WE MAKE SERIOUS PONTIAC HORSEPOWER
AND WE KNOW MORE ABOUT BUILDING STOCK PONTIAC ENGINES THAN ANYONE.
Chinese "STREET" intake
Short story - Pure junk
Being sold under the names, The "Tomahawk intake" or the "Hurricane intake" , this ill-designed POS intake was supposed to be
for "improved" STREET performance. Its main design feature was to fit under the shaker assembly of a Trans Am.
Originally touted a "great killer piece that will improve performance!!!!!" (sellers exclamation points.) There was no at track testing
or track reporting of claimed "performance gains" before the item hit the shelves.
Supposedly there was actual on the car testing before it was made, but, there was no data reporting of those results. (?)
Only the sellers statement, "It works great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (dude)" (Again, their exclamation points.)
There was dyno testing performed after the intake was made that showed a one inch spacer was
needed to equal an Edelbrock intakes performance. Using a one inch spacer negates the
use of this purpose built intake, as it was touted as "fitting under the hood of a Trans Am shaker assembly"!!!!!!!."
So everyone has been waiting for real world professional results, which we have the first known here.
The only verified report is from a 400 inch Super Stock race engine.
The intake was tested over the July Fourth weekend by Super Stock four time national champion car owner and
engine tuner Phillip Montieth. In back to back tests Phil compared his early style Torker that he uses on his S/S'r (not the Torker II) to the new intake.
The new intake lost over a tenth of a second - verified. Lost MPH too.
Which confirms some of the latest back-stepping replies by some of the sellers that are now saying,
"This is NOT a race intake."
-----------------
Having said that, and knowing that a well designed dual plane gives the highest
velocity (re: TORQUE) in any street engine, including our own KING STREET series
600 lbs. ft. @ 4000 rpm - why build an intake that has less velocity for street RPM's?
Some peoples ideals (lack of knowledge,) gets lost in their need for fame or cash. Pete, Jimmy, you readin' boys?
----------------------
We will be doing testing on one of these as time allows.
After Phils at the track testing this weekend we're not in a hurry.
If there's anything good about it I'll certainly report just that too. I believe in reporting the truth.
(No matter what spin anyones wishes to put on me. They know they're lying.)
----------------
Generally intake manifolds have runners that are the same width. However,
the early Torker runners are taller and skinnier on the front four,
and wider and lower in the back. It was designed for spread bore style carbs like Q-jets.
Front Torker I view.
The Torker 1 works extremely well with a Q-jet. (Cat-outa-the-bag-tip) 
How well? - In my Super Stocker, to the tune of 136 mph so far. If you want a good single plane Q-jet intake hit the swap meet.
(Torker 1's are no longer being produced.)
Here's an untouched stock Torker. What we now call the "Torker 1." Predecessor to the Torker II.
The Torker II was designed for square port carbs like Demons/Holleys. Although either intake can accept either style, they are design specific.
Rear Torker I View
Notice that four runner pairs are equal widths and heights, and have a large radius port divider. This one is untouched and needs a slight smoothing of
its larger than the Chinese radius. My book will delve into the importance of the large radius port divider.
If any of you have knife edged your port dividers, maybe you can sell it on Ebay before someone reads this.
--------------
The new Chinese intake has different width runners on ALL EIGHT runners. Why?
I had wondered if science had passed me by, and maybe there was something new to learn.
but, no. It's just all screwed up. Even the untrained eye can see the difference of runner widths in this picture below.
There's over .300 thou difference. Good lord. (Insert many exclamation points here.)
Notice the runner dividers above. Inconsistent, flat on some, no radius, and more importantly, what thickness is there is too thin
for a proper size radius even after blending. But blend it the best you can if you run one of these.
Look at the radii on the Torker 1 port dividers.
Below is a shot of all eight runner openings and their widths at the opening. All were measured in the same area.
Paired port opening dimensions:
Cyl 1 = .940
Cyl 3 = 1.243
Cyl 5 = .995
Cyl 7 = 1.220
Cyl 2 = 1.115
Cyl 4= 1.185
Cyl 6 = 1.035
Cyl 8 = 1.090
Some runners have tapered openings. Some don't. Overall? Inexcusably inconsistent.
Port Divider Radius
A single 4 bbl intake MUST have properly sized radiused port dividers.
These Chinese runner dividers are not made with any visible science.
They're too thin for proper fluid adhesion, instead, causing a shear condition.
But further more - look closely at the port dividers in the above pictures. Some are flat,
and do not have a radius. All are inconsistent. I read that some kool-aid drinker had lamented,
"Trust me, the Chinese will get it right on the next batch." (???) So what?
What about the unsuspecting buyers who get one from the first batch ?
Totally unacceptable - A lack of Quality Control on someones part.
The inconsistent runner widths DO become equal by the time the runner reaches the head.
This intake could function as an "air only" intake for port injection.
Although the inconsistent runner size and other casting flaws can easily cause turbulence, in turn, losing velocity.
The paperwork that came with this intake says it "Fits 1964 thru 1979 PontiacV-8's). The bolt pattern on the heads is for 1965 and later heads,
and there's not enough material to cover the rear of a '64 heads oil drain back passages.
But the typo is something that can be easily fixed.
The first batch owners have this collectors item :
Here's a recent report from Ted Fox 3/22/06
Bruce,
>
>You have given me some very good advice in the past
>about my 455 engine and my trans am. I figured I would
>return the favor if your interested.
>
>In getting my car ready for this years car show and
>racing season, I have tested several pontiac intakes
>on my 455. This is no race engine mind you just a
>typical warmed over, street 455 pontiac that is .030
>over, 4x heads with mild clean up work in the bowls
>and milled a bit to bring the ratio up a little,
>forged replacement pistons and a RAIV cam.
>
>All tests were made on an engine dyno with a minimum
>of 3 pulls to maximize timing and fuel. All runs were
>made with the same mechanical secondary 800 cfm holley
>carb. This is my results:
>
>Base Line: Edelbrock Performer 363 hp 448 tq
>Intake 1: Edl Performer RPM 391 hp 476 tq
>Intake 2: Offy 360 equa-flow 372 hp 455 tq
>Intake 3: The TOMHAWK/Hurricane 303 hp 385 tq
>
>All intakes were tested in "As-is" form no port or
>plenum mods at all. Just thought I would pass this on
>so no other unsuspecting buyer would buy one of these
>POS intakes. As usual Bruce you were right again. The
>inconsistency in the ports must cause a lot of
>turbulence or something as this wonderful intake
>(note, I'm being sarcastic) lost a TON of power
>compared to the others I tested.
>
>Please feel free to pass this on or post were you feel
>necessary. I am not wanting to slander anyone here
>just passing on some cold hard facts and info that I
>got straight from the DYNO.
>
>Keep up the good work and thanks for all the advice
>
>Ted Fox
>74 455 Trans Am.