Hello everyone. This is my first thread, so I apologize for the rudimentary nature of it. I have a 1955 Chevy 4 door(no more door jokes) with a 283 from a ‘66 Malibu bored 60’over. I had to do a top and rebuild because the first set of heads got burned through. The car currently has a set of 601 casting 305 HO heads, an Edelbrock Tarantula manifold, block higher headers, and freshly rebuilt Q-jet from a 73 C10. The entire top end is new from what we originally did on the car 20 years ago, so I have no idea what to expect from the motor now. The original heads were 3703523 heads from a 265 that were never conditioned for unleaded gas. We thought they had been, so I drove it. Hence having to replace the heads now. It also had an old cast iron intake with a 2 barrel up top. Block casting number is 3849852, date stamp is K24, number on front of block is FII03GF. The motor is mated to a TH350 and 3.36 gears out back. My questions is, what can I expect from this motor? I’m not looking to stop light race anyone. It’s going to be my driver. However, I do know that the changes I made are going to affect the motor’s performance quite a bit. Any advice from you older guys who know this motor? I’d greatly appreciate it.
The first thing that comes to mind is the Tarantula intake is not the best choice of intakes for this engine, they are a single plane design and were more suited to cars intended to run mid to high rpm's, these were fairly popular in the early 70's, I had one on a 355 with 12.5/1 compression and a fairly high lift cam, it did see some street use but was replaced with a tunnel ram. A dual plain intake would be much better suited for this street engine. There are a lot of them being offered and I have not kept up with them to recommend any particular one.
I guess I should clarify one thing. The manifold and carb were free. Since this was a budget build, I went with what was available. It was sort of a community effort from some old hot rodders here in AZ.
An Edelbrock Q Jet performer would do just fine, not real expensive either. I think a stock cast iron one would perform better in your case than the Tarantula.
You have a fairly heavy car with kind of tall gears, and an intake not well suited to low RPM torque, doesn't seem like a great match. As the others have said, a dual plane intake would help. The single plane would work better with lower gears and high stall converter. 283's don't mind turning high rpm's, in fact they like it. Either change the intake for a more appropriate mid range response, and match it up with a cam for the same; or swap gears and make it run fast.
The combustion chamber of your previous heads was 67cc, vs 58cc on the 305 601 castings so you will gain a bit of compression. I agree that a dual plane intake would be a better choice for lower RPM driveability, especially if the motor still has the stock cam in it. Dual plane or tarantula, you're letting it breath a little easier, and the extra bit of compression should make it run a little stronger. The tarantula will be a dog at low RPM.
I bought a 1967 el camino with a rebuilt 283 030 power glide 308 gears put some 8 inch ralley chevy HEI and ran lots of timing . I drove it all over calif,I got a ride in a sprint car put a used turbo 350 in it and towed the sprintcar and trailer with some spares to Petaluma about 98 miles in 100 degree heat every weekend,someware I burned the valve seats out of the stock heads and put some 305 heads on it someone gave but I think that was before I started towing I drove that car 3000 rpm about 80 mph everywhere.Eveybody that rode in the car thought it was a 327.
I put a cheap super shops aluminum intake and a 4360 holley q jet replacement and a 3310 holley switch back and forth it ran the same.
While it was apart I would have put a nice 350 HP hydraulic cam in it. The small primaries on the Qjet might keep the airflow velocity up enough to not bog too much, I had that manifold on a slightly lighter car and surprised at the drivability. Come back and tell us how it drives.
The 305 heads are a good swap. cant say the same for the intake & carb. improve your ignition. add lower gears. better cam would help.
I have the same manifold, but probably an earlier model of it however (TM-1 Torquer), on my DD truck, and I have NO complaints; heavy truck, stroker 305 Chevrolet (334 CID), TH-400 automatic transmission, 3.73 gears. My stroker 305 was't intended for the truck, but a dropped valve in my Target Master 350 pressed it into service (it was actually meant for one of my Deliveries with a Hydro Stick trans; my machinist had to balance the Hydro flywheel for the external balance stroker). I agree with redo32; report back after driving it for a while. I remember a LOT of guys were running this intake when they first came out in the late 60's/early 70's, and they are STILL being used. I am Butch/56sedandelivery.
