Fuel Saver Pro

[Solitaire]

Fuel Save Pro (http://www.lztn.org/)

I smell a fuel line manget ad comming on.


It is a MATCHED PAIR of tuned custom sealed Neodymium Super
inductors that generate a frequency resonance between its two faces.

A what?

Operates on the principle of RESONANCE, utilizing a double
chamber frequency with phased frequency modulation.

Maybe it isn't a magnet. Hmmmmmm.......

The FUEL SAVER literally breaks the cluster of molecules apart,
which otherwise could not penetrate a cluster, more Oxygen is
now able to reach the individual molecule and complete combustion
takes place.

Uh?

[uneasy]

Yeah, but they had it tested at a "recognized EPA testing laboratory!"

And the website for that laboratory says they are "EPA-recognized!"
http://www.ceecalif.com/

So it must work :) Any skeptic in Los Angeles region want to visit this testing lab? :)

[Iamme]

Syncronicity--All I'd like to know is if they offer a money-back guarantee. It could all be gibberish...or it could be real. Supposedly that "Tornado" device is real. Maybe this is too.

[Luceiia]

With the help of American Automobile Association's fleet of service trucks, we put all these devices through a month of extensive testing.

...

So in the end, which gas saver saved the most?

The mileage actually got worse three percent on the truck with the Fuel Saver Pro magnet.

The Super Fuel Max magnet performed even worse, decreasing mileage by nearly five percent.

After 15,00 miles of driving, the Tornado air swirling device increased mileage 5.3 percent.

So how did our duct tape perform?

"The KIRO fuel-saving device actually finished in first place … with a six percent increase in fuel economy!" [<---Duct Tape!]

...

Over the years the federal government has tested more than a hundred of these devices, and not one has shown a significant increase in gas mileage.

Found this quote by clicking on the link given here:

http://www.antiscam.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=45


Luceiia

[_Q_]

Originally posted by Iamme
Syncronicity--All I'd like to know is if they offer a money-back guarantee. It could all be gibberish...or it could be real. Supposedly that "Tornado" device is real. Maybe this is too. Sure there's a money-back guarantee!

Well... except for the $18 (per unit) restocking fee....

And, well, of course the shipping/handling charge is not refundable...

And hey, isn't it just amazing that this hasn't set the automotive world on its ear, considering that the tests were performed over 3-1/2 years ago?.

I'm inclined to think it's a load of crap. Please, please, please, let me be wrong. (I'm not going to hold my breath.)


_Q_

[wayrad]

Originally posted by uneasy
Yeah, but they had it tested at a "recognized EPA testing laboratory!"

And the website for that laboratory says they are "EPA-recognized!"
http://www.ceecalif.com/

So it must work :) Any skeptic in Los Angeles region want to visit this testing lab? :)

The lab could be reputable (assuming they only tested the car as it was brought to them). It's amazing what a good run at highway speeds will do for some cars' emissions results...

[SquishyDave]

Luceiia, ZING! :) I guess they don't work, funny how I have never heard of anything like this in Australia, surely if they worked as promised, someone would be selling them here?

[Iamme]

Years ago...back in the early '70's, I put a fuel saving device in-line with my PCV hose. This was a lean-burn device made to supposedly increase mileage. All I remember is that I wound up needing a valve job on my 289 cid vomit Comet.:mad:

Dual-point distributors that came on the scene before our current electronic ignition systems did seem to work. Probably like all after market devices, the results would vary from vehicle to vehicle. The owner of a gas station that I frequented and helped out at, put a Mallory in his 350 GMC, and it sounded and ran like a hotrod, after installing one. I was so impressed I went out and bought an Accel (I had to be different :D ). Also, a friend of mine's '69 GTO came equipped with dual points and this car could flat-ass fly! (He could get rubber in all four gears with several people in the car!)

[davefoc]

epa list of on-line test reports
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/reports.htm

ftc discussion of fuel saving gadgets
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/autos/gasave.htm

article about AAA testing of fuel saving gadgets
http://www.kirotv.com/consumer/2220354/detail.html

Summary of the above:
All testing described above has suggested no benefit from aftermarket fuel saving devices.
My own experience:
Years ago, before electronic, ignitions systems were standard, I installed one in my 1967 barracuda with a 225 in line 6 cylinder engine. I was fairly careful, in the testing of the device. My results suggested a reduction in mileage of around 10%. I can't explain the result but years later I talked to somebody that at worked for the company that made the after market device and he said my results were not unexpected, although I have forgotten why now.

[jimlintott]

For most people simply changing driving habits is the best way to save fuel. Best fuel saving tip - slow down.

[Dr. Imago]

For me, it simply comes down to this: If these devices actually worked, they'd come standard in automobile engines.

-TT

[Iamme]

But Third Twin. You are discounting the'mother of invention'. Contracts have already been 'let' on components for cars. THEN comes along the better mousetrap. That's the way it is with ALL industry. There ARE plenty of gadgets that come along that really do work.

The Tornado device that goes in-line with your air cleaner? This IS supposed to work. It is heavily endorsed by Jeff Brooks (nationally syndicatred radio car show host). I have seen a show on this device where some independent testing lab has ascribed before and after values to a variety of automobiles, and each vehicles horse power and fuel mileage were recorded and listed. They all went up. The best vehicle brand got about 20 additional horsepower and 22% better mileage.

Why doesn't the factory include these? Hmmmm. Well, they do cost about $70. Car companies don't include a lot of nice things that aftermarket companies sell for vehicles. They must think that it's not worth it for any number of reasons.

[Badger]

If you're going to put anything over your carb, try a K&N air filter (or similar product). There's a reason racers use this stuff.

More air into the carb means better fuel combustion. That tornado thing and anything like it just gets in the way of the air.

[Rolfe]

Every time I've driven through Germany, my car has gone far further than expected on a tank of petrol. I don't know if it's simply being in Germany (tank filled in England), maybe the road surfaces, or if it was actually the petrol I bought there.

Anybody else noticed this?

And talking of roads, what about Belgian standards of motorway repair?:crazy:

Rolfe.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Iamme
Syncronicity--All I'd like to know is if they offer a money-back guarantee. It could all be gibberish...or it could be real. Supposedly that "Tornado" device is real. Maybe this is too.
These devices, or ones similar to them, do "work" -- in the sense that, if you follow their installation instructions, your gas mileage will increase.

However, part of their installation instructions requires you to tune your engine to run leaner. It is this retuning of your engine, and not the fuel-line magnetic field resonance thingy, that causes the increase in gas mileage.

Unfortunately, it also causes your engine to run hotter, which drastically reduces your engine's useful lifespan. So each year you use it, you'll save a few dollars in gas but lose several dozen times that much in the accelerated depreciation of your car's engine.

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by jimlintott
For most people simply changing driving habits is the best way to save fuel. Best fuel saving tip - slow down.

So a car going 1mph will get better mileage than a car going 10mph ? Hmmmmm....

I think a better way is to avoid stopping.,, and go downhill whenever possible. And avoid picking up fat hitchhikers.... stick to the skinny ones.

[_Q_]

Originally posted by Iamme
The Tornado device that goes in-line with your air cleaner? This IS supposed to work. It is heavily endorsed by Jeff Brooks (nationally syndicatred radio car show host). I have seen a show on this device where some independent testing lab has ascribed before and after values to a variety of automobiles, and each vehicles horse power and fuel mileage were recorded and listed. They all went up. The best vehicle brand got about 20 additional horsepower and 22% better mileage.
lamme,

Are you using one of these gadgets on your vehicle?

If so, then what improvements have you seen in fuel economy and power?

If you're not using one of these, then why aren't you?


_Q_

[Badger]

Originally posted by teddygrahams


So a car going 1mph will get better mileage than a car going 10mph ? Hmmmmm....

I think a better way is to avoid stopping.,, and go downhill whenever possible. And avoid picking up fat hitchhikers.... stick to the skinny ones.

With regard to speed, air resistance increases the faster you go, meaning you'll need to burn more gas to cover the same distance at a faster rate.

Also, there is an optimum RPM that your engine will run at to generate best horsepower/fuel volume consumed. So, if your gear ratio is right then yes, a car going 1 mph will get better mileage than a cr going 10 mph. But, in the real world you'll find that if you drive at 55 mph on the hwy, you'll get about the best gas mileage that your car can get. (this is a generalization which will vary depending on individual vehicle conditions.)

You're right about stopping/starting. You'll want to minimize those to conserve momentum of your vehicle.

And the "fat hitchikers" thing isn't so silly as it sounds. Check your car for extra stuff in it (golfclubs in the trunk, crap lying in the back seat) as any extra weight you carry translates to less gas mileage.

[CurtC]

Badger wrote:
But, in the real world you'll find that if you drive at 55 mph on the hwy, you'll get about the best gas mileage that your car can get.So are you saying that at 55 mph, the car would get better gas mileage than at 40 mph, or whatever the speed is when it shifts into its highest gear? At 55, the engine turns the same number of revolutions per unit distance, but the throttle is opened up more, letting in more fuel per revolution. The optimal gas mileage is the speed when you shift into your car's final gear.

[jimlintott]

Why doesn't the factory include these?

I would be very surprised if the auto manufacturers haven't tested this type of thing on a flow bench already. Knowing how the air flows into and through the head is vital to engine performance. Currently all intakes are carefully tuned. Some are dynamically variable and many cars now have variable valve timing. If a swirly device would help it would be in there.

If you're going to put anything over your carb, try a K&N air filter (or similar product). There's a reason racers use this stuff.

Only partly true. Certainly a dirty paper air filter will hurt fuel consumption but these high flow air filters only give you a benefit when you want a high volume of air flow. In other words a wide open throttle. At lower speeds the engine requires a lower volume of air which is easily handled by a paper filter. No real gain.

[Badger]

Originally posted by CurtC
So are you saying that at 55 mph, the car would get better gas mileage than at 40 mph, or whatever the speed is when it shifts into its highest gear? At 55, the engine turns the same number of revolutions per unit distance, but the throttle is opened up more, letting in more fuel per revolution. The optimal gas mileage is the speed when you shift into your car's final gear.

I must correct something. As the throttle opens, less fuel and more air flow into the carb, leaning out the mixture.

So, yes, when the car first shifts into high gear (40 mph for example) the throttle is partly to mostly closed, pulling in more fuel and less air.

