New EFI Intake Manifold

Red Devil wrote: One Torker vs AirGap test was the Car Craft Rambler 370 cu-in with 310/318 254/259 108 LSA 104 ICL Torker 480.7hp@6000, 448.3 lbf.ft@4900 AirGap 468.9hp@5900, 454.7 lbf.ft@4500 "after 5300 rpm, the Torker managed to pull away by 12hp peak ... AirGap beat it by 12lbf.ft average and nearly 800 rpm lower in the band" Different combos will give different results and favour one intake over another.   My guess is the new single plane would beat the torque of a Torker, but may need porting for larger cubes/higher rpm.   Nice thing about a single plane is much easier to port, so if they've left lots of material, the porters will be happy. Until we see full dyno curves, a bit tough to judge at this point, but seems the new intake is targeted to street users more so than racers, so I'm sure they will sell a bunch and racers will figure out how to modify them to get the most out it.

I seriously doubt they are interested in spending dyno time on a Torker comparison. Time is money and would bet  their only real focus is with developing their new intake for the EFI.  Also I think it's really premature for everyone to make judgements on the results so far. It's a work in progress, not a finished and finessed part. Development will go on and they will make adjustments with it. For now I am just happy to see a new part in the works and whatever the out come I'll be buying one to play with. 

Edited by PROSTOCKTOM - Oct/04/2018 at 10:21am

Give them some time. The engine is a hyd cam, not a race piece, so don't look for giant numbers up front. Development takes time, let them do their job. The intake seems to be about 15 hp better on that engine, similar to my air-gap vs torker testing in a similar application. Might be a terrific piece on a more aggressive engine.

Edited by Ken_Parkman - Oct/04/2018 at 7:52am

OK, let's not lose sight of the difference between a PROTOTYPE and a production piece. The folks at Edelbrock have some baseline numbers from their PROTOTYPE. Now they can take those numbers and use them to improve the prototype before it goes into production.

The fact that Edelbrock is working on a new piece for an engine that hasn't been in production for almost 30 years is apparently lost on some of you. Instead of complaining about the numbers and criticizing the performance of the PROTOTYPE, we should be down on our knees thanking them for even considering a new manifold for an AMC. This is something akin to a manufacturer designing new performance parts for a Studebaker 289 in the 1990's...and THAT didn't happen.

If the complaining gets too loud, I wouldn't blame Edelbrock if they turned their backs on what might seem to be a group of ingrates. I hope and pray they don't, but they WOULD be justified if they did, from what I've seen here.