The Unending Turbonator / Tornado / Spiralmax / etc Debate

this is extract from a gm official "we are the best" brochure. soooo, turbonator and tornado are not that dumb, just, like i said before, placed in the wrong place. but, where's the will, there's the way. link to the way is posted after the official gm bull.

OEMs benefit from GM Powertrain's efforts
to make Vortec the most recognized engine
brand.
Vortec Advantage TM
What is Vortec?
“Vortec” is a brand of GM Powertrain
engines that delivers more horsepower
and greater fuel efficiency than comparable
competitors' engines. The name
Vortec originated in the 1986 4.3 V-6
engine that used a combination of
“vortex” and “GM technology” to create
a vortex inside the combustion chamber.
GM Powertrain engineers incorporated
this phenomenon into their
engines to achieve a better air-to-fuel
mixture in the combustion process. The
result is what has now developed into
Vortec Engines; engines with significantly
increased horsepower and
improved fuel efficiency.For example, the 1996 Chevrolet
Silverado went from 180 hp in the
previous model year to 250 hp, while
improving fuel economy from 15 mpg to
18 mpg. Unlike typical engines, Vortec
Engines deliver both power and
efficiency.

and as we promised:
http://www.streetandperformanceelectronics.com/lead.htm
those folks got all kindas stuff for trucks etc. ain't got nothing for my poor honda, though. but their ideas look sound. that's what tornado and turbonator lack - they are too far from combustion chamber, while throttle spacers are almost right in there, same for plenum gasket, or what they pitch as vmax.
now, i also found that there's actually a company that sells . nah-ah-ah, taking that back. i rechecked on it and no, they do not sell intake manifold or plenum vortex generators. sorry. almost goofed. :eek: :D
are we still going to argue about vortex generators??
by the way, for those who read my previuos post: o forgot to mention a mod that costs you zilch and, actually, leaves you with extra parts. it's power mod, not mpg increase mod!! pop your hood and remove your air intake hose. now, look at your throttle body? do you have coolant lines that run into it? ok, after some considration you can see that those 2 coolant lines can be - yes, discontinued. coolant to be redirected into radiator, bypassing tb. you'll end up with 2 lines sticking out doing nothing.. leaves you with extra hose. what it does? cools down your tb. kudos to:
http://www.superhonda.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126421
like i said: it's not mpg get better mod!!

this is a VERY good article on vortex generators:
http://www.fuelsaving.info/turbulence.htm

Wow. That's an excellent link, jlcpo.

For that matter, the entire Tom's Guide to Fuel Saving is worth reading.

Here's someone who actually subjected it to a fairly decent test:

The Popular Mechanics Tornado Fuel Saver dyno test article is now available online. While I wish they had more details, the Tornado reduced horsepower and did not improve mileage. It wasn't the most spectacular failure, at least... that would be the ignition device that caught on fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ART-EDNA

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

---

My little test is over with the TURBONATOR/VORTEX VALVE-installed both not at the same time and they both FAILED AS NOTHING BUT JUNK-No change in MPG or HP-went back to adding acetone to fuel and MPG increased to 20.9 from 17 for the YUKON-tried the acetone in my 1993 Dodge 5.9 diesel and went from 20.9 to 21.9 not as good as i wished but my dodge needs a valve adjustment done maybe I will have time to do it this month.Thank for your time Art

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slanter

Here's someone who actually subjected it to a fairly decent test:

The Popular Mechanics Tornado Fuel Saver dyno test article is now available online. While I wish they had more details, the Tornado reduced horsepower and did not improve mileage. It wasn't the most spectacular failure, at least... that would be the ignition device that caught on fire.

---

Slanter, I don't care who tested it and said it failed. I bought one and installed it, and I'm sure without a doubt that it improved the mpg on a 99' Ford Contour. (3mpg on average or 10%) I drive 92 miles one way to work. A 10% drop in a $250 dollar a month gas bill is very noticeable. Here lately it's not, but when I put it in, gas prices were more stable. I went to a compressed work schedule for a second 10% when gas went to $3.20 a gallon a while back.

And after doing MUCH reading in the past day or so I plan on complimenting that with a number of things from acetone to halo plugs and such. If it bumps my mileage up some more great! Less bills to pay. My take home pay is greatly affected by gas prices so I'm very sensitive to mileage on my car. Since I drive so far I'm OFTEN speeding. I speed in the same areas of the drive every day, the ones least likely to generate me a fat ticket. So I lose quite a bit of my mileage driving part of my trip at 80mph. Anything I can do to get it back up due to that, I'm all for. The namebrand of the one I bought I can't remember but it came from ebay.

