"Old" speed parts can work just as good as "New" ones.....You just have to match it to the right combo....

I know magazines have to push their advertisers products to stay in business, but I'm getting really tired of them dissing old parts that people may have laying around-or that a friend will give them or sell them dirt-cheap. A case in point-a guy wrote in to a national magazine- and said he was "Restifying" a 396 Chevelle, and a friend had an Edelbrock Torker intake that the carb sat at an angle on, that the buddy said was perfect for that car and period-correct, and that he could have it for free. Should he use it? The genius tech editor responded no, that was an old, "Original" Torker that only made power at high rpm, and that instead of taking the free, "Period Correct" part, he should spend 2-300 bucks and buy a Performer RPM, or a Torker II that will have much better performance throughout the whole rpm range. I think he was totally out of line. He just made a blanket statement-saying in not so many words that anything old is obsolete, and you should spend money on new stuff even if the old stuff is free!!  He didn't ask what cam the guy was intending to run, what carb he was intending to run, what axle-ratio the car had, or whether it was a 4-speed or an automatic, and if it was an automatic,was he planning to run a stock-type or an aftermarket higher stall speed torque converter?  All of these factors are relevant to what type of intake will work best on what type of car. My best friend had a 1970 SS396 Chevelle with a L34 ( 350 hp ) 396. It had a Muncie M20 4-speed and a 3.55:1 rear end.  It came stock with an iron intake and a quadrajet. His "Day two" modifications included a Mr. Gasket shifter to replace the awful stock Muncie shifter, a set of Hooker headers and glasspack mufflers,and replacing the stock intake and Q-jet carb with the Torker intake with the angle-mounted carb and a #3310 780 cfm Holley with vacuum secondaries. You didn't really notice any difference in drivability at normal speed, but when you punched it, you could really feel the extra power "hit" about 3,000 rpm and pull like "gangbusters" to the redline. When drag-racing it, he would drop the clutch about 2,800-3,200 rpm, and shift it about 6,000. The car was nearly a full second faster than stock at the drags. And it launched with LESS wheelspin than it did with the stock motor! This was because in LOSING say 30 lbs ft of torque on the bottom end in exchange for GAINING 40 hp from about 4,000 rpm on, The car took off better because it didn't fry the tires as much, and pulled much harder on the top end. Even though it actually lost power on the bottom end, it made the car much faster for two reasons. # 1. The engine was rated from the factory as having 350 hp and 415 lbs ft of torque. Even it it LOST 25 hp and 30 lbs ft of torque at low speed-he still had 325 hp and 385 lbs ft of torque. More than enough to launch the car properly. # 2. The M20 trans had about a 1,400 rpm drop between gears. So if he shifted out of low gear at say-5,800-6,000 rpm-he was hitting second at 4,400 rpm. Well into the manifold's powerband where it made as much as 40 more hp than the stock intake / carb combo according to magazine dyno tests at the time. Besides the 396's massive low-end torque-it had so much it could certainly afford to lose some-the saving grace was the 4-speed and 3.55:1 gears-he could pop the clutch around 3 grand and have just enough wheelspin to get the engine up on it's torque curve and the car moving with alarcity, and quickly be in the engine's powerband. If the car had been an automatic with 2.73:1 or 3.08:1 gears , and a stock torque converter that stalled about 1,700 rpm, the car would have been SLOWER than stock rather than faster-because launching at 1,700 rpm, and losing 30 lbs of critical low-speed torque when you need it most-would have killed the e.t.  When I first got my '73 Hurst / Olds / 442-it would literally spin it's tires as long as you wanted to stay on the throttle. That's because even with only 8.5:1 compression the big 455 made 370 lbs ft of tire boiling torque at a low 2,100 rpm. And the car had 3.23:1 gears and a 2,400 rpm Hurst "Shotgun" torque converter. Unless you wanted to "walk" it off the line about half throttle and hit it 30 feet out, you couldn't take off without excessive wheelspin with street tires. When it spun a crank bearing, I had to rebuild it anyway so I figured I'd add a little more power. I added a cam that had slightly less duration-( 290 / 300 compared to 308 / 308 ) and more lift ( .496 / .520 vs .474 / .474 ) than the vaunted "W32"  factory cam. I also added an "Original" Torker-they didn't offer a Torker II and I knew the "Performer" wasnt really any better than the stock iron intake. Again-the