I've been seeing some ads for the 'tonado' fuel saver. Has anyone tried them? It looks to me like it works and the principle is respctable. I Just think you have to get it as close to the carb or injector as possible.
TonyG

http://www.tornadofuelsaver.com/info/

 

Pure junk. The EPA web site with test results for various "fuel saving" devices show ZERO power increase. Think about it... an engine is an air pump and the less air friction there is the more efficient the engine is. Putting a restriction in the air flow (ie, Tornado) creates friction.

 

Ken,
Thanks for the opinion. Do you know where the EPA website is?
In the early '80's Yamaha developed a TSCC, (twin swirl combustion chamber) with opposing intake valves. The idea was to increase turbulence in the combustion chamber and thereby increasing fuel vaporization and mixture. I suppose that may have been pure junk too and their information about 5% better fuel efficiency a marketing ploy. But hey, their engines rated higher than other similar displacements in fuel savings. I suppose also that removing mass air sensors and anything else that disrupts air intake will increase fuel efficiency? My personal opinion is that the turbulence created could offset any 'restrictions', and I'll keep an open mind until I hear from people who have wasted their money. Have you tried them?.
TonyG
P.S.
Ken, sincerely, thanks for all your work on the website. I saw the post of 11,000 registered and growing. That sure beats any yahoo club or egroup that I know of.
Tony

 

>Thanks for the opinion. Do you know where the EPA website
>is?
>In the early '80's Yamaha developed a TSCC, (twin swirl
>combustion chamber) with opposing intake valves. The idea
>was to increase turbulence in the combustion chamber and
>thereby increasing fuel vaporization and mixture. I suppose
>that may have been pure junk too and their information about
>5% better fuel efficiency a marketing ploy. But hey, their
>engines rated higher than other similar displacements in
>fuel savings. I suppose also that removing mass air sensors
>and anything else that disrupts air intake will increase
>fuel efficiency? My personal opinion is that the turbulence
>created could offset any 'restrictions', and I'll keep an
>open mind until I hear from people who have wasted their
>money. Have you tried them?.

Check [link:www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/devicefs.pdf|EPA Documents] for the most recent document I could find on tests of fuel saving devices for automotive applications. It doesn't list the Tornado specifically but it does test several different kinds of "mixture enhancing" devices.

As far as comparing swirling the air prior to the mixture or swirling the mixture in the comb. chamber you're talking about apples & oranges. The TSCC and things like swirl polished intake valves are definitely valid processes. The extra turbulence in the comb. chamber itself promotes a more complete fuel burn as well as helping to reduce detonation by inhibiting the formation of "hot spots" which preignite the A/F mixture. Swirling the air around prior to mixing the fuel in accomplishes neither of these.

BTW the last test I saw of the Tornado was in either Petersen's 4 Wheel & Off Road or Four Wheeler magazine last year. They tested several different devices for increased power on a test engine. I don't remember the specific results but the Tornado definitely didn't perform well.

 

I think this is the information Ken is talking about. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/autos/gasave.htm

Mixture Enhancers (under the carburetor). These devices are mounted between the carburetor and intake manifold and supposedly enhance the mixing or vaporization of the air/fuel mixture.
The EPA has evaluated: Energy Gas Saver; Environmental Fuel Saver; Gas Saving and Emission Control Improvement Device; Glynn-50; Hydro-Catalyst Pre-Combustion Catalyst System; PETROMIZER SYSTEM; Sav-A-Mile; Spritzer; Turbo-Carb; Turbocarb.

Although none in the above category is this particular item, the ideas are similar.
I did some searching for tornado fuel saver and found that it has been discussed in other automotive boards. Most of the responses seem neutral to positive. About 2/3 of the responders that I saw mentioned a 'slight' mileage increase from .5 to 2 mpg. Others reported no gain.

I agree the 'swirling' has to effect the air and fuel "mixture', but the idea with this device is that the air is swirling better as it passes through the carburator and into the intake manifold thereby offering a better mixing in the process. I'll not be going out to buy one just yet, but it's interesting and something that I like to keep an open mind too.

