The Unending Turbonator / Tornado / Spiralmax / etc Debate

i seem to remember Ford having these "vortex generators" in their early 90's stangs.....

Hello from Cali! :cool: Ok so far what I hear is that this turbonator does not work. I cannot say if it does or doesn't but if it claims to increase velocity it is sadly mistaken. In my studies of engines of all types I have found a structure similar to the "turbonator" device in a modern day turbine engine, otherwise known as the jet engine. It looks like the "turbonator" is suppose to work as the stator vanes in a turbine which ACTS AS A DIFFUSER, DECREASING AIR VELOCITY AND RAISING PRESSURE. Now in an N/A engine this pressure is 14.7 psi or 0 psig (pounds per square inch, gage and yes long live the queen! I guess?). The increase in pressure is so low that it cannot bring greater performance because of it but only slow the air down due to the nature of the device. I am GUESSING that in a long, long series of these little devices it MAYBE could bring a decent amount of performance gain, but then it would be impracticle (did I spell that right?). Anybody who is a knowbody can add more body to this argument POR FAVOR.

A very good feed back from you.
I actually have spoken to the owner before buying the hiclone as I was very skipticle about its claim. Since its only a small money and 90 days trial I have nothing to lose.

The owner told me that the combustion charmer are made to be rough to creat a better mix of air and fuel therefore a better burn--more power. The hiclone is placed 20-30cm before the throttle body regardless the air is straightened by the throttle plate.

If hiclone adds air restriction in the first place than my time trials shoul come up with ZERO improvement OR negative improvement.
The weird thing was IT came up with more PLUSES than ZERO improvement. The average improvement was 0.1 to 0.15 sec. I HAD no negative results. The worst case was SAME OR NO improvemet compared to stock(with out hiclone).

My conclusion was, hiclone may add to air restiction as every one said so BUT the effect is less than a better combustion/mix in the charmber, the turbulance created by the hiclone and rough surface of the charmber.

I think thats the best answer I can give.
You never know until you try it. REMEMBER an old saying...SCIENCE IS NOT A COMMON SENSE.

Thanks

Im the new guy! can you help me! i want my new 05 hyundai accent to go fast can you help me find a turbo thingy that would help? thanks

No worries, if you got 3000$ to spend just put a low boost turbo kits on it. There are plenty of bolt on turbo kits in australia for Hyudai. I am sure you have no problems in US.

Option 2, is exhaust increase by 1/4 to 1/2 inch at max right from cat back. CAI prefered by iceman intake(made out of plastic instead of metal for better heat insulation).
And get a turbonator from US, place it 20-30cm before the throttle body( as worked for hondas and Corrola ascent(100kw); and v8 ford xr8(200kw). You will be amazed with the outcome. This set up should cut down your 0-60 mile time by apprx 0.5- 1 sec. on an average car. a car length. The down side is the car is much nosier than before.

Option 3.
With all the option 2 set up; spend 500$ eg unichip on a after market computer not ecu that tuned your car on the dyno.

I hope this helps.....

Thanks vtec78 for the tip! but i really have no idea how that goes sinces i dont know anything about cars yet? and also i thought turbonator dont work?!

Some more material for the debate: the current (September 2005) issue of Popular Mechanics includes a dyno test of the Turbonator's cousin the Tornado, as well as a very cheap knock-off on Ebay. It's the issue with a blurb, "Bogus MPG Gadgets!" splashed along the very top of the cover. They subjected each device to four dyno pulls and a 70 mph cruise on the dyno rollers with a measured amount of fuel in the tank.

Well, the results are in. Both the Tornado and the cheapo knockoff reduced power by over 10%. The Tornado did nothing to improve fuel mileage, while the cheapo also brought gas mileage down by 20%. To top it off, they commented that the Ebay special was so flimsy it looked like it might fall apart and get sucked into the engine. The only good thing they had to say about the Tornado was that it seemed to be very well made and didn't catch fire like one other device they tested. So their verdict was that it took a big bite out of the test truck's horsepower and did nothing to improve gas mileage.