Are you familiar with horsepower graphs of engines? At low RPM's there is low horsepower. Then the graph angles up and to the right, indicating that as rpm's increase, horsepower increases, until it levels off at some point. With some engines the horsepower continues increasing as rpm's increase, and with other engines it drops off as the rpm's increase.

Anyway, as you're driving, there's a point where the horsepower versus rpm (gear ratio to get the power from the motor to the tires included here), and speed of the vehicle versus drag interrelate such that most distance is gained per unit of fuel burned.

I don't know if that explanation helped or merely confused things more.

[Badger]

Originally posted by jimlintott


I would be very surprised if the auto manufacturers haven't tested this type of thing on a flow bench already. Knowing how the air flows into and through the head is vital to engine performance. Currently all intakes are carefully tuned. Some are dynamically variable and many cars now have variable valve timing. If a swirly device would help it would be in there.



Only partly true. Certainly a dirty paper air filter will hurt fuel consumption but these high flow air filters only give you a benefit when you want a high volume of air flow. In other words a wide open throttle. At lower speeds the engine requires a lower volume of air which is easily handled by a paper filter. No real gain.

Ah, good point! I drive lots of hwy miles so didn't really have lower speeds in my mindset. Thanks for pointing that out!

Still, I'm wondering if a higher pressure in the air cleaner box, between the filter and the venturi wouldn't translate through to a decrease in the amount of energy used by the pistons to pull the fuel/air mix into the chamber. Thus (to my reasoning) a higher flow air filter would allow higher intake runner pressure and so make more horsepower available to the drivetrain. The effects may be negligable. I don't know.

[Iamme]

_Q_---I never have an extra $70 laying around!:mad:

Teddygrahams---But if you chose downhill ways of getting to where you are going...what do you think is going to happen when you try to return from where you started? Your plan could only work if you were a believer in that artwork that shows all the stairs going up, and yet can meet at the beginning.:D

[Luceiia]

Originally posted by Iamme
_Q_---I never have an extra $70 laying around!:mad:



Surely you can afford a roll of duct tape, and it should get you roughly 0.7% better gas mileage than the tornado (and you'd have some leftover to use around the house).


Luceiia

[roger]

Originally posted by Iamme
But Third Twin. You are discounting the'mother of invention'. Contracts have already been 'let' on components for cars. THEN comes along the better mousetrap. That's the way it is with ALL industry. There ARE plenty of gadgets that come along that really do work.

The Tornado device that goes in-line with your air cleaner? This IS supposed to work. It is heavily endorsed by Jeff Brooks (nationally syndicatred radio car show host). I have seen a show on this device where some independent testing lab has ascribed before and after values to a variety of automobiles, and each vehicles horse power and fuel mileage were recorded and listed. They all went up. The best vehicle brand got about 20 additional horsepower and 22% better mileage.

Why doesn't the factory include these? Hmmmm. Well, they do cost about $70. Car companies don't include a lot of nice things that aftermarket companies sell for vehicles. They must think that it's not worth it for any number of reasons.

Iamme, I think you are either being naive, or not thinking this through carefully.

First of all, car manufacturers are under extreme pressure from congress to improve gas milage. They spend a lot more than $70 on an engine to get milage improvements. Furthermore, they LOVE add-ons, because that is where they make much of their money, charging inflated prices. You get charged $500 for a $200 CD player, for example. If there was a way to add a $70 gadget to the car to effect significant improvements in performance, they would find a way to charge you $300 for it and make you feel you were getting a bargain. The last time I bought a car, they tried to sell me upgraded seats, to spray my undercarriage, to put in theft alarms, to upgrade the carpet thingies under my feet, to put a lock on the gas tank, to put a spoiler on my trunk, etc. They weren't shy about trying to add $70 or more to the cost of the car in aftermarket devices!

But let's discount all that. Let's talk racing. There we are talking big bucks, where trashing a hundred thousand dollar engine is a normal expense of doing business. Fuel economy and management is a huge factor in racing, because of stringent requirments for amounts of fuel that you are allowed to burn in a race. Cars regularly lose races because they don't have enough gas to race full out, or because they had to make one more pit stop than a competitor.

These teams have full time employees that do nothing but design and improve their engines. And yet they don't use these devices.

But discount all that. Let's talk the US military. I'm sure I don't have to explain the importance of fuel economy and improved engine performance in a military context. Yet no military equipment uses these devices.

So why is it car companies that are being pressured by the government to improve economy don't use it, that race teams that have huge financial incentives to use it (if it worked) don't use it, and that the US military does not use it?

Finally, why is it when a car with one of these devices is actually hooked up to a dyno, it shows no increased output?

http://autorepair.about.com/library/products/aafpr052002.htm

The article above is worth reading, as it explains how the consumer's expectation for increased performance led them to believe they really were experiencing increased power even though the dyno showed they weren't.

[davefoc]

roger,
Great post, logical, informative and relevant to the subject, plus a spot on link. nice job. I would nominate you for one of the prizes but I don't follow that closely enough to know if somebody has one for just really good posts.

Dave

[SquishyDave]

I second davefoc's praise of your post, you're getting it in dave-stereo.

Plus your avatar always makes me hungry :)

[CurtC]

Badger wrote:
I must correct something. As the throttle opens, less fuel and more air flow into the carb, leaning out the mixture.Now I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I have a good grasp of physics, and I did take some ME courses in college when I got my EE degree. I pretty strongly disbelieve what you're telling me, that as the throttle opens in a carburetor, less fuel goes into the engine. I thought the mixture stayed pretty constant, around 15:1, so that three times more air going in means that pretty close to three times more fuel would be going in too. But if you have a cite for the point, I'd like to read it.

I don't understand how the horsepower graph relates to the point. I know that horsepower goes up with RPM, but fuel consumption goes up too. The best efficiency (fuel used per revolution) would be at the lowest RPM that the engine can go without bogging down - something less than 2000 RPM would be my guess.

[roger]

Wow, I have a fan club. Cool!

Uh, Dave, why are you walking towards me with that fork with a gleam in your eye? Dave! Dave! Stop!! Noooo!!!!

Davefoc - is your avatar a picture of the top of Half Dome?

[_Q_]

Originally posted by roger


Iamme, I think you are either being naive, or not thinking this through carefully.
(rest of very nice post clipped)
roger,

I wanted to say all that and more, but I didn't have the patience (and I didn't know of that article to which you linked). Thanks for taking the time and doing it masterfully.

To blow my own skeptical horn, now - I did finally get up the gumption to write letters to the guys in charge of Cabela's (outdoor outfitters) regarding the Fuel Master magnetic fuel treatment device listed in their catalog and on their web site, suggesting that they might be better off staying out of the snake oil business. A lot of my arguments matched up nicely with yours. I also mentioned fleet use - wouldn't taxi companies (or FedEX, UPS, etc.) just about wet themselves over even a 5% reduction in fuel costs?

I never heard back from Cabela's, but I'm pleased that I can no longer find the item on their web site.

Again, thanks!


_Q_

[_Q_]

Originally posted by Iamme
_Q_---I never have an extra $70 laying around!:mad:If you believe the manufacturer's claims and the endorsements, then this would seem to be very much penny wise and pound foolish - if you drive a motor vehicle much at all, it would pay for itself quickly enough, and then it would all be gravy.

Another option would be to style yourself as a "fuel consumption consultant" for some big fleet operations, with your fee amounting to some small percentage of the savings realized. You'd recommend the Tornado, your big clients would save a fortune, and you'd be riding a gravy train.

The data from a large scale controlled study (your big clients) would be priceless advertising material for the manufacturer - "UPS saves a bazillion dollars a year with the Tornado - so what are you waiting for?". As the recommending consultant, maybe the Tornado people would give you a piece of the action, too. Then you'd be riding a gravy train with biscuit wheels.

I would recommend a good lawyer to make sure that everything's in order - it would be worth it. With so much money at stake, you might be able to get one to do the work for no cash out of pocket - just a tiny slice of the huge piece of pie.


_Q_

[roger]

Originally posted by _Q_
I also mentioned fleet use - wouldn't taxi companies (or FedEX, UPS, etc.) just about wet themselves over even a 5% reduction in fuel costs?Oh, the fleet use is an excellent point!

Of course, to be fair we have to admit that in some small way we are appealing to authority - that a taxi company or the US government does or does not use these devices does not, in itself, constitute proof. It _is_ a good counter to conspiracy arguments about the non-use of these devices, as there is no way all of these various organizations could be controlled by "them". However, the bottom line are the dyno tests - what HP and fuel use changes occur due to these devices.

It's interesting that people aren't swayed by the scientific evidence, yet are swayed by anecdoctal testimony (a radio DJ touts it) or such.

[roger]

Originally posted by _Q_
I would recommend a good lawyer to make sure that everything's in order - it would be worth it. With so much money at stake, you might be able to get one to do the work for no cash out of pocket - just a tiny slice of the huge piece of pie.

_Q_

How much are you planning on charging for your business advice _Q_? :D

[jimlintott]

Still, I'm wondering if a higher pressure in the air cleaner box, between the filter and the venturi wouldn't translate through to a decrease in the amount of energy used by the pistons to pull the fuel/air mix into the chamber. Thus (to my reasoning) a higher flow air filter would allow higher intake runner pressure and so make more horsepower available to the drivetrain. The effects may be negligable. I don't know.

Unless your vehicle has some special design for air intake, ie: ram air, the air box pressure will be only one atmosphere. The intake runners are under vacuum not pressure. Your reasoning about the air filter resisting the engine's ability to create this vacuum is sound but reall only an issue at high RPM.

The motor can only draw its displacement in air with one revolution (unless a blower is involved). These high flow filters certainly offer less restriction to air volume over time so when the engine needs a high volume of air in a short period of time (high RPM) they certainly work. At the lower RPM demands the effect is slight. For fuel economy you'll benefit more from checking tire pressure. Synthetic lubricants may have more to offer but for the price of fancy air filters and synthetic lubricants you can buy a lot of fuel.

[_Q_]

Originally posted by roger


How much are you planning on charging for your business advice _Q_? :D Exactly what it's worth, my friend, exactly what it's worth.:D


_Q_

[_Q_]

Originally posted by roger
Oh, the fleet use is an excellent point!

