Tornado test

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Jun 11, 2016 | 08:43 PM

Blakemcclainjm

Thread Starter

Freshman User

Joined: Feb 2016

Posts: 26

Likes: 0

Tornado test

When I was younger my dad had a 91 f150 2wd 351m automatic with dual tanks starting mileage was 12 mpg. Mileage was checked by putting 2 gallons in an empty tank and driving down the same stretch of road each time. After cutting the cats and adding duals mpg increased to 15, then a tornado intake fan was added and the mileage increased to 17. I've heard lots of people say that the tornado did absolutely nothing for them, but have any of you ever tried this on the 6.9 or will it even fit on the 6.9?

Jun 11, 2016 | 08:59 PM

Franklin2

Moderator

Joined: Jan 2001

Posts: 56,992

Likes: 2,741

From: Virginia

What is the theory on the tornado? You know your diesel works differently than a carbed engine, your intake is wide open with no throttle and just sucks air through the intake.

Jun 18, 2016 | 07:34 PM

Rusty_S

Lead Driver

Joined: Apr 2007

Posts: 5,958

Likes: 105

From: Houston

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franklin2

What is the theory on the tornado? You know your diesel works differently than a carbed engine, your intake is wide open with no throttle and just sucks air through the intake.

The tornado is nothing more than a chunk of metal with turbine shaped fins that as the air is pulled past it creates a vortex in the air pattern that in theory is supposed to help atomize the fuel better. I personally don't see how it would work with a carb as you have multiple venturi and the space between two of them would disrupt the vortex spinning pattern of air the tornado is creating.

I personally thought of buying a cheapie off ebay just to throw on to see what it would do but I just don't see how it could do anything for a carb. For a throttlebody with a huge open port I could see it making some difference.

I personally think me getting rid of my nearly 1" thick EGR spacer for a 1" phelonic spacer would help me more performance wise than the tornado device would but that's just me.

Jun 18, 2016 | 07:47 PM

FordPUMan

Senior User

Joined: Jan 2011

Posts: 226

Likes: 2

From: Goldthwaite,Tx

I got one of those tornado gadgets for the '98 F150 with the 4.6 I used to have and I never noticed any increase in fuel mileage or power.

Jun 18, 2016 | 07:51 PM

Rusty_S

Lead Driver

Joined: Apr 2007

Posts: 5,958

Likes: 105

From: Houston

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordPUMan

I got one of those tornado gadgets for the '98 F150 with the 4.6 I used to have and I never noticed any increase in fuel mileage or power.

Only thing Ive done to date that got me a increase in fuel mileage was to bump timing to 11* initial timing and resetting the carb for peak vacuum which results in the carb being one full turn in further than it was before. Before I had to get gas at 80 miles when I was just starting to hit E (I bent my float up to mimic the old when I replaced it years ago it takes about 5 to 6 gallons before the needle starts to move) and now I am hitting 110 to 120 miles when I am starting to hit E and it takes about 9 to 10 gallons to fill up just like before.

The thing with ford engines when it comes to economy atleast for the 302 they like some timing but not too much and more initial timing you can put in the more power and better fuel economy you will get. but if you start running into over heating issues you might have to pin the dist with a stop to limit how much total advance you are getting I think our engine guy told me 34 to 36 degrees total advance is where Ford likes it and he personally runs 35*. THat is if I am remembering right on the degrees.

Jun 18, 2016 | 08:02 PM

ctubutis

Moderator

Joined: Nov 2007

Posts: 22,415

Likes: 92

From: Denver Metro Area, CO

About fuel-saving gadgets, this is a good read:

Looking For A Miracle: We Test Automotive 'Fuel Savers'

Jun 18, 2016 | 08:07 PM

Rusty_S

Lead Driver

Joined: Apr 2007

Posts: 5,958

Likes: 105

From: Houston

I just read that, basically said all of them are gimmics and provides no increase in power or fuel economy and some actually lowered power and economy by as much as 20%.

Big thing to remember is you really don't want to create turbulence as it actually hurts performance and economy which is why people try to smooth out intake manifold ports and head ports as well as port matching to remove any steps that could induce turbulence.

Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals

Joe Kucinski

3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership

Brett Foote

10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches

Pouria Savadkouei

Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained

Brett Foote

10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love

Joe Kucinski

10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)

Michael S. Palmer

Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath

Verdad Gallardo

Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer

Joe Kucinski

2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)

Brett Foote

Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies

Joe Kucinski

Jun 18, 2016 | 09:28 PM

Rusty_S

Lead Driver

Joined: Apr 2007

Posts: 5,958

Likes: 105

From: Houston

Interesting cant say that I have heard that before.

Jun 19, 2016 | 07:00 AM

#10

FuzzFace2

FTE Legend

Joined: Nov 2015

Posts: 30,935

Likes: 4,124

From: Angier, NC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty_S

Thank you for posting that, saved me time to look at other posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Festus Hagen

Yep that's what I hear too. If fuel has to go thru the intake smooth is not the way to go.

Same with too big of ports on the intake as the air flow is too slow and the fuel falls out of the air.

Saw this on a inboard boat motor, they would need to have the RPM up so the motor would keep running (flooding out) and kept blowing the output drive. Changed intake to smaller ports and all was well as the fuel did not fall out of the air.
Dave ----