There are a few things I didn't like about the article, mostly that they didn't print as much raw data as I would like to have seen. They did not print the actual horsepower numbers or mpg, just how they compared to each other. Still, from what I can tell, their test procedure was a sound one, and the vortex generators soundly failed.

----------------------------------------

VTEC78, the reason I've been quibling with you is that I can't tell if your test results are due to an actual improvement or random noise in the test results. The theoretical claims seem kind of doubtful. I've already covered why it is not likely to remove restriction. Now I'll cover why I can't see the installation you describe would produce extra swirl in the combustion chamber.

I can't see how any of the motion from the Hyclone would actually get that far in the intake.

From what you've said, the Hyclone sits about 20 cm upstream of the throttle body. The tube itself will reduce the swirling motion considerably, because as the air rotates, the walls of the tube produce a drag that slows its swirling down. A substantial part of the swirl motion would be lost when it reaches the throttle body. Then we have the throttle itself, a flat plate sitting perpendicular to the airflow. So you've got another fin besides those on the Hyclone, and this fin acts to reduce the swirling action.

Then the air exits into a plenum. This usually means the passage flares out and the air slows down as it flows into a large chamber. At that point, the runners pull pulses of air in from the plenum, usually making the air do an abrupt 90 degree turn. The motion in the plenum is extremely chaotic as the individual valves open and close and pressure waves bounce back and forth down the runners. Then it's through the complicated port shape on the cylinder head itself. At that point, the valve closes, and the piston compresses it before ignition.

Consequently, the biggest effect of the motion of the air in the combustion chamber would come from the design of the combustion chamber itself, as well as the piston. Then we have port design, followed by the design of the intake manifold. The effect of some set of fins 30 cm upstream of the throttle body will be just a drop in the bucket.

----------------------------------------

By the way, I've started looking to see if a magazine will sponsor me to do my own test on the Turbonator. If that goes through, I'll not only dyno test it, but I'll try putting one in a transparent tube and running a smoke stick test to see just how far the vortex can persist. Stay tuned...

Slander, Your feed back was overwhelming....I have to say the electric fan type supercharger that is a waste of money as due to its design and regidity. If you look it carfully by comparing it to a turbonator, its a differnt design. The turbonator has holes in its fins(less air restriction?)

I am difinately support your future trials on hiclone and I would like to hear that you have proved that its does no power gain or so ever. So I can rest my case.

The New Zealand company-gizzimo electronics told me they tried on dyno (on a integra) and PROVED no power gain or LOSS. But this is only the email feed back from them but no raw test data...a bit doggy.

Due to many uncertainties about the hiclone. I actually stop watch timed again the 2nd gear accleration(1000-400rpm) after 2 weeks of hiclone installed. The time has "improved" from 4.25sec to 4.06. This is not a very accurate results but bear in mind that I know my car so well due to driving 82 kms each day to work(city driving). The car weight may vary sligtly due to different level of fuel tank. But enought to give me 70% confidence level that Hiclone is doing its job. Again I may be wrong. Thats why I am very eager to hearing your future test results on the turbonator.

Why dnt you try out youself for a start using a good stop watch(the one used for running) not the one build in the watch. You may need to run 10 runs in a short session before and after and repeat the same next day or so(with different fuel level). The aim is to see whether the in gear accleration time is improved in all differnt/conditions /sessions.
I prefered a dryday.
If you do so, it may has answered some of the uncertaines.

We are looking forward to hearing from you.

I'm glad we have been able to discuss this like gentlemen, Vtec78. There have been a few cases before where something that shouldn't have worked did for some specific cars.

At any rate, I'm planning three tests if I can find a sponsor. I plan to test their claims of more horsepower at both a local dyno shop and at Atlanta Dragway. I also plan to test their theoretical claims by using a smoke stick and a clear tube to see if the fins actually make the vortex last or if it just peters out 10 cm or so downstream. I've used smoke sticks before for testing a device at work that amounted to an industrial-strength vacuum cleaner. If I can find someone who rents one, I'll even see if I can have one flow bench tested - if not, I'll see what I can improvise. Then I will be able to write a thorough article that I can sell to a magazine so I can get my testing expenses and a bit more back. I wouldn't be surprised if my tests may actually be more complete than what the makers of the Turbonator have done themselves. That's my plan, anyway - I've written to one magazine already to see if they're interested.