Of course, to be fair we have to admit that in some small way we are appealing to authority - that a taxi company or the US government does or does not use these devices does not, in itself, constitute proof. It _is_ a good counter to conspiracy arguments about the non-use of these devices, as there is no way all of these various organizations could be controlled by "them". However, the bottom line are the dyno tests - what HP and fuel use changes occur due to these devices.

It's interesting that people aren't swayed by the scientific evidence, yet are swayed by anecdoctal testimony (a radio DJ touts it) or such. The rub here, to me, is that many of these companies do claim to have dyno, emissions, and fuel consumption data from a "certified EPA lab". The article to which you linked is the first time I've seen someone else show results from their own dyno tests of such products. It doesn't seem to me that the truth should be so slippery here - why the disparity between the results? I'd like to see the results of tests from more independent labs; if results are not reproducible, then they don't deserve to be treated seriously. From looking at ads from a number of such vendors, one might think that "California Environmental Engineering" is the only place that can test such things (by the way - do they ever update their web site?).

If lab tests showed some promise, then it might be profitable to perform controlled field trials to see if the lab results are borne out in "real world" use. That's its own sort of "bottom line". If, however, a big fleet user were to want to try a properly controlled field trial based on the notion that there might be some sort of "unknown science" at work, well, I guess it's their money. They can wake me up if it works.


_Q_

[Iamme]

Alright you guys. Maybe I *will* have to invest in one of these. They have a 30-day money-back guarantee. You are supposed to get 1-2 MPG increase on the average. I was just over to some websites about it. Balcamp is the diostributor for them and they are being sold aftermarket in NAPA and other automotive stores.

I quickly calculated that one of these $70 devices should save me about $150 a year, or in that ballpark, on gas.

Plus, there would be pleasure in saying, "SEEEEEEEE?"...if it works .:D

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by CurtC
Now I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I have a good grasp of physics, and I did take some ME courses in college when I got my EE degree. I pretty strongly disbelieve what you're telling me, that as the throttle opens in a carburetor, less fuel goes into the engine. I thought the mixture stayed pretty constant, around 15:1, so that three times more air going in means that pretty close to three times more fuel would be going in too. But if you have a cite for the point, I'd like to read it.

I don't understand how the horsepower graph relates to the point. I know that horsepower goes up with RPM, but fuel consumption goes up too. The best efficiency (fuel used per revolution) would be at the lowest RPM that the engine can go without bogging down - something less than 2000 RPM would be my guess.

I vote for 15:1 nearly constant... but when was the last time you saw a carburator on a new car ?

Engines are designed to be most efficient at Wide Open Throttle.

Horsepower is low at low RPMs because engines produce torque...think about it, force (expansion of gas) times distance (crankshaft radius) = torque, not horsepower.

Horsepower comes into it by the magic "5252" formula... horspower is equal numerically to torque at 5252rpms all the time. If you look at a graph or torque and HP vs RPM and they don't cross there, the graph is wrong. If they do and someone makes a big deal of it, they are wrong. It is always that way. Since HP is proportional to torque and RPM, it will always be low at low RPM. Since HP is low at low RPM, the only way to get power out of an engine is to increase torque at the low end. And the only way to increase torque is to increase the amount of expanding air.


Now, tuning an engine is done by the ECU. But before, the carburator had some control over the mixture. I don't remember what small variations of mixture affected. But a modern ECU should be looking at the O2 sensor which is sensing the post-combusted gases, and adjusting the amount of fuel according to a pre-set formula taking into account RPM, air mass flow, O2 remaining, maybe one more. So putting some tornado in front of it is not going to have a "free" effect. If there is any increase in fuel economy, it must be at the cost of something the engine manufacturer wanted to avoid, such as operating temp, emissions, or maximum available power. Even if it does use LESS fuel and makes MORE power that is not automatically good... if the combustion is not complete, any remnants will go into the catalytic converter and be burned there, leading to higher temperatures and decreased life.

By the way, in a good fuel injection system, the fuel is injected into the cylinder head, not the throttle-body. So this tornado air comes in, pulled by the piston, gas is injected, then it is compressed. So this "tornado effect" is going to still be there after the mixture is compressed to 10 (typical) atmospheres ? Right...


What can magnetizing gasoline do that those giant towers at the refinery didn't ?

And why not install them at the gasoline pump ? Now everybody benefits from the wonderful effects of magnetism !

[Iamme]

teedygrahams---it sounds like you have learned your stuff about horsepower and torque. But i have to say, "Huh?"...to you when you said, "Even if it does use LESS fuel and makes MORE power that is not automatically good...if the combustion is not complete..."

If you have some device, and you made no other changes, that increases both mileage AND power...how on earth can this not be better than how the vehicle was before?..from the fuel standpoint, power standpoint AND emmissions standpoint?

[Badger]

Originally posted by CurtC
Now I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I have a good grasp of physics, and I did take some ME courses in college when I got my EE degree. I pretty strongly disbelieve what you're telling me, that as the throttle opens in a carburetor, less fuel goes into the engine. I thought the mixture stayed pretty constant, around 15:1, so that three times more air going in means that pretty close to three times more fuel would be going in too. But if you have a cite for the point, I'd like to read it.

I don't understand how the horsepower graph relates to the point. I know that horsepower goes up with RPM, but fuel consumption goes up too. The best efficiency (fuel used per revolution) would be at the lowest RPM that the engine can go without bogging down - something less than 2000 RPM would be my guess.

Basically, when the throttle is closed, little air gets by, and there is decreased pressure on the motor side of the throttle plate. The gas comes in on that side of the plate, not on the airbox side. So when running with the throttle closed (idling, low rpm) more gas is sucked in to the motor.

This explains the whole thing: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question377.htm

[_Q_]

Originally posted by Iamme
Alright you guys. Maybe I *will* have to invest in one of these. They have a 30-day money-back guarantee. You are supposed to get 1-2 MPG increase on the average. I was just over to some websites about it. Balcamp is the diostributor for them and they are being sold aftermarket in NAPA and other automotive stores.

I quickly calculated that one of these $70 devices should save me about $150 a year, or in that ballpark, on gas.

Plus, there would be pleasure in saying, "SEEEEEEEE?"...if it works .:D lamme,

I would recommend that you content yourself simply with the money you save.

I doubt that many people here will put much stock in one person's anecdotal results. It's not a question of honesty; it's just too hard to get reliable data that way. See the article to which roger linked, where people could really "feel" the extra power that the dyno says wasn't there at all. Even though the fuel consumed is something that can be measured objectively, a sample size of one subject (who knows that a test is being conducted) isn't very good. It doesn't necessarily take much of a change to driving habits (even changes made unconsciously) to make a 1 MPG difference in fuel economy.

Now, my suggestion about the consulting thing and properly controlled big fleet tests, well, THAT would really impress people. Then, you could say, "SEEEEEE?" and really make it stick. Plus, you'd be filthy stinking rich, to boot.


_Q_

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by Iamme
teedygrahams---it sounds like you have learned your stuff about horsepower and torque. But i have to say, "Huh?"...to you when you said, "Even if it does use LESS fuel and makes MORE power that is not automatically good...if the combustion is not complete..."

If you have some device, and you made no other changes, that increases both mileage AND power...how on earth can this not be better than how the vehicle was before?..from the fuel standpoint, power standpoint AND emmissions standpoint?

Well, my statement is hard to defend because I'm not in the auto industry, but your challenge is a no-brainer... it's not easy to simultaneously balance emisions, mileage, and power. So it's very unlikely that a device could increase mileage, power and not increase emissions.

[Iamme]

teddygrahams---You are wrong in your assessment of what occurs when an aspirating engine burns its fuel more completely. You'll have more emmisions and less power, and less fuel economy when fuel is not completely burned. You give off more CO, for one thing. All you need to do to increase mileage and power both, is to burn more of the fuel completely. That is all the Tornado does. Pure and simple concept. And, BTW, it was being plugged again today by Jeff Brooks on his nationally syndicated call in radio car repair show. Up to 20% more mileage and up to 15 more horsepower.

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by Iamme
teddygrahams---You are wrong in your assessment of what occurs when an aspirating engine burns its fuel more completely. You'll have more emmisions and less power, and less fuel economy when fuel is not completely burned. You give off more CO, for one thing. All you need to do to increase mileage and power both, is to burn more of the fuel completely. That is all the Tornado does. Pure and simple concept. And, BTW, it was being plugged again today by Jeff Brooks on his nationally syndicated call in radio car repair show. Up to 20% more mileage and up to 15 more horsepower.

Lean burning engines are more fuel efficient, yet NOx emissions are increased.... what does Jeff Brooks think about that ? What kind of research does Jeff Brooks do ? Why does it the tornado ad sayGas mileage increases averaging 1 to 2 MPG have been documented. ... but in the lab the results were 11-28% increase (all over 2 MPG increases).... that's odd isn't it ? Where are the results of the emissions tests ? What was the engine RPM ? Where is the graph of before/after torque and HP ? There's a lot missing there.

http://tornadoair.com/road.php

[teddygrahams]

How does it work? The Tornado's unique airflow dynamics creates a swirling, fast-burn effect in the combustion chamber.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the mixture must be compressed by the piston before ignition... here they claim that it is still swirling as it is burning ! I could give them the benefit of the doubt that the swirling will make it to the intake valve, but to still be swirling as the spark goes off ... that's a stretch !

[davefoc]

Iamme,
I thought Roger did an excellent job of arguing that the Tornado product was unlikely to significantly improve mileage and he included a link by somebody that sounded competent that had actually tested them and found no improvement.

But I concede that it is still possible that the Tornado does improve fuel economy.

The problem with their summary of test results is that they are almost completely useless at assessing the efficacy of the product without being able to look at the actual testing that was done.

When the EPA tests a product it not only releases a summary of the result, it also releases a detailed test report. Speaking as an engineer, a test result, without a test report is less than useless. The number of permutations in this kind of test is enormous and it is important to understand which subset they chose. for example, age of car, how long since last tuneup, kind of driving, number of trials, length of the trial, brand of gas, type of oil, type of spark plugs, etc. Were there some conditions where no improvement or a reduction was found. What was the spread of the results? How careful were they in ensuring that the conditions for comparative test were the same. Endless questions, for which if there is no answer there are no useful results.

I don't quite understand how the product is supposed to work. Does it go before or after the air cleaner? When I've seen the infomercials it seems like it might go before the air cleaner. If so wouldn't this pretty much eliminate any swirling from getting into the cylinder?

