Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey all. Bought a '68 Coupe about a year ago. First Mustang.

I've got a tapping noise in one of my lifters. Decided to go ahead and replace old cam and lifters with something new.

Currently have a Torker 289 with a Holley 4150 Dual Pumper 650cfm. Would like to keep the carb, but should I stick with the Torker 289 intake? Been reading a lot of varying opinions on the Torker. Some say its great and to keep it. Some suggest a newer intake (Victor Jr, RPM Air Gap, etc...)

I'm really only running it on the street. Like the idea of being able to punch it hard when needed though.

Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,406 Posts
Hey all. Bought a '68 Coupe about a year ago. First Mustang.

I've got a tapping noise in one of my lifters. Decided to go ahead and replace old cam and lifters with something new.

Currently have a Torker 289 with a Holley 4150 Dual Pumper 650cfm. Would like to keep the carb, but should I stick with the Torker 289 intake? Been reading a lot of varying opinions on the Torker. Some say its great and to keep it. Some suggest a newer intake (Victor Jr, RPM Air Gap, etc...)

I'm really only running it on the street. Like the idea of being able to punch it hard when needed though.

Thoughts?
How big is the engine? Is it still a 289/302? These intakes work great on stock displacement engines! I ran one back in the late 80's. It has a basic twin, the Weiand Accelerator 7515 that I believe is still currently produced. I think the Weiand won some of the intake manifold shootouts back in the day.

You can update to a more modern Edelbrock Performer RPM or RPM Air Gap... but I don't think you'll really get much out of it. The Torker 289 is not a bad intake on a street 289/302. However, STAY AWAY from the Torker II. Those are junk! Had one, and ended up giving it away, as I didn't have the heart to actually charge anyone for it. lol

Edit... Wow, the old intake manifold shootout is still out there!
http://carbdford.com/fletch/tech/intakes/intakes.htm

Good Luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,406 Posts
Yeah, still a 302. Any suggestion on which cam/lifter kit to get for a Torker 289?

Thanks for the feedback!
I'm assuming the car is completely stock outside of the intake and a new cam? Does it have aftermarket heads? Headers? Auto or stick shift? If auto, does it have a stock torque converter? Rear gear? Lots of factors go into choosing a camshaft. Need to know the full combo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
I had a bone stock 65 Mustang back in the mid 70's.

It was the "A" code 225 HP factory Autolite 4BBL engine with 3spd manual top loader.

I threw a Torker 289 and 600 cfm vac secondary Holley and a set of headers on it.
Stock original cam.

Really woke it up, and it wasn't bad before that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
The Torker is a single plane mani. I think it will work great with today's higher lift roller profiles. Back in the day, dual plane manis were better for low end torque, but valve lifts back then were lower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
I've heard of problems with drivability on a street car with the Air Gap intakes. Single plane manifolds are typically for sustained high RPM driving. For straight street use an Edelbrock Performer (not the RPM), a Wieand Stealth or a Professional Products Typhoon would all be good choices. I have no experience with the Torker so I can't comment on that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,406 Posts
I've heard of problems with drivability on a street car with the Air Gap intakes. Single plane manifolds are typically for sustained high RPM driving. For straight street use an Edelbrock Performer (not the RPM), a Wieand Stealth or a Professional Products Typhoon would all be good choices. I have no experience with the Torker so I can't comment on that.
Old Performer is basically a 50 year old design, and is easily improved upon. It's also very small inside, and makes limited power. It was a good intake for putting on a completely stock 289 to swap from a 2bbl to a 4bbl carb. The Performer RPM is a much better intake throughout the entire rpm range. The Air Gap is basically the same thing as the RPM, but is fancier with the air gap. It also supposedly keeps the air/fuel charge a little cooler. The 351W Air Gap is actually a little larger inside, as well as much taller than the comparable RPM intake... but the 302 unit is pretty much the same.

For a single plane, the Torker isn't a bad intake. It's not too large inside, so it's not 'lazy'. It provides good power up to around 6k rpm or so on a stock displacement engine. These came out before the stroker kits, so they weren't designed for extra cubes. For a 347, you'd want something bigger. For a warmed up 289/302, they make a nice intake... especially if you've already got one. Not a lot to be gained by going to something else. Plus, they look cool!

