Every time I see a picture of a car with a tunnel ram on it you guys say to get rid of it. What gives? They look cool, a little hard to tune but is there another reason?
looks are debateable main reason is they suck on the street unless you're runnin' an auto with a 2500 stall convertor. They rob all your torque and are for drag cars only IMO
i had a tunnel ram on my 47 ford coupe with a 468 big block in it. it had two fours and i had to tune it everyday. it was awsome on the hwy at high rpms. your low end torq is gone and it doesn't start running good till about 2500 rpms. so imagin running around town to walmart or to the dq at 2500 rpms and up
Recent tests have shown that to be an old wives tale. T-rams work great if used properly. Most people just over carb the things. They aren't worth a crap when it's cold, though.
Unless you are willing to get deep into the r.p.m.'s, you don't get to utilize it. I have a friend with a 33 with a dual quaded big block with a tunnel ram on it. won't even spin the tires. goes like hell from about 3500 on,though. shame that that's around 40 miles per hour.
i think that has absolutly nothing to do with it i think it has to do with you can't drive it very good like that. quite trying to get you post count up with adding ignorant coments on every post. oops did i just type that oh well
my guess is that some on this forum think they aren't "traditional" enough, more post 1965. I personally have run them on the street and have not had any problems. Sure your going to lose a little low end torque, thats a given, but to say that your going to idle high, load up or drives like shit is pure B.S. As in anything, its all in how you set it up. I plan running one on my Chevelle that I'm building in late 60's theme, I dig em..
Who cares about post count? I really am curious as to when they came about. Six two barrels on a small block is probably a bitch to tune, but I see a lot of old photos, 50s and 60s, with them. Were tunnel rams around much before the 70s?
You might do a search for tunnel ram and ridge runner, lots of info. Short answer is somewhere around 1966.
They are UGLY and remind anyone that lived through it of the ugly disco '70s "STREET BEAST" era. Definitely look like crap on a "traditional" car just like any other '70s part like disc brakes and 14-inch wide Cragars does. That's my opinion- feel free to have a different opinion.
set up right they can be very streetable and an absolute blast to drive biggest issue I ever had was cold starting, they can take a while to warm up in cold weather and cough through the carbs if you try to get on it too soon. that and the wife could never get it to pull away from a street light without burning rubber and laughing like a speed crazed kid yes they look dated, but so does the Two Lane Blacktop car
Funny- it doesn't look ugly on that car because that's a SEVENTIES-style car- but put one on the Graffiti coupe or the Neikamp roadster and we got problems. I've seen the latter done, and it will NEVER work.
Doubt it, but while your at it- maybe find someone that can make your comebacks funny- cause that one was weak (but it does add to that post count!!!)
UGLY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. Tunnel rams function much easier on most street cars with smaller cfm carbs like 390's. Don't over carb! A tunnel ram works much better than four twos on the piss green 32 5W and look what they go for. It's all about image.
OOPS I meant piss yellow UGLY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. Tunnel rams function much easier on most street cars with smaller cfm carbs like 390's. Don't over carb! A tunnel ram works much better than four twos on the piss green 32 5W and look what they go for. It's all about image.[/quote]
First tunnel ram built by Chrysler engineers in 1959. How's that for "traditional?" Read about it here: http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/0304_intake_manifolds_contrast/
I have a tunnel ram on my 35. It has a 302 Ford in it with decent compression and a fairly lumpy cam. It runs like they all say, Sputters and coughs till 2500 RPM, then runs awesome. I havent taken the time to learn to tune it, as I am kinda lazy. In warm weather, it runs fine, and of you feather the pedal, itll roast the tires. Gets crappy milage. Looks cool in my opnion, but my 35 is not a traditional Rod by any means. It runs way too rich. On that note, Ill trade someone straight across my Tunnel Ram (302 Ford) and two Holley's (450 CFM) for a Good Duel Plane Eldebrock and a nice Eldebrock (not needing rebuild crap) with electric Choke and at least 700 CFM. Mine has less than a year of use on them. PM me, dont reply in here as this isnt the place.
Engines are usually built for specific purposes,as a combination of components.Most tunnel rams were designed for high rpm use,with less regard for low rpm torque.Engines are harder to tune for driveability,due to impractical rpm range,unless smaller lift & duration camshafts are used,which somewhat negates the reason for the tunnel ram in the first place.Also poor low rpm vacuum signal creates other challenges,with ignition advance curves,power brake function etc.A good dual plane intake with"properly"sized carb & camshaft with make more streetable power in "real world"driving.Many street engines use too big of a cam(yes they sound cool)at the expense of low rpm cylinder pressure,hence loss of torque where you need it most.
I do not like them in a box. I do not like them with a fox. I do not like them in a house. I do not like them with a mouse. I do not like them here or there. I do not like them anywhere. I do not like tunnel rams. I do not like them, SamIyam.
ugly is ok if it's real fast it's when it slows down and you can focus on it, then it becomes questionable
GotGas: Thanks for posting that pic of old RamCharger coupe. I almost forgot how ugly it was..LOL I believe it named the Flying Piglett or Toilet.. It did lead to the 426 cross ram Super Stocker though. They went away from T-rams ?? Pontiac engineer Mac McKaller developed a short version of tunnel ram in 61 and ran it on the 421 SD Pontiacs through 64..It was a true tunnel ram. One of (if not) the first out produced by a factory. THe Pontiac's ran well and in 64-65 Chrysler went away from the cross ram in favor of two in line 4-barrels.. The blue intake is the 61-64 Pontiac "Bath Tub" intake. The other shot is of my car with a modified Wenzler T-ram. All indications it feels MUCH MORE responsive than Offie 360 2X4 intake I I just took off.. Should run in the 11.0-11.2 range. It ran 11.43 with other intake . Depends on your "other" factors how a T-ram runs....
Hi there guys, I had a T Bucket in the early 80's with 283 and tunnel ram with two fours on it. Really had to warm it up before I went anywhere( had powerglide). Great on the motorway cruising but a pig around town . Really was over carbed, wetted the plugs all the time...but a yella lot of fun and thats what its all about. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=263271&stc=1&d=1168547580
The Jalopy Journal