Another question, that perhaps somebody could shed some light on: Don't Honda engines already feature some sort of valve and port design that causes the air to swirl?

[clusterm2]

What a load of rubbish. Why do car manufactures spend so much time and money designing cylinder heads (combustion efficiency) pistons (lower mass / reduced friction) and fuel injection systems (we'll ignore the low rolling resistance tyres for the moment)? We're not talking a few thousand dollars in development costs here are we?
And all this time all they had to do was put a $70 device in the fuel line that's been available for 20 odd years that I know of....ho ho someones having a laugh. I can't believe anyone on this forum gives credence to such nonsence..<snigger>

[teddygrahams]

Here's another, from the Tornado Faq:
(Optional) To reset computer. Disconnect Pos. & Neg. terminal on battery and reconnect. This will reset the computer.

Hmm... how many tests were conducted immediately after the computer was reset ?

[clusterm2]

The speed and force at which the air is sucked into each cylinder would negate any eddys generated by such garbage as a'Tornado'. I can't believe people get taken in by this trash in this day and age but will say that if I was the scamming con man whos product it was I'd make sure the tyre pressures were low and the engine running rich for the 'before' tests:rolleyes:

[Iconoclast]

Just thought I'd clear up a few misconceptions.

Originally posted by Iamme
Dual-point distributors that came on the scene before our current electronic ignition systems did seem to work. Probably like all after market devices, the results would vary from vehicle to vehicle.
Dual point systems addressed a specific problem with high reving engines, namely that as RPM increased the dwell time of the points decreases. The amount of energy that can be stored in the ignition coil is a function of dwell time. Adding a second set of points that opened and closed slightly later than the first set of points allows us to extend the total dwell time between sparks almost up to the theoretical limit, 60 distributor degrees for a 6 cylinder engine, 45 distributor degrees for a V8.

Originally posted by Badger
With regard to speed, air resistance increases the faster you go, meaning you'll need to burn more gas to cover the same distance at a faster rate.
Well, if air resistance increased linearly with speed then -- all other things being equal -- you'd get the same gas mileage regardless of speed. Unfortunately, air resistance increases with the square of speed, so vehicle efficiency decreases with increasing speed. And since Power is a linear function of speed also, it turns out that to double our speed we're required to deliver 8 times as much power. This explains why many Formula 1 teams own their own wind tunnel, reducing aerodynamic drag is much more profitable than getting more power from the engine

Originally posted by Badger
I must correct something. As the throttle opens, less fuel and more air flow into the carb, leaning out the mixture.
While you're correct that opening the throttle open would ordinarily produce a momentary lean condition (a flat spot), in practice this is not the case since automotive engineers are a cluey bunch. The problem is that when the throttle is snapped open, the vacuum signal at the manifold momentarily drops to almost zero before coming back up again, and since fuel has more inertia than air it takes longer to get it flowing from the venturi again.

But, that's why god invented Accelerator Pumps, Power Valves (in Holleys), Step Up Rods (in Carter AFBs and Thermoquads), and Dampened Pistons (in SUs), these are all methods of supplying a little extra fuel when the throttle opens so that the air fuel ratio stays where it should be.

Originally posted by CurtC
I thought the mixture stayed pretty constant, around 15:1, so that three times more air going in means that pretty close to three times more fuel would be going in too.
The theoretical A/F ratio for perfect burning is called the Stochiometric Point, and that's at 14.7:1, we're talking by mass here, not volume, so the amount of fuel delivered to each cylinder is a tiny amount indeed. At stoichiometry, the only byproduct of the combustion process should be water and something else that escapes my memory.

However, we know that we can get more power from an engine by reducing the A/F ratio to as low as around 13:1 during acceleration, and we can get better economy at idle and overrun by increasing the A/F ratio to around 16:1. Advanced engines such as the "Stratafied Charge" engines used in some Hondas can get A/F ratios of up to 20:1 without engine damage.

Originally posted by CurtC
I don't understand how the horsepower graph relates to the point. I know that horsepower goes up with RPM, but fuel consumption goes up too. The best efficiency (fuel used per revolution) would be at the lowest RPM that the engine can go without bogging down - something less than 2000 RPM would be my guess.
No, engine efficiency is a function of engine RPM, as engine speed increases it's efficiency will as well, up to a point. This is due to many interrelated factors such as:

- Fuel atomises better with faster flowing air.
- The amount of mixture entering the cylinder (known as the Volumetric Efficiency) increases with faster flowing air.

Originally posted by jimlintott
The motor can only draw its displacement in air with one revolution (unless a blower is involved).
If a 1 litre cylinder is able to draw in 1 litre of mixture on each intake stroke then it has a VE of 100%. A typical street car has a VE in the range of 65% to 75%, mildly modified street cars can get up to around 85%. But there's another effect called "Ram Charging" that can help to increase VE, to better than 100%.

As the valves open air is sucked through the intake runner and into the cylinder. Then, the valve closes but the air keeps trying to move towards the cylinder due to it's inertia. It banks up against the back of the valve, then reverses direction and moves back towards the intake plenum. We can see that standing waves are being set up in the runners, and as the moving mass of air reaches the plenum end of the runner it again reverses direction. At certain engine RPMs, the valve will just happen to open again just as the air is reflecting off the plenum end of the runner, and that's the principle of ram charging. The air is already moving before the valve has opened, so we can get more than 100% filling of the cylinder.

Originally posted by teddygrahams
Horsepower comes into it by the magic "5252" formula...

Well, only if you're an American, civilised people use the even more magic "Torque x Angular Velocity" formula.

Originally posted by teddygrahams
Since HP is low at low RPM, the only way to get power out of an engine is to increase torque at the low end.
Eh? How about just spinning it faster?

Originally posted by davefoc
I don't quite understand how the product is supposed to work. Does it go before or after the air cleaner? When I've seen the infomercials it seems like it might go before the air cleaner. If so wouldn't this pretty much eliminate any swirling from getting into the cylinder?

For a donut style air cleaner it goes inside the air cleaner element itself, for fuel injected engines it goes at the inlet port of the throttle body.

Originally posted by davefoc
Another question, that perhaps somebody could shed some light on: Don't Honda engines already feature some sort of valve and port design that causes the air to swirl?

Yep, they call it not incidently "Swirl Chamber Combustion". And no, I don't believe this device could work. While the manufacturers might be selling the device for A$70, a quick look at the photo of one shows it to be a piece of stamped sheet metal, perhaps 50 cents worth.

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

Eh? How about just spinning it faster?



I meant the only way to get more power at low RPM... obviously you can increase RPM and get more power, but that's not increasing the amount of energy the engine is producing at any particular RPM.

Iconoclast, do you remember Fueling ?SP?, the guy who designed the Olds Quad 4 ? He was working on a tunable intake manifold. I haven't seen any engines with one, but I haven't been looking. Now that would be worth more than a piece of tin in the air intake.

[Iamme]

O.k., I can see there is going to be theoretical arguments going on here about the Tornado. So this is what I am going to ATTEMPT to do: Try to get Jeff Brooks himself to come online here. I am going now to see if he has a site I can e-mail. Be back soon.

[davefoc]

Iconoclast.
Thanks for you informative post.

I thought I'd just expand on the your mention of dwell if there's somebody that doesn't know what that is.

Current flows into the coil when the points are closed. The coil is charged during the time that current flows into it. The coil is discharged through the spark plug when the points open up. In a car with a single coil the coil must charge and discharge once for each cylinder per revolution. Dwell is a measurement in degrees of how long the points stay closed per cylinder per revolution. So as Iconoclast said the maximum dwell is 60 degrees for a 6 cyclinder engine (360/6).

[Iamme]

It's a done deal. I just e-mailed the radio station that he operates out of. So, I cross my fingers and hope that either he, or a factory rep come on line and join us here. I mentioned how some posters can't believe the product works considering that the car manufacturs haven't included it on production cars as a way to help meet EPA standards.

[Iamme]

Iconoclast--Just because the Tornado appears to be $.50 worth of sheetmetal, does not mean that it can't work.

Were the Japanese cars that came out during/just after the 1973 oil embargo, worth their cost? No! They knew they could get Americans to buy them because we became deperate to save on gas. Those cars back then, if you recall, were just cheap undersized (from our standards) tin cans.

Same with the Tornado. you pay through the nose for such a like privelege...plus all the advertising and marketing that has gone into these.

I actually considered trying to make my own. They are so similar to the fan blade of say a bath fan or high efficiency furnace or gas water heater 'power ventor'. But, one thing I am not quite sure about is why they have all those perforations in the fins. Why not just the fins? You'd think the perforations would take away from the swirl. Maybe it's simply a matter that they needed all the air volume area that the holding area of the air cleaner chamber or air intake line would allow.

Regarding the talk above about higher low end torque or simply creating more horsepower at the lower end by increasing rpm: Yes, at the drag strip, there have been manya 327 that have done in big blocks by cranking out 8-10,000...a range that would cause their big block brothers to fly apart. But, many of us hot rod type could never stand the whine of a small high rev engine. We prefer the raw power...that throaty roar from a low rpm, high torque engine. Same in the motorcycle industry. That is why large bore Harleys are so popular. The low end power and that big roar, as opposed to the tinny whine from those ""Yamahowakamasakis":D they had , that could actually out quarter mile the Harleys. But who would want one of these street screamers. (Some DID though)

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by davefoc
Iconoclast.
Thanks for you informative post.

I thought I'd just expand on the your mention of dwell if there's somebody that doesn't know what that is.

Current flows into the coil when the points are closed. The coil is charged during the time that current flows into it. The coil is discharged through the spark plug when the points open up. In a car with a single coil the coil must charge and discharge once for each cylinder per revolution. Dwell is a measurement in degrees of how long the points stay closed per cylinder per revolution. So as Iconoclast said the maximum dwell is 60 degrees for a 6 cyclinder engine (360/6).
You almost have it there except you forget that most if not all auto engines now are 4 stroke engines, only half the cylinders fire on each revolution. So the maximum dwell is 360/3 according to that. But of course, new engine electronics are changing that.

At the end of this thread every reader should have a pretty good idea what goes on under the hood (nobody cares what goes on under a bonnet.)

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Well, if air resistance increased linearly with speed then -- all other things being equal -- you'd get the same gas mileage regardless of speed.That doesn't sound right. I think you'd get the same gas mileage at all speeds if air resistance were the same at all speeds.