I will definitely keep everyone posted on how this turns out!

I just want to let everyone know that I have a device that is guaranteed to save fuel and increase power in any vehicle, gas, diesel, or electric. I will even venture to say it will improve mileage on fuel cell and hydrogen vehicles. I will sell this device for the same price as the Turbonator ($69.95) and offer the same money back guarantee.

The important thing is the money back guarantee. If you read closely you will notice the money back guarantee does not include shipping and is subject to a 15% restocking fee. This amounts to $10.49 for the restocking fee and I'm sure a few dollars the company charges for handling. The device costs a few cents to make, so if everyone who buys one returns it, the company still makes a hefty profit.

By the way the device I want to sell you is a piece of duct tape. You simply tape it over the intake (securely so it doesn’t get sucked in). This reduces air flow and fuel flow, creating more mileage. As for increased power, oh well, just request your money back and I'll be happy to refund 85%.

Geosooner, I liked your incentives, please call again.
You must be a very successful business man.

300ZXJON, Flying turbine airliners and having several college coursed on turbine engines, I can say the stator veins in the turbine engine are made to decrease airflow. A turbine engine at low speeds (less than 25,000RPM) are very inefficient. They have compressor stalls which basically is too much air in the engine causing the compressor section of the engine to stall (disruption of airflow). The purpose of the stator veins are to cut off airflow at low speeds to allow a less efficient compressor to work until the speed is high enough for the axial compressor to work. Sorry way off topic. I've seen the infomercial for this product and the theory of the "swirling turbine like airflow" would make since if the air was forced through, maybe by a 20,000hp (lb/thrust) turbine engine, but if its put in a non-forced air air intake like on a car, its called a plug.

Mark

Hi All,

interesting thread and polite too which is always a plus.

The thing with my STi (ok, not mine it's a company car) is that it has to be kept factory for warranty/insurance and more to the point it goes fast enough as it is. My goal is not to increase the STi speed but increase my understanding of cars and mechanicals. As it is, I have my own car (a Stag which is still not going) which I would be happy to HiClone/Turbinate (whatever). However I not ashamed to say that I am know (sic) Rhodes Scholar and so thus the interest. I have looked at supercharging using http://www.capa.com.au/ but they t`ain`t cheap.

On an aside, look at this
http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?s=3390503

Also, I still wonder if the Vortex (bigger spark) is not abetter investment http://www.vortex-performance.com.au/

Bye for now.

Falusi the IVth

The cryogenic metal treatment is interesting, but I suspect the 120 mpg is mostly due to careful driving and the car's hybrid system. Just like I once managed to wring nearly 40 mpg out of a Chrysler LeBaron by driving it at 45 mpg in fifth gear on the freeway (it was having some pretty serious overheating problems).

The Vortex system seems like another variation on the capacitive discharge ignition. CDI's are pretty well proven - it's pretty rare to see cars in some racing classes without one. The only odd thing about that is its switchable spark advance curve. Most cars don't need that; I suppose motorcycles might be different. I plan to use a CDI in my Dart, but mine will probably be from a more established company like Mallory or MSD.

A taf off topic is http://byronw.www1host.com/ as it gets free energy systems but it also has references to 200mpg carbs etc.

A long read.

Hi all,

I am self-employed and put on around 20K/year. I purchased a 4WD MT 05 Element which I love in late July and would really like to get as much gas mileage and/or hp as I can out of it.

I have attempted to read as much of this thread as I can, but frankly am still a bit cautious about intake mods in general.

Can anyone out there with a real clue and actual evidence recommend anything to help me out here?

Thanks.
--
Gaelen

Hi Gaelen,

I know what a 4WD is but w/o a Google I am at a loss on MT 05 Element. Petrol (sorry, GAS) is now at $1.30Oz per litre (can someone translate to USGallons please), petrol is down from $1.45 in Melbourne, so it is cheaper.

