camaro '86 || 1987 Camaro '87 || 1988 Camaro '88 || 1989 Camaro '89 || 1990 Camaro '90 || 1991 Camaro '91 || 1992 Camaro '92


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright © 1997 - 2012 ThirdGen.org. All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without the expressed, documented, and written consent of ThirdGen.org's Administrators.

Emails & Contact Details