dual plane horsepower capabilities

I know,this has half way,been covered before but i cant find any REAL data to help me make up my mind. I'd like to here what everybody thinks. my build in short. 1993 f350 weight 5500 or so 37" tires and 4.10 gears probably goin to upgrade soon. 93 octane fuel. 80% street 20% play aka mud and tractor pulls time to time. 4.3 scat stroker 9000 forged probe 4.390 kaase dish decked block. Static compression 10.4:1 custom hydraulic roller cam 238/248 @.50 .597 I. .615 E. ground on a 112. lmao overkill for this app. kaase p51 heads polished. crane xd stainless roller rockers. think thats it for the major parts. now my question is. stealth 8021 or air gap. I'd like to stay away from the victor as my application. will not reach over 6000 rpm. trying to shoot for 600 or so hp and more important for this build 650 tourqe

Also ive calculated. that my motor would need an 850. but i know bbf like to move air and also was thinking about upsizing due to the duel plane as they restricts. flow.
Any suggestions

I feel like with that cam it will still make more power with the Victor. Especially with the 4.3 crank.

Thanks Blake. Now the reason I say dual plane over the victor. Is. The weight 55-6000 ill need as much as I can get through the rpm range also ill be running a vac sec4150 setup grant a 4.3 crank will give me tourqe down low I just don't know if the victor is justifiable to the tourqe I lose down low opposed to the hp I pick up top I would like to decuss this with u. I mean you have one hell of a motor in your sig I'm willing to listen to your advice. No offense to anyone on here but I get the feeling that people here look at me like I'm dumb because of my combo. Keep in mind this is a low/mid rpm range motor for the street not a screamer. I hear a lot that the cam is to small but as I said Heavy trucks need tourqe and I'm not spinning above 6000. Cam will acaualy run out around 55. Correct?

After hearing your plans or goals, let me throw something else at you. A torquer single plane may fill the bill if your running a 4150 carb, small runners and less lose of flow compared to the dual plane.

I have not done a lot of research on the torker. I know it's a single plane. But I could be mistaken but I hear they don't flow real well. And as I said before. I know it's overkill but I'm running p51. Just invade of further upgrades lmao with ill probably do as I can't leave anything alone. But back on topic. I know I need volosity but You don't think that CJ stealth would produce the power. I know most eddys have a hard time after the 600 range minus the victor

Blake has offered some good recommendations. Nice engine you have and a dual plane will more than likely not provide the power that a single plane will. I must say, stay away from the Weiand Stealth part. I don't know what the air gap has to offer but the Weiand won't offer much to your application. Also considering your engine speed, a smaller single plane intake as Blake has mentioned may work very well.

Just another two cents,
Dave.

I think you will find the torquer will flow more air into your P-51's than a dual plane and have good air speed to boot at that cubic inch.

Anybody have a link to the F350 build Lem Evans posted about? That thing had stump Puller written all over it... I know its not the same parts but it sounds like the O.P. is trying to get somewhere in the same area for hp, tq, and rpm range.... just a thought. I think its worth a look anyway... good luck

Unless you have a concern about "off idle, part throttle, street driving" a port matched Torquer II will out perform any of the dual-plane manifolds from about 2,500 RPM on up at "wide open throttle" on your application.

I'd like to see what lem did with his 350 build. If someone can find that link it would be much appreciated. Anyway. A question to Blake and randy.or anybody that has a good knowledge of what it's about Why is the torker so under rated? Is it because. Is it because its a small single plane and not suited for most applications on here. As in big CI screamers. Most builds I see on here are very mild as in 4-500 hp aka dual planes or wild builds 700 on up single plane victor. I'm just wondering why the torker is not very popular Does anybody have a flow sheet for the torker?

Imtruckinup wrote:I'd like to see what lem did with his 350 build. If someone can find that link it would be much appreciated. Anyway. A question to Blake and randy.or anybody that has a good knowledge of what it's about Why is the torker so under rated? Is it because. Is it because its a small single plane and not suited for most applications on here. As in big CI screamers. Most builds I see on here are very mild as in 4-500 hp aka dual planes or wild builds 700 on up single plane victor. I'm just wondering why the torker is not very popular Does anybody have a flow sheet for the torker?

