An interesting synergy just struck me in reading the question and the intake photo posted by bigpoppapreston and bigjoe1's earlier comment about the early Torquer manifolds not performing well. Joe's experiences were similar but different to my frustrations with the early Torquer on a 302 SBF. His BBC required much leaner main jets. My SBF required much richer idle and off-idle. Trying to make it work, I had to build a four-corner idle Holley back before they were sold by Holley. Street-driven fuel economy was down by 25% over a dual-plane F4B and standard DP Holley. Power was up not at all.
Here's the thing - the early Torquer intake angled the carburetor and the runners in an attempt to equalize all eight insofar as possible. For whatever reason, my guess is the sharper turn from the intake runner to the intake port, it didn't work as hoped.
The pictured intake and tunnel rams in general raise the carburetors high, uses a large plenum and keeps the intake runners a straight shot down. This may be why the tunnel ram works so well with two 4-bbls and is much more difficult to tune with one carb.
Bottom line, every tunnel ram in my experience made more horsepower and torque than any available single plane intake, if the heads and cam were up to the challenge. I have visualized a dedicated single-carb top for a tunnel ram which would raise the carb yet higher, but smooth the transition from the plenum to the runners. (This vision may have been inspired by photos of the original Ramchargers Ram Rod '49 Plymouth coupe tunnel ram setup I saw in November '59 HRM at an impressionable age. Tunnel rams became an industry standard, but the megaphone exhausts never caught on. Looked trick, though)
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited