Anybody swapped from an airgap to a victor on 360

-

B3422w5

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
4,569
Location
Portage michigan
wondering where the victor would outshine the airgap
Currently have 5k convertor, shift at 6200, i am more concerned how it runs in that area than pulling away from a stoplight
Also, it appears the victor isn't any taller as far as hood clearance looking at measurement online.
Anybody that has done this swap can you verify that?
 
10.3 to 1 360, 028 head gaskets
Stock style replacement pistons 28 in hole, stock rods with good bolts, stock crank. 30 over
Mildly ported eddies, milled to 58cc
950 hp, airgap with super sucker 1 inch spacer
4.30 gear, 904, Dougs headers, 8 inch ptc vert, 5k flash
Howards 260/264 solid cam, 565 gross lift
1.5 HS rockers
3285 race weight with me in it, 275 Hoosier drag radials. Flat hood, 69 Dart GTS
Street strip car, but more interested in track results.
 
I don't know about a Victor on that engine, if you were turning it up to 72-7400 I'd say yes. You know what intake that would work well with it, LOL.

If you decide to run the Victor check the port alignment. Mine had horrible core shift and took a bunch of grinding before it suited me. It did work well on my 408 though.
 
With that gear and converter the Victor is a much better choice. Actually, I prefer the SD but the Victor is better than the AG. I'm not a fan of the AG.
 
Is the spacer a 4-hole design or open? Does the air gap have the plenum divider still (no notch)?
 
I think if it was me, I’d try a 1” open spacer on the air gap and see if it picks up even the slightest bit. If it does I’d assume I was on the right track and switch to the victor.
My reasoning is that the open spacer would simulate the larger plenum volume of the victor. That will affect the signal to the carb and could slightly alter the fuel distribution.
 
wondering where the victor would outshine the airgap
Currently have 5k convertor, shift at 6200, i am more concerned how it runs in that area than pulling away from a stoplight
Also, it appears the victor isn't any taller as far as hood clearance looking at measurement online.
Anybody that has done this swap can you verify that?
I tested this on my old 410 stroker years ago (10.8:1 comp, small street roller, 5k converter, ported eddys, shifted at 6200 ish, 4.10 gear, 3200lbs). If I recall correctly, after I got the Victor dialed in (which took a little bit, messing with shooters and such) it netted me about 1 tenth (10.89-10.79 I believe). I will add that my Victor had MAJOR core shift. I had to spend a few hours with my grinder to get the ports to match up....but after that, I'm very pleased with the intake. I lost very little torque, and it pulls harder up top.
 
What Mr. Karg says, and if hood clearance allows it, try both a one and a two inch open hole spacer back to back at the track and see what happens. But on a 360 pulling to 6200 I would be inclined to run less plenum volume and port match either Weiand Xcellerator (Rated 1500-70000) or Edelbrock Torker II 340 (Rated 2500-6500) with a set of Felpro 1213S3 intake gaskets to block the exhaust crossover. One member I know of picked up .3 over an air gap with an original Torker port matched in a similar combination in a 340 Duster.
 
What Mr. Karg says, and if hood clearance allows it, try both a one and a two inch open hole spacer back to back at the track and see what happens. But on a 360 pulling to 6200 I would be inclined to run less plenum volume and port match either Weiand Xcellerator (Rated 1500-70000) or Edelbrock Torker II 340 (Rated 2500-6500) with a set of Felpro 1213S3 intake gaskets to block the exhaust crossover. One member I know of picked up .3 over an air gap with an original Torker port matched in a similar combination in a 340 Duster.

This ^^, Don has ran this intake before.
 
I have been thinking about trying edelbrock TM5 intake on 318- 390 stroker compared to my air gap I'm running now
 
Ahhh, the TM5. I have one myself, I think everyone should have a TM-5 around "just because"... I have heard a lot good and bad about the TM-5, but I think it would be a very good single plane on a stroker. I don't like the pinch in runners similar to what the original Torker 340 has, but the Edelbrock literature says it was a maximum effort street single plane at a time when gasoline was like water and everyone ran 3.91 to 4.56 gears without an overdrive. I think it was rated for 3000 to 7500. Supposedly, Edelbrock did a lot of testing and it was their best performing manifold before they made the victor jr and victor for the small block Chrysler. I would not be at all afraid at trying one on a stroker. Add a one inch open hole spacer and I think it would work pretty well, but the ET would tell the tale.
 
10-4! FWIW, that’s exactly what I thought too until in a similar discussion with someone here on the forum that picked up .3 on an 11:1 340 4 speed, 4.30 gear Duster over an air gap. He said they compared it to a TM5 and it was similar except the TM5 was deeper with slightly taller runners. But I won’t deny that the pinch points make both designs extremely dated and inefficient, and it would probably be worth a few more tenths to use the Torker II or Xcellerator. In the great tests of intakes, I have never seen a TM5 dyno’d. But I have noticed that there is always a ton of the manufacturers advertising for the airgap which always comes up as the second coming...
 
The Air-gap is probably the best "high performance" dual plane you will find for the small block Mopar. All of the intakes performance are combo dependent...like I said above, I have used both on my motor (actually I used the RPM, RPM Air-gap, and the Victor). On my specific combo the Victor was slightly better after quite a bit of tuning, but the Air-gap was no slouch.

