Main Menu
|
Nevada Classics
|
Advertise at CC
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
CC Advertisers
|
|
03-15-2018, 11:40 AM
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saratoga Springs,
UT
Cobra Make, Engine: FFR MK IV, 460 SCJ
Posts: 58
|
|
Not Ranked
Intake Manifold for 460 SCJ
I have a 460 SCJ engine with aluminum heads M-6049-SCJ. The stock manifold sits to high to close the hood on my MK4 roadster. The Torker II is the right height but the ports are smaller than those of the heads. Have any of you found a solution for the particular application?
|
03-15-2018, 12:15 PM
|
|
Senior Club Cobra Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Augustine,
FL
Cobra Make, Engine: E-M / Power Performance / 521 stroker / Holley HP EFI
Posts: 1,929
|
|
Not Ranked
last,
According to the Edelbrock site here: Intake Manifolds - Ford - Big-Block - Torker II Series - Edelbrock, LLC.
the lowest manifold they make is the Torker II, and it Their quoted port size is 1.75" x 2.1". If you decide to use it you can do a port match - I think I recall there's enough material there for doing that.
I use this manifold and its EFI twin on two 385s, each much larger than 460 and they run just fine!
Hope this helps,
Tom
__________________
Wells's law of engine size: If it matters what gear you're in, the engine's too small!
|
03-15-2018, 02:08 PM
|
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Williamsport,
PA
Cobra Make, Engine: Kellison Stallion 468 FE
Posts: 2,703
|
|
Not Ranked
CJ and SCJ are two different birds
__________________
Fred B
|
03-15-2018, 02:13 PM
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saratoga Springs,
UT
Cobra Make, Engine: FFR MK IV, 460 SCJ
Posts: 58
|
|
Not Ranked
I am hoping to avoid having do a port match. It seems like there should be a match in height and port size for this application but I haven't found it. This all gets pretty confusing when there are details like "SCJ" and "CJ" that can change or ruin everything.
|
03-15-2018, 02:37 PM
|
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: White City,
SK
Cobra Make, Engine: West Coast, 460 CID
Posts: 2,908
|
|
Not Ranked
Torker II will likely cost 20-25 HP & torque, compared to a Victor, per this thread: Good combo for 650hp/600 ft lbs - 460 Ford Forum
The other option, of course, is a taller hood scoop. Shell Valley has them in 3.25" & 3.5" heights, in both fiberglass and carbon fibre. Cobra Replica Hood Scoop
__________________
Brian
|
03-15-2018, 03:31 PM
|
Senior Club Cobra Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SF Bay Area,
CA
Cobra Make, Engine: SPF #1019
Posts: 1,657
|
|
Not Ranked
Have you looked at Blue Thunder?
|
03-15-2018, 04:01 PM
|
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Williamsport,
PA
Cobra Make, Engine: Kellison Stallion 468 FE
Posts: 2,703
|
|
Not Ranked
about 4 years ago i did some work on a SCJ, could not find anything as far as intakes.
there was a torker and the factory iron........i cleaned it up blocked the heat riser port, painted it to look good and used it
__________________
Fred B
|
03-15-2018, 08:28 PM
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saratoga Springs,
UT
Cobra Make, Engine: FFR MK IV, 460 SCJ
Posts: 58
|
|
Not Ranked
Fred, I see you had the same problem as I have. At least you found a good solution.
Last edited by lastdime; 03-15-2018 at 08:32 PM..
|
03-15-2018, 08:31 PM
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saratoga Springs,
UT
Cobra Make, Engine: FFR MK IV, 460 SCJ
Posts: 58
|
|
Not Ranked
Randy, The only Blue Thunder manifolds that I have found so far are all high rise. I'll keep looking.
|
03-15-2018, 08:41 PM
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saratoga Springs,
UT
Cobra Make, Engine: FFR MK IV, 460 SCJ
Posts: 58
|
|
Not Ranked
Guys, It looks like even the Victor requires port matching for my heads. It says, "Runners have plenty of material for port matching to low- or medium-riser style heads".
If I'm going to have to port match a Victor or any other, I think I'll first play with the Torker II I already have and see how that goes.
|
03-16-2018, 04:21 AM
|
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brisbane,
QLD
Cobra Make, Engine:
Posts: 2,797
|
|
Not Ranked
Quote:
Originally Posted by lastdime
I am hoping to avoid having do a port match. It seems like there should be a match in height and port size for this application but I haven't found it. This all gets pretty confusing when there are details like "SCJ" and "CJ" that can change or ruin everything.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lastdime
Guys, It looks like even the Victor requires port matching for my heads. It says, "Runners have plenty of material for port matching to low- or medium-riser style heads".
