>>The reason is, in my opinion, logic. Real fuel savings devices are >used by automotive makers because they can increase their fleet >mileage inexpensively.
>Not every good idea starts with the automakers. Otherwise,
>why are superchips needed? Shouldn't the automaker already
>have the best performance programed into the vehicle?

There are known trade-offs to a chip. First and foremost, premium gas is REQUIRED. The majority of the public would not buy a vehicle that required it. The shifting is harder and most people like a lazy shift....

>Why
>are Cat back systems popular?

And more expensive than a factory exchaust plus the majority of the public likes a quiet exhaust. Again, trade-offs.

>Why do people shave off a lobe
>on some header designs that come from factory restricting
>exhaust flow? Platinum and long life plugs didn't find their
>start from the automakers, but now most automakers include
>plugs that last up to 100,000 miles.

The Tornado has been around for YEARS. Plenty of time for automakers to implement it if it worked.... but it doesn't so they don't.

>This guys not an auto maker, but supposedly a fleet manager.
>"The city of Norwalk, California feels the same way. It has
>fitted their entire fleet of approximately 150 vehicles with
>the device.
>"I figured we could save, conservatively, $10,000 a year in
>fuel costs," said former Norwalk equipment maintenance
>supervisor Dennis Johnson said.

He didn't say they were saving a single penny, did he? Notice that he ISN'T the fleet manager... but the FORMER maintenace supervisor. They would certainly keep someone around who save them money, wouldn't they? I wonder why he's now longer there?

>This above excerpt was from a tv's news stations
>investigation into this product. Both vehicles they applied
>it to saw gains of 10%+. Here's the link to the story:
>http://www.click10.com/mia/money/dollarsdeals/stories/dollarsdeals-88048620010719-120708.html
>

You have that one, I supplied another. Plus Car and Driver's test of a 540.

>Also:
>3 miles per gallon increase in mileage on our 1982 Chevrolet
>Impala. (Unit 210, 150,000 miles) --Mr. Hughes, Fleet
>Manager, Police Department, Idaho
>

Mr. Hughes from Idaho? There's a lot of places in Idaho and a lot of Mr. Hughes... they've got to have something more substantial than that. Sounds like they have an old run down fleet since they are still running a 1982 Impala.

>From
>http://aftermarket.theautochannel.com/news/1999/11/01/941478240.1.html
>Corporate and government users of the Tornado include the
>City of Norwalk, Pacific Bell, the Boise Police Department
>
>>>But you did were the one to throw in the polished intake
>>>argument.
>>
>>After you make the comments about companies using spirl,
>>swirled, etc. head design.
>
>No, I commented about Yamaha's TSCC, twin swirl combustion
>chamber using opposing valves to swirl the mixture in the
>combustion chamber itself, again just to show that the idea
>of mixing the fuel/air is a warranted idea. Bill Beyer
>commented on the swirled intake valve, but also mentioned
>the idea of comparing apples/oranges referring to combustion
>chamber/valve swirl and pre-carb I commented on the head
>swirling when you made the statement that "people polish
>intakes, not rough them up" in an attempt to support the
>idea that all air restriction or turbulence is bad and
>adding a device into the airstream creates negative
>restriction. But no matter, we can agree that comparing a
>pre carb device and a post carb device are apples/oranges.
>
>Your premis for the argument is that the device creates
>turbulence (a word I first erroneously used rather than
>swirl) and restriction of airflow. I think the only way to
>prove this would be to put a vacuum meter on the engine
>before adding the device and after. Then determine if any
>loss of vacuum was detrimental or created air starvation.
>The one responder had a neat thought. Why not have the
>tornado powerd by an electric fan to force swirling air.
>Perhaps turbo and superchargers naturally add some
>'swirling' motion to the air in addition to the positive
>atmoshphere.
>
>
>>I'm not about to stay up all night reading every one of the 200+ >hits returned in the archives to attempt to sway you as I believe >you've already made up your mind
>
>Nope, that's why I asked the question, If I had already made
>up my mind, I'd be purchasing one rather than discussing it.
>The list of supporters apparently include:
>-- Leon Kaplain, host of ABC radio "motorman"
>-- Jeff Brooks, host of "On The Road with Jeff Brooks"
>-- Norm Lafave, host of AM 1600 radio "Auto Talk"
>-- Dave & Allen, hosts of "Cruisin' America"
>-- Shadetree Mechanic on TNN
>

Have you seen an episode of Shadetree? They are PAID to endorse products at the end of every show. Don't watch/listen to the others so I can't comment on them.