Here's some interesting factual data on the old Tarantula, you might be surprised how well the old 283 runs after the changes you made. "I'm getting more and more impressed with my Tarantula (TM-1) intake on my '68... My 383 made 30 HP more on the dyno with the Tarantula than with a Victor Jr. Intake.(365 vs. 335 RWHP).. The design of the Tarantula is from the 60's and it still outperforms many modern intakes... Well - the main reason that I get 30 HP more with the tarantula is that the Victor Jr. shifts the RPM range to a range where the cam doesn't make enough power (longer and bigger runners and generally taller intake)... so I actually lost power by switching to a bigger intake... I ran the Victor Jr. for a while (never on the track) because it looks better.. but recently - I changed back to the Tarantula and I could really feel that the car runs stronger with the Tarantula... "
Wasn't the Torquer a lower RPM street version of the Tarantula meant to get power and torque down lower in a more street usable range ?
^^^^Just read this post at 11:12 P.M., and I had to trudge out in the snow to the truck to look again at the manifold. It is a "Torker" (not a Torquer); then went out to the shop/garage to look at another manifold-in-waiting, that one's a TM-1. And on the Delivery is a Weiand 7508, which is a very similar, open plenum manifold; works good on that 327, 4 speed, and 4.88 gears. I tend to have my foot in it, but it also has't been out of the garage in 3 plus years now. I had thought the progression was TM-1 to Torker to Tarantula, but I guess not (???). I am Butch/56sedandelivery.
Will the OP's engine RUN with the Tarantula intake, yes. Is it even close to matching the rest of his posted components, I say no.
Man, thanks for all the reasons .this is why I love hor rodders. I understand that the Tarantula is not the optimum intake for this motor, but as mentioned before, this was a super budget build. The intake was gifted to me by an older rodder who just wanted to see my car on the road again. The Q-jet my dad gave me and was rebuilt by machinist who went to the Rochester school in the 70s to learn how to build these (btw, love Q-jets). There's also a grip of guys that comes over to help every weekend. I am building this car out of necessity and didn't expect all of the help and expertise from these guys. I will most definitely let you guys know hour she runs over get hey on the road. It's close.
I have a Edelbrock performer rpm that I got second hand. I wanted it so I could use the original oil fill tube. If you grind the performer rpm script off the intake its no longer a point of attention. I like the single plane intakes but to me they scream 70s and 80s.
This is probably a good assessment right here. ^^^^^^^ You can run about anything on about any 4 stroke internal combustion engine and it will run. Will it perform? Now that is probably a different story all together. The intake in question really wants an engine that takes a deep breath. That said I would not trash the intake if all you want to do it drive around. The engine will never really use the intake to its potential but it will pull the old chebby around just fine. Not knowing what it has for a cam shaft if I wanted it to perform to its potential and guessing that it is not running much of a cam shaft I would suggest a closer to stock intake. If I wanted cheap (low budget) I would lean toward a '70s to early '80s aluminum truck intake that was designed for the Q jet.
If you want to try something make a divider and put in in the manifold to make it a 180 rather 360 plenum .You probably wont notice,just put it on and try it.
Ok, I finally drove it for the first time in twenty years. I can’t even describe how good that felt. Anyway, she pulled pretty alright. It has no pipes right now, so it has a real throaty sound on acceleration. Still going easy on it because I want to make sure the transmission breaks in after sitting. Gotta get the fluid up in the whole thing. She ran really well and I couldn’t be happier. I’m excited to test the tarantula manifold on the top end with some mountain driving here in AZ.
Hello again everyone. Just wanted to give y’all an update. I ended up replacing that Tarantula intake with a Performer. My bottom end is so much more manageable and around town driving is fun. I didn’t lose any freeway RPM pull and can still accelerate from 60 to 90 in order to pass with no problem. My TH350 pulls well and my motor seems to be much happier. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions.
Glad it worked out for you, you have a sweet ride (yeah I'm biased, lots of 4 door love here!). I went through the whole drive-ability with a single plane manifold on a mildly built 350 in a Nova several years ago. It was great for wide open running but sucked around town- replacing it really was the answer, as you have found. Enjoy!!
For $60, I couldn’t pass up the intake I got. It was clean and repainted with no warps or cracks. Building on a budget can be tough and those free parts are oh so attractive. Learned my lesson there for sure.
The Jalopy Journal
