The Unending Turbonator / Tornado / Spiralmax / etc Debate

Easy, BJ. I don't think JediKnight is a shill as much as someone who thought it worked right up until he took a closer look at his testing methods. Now, as for uneed2know - that's a shill for you. Or perhaps he is simply a troll who wanted to set himself up as the resident guru. I was tempted to erase all traces of his existance, but I believe that most reasonable readers will be able to make up their own minds about his level of honesty.

I purchased the turbonator two months ago and ran it ever since... until two days ago I bought somthing that WOULD boost horses and save gas,a short ram intake that costed only $65 more. I was very dissapointed in my decision in buying the turbonator and wasted plenty of money on it, ABSOLUTLY NO horsepower gain...air goes straight through those metal fan blades.Maybe (a big big maybe) the results could differ from car to car but I am looking for a friend with the same size intake resinator so I can be sure. my performance meter will be in the mail soon so I can get precise results. If you have not bought it and are thinking about it, DO NOT waste your money.

Ok, I bought three!!!! I but them on both a city car and a out of the city car. They gave me NO hp. I only seen that it made my car sound better and run smother. But my on board CPU did not show NO increase in HP. I drive a 328I BMW for in the city and I do 0-60 mph (0-100km) in 6.4 sec. But for some reason I'm hitting 6.2 most of the time now. AGAIN THE CPU I HAVE IS NOT SHOWNING A INCREASE IN HP.
Ok out of the city I drive a 760i BMW with is a nice ride, now I drive from Bucuresti to Brasov 250-300 miles and it cost me 50.00 Euro each trip in gas. Since I put it on my 760 which is a 12 cylinder engine and has two air filters I needed to add two Turbonators. Now I do this trip weekly. It only cost's me 45.00 Euro a trip now. I will pay for each in six weeks of driving. Now this is no B.S I can email you data that I have done on my cars. AGAIN NO HP GAIN BUT BOTH CARS ARE DRIVING SMOTHER.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else but I purchased 2 (Turbonators) and put the first one in my BMW740i and it seemed like it starved the engine and lost it's pep.Once the engine reached 70MPH it very slowly increased speed. I came back removed the Turbonator and did another lap around the highway and was doing 100MPH in a flash.Personally, " I think Turbonator is a get rich quick scam" Sure they say Money back guarantee but forget to mention less Re-sticking fees and I pay shipping.They figure its not worth the headache to go through returns so they get rich on a little 8x2 inch slice of sheet matal with some lame looking bends made to be fins.. Looks like the person that stuffs them in the bag bends them before shipping. Yes it is stainless steel but WHOOPIE it's a scam. Made my car run worse and I'm NOT IMPRESSED. I wished I would have researched more before spending the money..The second one will set in my office to remind me what an idiot I was for not researching before buying.

I put one in my BMW and it slowed it down and was a TOTAL waste of money 69$ for a 2"x 8" slice of soft stainless sheet metal with some lame ass bends on it that the person stuffing them in the bag probably bent..OH How I hate those Get rich quick scams. Made a NOTICABLE difference in the negative side. OH the MONY BACK GUARANTEE.. less shipping and a 15% re stocking fee.:mad:

LOOK AT THE PHOTO OF THE TURBONATOR IN PLACE..... Does it look like it will allow MORE air pass through? NO In deed it starved my car and it "might" put some sort of spin on the air but it restricts it so much I LOST power. It RESTRICTS air flow. Dont you think if I were better to have the spiril air the car manufactures would easily use spiril hoses or the intake connections. Its a rip off in my opinion. It made my car run terrible.My neighbor laughed at me because he actually almost wasted his money on them too.Now he saw how bad they work... SAD... Only in America...