So I personally think it 'can' make a difference but you'd just have to try it and see and if it doesn't, well tough luck. That just means the airflow coming into your particular vehicle isn't getting any better with this type of improvemnt, you'll just have to try something different. That's life. You can't put a mud house in a rainforest. In other words different things work in different applications.

Dude I have some awsome magnets that you can stick on your fuel lines and improve your mileage 10%. $99.99 :D

Man I almost feel bad but as they say their is a sucker born every minute. We should start selling these fuel savers. I'd feel bad at first but you know after I count my money I won't! :D :D

Talk to me about another speical fuel additive I sell for only $20 a quart!!!! :D :D

None of these things will actually damage you car at least except for one. The acetone in diesel myth. Acetone will do nothing except maybe break down and damge the internal seals of your IP. With continued use I would expect a rebuilt IP would be needed. $1k-$2k+ depending on what diesel we are talking about.

Hi ..i have allready order 2 turbonators for my 2 Maveriks (escape ford) 2003 model and 2005 awd 3.0 l v6, and uneed2know if i do right or wrong?
:confused:
I see that Uneed2know knows a lot about tuebonators, but i wonder if this thing cause any damage to the the v6 motor....

greedings from Greece!!!

(sorry for my bad english)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hattaresguy

I can't beleive people actually buy that stuff! :D

If you think that helps throw a little Z max in your fuel and Slick 50 in your oil. :D

This thread was good for a chuckle though.

---

I have a Tornado and have added 3 MPG to my fuel economy in a 2001 Stratus.It also seems a bit more peppy in acceleration.

Averaged over how many tanks?

Hello from www.tamparacing.com, a website devoted to car enthusiasts, most of which work on our own cars and a good many of which are ASE certified. Not trying to be cocky here, but we generally know more than most people about cars.

With that said, let me provide a link where we gave our opinions on the turbonator:
http://www.tamparacing.com/forums/sh...ght=turbonator
(Feel free to browse our topics, its come up in other places and been made fun of)

Now, with THAT said...seriously...guys, use your heads here.

They're comparing this stupid ass peice of plastic to a friggin set of twisted wedge heads! FIRST OFF, when air enters your intake you want it to flow smoothly to maximize the volume of air able to get to your engine. Thats why aftermarket intake tubing is completly smooth, and not designed in a twist to swirl air. Giving it a nice swirl, however cool it might sound, creates turbulence and messes the airflow up.

Also, I don't care how much its swirling, its going to get fed into your throttle body then into your cylinder heads and get pushed through a little tiny opening where the valve has opened. Now, unless its a twisted wedge head like I mentioned above which actually has offset valves to SWIRL THE AIR DIRECTLY INSIDE OF THE COMBUSTION CHAMBERS, NOT THE INTAKE, that air is going to go in just like it always would. If you don't know the complex working of an engine and aren't sure what this means, I'll be happy to explain it to you, but don't even bother arguing with that.

As for these nice motorized things, its been dyno proven that they create DRAG on the airflow in the high end of the RPM bands bgecause they can't spin fast enough to keep up with the air your engine needs to get in...and even at low RPMS...it takes a turbo pounds of compressed air to make any sort of power...these things blow like a regular house fan...don't do ****. I dunno if these guys are trolls from the companies or just morons who like to think they're getting better gas mileage, but I can assure you they aren't.

Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords I believe it was also did a writeup on these things recently, want ot know what they found? The same thing I'm telling you.

Please consider the following. Your vehicle when running properly already burns almost 99% of its air/fuel mixture. The reason not all of that power is utilized is because much of it is turned into heat. Now I'm getting into physics and whatnot here, so I won't go too far into this, but trust me, your car when running right is as efficent as its going to get. Do not buy these products, they do not work.

oh amman we say in Greece!!

i have allready pay 2 turbonators and waiting to get these from airshiping..

i think i made a huge mistake...any way when i put it on i,ll write my opinion about turbonators..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iperodigos

Hi ..i have allready order 2 turbonators for my 2 Maveriks (escape ford) 2003 model and 2005 awd 3.0 l v6, and uneed2know if i do right or wrong?
:confused:
I see that Uneed2know knows a lot about tuebonators, but i wonder if this thing cause any damage to the the v6 motor....

greedings from Greece!!!

