FAZ442

I also would have liked to of seen how the torker performs since I am debating changing my current torker to an rpm

507OLDS

Each manifold will produce different numbers on the dyno.However,you would not likely feel the difference in your pants,while driving it.Just something to think about,incase you are thinking of buying a new intake.You might not feel the difference,but it could be there.

LX89mustang

Given the rpm range this motor will be working in , the RPM Air-Gap should be a clear winner . During our EMC runs a bunch of people had to rethink their combos . The Air-Gap intakes really shine from 2500-6500 .

hotrodpc

Theoretically, you're on target here. But, it would be nice to see the dyno results for certain. Air Gap vs Torker. If it's not much to ask of the dynotician, (like that word? I just invented it I think) it would nice to see that comparison with and without the spacer too.

Actually it would be nice to the hp/torque curves of each too. It may not be that one is better than the other, and it might be one is a clear winner. With the graphs, someone could see at what rpms, hp/torque are being made, where they lift, and fall off so they can choose the manifold according to their type of build and purpose. I normally prefer dual plane intakes for low end and mid-range peek power, but I've been told in an Olds 455 Torker is way to go because what very little you lose on the bottom end, the mid-range and top end are enormousley much better, that the dual plane falls off very fast. Maybe that's not the case with the Air Gap though. I'll sure be watching for results.

ah64pilot

It's a BBO, with Ga heads nonetheless. It needs all the help it can get from mid to top end, maybe the Air-Gap is good for that range but I don't see how it's going to be better than a single plane like the Torker. Oh well, dyno day has come and gone...

now where's Mark?

hotrodpc

Dyno day came and gone? So I must have missed a page of reading this thread. I did end up skipping and skimming trying to avoid the fight and antics. My bad. I'll go back and pick up where I left off and got lost. Not now though. 3am and I'm dozing already. Thanks for the heads up.

cutlassefi

Back at it today. We had some dyno issues yesterday.
Best run with the standard Performer was 393hp/496tq.
For those of you in the know we still had 2" of vacuum at wot. Any idea why?

Rickman48

Wants a bigger carb!

cutlassefi

You got it. But I put the 750 on it on purpose. He wants drive ability and the Hp/tq numbers weren't as important as that. But it made almost 500lb/ft at 3700rpm. Should drive real well.

ah64pilot

So are you back at it or are we saying the best run was with the standard performer?

cutlassefi

Yes..... for now.

hotrodpc

So in a nutshell all summed up....

Olds 455 Build w/
Ga Heads 2.07/1.68, crossovers filled, divider welded, very minor bowl work
.040 over Icon IC886 pistons, .005 in the hole
Eagle H beam rods
N crank
Erson Hyd Roller (what else) Adv. 288/294, 230/234 @ .050, 110 lobe sep, lift .584/.568
Full roller rockers 1.6
New Quick Fuel 750 Vac secondary
HEI
1 3/4 Flowtech Headers
With a net Best run with the standard Performer was 393hp@ ????rpm / 496tq@ 3700rpm.
and still had 2" of vacuum at wot.

hotrodpc

So it appears it's even possible maybe with a 780cfm QJET taking advantage of a little more carb since there's room could have squeezed a bit more hp. Not likely to increase tq though.
And for confirmation, on this Standard Performer intake, was it stock out of the box, or had the divider been cut down? And was a spacer used? At what rpm did the hp peak? I'll update the above post. How about the ratings on the Air Gap intake? Did I miss those in the thread somewhere? Sorry for all the questions. Seems like you did a lot of work to come up with this info, just wanted to make sure it's all noted together.

LX89mustang

Quick questions here .

What brand of dyno ?

Rpm range you are using on the pulls ?

Will the winner be chosen by peak numbers only ?

Did you put any advance in the cam timing ?

ah64pilot

I will go out on a limb here and say that Mark is probably putting together a report that has all of the information you are requesting in it. I doubt he would go to all this trouble just to list the little tidbit he already did.

Have faith, he's probably putting together a spreadsheet as we speak lol!

hotrodpc

That would be awesome. I think I'll hold you to it, that he is doing that. Way to step up there brah. LOL

SBORule

Just put a Victor on it and be done with it, it will make more HP & TQ than any other intake manifold period.

Second best would be a the Chinese air gapped ripoff of Edelbrocks RPM manifold.

