Torker II vs Performer RPM on 493 stroker!

[shone190]

Hi guys,
   I bought Blueprint engines 493 stroker engine (525HP/590ftlb) and have two questions regarding intake manifold.

Right now I have Torker II on my old 440 engine and want to hear your opinions, do I need to change this IM for Performer RPM or not?

The car will be holiday driver not drag racer. Is it possible at all to recognize difference in engine performances between these two IM?

Thanks.

[Cooter]

RPM. Torker is an old skool intake that still performs, but is a single plane designed for upper RPM power, something a 493 has plenty of.

[shone190]

You mean that it will be noticed difference between them in everyday drive, not only on dyno?

[SRT-440]

RPM makes great power for the street...the Torker is (like Cooter said) made for upper RPM's and really good for racing. Can't get wrong with either but RPM is better for low and mid range power. 
I have both...RPM on my 440 and a Torker II on my 383.

[Ghoste]

With 500 cubes there will be no shortage of low and mid range power and if you are only planning to drive it like a regular car there is no need for top end power.  Which one is cheapest?

[shone190]

Prices are the same, I think there is about $5 difference , but I already have Torker II and my question is do I maybe need to change it for RPM.

In the meantime I found this article, very interesting

http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/engine/mopp_0207_intake_manifold_engine_and_rpm_range_test/

[Ghoste]

I'd probably leave the Torker on.  I'm sure there are dyno differences and I'm sure there are seat of the pant differences but based on how you plan to use it why spend the money?  If it were me, I'd likely put a stock intake on and tell everyone its a 383.

[shone190]

In country where I live, 383 is unimaginably big engine Here, 183 engine is extremely big engine, so 383 or 493, that is the same

[heyoldguy]

496 using Torker II and Performer RPM


RPM.................Torker II TQ/HP...............RPM TQ/HP

3000....................514/293.......................543/310
3200....................544/331.......................579/353
3400....................590/382.......................615/398
3600....................612/420.......................632/433
3700....................610/430.......................640/451
3800....................606/439.......................632/457
4000....................607/463.......................630/480
4200....................608/486.......................624/499
4400....................599/502.......................604/506
4600....................609/533.......................600/526
4800....................617/564.......................605/553
4900....................620/578.......................603/564
5000....................616/586.......................612/582
5200....................612/605.......................599/593
5300....................611/617.......................605/611
5400....................600/617.......................601/618
5500....................595/623.......................594/622
5600....................589/628.......................586/625
5700....................584/634.......................578/627
5800....................574/634.......................565/624
5900....................568/638.......................557/626
6000....................554/633.......................540/617

[c00nhunterjoe]

496 using Torker II and Performer RPM


RPM.................Torker II TQ/HP...............RPM TQ/HP

3000....................514/293.......................543/310
3200....................544/331.......................579/353
3400....................590/382.......................615/398
3600....................612/420.......................632/433
3700....................610/430.......................640/451
3800....................606/439.......................632/457
4000....................607/463.......................630/480
4200....................608/486.......................624/499
4400....................599/502.......................604/506
4600....................609/533.......................600/526
4800....................617/564.......................605/553
4900....................620/578.......................603/564
5000....................616/586.......................612/582
5200....................612/605.......................599/593
5300....................611/617.......................605/611
5400....................600/617.......................601/618
5500....................595/623.......................594/622
5600....................589/628.......................586/625
5700....................584/634.......................578/627
5800....................574/634.......................565/624
5900....................568/638.......................557/626
6000....................554/633.......................540/617

What heads were on this engine? From what i have seen in the average case running stock/unported heads is that there is minimal difference between intakes. 5-10hp. I dont know what heads are on blueprint engines but in my opinion, run the torker 2 since you already have it and if you are unhappy with it, then purchase the rpm.

[heyoldguy]

They were RPM heads flowing 306 cfm @ .550". If I already owned it I would run the Torker II also.


Next, 440 with some 346 heads.

RPM................Torker II TQ/HP................RPM TQ/HP

3000................407/232.........................440/252
3200................416/253.........................450/272
3400................466/301.........................491/318
3600................481/330.........................499/342
3800................474/343.........................502/363
4000................456/347.........................490/373
4200................462/369.........................489/391
4400................482/404.........................493/413
4600................482/422.........................481/421
4800................484/443.........................481/439
5000................484/461.........................488/465
5200................479/474.........................474/470
5400................482/495.........................490/504
5600................461/492.........................464/494
5700................453/491.........................453/492

[BSB67]

They were RPM heads flowing 306 cfm @ .550". If I already owned it I would run the Torker II also.


Next, 440 with some 346 heads.

RPM................Torker II TQ/HP................RPM TQ/HP

3000................407/232.........................440/252
3200................416/253.........................450/272
3400................466/301.........................491/318
3600................481/330.........................499/342
3800................474/343.........................502/363
4000................456/347.........................490/373
4200................462/369.........................489/391
4400................482/404.........................493/413
4600................482/422.........................481/421
4800................484/443.........................481/439
5000................484/461.........................488/465
5200................479/474.........................474/470
5400................482/495.........................490/504
5600................461/492.........................464/494
5700................453/491.........................453/492

Thanks for posting both data sets.  Kinda supports what logic would suggest.  Did you use any spacers? To the OP.  I too would use what you have and when funds allow, do some swapping and testing. 

[Challenger340]

I vote Torker 2
493 Inch... 241/247 F.T. Cam