Hey guys

Last year I converted the 383 in my '69 Super Bee to sequential MPFI.

Since there is no easily available EFI intake for the low deck, I bought a used Edelbrock Torker and modified it for injectors myself.

The fuel rails really get in the way of the throttle and kickdown/pressure linkage. I have had to use a 2" spacer (open) to gain enough clearance for the kickdown linkage (a Lokar cable) to clear.

At this point, I am pretty sure that this Torker + 2" spacer is as tall as any non-tunnel ram intake such as an M1 or even a Victor.

I guess this is kind of an open question about this manifold/spacer combination. The combo is 383, 11:1, 3500 stall, 3.91, 232/242 solid, 1200+ CFM TB. Its kind of a slow street/strip, but it has really been street only for quite a while.

I'm just wondering what anybody's thoughts are on this intake and fairly large spacer combination. Are they working together at all? Is this killing my low end? The car drives nice, but seems a bit softer down low than the 750DP & Performer RPM that it replaced. Would an M1 or Victor or even the dual plane Performer RPM give better performance?

Does the intake really matter with port EFI and a mild engine? There are some great intake shootout articles out there, but all are geared towards a carb, and I'm just not sure if that applies to EFI.

Thanks for any thoughts you have!

Trying to add the picture right side up.

Manifold theory and practice for carb applies mostly to EFI. That said, it is hard to get a clean install of port injectors on a dual plane and dual plane does not always play nice with TB injection... so retrofit EFI favors a single plane like you already have.

SP will be a bit softer on the low end vs dual plane and hopefully have more top end charge. An M1 might work a little better than what you have but not sure it would be noticeable... and you might start again with fit issues. On my M1 setup I simply cut the kickdown linkage off the TB to clear my somewhat unique fuel rail mounts... OK with manual transmission.

Attached is an EFI oriented manifold thread for reference.

https://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/ubbt...tml#Post2008465

Just thinking out loud, is the throttle body progressive linkage? Could you reconfigure, just as an experiment, by rotating the throttle body 90 degress, and test without the 2" spacer? The kick down would the hard part? Did you mention, is this an open or a 4 hole spacer?

I see you say its open, worth trying a 4 hole?

And possibly think of splitting the plenum like Weiand did on some of their more street single planes?

R.

I had thought that I had read that some of the carb intake theory goes out the window for port EFI. There is so much info out there on the Internet, its hard to separate fact from fiction... and then again how it applies to my specific situation.

Thanks for the link, its a good one that I had missed! I have a Holley SD that I could also modify, but its so short too that I would be in the same territory as this Torker.

Honestly my issues with linkages have been frustrating to say the least and I have contemplated installing a full manual valvebody to eliminate the need for the trans linkage!



The linkage on this throttle body is progressive... It hadn't even occurred to me to try it in a different orientation. I've fit the throttle and trans cable to their current location (as well as the TPS and IAC connections) , so I might not have enough slack to do that, but I will take a look. It sure would look weird on there like that!

A 4-hole spacer is cheap enough to try, I might give that a try.



Did that work when they did it? You don't really hear much fondness for the old Weiand intakes (maybe the tunnel rams?).


Thanks a lot for the ideas and consideration!

Its kind of funny, but the whole reason why I went with a more expensive 4bbl TB instead of a single forward facing (on a 90* adapter) TB is so I wouldn't have to fight these types of linkage issues. In my head, I was going to use my perfectly functioning stock throttle cable and kickdown linkage. In reality, these issues have caused me more trouble than anything else on the whole EFI project!

I have a Performer RPM that I could modify by adding injectors too. Its a lot of work with my limited tools, but I've got it figured out from doing the Torker. The RPM might still need a small spacer, but could be a better combination.

Thanks again for the help!

With port injection EFI, the intake doesn't play a significant part as long as it is large enough to handle the flow, which yours is. Manifold is flowing only air and no "signal" is required as would be with a carb. EFI likes open plenum manifolds so the spacer would have minimal affect. If you have to add the spacer for other reasons than that's fine. Do it.

Who's EFI?

If it was good with a carb it should be as good or better injected.

Injector aim can enter into it. Ideally they should shoot the back of the intake valve.

Does the ECM handle timing too? Set as much initial as it can stand and still start hot and set 34-36 deg total in by 2500 max and it should haul the mail.

Confirm that the timing is what the ECM says it is.

Kevin

OK, this is kind of what I had been thinking. I know that some articles on EFI intakes refer to "plenum volume" but I'm not positive on how much is too much. Is it a case where... if the intake fits under the hood, you can run it? Or are there limits here. Like, would a Victor on my mild 383 work, or is that getting too big?



Its a Megasquirt 3x in sequential fuel and individual coils...

I've read some articles talking about injector aim, but I think that must be for when an engineer is designing an engine from scratch. There is literally no way to aim an injector at the valve on a BBM (there is no line of sight) and even if you could, you are so restricted on the angle that you could install the injector and still have room for a fuel rail.

The engine has been up and running well for a year with a killer timing "curve" (all settings confirmed), I really just want to know if the intake setup that I have could be better. That Torker is from the 70s, but Edelbrock does still sell it, so it cant be all that bad.

My Torker & 2" spacer is as tall as a Victor (or an M1), so if there was something to be gained (low end, high end, whatever) from swapping it out then I could justify going to something more modern since the combo that I'm running is as tall anyway.

Thanks guys, I appreciate all the input!

Can you easily set it to batch fire?

Kevin

Yes, it is simple config change to switch over to batch.

I'd try that and see if it changes anything.

Kevin

Your runner shape is no longer as critical as it was before. The runner length and volume are still just as important.

I built a 390 cubic inch plenum for the TT440 and it had great street manners with the twin 58mm throttle body. Things got a bit saggy when I dropped the 1600 cfm throttle body on it but power picked up a wee bit.

Yeah, something like that would have been more ideal for sure! Im not even sure what the plenum volume would be on my setup... the spacer and intake must be just in the double digits for cubic inches.

I've often thought of trying to make something similar to your manifold out of a tunnel ram, but with a 4bbl plate on top, but I really lack the skills to do most of it.. not the least of which is my inability to weld aluminum.

I think i'm just going to stick with what I have for a while then. Nobody seems to be suggesting that a more modern taller single-plane intake would make much difference over what I have.

Run whatcha got if there's nothing wrong with it. A linkage issue isn't too hard to work around.

To answer your question in short. Yes. And just about as much as with a carb....Why, because you don't want each cylinder making drastically different hp if you are actually willing to tune them individually. And, most efi setups are either batch fire, or switch to batch fire after 3000rpm anyways.

So, if you don't do it, your plugs look all different if you have bad distribution. The good news is, more flow is better, as it is dry flow and not as fussy as wet flow. Let the engine take in what it wants..

You will note the 3/4" spacer under the bug catcher...Its not there to just be pretty...

Wow is that ever a nice looking intake. Did you make that/have it made?