 

Like Ken said pure junk. The results of the test were they were crap. They amount to a waste of money. The money you spend could be better spent on a new set of plugs to side gap.

cpnhgnjnky

 

I put a new set in already. Where are the test results for the tornado? I don't see it listed. What I'm looking for isn't really heresay opinion based on the govt EPA, but rather opinions and evaluations from people who have tried the product. From what I read on discussion boards, reviews from different magazines were mixed. The question is "has anyone tried them?"
Thanks
Tony

 

I'm not sure 0.5 mpg increase is statistically significant, especially given the variability due to how full the tank gets each fill up and variations on how you drive/driving conditions. The tornado does seem as though it would be a hinderance to air flow. There is another device that is a lot cheaper than a tornado that many claim gives them more power (usually more power and increased fuel mileage go together, switching off depending upon how much you put your foot into it). This is the throttle body spacer. I have my doubts that a throttle body spacer provides much if any gain, but it at least won't hinder air flow.

 

The government has found the following when it comes to fuel saving devices:

1. Most show zero improvement (and ALL in the same category as the tornado showed' zero).
2. Those that showed any improvement where generally behavior modification systems (ie, speed alarms, gear change alarms, etc) or increased emissions and were therefore illegal.
3. The last group, those that showed improvement without harming emissions but the improvement was statistically insignificant.

Since when are scientific lab results results "heresay"?

You want opinion, most everyone's opinion is that it sucks. Not just here, do a web search and you'll see people all over the Internet saying its garbage. It just doesn't make sense.... you've got "Tornado" claiming an increase by creating turbulance, and K&N/Airaid claiming an increase by reducing it. People polish intakes, not roughen them up.

 

The tornado may swirl the air. BUT anytime you put anything in the air intake you obstruct air flow and in turn gives you less velocity of airflow. Now if the tornado was a electric fan forcing more air into the system I could see an advantage similar to a supercharger or a turbo. The Tornado has been named all kinds of things in the past that were benched. Compare the Tornado on a stock engine to a stock engine running a K&N filter and a K&N X-Stream filter lid. I am sure the engine running the K&N system would see a greater improvement than the engine running the Tornado. The time proven way of getting more power and better milage is the theory of packing in more air with the gas for better combustion. The Tornado does swirl the air which in turn causes a restristion in air flow and cutting down on air velocity creating less air entering the engine.


P.S If it really worked Nascar would have been using it years ago.

 

Tallpaul,
Yes, .5 isn't hardly significant, and even an occasional 2 mpg difference can have other causes.

Ken,
====The government has found the following when it comes to fuel saving devices:
1. Most show zero improvement (and ALL in the same category as the tornado showed' zero).
2. Those that showed any improvement where generally behavior modification systems (ie, speed alarms, gear change alarms, etc) or increased emissions and were therefore illegal.
3. The last group, those that showed improvement without harming emissions but the improvement was statistically insignificant.
Since when are scientific lab results results "heresay"?====

Where is the information or test results for this particular item? (the tornado) Is there a website? The phrase "heresay" is used because the "tornado" isn't among those that are tested in the "scientific lab".. Here's the alphabetical listing of products tested where the Tornado would be listed.

Tephguard no number report EPA Oil/ Additive
Treis Emulsifier PB 82 109 711 NTIS Miscellaneous
Turbo Vapor Injection System EPA- AA- TEB- 73- 22 EPA Vapor Bleed Device

Other "labs" have shown that it provide gains of 7-24%

"These figures are confirmed by road testing performed at an emission lab licensed by the EPA." This of course from the 'Tornado' website.

I don't walk that close to the govts shoes that I trust their every statement. This isn't referring to any conspiracy theory that was discussed before when talking about high mileage carburators and Catalytic Cracking of fuel. But,it could be applicable. There are also alot of 'yes men' in govt agencys. If a companies advertising claims concerning a product are found false by a govt study, the govts responsibility should be and is to fine them or enact a lawsuit or cause them to cease such claims, like is being done with the oil additive people.