Any comment on Car and Driver saying it doesn't work?

>>>Also, at the tornado website, A professor at 'Saddleback
>>>college' has this to say.
>>
>>This testimonial, IMHO, will only sway anyone who consider
>>4th rate unknown colleges as centers of higher learning and
>>research.
>
>Maybe so, maybe you should write him and tell him that he is
>in a 4th rate college.

I would but he doesn't exist at that school.

>But, he has a dyno and I don't so I
>must be 10th rate.

Huh?

>By the way, where did you find the rating
>guide on colleges?

Many placed on the Internet list such information about schools. Plus, schools generally list their enrollment requirements.

>For all I know, Ron Bell could have a
>doctorate from MIT. Do you know differntly?
>

Its a small community junior college (funny thing, no mention of Ron Bell in their faculty list). Professors with doctorates from MIT generally don't end up at such places unless they have something wrong with their creditials or they are entry level. Otherwise the value of an MIT PhD would be questionable.

>
>
>I doubt this scenario in all cases of reported gains.

I listed three possible scenarios, I'm sure there are more.

>>
>>b) the vehicle was not properly tuned.
>
>This is possible.
>
>>c) the installation included a tune-up or addition of some
>>other item at the same time.
>
>That would be a 20th rate college without a dyno that would
>do something like that.
>

The college mentioned is certainly not an enclave of higher learning.

>
>From what I've heard they are after ALL oil additives such
>as prolong for erroneous advertising. In fact new antifraud
>advirtising laws are being generated because of the oil
>additive industry.

The anti-fraud laws haven't stopped Slick 50 from selling their products, nor Duralube, nor Splitfire, nor fuel-line magnets, etc.

>It is already against the law to make
>false claims (lie)concerning a prodct.

Because its against the law to make false claims concerning a products doesn't stop it from happening every day, from Fortune 100 companies tweaking their mainframe benchmarks to Enron doctoring the numbers their released to Amsoil dealers trying to convince people Amsoil is the cure-all to people selling fan blades that you put in your intake stream.

>I'll be out of this discussion for the most part.
>All I was looking for was some people on the board who had
>personal experience with the product.

I'm sorry we couldn't give you the validation you wanted but based on our archives the experience of the users on this site is it doesn't work. Make sure you pay with a credit card so you'll have an easier time getting your money back when it doesn't work.

Here's one simple test:

Ask for it in WRITING that the device WILL (not may) increase your mileage. You probably won't get it.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 04-Jan-02 AT 06:00 PM (EST)]I wonder why
>he's now longer there?

Maybe you'd want to contact Norwalk Community. For me,I'm not worried about a fleet of vehicles, but my '87 F350. So I'd rather post on a board with other ford people who might have personal experience with the product. Apparently no one 'currently' has, other than 2 negatives you shared. Perhaps it was their trucks that were out of tune and the device amplified a specific problem.?? Or perhaps it really doesn't work.

>>3 miles per gallon increase in mileage on our 1982 Chevrolet
>>Impala. (Unit 210, 150,000 miles) --Mr. Hughes, Fleet
>>Manager, Police Department, Idaho
>
>Mr. Hughes from Idaho? . Sounds like they have an old run
>down fleet since they are still running a 1982 Impala.

That is kinda pecular even humerous, kinda like a Mayberry town?

>Have you seen an episode of Shadetree? They are PAID to
>endorse products at the end of every show. Don't
>watch/listen to the others so I can't comment on them.

Sure their paid, I watch occassionally, but they'd stand to lose alot of credibility.

>Any comment on Car and Driver saying it doesn't work?

Give the URL again.

>>Maybe so, maybe you should write him and tell him that he is
>>in a 4th rate college.
>
>I would but he doesn't exist at that school.

