[steve]

http://www.pontiacpower.com/Chinese%20Intake.htm


can someone tell me what this is ? is this fact or BS ?

[critter]

Consider the source.

[Larry Navarro]

......and stay far, far away!!

[steve]

i know i have heard things but is there NO valid info there ?

[steve]

specifically the info on runner dividers ?

[myckee]

It is hard to refute those pictures. Even the naked eye can see the difference in the runners.

Maybe the runners have been fixed now in the later runs? Maybe someone who has recently bought one will let us know.

[BVR421]

I wish I hadnt clicked on this post, I feel like washing myself with bleach

[69LeManster]

why? because people might be believing BF's bashing?
or because the intake undeniably looks like a piece of crap?
maybe the runners were fixed, sucks for the (how many?) people who got screwed paying for that intake on the first run, that's what happens when you outsource work overseas to cut costs.

[steve]

no late model tomahawks out there ???

[tempest455]

BVR, bleach not needed, just some warm water and soap!

[Skip Fix]

I'll guarantee the Torker 1s used by the SS guys are NOT as seen in that picture. They are widely modified. Don Kennedy here even welded two rear portions to ge there to get around the tall skinny front runners that flow less than the rears. You notice he didn not measure them for consistency did he!

Yes the runners have different dimensions but with som emodification most can be brought up more evenly. The biggest issue with the Tomahawk is running a big motor and a Q jet with NO spacer, the front runners run lean as evidenced in a dyno run my another member here.

[Steve C.]

As cast the Tomahawk intake has VERY TINY port openings inorder to match up with the very smallest factory head.
If you plan on using it on a set of ported heads with larger taller port openings it will take considerable work to port match and blend the runners. It can be made to open up to accept a SCE #128103 intake gasket (2.320" tall) but its close. Anything taller than that and you will need weld up the ports and do modifications.

[Half-Inch Stud]

My HOGGED (& tall-ported) TOMAHAWK showed 8 uniformly clean plugs (not lean-white, not rich, no carbon, just mild tan) after 2 months of daily driving. no spacer.

My HOGGED (& tall-ported) TORKER I showed excellent 60foots per signature, and excellent plug operation from HEI after 10years duty. Plugs not as clean as Tomahawk. no spacer.

My (tall-ported) OFFYL Dual Quad shows decent plug cleanliness and excellent plug operation from HEI after 2 months including this Cold-Winter-blast. Plugs not as clean as Tomahawk. no spacers.

[machine shop tom]

If Bruce wasn't such a donkey about things and grew up a little I'd be a little more inclined to pay attention to him, BUT................

tom

[Skip Fix]

Get and end port on a GOOD flowing head(very ported iron head or E head) The flow a front runner, then spin the intake around and use a rear runner on the same port, on either intake. The rears will flow better than #1,3(2,4) on the Torker, or better than #1 or 2 on the Tomahawk.

Do a search for Cliff's comments on a 500" motor with a Qjet and a Tomahawk on the dyno running lean front cylinders. Play with the Tomahawk on the flowbench with and without spacers on those front runners, search my old post on this) you can see why the air can't make the turn without the spacer as easily on the Qjet also.

[bobzdar]

I had always thought the torker was made for a spreadbore carb and would need major work to work properly with a square bore (that's what the tII is for). I have a torker on my t/a with qjet and it gets very good fuel mileage and pulls very well on the top end. I also have a stock intake and I plan to do some comparison runs of the 2 of them at some point, possibly this spring on a road course. Both are completely unmodified. As it's going to be in a relatively light 400/4 speed car, the comparison may not be applicable to a lot of the 455/auto behemoths out there, and as it will be more concentrating on useable power on a road course it may not translate to drag racing. It should be interesting none the less.

[goquick]

bobzdar; What you do is in my opinion more closely related to real street driving response for turn in and coming out of corners. Not all on here live in stoplight to stoplight crazy areas.

[Half-Inch Stud]

""""""a 500" motor with a Qjet and a Tomahawk on the dyno running lean front cylinders""""""

Here's an Example of my opinion: A Mech fuel pump driving into a Holley "blue" Regulator would cause the regulator to clamp-down on each MECH fuel pump pulsed output. Meanwhile an electric fuel pump delivers steady-state flow @ steady PSI to allow ANY regulator to pass a "regulated flow" at x PSI. So, I feel a dyno/driver/track will see varied conclusions when even the TYPER of fuel pump or addition of a PSI regulator are included.

that said, I dunno the "test conditions".
that said, I doooo know how my Tomahawk ran, and do know the driving conditions, to know it appears to be a pretty-darn good manifold when hogged for spreadbore throttleplates & no spacer.
================================================== =
That dyno data does reinforce ME to hang onto my Torker I for track eval.

[Cliff R]

We performed back to back dragstrip testing with the Tomahawk intake. As with all the other single plane intakes we've ran, it gave up some 60' time and ran slightly slower than our iron intake, less than a tenth slower overall, slightly more mph. With a 1" spacer, it ran .01 seconds slower overall, and almost 2 mph faster.

It felt remarkably strong doing some "spirited" driving. We had previously tested a Street Dominator intake, which not only ran .12 seconds slower, we lost MPH with it.

I also checked out the link, pretty easy to sit back and "monday morning quarterback" someone elses efforts. I'd much rather see folks like that spend their time/efforts coming up with something better, than bashing someone elses stuff.

FWIW, one of our customers just ran some 9.70's with a 67 GTO, all steel, 3400lbs, using a Tomahawk intake, 3" spacer and q-jet. The engine makes about 750hp (455 cid). It ran almost a tenth quicker than the RPM intake they had been using......Cliff

[steve]

i went back and read some of the threads...good reading. it seems like if you dont mind doing some grinding that the tomahawk, torker II, and street dominator are VERY similar in performance. maybe the only way to know which one is best for your combo is extensive track testing. that is, if you are NOT getting lean front cylinders. the torker I seems to be little different beast.

and of course the proven performance of the early stock units is obvious. i guess if most of us werent so sure lighter is better and aluminum is prettier we would ALL be looking for early 70's OEM !

i am still left with the question in my head though....if the RPM wasnt so damn tall would everyone like that one more than the ones discussed here ???

i think for my silly little tests i will stick with a torker I, a torker II (cause i run a holley), and i havent given up on the rpm (it fits under my hood.....)