If you want to measure the turbonator's real world performance, put your wallet on a dyno to see how fast it sucked out your cash!

hey guys....damn do i feel duped, i wouldn't have bought the turbonator had i read through this forum first...it was a late night purchase so i can lay some of the blame on being tired but the other factor is that i drive a 98 civic vtec and any extra scrap of power would be great. i actually ordered three of the pieces of crap, just got em today and put them into my short ram intake...i can't really notice a difference, at least there is no immeidiate negative effect! i figure i'll test them out for about a week but i expect i know what my results will be from reading through this forum. I just ordered a ecu upgrade "v force" by jet....anyone use one before? please respond with results if so. but i would say that the next mod i purchase will be in the form of a $3K Greddy turbo kit for some REAL added power....oh yeah that chump at the beginning spouting off about a 430hp civic, wheres the nos? no way a civic with a civic engine could put that kind of horses out without a real good forced air induction system and a big fat bottle of nos!:lol:

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

I recently bought a Vortec Cyclone, which seems to be a higher quality unit than the Turbonator at a lower cost. I'm not sure about the extra horsepower, but I'm definitely getting between 1-2 MPG better mileage in my 94 Bonneville, which was about what they promised on their site. I drive about 300 miles a week, so I figure that at $2.80 per gallon, I'm saving about $15 per month. Since the unit only cost $45, it will pay for itself in 3 months.

How many tankfulls did you average that over, Vetteran? My Focus's mileage has bounced around from 25 to 33 mpg depending on how I drive it and the season.

I Read all of the reviews and opinions on the turbonator and such. and now Im back at square one I dont know what to do now? I have a 1999 honda civic 1.6L DOHC 4cyl. I want someone, who really knows their stuff to tell me what I can do to add some horses to it without having to give all my assets. Tell me whats crap and whats not please and thanx.

Alright, here's my 2 cents for what they're worth. A lot of this may have already been stated, but it should be seen by everyone.

1) Any device that prevents laminar flow (smooth, streamlined flow) of air into the cylinder will cause a loss in efficiency and thus a loss in horsepower. So if there's a device that "spins" the air, you've lost. Period, end of story. Strike 1. I will keep turbochargers and superchargers out of this arguement for the sake of simplicity.

2) As well, any device or addition you install on the intake line will cause a restriction, even if it's as simple as an extension of open pipe. So why add anything onto the system? The idea is to have a net gain - any loss due to restrictions should be compensated for in the benefits of said addition. I don't see that happening with these devices. What's driving the "spin" part of this? It's not belt or motor driven, so it's relying on the force of the incoming air to provide rotation. So you're basically taking energy out of the air to spin this thing, and then further reducing the energy by forcing the air to change direction! Strike 2.

3) This restriction causes less air to be drawn into the system per engine cycle. As has been said, the engine will adjust the fuel ratios accordingly, so now your engine is using less fuel. This will result in an increase in fuel mileage, but a decrease in horsepower. There are 2 main ways to generate more horsepower on any engine: increase displacement and increase your burn. But you can't burn more fuel without more air! Strike 3.

4) Finally, if these "magic" devices were truly shown to increase both horsepower and fuel mileage at the same time, don't you think they would already be used by OEM? The automotive companies spend millions of dollars every year on research and development, and they have some of the most brilliant engineers in the world at their disposal. If these methods really worked, surely someone would have figured it out by now. ;)

So it looks like all these devices have struck out. Anyone who will say that they've proven these things on the dyno is just plain wrong, and isn't considering any other factors (or isn't telling the true story). When you let me physically see 2 side-by-side identical dyno runs with complete data, then we'll talk, but I can guarantee you that they don't work. If you still aren't convinced, send me a PM. I'll show you the horsepower equation and the fluid mechanics equations to prove my point. :)