As a previous poster put it. The #1 saving method (short of public transport) is slow down, acclearate slowly, anticipate red (or green) lights, change to a higher gear.

Perhaps of interest is I have 2 cars. A V8 (bored,blued,big carb,balanced) Stag and a 2 litre WRX. The WRX bogs all over the Stag even if I drive slowly.

My theory is ECU, small engine, big turbo, light foot and no towing.

:)

HTH's

Hi guys,
Man really a laugh reading all the threads but also really enlightening too.
I don't really have an engineering background so it's sort of like reading your threads and thinking about what I watched on Discovery channel.
Was thinking about the vortex generators to increase bhp but sounds like they may not work after all.
You know the side discussion of jet turbine engines? I don't think they work the same as vortex generators. One is trying to create turbulant airflow ( or something about airflow) and the other is trying to compress air for a better burn so in my humble opinion it's like comparing apples and oranges. Of course I could be wrong.
But as a car newbie and a poor one at that, purchased a subaru impreza 1.6 ( yes I know underpowered but what to do? cars are so expensive in singapore). Was wondering if anyone can give me ideas to boost/increase performance?
Thanks inadvance

Genghis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hattaresguy

It is amazing how many people buy this stuff and don't know about all of the law suits these companys have against them.

The gov rulled that Slick 50 was using false advertising and cannot make any of the claims on the bottle anymore.

---

first of all i'd like to know exactly if ur even sure of anything thats comin out of ur mouth
secondly i'd wanna know if u ever tried the product for yourself
and thridly you quite fankly seem to be absolutely bias against the issue and theres nothing wrong wit you thinkin its a piece of crap but if u dont know what the hell you're talking about then just shut up about it!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intel

first of all i'd like to know exactly if ur even sure of anything thats comin out of ur mouth
secondly i'd wanna know if u ever tried the product for yourself
and thridly you quite fankly seem to be absolutely bias against the issue and theres nothing wrong wit you thinkin its a piece of crap but if u dont know what the hell you're talking about then just shut up about it!!!!!

---

Intel, if you want proof that Hatterasguy is telling the truth about Slick 50's claims being false, I suggest you go read the terms of the government's cease and desist order against Slick 50 for yourself. It is quite clear that Slick 50 was completely unable to prove their product actually worked to any standard that would hold up in a court of law.

If you want to claim otherwise, I suggest you present actual evidence that it works.

Congrats on getting to 454 posts Slanter.

Does this mean you now qualify as a 'Big Stroker'?

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uneed2know

Hey slanter this is uneed2know, I joined this forum just to tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. First off if your motor doesn't take in enough air then there isn't the right air-to-gas ratio which would result in less power all together. Second off my father and three of his friends own six car shops around the U.S. and every one of them have a dynamometer (which is a dyno just so you know). They have done test with all the air intake products but we are just talking about the turbonator. They tested four different suv's (tahoe, navigator, pathfinder, and a jeep grand cherokee). Five sports car's(civic si, rx 8, toyota supra, ss camero, and a subaru sti). And two trucks (ss silverado, and a srt-10). And as you can see there is a variety of cars ranging from four cylinders, rotary engines, inline and v6 motors, turbo motors, v8's and v10's. However i'm here to tell the people that said they didn't work like yourself that they were wrong, way wrong. The suv's had the lowest stats due to weight and the tunning of the motor. On average the suv's gained 8-12 bhp, and an increase of 20-30 mpg per tank. The sports car's had the best increase, the bhp on average was 28-33 gain, and had a 60-85 mpg increase. The ss silverado had 27 bhp increase and a 50 mpg increase per tank and the srt-10 had a 24 bhp increase and a 35 mpg increase per tank. Now did you just think the people that made these products would waste there time getting pattens and the rights to sale there product would just make some stats up. So before you act like you know what your talking about you should keep you ideas to yourself until futher notice. And for anyone else who wants to find out more stats about cars just hit me up and ill let you know.