[teddygrahams]

Air resistance increases with the square of speed.
Think of air as just individual molecules of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. At the very least, you have to make some molecules move out of the way, so you have a squared component due to changing the molecules momentum.

[Badger]

Iconoclast, thanks for the extra info. I appreciate it.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by teddygrahams
Iconoclast, do you remember Fueling ?SP?, the guy who designed the Olds Quad 4 ? He was working on a tunable intake manifold. I haven't seen any engines with one, but I haven't been looking. Now that would be worth more than a piece of tin in the air intake.
I thought there was at least one production engine that used variable intake runners, the length changed with engine RPM, can't remember which engine though. Is that what you meant by tuneable intake manifold or are there different techniques?

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by teddygrahams
You almost have it there except you forget that most if not all auto engines now are 4 stroke engines, only half the cylinders fire on each revolution. So the maximum dwell is 360/3 according to that. But of course, new engine electronics are changing that.
Ah, but I specifically mentioned DISTRIBUTOR degrees, not CRANK degrees. And as you say, the distributor spins at half the rate of the engine.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by 69dodge
That doesn't sound right. I think you'd get the same gas mileage at all speeds if air resistance were the same at all speeds.
Well, if air resistance increases linearly with speed, then if you doubled your speed you'd use twice as much fuel, but you'd only have to drive for half as long. So, the amount of fuel used in (say) 100 miles would be the same. At least I think that's right.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Iamme
Iconoclast--Just because the Tornado appears to be $.50 worth of sheetmetal, does not mean that it can't work.

You're quite correct Iamme, which reminds me of the Carb Spacer debate. If you own an old style V8 engine with a 4 barrel carb on top, you can buy carb spacers that go between the carb and the inlet manifold, and it's nothing more than a piece of aluminium 1/4 or 1/2 inches thick. Now, the interesting thing is, if you are tuning an engine on an engine dyno adding a carb spacer may give you 1 or 2 extra horsepower, or you may lose a couple of horsepower, or there may be no effect at all. Even if you get 2 engines that are essentially the same, the effect of the spacer is unpredictable.

This unpredictability is a result of the fact that fluid dynamics is really weird science. When we port cylinder heads, we still use experimentation on a flow bench to determine which modifications will result in more air flow, we don't have a way to determine a priori what our mods will do, the flow is too complex to analyse.

So, putting this Tornado thing in the airstream may actually increase power or efficiency for some specific engine since it alters the way the air flows, but that the manufacturer makes a blanket claim that it will have X% increase in economy is not reasonable.

[davefoc]

Iamme,
You mentioned earlier in this thread that you were considering buying one and testing it yourself.

If all you are looking for is a 10% improvement in mileage, I think you will find it very difficult to verify such a small improvement.

I regularly monitor the mileage in my own car and see a greater variation than that from tank to tank. The kind of driving I do is quite similar from tank to tank but still variations in driving speed or the ratio of freeway to non-freeway driving may be enough to explain the differences. There are a lot of other factors that might contribute to mileage variation from differences in the gas level when the tank is full, humidity, tire pressure variations, oil level, outdoor temperature.

The point is that when Tornado offers a money back guarantee, they are implying that it is possible for an individual to evaluate the efficacy of their device. I don't think the average person can actually detect the small gain in mileage expected. That is not to say that some people with care, expertise and patience might not be able to reliably detect a 10% improvement in fuel economy, but I think most wouldn't. I think part of their scheme actually takes advantage of the difficulty of monitoring fuel economy by the average person to trick people into believing that there is an improvement in fuel economy when there is none.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I installed an electronic ignition system on a 1967 Plymouth Barracuda I owned. I carefully monitored the mileage and thought that I was detecting about a 10% mileage reduction, but I wasn't sure because of all the other variables that might have explained it. The thing that finally convinced me was a cross country drive. The driving was almost identical from tank to tank and in the case of the electronic ignition system I could turn it on and off when I wanted to so that I was able to compare the mileage from tank to tank by switching between on and off.

[teddygrahams]

Iconoclast you were right about the distributor RPM, but davefoc failed to copy it and I quoted his post.

About the tuning intake manifold, yes that is what I meant.


According to the EPA (www.epa.gov), the energy content of gasoline itself varies a few percent and up to 5% seasonally. They give quite a few tips for increasing mileage.

So, if you want to maximize your mileage, just buy gas when it has above average energy !

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by teddygrahams
About the tuning intake manifold, yes that is what I meant.
OK, well it seems the latest BMW 7 Series Engines (http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/020213.htm) use continuously variable length intake runners.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Well, if air resistance increases linearly with speed, then if you doubled your speed you'd use twice as much fuel, but you'd only have to drive for half as long. So, the amount of fuel used in (say) 100 miles would be the same. At least I think that's right.Yes, the time is half, but the distance is the same, and energy has to do with distance. Twice the air resistance and the same distance require twice the energy, therefore twice the gasoline.

Pardon the nitpicking. I realize this statement of yours was just an offhand remark in a long and otherwise excellent post. (I'm just ticked off because you left out my lowly BBD from your list of carbs. :))

[ceptimus]

Buy your gas when it's cold. As it is sold by volume, you get more bang per buck when the gas is cold and denser.

It ought to be sold by mass really, but I suppose that would be more difficult to meter.

[MRC_Hans]

:bs: :bs: :bs:

C'mon folks! This is supposed to be a skeptic community! That thing is 100% pure BS. Those things are magnets. Neodyne is a permanent magnet material, and since the thing just sits there with no power applied, it can only be a permanent magnet.

Permanent magnets do not affect fuel because it is not conductive.

Car manufacturers are spending billions to design high-mileage cars these days. A 3litre (100km on 3 litres of diesel) VW Lupo is sold at a much higher price than the gas version. Do you think they would not be using this thing if it could give them even 5%??

Mileage tests made on the road are not useful for comparing before and after fuel consumption. The conditions are simply too different. Only running an engine in a test-bench will yield results reproducible enough to see single-digit percentages.

Hans

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by 69dodge
Yes, the time is half, but the distance is the same, and energy has to do with distance. Twice the air resistance and the same distance require twice the energy, therefore twice the gasoline.
You may be right Dodge.

Originally posted by 69dodge
Pardon the nitpicking. I realize this statement of yours was just an offhand remark in a long and otherwise excellent post. (I'm just ticked off because you left out my lowly BBD from your list of carbs. :))
Hey, anything made by Carter is fine with me. For the last V8 I owned I bought a new style AFB and a jetting kit (same carb as the Edelbrock ones). Lovely, 1 minute to change metering rods, 5 minutes to change jets, and all without spilling any gas unlike those ungodly Holleys.

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Buy your gas when it's cold. As it is sold by volume, you get more bang per buck when the gas is cold and denser.

It ought to be sold by mass really, but I suppose that would be more difficult to meter.

But according to the EPA, energy content is lower in Winter due to winter formulas. So, you must mean buy it on a cold Summer's morning.


Hans, most of this discussion is about the Tornado, not the magnet thingy.

[MRC_Hans]

Yeah? Apart from the magnet details, which of my arguments do not apply to the tornado?

Hans ;)

[Attrayant]

They have a 30-day money-back guarantee. You are supposed to get 1-2 MPG increase on the average

. . .

I quickly calculated that one of these $70 devices should save me about $150 a year, or in that ballpark, on gas.

Good luck trying to any company to honor a 30-day guarantee after a year goes by and you haven't saved anything.

[Iamme]

_Q_---The Tornado WAS tested on a dyno. So it is more than some anecote from some person. They showed the dyno test done before and after. (They ran the vehicle on the dyno to a certain rpm. Then they went out and stuck in the Tornado and reran the test to the same rpm.) No other alterations were made to the test vehicle. They showed the horsepower meter go up by about 20. It went from about 200 to 220 on that car.

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by Iamme
_Q_---The Tornado WAS tested on a dyno. So it is more than some anecote from some person. They showed the dyno test done before and after. (They ran the vehicle on the dyno to a certain rpm. Then they went out and stuck in the Tornado and reran the test to the same rpm.) No other alterations were made to the test vehicle. They showed the horsepower meter go up by about 20. It went from about 200 to 220 on that car.

I'm looking at the test posted on their web page. The lowest MPG increase is 2. How, if 2 is the lowest, can the Average MPG increase be 1-2 ? Is that what you are referring to as non-anecdotal data ? It's a non-sensical conclusion from the data listed. Where did 1-2 come from ?:wink8:

[_Q_]

Originally posted by Iamme
_Q_---The Tornado WAS tested on a dyno. So it is more than some anecote from some person. They showed the dyno test done before and after. (They ran the vehicle on the dyno to a certain rpm. Then they went out and stuck in the Tornado and reran the test to the same rpm.) No other alterations were made to the test vehicle. They showed the horsepower meter go up by about 20. It went from about 200 to 220 on that car.

lamme,

To be clear, I don't think that I've ever claimed that the Tornado people were trying to push their product based only on "some anecdote from some person", or that they've never claimed to dyno test their product.

My comments on not putting much stock in one person's anecdotal claims were in response to your comments about the prospect of trying one yourself and then (possibly) having the pleasure of telling us all how great it was. I suggested that you should just be happy with all of the money you save - one individual's personal testimony just wouldn't convince.

Now, the talk about their dyno tests brings a question to mind. Do you really, honestly believe these people?

By "these people", maybe I should include a number of magnetic fuel treatment folks who also claim to have real tests from real labs to demonstrate how effective their products are. Do you believe them, too?

If you do believe any or all of this stuff, then why aren't you using the products?

Word of honor, I'm still trying to figure out if you're genuinely serious about this stuff, or if you're just yanking our collective chain.


_Q_

[davefoc]

!!!Warning completely unrelated digression follows!!!!

Roger asked:
Davefoc - is your avatar a picture of the top of Half Dome?

You win the prize. Way to go.

That is one of the most spectacular places that I have ever been. I walked up on a day that I was suffering from a cold and was completely exhausted when I got to the top. After sleeping for an hour or so I got up and walked around, when I turned and saw this scene. The avatar doesn't do it justice.

The people you see in the scene are standing on a rock protrusion that is about 3,000 feet above the valley floor. There is a guy in that little tent like structure that you see in the picture. He crawled down through the rocks around it and was laying on his belly looking straight down to the valley below.