No single-plane will approach a good dual-plane in throttle response at part throttles or "off idle" toquue.
Race cars generally go for the best horsepower producing manifolds without the torque below the peak being an issue.
The "Torquer II" fits in a "niche" so, it gets by-passed a lot.
ALSO, because the original "Torquer 460" was so bad for anything other than gas mileage, the two get confused for one another.

Like has been said....the key word is Torker II, not the original Torker.

rmcomprandy wrote:Unless you have a concern about "off idle, part throttle, street driving" a port matched Torquer II will out perform any of the dual-plane manifolds from about 2,500 RPM on up at "wide open throttle" on your application.

Randy,

I just thought about it being a 521 inch deal with 10.5 :1 compression, the straight shot to the valve with the smallish cross section and good signal at the smallish carb, this thing might make a Torquer II work on the bottom very well.

To Blake randy lem and Dave I just want to say thanks for taking some time and educate me with your opinions I'm going to follow the experience here before me and run with the torker 2 and mount a QFT ss 850 on top. I'd like to go a little big just for piece of mind say maybe a 950 but I need a choke as I live in Maryland When dyno/tuning day comes ill see if a spacer does me any good. I know BBF love to suck down air Do you guys think an 4150 850 is adaquate I hear there 1000's in disguise

For what it's worth I ran a Stealth on a mud drag engine and made about 600hp and tq with a 552" deal pulling 18" of vacuum. The class rules stated a dual plane intake, and this one was the 8021 that was modified with a 4500 flange.

Imtruckinup wrote:To Blake randy lem and Dave I just want to say thanks for taking some time and educate me with your opinions I'm going to follow the experience here before me and run with the torker 2 and mount a QFT ss 850 on top. I'd like to go a little big just for piece of mind say maybe a 950 but I need a choke as I live in Maryland When dyno/tuning day comes ill see if a spacer does me any good. I know BBF love to suck down air Do you guys think an 4150 850 is adaquate I hear there 1000's in disguise

I have yet to see on a dyno where ANY phenolic spacer didn't help the power of a Torquer II at wide open throttle.
Some spacer's only a little bit and other spacer's quite a bit but, no combination I checked lost power from NO spacer on a Torquer II.

You're kinda "strapped" when needing a carb with a working choke.

I found lens 350 build. Stump puller. Now as far as port matching the torker. I've been lookin for the torker port measurements and can't really find solid information I've seen a couple different measurements Also does the torker have enough material to work it that much. Last thing. Should I just work the mouth of the intake. Or the whole runner

Imtruckinup wrote:I found lens 350 build. Stump puller. Now as far as port matching the torker. I've been lookin for the torker port measurements and can't really find solid information I've seen a couple different measurements Also does the torker have enough material to work it that much. Last thing. Should I just work the mouth of the intake. Or the whole runner

Blend-in from the flange about 2 1/2 to 3 inches but, leave the floor alone; everywhere else, about a 1/16 of an inch smaller than the head ports all the way around the rest.

Yes sir. That's what I was thinking. D shape port job as the CJ flow better at the top of the port. Before I place this order. Any other recommendations on intake chooses for my build that I can look into. Moneys not really a big deal. Blue thunder dual plane?

Alrite fellas for those of you that have been following this thread. I figure I'd amuse you and let everybody have their laughs. Haven't figured out how to post pictures on here so I created a link. To some pics
But there are happy ones too
No personal information is on here so please don't mess with my site too much. Someone please let me know if you can view it

https://servimg.com/images.php

https://servimg.com/view/17892370/9

https://servimg.com/view/17892370/4

https://servimg.com/view/17892370/3

https://servimg.com/view/17892370/10

https://servimg.com/view/17892370/11

https://servimg.com/view/17892370/12

https://servimg.com/view/17892370/13

https://servimg.com/view/17892370/14

https://servimg.com/view/17892370/15

https://servimg.com/view/17892370/16

How any CCs are the dish in them pistons

33 cc. Plan is 33 dish with 72 head 5 out of the hole with a 41 compressed head gasket. If I remember correctly it'll give me high 10.4:1 static and with the cam I have 8.9 dynamic