gve

I'm putting together a dart 565 with AFR 300 oval port heads. I want to keep the stock BB hood, so I'm looking at the torker II or the oval port tri-power intake. With the 3 carbs I will get about 1300 cfm and decent mileage with the center carb. I'm looking at about 6500 rpm. Would the tri-power intake feed the air requirements of this engine better then the torker II?

CaseyJones

The tri-power looks great under the hood. I've never heard anyone brag about mileage from a Holley four barrel on a big block but they do make power especially towards the upper RPM ranges. Any tri-power intake has air flow compromises if it fits under a stock hood. A good four barrel intake would run better overall. It really depends on what you want. A properly set up Quadrajet (the Lars way) would probably be the ticket for good performance and give the bonus of reasonable mileage for your application.I would assume that a huge motor with oval port heads is being built for more mid-range than top end anyway.

gbvette62

A friend of mine has a Dart 494 big block in a 65 Pro-Street car. He liked the look of the 67 stinger hood, and didn't want to run a big scoop, or a hole in his hood. He tried all different kinds of 4bbl intakes, and nothing fit under his hood.

He ended up with a 68 factory tri-power intake, and a modified set of original Holleys, with progressive linkage.

He doesn't race the car, or anything like that. It's mainly used for "serious" cruising. With 4:56 gears and a manually shifted racing Powerglide, his gas mileage sucks, with or without a 2bbl!

rponfick

I can't believe this question. If you have a tri-power, run it. It might be hard to find an oval port tripower manifold. I have a rectangular port tripower L71 and went through this exercise recently when I wanted to go to alum heads. I was told running a rectangular port manifold on oval port heads would not affect anything.

Bling forever.

Ralph.

Crepitus

I dont know what the Tri Power flows. It will probly struggle to keep up. the torker II doesnt stand a chance

gve

I found a Tri-power oval for sale do you think it would perform better then the TorkerII

gve

So the Tri-power would be a better choice over the torker

Corey_68

Depends on your goal, keep in mind when power was most important Chevy opted for the large 4bl over the tri power.

71454Chevelle

I would not consider the Torker II for any serious BBC, let alone a 565.

Priya

I know on the Chrysler 440 the six pack produced more power and got better gas mileage than the four barrel.

427Hotrod

Do a search here on 632C2. Steve Barker did an incredible big inch motor with a tripower and even used iron exhaust manifolds. LOTS of porting..but it made 680 RWHP and he gave ALL the details of his carb setup to feed it. Don't even begin to think about using stock carbs etc. Those AFR 300's may be oval shaped but they aren't tiny ports.

JIM

cv67

They are both going to strangle that motor come on 565 is no puny mill

Maybe with serious porting it will help

Put what bling you want I guess....mileage? 565 ? Serious?


Not an expert on what intakes would fit but if it were me Id look for a Team G low rise, port that use a drop base air cleaner and stick it on. Will outflow either of those two no problem and be simple to maintain 1 carb

gve

Mileage is not the big concern, I will have to look up that intake and see if that will fit.

TheSkunkWorks

One alternative of factory kit you may want to consider is to match an LS6 intake down to those large ovals, using epoxy. Tri-power intakes are worth too much to mod, IMHO, and it's worth pointing out that C2 ones are taller than those designed for C3s. And, I wouldn't advise that anyone try to re-invent the 3x2 secondary linkage.



.

cv67

gve all the testing Ive seen on that ranks it about neck and neck with the edelbrock RPM within a few ft lbs then walks away up top.
Its an old design but it works well. Ported mine top to bottom noticeable difference and isnt a pig down low. Probably running a lot more cam than most too. Is it the best....maybe not but Im guessing it would fit.

Probaby still wont keep up with the AFRs but should do real well. So much torque why bother with a dp anyway

RickyBerg

My opinion is that the 3x2 barrel intake are a better design and producing more power then the LS6 intake.

My brothers 68 convertible with a ovalported 3x2 carb setup pulls easy to 6000rpm and produces great power.

His 427 has not been in the dyno but it definetly produces more power then my LS6 replica (470hp/5500rpm) and also easy pull 500 or so more rpm;s.

The conditions for those engines are different but my point is that with the correct camshaft, ovalport heads and a 3x2 carb setup there are good chances for a strong durable engine.

Take a look at VetteWeb;s project car feturing a 454 with large port AFR heads and a 3x2setup with a 3x2 fuel injection throttle body setup.

http://www.vetteweb.com/tech/vemp_11...tte_dyno_test/

The "Big-Block Party" 1969 convertible produces 600hp, still everything stays hidden by the original bigblock hood.

I would definetly go for the 3x2 setup.
If one looking for hp, it flows a lot of cfm.
If one looking for attitude, it looks nice.

//Ricky.

ghoastrider1

dont forget where you want your power range to kick in at. tri power has better street manners than the tourqer.

Tom454

The center carb is rated at 350 CFM, the end carbs are rated at 466CFM for a total of 1282. However... 2 barrel carb lab rating procedures are different than 4 barrel lab rating procedures. When you rate the 2 barrels using the 4 barrel procedure, the numbers are 250 center & 333 end for a total of 916 CFM. So if you are trying to compare the GM TriPower to a 4 barrel carb, you have to use the 916 CFM figure to compare apples & apples.

lakebumm

Hi Tom,

Any idea what a BG Sixshooter 3x2 set up flows in 4 bbl terms?

Thanks
BILL

7t9l82

a five hundred sixty five cubic inch engine with a quadrajet? you must be kidding. you may be o.k with the 3x2 set up. i would plan on some manifold porting , i know guys who have put larger butterflies in carburetors to get them to flow bigger numbers , but i don't know how far you want to go. neat idea.