Yep, he does.
ONLINE NEWSLETTER
Vol. II, Issue 2 - September 27, 2000
Prof Ron Bell was the guest of the Leisure World Aero-Space Club last week, discussing the history of the turbo-charged aircraft from 1909-1941.

Saddleback College
Contact:
Ron Bell
28000 Marguerite Parkway
Mission Viejo, CA 92692
(949) 582-4500

His email and a personal phone number are given, if you want that email me for it. I'll not give it out publicly.

>Professors with
>doctorates from MIT generally don't end up at such places
>unless they have something wrong with their creditials or
>they are entry level. Otherwise the value of an MIT PhD
>would be questionable.

Funny story I had with a MiT grad. He was working at a Inventors marketing place in philly. I had an idea for high strength collapsable volleyball poles with guywires package in a kit form. He supposeldy liked the idea and the next step was $700 or $3000? (it's been 20 years) for a market research. He showed a whole drawer full of 'rejected' ideas and told me how much they liked this idea. Funny thing was they had another idea they supported. A little 3" long car with a speaker built into it and a needle on it's bottom. It ran around LP's and "played" them. This was going to be "BIG" he said. Portable music he called it. People will take thier LP's to paries, the beach, everywhere. This was the time period when cassettes were arriving. After a couple hours, I told him i'd think about it but I questioned that there weren't other similar things on the market. He "showed me the door" while telling me of his great intelligence and his MIT necktie and telling me if I came back there would be a $54/hour 'consulting' fee.
Personally, I'd rather deal with the Ron Bell's of the world who are giving back than those who are taking. But who know's. Maybe I was sitting on a goldmine..

>The college mentioned is certainly not an enclave of higher
>learning.

In the heart of southern California, i doubt weather it's a backwoods ditch digging school either.

>Make sure you pay with a credit
>card so you'll have an easier time getting your money back
>when it doesn't work.

Like I said, my mind wasn't 'made up' and I'll not be ordering without further positive or negative discussion from people who have tried it.

TonyG

 

>Real fuel savings devices are used by
>automotive makers because they can increase their fleet
>mileage inexpensively.
>
Ken,
I came across anohter very similar product called a Spiralmax.http://www.spiralmax.com It looks to have an even more aggressive fin design and actually costs a little less. Interestingly, they have links to major auto makers who are implementing a "swirl control valve" See http://www.spiralmax.com/Links.html#Swirl Control Valve This is kinda what we were talking about concering auto makers. The Nissan article I read seemed to focus the purpose of the "valve" to reduce emmissions during startup rather than fuel economy. But they are still using a 'swirl' device. Take note also to their user comments page. There might be close to 30 or more user comments. Some from drag racing and some from auto parts stores and engine buidlers etc.
http://www.spiralmax.com/spiral1.htm.

I'm still not ready to run out and buy one, as my big truck is getting a heart (motor) transplant, but If I end up running 45,000 a year, I'll look into it more. Anyone use them on a carbed '87 Ford 460?
Thanks,

Tony

 

I think that this argument is going nowhere. TonyG, if you are going to defend this device against everyone else's advices here, why don't you do all of us a favor by using it yourself, do a dyno and MPG test, and letting us know about the results since the government studies doesn't mean anything to you? If you are all that concerned about getting better gas mileage, get a Geo Metro.

 

You want some anecdotal evidence based on nothing but speculation? Have some of mine...(And even if you don't, I'm going to serve some up)

The fact is, 100% of folks who look for power upgrades for their vehicles, be they 10,000# GVW trucks or 1800cc rice burners, will do anything they can to UNrestrict the airflow thru an engine. Whether that involves something as simple as removing the air cleaner element or something as complicated as replacing the stock intake with something that allows for higher volume and cooler air and replacing the stock exhaust with a larger, freer flowing unit, it is all about INCREASING the volume of air, not restricting it. This is the theory that turbochargers, superchargers and ram-air systems work on. Do I think that swirling the air before it enters the intake will allow it to atomize better and therefore mix better with the fuel? Sure. Are there vehicles out there that could benefit from this process? Absolutely. Like an 82 Impala. But I would be willing to bet that the benefit that the vast majority of vehicles would gain by this process would be substantially offset by the loss that occurs when air flow is restircted.
Like any good defense attorney can find an "expert" to refute the prosecution's "experts", anyone with a product to sell can find someone to state that "tests have shown....." Sometimes, those folks have faces we recognize. Common sense and decades upon decades of experience would dicatate otherwise in this particular situation.