---

Listen Im new to this forum and i usually stick to reading not actually responding to them but i couldnt take more of this BS. Let me make one thing clear i dont wish to offend anyone but you dont have a clue as to what you are saying. Slander does. Any object that blocks or creates restriction of any kind in the air intake is going to reduce engine efficiency. what slander stated in his comment is correct in relation to the milage increase and you are clueless as the air is blocked the air sensor which regulates the fuel to air ratio detects this and also limits the fuel keeping the ratio balanced. that what air sensors and fuel pumps are for. this would naturally improve the milage but would have no gain at all in the HP or torque department. I would not be surprised if you or your dad had something to do with this scam. Please people use common sense. you are not getting any performance improvements from blocking the air intake. If you dont believe me do the opposite remove your air filter compltely for a couple of miles ( not on a dirt road or dusty conditions ) and you will notice a slight increase in hp. this is from removing an object that causes a small restriction to the airflow ( do not go around without an airfilter for more than a couple of miles for this will let in impurities to the combustion chamber and cause damage ) the opposite happens with those "uprades", get a cold air intake, (cold air has more mass per volume than hot air creating better combustion) a turbo, (an exhaust driven turbine that forces more air into the combustion chamber ) or a supercharger, ( a mechanically driven turbine that forces more air into the combustion chamber. YES they cost more but they work. If these things worked we would use them in our race cars. Oh did I mention Im chief mechanic for team Tecate WRC. By the way please tell me the names of the car shops you mentioned so I can avoid them in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmcc70

Congrats on getting to 454 posts Slanter.

Does this mean you now qualify as a 'Big Stroker'?

;)

---

I'm a Mopar guy. We qualify for the title of "Big Stroker" at 451 posts, actually. :)

(That's a 400 block with a 440 crank.)

i have read all i could about turbonator and i can honestly say ppl divide to 2 groups...
the ones that say it works - ppl that have one , and ppl that say it dosent work -ppl that dont have one ....so to end any doubts about that i got one for my 86 fiero gt .i know my car like like i know my self and i can honestly say that turbonator DONT WORK ! not only it was very disapointing product to look at ..that costed me $100 (im from edmonton , canada) but it did absolutly nothing for my car ....and to top it all up my gas usage got worst but im not sure yet if i can blame it on "it" or colder weather. i will let you know as soonest i finish my next tank without that thing in my intake....

ps; i have g tech in my fiero ....so its not just going with my gutts ...it just simply dont work.

OK, take 2 Turbonators, attach them just as you are suppose to attach a supercharger, one connected to the air intake, and the other connected to the exaust. Would that work and supercharge your car just like a supercharger.....Hope the price don't go up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOCTORMAN

OK, take 2 Turbonators, attach them just as you are suppose to attach a supercharger, one connected to the air intake, and the other connected to the exaust. Would that work and supercharge your car just like a supercharger.....Hope the price don't go up.

---

Is this some kind of joke?

Putting a Turbonator in the exhaust is likely to be different from putting it in the intake in only two ways. One, exhausts aren't held together with hose clamps, so you would have to weld it in. Two, being made of thin sheet metal, a Turbonator might not be able to withstand exhaust temperatures. The fact that it is likely to reduce horsepower and not improve gas mileage stays the same, though.

ha ha ha..you guys are really cool. Talking about the turbonator....still on!!!!
Turbonator are made out of stainless steel. They are pretty sharp....

Slander, do you want to borrow my hiclone (62mm)and promised to return to me when you finished your trial.
If so, send me your details on my hotmail.
johnmar78@hotmail.com

thanks.

Thanks for the offer, but I doubt it would fit my Focus.

Ford focus is a 2 liter motor right?...the 62 mm should fit...

Hi there all. I thought I would just jump in and congratulate the lot of you - especially Slanter! I was about to be hoodwincked into purchasing the Turbonator, but after reading the forum, I have to say, I was almost hoodwinked!