[davefoc]

!!Warning another completely unrelated digression follows:

[davefoc]

Iamme said: They showed the horsepower meter go up by about 20. It went from about 200 to 220 on that car

I couldn't find a report of this test on the internet. I know it is part of their advertising, but without a report it's a pretty useless claim.

How many different engines did they try? What was the spread of the data? Was the test actually done by an independent body? How did different RPM's effect the horsepower gain? Did some engines experience a loss of horsepower?

I know it's been said before here, but one obvious point is that if there was a simple well known gadget that reliably boosted horsepower by 10% one would expect it to be widely used in racing applications. Is it?

I watched part of one of their infomercials this morning. The infomercial strongly promotes the idea that anecdotal evidence is useful in evaluating the device. There was an alledged radio talk show host promoting the idea that his listeners had convinced him of the efficacy of this device. Whether there is any benefit or not to the device may be an open question, but promoting the idea that the average individual is going to be able to reliably detect a 1 to 2 mpg improvement is just crap. If there is value to their device it is strange that they would promote it using such a devious approach.

[davefoc]

Iconoclast said:You may be right Dodge

Son of a gun, I was sure that Dodge was wrong and had basically accepted Iconoclast's view on this for years.

Alas, it looks to me as if Dodge is right also.

If the movement of an object is resisted by a constant force while it is being moved the energy required to move it is F x D.

If the movement of an object is resisted by a force which is proportional to the speed (F=kS) the energy required to move it the distance D is proportional to the the speed. E = kSD.

if the movement of an object is resisted by a force which is proportional to the square of the speed (F=kSS) the energy required to move it the distance D is proportional to the square of the speed. E=kSSD.

edited to add.
The effect on the power required to move the object goes up at one higher power than the energy required to move the object.

for a constant force:
P=kS

for a force proportional to the speed:
P=kSS

for a force proportional to the square of the speed:
P=kSSS

[roger]

Originally posted by davefoc
!!!Warning completely unrelated digression follows!!!!

Roger asked:


You win the prize. Way to go.

That is one of the most spectacular places that I have ever been. I came up the hard way :)

http://member.newsguy.com/~climbing/RogerShtChimneyvrt.jpg

http://member.newsguy.com/~climbing/RogerBigSandy.jpg

topping out:
http://member.newsguy.com/~climbing/RogerHalfDomeTop.jpg

I agree, it's totally spectacular up there.

[roger]

A little washed out, but this is looking straight down from the last hanging belay. Nothing but air under my feet. (it's about 2000 ft to the start of the route, and about 5000ft to the valley floor)

[davefoc]

wow

[ceptimus]

To double the speed (assuming the air resistance is proportional to the square of the speed) requires 8 times the power. Assuming fuel consumption rate is directly proportional to power used, it therefore takes 4 times the fuel to cover the same distance in half the time.

The power requirement (and hence fuel burn rate) goes up as the cube of the speed, not the square. To understand why, realize that at double the speed, you have to overcome four times the resistance. Four times the resistance at twice the speed equals eight times the power.

[Iamme]

_Q_---From your page 2 post. No, I am not yanking anyone's chain. I am going to buy one of these..AFTER I ask them if they ran a test on MY vehicle/engine...like they did for many vehicles. They have a printout on many vehicles that show what the fuel mileage was, and then is, after the installation. Same with horsepower. If this is some bogus product that relies on any form of trickery...then Jeff Brooks, a nationally regarded top mechanic and talk show host, has ALSO been duped..and/or he is working only for the almighty dollar as their spokesman.

I forget who the poster was that mentioned that the likelihood of the Tornado being a legitimate product, because the car manufactureres have spent LOTS of money in R&D on combustion chamber design, etc.? Well, What you are saying basically is that there can't possibly be a kitchen table inventor, ever, who has improved upon a product. We know that is not the case. But regarding THIS product...I reserve judgement till I get more info from the company, and/or simply buy one and try it.

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by ceptimus
To double the speed (assuming the air resistance is proportional to the square of the speed) requires 8 times the power. Assuming fuel consumption rate is directly proportional to power used, it therefore takes 4 times the fuel to cover the same distance in half the time.

The power requirement (and hence fuel burn rate) goes up as the cube of the speed, not the square. To understand why, realize that at double the speed, you have to overcome four times the resistance. Four times the resistance at twice the speed equals eight times the power.

The wind is slowing down your car. Assume your car is not doing any work except moving air out of the way. That will make it clearer. It is squared, not cubed.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by ceptimus
The power requirement (and hence fuel burn rate) goes up as the cube of the speed, not the square. To understand why, realize that at double the speed, you have to overcome four times the resistance. Four times the resistance at twice the speed equals eight times the power.
I covered that in an earlier post.

[_Q_]

Originally posted by Iamme
I forget who the poster was that mentioned that the likelihood of the Tornado being a legitimate product, because the car manufactureres have spent LOTS of money in R&D on combustion chamber design, etc.?I'm not the one who said this, but I certainly agree with the sentiment. If I'm curious about who said what, I read the thread again.

Well, What you are saying basically is that there can't possibly be a kitchen table inventor, ever, who has improved upon a product. We know that is not the case.Nonsense. The statement you make here simply does not follow from any claim that has been made by anyone in this thread.


_Q_

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by teddygrahams


The wind is slowing down your car. Assume your car is not doing any work except moving air out of the way. That will make it clearer. It is squared, not cubed.

The resistance is squared, the power requirement (and hence fuel flow) is cubed, as I explained.

[fsol]

How does it work? The Tornado's unique airflow dynamics creates a swirling, fast-burn effect in the combustion chamber. This creates finer particles (atomized fuel), allowing better flame propagation and more complete combustion.

http://tornadoairpower2.com/page2.html


So, if you have a carbureted engine you put the Tornado in your intake before the carb and it creates swirl in the combustion chamber. How does it do this?

The air enters the air intake, passes through the air filter where it meets a blockage..umm...Tornado. It passes this blockage (can you say volumetric efficency?) and now has the property of "swirl." (Imagine a horizontal tornado, apparently). The air then has to pass the butterfly valve (choke) at the inlet to the carb. Then there is the venturi. The air and fuel mix. Then there is the throttle plate. Do we still have swirl at this point? Did we still have swirl after the choke? Assume we do, just for arguments sake. (I like to give the benefit of the doubt.) We now pass the poppet valve. Does the presence of swirl before the poppet valve have much effect on the flow after the poppet valve. Umm...I would think not.

Have a look at this admittedly crude CFD simulation (from my under grad days) of flow past a poppet valve. Notice how the flow is nice and "smooth" before the valve and gets all "messed up" as it passes it.

http://fatheroleg.kiajaroovah.org/b3ta/flow.jpg

Now even ignoring the affect of the carburetor, as you would do if you have fuel injection and your Tornado is installed after the MAF sensor, how is swirl (as generated by the Tornado) preserved as it travels past the poppet valve?

If you want swirl and tumble in your combustion chamber you need to design a cylinder head/ manifold that promotes it. Blocking your air intake with $70 worth of crap isn't going to do it.

Of course, if someone wants to show me how the Tornado *does* create swirl in the combustion chamber, then I would of course have to eat my words.

Editted to add: If they mean to say that the swirl is generated before the combustion chamber (to promote air/fuel mixing there (which is not how it is worded on their website), then they might have a point. Subaru seem to think it is a good idea

http://www.drivesubaru.com/Win03_Manifold.htm

Notice however that their system contains nothing that looks like a Tornado device at all.

In some cases, however, a smooth flow of air isn’t the best thing. Selected Subaru models feature an intake that “tumbles” the incoming air on purpose. This is the case with the high-performance Impreza WRX. Its intake includes tumble generator valves directly above the fuel injectors. When the engine is at idle, these valves close and bypass the incoming airflow through a passage to increase the swirl of the air/fuel mixture, resulting in an engine that operates more cleanly. Other benefits include easier cold starts, reduced emissions and efficient low-speed operation. In fact, despite its startling power and acceleration, the WRX engine burns so cleanly it qualifies as a Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) under today’s EPA guidelines.

Nothing about increaseing the engines power by 20% either.

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by ceptimus


The resistance is squared, the power requirement (and hence fuel flow) is cubed, as I explained.

But only required for half the time, hence total fuel used does not get a cubed factor.... or does it ?

[davefoc]

Summary of reasons (many put forth previously) to be suspicious of claims for the Tornado.

1. If it were effective some engine manufacturures would incorporate the gadget or something similar into their engines.

2. If it offered anything like the horsepower improvement claimed it would be standard equipment on race cars. No one has of yet suggested that there is any use on race cars.

3. If it were effective the company would publish the details of their test methodologies and their detailed test reports. Without these their claims are useless.

4. If it were effective the company would not rely on advertising that is based almost solely on anecdotal evidence.

5. If it were effective the company would not promote the false notion that the average individual could determine its effectivity.

6. The company's theory of how their product operates seems to be unlikely to be true. See fsol's previous post for his discussion of this.

7. A link was provided to a test report by an individual that suggested that the product was ineffective. Repeated here for convenience: http://autorepair.about.com/library/products/aafpr052002.htm

8. The EPA has tested hundreds of add on fuel saving gadgets and has found none that were effective. Many of these products were advertised in similar ways to the Tornado and made similar claims. So the Tornado marketing approach is nothing new for fraudulent products.

9. Their celebrity spokesman seems lame. He touts the fact that his radio audience convinced him of the efficacy of the product. This, as previously discussed, is crap. If he is so technically non-astute as to not understand how useless anecdotal information is for something like this is, then his value as a source of useful informatin about the Tornado is zero.

10. One of the ways to get a product tested by the EPA is to request that the EPA test the product for effectivity. This is, of course, one of the first things that a company would do that had a product that actually improved fuel economy. There is no evidence that Tornado has done this.

edited to add:

11. Companies dealing with vehicle fleets can profit enormously from even small improvements in fuel economy. No information has been provided that any of them are using this device.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by teddygrahams

But only required for half the time, hence total fuel used does not get a cubed factor.... or does it ? From my original post

...requires 8 times the power. Assuming fuel consumption rate is directly proportional to power used, it therefore takes 4 times the fuel to cover the same distance in half the time.The total fuel used to cover a given distance rises as the square of the speed. The power requirement (fuel flow rate) as the cube.

