[livstrong]

Anyone tell me what the extra holes are for

[steve25]

Please don’t run that intake on any Pontiac motor that will not be spending 90% of its running time above 4500 in terms of stock heads or mild ported heads.

What it does best it does when it’s used as a door stop!

[74Grandville]

EGR

Most folks would say don't run this intake.

[livstrong]

Have no plans on running it (got it on a block i just bought)

[steve25]

Back in 89 a super stock drag racer cut up two of those intakes and welded the two front haves back together.
All that work got a 455 into the 10s if a recall right.

Sorry I did not answer your question, but yes those ports where added / cast into those manifolds when EGR came about.

[Skip Fix]

The original Torker like that one came in an EGR version-like you have- and a non EGR version.''Steve I think it was Don Kennedy that welded the two rear halves. The rear runners were shorter and a larger CSA then the front runners.

HO Racing had a whole booklet how to modify them as well as grinding in "anti reversion dams" in the runners.

[steve25]

I don’t think so skip, if you recall the rear plenum is very shallow due to being up on a shelf so to speak.

I don’t exactly recall, maybe I am wrong.

One thing is certain, for any type single plane intake those 4 rear runners are expanding in area exactly opposite of what works, and this explains a lot about why these intakes handicapped the average Pontiac motor more then they helped!

[Skip Fix]

No rear runners square and short, front runners linger and skinnier. HO even had dimensions to try and get front ports close to the same CSA as the rear. I've got one in the attic I modified to Street Strip per their book. I dynoed it , a T2 and my HO on my RAIV all withing 1 hp with that cam. WIth a big solid it picked up 2 mph at the track but lost so much on the bottom end I could never tune it back.

The old Clegg 74 SS car when Glenn Tinsley ran it with a D port motor ran one with a 2" spacer. Set a new class record in MPH at the old Houston track, not the Baytown track.

[Sirrotica]

I tried to run one of those on a circle track 428, what a piece of crap. I bought a spacer plate with a divider incorporated and it ran better, but not good. I borrowed a RA IV aluminum intake from a friend of mine and it ran better with the 2 plane factory aluminum intake.

I had many customer street cars back in the 70s that would come in with complaints of no power whatsoever at lower RPM, first thing we did was convert the car back to a dual plane manifold. With no other changes it would bring a turd, back to a performance car again.

The HSD worked so much better than those TI manifolds did, especially on a street application.

If they were heavier they'd make better doorstops, but due to their light weight they don't even perform well as a doorstop, nor a boat anchor. I might be hard pressed to take one if it were offered to me for free.

Edelbrock always lamented hpow much development time/money, they had into those intakes, all I can say is the SP2P, and the original TI intakes, were a total waste of money, the customers, and Edelbrocks development money.

Other than those negative points, they work great..........

[Skip Fix]

Front plenum had the "step" deeper for a Qjet also.

My 60 ft lost .2 seconds with it ! Even with a 4500 stall and 4.56s! but picked up mph a little.

[steve25]

It likely picked up that little spec of mph because it was lighter then a iron intake, lol!

[Skip Fix]

Aluminum HO intake!

[PAUL K]

The original Torkers work well on 600 horsepower d-port engines using a spreabore carburetor.... That's about it.

[BILL BOWMAN1]

Worst piece of crap I ever bolted on an engine.

[srmmmm]

You guys are making me feel bad. I've been happy with my Torker I, always being careful to properly tune the Q-Jet on top of it. I know a lot of the performance is from my cam (XE276HR) and the 6X heads, but I think pulling 442 Lb ft at 4300RPM out of a 4.25" stroked 350 block is pretty good and 453 HP at 5600 reasonable for a 9.3 cr.

I run the medium level power piston spring so tip in on the primary jets is a little quicker for part throttle openings and try to keep the secondaries on the leaner side.

[Steve C.]

srmmmm

I'm not recommending its use here but I'm Curious, In your opinion do you notice a considerable low RPM power loss with your typical street use ?

At the drag strip Jim Hand tested the original Torker intake manifold with the 455 in his heavy wagon, it was tested against a stock intake and Q-jet. The Torker intake lost 0.29 seconds and 2.85 mph.
Despite his barking some might suggest it might not be a "real bow-wow" on the street.


.