 

Ok I've read most of this post and I'm going to have to back Ken.

I'm a mech eng student so I'm not going to base this of personnal opinion but rather explain why it won't do as it claims based on airflow principles. By the way, I went to their site to see what they claimed and how it worked.

First the carburator version:

Creating a swirl above the carb may decrease gas consumption do to a low pressure created in the center of the swirl, but this would also decrease air consumption thereby reducing power. As for creating a swirl throughout the entire intake flow to make it flow around turns better and atomize the fuel better, it's NOT going to happen. As soon as the 'swirl' hit the throttle plates it will be disrupted and dissapated, 'GoodBye' swirl.

Second the EFI version:

Same as the carb version, as soon as the swirl hits the throttle plates "goodbye", therefore the swirl never even reaches the intake let alone the injectors.

The cold hard facts of airflow and engineering principles support what Ken and the majority have claimed all along.

RCC

 

>You want some anecdotal evidence based on nothing but
>speculation? Have some of mine...(And even if you don't,
>I'm going to serve some up)

That's not what this started out as, The first comment or request was "Has anyone tried them?" I should have clarifed more that I was asking those who had personal experience to share their findings and experiences. I did however offer speculation that the principle has merit and thereby opened it up for discussion.
>
>The fact is, 100% of folks who look for power upgrades for
>their vehicles, be they 10,000# GVW trucks or 1800cc rice
>burners, will do anything they can to UNrestrict the airflow
>thru an engine. Whether that involves something as simple
>as removing the air cleaner element or something as
>complicated as replacing the stock intake with something
>that allows for higher volume and cooler air and replacing
>the stock exhaust with a larger, freer flowing unit, it is
>all about INCREASING the volume of air, not restricting it.
>This is the theory that turbochargers, superchargers and
>ram-air systems work on. Do I think that swirling the air
>before it enters the intake will allow it to atomize better
>and therefore mix better with the fuel? Sure. Are there
>vehicles out there that could benefit from this process?
>Absolutely. Like an 82 Impala.

The '82 Impala by the way is part of a fleet in the Boise, Idaho Police Dept. We or 'I' am led to believe through the tornado website that the whole fleet is using the 'tornado'. So I guess it's not a 'Mayberry town'.

>But I would be willing to
>bet that the benefit that the vast majority of vehicles
>would gain by this process would be substantially offset by
>the loss that occurs when air flow is restircted.

Maybe that's why Ron Bell (the professor in mention) used the phrase "some vehicles showed 'real gains'" in performance.?? He didn't say anything about vehicles tested that didn't show gains,but he did say something about wanting to do further fuel efficiency tests.

>Like any good defense attorney can find an "expert" to
>refute the prosecution's "experts", anyone with a product to
>sell can find someone to state that "tests have shown....."

Do you mean EPA tests have shown?...LOL, sorry I couldn't resist? You probably mean tests done by the makers of these devices.?

>Sometimes, those folks have faces we recognize. Common
>sense and decades upon decades of experience would dicatate
>otherwise in this particular situation.

I agree with most of what you have said especially about air restriction. Most poeple open up and smooth out intake. K&N filter, is probably the biggest item. However,you wouldn't want to put a 850CFM carb on a "stock" 1800CC motor becuase it would reduce air speed and hinder the fuel/air mixing process. Aparently less air is sometimes the correct amount. So there is a balance between air volume and air speed and also air pressure comes into these equations.

You mentioned also the idea of free flowing exhaust and yet also the turbo applications. I would venture to say that we can agree that if we would take the intake tube off of a turbocharged car, the exhaust restrictions posed by the turbo would hinder fuel economy and engine ouput. In the turbo example the restriction in the exhaust is offset by the gains by the higher intake air pressure, meaning both more air particles and a higher compression ratio.
Weather there is detrimental loss of air pressure using the Fuel Max or 'Tornado Fuel Saver' that wouldn't be offset by any swirl gains, I can't say without testing. Perhaps cars with ample air flow benefit better than some others.? The comments and wide range of vehicles and people advocating the Fuel Max product http://www.spiralmax.com/spiral1.htm seem to allow for this possibility, but yes, they could all be paid or the guy posting the info might only post positives and would probably not post any negatives comments or experiences. Even so, at least He or they admit to a "0" gain possible as they claim 0%-35% gains. Possibly and apparently,? it works on some vehicles. Weather because they aren't tuned right or have more than adequate airflow, I don't know. Either this or 100% of positive reports are lying, or don't know how to read fuel mileage.