[Iamme]

FSOL & davefoc---I have just got back from many Tornado Air Mnagement Systems websites including the one I was turned onto, by a post above. This is where a mechanic by the name of Vince Ciulla shoots down the claims of the Tornado. He ran tests on three peoples vehicles and he recorded gains of only .1, and .2 ansd a minus .4 mpg. He says you are better off investing the $70 in a good tune-up.

Hmmmm. Yet at a Tornado Air Management Systems website where there were testimonials, they had testimonials from editors of car magazine(s) and Jeff Brooks, And owners that have businesses with fleets of vehicles they put them on, etc., and they all gave exact increases in gas mileage which were marked improvements (i.e., 16.8..going up to 19.2).

This thread should almost get transfered to the Paranormal forum. Why? Because just like debating things paranormal, you have scholars...you have witnesses, etc., that are both for a belief, and against that belief. Meanwhile, the outside observer (like us) can only read the anecdotal data, and try to come to some conclusion. A skeptic will generally discount any reputed valid claims and go with the more logical skeptical viewpoint.

Here is what I am going to do: They have a 30-day, no questions asked guarantee. I have both their order line and their tech line. I am going to call their tech line and tell them about Vince Ciulla. Then I will go on from there. I just might get one of these devices. I have found there are places you can get these at a discount. I need a Tornado KI-60. I found one auction website that says I can get it there for about $45. I will ask the company more about the price and where I can get these the cheapest.

But you can expect to hear more from me. I definitely want to get to the bottom of the truth regarding the Tornado. Could it just so happen to be that Vinces test vehicles just so happen to be ones that don't get marked increases? I know the vehicles he tested, so I am going to run these by the company, and see what they say. Vince said he had the OWNERS of the vehicles do the mileage checks. Hmmm. Did they know what they were doing?

Anyway...stay tuned for more. Too bad it is the weekend. I can't wait to get this show on the road.

[davefoc]

Iamme,
I look forward to what you find out. I think none of us know for sure that the product is useless and I for one have enjoyed your open mind concerning it.

[fsol]

Sounds good to me.

[_Q_]

lamme,

Do the Tornado people suggest installing two of their product instead of just one (possible on some fuel injected vehicles)?

See the Hiclone web site (http://www.hicloneqld.com/home.htm) . If it's mentioned here, then it surprises me that it isn't mentioned on the Tornado web site.

Of the "road test" results they show, two of the road tests show greater than 50% improvement in fuel economy!


_Q_

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by _Q_
lamme,

Do the Tornado people suggest installing two of their product instead of just one (possible on some fuel injected vehicles)?

See the Hiclone web site (http://www.hicloneqld.com/home.htm) . If it's mentioned here, then it surprises me that it isn't mentioned on the Tornado web site.

Of the "road test" results they show, two of them show greater than 50% improvement in fuel economy!


_Q_

The second one will make a turbocharger activate 600RPM earlier...

And the magnets will de-clusterize the gasoline... for a few hours.

[Iamme]

davefoc & fsol---I have been thinking about HOW the Tornado can work, this morning. When I talk to those people, I want to find out if they have conducted tests on cars that are either new, or have engines that have been tuned up or rebuilt. This may be a better indicator of true performance by the Tornado, than it would be on some vehicle whose engine was not operating optimally.

It's conceivably possible in theory that even though the Tornado appears to be a 'restrictor'...that it really isn't. Consider the fact that the intake area in front of the carburetor is larger than the venturi areas of the carb itself. The air filter area is quite a bit larger. The fresh air intake hose is also.

It's possible that air speed is increased by the Tornado as claimed. (I'll call it the wind tunnel effect.) It's also possible I suppose, that the swirling action can stay this way around some turns in the area of the carburetor. Just suppose this part is true so far.

It may be possible that for some reasons we don't know, either more gas is fully burned in the chamber, or, this device acts like some 'lean burner'. That is why I want to know if tests are done on recvently tuned up engines, rebuilt engines, new cars, etc.

Suppose that the Tornado seems to correct over rich carburetion due to improper jetting or a vehicle in need of a tuneup. If some device like the Tornado turns out to be some sort of compensator for over rich conditions, that could be corrected in some other manner...is it so terrible that one pay $45-70 or so in order to get better gas mileage?...with some device any person can install in a few minutes?

There are probvably a lot of vehicles out there on the road which are not running at peak efficiency. If the Tornado some how causes a more proper mixture and or creates better firing conditions...is this such a bad thing that people buy such a device? Perhaps not.

But I also want to find out from the company what they have to say regarding emmisions, before and after. IF the tornado gains fuel efficiency AND horsepower...the emmissions HAVE TO go down, I do believe.

If they don't, i would have to suspext that the Tornado simply draws in more fuel mixture per the amount of throttle you are giving it. This then could also explain why people FEEL like there is a gain in horsepower: They got used to their gas pedal positioning at given speeds. if the car suddenly goes faster at that same given position, they would asume the car became more powerful, when in actuality, more fuel mixture is being drawn in at the same pedal setting due to the windtunnel effect of the Tornado.

Anyway, I plan on getting ahold of the company tomorrow.

[Iamme]

Thanx teddygrahams, for the link. I went there. Hmmmm. A Tornado copycat, I guess. I wonder why they call it Hiclone? What's with the "hi" in Hiclone?

[davefoc]

Iamme,
You said a lot of things in your post that I agree with.

One of the things that is worth considering is your idea that that the device might improve fuel efficiency for poorly tuned engines. In fact, this has been a scam in the past. The promoter carries around an engine that has a particular problem and then installs his gadget and amazingly the engine runs better. This doesn't mean that the device would improve or even not degrade the performance of a properly tuned engine, but some people just assume that if it makes an engine with problems run better then its going to help an engine without problems run better also.

I don't think greater fuel efficiency necessarily will cause less emissions. My guess is that better fuel efficiency would probably mean less CO, but I'm not sure what it would say about NOx type stuff.

I think it was Iconoclast that talked about how adding carburetor plates could sometimes make minor improvements in mileage. This rang true with me. My sense of it is that there are lots of ways to make minor tweaks to engines that in some situations would improve and in others would degrade mileage. The system of the engine is complicated enough that it is very difficult to predict which and it is easily conceivable that what increases mileage in a particular situation would decrease mileage and perhaps have other deliterious effects over the whole range of applications.

I am an electrical engineer that dealt with power consumption issues in hand held computers. I see considerable similarities between fuel economy testing and power consumption testing in electronic devices. At first it seems simple but if you are going to get reliable repeatable results a large number of factors need to be taken into account that require care and expertise.

I have three views of the way it works
1. It doesn't
2. It tweaks the air input resonances and thereby makes minor tweaks in the power and mileage of an engine which can at times be positive and at other times be negative.
3. It promotes mixing of the air fuel mixture in the carbureator and perhaps in the intake manifold so the fuel is burned more completely.

Real testing could analyse the third possibility in detail. Comparing tests with and without the fins in the device and monitoring the output gases for reductions in CO are some ideas that come to mind.

[ceptimus]

<p align="center">Up to 20% fuel savings, up to 15% more power!</p>By simply reading this post, you have improved your car's performance by up to 15% and reduced its gas consumption by up to 20%.

Please send $50 to me for providing you with this service. (PM for details). I absolutely guarantee this will work. A one year 100% money back guarantee applies if you can prove that my claim for this service has not been met.

Ah yes, the power of those two little words, 'up to'. (They're all over that Hiclone site).

[roger]

Originally posted by ceptimus
<p align="center">Up to 20% fuel savings, up to 15% more power!</p>By simply reading this post, you have improved your car's performance by up to 15% and reduced its gas consumption by up to 20%.

Please send $50 to me for providing you with this service. That's wonderful, ceptimus! Thanks! I'll immediately send you up to $50 to show my gratitude.

[Iamme]

ceptimus---ah yessssss..."up to". There is a spray on truck bedliner being advertised, called "Rhino Liner", where they say that it is sprayed on "Up to" 1/4 inch thick! Ha!!!!!!!

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Iamme
It's possible that air speed is increased by the Tornado as claimed. (I'll call it the wind tunnel effect.) It's also possible I suppose, that the swirling action can stay this way around some turns in the area of the carburetor. Just suppose this part is true so far.

It may be possible that for some reasons we don't know, either more gas is fully burned in the chamber, or, this device acts like some 'lean burner'. That is why I want to know if tests are done on recvently tuned up engines, rebuilt engines, new cars, etc.

Suppose that the Tornado seems to correct over rich carburetion due to improper jetting or a vehicle in need of a tuneup. If some device like the Tornado turns out to be some sort of compensator for over rich conditions, that could be corrected in some other manner...is it so terrible that one pay $45-70 or so in order to get better gas mileage?...with some device any person can install in a few minutes?
I've always found it hard to believe that scammers can find enough suckers to make their schemes worthwhile. Your last few posts have changed my mind.

[_Q_]

Originally posted by Iamme
Thanx teddygrahams, for the link. I went there. Hmmmm. A Tornado copycat, I guess. I wonder why they call it Hiclone? What's with the "hi" in Hiclone? lamme,

The Hiclone link came to you courtesy of yours truly.

It doesn't seem to me to be a "Tornado copycat", but rather the same product marketed under a different name. Take a look at some of the "test results" that are identical to those on the Tornado web site. They even have the plug from Jeff Brooks.

That's why I'm wondering about the one Tornado vs. two Tornado thing - if the product's the same, then wouldn't the recommendations be the same?

I'm also curious as to why the Tornado people aren't touting all of those "international awards for invention" noted on the Hiclone site? Gee, the awards are only 10-12 years old, and the product is already, uh, taking the world by, uh, storm...



_Q_

[fsol]

It's possible that air speed is increased by the Tornado as claimed. (I'll call it the wind tunnel effect.)

Explain how a stationary object can change the direction of flow and make it travel faster along the air intake and you might have a point.

Have a look at the Subaru system. It only operates at low load. This is because when you are trying to get maximum power from an engine you want as small a pressure drop across the air intake as possible. Anything you put in the way, regardless of shape, will increase the pressure drop. Volumetric efficency will be decreased and so will the power output of the engine. At low loads the device is useful for promoting the mixing of fuel and air (note it does this before the combustion chamber, not in it as the tornado claims), this is because at low loads by definition you are not worried about maximum power.

Suppose that the Tornado seems to correct over rich carburetion due to improper jetting or a vehicle in need of a tuneup. If some device like the Tornado turns out to be some sort of compensator for over rich conditions,

How does the presence of a tornado in your air box increase the flow of air to compensate for the rich mixture? It is a stationary device. It can't do anything of the sort.