Ken:
==You want opinion, most everyone's opinion is that it sucks. Not just here, do a web search and you'll see people all over the Internet saying its garbage.==

What I was looking for was opinions and evaluations from anyone who's tried it. But as for internet searches, already did that, that's where I got the mixed opinions. see
http://pub88.ezboard.com/fhyundaisantafemessageboardfrm31.showMessage?topic ID=200.topic

It just doesn't make sense.... you've got "Tornado" claiming an increase by creating turbulance, and K&N/Airaid claiming an increase by reducing it.
K&N claims to increase power and mileage by allowing more air less restricted to pass through the filter as compared to other filters, and by reducing the work required to get the air through the filter. The tornado doesn't promote turbulence, but rather supposedly creates a "vortex" or swirling action to better and efficiently "mix" the fuel air mixture. Turbulence is more like the wind that moves behind a pickup towing a camper. I'm not saying it works, but just what their saying.

Ken,
==People polish intakes, not roughen them up.==

Porting is the process of forming the inside of the heads intake port to match a design that you think will work. This includes matching opening size with the intake manifold, grinding off and smoothing the inside of the curve and increasing the roof and size of the air chamber just inside the valve head. Also grinding off any burs and even valve bosses. However some head makers are adding swirl to there heads to increase mixing efficiency just like the swirl valve is supposed to do. I've also heard that it's more important to polish exhaust and to portmatch intake and use a 3 angle valve job than it is to 'polish' intake.

Here's a quote from "Ford Muscle" who was testing some heads.
Swirl
An added feature was this computerized intake port swirling attachment, which measures the velocity and direction of airflow into the combustion chamber. The use and value of swirl numbers are still being researched, and while we got numbers for all the heads we tested, we don't know how to interpret them. The theory is that high swirl numbers (rpms) offer better fuel distribution and increase combustion chamber burning efficiency. However, as the data shows, some of the best performing heads in terms of flow, had seemingly poor or inconsistant swirl numbers.
The stock heads, as well as the GT40X head, had high swirl numbers. Keep in mind also that a flow bench is only measuring dry air flow, so there may be other factors involved affecting swirl when a true air/fuel mixture is passed through the head.

Here's another quote from a university at http://www.amsta.leeds.ac.uk/Applied/research.dir/cagd/proto.html
The design group in Applied Mathematics are part of a joint project with the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Leeds in the area of Compter-Aided Rapid Prototyping (CARP). The project involves a number of industrial partners and is specifically concerned with the rapid prototyping of cylinder heads for internal combustion engines. The Leeds contribution to the project includes the geometric design and physical analysis (using the CFD code VECTIS from Ricardo Engineering) of a swirl inlet port to a diesel engine and a cylinder head for a 2-stroke engine. These objects can be designed using the PDE Method, and then physical prototypes can be produced by the technique of selective laser sintering using the DTM SinterStation 2000 which has been purchased as part of the CARP project

And here's a place where you can buy Mopar Heads with "the latest in swirl port design" http://shop.store.yahoo.com/chucker54/cylinderheads1.html

And in engine performance we mentioned Jim Fueling suing Mercedes Benz for patent infringement. Here is some of what Mercedez is boasting about. http://www.mercedes-benz.com/e/innovation/rd/forschung_cdi1.htm

I wonder if those swirls in the intake restrict air?

Thanks for the opinions, though, but I'm looking for evaluations from those who have tried it.
Thanks,
Tony

 

Tony,

First, it appears your drew a conclusion before you posted as you keep refuting anyone who doesn't think the product is good. Also, comparing head design to a fan shaped air intake restriction is comparing apples to oranges.

You want opinions by those who have used it. Here you go..... the consensus from FTE users who have tried it is that it doesn't work:

https://www.ford-trucks.com/archives/97up-list/v03.n011.html

https://www.ford-trucks.com/archives/80-96-list/80-96-list-digest_V2_n382.html

Here's an FTE user who returned his:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/80_96/2612.html

Here's an FTE user whose only gain was a hissing sound:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/97up/1219.html

Here's a test done on several "fuel saving" items, one of which was the Tornado....
[link:komotv.com/buyerbeware/story.asp?ID=12382|http://komotv.com/buyerbeware/story.asp?ID=12382]

This was from just a very quick (5 minutes) web search and "grep" search of our archives. Plus a couple of years ago Car And Driver magazine tested it in a BMW 540i and found zero improvements.