TonyG

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-Jan-02 AT 07:33 PM (EST)]>I think that this argument is going nowhere. TonyG, if you
>are going to defend this device against everyone else's
>advices here, why don't you do all of us a favor by using it
>yourself, do a dyno and MPG test, and letting us know about
>the results since the government studies doesn't mean
>anything to you? If you are all that concerned about
>getting better gas mileage, get a Geo Metro.

Bull,
I was going to let the subject die, but with a couple more posts, I'll follow along and respond.

Sorry if I offended anyone by the "yes men" comment. Since the EPA claims it has 'never found' a device that increases fuel mileage or reduces emmissions (or so it has been reported here) and yet there are "devices" that obviously do this, (some are already employed by car makers)(Jim Fueling heads, one example*)a person has to wonder if they, the epa, only show reports on items they have tested that do very little or no improvement in order to protect the consumer. And/or if this branch of the EPA operates in conjunction with and under the wings of the automakers. Also, as reported from the 'Fuel Max' website there are auto makers applying these principles in "swirl valve technology". I havn't studied exactly what the 'swirl valve technology" is but since it was mentioned on the fuel Max website, It seems that it would be a air-swirling device either pre-mix or post mix or at least thats what they want us to believe.

The Govt studies didnt' cover the pre-injector or pre-carb application of 'swirl' devices. Thus they are 'somewhat'irrelevant in this application. If they would have covered this product I would have maybe written for the test report. It's obvious that automakers and aftermarket poeple have included 'swirl technologies' in various applications, so throwing out the whole swirl idea isn't warranted either.

I also wasn't looking for any "argument" or even a discussion just some comments from anyone who had personal experience with them. Note the original question was "has anyone tried them". I guess I opened up a can of worms by offering my opinion that the idea might have some merit of design. I don't feel that I am neccessarily 'defending' the device, but rather considering the 'arguments' that such a device doesn't work.

If I had the free money to buy one and run a dyno and emissions test, I think I might have done or do that. It seemed more prudent to ask of others experience in particular with a '87 460. Plus, the truck is getting a motor and won't be suitable for use as a comparison vehicle for several thousand miles.
Fuel mileage and emissions should be important to ALL of us. If you drive over 50,000 miles a year it becomes magnified. There were also only so many dinosaurs and vegitation buried in that flood. Dino fuel will run out sometime, and it's like land, "They don't make it anymore". As of yet, I don't think oil is still being compressed and formed in the earth or at least as rapidly as we are using it. I don't either think they've come up with synthetic fuel as they have synthetic oils. Maybe when we run out, they will.
Tony

P.S. A Goe Metro won't pull a 7000lb trailer.

*Jim Fueling heads have passed california epa testing and are approved for use. Fueling R&D claimed both emission and power gains using these heads.

 

>Ok I've read most of this post and I'm going to have to back
>Ken.
>
>I'm a mech eng student so I'm not going to base this of
>personnal opinion but rather explain why it won't do as it
>claims based on airflow principles. By the way, I went to
>their site to see what they claimed and how it worked.
>
>First the carburator version:
>
>Creating a swirl above the carb may decrease gas consumption
>do to a low pressure created in the center of the swirl, but
>this would also decrease air consumption thereby reducing
>power.

However, most of the claims boast BOTH increased power and increase fuel economy. I think the supporting idea has more to do with air speed rather than low pressures, which would also allow for similar or more amounts of air volume. Just like the top of an airplane wing offers some "restriction" to the airflow, the air speed is increased thereby creating low air pressure and 'lift'. With these devices, I'm personally not so sure ther is such a great amount of 'restriction' but possibly more a diversion. I think a sensetive vacuum gauge would have to be installed and then determine if any loss in air pressure was detrimental or overcome by increased air speed.

