TM5 versus Torker and 340 Torker

-
NCmtnDWELLER

NCmtnDWELLER

FABO Gold Member
FABO Gold Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
4,656
Reaction score
3,836
Location
Cartoogechaye - NC
Whats the difference between the listed intakes ?
Read somewhere last year where runners on TM5 were different or larger than the Torker or Torker 340 intakes ???
 
Not much all three are about the same. Unless it's on a big inch (416 plus cubic inch or bigger) small block stroker more value/better off throwing them in the smelter at Edelbrock and hoping there is enough aluminum to cast a performer rpm or rpm air-gap. If your going to use one, choose the one with the curved, sweeping runners, I think the 340 torker has the best profile and streetable torque curve for that kind of build on the street, but only with a build for 3000-6000 rpm. Most all street builds much heavier than a go kart will benefit much more from a performer rpm or air-gap. Hughes can do some porting on the 340 Torker that will extend the RPM range, and any of these manifolds can be useful if you need to kill off some bottom end torque to maintain traction. But to answer your question, TM 5 has more volume and taller runners. But the intake bolt port pinch as the runner turns the corner looks none too good, as neither do any copy of a SB chevy intake adapted to a mopar flange with a straight runner taking a sudden angular turn at the port window.
 
Last edited:
Garrett Ellison said:
Not much all three are about the same. Unless it's on a big inch (416 plus cubic inch or bigger) small block stroker more value/better off throwing them in the smelter at Edelbrock and hoping there is enough aluminum to cast a performer rpm or rpm air-gap. If your going to use one, choose the one with the curved, sweeping runners, I think the 340 torker has the best profile and streetable torque curve for that kind of build on the street, but only with a build for 3000-6000 rpm. Most all street builds much heavier than a go kart will benefit much more from a performer rpm or air-gap. Hughes can do some porting on the 340 Torker that will extend the RPM range, and any of these manifolds can be useful if you need to kill off some bottom end torque to maintain traction.
Click to expand...
Thank you for info
Changing to Super Stock class and need a vintage single plane because tunnel rams are not permitted.
 
Okay, it's the Torker II that has the sweeping runners. If your class allows it, a Holley street or strip dominator would work well, followed by second choice of an offy port-o-sonic with the fuel dams at the runner entrances per Mopar performance. The first gen torker 340 is the one to steer clear of, and I haven't heard enough good about the TM-5s to recommend one of those either... TM-5 is supposed to be a decent drag intake with enough gearing, but if you need something close to a tunnel ram, you need need something close to a Victor 340
 
Garrett Ellison said:
Okay, it's the Torker II that has the sweeping runners. If your class allows it, a Holley street or strip dominator would work well, followed by second choice of an offy port-o-sonic with the fuel dams at the runner entrances per Mopar performance. The first gen torker 340 is the one to steer clear of, and I haven't heard enough good about the TM-5s to recommend one of those either...
Click to expand...
Thank you Sir
 
A second choice that may be viable if eighties is considered vintage in your class is an M-1 Mopar single plane. A strip dominator or an Offy with the dams installed are usually the dyno contest winners, and the strip dominator has a strong dragstrip following, both in person and on-line.
 
Tm5(the earlier of the 2)has a lower floor than the newer torker 340 that's about the only difference in them.the torker 2 is way different...way taller and curved runners.I've never ran the torker 2.

i took a performer air gap off my duster and put a torker 340 on it and picked up almost 3 tenths...everyone says they're junk but i think not.

The m1 single plane is excellent on a decent 340/360.i run one on a 69 340 in a 67 coronet,727,3.55 rear and it runs 8.7 in the 8th and gets around 20 mpg when driven easy


Garrett Ellison said:
Not much all three are about the same. Unless it's on a big inch (416 plus cubic inch or bigger) small block stroker more value/better off throwing them in the smelter at Edelbrock and hoping there is enough aluminum to cast a performer rpm or rpm air-gap. If your going to use one, choose the one with the curved, sweeping runners, I think the 340 torker has the best profile and streetable torque curve for that kind of build on the street, but only with a build for 3000-6000 rpm. Most all street builds much heavier than a go kart will benefit much more from a performer rpm or air-gap. Hughes can do some porting on the 340 Torker that will extend the RPM range, and any of these manifolds can be useful if you need to kill off some bottom end torque to maintain traction. But to answer your question, TM 5 has more volume and taller runners. But the intake bolt port pinch as the runner turns the corner looks none too good, as neither do any copy of a SB chevy intake adapted to a mopar flange with a straight runner taking a sudden angular turn at the port window.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Care to share which one of your builds you did this with? I have suspected a lot of what we read and hear about the great single plane vs two plane debate has more to do with what people are really willing to put up with in a "street car" or at least what they think they can. I know on the track once you get to a certain level of camshaft/compression/gearing that a single plane will yield better results, most people just don't get anywhere close to it with a street build though.
 
If you are asking me,the torker 340 is on a 70 duster with 10:1 cr 340,comp hyd...292-501 cam,2.02 heads,a 750 dp holley,727 with 9.5 ptc converter 3.91 rear and is a street car...runs 7.8 in the 8th and 12 in the 1/4 spinning.
It's a little cold natured but otherwise very streetable.