(sorry for my bad english)

---

I don't think Uneed2know is coming back. I haven't banned him, and he can post at any time he wants. On the other hand, if he did that, he knows he'd have to explain why he refuses to give the names and addresses of those dyno shops that supposedly did the work. It looks like he would rather vanish than provide proof that would be very easy to do if he had been telling the truth. You can draw your own conclusion - mine is that he is lying and has been all along. The Internet is full of people who want to pretend they are experts.

BTW, Vip, welcome to the forum. Since this thread pops up on Google right below Turbonator's own website if you search for them, it attracts all kinds of characters.

Hi all,

I just had to register to this forum.

Slanter - I know you're trying to do everyone a bit of good and explaining things patiently, but IMHO you might be wasting your time. However, I, like you, like to give people a chance. I'm heavily into experimenting and modifying vehicles from all aspects (power, handling, etc), and have written technical publications from some UK magazines.

I'd also like to go on record to say that any of these cheap gimmicks do NOT work. However, people don't always like to admit that they've been scammed, so that's probably where a lot of your resistance is. A lot of these people seem to be students or not able to afford 'proper' modifications, and it's generally these people that get hoodwinked into purchasing 'cheap' items that claim they can do so much. I'd like to clarify a few things, if I may:

- When an automotive manufacturer talks about 'vortex' or swirling air, they're usually referring to doing this within the cylinder chambers. Swirling or vortexing air in the main intake before the throttle goes against common sense - but only if you know how a vehicles intake works. As previously mentioned, a throttle is a flat plate that controls how much air is allowed into the cylinders. When closed it blocks air, and when open it lets air through. Since the plate is pivoted at the middle, even at WOT (Wide Open Throttle) the plate is basically 'cutting' the air in half. Any 'swirling' that goes on before the throttle, therefore, wouldn't survive past the throttle.

- If, somehow, some 'swirling' survived past the throttle, the next point of interest in the intake system is the plenum. All the air passes through this chamber and splits off into each chamber. Swirling would not likely survive here either.

- Finally, if pre-throttle swirling survived to the plenum, you then have the relatively small intake throats on each cylinder. There is no way it's surviving here.

- Another point that needs to be made is anyone who claims the swirling has any effect on any V or flat formation engine needs to have their head examined. These vehicles *split* the air between the cylinder banks - how on earth does swirling survive here? Unless you had one of these 'miracles' before each bank of cylinders - which would most likely require that you put your swirlers after the throttle.

Anyway, anyone who has one of these swirlers and claims to notice the difference, what we need is a scientific double-blind test. We need a number of tests with and without the item installed, but the driver does not know if it's installed or not. I think a lot of the 'gains' are perceived out of wanting it to work - especially after having purchased the item. This is very common in science where if a team has an expectation that view is normally "proved" to be true - whether or not it is true. This test would cost nothing. However, the person who does the swapping of the device needs to be impartial and trustworthy. The alternative is a dyno, and if you can't afford that then you really shouldn't have spent money on your swirl device.

I understand that a lot of people want powerful cars but simply cannot afford it. To those people I suggest waiting until you can afford it, or learn to save. These companies want to play on your desires to make you see performance gains where there are none.

To those people that have HUGE 5.7L engines and complain about the performance and fuel economy, my suggestion is sell your car and get one with a smaller more efficient engine. Having a car with only 10 MPG nowadays is not really needed, especially if you can't afford to run it. I know they sell the cars with huge engines for cheap, but in the long run the big engine will cost more in running costs.

Thanks!

R.

Ok, i ll test these turbonators, and i ll whrite my opinion...and then i ll put these on ebay market!!!

Hunted, I'll answer your questions in a new thread.

hi uneed2know.i'm very curious about this turbonator thing.i have a honda civic '93 vtec.do you know more or less how much bhp i'm gonna gain?what if i install 3 turbonators instead of one?hope u reply(pls)

ela re iperodige.eho ena honda civic '93 vtec,teliko kai solina.den pistevo oti dinei tipota afto to turbonator,alla an apodeihtei oti tha dosei esto kai 10 aloga tha to paro!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angelos41

hi uneed2know.i'm very curious about this turbonator thing.i have a honda civic '93 vtec.do you know more or less how much bhp i'm gonna gain?what if i install 3 turbonators instead of one?hope u reply(pls)

---

Uh did you read post #134? Yeah install 6 of them and race a few 911's with your new insane power. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angelos41

ela re iperodige.eho ena honda civic '93 vtec,teliko kai solina.den pistevo oti dinei tipota afto to turbonator,alla an apodeihtei oti tha dosei esto kai 10 aloga tha to paro!!!!!

