Torker II Intake ID

[Kreb]

Well that does it, I've just got to give it a try. The standard Torker II lower intake looks to be damn close to half the size of the Camaro unit. (And the Torker has that odd assymetrical thing going on too) There might be a penalty down low, but if it'll uncork it from 4 to 6 grand, I'd say that's a small price to pay.

Thanks!

[IXLR8]

Sorry i didnt word that right, Tire spin is easier than it was before. there is no loss in low end torque, its better through the whole rev range. The only downside to it is the exhaust sound is slightly different but you can fix it with a Crossover pipe(the edelbrock has a crossover built into the manifold). It might not change the way yours sounds though, mine has a holley 390cfm 4barrell with headers and glass packs we took the cat out a liltlewhile back. Good luck

[IXLR8]

Are you using a 2.8 or a 3.4??? because the 2.8 jsut doesnt breath very well as it is. you might not see a big difference with the 2.8.

[ssdurango]

Has anyone ported the torker II? Should it be hogged out or just blended into the gaskets? I bought one but those small ports on one side are really bug'n me! I've emaled edelbrock about it and they won't tell me anything besides "It has won many awards for intake design" ...Not the scientific answer I would expect...

[IXLR8]

If you look at the Edelbrock lower half, all you can do is open up the holes in the deck towards the middle of the manifold and the smaller 3 ports to match the gasket where it mates up to the head. There is not any meat cast into it to open up the entire runner length. That is why my Dad and I adapted the 3.4 camaro mpfi lower manifold to the edelbrock upper piece. The 2.8 heads don't breath very well anyway with such small valves so it probably won't make a big difference in flow either way on a 2.8.
We installed it on a 95 Camaro 3.4 and the camaro lower did make a noticeable and measurable difference in power. The only draw back to the camaro lower manifold, like I said before, is the edelbrock lower sounds better.

Study the Edelbrock closely before you try to hog it out. I think they cast it thin so you can't open it up. It pissed my dad off...

[614streets]

Has anyone ported the torker II? Should it be hogged out or just blended into the gaskets? I bought one but those small ports on one side are really bug'n me! I've emaled edelbrock about it and they won't tell me anything besides "It has won many awards for intake design" ...Not the scientific answer I would expect...

It was cast with different size runners to match ther "flat " torque concept. See if you buy a set of edelbrock headers for a 2.8 s10 youll notice the drivers side has tiny 1 1/4 inch primaries while the passenger side has a 1 1/2 in primaries. Basically they wanted to split the engine into a 3cylinder + 3 cylinder with one side producing low end torque and the other side producing mid and high end torque. Weird huh.

[ssdurango]

Thanks that makes sense now. It is a good idea by edelbrock but I think I'll just open things right up with a 94 camaro lower intake and the edelbrock upper plenum

[Arns85GT]

I have the Torker II installed on a 2.8

I put the Torker II on my 2.8 and I first tried the 390 cfm Holley 4 barrel on it, but the carb malfunctioned. I then went to the 350 cfm Holley 2 barrel with a converter plate.

Bottom line, the Torker II is designed as a unit. The upper plenum is split to enhance low end torque. The bottom has unequal width runners as part of the design.

The 2 barrel, while delivering good top end, does not meter properly below 2500 rpm. I have had this carb back to Holley, and they benched it and modified it for small displacement, and it still cannot meter correctly for low end rpms. I am currently going back to the 390 cfm 4 barrel. (installing the new one this afternoon)

While you can get custom rigs to work, and I am all for doing mods, the Torker II or Performer Plus intakes are designed to work as a unit. I would work them that way.

That upper intake piece on Ebay looked modified BTW.

Arn

[Kreb]

If you look at the lower intake manifold on the port fuel injection manifolds off of a 94-95 camaro versus a Torker II, it's hard to believe that they go on the same engine. I have to think that at upper RPMs at least, the MPFI will significantly outflow a Torker.

I'm thinking of building a low profile upper manifold similar to the Tueleo. Unless I can talk myself into one of those tasty Fageols that Streets has...

[614streets]

I'm thinking of building a low profile upper manifold similar to the Tueleo. Unless I can talk myself into one of those tasty Fageols that Streets has...

Lol , talk to me , ive got medical bills to pay.

You never know unless ya ask. ($ talks )

Btw Im not responisible for your medical bills if you slap one on :P

[RacerX11]

If you look at the lower intake manifold on the port fuel injection manifolds off of a 94-95 camaro versus a Torker II, it's hard to believe that they go on the same engine. I have to think that at upper RPMs at least, the MPFI will significantly outflow a Torker.

Do you know if the lower intake manifold from the 3.4 Camaro is different than the earlier 2.8/3.1 MPFI lower intake?

Marty

[Arns85GT]

Yes it is different

The older MPFI intake does not flow especially well. The later Camaro intake is better for certain. There is a big difference between the aluminum heads and the iron heads though. You can't interchange intakes.

Arn

[RacerX11]

RE: Yes it is different

I know the iron and aluminum heads/intakes are not interchangeable?that was not my question. I am specifically asking about the differences in the lower intake manifold section between the 2.8/3.1 iron head engines and the 3.4 Camaro? The only differences I am aware of are the later intakes do not have the oil shield on the underside, or the EGR passages. Are they different in any ways that affect performance? Are the ports themselves the same between the two?

I am aware the Camaro intake as a whole flows better, but I think this is due to the revised upper section compared to the earlier designs.

Marty

[geoffinbc]

No there is not any EGR passages in the 3.4 camaro intake.

[bszopi]

No there is not any EGR passages in the 3.4 camaro intake.

The only differences I am aware of are the later intakes do not have the oil shield on the underside, or the EGR passages

I wonder some times if people read or just skim messages...