Plus, on another site a user had an extremely difficult time getting his money back when it didn't work for him (contact me via email if you want the link).

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 04-Jan-02 AT 01:06 PM (EST)]>Tony,
>
>First, it appears your drew a conclusion before you posted
>as you keep refuting anyone who doesn't think the product is
>good.

Nope, Not at all. But there are enough conflicting reports about it's performace, that I wanted to know the source of your opinions, and the reasoning behind the analysis. Perhaps you or others had a pre-determined opinion of "fuel saving" devices from being 'burnt' before and thus would focus on negative comments and reports and dismissing any positive comments.

>Also, comparing head design to a fan shaped air intake
>restriction is comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, that's basically correct, and Bill Beyers made that point too.
You were using the example that people "polish" intakes, not roughen them up (thus comparing the same apples and oranges) But you were trying to show the negative effects of 'turbulence. And I was showing that information incorrect and trying to show the difference between swirl and turbulence as used in intake ports in heads.
We could also say that comparing pre-carb,and post-carb devices comparing apples and oranges also. All the 'swirl' items that EPA tested were post carb applications. It's even interesting that they made the distinction between those areas.

>Lastly, you want opinions by those who have used it? Here
>you go..... the consensus from FTE users who have tried it
>is that it doesn't work:
>
This is more what I was looking for, Thanks.
The first two were definately negative and good information. The guy sending it back was doing so because he was getting the same mileage while running air conditioner and the tornado as he was not running air and without the tornado.??? inconclusive and he may have just wanted the $70 to buy new plugs. His statement "I think I'll be sending them back" was in the tone of "I'm not sure it worked or didn't work". The last guy with the hissing sound wasn't using the "Tornado fuel saver" device. But his was one of the post throttle body swirlers. Again, could we say apples and oranges?

Heres some positive and neutral comments. Sorry, I don't remember how to do the href= thing. copy and past works though.
http://pub88.ezboard.com/fhyundaisantafemessageboardfrm31.showMessage?topic ID=200.topic

Also, at the tornado website, A professor at 'Saddleback college' has this to say.
Greetings, I have enclosed the copy of the dynometer test that my students ran on some selected vehicles this past semester. You should be surprised at the horsepower readings recorded. Some engines really responded with significant gains at the rear wheels. We would like to conduct some mileage test in the future to verify some gain in that area too. As previously noted some engines showed gains in horsepower and mileage.
--Professor, Automotive Technology of Saddleback College

Notice his words "SELECTED VEHICLES", "SOME" engines really responded and 'SOME' engines showed gains.
Possibly in his own words, one of the tornado companies endorsers has also opened the question "will it work on my vehicle"

Here's the url for their websites 'positive' comments.
http://www.tornadofuelsaver.com/info/customers.php

Finally, again. Why wouldn't the govt agencies or lawyers be trying to put a stop to these advirtisements as they are the oil additive ads? Perhaps 'SOME' engines do benefit? Would those engines be those that have more than adequate air flow?

NO, I'll not be buying one unless i hear from other with a similar engine who have had success in using it. That's what I was looking for.

Thanks for your time and the discussion.
Tony

 

>Nope, Not at all. But there are enough conflicting reports
>about it's performace, that I wanted to know the source of
>your opinions, and the reasoning behind the analysis.
>Perhaps you or others had a pre-determined opinion of "fuel
>saving" devices from being 'burnt' before and thus would
>focus on negative comments and reports and dismissing any
>positive comments.

No... that's not the reason why. The reason is, in my opinion, logic. Real fuel savings devices are used by automotive makers because they can increase their fleet mileage inexpensively.

>
>>Also, comparing head design to a fan shaped air intake
>>restriction is comparing apples to oranges.
>
>Yes, that's basically correct, and Bill Beyers made that
>point too.
>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.

