I have a carbed 350 in my 89 bird. I have a Street Avenger 4 bbl, Weiand action plus manifold, a speed pro roller cam .462/.470 lift, 210/215 Duration 110 Lobe speration, heavy duty valve springs 1.250 diameter valve springs, 150 lbs at 1.750, 370 lbs at 540 for up to .540 lift cam, a 2800 rpm lock-up stall convertor, edelbrock dual roller timing chain, 1.6 roller rockers, etc.

I am wondering if I should get a better flowing manifold than the standard Weiand manifold....maybe a torker II, RPM air gap, weiand stealth manifold. Any suggestions with this setup.......thanx

 

If you put more cam in it, perhaps. As it is, you aren't hurting anything with the manifold you've got.

 

Even with the 1.6 rr's?? I suppose you are right. I was thinking of upgrading for future pusposes anyways. Anyone have comments on the Torker II or RPM Air Gap manifolds?? I would like to try a single plane manifold on the future as well...

 

The Torker 2 sucks. Almost any modern manifold will run better. And yes, there will be people posting about "I have one on my blah-blah-balh, it runs great!!!" or "My buddy has one on his 1949 Hupmobile and it runs low 12s!" What they won't tell you is what the same motor runs with some other manifold. Because if they knew, they wouldn't be advising you to use the T2.

The Air Gap is a far better piece. Or the regular Perf RPM for that matter. Either one will give you higher peak toruqe, the same or higher peak HP, and a greater "area under the curve" which is what really counts. Especially with a near-stock low-lift short-duration cam like that one.

You don't need a single-plane intake with that mild of a cam and with (I'm guessing) stock heads of some sort, period; and most certainly not with that Triangle of Death air restrictor/fire-trap sitting on top of the carb.

I'm running a ZZ4 intake these days, seems to be an excellent piece; factory fit, all sensors and hoses and bolt holes are there and in the right place, and it runs pretty hard. Althoug I haven't A-B'ed it on a motor, its ports and stuff look a whole lot bigger and better-flowing than a Performer I have, which is real similar to the Action +.

 

Easy now........what would you suggest. That always had me wondering in the event of a spit up the carb that it would lite up in flames..........

 

Hard to be easy when I see one of those things.... back when they came out I watched one catch fire and drip into somebody's carb (fortunately their hood was open so it didn't ruin the paint), and another one get sucked wholesale into a motor and trash it. Those are a street-rodder "I've got more square inches of chrome under my hood than you do ha ha ha" piece, not go-fast stuff. They're not for engines that are expected to actually start up and run.

I'd suggest ..... just about any other air filter. About the only thing to avoid would be one of those "drop base" ones that's so low that the carb air horn almost touches the underside of the lid. Kind of doesn't matter how many inches of filter medium you've got, when all the air has to squeeze through a ½" crack on its way to get to the carb.

 

Ya good point. Well I'll change that soon. I think I'll look into maybe the air gap or the stealth intake.....got more plans for heads soon...

 

For some reason, I can't get past ".462/.470 lift, 210/215 Duration 110 Lobe speration".

The Action + is more manifold than that cam needs.

 

Well I know the 1.6 rr's dont make a whole lot of difference in lift factor but I am speaking of future applications...........future applications..........I am going to be getting a better set of heads in the near future and am stating to research on upgrading the whole setup. Just taking opinions and yours is well noted. Need A bigger cam before an intake upgrade. Thanks

 

The manifold selection has more to do with cam duration than with lift. Flow isn't the issue, RPM powerband range is.

You never said anything about future upgrades until now. Save the intake change until the cam/heads change.

 

Other than the 1st post heres the future plan note........

 

What heads are on it now? What do you plan to put on it? What cam might you go with? What valve springs?

I kind of agree with five7 about changing the intake right now though; when you change the cam and/or heads you have to take it off anyway. At that time, you simply set aside your existing one, and grab the new one instead. You don't save yourself any money or labor by doing it earlier. And, you don't gain anything in the meantime, by putting something huge on while it's still a mismatch. Wait until it's a match for whatever the rest of the motor ends up being.

 

btw, i 2nd the swap the filter for anything else idea.


i dont mind drop base filters... just stack another filter on top and you have more filtering area and the lid is just as tall as a non drop base. (or spend a lil more and get a tall filter)


edit:

oh, and if it doesnt come with the new air cleaner: when you goto get a air cleaner stud, instead of spending $3 on a MrGasket air cleaner stud goto a hardware store (or home improvement store) and get a 1/4" stud and a wingnut. total cost is less then $1
same thing with carb studs, intake bolts, ect.

 

It should be called Turder 2, the RPM intake smokes all the way to 6000 rpm.

 

torker II is a really crappy intake. i think that with a new intake, i will see the 13 second passes i so long for. right now i have the intake on my 305, and i ran a 14.49 at 97.47 mph, 2.2X 60' times. those 2.2X 60' times were from lack of power below 2500rpms, not wheel spin. the intake makes crap for power.

 

Shweet.....not your situation but I have decided not to go the Torker route. I am buying parts for a future rebuild in a few months.

 

You build an engine combo around the heads. Heads & pistons (for the right CR) as a set; then cam; then everything else. You pick heads on the basis of expected power, CID, & RPM range; and any power adders. Intake is one of those things that follows naturally once the basis has been laid out. Sometimes, once those other things are determined, there's only one intake that's even appropriate. Additionally, intakes are real cheap, in the overall picture; compared to the bottom end, heads, machine work, etc. etc. etc., it almost disappears in the noise level.

You don't build an enigne by starting out with an intake, and then building around it; that doesn't really work.

What heads will you use? What power are you looking for? How many inches will this motor be (the existing 350, or a 383, or a 434)? As far as power, what will be the intended use? and in this respect, be honest; if it's a daily driver that sees the strip twice a year, don't build a strip only car; or if it sits in a garage while you drive something else 99% of the time and you only pull it out to kill trailer queens on Sat night, don't build a grocery cart.

 

No its a garaged car and I am looking to get different heads other than my stock ones. I am staying with the 350 thats in it. At this point I will try and decide if I should port and polish or not or go with aftermarket heads.

 

I don't see the chrome factor there.......not much of it compared to some of the HUGE ones that have the HUGE top thats all chrome top and bottom. I do think its HILARIOUS to see a nasty oily, gunked up engine and then a nice, neat, and pretty air cleaner assembly.............

 

Those were particularly popular with the guys that had 2 or 3 chromed carbs, and couldn't find an suitably chromable air cleaner that fit, or didn't want a bug catcher, or whatever.... then they'd put the Triangle of Death on each carb.... plus, you gotta remember, when that thing came out 20 years ago, there was nothing that looked even remotely similar; it was a total novelty; so it was an instant hit in that crowd. After all, EVERYBODY had a chrome dog-dish air cleaner on their cars. No "wow factor" there really.

Unfortunately there's no disclaimer on the packaging about actually starting the engine.

I do seem to recall someone doing a flow test on it though, and discovering that until the foam got sucked into the motor, it had somewhat less flow than some typical single-snorkel factory breather off of a truck or something, that they were using for comparison. Seems like without the foam, it was comparable to the stock one they were using.

 

lol thats funny.....well I'll take your advice and pitch it. I agree about the safety factor and the flow restriction too.