---

eho paraggili 2 an ontos kanun dulia tha su doso to 1 oso to pira,,an den kani dulia tha sto doso tsampa!!!

(i have allready order 2 of these...if these gives power i ll give u 1 the price i paid ,,but if dont then i ll give u 1 for free!!!)

The more the better. 20beers is always better than two beers.

So angelos41 please read my idea below.

#65

Wow this thread has made it to December. Merry Christmas all.

Looks like some interesting links have been added for me to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slanter

Or would that be putting Zmax in your oil and Slick 50 in the gas tank? Somehow, I'm not sure it would make much of a difference either way.

---

had to chuckle at this thread slanter. joined especially to throw my two pennies in. as i read on i realised i didnt have much to toss back at uneed2know, i think u covered it all. what i do need to ask though is unrelated in fact so bear with me. last week i flattened my battery on alfa 156 and then entered the code for the stereo from memory. got it wrong 3 times and was away from home where code is kept. n now i home, i have code but have 4 dashes on display and it wont allow any more entries. my radio manual is written in german and says somnething i think about leaving radio on with ignition on for 1 hour then it will allow code input again. does that sound right. dont have an hour long journey planned for at least a week just to and from work. any work arounds u have heard of or shall i just leave the igntion on til lunch break?

ARGH!
Here I was hoping for a clear answer on whether or not any of this made any difference at all, and all I have is "I think it works" versus "I think it's bunk". Since the anti-gadget crowd seems to have the most level-headed support, let's put a logical 'spin' :D on the pro-gadget side...
1. First off, that Popular Mechanics fuel-gadget article had one glaring "whoopsie" from the (limited) reading I've done on these devices... don't they all tell you that the ECU needs to be reset and allowed to recalibrate when making these changes? If they're only testing "...a measured amount of fuel...", how can this be accomplished? Result: just another (annoying) arguable test result. Though the flaming ignition mod is pretty obvious. ;)
2. Vortex generators are real, and were used in aviation for decades. The idea is that "energizing" the boundary layer moves the transition to turbulence further back along the wing - the increased drag from the turbulators is more than balanced by the reduction in wing drag. Modern laminar flow wings have no transition point, so there's no turbulence to reduce and turbulators would simply drag. I always thought this the most likely way of explaining any performance or efficiency claims by Turbonator et al. Pushing the transition point further down the intake could (theoretically) show gains similar to a high-flow system. The downside is that most people who'd pay for dyno testing probably have laminar intakes already; no transition = no benefit, at least not by this phenomenon. On that note, I've seen vortex strips / turbulators being sold for the exterior of cars lately; anyone care to weigh-in on that topic?
3. Any automobile manufacturer discovering that turbulators in their intake would reduce the back-pressure could achieve the same result by subtly altering the geometry of the intake system; while the effect would remain, the mechanism would be all but invisible without a flow analysis. Saying manufacturers haven't taken advantage of this technology hasn't been proven to my satisfaction.
4. I don't have one. I doubt I'd buy one. My next vehicle is likely to be pedal-powered with the way fuel prices are going.

Thanks for your opinions. I would agree with the person (I'm not scanning 100+ messages to find out who you were!) that suggested finding a local purveyor of one of these devices and trying it yourself; if my guess on item 2 above is correct, that's the only way to know if moving the transition point would improve your vehicle.

Slanter .. I have read through a lot of you comments on the turbonator ..
In theory IMHO it would help increase efficiency in the tube .. but as many have said .. think about what happens when it hits the throttle plate. So I am in agreement w/ u, save the 59 dollars .( their on sale right now).
My question for you though, There are some newer cars getting some good mileage with v6 and v8 by, alt fire cylinders, for example 4 cyl engine firing 1432 ,, would fire1, skip4, fire 3, skip2 next round would skip 1 fire 4, skip 3, fire 2 ( realizing this wouldn't work very well on a 4 cyl but you get the idea). Have you heard of anyone selling computer mods to allow you to this sort of thing for improved mileage.


FYI The computer would automatically resume normal fire if you gave it any gas at all.
thanks

Tbird,

That's an interesting question. Most of the production cylinder deactivation systems seem to have a way of disabling the valves on the cylinders as well as the injectors, and copying that would be a real pain. Also, cutting fuel to some cylinders but not others could dump a fair amount of oxygen into the exhaust and may cause the computer to get a false lean reading, making it add more fuel.