Garrett Ellison said:
Care to share which one of your builds you did this with? I have suspected a lot of what we read and hear about the great single plane vs two plane debate has more to do with what people are really willing to put up with in a "street car" or at least what they think they can. I know on the track once you get to a certain level of camshaft/compression/gearing that a single plane will yield better results, most people just don't get anywhere close to it with a street build though.
Click to expand...
 
mikebee said:
If you are asking me,the torker 340 is on a 70 duster with 10:1 cr 340,comp hyd...292-501 cam,2.02 heads,a 750 dp holley,727 with 9.5 ptc converter 3.91 rear and is a street car...runs 7.8 in the 8th and 12 in the 1/4 spinning.
It's a little cold natured but otherwise very streetable.
Click to expand...
Wow, that’s good to know, I thought those intakes wouldn’t really start to make an improvement until gearing got deeper than 4.10’s, but I’d say the 9-1/2 converter really helps get it into the torque band quickly. Sounds like a fun combination, I bet it is very strong in the mid range!
 
Garrett Ellison said:
Wow, that’s good to know, I thought those intakes wouldn’t really start to make an improvement until gearing got deeper than 4.10’s, but I’d say the 9-1/2 converter really helps get it into the torque band quickly. Sounds like a fun combination, I bet it is very strong in the mid range!
Click to expand...

It feels good all over...no stroker but its fairly quick.
 
1Badcolt said:
Whats the difference between the listed intakes ?
Read somewhere last year where runners on TM5 were different or larger than the Torker or Torker 340 intakes ???
Click to expand...
Out of the Edelbrock intakes, use the TorkerII-340.
On the aftermarket intakes, the M1 is reported by MP as a few HP better than the Holley Strip Dominator because it really is a copy of the Holley.
The Offenhauser is also reported and talked about by MP as an excellent intake. The Port-O-Sonic, Holley Strip Dominator are writen up in the engines book by MP with suggested mods to be done. Popsicle sticks on the intake floor to help adjust and equalize runner flow.

Grab the MP engines book for the small block.
 
Love the duster, BTW. Did you use the original Torker 340 or the Torker II? Kind of curious if there is any more to be had with the larger port volume of the Tarantula TM-5. Proof that a dyno doesn't always equate the whole real world truth, the best dyno is still the drag strip!
 
For whatever it may be worth, at one time I had a vintage Weiand single plane that looked like a cross between the both Holley Street and Strip Dominators and an Offy Port-O-Sonic. ought at a swap meet but later traded to something more reasonable. I never had anything that merited trying it out on, it did not have a name, only a four digit sequence. Other than having an exhaust crossover, it made an early (large) model TM-5 appear small, cavernous plenum and wide sweeping, very tall runners. Looked like it would RPM to the moon and back. Wish I had held onto that one, just to see what it would have done. Came off a duster with a 360 that ran 11.20's with 4.10s and slicks and an Engle K-8 cam.
 
Or an early version of it, most Excellerators I have seen had straight runners going to an angle at the port window of much like a TM-5, this one had runners that swept out from the front and rear plenum walls similar to Torker II 340/360 but was about 5-1/2 inches deep from the carb pad to the plenum floor.
 
Garrett Ellison said:
Love the duster, BTW. Did you use the original Torker 340 or the Torker II? Kind of curious if there is any more to be had with the larger port volume of the Tarantula TM-5. Proof that a dyno doesn't always equate the whole real world truth, the best dyno is still the drag strip!
Click to expand...
Mine is just the torker 340...same as the tm5 but the floor of the plenum and runners are raised a lil bit.
Looks like this\/
20180219_095801.jpg
 
mikebee said:
Mine is just the torker 340...same as the tm5 but the floor of the plenum and runners are raised a lil bit.
Looks like this\/View attachment 1715280689
Click to expand...
I will admit to being guilty to the "more is better reasoning" but with this intake making an improvement do you think a TM-5 would possibly take a few more tenths off or need more of "everything else" (cam, gearing, compression) to show an improvement?
 
Garrett Ellison said:
I will admit to being guilty to the "more is better reasoning" but with this intake making an improvement do you think a TM-5 would possibly take a few more tenths off or need more of "everything else" (cam, gearing, compression) to show an improvement?
Click to expand...
My cousin at hp engines in norwood n.c. looked at both and thought the torker 340 was a minor improvement and i took his advice on it....the tm5 was just the earlier torker 340 so i thought edelbrock prolly improved the design some.

My thinking in replacing the air gap was my 340 was a very early(im thinking 75 or so) build and i figured it may work good with an early intake design...plus i like the looks of it better.

I also haven't timed it with a light and I'm using a single points distributor that was just supposed to be in it for brake in.
 
I like the logic behind that, makes sense to me... that’s going to be even more of a beast than it already is with a proper ignition set up and timing curve!
 
One thing that I didn't see anyone mention about the Offy Port-O-Sonic is that the popsicle stick mod is to fix distribution issues when using a Thermoquad. They said the Holley Strip Dominator didn't need them. Apparently using a square bore Holley carb on either one doesn't cause issues because that's what they were originally designed for.

Just swapping intakes isn't always going to prove which is better. Each intake has varying degrees of jetting and other adjustments that it likes best.
 
I can’t remember off hand if the popsicle sticks were for Holley carbs on the intake or for the TQ.

The Offy intake can be had in ether square or spreadbore and the MP books illustration is of a spreadbore Offy. I’ll have to look later.

Still, locomo has a good point that ether extensive dyno or track testing is needed to find the maximum ability of the parts used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top