The thread of the discussion read like a Monty Python Movie - it was hilarious - but at the same time very educational. What suprised me though, was, after all the major inputs given as to the non-reliability of the Turbonator (from some learned - and some not so learned people), how many people joined the forum, seemingly ignorant of what had transpired, wanting to buy the thing!

To you Slanter, your consistency of emotion and views where most appreciated. Thanks again for the enjoyable read.
Cheers from South Africa.

Hello folks. I was looking for ways to save money on gas for my '03 mazda PR5. I drive 90+ miles per day and a couple of mpg works out to be good for my wallet.

I started looking into the Turbonator since google pointed me to the site. I then searched for turbonator review and found this thread lasting 4 months.

I normally get 25 mpg with my mazda. I drive the NJ Turnpike to work, traffic moves over 75 mph. There are many days I hit 85-90 MPH on the way to work. The week after hurricane Katrina when gas went over 3.25 per gallon I started to drive slower. I noticed when I did not drive over 65-70 MPH my mileage went to 30 MPG. That is a 20% increase in fuel economy.

My theory in how the turbonator may increase fuel economy is that it may be working the computerized system to it's benefit. By obstructing the air flow it is similar to me not hitting the gas pedal as hard, therefore increasing fuel economy.

IMHO - to save money on gas follow these instructions - Take the $100 for the turbonator and shipping and use it at the next Sunoco. If you feel so obliged for me giving you a way to save money on gasoline I can send you a self addressed envelope for you to insert a check, money order, cash, change. :D

I recently heard a report of common ways to save fuel in your vehicle. The most effective manner is to feather the brake and gas pedals instead of pushing the to the floor.

I will have to see if I can find the source of this information and post. I wanted to assert my opinion here is to drive with less drag racing style to save fuel consumption.

:D

It is true that turbonator works. My sister had this put in her chevy tahoe a few months ago and the mpg did improve. it went from 12 to about 14 mpg. The part where they say it adds horsepower to your car is another issue on its own. We havent noticed any significant increase (or decrease in that matter) of any horsepower nor have we done any tests to figure it out. But never the less, it will get better miles to the gallon for your car.

Ok, Intel, mind if I ask you a couple questions about your results? My theory is that in the few cases where this sort of thing produces an apparent improvement in mileage, it only does so by making the engine act as if it cannot open the throttle all the way.

So, my first question is, how much does the Tahoe's mileage vary? How much of a difference have you observed in mileage between different fill-ups with no other changes?

Second, did she add any other changes at the same time as the Turbonator?

Lastly, would you be willing to compare the mileage with the Turbonator to mileage without the Turbonator but with a stop on the throttle that prevents it from opening all the way?

http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/dri...2/article.html

This is the article I mentioned in an earlier post.I am contemplating purchasing the turbonator for my suburban. It seems it could be similar to the restrictor plates used in racing to limit the power.

I have power to spare with the 5.3L (16mpg) in my 2000 suburban. It sucks more than the 93 with the 5.7L (19mpg) I owned previously. The turbonator is $70 +/-. Currently one tank full of gas. If I get 1 mpg it will pay for itself quickly. Especially with a long road trip planned for Thanksgiving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by louhg

http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/dri...2/article.html

This is the article I mentioned in an earlier post.I am contemplating purchasing the turbonator for my suburban. It seems it could be similar to the restrictor plates used in racing to limit the power.

I have power to spare with the 5.3L (16mpg) in my 2000 suburban. It sucks more than the 93 with the 5.7L (19mpg) I owned previously. The turbonator is $70 +/-. Currently one tank full of gas. If I get 1 mpg it will pay for itself quickly. Especially with a long road trip planned for Thanksgiving.

---

Why even bother spending money on a gimic? Just see if you can adjust the throttle linkage so the throttle doesn't open all the way, if being leadfooted is a problem. You can probably do this with a screwdriver or Allen wrench.