I know many production engines already have some interesting fuel cut systems. For example, my Probe would shut off the fuel entirely if I took my foot off the throttle above a certain RPM with the transmission in gear.

There's a very interesting discussion of home-built cylinder deactivation on the MSEFI forum. You may have to register to see this thread, and much of the discussion concerns the Megasquirt aftermarket ECU. But the consensus is that it's not likely to work unless you can also get the valves on the deactivated cylinders to stay closed.

Traqr -

At the moment, I am trying to persuade someone to pay me to test one of these things. I don't want to spend $60 on the part and considerably more testing just to win a message board arguement, but if I can spend someone else's money on the testing and get paid to write an article, that would be another matter. :)

So, and this is a genuine question, what would you like to see in a test article to see if it was valid? Like I said, I also think the Popular Mechanics write-up needed more information, but it seems that the more precise the test, the less effective these things are. I want to create a test that examines as many of its claims as possible, including whether it does reduce restriction in a mocked-up intake and whether there is any additional swirl in the air downstream of the throttle body.

Last month I bought a 05 PT Cruiser. I drive about 500 miles a week and was getting about 22mpg. After about 2 weeks I purchased a short RAM air intake on ebay for $30 including s&h. It did not come with a heat shield so after about a week I made one from tin flashing I bought at a local hard ware store for $2.50. I had some left over tin so I made a "turbonator" like device and installed it. All of the upgrades were done within about a week for a total of $32.50. After all upgrades my milage went from about 22 mpg to about 27 mpg. The first drive after installing the "turbonator" I was accelerating up an on ramp and my check engine light came on, I thought I really messed something up. I had driven the car with just the air filter upgrade several hundred miles, about a week, and had never seen this light. I stopped at the dealership and they said it was a temporary code for lean fuel-air mixture. I have had the check engine light come on two more times both when the engine was under strain. I did not have the code rechecked the light goes out on it own after about a day. I have no complaints with any of my upgrades. The performance does seem better but I admit that is subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biff

Last month I bought a 05 PT Cruiser. I drive about 500 miles a week and was getting about 22mpg. After about 2 weeks I purchased a short RAM air intake on ebay for $30 including s&h. It did not come with a heat shield so after about a week I made one from tin flashing I bought at a local hard ware store for $2.50. I had some left over tin so I made a "turbonator" like device and installed it. All of the upgrades were done within about a week for a total of $32.50. After all upgrades my milage went from about 22 mpg to about 27 mpg. The first drive after installing the "turbonator" I was accelerating up an on ramp and my check engine light came on, I thought I really messed something up. I had driven the car with just the air filter upgrade several hundred miles, about a week, and had never seen this light. I stopped at the dealership and they said it was a temporary code for lean fuel-air mixture. I have had the check engine light come on two more times both when the engine was under strain. I did not have the code rechecked the light goes out on it own after about a day. I have no complaints with any of my upgrades. The performance does seem better but I admit that is subjective.

---

Trust me, your performance gains aren't from the turbonator. I wish I could remember the magazine that tested them and found drops in top end power and no gains in low/mid end power. Really, this isn't a debate about 'pro/anti gadget' groups...its about some companies trying to scam you and us trying to save you money. There are no 'subjective' areas when you're dealing with this in cars, its either it works or it doesn't...it simply doesn't.

...and I'm not going to help any. Hello all who are still paying attention after all this time. I had to join and chime in. Not only was I fascinated at how long this debate had gone on, but how it gone on for so long without degenerating into something else. I have read all the comments (what can I say? It's 3 in the morning and I have nothing better to do.) and have nothing to offer but my own limited experience and faulty assumptions.

That said...

1) The Turbonator etc etc etc had intrigued me for quite some time. I figured "It's just stupid enough to work" (increased swiring = better mixing = better power and reduced emissions, right?) ((and wasn't that the whole point of GM's Vortec engines?)) but having read surprisingly enlightened debate about the swirling effect never being able to survive long enough to do any real good pushed all thought of spending the money for any of them out of my head quickly

2) The idea expressed somewhere above about ECU reprogramming to shut off fuel to half the cylinders like GM, Chrysler, etc. are doing had occured to me too (and I'm sure a great many others) as did the problem of the deactivated cylinders valves continuing to draw air and shunting it directly out to the exhaust setting off lean fuel alarms and whatnot. I should think anyone going through all the trouble of reprogramming to shut off fuel would spend the the extra time needed to also program to account for extra air when the fuel is cut. That is, of course, if such programming is possible. I don't deal with computer-controlled vehicles. Just look at my name. I like my cars stupid, damn it!

