Intake Manifold for 460 SCJ

[lastdime]

I have a 460 SCJ engine with aluminum heads M-6049-SCJ. The stock manifold sits to high to close the hood on my MK4 roadster. The Torker II is the right height but the ports are smaller than those of the heads. Have any of you found a solution for the particular application?

[Tom Wells]

last,

According to the Edelbrock site here: Intake Manifolds - Ford - Big-Block - Torker II Series - Edelbrock, LLC.

the lowest manifold they make is the Torker II, and it

Will fit 429 Cobra-Jets.

Their quoted port size is 1.75" x 2.1". If you decide to use it you can do a port match - I think I recall there's enough material there for doing that.

I use this manifold and its EFI twin on two 385s, each much larger than 460 and they run just fine!

Hope this helps,

Tom

[FWB]

CJ and SCJ are two different birds

[lastdime]

I am hoping to avoid having do a port match. It seems like there should be a match in height and port size for this application but I haven't found it. This all gets pretty confusing when there are details like "SCJ" and "CJ" that can change or ruin everything.

[cycleguy55]

Torker II will likely cost 20-25 HP & torque, compared to a Victor, per this thread: Good combo for 650hp/600 ft lbs - 460 Ford Forum

The other option, of course, is a taller hood scoop. Shell Valley has them in 3.25" & 3.5" heights, in both fiberglass and carbon fibre. Cobra Replica Hood Scoop

[Randy Rosenberg]

Have you looked at Blue Thunder?

[FWB]

about 4 years ago i did some work on a SCJ, could not find anything as far as intakes.
there was a torker and the factory iron........i cleaned it up blocked the heat riser port, painted it to look good and used it

[lastdime]

Fred, I see you had the same problem as I have. At least you found a good solution.

[lastdime]

Randy, The only Blue Thunder manifolds that I have found so far are all high rise. I'll keep looking.

[lastdime]

Guys, It looks like even the Victor requires port matching for my heads. It says, "Runners have plenty of material for port matching to low- or medium-riser style heads".

If I'm going to have to port match a Victor or any other, I think I'll first play with the Torker II I already have and see how that goes.

[Gaz64]

Originally Posted by lastdime

I am hoping to avoid having do a port match. It seems like there should be a match in height and port size for this application but I haven't found it. This all gets pretty confusing when there are details like "SCJ" and "CJ" that can change or ruin everything.

Originally Posted by lastdime

Guys, It looks like even the Victor requires port matching for my heads. It says, "Runners have plenty of material for port matching to low- or medium-riser style heads".

If I'm going to have to port match a Victor or any other, I think I'll first play with the Torker II I already have and see how that goes.

Good to hear you have agreed to do a matchup.

I've yet to see any engine where the intake manifold is a good enough match, especially a V8, and even more so once the block and heads have been skimmed.

[cycleguy55]

Port matching of the Torker II may be best, but how critical is it really? How much HP or torque are you going to lose by not port-matching it?

Much has been made of using 'steps' on exhaust primary tubes as an anti-reversion measure. Could similar benefit be realized on the intake side?

Anybody have any experience or insight?

EDIT: Apparently Paul Kane (High Flow Dynamics) has some thoughts on this:

"Without port matching, in most builds the amount of "power loss" is not substantial for most builds. If it were more substantial, you can bet that Edelbrock would not have risked offering the intake in its current form since it would, in effect, be sub-standard when compared to the other brand intake manifolds with which it competes. Frankly there is more power to be gained from cleaning up the Victor's plenum than there is the runner mis-match, but sometimes indeed every last hp is paramount--or engine application matters too--and a Victor port match can be a big plus." Source: http://www.460ford.com/forum/37-engi...tml#post814572

The net of all this: Bolt that Torker II on 'as is' and go!

[Gaz64]

Originally Posted by cycleguy55

Port matching of the Torker II may be best, but how critical is it really? How much HP or torque are you going to lose by not port-matching it?

Much has been made of using 'steps' on exhaust primary tubes as an anti-reversion measure. Could similar benefit be realized on the intake side?

Anybody have any experience or insight?

EDIT: Apparently Paul Kane (High Flow Dynamics) has some thoughts on this:

"Without port matching, in most builds the amount of "power loss" is not substantial for most builds. If it were more substantial, you can bet that Edelbrock would not have risked offering the intake in its current form since it would, in effect, be sub-standard when compared to the other brand intake manifolds with which it competes. Frankly there is more power to be gained from cleaning up the Victor's plenum than there is the runner mis-match, but sometimes indeed every last hp is paramount--or engine application matters too--and a Victor port match can be a big plus." Source: Victor Intake Port Matching - 460 Ford Forum

The net of all this: Bolt that Torker II on 'as is' and go!

The cylinder head port should be larger than the manifold port, if a correct match cannot be obtained.
Any small step can help minimize the reversion pulse out into the plenum.

[lastdime]

Again, thanks for all the input. I really appreciate your comments and insight.

[MKS427]

I think I remember hearing the Torker II would work. I would recommend consulting with the techs at Factory Five.
Good luck,
Mark

[cycleguy55]

lastdime: What did you decide? Did you go with the Torker II? If so, what has been your experience?

[HighPlainsDrifter]

I took off a torker and installed a dual quad blue thunder intake with 2 600 carbs, was 3/4" taller. I lowered the engine at motor mounts. The dual plane had way more low end power than the open torker