The guy that supposedly picked up 3 tenths switching to a Torker either didn't do and apples to apples comparison (i.e. similar density altitude, humidity, wind speed, etc.), or had a combo that should have never had an Air-gap on it in the first place (like someone who shifts at 7000+ RPM)....or it could be as simple as he hit his shifts right with the Torker (4-speed guy)....I'm just saying, my gut says that was probably bad science.

To the OP, for your combo, the Victor will out shine the Air-gap by a little if you so chose to head that direction. My similar combo had a smaller cam than yours (248/254 @ 0.05 with 0.576/0.582 lift) and it still made a small improvement.
 
10-4! FWIW, that’s exactly what I thought too until in a similar discussion with someone here on the forum that picked up .3 on an 11:1 340 4 speed, 4.30 gear Duster over an air gap. He said they compared it to a TM5 and it was similar except the TM5 was deeper with slightly taller runners. But I won’t deny that the pinch points make both designs extremely dated and inefficient, and it would probably be worth a few more tenths to use the Torker II or Xcellerator. In the great tests of intakes, I have never seen a TM5 dyno’d. But I have noticed that there is always a ton of the manufacturers advertising for the airgap which always comes up as the second coming...
In my opinion the Air Gap is overrated.

First I agree with flyfish.
Nailed it!
And, well, here is my take.

Each new intake design is an improvement over the last. The product would be worthless if it didn’t do so.

It is not the case of not being able to produce decent power or run fast with any old intake but a matter of choosing the right intake for the job, new or old.

The RPM is not over rated IMO but correctly inserted in the pecking order via reputation and time slips to where it should stand. This should not discredit the older LD-340 or belittle the basic Performer. The RPM simply performs better.

From this site alone, there have been a few members posting there slips with there equipment. If you read them carefully, take into account the cars weight and the overall build, coupled with what category the car fits in, the RPM is normally a GREAT choice for most of us here down to about the mid to low 11 second zone.

The more “race oriented” rides benefit from the single plane.

The question now becomes, Is the car more of a race car? The question of weight comes into play. As well as converter, launch RPMs, torque needed to leave the line at the quickest it can, etc....
 
10.3 to 1 360, 028 head gaskets
Stock style replacement pistons 28 in hole, stock rods with good bolts, stock crank. 30 over
Mildly ported eddies, milled to 58cc
950 hp, airgap with super sucker 1 inch spacer
4.30 gear, 904, Dougs headers, 8 inch ptc vert, 5k flash
Howards 260/264 solid cam, 565 gross lift
1.5 HS rockers
3285 race weight with me in it, 275 Hoosier drag radials. Flat hood, 69 Dart GTS
Street strip car, but more interested in track results.
your engine build sounds close to the engine I have in my Dakota that I am building into a race/street truck. what does your car run in the 1/8? my engine I bought off my friend that had it in a 94 Xtended cab Dakota, it was gutted etc and weighed 3200 pounds with him in it. my Dakota is a 91 SB 2wheel drive Dakota sport, that I put the cab and bed off a 96 onto it. his 94 ran 7.16 at 96
 
Intakes are just like tools, you need the right tool for the job at hand. Years ago when I was 20 or so I bought a 71 RR with a stock 383, auto and 323 gears (whish I had it back), a pretty nice car. After a couple months I came up with an aluminum single plane intake, a Torker IIRC, I remember thinking this thing is going to fly!

Boy was I wrong! It was an absolute dog. Big bore, short stroke, low compression, small cam, high gears and a heavy car. Wrong tool for the job at hand.
 
Intakes are just like tools, you need the right tool for the job at hand. Years ago when I was 20 or so I bought a 71 RR with a stock 383, auto and 323 gears (whish I had it back), a pretty nice car. After a couple months I came up with an aluminum single plane intake, a Torker IIRC, I remember thinking this thing is going to fly!

Boy was I wrong! It was an absolute dog. Big bore, short stroke, low compression, small cam, high gears and a heavy car. Wrong tool for the job at hand.
Exactly! That’s my point.
(As well as the combo!)
 
Agreed, and whenever I look at a TM5, I imagine a lot of people had the same experience with it. I have heard people even say that DC/MP had in some the engine manuals at one time not to even use one, but haven't seen proof of it myself. IMHO, if your going fast enough for a single plane to make you go even faster, you should be able to afford a more modern intake anyway, or at least one with sweeping runners and no pinched ports at the intake flange.
 
your engine build sounds close to the engine I have in my Dakota that I am building into a race/street truck. what does your car run in the 1/8? my engine I bought off my friend that had it in a 94 Xtended cab Dakota, it was gutted etc and weighed 3200 pounds with him in it. my Dakota is a 91 SB 2wheel drive Dakota sport, that I put the cab and bed off a 96 onto it. his 94 ran 7.16 at 96

Been 7.19 best. Typically in the 20’s at 94 and change. Its touched 95 a few times
 
Agreed, and whenever I look at a TM5, I imagine a lot of people had the same experience with it. I have heard people even say that DC/MP had in some the engine manuals at one time not to even use one, but haven't seen proof of it myself. IMHO, if your going fast enough for a single plane to make you go even faster, you should be able to afford a more modern intake anyway, or at least one with sweeping runners and no pinched ports at the intake flange.



The DC book said ANY short branch runner intake like that was a loser. They were correct then. They are correct now.

Any time you make air go around a corner, you damn sure better know why. Most of the time it's wrong, but sometimes you can't avoid it.

Any dual plane intake that makes more power than a single plane intake means something was wrong with the latter, not that the former was better.
 
-
Back
Top