3) I don't remember if this was mentioned, and I'm too lazy to look back now, but there is a way to increase power and fuel economy. It's called "blueprinting." Thank you.

Now that I've rambled for long enough, do we have anyone here with proven methods of increasing power that won't blow up a street driven 34-year-old big block, aside from, of course, what I've already done? As for increasing mileage, that I know how to do, but overdrive transmissions are a bit expensive on the college student budget.

Before I go for today, I pose a question that probably ought to be placed somewhere else, and may be already, but: With deactivating cylinders seeming to be the future, has anyone thought of the ramifications of turbo/supercharging one of those?

And I apologize for all the correct spelling and grammar and big words. I don't know what came over me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket455

1) The Turbonator etc etc etc had intrigued me for quite some time. I figured "It's just stupid enough to work" (increased swiring = better mixing = better power and reduced emissions, right?) ((and wasn't that the whole point of GM's Vortec engines?)) but having read surprisingly enlightened debate about the swirling effect never being able to survive long enough to do any real good pushed all thought of spending the money for any of them out of my head quickly

---

Right. Theres dumber (and more dangerous) scams out there, too. You should check them out some day, they're hilarious.

Quote:

---

2) The idea expressed somewhere above about ECU reprogramming to shut off fuel to half the cylinders like GM, Chrysler, etc. are doing had occured to me too (and I'm sure a great many others) as did the problem of the deactivated cylinders valves continuing to draw air and shunting it directly out to the exhaust setting off lean fuel alarms and whatnot. I should think anyone going through all the trouble of reprogramming to shut off fuel would spend the the extra time needed to also program to account for extra air when the fuel is cut. That is, of course, if such programming is possible. I don't deal with computer-controlled vehicles. Just look at my name. I like my cars stupid, damn it!

---

Probably not a good idea to do to a car that isn't made for it. Also think about the problem of 2x the amount of oil leaking in before it can be sparked and ignited, espically if you have poor ring seal. Your car is almost as efficent as it'll ever be. You can make it more powerful without defeating fuel economy, but I doubt you're going to get much better fuel economy.

Quote:

---

3) I don't remember if this was mentioned, and I'm too lazy to look back now, but there is a way to increase power and fuel economy. It's called "blueprinting." Thank you.

---

Blueprinting is expensive. So much so that its not really worth it to save a few bucks on each tnak of gas. It also doesn't do as much on a stock engine as it does on a race-built block, which is what its best used for.

Quote:

---

Now that I've rambled for long enough, do we have anyone here with proven methods of increasing power that won't blow up a street driven 34-year-old big block, aside from, of course, what I've already done? As for increasing mileage, that I know how to do, but overdrive transmissions are a bit expensive on the college student budget.

---

I dunno what you have done, you should make another thread about it (if you haven't already) and people will chime in.

Quote:

---

Before I go for today, I pose a question that probably ought to be placed somewhere else, and may be already, but: With deactivating cylinders seeming to be the future, has anyone thought of the ramifications of turbo/supercharging one of those?

---

When cylinders are deactivated, you won't be generating any boost on a turbo, or anywheres enough boost on a supercharger to matter.

A little background is necessary.
I will be 50 yrs old this year, I am not a spring chicken.
I have been a mechanical tech for 11 years, and a mechanical engineer for almost 16 years.
I have tried 2 different MPG improvement devices in my life time, neither worked. Wish I could remember the names.

Now to details. After reading the Turbonator web site, I see no real information that proves the claims, just testimonials. If Turbonator will send me free of charge a real device, I will test it on my latest car, a Chrysler Sebring. But as for paying for one, I don't think I will do that just yet. Nothing they say supports their claims. There should be dyno tests and an independent laboratory fuel mileage test.

One of the responders to this thread stated that the Turbonator is just a line restriction. I have to agree with that. With a restriction, the engine gets LESS oxygen, therefore it compensates with less fuel to maintain the air fuel ratio. You should get LESS performance, and you MIGHT get improved gas mileage since the fuel injected has backed off.