~FordX

It occurs to me that proponents and opponents of the utility of the Turbonator and other similar devices are both correct. On an absolute scale, obviously such a silly device can neither deliver any additonal brake horsepower nor significantly improve fuel economy. However, this is precisely why the device works relatively speaking. That is to say, since its principle of operation actually reduces airflow, it effectively compels one to drive more slowly, given that there would be no discernible advantage in acceleration, if not drag, and the already achieved velocity would seem convincingly sufficient in position. Needless to say, driving more slowly and steadily significantly improves fuel economy, as well as "increasing" available horsepower (or the perception thereof) within the lowered rpm range of operation. Note that there is no claim concerning torque, because acceleration to jerk are discouraged. The price of the device is the price of a driving lesson---and one that need not be repeated. Depending on the temper of the driver, the Turbonator may well "work".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edgomes

It occurs to me that proponents and opponents of the utility of the Turbonator and other similar devices are both correct. On an absolute scale, obviously such a silly device can neither deliver any additonal brake horsepower nor significantly improve fuel economy. However, this is precisely why the device works relatively speaking. That is to say, since its principle of operation actually reduces airflow, it effectively compels one to drive more slowly, given that there would be no discernible advantage in acceleration, if not drag, and the already achieved velocity would seem convincingly sufficient in position. Needless to say, driving more slowly and steadily significantly improves fuel economy, as well as "increasing" available horsepower (or the perception thereof) within the lowered rpm range of operation. Note that there is no claim concerning torque, because acceleration to jerk are discouraged. The price of the device is the price of a driving lesson---and one that need not be repeated. Depending on the temper of the driver, the Turbonator may well "work".

---

That is probably the most rediculous thing I have ever heard in my entire life! Thanks for the laugh though, you get an "A" for trying to sound technical.:thumbsup:

~FordX

The matter is one of perception become reality, a point which FordXplod93's reaction neatly demonstrates: I'm not sure why, yet I've no doubt that (his understanding of) my explanation is, indeed, the one thing that he would most probably subject to ridicule of all that he's ever heard in his entire life, may it be long and happy, my resident cynic friend. I am not a partisan of the Turbonator, but the phenomenon of people who've experienced a good for which there's no rational basis interests me. It's possible that all those who have reported a slight improvement of fuel economy are wrong. It's also possible that there's another explanation---not one based on what one believes the Turbonator could do or should do, but rather on what it does and how it does it---which phenomenon stands in need of an accounting.
It's been agreed that the device restricts airflow while increasing the speed of its intake--this, of course, is where the "turbo" part is misleading, because apart from resembling a turbine, it has nothing to do with turbocharging. Since there is no real benefit, any benefit that users (at least those undeterred in their observation by the controversy) have accrued, or believe that they have, must be due to the human element in the machine---hardly a radical hypothesis---which may explain why auto races aren't conducted without drivers on dynamometers. Perhaps, for the benefit of us, the less able minds teeming among the elect, FordXplod93 would like to share his further thoughts on the nexus of psychology and physics.
Anyone can read the patent filing (no. 6,895,924) on-line. The most succinct claim reads: "Generally, the present invention provides a spacer having a particular passage configuration which improves engine performance, decreases fuel consumption (i.e., provides for better gas mileage), may result in more low-end torque, easier starting, more horsepower, and other various functions . . ." [emphasis added] (http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...S=turbonator/). The legally binding claims lie in the first relative clause: improvement of engine performance is vague for this purpose, which leaves decrease in fuel consumption. It must be that the driver could be incited to better behavior by the device. It may not always work, but this is true of any invention; they're designed for a special purpose for the average individual who would employ them appropriately. If you don't need one, then I congratulate you. Neither do I. I also don't need a singing fish to mount on the wall, but people do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edgomes

