Eldelbrock Torker

[85_Ranger4x4]

I found a Torker intake manifold for my 289 project. The only thing I can really find on the internet to compare it to is a Torker II, which is a single plane unit that probably doesn't have much business in a lifted 4x4 truck. Anyone been around a regular "Torker"? His discription is "very old ... and good from idle to 5500 rpm", which fits Eldebrock's discription the Performer, which is what I would prefer. Any thoughts on whether or not would be worth messing with?

http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_new/mc/manifolds/manifolds_main.shtml

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I found one on ebay for yall to to look at.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Very...001QQitemZ110217784677QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

 

[Totalled]

Umm.. they are a tall single plane intake... comparable to a victor... more like a 2200-6500 intake.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

It is a friggin cool looking intake, if I had a 2wd I would have done it. I never found an instance of it being in a truck, so I turned him down.

 

[MichiganSpecialRPS]

I have the Weiand version and I like it A LOT. How well the intake works will depend on your camshaft and heads... I can answer any of you question from experiance. I won't just tell you "oh it's a single plane and you'll lose low end; they are only good for rancing." BTW, my truck is a daily driver.

 

[rickcdewitt]

i've seen that style in both torker 289 and torker 302 versions.i tried unsuccessfully to get a torker 289 from a buddy for my 66 289 in my stang.when i asked edelbrock about the old school torker they found an old guy who had been there a long time and he told me it compared to the torker 2 in rpm's but is an inferior intake.

 

[baddad457]

I found one on ebay for yall to to look at.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Very...001QQitemZ110217784677QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

That old twisted carb torker was a pretty good mid range intake back in the day. Didn't have the bottom end that a dual plane would have, and didn't have the top end most other single planes did. Used to be a popular intake though. In a 4x4, I'd go with a high rise dual plane, it does what the Torker didn't do, on bottom and top.

 

[MichiganSpecialRPS]

The Torker II for 302's SUCKS! The Weiand X-celerator/Torker 289 is a good street performance intake OMHO. On the same engine, same carb, heades, cam, everything, I went from a Weiand 8011 dual-plane to an X-celerator. For an off road application, the 8011 is hands down better, but if you want something that is a good cruiser and will supply enough air up to about 6500, the Torker 289/X-celerator gets my vote. I did lose some torque below 1500rpm switching from the 8011 to the X-celerator, but not enough to concern me; I'd rather have an intake that'll allow my engine to breath up to 6 grand.

The Torker 289/X-celerator is not a tall intake and it is not comparable to a Victor!!

Furthermore, I 110% disagree with the old Edelbrock guy who said the Torker II is superior to the Torker 289... If you get rid of the casting flash and do some radius work from the plenum, it can be a great intake for a 100% street performer with a smaller displacment motor!

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The big reason I liked it aside from looks is he only wanted $50 for it and it would be better than the stock 2bbl intake I have for it right now. I was hoping from the name that it would be better than most single planes at lower revs, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Then it sunk in that I don't even have a 4bbl carb yet, and my 289 is scattered among three outbuildings at my parents house, so there are probably better things to sink $$ in at this time, like an engine and carb to bolt it between.

From what little I could find on the net about it, those that switched from the Torker to the Torker II switched back. I wouldn't put alot of faith in opinions about a current product versus an obsolete product coming from the manufacturer. They would rather sell you a new one, I haven't used either, that is just what I found when I was researching it.

 

[MichiganSpecialRPS]

From what little I could find on the net about it, those that switched from the Torker to the Torker II switched back.

It's going to be hard to find many comparisons because it is an older design and most people stick to what is mainstream...

I'm tell you my first hand experiance of the intake between two different cams.

Just look at the design of the Torker II; It's pretty funky. The runner design is screwed up.

 

[baddad457]

The big reason I liked it aside from looks is he only wanted $50 for it and it would be better than the stock 2bbl intake I have for it right now. I was hoping from the name that it would be better than most single planes at lower revs, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Then it sunk in that I don't even have a 4bbl carb yet, and my 289 is scattered among three outbuildings at my parents house, so there are probably better things to sink $$ in at this time, like an engine and carb to bolt it between.

From what little I could find on the net about it, those that switched from the Torker to the Torker II switched back. I wouldn't put alot of faith in opinions about a current product versus an obsolete product coming from the manufacturer. They would rather sell you a new one, I haven't used either, that is just what I found when I was researching it.

Edelbrock in effect did the same thing when they designed the RPM intakes. The Old F4B it replaced, was and still is it's equal. The only difference between the two is the RPM has equal length runners where the F4B's are unequal.

 

[supermonkey]

Edelbrock in effect did the same thing when they designed the RPM intakes. The Old F4B it replaced, was and still is it's equal. The only difference between the two is the RPM has equal length runners where the F4B's are unequal.

I ran a torker 2 on my 302 but it was doggy on the bottom.My airgap ran like hell bottom to top.As for the F4B,we ran one on my buddy's falcon and turned 8.40s.I was expecting 8 flats when we installed my airgap and we got-you guessed it-8.40s.