I have seen this pheomena on a 1997 Plymouth Breeze (Mitsubishi 2.0L with 5 speed), quite by accident, on my travels from High altitude (Albuquerque at 5300 ft altitude) to low altitude. I was disturbed that I couldn't feel an increase in HP at low altitude, and that I had reduced fuel mileage at the lower altitude. The Breeze was an amazing car that consistently got 30 MPG (at 5300 ft alt) based upon 30% in town driving and 70% freeway driving over a period of 7 years and 97,000 miles.

I track fuel mileage at every tank with each car and have for more than 26 years.

Hi, just bought the vortex valve and then I found this forum. I am not even going to try it on my van I think I'm going to just send it back.

I would like to get some information though. I have a 1979 Dodge 360 5.L V8 4BBL Maxi van. I was wondering if there was a way to get better gas mileage even if I had to lose some power. I don't need all that HP I will never pull anything I would sacrifice some HP for better gas mileage.

What do you think of these ideas? Sorry if I don't explain it well.

1. K&N air filter
2. I notice the air filter is enclosed with a small airway. In my van the carburetor sits far back in the van. I was thinking would it be better to have the air filter out in the open like one of those 360 air filters covers?
3. Since I have a 4 barrels can I adjust when the 4 barrel is used till later to save gas mileage?
4. Anything you guys could come up with to get better gas mileage even if there is lose to HP I don't mind and I have power to spare. I rather save money. :)

Thanks

Yeah im kinda i just bought one of the turbonators and it should be here in a few days. It does seem tht the smaller compact cars just from reading have a better chance of increase. Who knows. Ill repost after I test it.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sexycivic98

Yeah im kinda i just bought one of the turbonators and it should be here in a few days. It does seem tht the smaller compact cars just from reading have a better chance of increase. Who knows. Ill repost after I test it.:D

---

Please post as many details as possible. Mileage over how many tanks of gas, quarter mile times (and whether they were from back to back runs at the same dragstrip or not), etc. The more measurements you take, the easier it is to tell if the results are actual changes or just statistical noise.

Tom, I'm starting a separate thread for van mods.

Someone testing the Turbonator on a Dyno http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1541871&page=1

Thanks for the link, EK. I see he's got the charts up now. Somehow, I can't say I'm surprised by the results.

I work in the Marine field - dredging to be exact. We have these 18" to 21" pipes that pump a sand/mud slurry mixture into either hoppers or ashore via long lengths of pipes - often several miles. When learning the trade, I once asked, as I was inspecting a section of pipe, of why they didn't make the inside of the pipes smooth to reduce resistance and increase the flow rate. I was told that the inside of the pipes had to be very rough because that created turbulence. It was the turbulence that kept the slurry mixture agitated and in suspension else it would settle and plug the pipes. Who would have thought, eh!
So how does this apply here? Well it goes like this - if the turbonator is installed after the fuel/air mixture, it would keep the mixture more in suspension and not condense on the piping walls. Where it mostly fails is that the unit creates the turbulence prior to injection of fuel and so a lot the agitation energy is lost when the fuel introduced. With the increase of air density something has to give. Go light and fast or heavy and slow - basic physics. Where the turbonator can work, however, is if the air flow has sections of uneven pressure - right angles, obstructions, etc. Then perhaps the added turbulence caused by the turbonator may actually diminish the pressure differentials in the air flow so that when the fuel is injected into the column of air, it will be carried more uniformly. You have to keep in mind that the engine is feeding off a fuel/air mixture, that is the air is carrying the fuel. These fine droplets have the tendency, as all liquids, to combine to form bigger drops. Big drops are not good for combustion because they have only so much surface area exposed to the oxygen. Once the combustion has occurred, the middle of the drops - uncombusted - are expelled and a new batch is introduced into the cylinder. So for the same volume of air, smaller drops offer greater surface area for combustion and therefore burn cleaner and more thoroughly.
So where does that leave the debate? Here's my thinking - on older carburated engines, it may offer an advantage by agitating the fuel/air mixture and making it more uniform in the manifold. For fuel injection and later cars, I don't think it does any good.
Here's a thought - for an older car 60's - 70's type, it may be better to remove the the carburator from the manifold and install a length a piping between them so that when the fuel/air mixture reaches the manifold it has a chance to be in a more uniform state. Your off-the-line response will suffer but you may gain better milage and power.