If I'm going to have to port match a Victor or any other, I think I'll first play with the Torker II I already have and see how that goes.
|
Good to hear you have agreed to do a matchup.
I've yet to see any engine where the intake manifold is a good enough match, especially a V8, and even more so once the block and heads have been skimmed.
|
03-16-2018, 12:00 PM
|
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: White City,
SK
Cobra Make, Engine: West Coast, 460 CID
Posts: 2,908
|
|
Not Ranked
Port matching of the Torker II may be best, but how critical is it really? How much HP or torque are you going to lose by not port-matching it?
Much has been made of using 'steps' on exhaust primary tubes as an anti-reversion measure. Could similar benefit be realized on the intake side?
Anybody have any experience or insight?
EDIT: Apparently Paul Kane (High Flow Dynamics) has some thoughts on this:
"Without port matching, in most builds the amount of "power loss" is not substantial for most builds. If it were more substantial, you can bet that Edelbrock would not have risked offering the intake in its current form since it would, in effect, be sub-standard when compared to the other brand intake manifolds with which it competes. Frankly there is more power to be gained from cleaning up the Victor's plenum than there is the runner mis-match, but sometimes indeed every last hp is paramount--or engine application matters too--and a Victor port match can be a big plus." Source: http://www.460ford.com/forum/37-engi...tml#post814572
The net of all this: Bolt that Torker II on 'as is' and go!
__________________
Brian
Last edited by cycleguy55; 03-16-2018 at 12:20 PM..
|
03-17-2018, 05:52 AM
|
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Brisbane,
QLD
Cobra Make, Engine:
Posts: 2,797
|
|
Not Ranked
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycleguy55
Port matching of the Torker II may be best, but how critical is it really? How much HP or torque are you going to lose by not port-matching it?
Much has been made of using 'steps' on exhaust primary tubes as an anti-reversion measure. Could similar benefit be realized on the intake side?
Anybody have any experience or insight?
EDIT: Apparently Paul Kane (High Flow Dynamics) has some thoughts on this:
"Without port matching, in most builds the amount of "power loss" is not substantial for most builds. If it were more substantial, you can bet that Edelbrock would not have risked offering the intake in its current form since it would, in effect, be sub-standard when compared to the other brand intake manifolds with which it competes. Frankly there is more power to be gained from cleaning up the Victor's plenum than there is the runner mis-match, but sometimes indeed every last hp is paramount--or engine application matters too--and a Victor port match can be a big plus." Source: Victor Intake Port Matching - 460 Ford Forum
The net of all this: Bolt that Torker II on 'as is' and go!
|
The cylinder head port should be larger than the manifold port, if a correct match cannot be obtained.
Any small step can help minimize the reversion pulse out into the plenum.
Last edited by Gaz64; 03-17-2018 at 05:55 AM..
|
03-17-2018, 08:07 AM
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saratoga Springs,
UT
Cobra Make, Engine: FFR MK IV, 460 SCJ
Posts: 58
|
|
Not Ranked
Again, thanks for all the input. I really appreciate your comments and insight.
|
03-17-2018, 12:03 PM
|
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Glendale,
AZ
Cobra Make, Engine: FFR MkIV 427
Posts: 635
|
|
Not Ranked
I think I remember hearing the Torker II would work. I would recommend consulting with the techs at Factory Five.
Good luck,
Mark
|
09-15-2019, 08:11 PM
|
|
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: White City,
SK
Cobra Make, Engine: West Coast, 460 CID
Posts: 2,908
|
|
Not Ranked
lastdime: What did you decide? Did you go with the Torker II? If so, what has been your experience?
__________________
Brian
|
09-16-2019, 09:26 PM
|
|
Senior Club Cobra Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Chilliwack,BC,
BC
Cobra Make, Engine: F5 Roadster
Posts: 1,422
|
|
Not Ranked
intake on 460
I took off a torker and installed a dual quad blue thunder intake with 2 600 carbs, was 3/4" taller. I lowered the engine at motor mounts. The dual plane had way more low end power than the open torker
__________________
F5 cobra Mark 4 roadster, **SOLD** Ruby Wine Red with pearl,
dual 2" roll bars, warmed up 302, Edelbrock AVS carb and heads, E Street aluminum Heads, Comp cam and roller rockers, AOD, 4.10 Eaton Posi, Power Baer/disc brakes, block hugger headers, 2 1/2" under car exhaust, F500 18" black spoke wheels.
Last edited by HighPlainsDrifter; 09-17-2019 at 08:38 AM..
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:03 PM.
Links monetized by VigLink
|