>However, you were using the example that people "polish"
>intakes, not roughen them up to show the negative effects of
>'turbulence. And I was showing that argument and information
>incorrect. I was also trying to make a differntiation
>between swirl and turbulence.
>We could also say that comparing pre-carb and post-carb
>devices comparing apples and oranges also. All the 'swirl'
>items that EPA tested were post carb applications. It's even
>interesting that they made the distinction between those
>areas.

Granted, that much is true. So on a carbed application, the air intake is restricted by the device causing less air flow therefore i could possibly result in less gas consumption.... but also less power. You'd accomplish the same choking of your engine with a smaller air filter.

>
>>Lastly, you want opinions by those who have used it? Here
>>you go..... the consensus from FTE users who have tried it
>>is that it doesn't work:
>>
>This is more what I was looking for, Thanks.
>The first two were definately negative and good information.
>The guy sending it back was doing so because he was getting
>the same mileage while running air conditioner and the
>tornado as he was not running air and without the
>tornado.??? inconclusive and he may have just wanted the $70
>to buy new plugs. His statement "I think I'll be sending
>them back" was in the tone of "I'm not sure it worked or
>didn't work". The last guy with the hissing sound wasn't
>using the "Tornado fuel saver" device. But his was one of
>the post throttle body swirlers.

>Again, could we say apples
>and oranges?

Come on now... I qualified my statement by saying it was a quick 5 minute search. 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.

>
>Heres some positive and neutral comments. Sorry, I don't
>remember how to do the href= thing. copy and past works
>though.
>http://pub88.ezboard.com/fhyundaisantafemessageboardfrm31.showMessage?topic ID=200.topic
>
>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.

>
>Notice his words "SELECTED VEHICLES", "SOME" engines really
>responded and 'SOME' engines showed gains.
>Possibly in his own words, one of the tornado companies
>endorsers has also opened the question "will it work on my
>vehicle"

An improperly tuned vehicle could benefit from restricting the air flow. My guess is that the people with gains got them because of either:

a) a condition other than the Tornado (ie, person was going easy on it because they were now monitoring mileage), driving conditions changed. Weather was cooler after installing the Tornado. Vehicles tend to run better in cooler weather.

b) the vehicle was not properly tuned.

c) the installation included a tune-up or addition of some other item at the same time.

>
>Finally, again. Why wouldn't the govt agencies or lawyers be
>trying to put a stop to these advirtisements as they are the
>oil additive ads? Perhaps 'SOME' engines benefit? Would
>those engines be those that have more than adequate air
>flow?

It is not the government's job to monitor advertisements. Maybe in Moscow and Bejing they do this, but not in the USA. I don't think its the governments responsibility to prevent people from doing stupid things like purchasing snake oil. When widespread fraud is claimed or reported, then The Federal Trade Commission steps in. They have been cracking down on devices and products on a limited basis but they have a small number of people and there are seemingly unlimited numbers of products. Recent examples include Slick 50 and Splitfires.

History has some good lessons:
Caveat Emptor and PT Barnum

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 04-Jan-02 AT 04:07 PM (EST)]>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/fuel management programed into the vehicle? Why are Cat back systems popular? 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. Why don't sufficiently powered vehicles come with a 2 speed rear-end? or a double overdrive? Some are beginning to. These aren't specifically fuel saving devices, but some accomplish that task as a by product.

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.
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

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

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 devices. 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

>>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. But, he has a dyno and I don't so I must be 10th rate. By the way, where did you find the rating guide on colleges? For all I know, Ron Bell could have a doctorate from MIT. Do you know differntly?

>An improperly tuned vehicle could benefit from restricting
>the air flow. My guess is that the people with gains got
>them because of either:
>
>a) a condition other than the Tornado (ie, person was going
>easy on it because they were now monitoring mileage),
>driving conditions changed. Weather was cooler after
>installing the Tornado. Vehicles tend to run better in
>cooler weather.

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

>When widespread fraud is claimed or reported, then The
>Federal Trade Commission steps in. They have been cracking
>down on devices and products on a limited basis but they
>have a small number of people and there are seemingly
>unlimited numbers of products. Recent examples include
>Slick 50 and Splitfires.

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

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.
Thanks again for the time and effort in the board.
Tony