Get an HO cam and ditch the Torker intake. A single plane designed named Torker..... the tragedy of it all.
The factory 83-85 4 barrel intake would be better. You can likely get the old Wieand stealth for similar money.
The HO cam with a good dual plane intake and a decent carb tune will completely change low end torque issues. This setup was tire roasting fun for decades, and it feels way faster than it really is. It also makes a great soundtrack.
In reply to NOHOME :
You're starting to see one of the reasons I dislike the Torker. With a good dual plane you have much more even vacuum signal to the carb, and you have more even runner lengths. The torker has the four middle cylinders with about 3" of runner length and the four corners have about 8" of runner length. The signal that makes it to the plenum is all over the board and you get puddling, some rich, some lean, and the velocities are all over the place. Basically the four corners get choked and the four middles get puddles that fall out of suspension in the plenum.
Why are you not in a "motor development environment" as opposed to the theater technical environ that you currently dwell in .....'talking out loud'...with all your knowledge...am I'm missing the gist of your path in life?
In reply to 759NRNG :
One can have a "path" in life? 
I prefer to wander aimlessly. I'm sure I'll get back in the auto world once this theater job dries up. I just love it.
So if I am going to go out and buy another intake, what would be a good choice?
Pete
Sounds like even a bone stock 5.0 Ford intake manifold will be better than what you have now for what you want the car to do.
I agree the tune or something is really off. I had a 5.0 EFI (not HO) in a 5000 lb van and it got better MPG than you're getting.
NOHOME said:So if I am going to go out and buy another intake, what would be a good choice?
Pete
I believe I saw an offer of a performer or a mustang intake manifold a few posts back. Either would be fine.
The Weiand Stealth has been mentioned. Name brand stuff on eBay seems to start about $200, the (likely stolen intellectual property) Chinese knockoff ones are less than $140.
If buying new, I'd go for this. In stock, not a cheap knockoff, and under $200.
If it's still a dog at low RPM, and the tune has been verified, then probably you've got too much cylinder head, ie. large ports with inadequate low RPM velocity for the size of the engine.
Anyone have direct experience with the Weiand Street Warrior or Stealth manifold on a combo like this? They look good from here, no direct experience.
EDIT: Based on no personal experience (so this is a nearly worthless opinion) the Street Warrior looks like exactly what NoHome is looking for. Powerband of Idle to 5500 RPM, which is restricted from the Stealth. It sounds like a manifold that really comes into its own by 3k if not a bit before.
In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :
I havent seen the "large ports kill torque" play out as its portrayed. Bad porting of a decent head can ruin everything, but it isnt necessarily the port size. Weve got 6.0 and 6.2s running around with over 300cc port volume making power everywhere. Anecdotally, on 302s ive seen the larger AFRs make more power everywhere than a similarly setup 165cc AFR. I am curious what heads you have. If they are NKB I believe they are 190cc which isnt a bad size for a street 5.0. I think the NKBs are a Promaxx casting that skip white goes over, but there have been quite a few chinese castings that have come and gone and the only ones Im familiar with are the NKBs. Plenty of people have made decent power on them, so I doubt they have some glaring problem that would choke them down worse than a stock e7 or something.
In reply to Opti :
It's not quite as much of an issue with EFI since fuel is being injected into the port and increasing it's mass. On a carbureted engine, the transition from small intake runner to huge intake port is a death sentence for velocity. You get harmonics that can fight against the vacuum.
Also important to point out that port volume is not apples-apples. When you mention that 6.0L have 300cc ports, that is not an indicator of anything other than comparisons between other engines of the same architecture. You can have a BBC port that is 335cc because it's a long way from the mouth to the valve, but doesn't flow any more than a 200cc SBC head because it's a short trip to the valve... or for that matter flow any better than a 180cc SBF head. Cross sectional area and flow numbers are the important part, but you can't compare port cc from two different architectures and expect it to be a relative indicator of flow or velocity.
NOHOME said:So if I am going to go out and buy another intake, what would be a good choice?
Any of the major players will have something that will work great. Weiand (now Holley) makes a Street Warrior and a Stealth that are highly favored in the 5.0L crowd. Edelbrock makes the Performer and Performer RPM. The main difference for all of them is more or less plenum size and height, so the lower version will perform best from idle to 5500 or so and the upgraded one will shine from 1500-6000 or so. Simply pick the one that matches the cam you choose and you'll be very happy.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
I understand you cant necessarily compare runner port size across platforms, I only used the LS platform because its such an extreme, On the Gen 3 6.0 the heads are 217cc intake port, the L92 were 270cc and the L86 are 297cc. This is on essentially the same architecture and engine size. The port size has gone up almost 50% over its development and the biggest port doesnt even have fuel in it, its a DI motor. The largest port makes the most HP and TQ.
I have also seen this on SBF. A large AFR makes more power than a small AFR on similar setups.