I have ordered a device called the turbonator and a device called a vortex valve-They will be tested on a 1996 GMC Yukon V-8 350 -the MPG on this unit is running 17-19 -at varing times but will check it close for 30 days and then will install a device and check MPG for another 30 days-and then change to other device and recheck MPG for it. The Turbonator installes into the air intake hose just as it enters the throttle body-the Vortex valve is inserted into the throttle body-will be a interesting test to see the results. P/S I do not work for or sell any of these products -I will set the record straight ! They will work or they will not and will report back any new data on this forum Thanks for listening ART

I have had a Tornado Fuel Saver on my Ford F-150 for over 2 years. If anything my gas mileage decreased. Save your $ 75.00 and buy alumium cans and at least you can get some monety back.

Slanter
Since you seemed so knowledgable about cars i decided to join this Forum to get your advice. I have a 1992 Ford Taurus LX Sedan, and its in SERIOUS need of some extra HP, i mean when i hit my gas i go NO WHERE ~speedwise that is~. You know what i was thinking....purchasing that good ol' turbonator would do me some good. But i'm glad i stumbled across this site. Do you have any suggestions on what i could do to get some power? Items or parts thats NOT going to cost me my entire months pay? lol
i already purchased a Dual Tip performance Muffler
and i also went on ebay and brought one of those cheap performance module chips. I just purchased the items..so i hav'nt recieved them yet, but do you know of any other?