As for creating a swirl throughout the entire intake
>flow to make it flow around turns better and atomize the
>fuel better, it's NOT going to happen. As soon as the
>'swirl' hit the throttle plates it will be disrupted and
>dissapated, 'GoodBye' swirl.

I think the idea concentrates more on getting the air swril (or air speed) through the mixing phase. I don't think it claims to stay swirling through the 'entire intake flow' However, This is truly one of the speculations that I have with the 'devices', ie the swirl is disrupted once it hits some interference.

I posted this same queston over in 'aftermarket' and the only one to post back with personal experience was a fellow who claime 5 mpg more with a smaller sport utility. Ken gave links to 3 or 4 places and responses where the question was asked before showing little or no gain. The website on http://www.spiralmax.com/spiral1.htm offers about 50 testimonials of folks who have tried it with positive results. Admittedly, some of them have a 'seat of the pants' feeling of better performance and one lady could 'drive longer without having to re-fill". (not very scientific) But being a engineering student, (hopefully we're all students and still learning) you'll apreciate the link to a Virginia Tech team who used one of the fuelmax devices to create said swirl to enhance air/fuel mixture on a ULEV (ultra low emissions vehicle) motorcycle. So apparently there are other 'engineering students' who approve of such a vortex creating product. http://www.spiralmax.com/virginia_tech.htm

>Second the EFI version:
>
>Same as the carb version, as soon as the swirl hits the
>throttle plates "goodbye", therefore the swirl never even
>reaches the intake let alone the injectors.

Personally, I'd think it would have a better chance of working in carbed versions rather than injected versions. But according to the positive testimonials, it seems to work as well on EFI's as it does
on carburated versions.
>
>The cold hard facts of airflow and engineering principles
>support what Ken and the majority have claimed all along.

Maybe you'd like to tell the guy over in 'aftermarket' that he can't really be getting 5 mpg more based on 'airflow and engineering principles. I don't think he's posting based on 'opinion' either.
Thanks for your post, at least where focusing on principles of how its supposed to work and how it might or might not work. It's one of the better discussions.

I know a website where engineers hang out and ask each other questions and respond to other questions. Maybe I'll ask their evaluations, but they probably won't commment without extensive testing. They recently had the 'magnet' issue discussed and there were opinions, logic and testing to support both sides of the discussion there also.

Also, does anyone reading this know the issues of Petersons 4X4 or The Car n Driver issue?

Later,
TonyG

>
>RCC
>

 

Yeah this subject is getting pretty old since you're starting to sound like a tornado salesman. Second, most of the information you're referring to are off of the manufacture's website. If you go to the Chevy website and read quotes about Chevy fans loving their cars, are you going to sell your Ford and buy a Chevy? Duralube, Slick50, Zmax, and other snake oils out there have endorsements of racers and other “experts” on them. So does that mean that all the snake oils are good after all? If you are out running and had a tornado like device in your mouth and nose, will you be able to run faster? I doubt it since it restricts the airflow to your lungs. Carmakers had solution to the gas mileage problem and it's called FUEL INJECTION. But than again, talk's cheap. Since you're convinced that Tornado works (otherwise, you wouldn't have listed all the links supporting it) buy it and use it. I’d sticking with Ken as he is experience and has good examples to back them up. Arguments you’ve given, such as a 1.8L engine having an 850CFM carb and turbos without intake tubes have absolutely no real world examples or uses so come up with some good realistic ones instead of giving out more useless links or about posts of some guy claiming 5-mpg gain with the device.

P.S. If you're so concerned about the depletion of gas and getting the maximum gas mileage, don't pull 7000 pound trailers and don’t put that 460 in the truck.

 

>I think that this argument is going nowhere. TonyG, if you
>are going to defend this device against everyone else's
>advices here, why don't you do all of us a favor by using it
>yourself, do a dyno and MPG test, and letting us know about
>the results...."