We have proof now to put these turbnonators spiralmax etc do not work. So now we can let this topic rest and die that

TURBONATORS, SPIRALMAX ETC CAUSE LOSS OF POWER

Even though this topic will never end oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by captm19

I work in the Marine field - dredging to be exact. We have these 18" to 21" pipes that pump a sand/mud slurry mixture into either hoppers or ashore via long lengths of pipes - often several miles. When learning the trade, I once asked, as I was inspecting a section of pipe, of why they didn't make the inside of the pipes smooth to reduce resistance and increase the flow rate. I was told that the inside of the pipes had to be very rough because that created turbulence. It was the turbulence that kept the slurry mixture agitated and in suspension else it would settle and plug the pipes. Who would have thought, eh!
So how does this apply here? Well it goes like this - if the turbonator is installed after the fuel/air mixture, it would keep the mixture more in suspension and not condense on the piping walls. Where it mostly fails is that the unit creates the turbulence prior to injection of fuel and so a lot the agitation energy is lost when the fuel introduced. With the increase of air density something has to give. Go light and fast or heavy and slow - basic physics. Where the turbonator can work, however, is if the air flow has sections of uneven pressure - right angles, obstructions, etc. Then perhaps the added turbulence caused by the turbonator may actually diminish the pressure differentials in the air flow so that when the fuel is injected into the column of air, it will be carried more uniformly. You have to keep in mind that the engine is feeding off a fuel/air mixture, that is the air is carrying the fuel. These fine droplets have the tendency, as all liquids, to combine to form bigger drops. Big drops are not good for combustion because they have only so much surface area exposed to the oxygen. Once the combustion has occurred, the middle of the drops - uncombusted - are expelled and a new batch is introduced into the cylinder. So for the same volume of air, smaller drops offer greater surface area for combustion and therefore burn cleaner and more thoroughly.
So where does that leave the debate? Here's my thinking - on older carburated engines, it may offer an advantage by agitating the fuel/air mixture and making it more uniform in the manifold. For fuel injection and later cars, I don't think it does any good.
Here's a thought - for an older car 60's - 70's type, it may be better to remove the the carburator from the manifold and install a length a piping between them so that when the fuel/air mixture reaches the manifold it has a chance to be in a more uniform state. Your off-the-line response will suffer but you may gain better milage and power.

---

In the process of agitating the air, it's also slowing it down. The air coming into the intake wants to travel as fast as it can. By putting something in there that forces the air to change direction, you're going to cause it to slow down (try making a 60 degree change in direction while sprinting, you're going to slow down). While the added turbulance/agitation may cause better fuel mixture, the added turbulance will also reduce the engines ability to suck air into the cylinder, which results inless oxygen and less fuel in the cylinder, and less power as a result. This thing does almost the exact opposite of a supercharger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CVStroker

In the process of agitating the air, it's also slowing it down. The air coming into the intake wants to travel as fast as it can. By putting something in there that forces the air to change direction, you're going to cause it to slow down (try making a 60 degree change in direction while sprinting, you're going to slow down). While the added turbulance/agitation may cause better fuel mixture, the added turbulance will also reduce the engines ability to suck air into the cylinder, which results inless oxygen and less fuel in the cylinder, and less power as a result. This thing does almost the exact opposite of a supercharger.

---

I like to think an analogy similar to one like rifling. Shoot two identical bullets through identical rifles except one of the barrels doesn't have the rifling groves. Although the rifled bullet will have some very imperceivable delay exiting the barrel due to the induced spinning, the result however is a straighter and farther trajectory.

Putting the turbonator in a section of hose that curves all around defeats its purpose.
That's why I said earlier that carburated engines, with a straight shot into the manifold may be the best benificiaries of this device.

There is however, a matter of definetion regarding what turbulence is. One might argue that the air coming in as designed is full of turbulence in which case the device may smooth out the various pressure differentials. I think the air filter acts as an air valve in reducing high inputs of air pressure - but that's just me.

I think the turbinator device does work but in a very limited situations. First, there must be a straight line from the device to the piston's intake. Second, it must be of a distance that will allow the "processed" air to make at least one full revolution, and third it has to be placed after the fuel and air are mixed.

The chances of finding all three parameters in a commonly built car are slim to none but if you were building a vehicle for a long distance competition, hmmmmmmm!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JediKnight

And no, I don't work for any of the companies that produces these products!!!!!!

---

no, you don't. you work for one of the many marketing companies that hires people like you to create accounts on forums to shill. you know what shill means?

these guys who are talking about how these things work? yeah--all of them are fakes. big fat phoneys.

here's a link to a funny version of the explanation of what these guys do:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/02/10

aaaand here's the text-only journalism-style version:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...hnology/AtPlay

and here's a company that does it:
http://www.hypecouncil.com