Then a Holley Street Dominator would come in third but it would need a 1" inch spacer.

Torker would be next unless it was modified like Brians intake then it would be better than a Holley Street Dominator.

hotrodpc

So when you say, "Chinese air gapped ripoff of Edelbrocks RPM manifold", Are you referring the actual Eddy Air Gap, or the Pro Comp?
So this works for any 455 build? Any dyno results to back it up?

cutlassefi

Hi Guys,

Hopefully I'll be posting the results tonight, time permitting.
Only did 2 intakes, the Perfomer and the RPM, with 2 different spacers.

Here's what I have for you now, no clear winner because the carb is too small for maximum hp. It was still pulling 2" of vacuum at WOT in all configurations. Dyno time ran short for a couple of reasons, some of which were neither my nor his fault.
Good news- we may be going back to the dyno in Aug with the exact same motor. The owner has agreed to go with a larger carb and maybe do a few pulls. I'll see what I can work out with my dyno guy.
To answer some previous questions;
It's a Superflow 901
Cam is hyd roller, 228/237 @.050 with .558/.542 lift on a 110 in at 106.
Carb was a Quick Fuel 750 Slayer.
Both intakes had the center divider cut down.
1 3/4 Flowtech Headers, (part of the problem of losing dyno time, I'll explain later).

Hope this helps guys. Talk to you soon.

cutlassefi

O.K. you have the specs above so here you go! I was wrong..... for now.

This motor is hopefully going back the the dyno in August with an 870 Street Avenger.
All pulls with the regular Performer had a 1" open spacer.

Notice the bsfc, it was using a lot of fuel even though the Innovate said it was lean, there's power to be had there. But because of that we wasted a bunch of pulls fattening it. I'm not an Innovate fan, quite frankly I think they're junk. I've posted the reason why.
Anyway, the plenum on the RPM is noticably smaller than the regular Performer, not sure why. I've asked my buddy at Edelbrock, he's going to find out why the engineers decided to make the runners larger but the plenum smaller. That's why it made better power with the added 1" spacer and even then it only equaled the regular Performer.
Again we ran out of time so we couldn't try the O4B. But that plenum is even smaller than the RPM. I'll try to put all three in a row so you can compare for yourselves.
But with the 750 it was starving for air as all manifolds showed we still had 2" of vacuum at wot. Would a Torker have done better here? Yes maybe with the smaller carb because of the open plenum it has, even though both intakes had the center divider cut about 3/4".
But notice the torque, it was already coming down at 3800, his dyno wouldn't load at the programmed 3500. That means it was already making 500lb/ft as that's the way his dyno is configured. it won't load until it makes less than about 500lb/ft above the programmed rpm. However this will be a fun ride don't you think?

In August we'll try to run both intakes again with the 870, but time will be tight.
The next test is a 380c.i. 9.0:1 SBO with 7a heads and a small roller. I'll see if I can make a deal for an additional 1/2 day on the dyno.

The last attachment is a testiment to the inaccuracy of the Innovate O2's. The NTK is lab grade, the best you can get. Notice how much slower and inaccurate the Innovate is. This was done by an independant lab some years ago.

1968ragtop

Wow, surprised at those results. Is the performer a better manifold than I was told or is the rpm a bit of a dog?

joepenoso

The way I see it with a bigger cam and carb the RPM MAY be faster...but on the street the performer is the clear winner. Now if only the O4B was tested it might be the street champion and if you go down that road aside from not being aluminum the cast iron 4 barrel OEM might be the street low rpm winner. Just a guess
joepenoso

cutlassefi

The quick answer is yes. But I think the RPM will fair much better once the 870 is bolted on, but we'll see.


Note; Other guys do dyno pulls at somewhat lower water out temps, we did ours at 160. I think this would be more real world.

I'll try to post one of the RPM pulls so you can see for yourselves.