Well that's pretty much what I did through a discussion board at http://www.eng-tips.com It's a forum for engineers and engineering questions.
Below are the 2 threads that were started to deal with the discussion. The first thread of discussion leads up to the testing of a tornado unit by Larry Meaux owner of Meauxracing in Lousiana. The second thread deals mostly with the results of his testing. It was a good discussion, but we've not yet gotten to the point that were taking fuel out of the truck at the gas station, but were working on it... and no, I've not yet bought one.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?SQID=15649&SPID=71&page=2&CFID=5932 5116&CFTOKEN=73111383

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?SQID=17082&SPID=71&page=1&CFID=5932 5116&CFTOKEN=73111383

We even had a Tornado salesman offer to supply other units for testing.

Tony

 

I put one on my 7.3L diesel, I used to get 14mpg, now I get over 500mpg, and on the dyno I get 4500 ft.lbs. of torque at idle. I had to install a 6-disc wet clutch to handle all the power! The bad part is that my tires only last 12 miles.

 

I have to agree with LW555. I, too, put one on. I have a V10 though. My increases were not as significant as his but then again, diesels are easier to extract more power from.

I used to get 0mpg in the city and 1mpg on the highway. I now get 25/55! My Hp/Trq figures saw similar gains. The REAL gain was when I put the Tornado sticker on the back window! Man, talk about power increases!!!!

Whoda thunk that this piece of recycled soda pop can could have such a great affect on engine performance!?! '' Man! Only $79!!! ':-X23'

 

I actually find this topic very interesting. Tony can debate without losing his cool, but I think he needs to purchase this Tornado and get back to us, as it looks like the rest of us aren't buying. Personally, I think the auto industry would be all over this if it had any merit at all. Tony, another point that Ken made: All these "endorsements" are always made by EX-employees, or people with vague titles and names. Look at any questionable product and you will see this tactic used. The one exception I've seen is Metwrinch tools. They do what they say they do.

 

>but I think he needs to purchase
>this Tornado and get back to us, as it looks like the rest
>of us aren't buying.

Maybe in the future, but a $70 cell phone antennae and an auxillary oil cooler and filter system are first on the list, followed by a new ball joint and tie rod end and left outer universal joint or wheel bearing?. Then maybe a new transfer case..(something is singing in there) I was able to get 13.5 on a recent mostly highway trip with the new motor. (468 CI, 650cfm, Headman headers, 3.55 rear, K&N, ZF-5 speed, 235/85-16, 1000 lbs in the back and no trailer. Oh,yeah, MSD6A with Blaster 2 Coil and MSD cap n rotor) That was mostly 72-75mph with a 20 mile burst of 85+ when I missed an exit and had to double back to make an appointment. A little bit of stop and go near the end of the trip. Wow, maybe with the tornado, I could get 18.5 and brag with the diesel guys?? That would be cool...hmmm maybe the tornado.. or some say tomato just moved up on the list.

Personally, I think the auto industry
>would be all over this if it had any merit at all.

I think that the most effective way to induce swirl would be in the intake runners and in fact some auto makers (mercedes) are introducing this idea. To add a device such as the tornado in the pre-carb or pre-injector area is a band-aid approach and debatably effective or ineffective. I guess that's why were having this discussion.

What I'd like to point out that was proven by the Dyno and airflow tests that Larry Meaux did (see links to eng-tips) is that contrary to popular opinion on this boards discussion the Tornado does not reduce air-flow one bit. It also created tremendous swirl but as some of us proposed or feared, the carb butterfly negated most if not all the swirl. However, Larry still to his surprise saw average gains of 4hp/4tq while using racing gas despite slight hp/tq losses while using methanol. With the engines he was working with and their compression ratio I don't think he was able to run anything less than 120 octane. Larry is testing the unit now on his Suburban.

Tony,
>another point that Ken made: All these "endorsements" are
>always made by EX-employees, or people with vague titles and
>names.

About the only one that I saw was the "former Norwalk equipment maintenance supervisor Dennis Johnson". The Professor mentioned "Ron Bell" is still there as far as I know and was giving speeches on turbocharged airplanes as recently as last year. Thus I don't really see the "vauge endorsements" as a problem.

Look at any questionable product and you will see
>this tactic used. The one exception I've seen is Metwrinch
>tools. They do what they say they do.

Yeah, Metrench's and ratchet wrenches are on my Christmas want lists. Or was that Christmas 3 years ago??..
Tony