A Weiand Stealth is similar to the Edelbrock Performer RPM... just maybe a little larger inside. The Typhoon is a copycat Chinese intake, and is likely the least desirable of the bunch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Don't forget to ask your local cam grinder for his input. Most of these guys are a wealth of info on building a power plant where all the "pieces" work together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
I had a bone stock 65 Mustang back in the mid 70's.

It was the "A" code 225 HP factory Autolite 4BBL engine with 3spd manual top loader.

I threw a Torker 289 and 600 cfm vac secondary Holley and a set of headers on it.
Stock original cam.

Really woke it up, and it wasn't bad before that.
Most people think that a 289 is weaker than a 302 because of the lower number. Most, if not all, people who say and think that probably have never driven, seen or rode in a car with a 289.

It’s pretty much a 302 modded up for high RPM’s with a gang load of torque from the small combustion chambers. It has roller tip rockers and a hotter cam. It’s louder and can drive at idle in deep sand where with a 302 you needed to press the gas a little to make it go in the sand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,406 Posts
Most people think that a 289 is weaker than a 302 because of the lower number. Most, if not all, people who say and think that probably have never driven, seen or rode in a car with a 289.

It’s pretty much a 302 modded up for high RPM’s with a gang load of torque from the small combustion chambers. It has roller tip rockers and a hotter cam. It’s louder and can drive at idle in deep sand where with a 302 you needed to press the gas a little to make it go in the sand.
Lots of misinformation in this post...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
482 Posts
The torker came out in the very early '70s and it was NOT touted as a high rpm single plane intake when released. I had one of the first ones Edelbrock made and it was good to about 7,000. It has very small runners compared to a modern Victor Jr intake. No special cam was needed and the better ones were in the mid 230s @ .050 with a tick over .520 lift. Bigger cams didn't make much more power because the ports were not big enough. For those of you under 50 , we didn't have "out of the box" heads that would even flow 200CFM!! The best ported 289 heads barely flowed 220 cfm , so the manifold didn't need to be bigger. The "twisted" carb location was novel at the time but the Offy Port-O-Sonic out powered the Torker by a bunch and it would be almost ten years before Edelbrock made a new SBF design. The Torker isn't nor was it ever what we consider a "race" manifold. It is right at home on a mild street engine. "I" would not use it on a stroked engine. Yes there are better "modern design" intakes out there now.
Randy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,406 Posts
The torker came out in the very early '70s and it was NOT touted as a high rpm single plane intake when released. I had one of the first ones Edelbrock made and it was good to about 7,000. It has very small runners compared to a modern Victor Jr intake. No special cam was needed and the better ones were in the mid 230s @ .050 with a tick over .520 lift. Bigger cams didn't make much more power because the ports were not big enough. For those of you under 50 , we didn't have "out of the box" heads that would even flow 200CFM!! The best ported 289 heads barely flowed 220 cfm , so the manifold didn't need to be bigger. The "twisted" carb location was novel at the time but the Offy Port-O-Sonic out powered the Torker by a bunch and it would be almost ten years before Edelbrock made a new SBF design. The Torker isn't nor was it ever what we consider a "race" manifold. It is right at home on a mild street engine. "I" would not use it on a stroked engine. Yes there are better "modern design" intakes out there now.
Randy
Agreed on all points. Stock, the Offy Port-o-Sonic one one ROUGH piece, but some time with a grinder turned it into a true performer. It's sort of a Mini Victor Jr.

I had the 289 heads I ported for the previous engine in my car put on a flowbench. A guy offered, so I sent him one. It flowed 217 on the intake and 179 on the exhaust. Stock intake ports are 126cc, and I had mine 'huge' at 155cc. lol

The Edelbrock Torker and the Weiand 7515 Accelerator are very similar. They work great on stock displacement 289/302's turning 6k to 6.5k rpm. However, nowadays... I'd probably go for a Edelbrock Performer RPM in that range unless nostalgia was more important. Anything with an emphasis over 4.5k rpm, a good single plane such as the Victor Jr would be the best choice. 6k rpm 331/347... probably the Performer RPM.

Good Luck
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top