"windtunnel effect?" please explain how this works.

[davefoc]

I sent an email to Russell Banush of the EPA asking if the EPA had tested the Tornado device or similar devices (I mentioned the Hiclone device).

His reply included the following:
We have not evaluated this product, so we are unable to provide comment on it. We have evaluated some one hundred or so devices in this program. None has demonstrated statistically significant fuel economy benefits. ...

... We find that today's vehicle are very fuel efficient and that regular manufacturer recommended maintenance of one's vehicle and good driving habits will optimize fuel economy.

Russell Banush, SEE
Senior Environmental Scientist
Certification and Compliance Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality



He also provided this link:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer.htm

I had visited the link before, but I did reread some of the documents there. There is a bit of a parallel to the Randi million dollar challenge. The EPA requires that the efficacy of the device be established in an independent laboratory before they will do testing on the device. This might explain why there are so few recent reports, there just aren't applicants who have devices that they feel confident enough in to take part in the process.

Given that the device has been around for ten years or so, it seems very unlikely that if it was effective a senior scientist at the EPA wouldn't know of it and condition his general view that these devices don't work with the proviso that this one did. I would think an aftermarket device that could reduce fuel consumption by 10% would be just about the biggest news going in this guys department.

[Iamme]

Well...I did what I said I was going to do; I called up the Tornado Company in California today. I talked to a guy in their "tech" dept. I told them about this forum. He actually clicked into it while we were talking. He said his time was limited and that for me to address him fuirther I should e-mail him personally. His e-mail address is: Gabriel@Tornadoair.com. We talked for probably about 20-30 minutes. I told him about that mechanic, Vince Ciulla, who has a website that says that HIS tests show less than favorable results. He wants me to e-mail him the address of that site. I was going to recite it to him, but he said that due to his time constraints, I should just e-mail it to him. He will then get back with me. He was a very nice friendly guy. I told him I was calling from Eau Claire, Wisconsin and that we are having an absolutely beautiful Indian summer fall day... blue sky, about 80 degrees.

The name of the independent testing lab is Ecologic labs, which is sanctioned by the EPA.

I asked him if carbureted vehicles due better than fuel injected ones, and he said he believes they do.

I asked him if their tests were primarily run on older cars that perhaps needed a tune up, and he said, actually, they have run tests on new vehicles also, like a 2003 Honda Accord (and others), 4 cyl., 2.4L= went from 27.38 mpg to 30.58 when the Tornado was installed, with no other engine work or adjustments.

I asked him if I could buy one for $45, and he said no. They all cost $69.98, no matter which model you get. There is no additional shipping/handling charges, even if you go to NAPA and they have to order one. He said that the only way you can get them for $45 is through E-Bay. I said, "Well were did THEY get them from?" He said that Tornado learned that some of their wholesale distributors were buying them up in bulk and dumping them on the auction block. Tornado has 'fired' these distributors as he said there came into play a conflict of interest with distributors like NAPA.

Now, I guess, I just commit and buy one. They have that guarantee, so I have nothing to loose, except some mailing costs I guess.

If you have any questions...e-mail him at the address I listed near my start.

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by _Q_
That's why I'm wondering about the one Tornado vs. two Tornado thing - if the product's the same, then wouldn't the recommendations be the same?


_Q_

One of the recommendations is the same... the one to disconnect the battery to reset the engine controller.

[davefoc]

Iamme,
The EPA publishes detailed test guidelines for doing a fuel economy test. The link from the EPA lists some relevant documents here.

A key question is whether they have been using an established test protocol or whether they have ever used an established test protocol for any of their tests. If the lab is indeed an EPA sanctioned lab I suspect that are very well acquainted with these protocols and if somebody was looking for real information about the efficacy of their product they might have chosen to use such a protocol.

In my business when we ran tests we routinely looked around for existing protocols so our results could be used for comparative purposes with others that had used the same protocols. There are also some ethical issues with making up ones own protocols. There is far greater latititude when making a claim if you control the way that claim is tested than if you use a test procedure developed by a disinterested third party.

I would be far more impressed by one statement anyplace on their web site that they had done testing based on such and such an EPA test protocol and a test report than an infinite amount of lame amway type hype and highly suspicious testimonials from a radio talk show host that appears to be employed by them.

If they had done testing to these protocols, it would be a simple procedure to submit their device to the EPA for efficacy testing. I don't see any information that this has happened. Note EPA testing for efficacy is different than EPA testing to determine that the device is an acceptable aftermarket device because it doesn't screw up emissions.

As this thread as gone on I have found it increasingly unlikely that this is a legitimate product. I do look forward to hearing any results that you share with us, though.

[_Q_]

Originally posted by Iamme
Now, I guess, I just commit and buy one. They have that guarantee, so I have nothing to loose, except some mailing costs I guess.lamme,

Have you given much thought to how you would go about determining the effectiveness of the Tornado on your car? How would you test it, and how large of a change would you have to see to be fairly confident that the difference is attributable to the Tornado as opposed to other factors?

I'm thinking of fuel economy here, which to me seems to be the most accessible thing to check, but still awfully thorny. As an example, if I were to look at my records for fuel use in my daily driver (mostly commuting miles) over, say, a 6- or 12-month period, how much do you think the apparent fuel economy would vary from one tankful to the next? If I were to plot these, how bumpy would the curve/line be?

Now, I would expect it to smooth out some if I were to figure the fuel economy in bigger chunks - miles driven with the amount of fuel consumed over two or more tankfuls. When I start looking at it that way, 30 days doesn't seem very long at all.

Before you undertake a measurement, it's good to have some idea of what would constitute a meaningful result. Such considerations might cause you to redesign the experiment before ever performing it.


_Q_

[Iamme]

_Q_---The answer to your question as to how I am planning on testing the device when I put it in: I am in a fortunate position in that I put on a lot of miles daily. They are a good mix of highway and city driving. It is quite consistant on a daily basis. I go through tankfuls quite often. But even so, the weather and wind conditions can change. This time of year, it can be about 80 for a few days, and then go down into the 50's...and into the 30's or upper 20's at night, and be rainy. This will affect gas mileage, for sure.

So how am I going to be able to tell within a fairly tight margin of certainty? I will alternate by putting in the Tornado, and then taking it back out, etc. If every single time, my mileage increases when I have the Tornado in there...then you can bet it is having a positive effect.

But how am I going to know if it really is the Tornado, or, the Tornado is acting as some sort of fuel mixture equalizer whereby my out of tuned, rich-running van gets better with the Tornado? Well, for now I'm not going to worry about that. IF I get, say, a 10% gain out of it...give or take some...maybe I should care less, as $70 spent to make this correction is not bad. If it were $200, I would think twice.

Other posters have questioned as to how a windtunnel effect could be at work here, with a stationary restrictive device that alters the direction of the flow of the air. Well, how about if we just cut to the chase and first see if it works in my vehicle. IF it does...THEN let's try to analyze it as to why. There is a money back guarantee, as I've stated before. I'm willing to take a chance. I have tried things, my whole life. I have even tried 'stuffing envelopes', as I had to see for myself.

[clusterm2]

Lamme, I expect you will see an improvement, heard of self fulfilling prophesy? Scammers reading some of these posts will sleep easy in their beds tonight.

I myself converted to LPG several years ago, now that WILL save you 40% of your fuel costs (a little more expensive initially granted)

[_Q_]

Originally posted by Iamme
So how am I going to be able to tell within a fairly tight margin of certainty? I will alternate by putting in the Tornado, and then taking it back out, etc. If every single time, my mileage increases when I have the Tornado in there...then you can bet it is having a positive effect. lamme,

Let me put the question this way. If you were to record, at each fill-up, the number of miles driven and the amount of fuel required to fill the tank afterwards, then how much will the apparent fuel economy vary across a number of fill-ups, even if no changes have intentionally been made? Do you have this sort of historical information for your daily driver?

To be clear, I use the word "apparent" because, even though actual fuel economy will vary, there also might be a question of how consistently the fuel pump fills the tank each time. If one were averaging many miles over a number of tankfuls with the car in a given configuration, then such an effect would become smaller. If, however, one were alternating configurations with each tankful, then such an effect would be at its worst - an "underfilled" tank makes the previous tankful look "better", and the current tankful look "worse". Now, I don't happen to know how consistently pumps refill the tank - I'm just pointing it out as an example of a possible source of error in such an experiment.

_Q_

[dissonance]

He could have someone else put in/take out the Fuel Saver thing, so that he doesn't know on any given day if it's in use. Do that for, oh, let's say a month, and then compare his impressions of which days he used less fuel to the days when the Fuel Saver was/wasn't in the car.

[Iamme]

_Q_---This is all quite simple I believe. I do have a long history of taking mileage checks on vehicles I have owned. Indeed, there is always a variance. Suppose I had a vehicle with NO Tornado that gave me altering readings of 12. 07, 13.25. 11.88. 12.88. Now suppose that after the Toprnado, I got readings of say, 14.2.12.95, 13.9, 14.5.

Would you suppose there was a problem with the testing? What if no matter how many mileage checks one took, the Tornado average was 1-2 mpg higher than when the Tornado was not in there?


Because testing will not be done under lab conditions, I have to be somewhat honest with myself. For example: If I know the Tornado is in there...I can't suddenly start driving as if I have an egg under my gas pedal, or to try to avoid as many red lights. :D

I came into some money today. Today is the day (or tomorrow) that I go out and buy one of these suckers.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Iamme
I came into some money today. Today is the day (or tomorrow) that I go out and buy one of these suckers. I think today (or tomorrow) is the day you prove you are a sucker. :) Nethertheless, I look forward to seeing your results.

[fsol]

Because testing will not be done under lab conditions, I have to be somewhat honest with myself. For example: If I know the Tornado is in there...I can't suddenly start driving as if I have an egg under my gas pedal, or to try to avoid as many red lights.

I can't help but agree with ceptimus I am afraid.

[_Q_]

Originally posted by Iamme
_Q_---This is all quite simple I believe. I do have a long history of taking mileage checks on vehicles I have owned. Indeed, there is always a variance. Suppose I had a vehicle with NO Tornado that gave me altering readings of 12. 07, 13.25. 11.88. 12.88. Now suppose that after the Toprnado, I got readings of say, 14.2.12.95, 13.9, 14.5.