Torker II intake

[86bluecobra]

Is anyone running a Torker II intake on a 351w carb'd? I found out that the vic jr requires a different msd dizzy then i have and i was wondering if anyone has run this intake or if it is even worth buying? I would like a single plane to go with my vic jr heads. i currently run a wiend stealth dual plane.

 

[classic boost]

the stealth is a better intake than the torker2. it's about a 20 year newer design and has bigger runners. keep the stealth.

 

[86bluecobra]

OK. I didn't really like the look of the torker II. Maybe a Super victor would be the way to go.

 

[classic boost]

what's the intended use of the car? a super victor will give up ALOT of torque.

 

[5.0ina66]

Wieland excellerator? smallish single plane like the TokerII but seems to work much better.

 

[1969mach1351]

I ran a Performer RPM and now a Torker II. Without changing the jets it ran 2 tenths slower. I went four sizes bigger on the secondaries and the Torker II ended up being two tenths faster than the RPM in the 1/4 mile.

 

[69mach1DE]

I'm running a 351W, performer RPM intake & heads w/ 650 demon. I'm restoring my 1969 Mach 1 and want to use a shaker hood. It looks like the Torker II is a little shorter than the performer RPM intake and should fit with a shaker setup. Did you use a carb spacer. I'm rebuilding the rear with 4:11 track-loc. Did you lose anything on the low end when you switched to the torker ii?

 

[allcarfan]

torker II vs super victor????

thats like saying....do I need a 500cfm carb or an 850cfm carb

 

[1969mach1351]

I don't remember about the heights of the two but they are really close. I have a 1" spacer with the Torker II and a 3 inch tall air cleaner with a drop base and it fits under the stock non-shaker hood. I didn't have the spacer with the RPM. My 60ft were the same or faster with the Torker so I didn't lose any bottom end.