Looking for intake/carb suggestions.
 

I've been running a nash warrior with 2 edelbrock 750's on my 467 in my 37 Pontiac. I'm thinking about going to a single carb set-up. The car has the 310 cfm 87cc edelbrock heads from butler, cam is a 230/236, .510/.521, 112 LS. I have several intakes to choose from.
72 cast iron
Edlebrock Performer
Edelbrock Torker
Edelbrock Torker II
I'm not sure what carb I will be using but I'm leaning towards a Q-Jet.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
( mostly street driven, occasional road trips of 1000 miles or more)

Thanks,
Colt.

Edelbrock Performer RPM and a properly set up 1976-79 Pontiac Q-jet with an electric choke would be my choice.

My thought is what you have now is way too cool to take off. But having been through numerous induction changes, I understand. What is the goal, or driving force behind the change?

Just to throw this out there a Qjet with it's small bowl and one inlet needle is way more sensitive to fuel starvation than even a single Holley with 2 bowls and 2 needles. Your current set up has 4 needle and seats to supply the demand! The Q jet will get better mileage than even a single Holley,

My choice with be the Torker II and an 850 Holley DP.

WOW,your giving up a lot of eye candy!2 is always better than 1.Tom

Swap the Nash Tunnel Ram for a Repop Bathtub!!! On a car like that the eye candy is King.

If single 4 is your flavor then maybe a Nash/Warrior single 4 with a Holley or Qjet.

You certainly don't need two 750AFB's for the power level but it's got to look a LOT better than a single 4 barrel set-up.

The T-II will make the most power on your build, requires at least a 1" spacer and 850cfm carb.

I did a 455 about 20 year ago with Edelbrock round port heads, 231/240/113 cam, T-II intake, 1" spacer and 850cfm Q-jet. It made 505hp/551tq and pushed a 3900lb car to mid 11's at 118mph in full street trim on DOT's.

The RPM intake and no spacer on the dyno dropped to 487hp so we went with the T-II instead. I'd add here that both intakes made pretty equal power to 4500rpms. From there on up the T-II really showed it's colors........

Even though you have 310 cfm heads with a bit over .500” lift your no where near using all of it and making the power that could be had by doing such!

Also you did not post up what rear gearing you have in the car, but once again looking at the cam you are running I would say that the performer rpm is your best pick out of the choices you have.

If the Torker II was ported I would not hesitate in running that, but since it is not and you mainly run on the street you will not loose anything that your Butt meter could tell you by running the performer Rpm.

I've been running this intake since the car's been on the road, about 10 years. It works great, good manners, very streetable. I retired a couple months ago so I will be taking more road trips so a little better mileage wouldn't hurt. It seems that changes in elevation have a more dramatic effect on performance than I remember with a single carb vehicle. I'm also just a little curious how it would affect total performance. The engine made right at 500 hp and 504 trq at 5200 rpm with the warrior.

It does look cool though!

Very cool. Dual tbi would give you all the mileage and power there is in the combo. I did that on a Wenzler 2×4. Keeps the cool factor too.

Cymbals, huh?

The car has a 700R4 with a 2200 stall lockup converter and a 3:73 rear gear.

Do you think I would benefit from going back to the Carter AFB Competition Series 600 cfm carbs? I ran them on the old engine and they were fine, put the 750's on and gave it a little kick in the pants.

With a Bathtub you could set it up progressive and run on the front 2 bbl of the rear carb.Even more eye candy!Shameless plug!Tom

Your 750s are fine with progressive linkage.Tom

Ha Ha! Yup, cheap wuhan splash cymbals, the Zildjian's stay on the kit!

Can't run progressive on a warrior.

Unless you have a set that's set up like the factory versions with progressive linkage and one idle circuit, the mileage won't be good. At least in my real world experience it wasn't. They ran great though. Very similar to where you are now. That's when I made the change to efi in their place.

Sorry Tom, missed your post about the bathtub!

I know you can’t on the Warrior,fix is sell it and get a Bathtub while they will be available.Shameless plug again.Tom

The T-II will make the most power on your build, requires at least a 1" spacer and 850cfm carb. -My 455 is making somewhere around 5590575 HP with just a angled 3/8 spacer to get the Shaker level!

I'd kind of keep the 2x4 setup myself too! I would think there would be a progressive linkage that would work.

Back when I had sideways Holleys on my 409 all 8 bbls opened at the same time-but then gas was 0.30/gal:)

I think it's the lack of a plenum between the two carbs on the Warrior that prevents using progressive linkage.

Hey Scott, does the dual TBI set up require a progressive linkage to be used?

No. You don't need it, it wouldn't have any benefit. My experience is with the FAST system. It ties them together 1 to 1 so that it only needs one tps.

Yea the tiny plenum connecting the two on a Warrior/Nash(I have one also) might not flow enough or have bad distribution issues. I always though using an Edelbrock upper plenum from a SBC/BBC intake might work better.

One day-a throw down spare motor to test my Warrior/Nash, M/T and that Bathtub when Tom gets them done on the dyno!

That would be awesome!