~Any one elses advice is also welcome~

fantastic thread. they had a very nice movie - NEVER ENDING STORY. indeed, never ending it is.
so, on one hand we have a bunch saying: vortex generators work. then we have a bunch saying: vortex generators do not work. then the second bunch blaims the first bunch that they all work for the unnamed company. on top of that, we have a zest of air intakes added and some cries for "help to increase my mpg" and "help to increase my power".
i think, so far i'm very close to the outline of this thread, right? what a mess, and so humane.
guys, can't we all live in piece? maybe just figuring out our priorities 1st and deciding what the hell is that that we want - more power or better mileage? kuz it just does not go together! or, at least, to the point that you can say - good lord, that's some improvement!
had to stop here and holt myself, i just get too excited.
soooo, why did i decide to stick my post into this thread? because i'm chasing the same dream and found some simple facts, and i'm a sharing type of person.
1. turbonator and tornado are not claiming to improve mpg or power by "easing" the air flow. they are vortex generators. they aim to change air flow from laminar to turbulant, thus hoping to improve air/fuel mix. their problem is - turbulance is created far from combustion chamber and is dampened for the most part by air hose, TB, and intake. different cars respond differently to vortex generators due to the difference in variables involved. stick a vortex generator into the intake maniflod orifice, see what happens then. been, done, works, no discussion.
2. yes, they do offer vortex generators for any modified/aftermarket intake.
3. stupid companies, like chrisler and mitsubishi, that know squat about what they are doing, are next to marketing a new engine that will have "flap type valves" in intakes to "tumble" air flow. what do they know, right? supposed to be a kick ass engine though...
4. for those who yelled for "improve my mpg":
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...ge_Enhancement
you will have access to ANY idea ever conceived by a human mind to get better mpg. i do acetone and halo plugs, very succesfully.
5. the kid that stuck that cheapo fan into his intake and then got pissed kuz it cost him 25 bucks and did not give him 50 more hp. well, :o kid it is. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAID FOR!! the real mccoy is called E-RAM. it gives - and it's proven by dyno and their racing team - from 1 to 2 psi boost. but it costs money!! it's 300 bucks. it's proprietory. what did he expect from a 7 dollar fan?? for those who'll start nagging E-RAM, european union placed an official order for an electrical supercharger for small engines. it's coming 2007 when the cyvilised world will switch to 27 volts. but what do they know, right??
6. for those who yelled "help increase my power at little to no cost". sorry, does not exist.
you can: - very good synthetic oil [AMSOIL], - very good synthetic atf/gear oil [AMSOIL];
-HALO plugs (7.92 a pop, they work fine for me); high temp thermostate; - premix mothballs, otherwise known as naftalin, with your gas, upps your octane [which, due to the lack of proper compression, will not burn right and your ecu will cancel results almost completely]; - improve air flow by: -adding a high air flow filter [AMSOIL, NOT K&N],
-taking your intake off and honing it inside, -adding a high air flow filter/intake combo,
-honing your high air intake inside, -removing your resonator to increase exhaust outflow. from this point on you have to consider: -swtching to larger TB; - forcing air into intake [subaru wrx style/using E-RAM] and that's about it. next step is start adding nitrous [dry kit approx. 400 plus refills], and bolt ons. or re-tune your ecu or chip it. i kinda tried to put it into consecutively higher dollar/labor scale.
7. in either case you will not get a blasterous improvement. it'll be ok, maybe better when combined. but with 4 bucks a gallon hovering on the horizon next year, every gallon counts. unfortunately, the way the combustion engine works, the more power=more gas equasion stays firm and is a trade off. it's either or. so, like i said before - make your choice, and if you want that "big kahoona" feel between your legs when you pass someone up the hill - quit watching your fuel gauge.
8. i drive 02 honda cr-v, 2.4 ivtech engine, auto. car made 50K in yr one. day 2 i drove her at 100 mph. average weekly commute was 1200 miles. fast, agressive drive. not a fast and agressive car. engine is WONDERFUL, it's just not the right engine for the car or the car (weight/aerodynamics) not right for the engine.
so, i looked into how to improve this or that being VERY cheap and frugal.
results are:
1. k&n typhoon air intake/filter. now, keep in mind, boys and girls, i drive with a dohinkey installed into odb2 that tells me EVERYTHING about my engine/trip. so, any numbers i provide are right off the onboard computer.
anyway, don't call that intake cold air. it's not. it's whatever it is under the hood. read directly from air temp sensor. remember subaru wrx?
yes, it gives noticeable boost at high revs. and for the 1st time i could see my rpms go into the bliss of 6500 without cutting off at 6K. nice. but here's what happened next: mpg dropped by 2.5 mile. so i did not like that. i looked into how to save the goats and keep wolves full and:
2. HALO plugs and acetone. i installed HALOs. a) it improved my low range response b)plugs and acetone brought my mpg back to where i had it before: 26-27 mpg. now, mind you, that's off digital and calibrated gauge. so, i was a little bit happier now: i have nicer, MUCH nicer driving car plus i have my best mileage back! oh, must to mention: i drive alone, just with my Mr. Copilot, my SockMonkey AND 210 pounds of leveling ballast AND in very up and down area (seattle). so, on level grounds that mpg should be around 28. i race my car very seldom, but time to time i do allow myself some fun. without typhoon intake i'd estimate at 30. actually, when i just had k&n filter in the stock airbox, it gave about 1 mpg plus.
3. i tried to insulate that intake to keep air colder in it. IT DROPS MPG EVEN WORSE. i did it twice, i removed that insulation today, never again. next is honing the intake and maybe original intake manifold. the car is running fine and i do not believe into disassembling things that work fine. don't fix it if it ain't brok!
anyway, that's a short story of one who tried to combine incombineable - more power and better gas mileage.
now, why this ended in turbonator discussion? because i drove a russian made car with passive fan between carb and intake manifold. and that was a blast of a difference. that's why my 1st father in law is still driving his old, some 50 yrs, car with metal mash plugs in the intake manifold orifices. and that car drives like hell. of course, neither vehicle ever had such fancy things as ecu, o2 sensors, catalytic convertors, etc. oil/temp sensor - that's all the gadgets we had. if they worked. and 76 octane. because modern vehicles are made with one thought in mind: low emissions. and their ecu-s will kill any mod that shows itself on o2 sensor. of course, there's that thing that fulls o2 sensors.... he-he
that's why if you go to peswiki fuel efficiency website, you'll find so much things that you do carb but not many to injected engines. of course, unless you mod the ecu, right? i thought the word was FRUGALITY?? :D :D
no, i do not work for AMSOIL. go here: http://www.trustmymechanic.com/motoroil.html
and look for the thing called MOTOR OIL BIBLE and read for yourselves. that's besides the point that AMSOIL has the best air filter. and oil filter. i was VERY happy with royal purple, but it's time to change.