Im not saying a big head is better, Im just saying a big head doesnt necessarily mean bad, and its unlikely its making this engine make less power than a stock emissions compliant version.
If his problem is as bad as described, its unlikely to stem mainly from his intake port being too large. Is it ideal? maybe not. Is it the problem hes currently chasing? I dont think so
If I can thread jack for just a moment while there is lots of sbf interest.
I'm running a 289 performer intake, ~9.2 compression, 500 cfm carb, flotek 180cc heads, fairly restrictive exhaust, and tfs stage 2 cam retarded 2-3 degrees. I believe my setup is fairly well matched other than the cam. I retarded the cam with the intention of killing some low end and revving the motor out a bit more (lightweight car). This goal was achieved, although I don't have as much low end as I want now, and I'm running a rev limit around 6k to keep my cheap valve springs happy. So, in my shoes, would you redegree the tfs2 cam dot to dot, or use a cam more focused on bottom end power?
In reply to Opti :
I can dig it. I'm pickin up what you're layin down.
In reply to Shavarsh :
Putting your current cam in dot to dot is free plus some gaskets. Id do that and recheck. If its not what you want get a different one, but id atleast try before spending another 300 bucks on a new cam
So are we all in agreement that NoHome should try a new intake manifold first, maybe just by itself, to see what effect that has? Edelbrock Performer, Weigand Stealth or Street Warrior, or something else? We're on the internet, I feel like the next step is telling him what to do.
In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :
My position is verify fueling. If no one speaks carb around him to help, its probably time to order a a/f sensor and gauge.
In reply to Opti :
At this point my whole train of thought has been derailed by the fact that several of the plugs are running pig rich and the rest look fine.
I have a line on an Fcam but kind of feel that the intake might as well be done at the same time. If nothing else, I can stop fishing for parts under the manifold when they get dropped.
Ironic that I went with the 302 as the foolproof way of getting a reliable and well mannered engine since millions of mustangs managed the trick over many years.
I speak carn well enough and I have a good friemd who both speaks carb and has a large tackle box of jets and bits for the Holley carbs. What sent me down this path is the fact that the carb tuning is not responding as I would expect for the changes that have been made and I am looking for reasons why. Poor atomization of fuel due to sluggish vacuum signal was my thought when I started this thread. How this feeds into my mix and match AFR I do not know. It might also be at the root of why the Fitech was such a failure on this engine.
Thanks to all, I know a lot more since I started this thread, but I am no less confused about how to diagnose and plot a path forward. Throwing a F cam and a new manifold at the engine seems like the parts cannon holy-grail move. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just piecing together with the description of the Torker II intake, do you have rich plugs in the middle and normal in the outide corners?
pres589 (djronnebaum) said:So are we all in agreement that NoHome should try a new intake manifold first, maybe just by itself, to see what effect that has? Edelbrock Performer, Weigand Stealth or Street Warrior, or something else? We're on the internet, I feel like the next step is telling him what to do.
Yup. Then he will at least have a manifold that will be a better match for the cam. I think that will do a lot of good.
I really wish there were more spreadbore options for the Windsor. As far as I know, Offenhouser is the only one and they're bloody expensive. So I would say take his pick. Performer RPM (so it will match whatever cam he eventually chooses) or you could do this Summit intake which appears to be a Weiand recast for Summit.
In reply to matthewmcl :
Not clear as I kinda pulled several plugs in random order to see what I could see. A proper diagnosis will be to pull all of them and keep them in order.
got an RPM dual plane china copy and a stealth single plane in my friend's inventory, so might try that.
And apologize for a grave error, the current manifold is not a Torquer, it is an air gap Stealth from China. Regardless, some follow up reading tells me that uneven fuel distribution is not unexpected with dual planes and even more so with airgap manifolds. This could be at the root of why Fitech and Sniper do not like dual plane manifolds since it messes up the AFR readings.
I did not see it here, but are you sure you’re feeding a full 12 volts to your MSD distributor? Not sure how you wired in your power since you’re not using the engine in a Ford, but if it ever ran a points style distributor in the past it’s likely there is a resistor wired into the circuit.
I have a SBF as well and had a similar laziness problem. I tried the parts canon but after exhausting several options I checked voltage with my multimeter and was getting only 7 volts. If you don’t have a multimeter you can try running a jumper wire from the battery to see if you have any improvements that way..
If voltage checks out I’d maybe look at the coil next and make sure it’s output is healthy. I’ve had new coils fail shortly after they were installed so it can happen. Unless your carb tuning is way off it really sounds like you’re having an ignition issue.
In reply to jerrysarcastic (Forum Supporter) :
possible even though the msd box has 12 volts direct from the battery.
Real Weiand Stealth manifolds are dual-plane intakes. Between a 3rd party copy of the Performer RPM and a real-deal Stealth I think I'd go Stealth every single time.
I don't know if I would swap the cam at the same time.
You'll need to log in to post.