[srmmmm]

Prior to the rebuild into the stroker, I had installed the manifold and Q-Jet on the stock 350-2V that was in my 1970 Esprit. Since my college roommate at GMI worked at Rochester Products, as an employee he was able to purchase a replacement Q-Jet at factory cost for his car, a 1971 GS455 Stage-I. I rejetted the carb but left the power piston spring alone and found that part throttle response improved quite a bit in normal street driving. That performance boost might have been more attributable to the carb change than manifold though. WOT was a bit better, but limited by the factory cam specs for sure. City fuel mileage increased though.

My father made the same manifold change on his 1975 Grand AM with a 400-2V replacing the carb with a Holley 650 spread bore with vacuum secondaries. Driveability was better across the entire rpm range - and it started much easier. He also saw better in town fuel mileage.

I've never seen a cylinder by cylinder A/F chart with a Torker, but the principle made sense as long as you were using a spread bore carb. The goal was to have a high velocity in the front runners, that combined with the raised plenum floor in the back, would be able to pull enough from the secondaries to improve cylinder distribution. As I recall, CSA was the same for all runners, but the tall shape of the front improved velocity at the base of the carb.

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by srmmmm

You guys are making me feel bad. I've been happy with my Torker I, always being careful to properly tune the Q-Jet on top of it. I know a lot of the performance is from my cam (XE276HR) and the 6X heads, but I think pulling 442 Lb ft at 4300RPM out of a 4.25" stroked 350 block is pretty good and 453 HP at 5600 reasonable for a 9.3 cr.

I run the medium level power piston spring so tip in on the primary jets is a little quicker for part throttle openings and try to keep the secondaries on the leaner side.

Cool build, I like the non cookie cutter builds.
And yes, it makes nice power.

[lust4speed]

I ran down to 10.60 with the old Torker manifold and 1" square bore to spread bore open spacer before upgrading to a Victor. My son grabbed The Torker for his Firebird. He was running a port matched Performer RPM and went to my HO Racing modded Torker and ET dropped from 11.34 to 11.22 with no other changes. Can't be that bad of manifold.

[Sirrotica]

They suck on street cars with normal gearing, (3.08-3.55) seen it over and over that all the bottom end goes away with just swapping intakes.

If they were such a great manifold, why did Edelbrock make a second version? The Pontiac T II was made for a reason.

According to Edelbrock, the torker line of manifolds manifolds were supposed to get more torque just by swapping manifolds, that was far from the case with the TI Pontiac intake. Even a large engine (421,428, 455) lost a ton on the bottom end. If you had a traction problem, it would surely cure that problem........

I haven't seen any intakes that had different sized cross sectional from the front to the rear runners, nor any designed with a drop off in the plenum from primary to secondary. If the design was any good it would have been carried over, but it wasn't. All the advertising that Edelbrock did to promote the intake to owners was a huge letdown to anyone that plunked down $150-$200 expecting something that was detectable by the seat of the pants dyno. On a 400 they were a huge letdown, remove the factory cast iron intake, and just swap the intake you lost the ability to even spin the tires on a street car.

They've been discontinued for decades, there has to be a reason that Edelbrock decided to move on with a second design, while discontinuing the original design.

This was the first mass produced single plenum intake that Pontiac owners could afford, and get their hands on easily, so it sold quite well. That's evidenced on how many come up for sale used even to this day, Edelbrock sold a bunch of them. You don't see many, if any on race cars at Norwalk though, and they usually sell for $100 used currently.

Edelbrock designed it mostly for a Q Jet, so it was aimed at street cars, but it fell way short for street duty. The HSD was a far superior single plenum design over the TI. A P4B was a much better street intake, but it rarely picked up much over the factory cast iron intakes in a manifold only swap.

On my 428, dirt car, I lost all the advantage that Pontiacs have coming off the corners with that intake, no huge jump ahead of the competition accelerating down the straightaway. The plenum divider I added helped, but a factory intake was still better, and yes I ran a Q jet, as I always have on all my cars. As matter of fact it was a 73 455 SD carb I used on it, jetted appropriately.

Skip Fix autocrossed his, and from his posts didn't seem as though it was the ultimate intake manifold in his case either. Where Pontiacs shine is the low end torque they produce, a manifold called torker would enhance that tribute, not destroy it.