Hot Rod Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
SBF 302 4160 Holley Torker single plane manifold.

I am thinking of using a carb spacer, what would be they advantage, if any, of using a 2" spacer over a 1" spacer?
 

·
More for Less Racer
Joined
·
19,470 Posts
Every engine combinatiion is different in how they respond to spacers, and it also depends on the manifold shape and style a good deal too. With the low Torker, the 2" might show more improvement because it gives the air/fuel mixture more time to make the bend into the port entry's in the plenum. You really don't kow without testing which the engine will respond best to, 1" or 2" or even 1/2" increments, and don't forget 4 hole, dual plane style single divider, and open plenum.

Is that Torker the old angled carb pad version from the 1970's where the carb front is rotated to the passenger side about 10° off line with the engine, or a straight later one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Yes, the original torker with the miss aligned carb. Open plenum.
 

·
More for Less Racer
Joined
·
19,470 Posts
It will likely respond best to either a 1 or 2" open spacer, or a 1" 4 hole blend type spacer, maybe even a 1" 4-hole blend with a 1" open under that for a 2" combination spacer
 

·
True Hotrodder
Joined
·
1,324 Posts
Don't limit yourself to just a 2" max spacer if you have the hood clearance. The larger the plenum area under the carb the larger it will appear to the engine. Of course all things have limitations. When I was racing S/S I had a competitor that had a '56 Chevy to my '55. I knew he had a carb that had maybe 40-50 CFM more than mine but he was normally 3/4 to a full second quicker that I was. I happened to walk past his car when he was going through inspection and spotted the real difference. He had built spacers from plexiglass that raised the carb to where the top of it was about even with the fender, I would say the spacer stack was a good 10-12 inches in height. That 500 CFM carb probably looked like it was 700 CFM to the engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,889 Posts
I can tell you two different experiences I have with my current build. I have a dart shp 377 sbc (4.155 x 3.480) with a 3000 stall convertor in a chevy s10. I first ran a victor jr intake on my build and I have a set of dart pro 1 200cc aluminum heads all ported out and gasket matched and I used an combination spacer that is a 4 hole that then becomes a tapper type of a design and it did excellent on my combination but I had a lot of torque and plenty of bottom end and plenty of top end.

I then wanted to try a standard 4 hole spacer which helps improve more for the bottom end and give more signal to the carb and more throttle response and sometimes more snap when you punch the throttle a little.

I then decided I wanted to change out my intake manifold as I had a bigger camshaft in the build that benefited with the victor jr but I wanted to tame my engine down some for better street manors and I went with a slightly smaller camshaft and then put on a dual plain intake. I tried the tapered spacer and it did ok and still had a nice throttle response to it and then I went with my four hole spacer again and it worked even better as it always has at least for giving more throttle response on the bottom end and mid range.

I have used the open spacer in the past on several small block chevys with bigger cams in the [email protected] 50 range and the open spacer took away even more bottom end response away from the build with a dual plane intake. The four hole has always given me the best results for the bottom end and mid range with my builds but that is how most of them work. The four hole is to help with torque and more on the bottom and mid range while the open spacer is more for the mid range and top end on most combinations but things can vary depending on several factors.

The taper design I don't know to much on the effect they have but I am guessing it gives you the benefit of both a four hole spacer along with an open spacer combined and creates a somewhat different effect on the signal to the carb. The taper design seemed to do pretty good but how much better it does I guess depends on the build itself. For me it did not do much as for improvement compared to my four hole but did work better then the open spacer. Its basically a tuning aid and can help and sometimes hurt performance as its all in what you got built.
 

·
Hates: Liver. Loves: Diesel
Joined
·
5,659 Posts
Honestly, I think you'll be happier with a different intake. The torker is really not a great intake and it's costing you both torque and HP. I know you didn't ask for that opinion, but there it is. The torker was designed as a single-plane low-rise intake. It was a hot thing for some race classes and they look pretty, but they don't flow enough to make decent power, and the single plane aspect kills torque.

The use of a carb spacer will have vaguely predictable effects. Sometimes they work really well, other times not so much. If you are trying to get more hp, you might get a few with an open spacer (increases plenum volume). If you're looking for more torque, try a 4-hole spacer (increases velocity). But those results aren't always seen in real world application.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I had heard that about the torker, I only had a 2 bbl. Egr intake from donar engine and I saw this at a swap meet. I think I paid $25 for it. Another $25 for a spacer won't hurt. It still should work better than a factory manifold. Then there is the oddity factor, with the crooked carb. mount. Thanks for input Curtis73.
 

·
More for Less Racer
Joined
·
19,470 Posts
I didn't want to say it either, because guys get tired of hearing it and feel like they are being bashed...but most all of the Torkers are not very good intakes. Many of the old twisted carb pad versions the problem is too abrupt of runner angle change where they meet the head....SBC, BBC are prime examples, runners go straight from the plenum right to the head port opening, then the air has to make a sharp turn into the head....anything more than 15° turn and the air/fuel mix can't make a smooth turn and turbulence is created cramping off airflow.
A couple of the SBF end runners are not so good either.
About the only three Torkers known to be much good are the 351 Cleveland 4V, the AMC V8, and the Mopar 383 B versions.

Best single plane for a SBF 221-302 and 331 or 347 stroker is the Parker Funnel Web if you can find one.
 

·
True Hotrodder
Joined
·
1,324 Posts
I have to agree with Eric, I had one back in the early 70's on a 331 SBC and it's biggest problem was that they attempted a shot at anti-reversion by offsetting the intake port to the head port. Then if you did any work to the heads (like I did) you had to completely rework the intake which was small in port size to start with - that was part of the "torker" deal. I always said I would have been better off selling that intake and going a different route.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Low rise intakes don’t work as well as high rise intakes. This is mostly a function of passage angle to port where steeper is better than flatter. To this end a carb space has no effect as simply jacking the carb up doesn’t solve the basic problem.

Spacers do add volume and can change the mixture distribution as it pertains to cylinder to cylinder flow quality and quantity. For cams with lots of overlap and late to close intake timing a spacer can add plenum volume which tends to dampen these reversion effects which left unrestrained do mess up cylinder to cylinder charging and can trick the carb into running richer than necessary as the carb is happy to add fuel either way the venturi flow is going.

They can improve cylinder to cylinder distribution by either realigning flows in the plenum and or allowing a flow expansion which slows it down making it less spicifacally directional which may prefer feeding some passages more than others.

An often overlooked design is where each carb barrel flows through a tube set deeper into the plenum, this tends to wash the floor of pooling fuel without eating too much existing volume. As with any spacer the effects are not guaranteed this is something to experiment with.

For street engines I always use a half inch composite, plastic spacer under a carb. This more to isolate heat than anything. My preference in spacers even on competition engines run to these low heat transfer materials over aluminum for this reason in addition to any other useful purposes a spacer may be found to provide in air flows.

Bogie
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top