car was WAY faster. While the stock engine blew the tires off and ran out of breath about 5,200 rpm, now it launched harder with much less wheelspin-( the reduction in low-speed torque actually helped ) and it pulled hard to 6,200! It worked like a charm because of the combination. The 3.23 gears were a good compromise between jack-rabbit starts and reasonable freeway cruising rpm, and the 2,400 rpm converter was "right on" for the bigger cam. The 455 had so much low-speed torque that losing some in exchange for top-end rush actually made it a nicer car. Although it did have a noticeable "rump" at idle- it still had 14 inches of vacuum and purred like a kitten-until you hit the loud pedal-then look out! Again-if the car had 2.56:1 or 2.73:1 gears and a converter that locked up a 1,200 rpm like a "regular" 455 powered '73 Cutlass ( The 442 / H/O was a premium performance package ) the bigger cam and intake would have killed it and it wouldn't have run as fast as a stocker. Ditto for my buddy's '78 Trans Am. Even though it had an automatic and 2.56:1 gears -It ran noticeably faster ( both in timed 1/4 mile runs and "seat-of-the-pants" feel ) when he put a single-plane Holley Street Dominator intake on it that his brother said "killed" his '66 LeMans. How is that? 1st off his brother's LeMans had a 326 V8 and a two-speed ST300 ( read Powerglide ). The T/A had a 400 under the hood, and a three-speed TH350. This difference was huge because # 1-a 326 doesn't have very much torque to begin with, and can't afford to lose any. # 2. A Powerglide / ST300 has a 1.76:1 1st gear ratio and a 1:1 2nd / high, and a conveter that stalls about 1,200 rpm. Swapping the 2 bbl carb and intake off the 326 for a Single-plane and a 4bbl would certainly make it a "Dog". While it hurt the LeMans, it helped the T/A-for two different reasons. # 1. We all know that a 400 Pontiac, even a low-compression one, has more low-end torque than just about anything else on the planet except a Cummins Diesel truck engine. So losing 25 lbs of torque below 3 grand wasn't even noticed. And the stock '75 and later Iron Pontiac intakes have a restrictive throttle opening-so much so that you can't even bolt on a Spread-bore Holley carb-the secondary throttle blades hang up and won't open. They severley restrict power above 3,500 rpm, and won't let the engine rev much over 4,500-4800 rpm. The single-plane aluminum one, by contrast-pulled hard to 5,700! # 2. A TH350 has a 2.52:1 low gear ratio, a 1.52:1 second, and a 1:1 third / high, and a converter that stalls about 1,800-2,000 rpm. Even with high ( low numeric ) gearing-you'll have much better acceleration with the 3-speed TH350 than you will with a two-speed ST300. This applies to stuff besides intake manifolds. Yes, an electronic MSD distributor and matching control box is state of the art and will make more power than a point-type Accel or Mallory distributor. However-if you want to build a "period correct" '55 Chevy, or '68 Nova hot rod-i.e.-with a 327 and a 4-speed, not a Fuelie LS motor and a 4L80E overdrive automatic-The point type Accel or Mallory unit will certainly give better performance and rev to 6,7 or 8 grand if you've got the valvetrain, carburation, etc. A stock 50 year old or parts store rebuilt point type will start bouncing about 4,500 and "sign off" about 5,000. So isn't the "obsolete" Accel or Mallory unit still an improvement over stock? Maybe I'm showing my age-but it irks me every time I see a '64 Impala with Tuned Port Injection, and HEI distributor, and serpentine belt accessory drive, and an electric fan! I'd rather see a point distributor, some dual AFBs and two or three v-belts and a flex fan. If your building an old school car-then build it old school. If your building a hot carburated, small-block Chevy-yes a modern Edelbrock Torker II or Victor Jr single-plane intake will make a fe more ponies on the dyno than a '70's Edelbrock Tarantula or Scorpion single-plane, but not THAT much. Especially if your on a tight budget and have the older part in hand! I mean think-A Smokey Yunick built NASCAR small block made 700+ hp in 1978 with 5.7 inch rods and iron cylinder heads with 165cc intake ports and a 390 cfm Holley 4bbl. ( or a 750 with a restricter plate ) 35 years later, with 6.0 inch rods, and aluminum heads with 230cc intake ports, and fuel injection their pulling closer to 800 hp. But look at the record laps and top speeds? Are the cars THAT much faster than they were in 1978? Not really. Well, on a lesser scale, the same goes for your project car. If you want or can afford the latest and greatest state of the art thing, then more power to you. But if your on a tight budget or just want an old-school look, your not "losing" enough power to worry about or sell your soul for. Mastermind