The matter is one of perception become reality, a point which FordXplod93's reaction neatly demonstrates: I'm not sure why, yet I've no doubt that (his understanding of) my explanation is, indeed, the one thing that he would most probably subject to ridicule of all that he's ever heard in his entire life, may it be long and happy, my resident cynic friend. I am not a partisan of the Turbonator, but the phenomenon of people who've experienced a good for which there's no rational basis interests me. It's possible that all those who have reported a slight improvement of fuel economy are wrong. It's also possible that there's another explanation---not one based on what one believes the Turbonator could do or should do, but rather on what it does and how it does it---which phenomenon stands in need of an accounting.
It's been agreed that the device restricts airflow while increasing the speed of its intake--this, of course, is where the "turbo" part is misleading, because apart from resembling a turbine, it has nothing to do with turbocharging. Since there is no real benefit, any benefit that users (at least those undeterred in their observation by the controversy) have accrued, or believe that they have, must be due to the human element in the machine---hardly a radical hypothesis---which may explain why auto races aren't conducted without drivers on dynamometers. Perhaps, for the benefit of us, the less able minds teeming among the elect, FordXplod93 would like to share his further thoughts on the nexus of psychology and physics.
Anyone can read the patent filing (no. 6,895,924) on-line. The most succinct claim reads: "Generally, the present invention provides a spacer having a particular passage configuration which improves engine performance, decreases fuel consumption (i.e., provides for better gas mileage), may result in more low-end torque, easier starting, more horsepower, and other various functions . . ." [emphasis added] (http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...S=turbonator/). The legally binding claims lie in the first relative clause: improvement of engine performance is vague for this purpose, which leaves decrease in fuel consumption. It must be that the driver could be incited to better behavior by the device. It may not always work, but this is true of any invention; they're designed for a special purpose for the average individual who would employ them appropriately. If you don't need one, then I congratulate you. Neither do I. I also don't need a singing fish to mount on the wall, but people do.

---

But what you're proposing makes no sense, that's why I'm calling you out. You're saying that a device marketed to increase horsepower and fuel economy is going to have a mental effect on the driver causing him/her to drive slower??? I don't know how many cars larger than a Geo you've driven, but try again. As well, horsepower decreases with engine speed (RPM), not the other way around as you would suggest. Go back to the basics. Horsepower is made with RPM, F/A ratio, air density, displacement, and efficiencies. All variables effect the equation in positive proportion. For a given fuel, decreasing fuel consumption does not increase torque, EVER. I'm not going to argue about the psychology of humans behind the wheel. I'm saying (and I can prove mathematically if you so desire) that IC engines are bound by the laws of physics and thermodynamics, both of which render the claims of these devices useless. You can patent just about anything; that doesn't make it useful or even functional. You are right that races aren't conducted with dynos. But anyone worth their salt knows that the car with the most horsepower doesn't always win the race.

~FordX

Ok fellas, move over and let a pro step in. I have a 96 mustang, I installed a paxton supercharger on it and gained about 125 hp. Then I installed a turbo-na-tor. My hp gain went up to around 325 NO ****!! I have 13 dynomometers (thats a dyno to the ignorant asses who piss out of their brain) to prove it!

Actually I'm full of ****...but you already knew that. This topic always makes me bust a gut. I had to mess with you guys.

Oh yea, I do have a bone stock 96 GT conv Auto. It's such a turd I'm embarrased to pull up next to a Prius at a red light. If I do I dare not look over. I just do my lean and crank up the music. It is fun when it rains though and suicide when it snows.

One Co. out there, http://www.electricsupercharger.com claims to have hit the holy grail of electric psi. It is intruging but their dyno results show such a small increase I can't imagine anyone paying 300 bucks for 1 psi and 6 hp when you could perobably get that (minus the psi of course) from adding a 3 dollar bottle of octane boost to your gas tank. They have totally useless footage of a Porshe 928 race car speeding down a race track...I'll bet it doesn't even have the product on it.

C'mon folks use your head, If anybody is still thinking about buying one of these things you are absolutely desperate.

I gotta go, I could go on and on.

People (who are looking to buy this stuff) just face the fact that you are broke and your car is slow and accept it.

bye bye

Your New Buddy,

Rob

EDIT: Stupid Icons don't work....MODERATOR!!!