1968ragtop

You may have just saved me some cash. I'm running the performer on a mild built 455 and was thinking of swapping to the rpm, might as well stick with the performer manifold! We'll see if further testing changes the results though

cutlassefi

If it is a mild build then I would stick with the Performer. You can always cut the divider and/or add a spacer for bit more power in the upper midrange to higher rpms.

joepenoso

At what RPM would the Performer overtake the factory Cast iron /Aluminum manifold in horse power? The Pontiac guys especially Cliff of Quadrajet fame uses the pre 1973 non-EGR. OEM manifold to great success in drag racing. The 455 Pontiac can't use the greater flow unless the engine is vastly modified.
See...http://psp.aquacomp.net/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=429
What YA think?
joepenoso

hotrodpc

Good Question Joe. I wonder how the OEM cast iron would do with some mods. This is all assuming the user would be using a Qjet though or use an adpater that would also act as a spacer. Might just be a hot ticket. I need to look over my OEM intakes. Hopefully they are or at least one is a NON EGR, or I'll buy the performer just for the lighter weight, running cooler and no EGR.

ah64pilot

Those results are going to disappoint a lot of people...

Back in the day I had a 455 that ran 13.001 w/ a stock intake manifold. I never did get to compare the same exact engine w/ a performer but the engine I pulled out of the silver car was built to the same spec, and it ran low 13's as well...so I can't really say that the performer was any better than a stock cast iron intake except that it was lighter.

Good test Mark, I'm really happy I went with the Torker and now at least I don't feel like I missed out on the Air Gap. I think this answered a lot of questions for all of us. Thank you!

hotrodpc

I"m really gonna kick myself. The guy who bought my 67 bare 425 block that was standard bore with the good lifter size and good cam bank angle, I gave him the 4bbl intake as he was leaving since he said he was making an OEM build. I wanted it out of my way, and was happy with what I got out of the block so I figured I'd give it to him since he'd appreciate more than anyone. Now, I'll regret it.

cutlassefi

[QUOTE=hotrodpc;422431]I"m really gonna kick myself. The guy who bought my 67 bare 425 block that was standard bore with the good lifter size and good cam bank angle, I gave him the 4bbl intake as he was leaving since he said he was making an OEM build. I wanted it out of my way, and was happy with what I got out of the block so I figured I'd give it to him since he'd appreciate more than anyone. Now, I'll regret it.[/QUOTE]

Not so fast. I think the Performer will out hp most everything on a mild build.
Take a look at the stock intake as well as the O4B. The runners make an extra turn and the plenum is small. I know for a fact that's not good for hp or torque. Look at my notes for the RPM.

And Steve, let's wait and see what the RPM does with a bigger carb. It might surprise you,... or it might not. We'll see.

Anyone want to chime in on the next build? I'll post the build specs over on the small block section in a couple of days.

Thanks for your patience guys!!

ah64pilot

I don't know...the carb was the same across the board so my guess that they will all make more power proportionally and the Performer will still come out on top.

For the next build are we taking HP estimates? I'll say ~ 315

507OLDS

I've always used a larger carb with a dual-plane intake,compared to a single-plane.It looks like you are getting the same results.
The Performer is a step in the right direction,when comparing it to a stock intake,or O4B,since the runners are raised to get a better angle at the intake ports.

cutlassefi

Yes, the target is 325 so your guess is right in line.

therobski

IMG_1270.jpg Just for the heck of it I may mention my 455 is running a Torker, no spacer ( no room at all on a 67 hood) that was port matched to out of the Edelbrocks, with a Dean Oliver prepped 800 CFM Q-Jet. Don't run the car down the 1320, just smoke the hides on Saturday night.

joesw31

Mark,

Give us the details on the small block build.

1968ragtop

My motor is a mild built 455 9.5:1 comp C heads mild comp. cam performer intake 750 carb factory ex manifolds. This setup makes good bottom end power but falls on its face around 4000 rpm. I think more cam, a edelbrock torquer intake and a good exhaust would bring it to life! What do y'all think??

cutlassefi

Cam specs? Dual exhaust?

1968ragtop

right now I have 442 ex manifolds with 2 1/4 dual exhaust magna flows dumps before axle.
cam is comp cams XE 262H
intake exhaust
duration 262 274
at .050 218 224
lift .475 .480
lobe separation 110

72 w29 all green

You might want to continue from your older thread for this ...

https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...55-issues.html

... but with that cam along with the rest you mentioned, it shouldn't be falling flat on its face at 4000 rpm. Something else is up. Did you get the timing tune right from last year? Do you know what was done to the heads? (rockers, lifter preload, valve job ...)

cutlassefi

That cam is pretty small. Compare the total off the seat time on that to the stocker. It's not that much more.