The ratio of speed to torque varies indirectly (i.e., more speed, less torque; less speed, more torque). When the driver cruises smoothly at some velocity, the vehicle’s transmission is generating less torque, because acceleration, first derivative of velocity with respect to time, is minimally changed. This is the fuel-efficient behavior to be induced.
Horsepower, and perforce torque, increases with engine speed, or rpm (at least until a point)—a positive proportion as you’ve said, although prior to this you’ve declared it a negative proportion. This is what a dynamometer’s feedback can display. The hp ratings that manufacturers state are at optimized speeds far in excess of those that the average driver would encounter in average driving, assuming a conventionally laden vehicle. This is where fuel is disproportionately spent.
American public law usually assumes the standard of the reasonably prudent individual whereas the area of consumer protection safeguards the “ignorant, unthinking, and credulous” as well. To make the case, therefore, that this device is wholly worthless ought to be simple, but it hasn’t been done. The Turbonator does not disguise itself as any form of engine tuning. It is based on the idea of speeding the delivery of air through the intake, bringing “more” and concentrated air into the fuel-air mixture. In fact, although this is correct in principle, the rate of increase of an unassisted turbine would be so slight as to be insignificant in practice, more than defeated by the hose’s reduced aperture. So, if the moment of force is diminished by resistance, the effort is complementarily reduced: acceleration won’t help—it will only cause to reduce further how much air is passing through a “Turbonated” manifold, awaiting combustion. The effect is to simulate a more efficient higher compression ration in the cylinders; however, it is the driver who has become more efficient by demanding less of the machine across his travel. An analogy would be driving in low gear—a gain in real power at the expense of speed compels the driver to go slow—but shifting thence into high gear gives the perception of more power, which, in another sense, is accurate.

Edgomes, I'll go over your rant line by line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edgomes

The ratio of speed to torque varies indirectly (i.e., more speed, less torque; less speed, more torque).

---

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but that does not describe the torque curve of a gasoline engine. It more closely resembles some types of electric motors or steam engines.

Quote:

---

When the driver cruises smoothly at some velocity, the vehicle’s transmission is generating less torque, because acceleration, first derivative of velocity with respect to time, is minimally changed. This is the fuel-efficient behavior to be induced.

---

Some obvious problems here. If the car is cruising at constant velocity, acceleration is zero, but that doesn't mean torque is zero. The horsepower required to overcome air resistance increases with the cube of the speed. This would require the torque sent to the wheels to increase with the square of the speed.

Quote:

---

Horsepower, and perforce torque, increases with engine speed, or rpm (at least until a point)—a positive proportion as you’ve said, although prior to this you’ve declared it a negative proportion.

---

You've declared it to be a negative proportion. I haven't.

Quote:

---

This is what a dynamometer’s feedback can display. The hp ratings that manufacturers state are at optimized speeds far in excess of those that the average driver would encounter in average driving, assuming a conventionally laden vehicle. This is where fuel is disproportionately spent.

---

I don't know about you, but if I have to get into freeway traffic from a short onramp, you can bet I'm going to rev my engine up to where it makes peak power.

Quote:

---

American public law usually assumes the standard of the reasonably prudent individual whereas the area of consumer protection safeguards the “ignorant, unthinking, and credulous” as well. To make the case, therefore, that this device is wholly worthless ought to be simple, but it hasn’t been done.

---

What standard of proof do you have? I've pointed to tests where this thing failed to improve fuel consumption at a steady 70 mph, tests where its claims of more horsepower failed spectacularly, and given explanations of why their theories of why it works are completely bogus. Frankly, I'm amazed that the FTC hasn't pulled this off the market for deceptive advertising, or at least forced them to change their ad wording substantially like what they did to Splitfire and Slick 50. There's already a fair amount of proof out there that at least one of their claims is an outright lie, namely, the claim of more power.

The trouble is that mileage is a real pain to measure because it fluxuates, and many people are not very good at designing a rigorous experiment to measure their gas mileage. Consequently, there are enough people who have concluded from two tanks of gas that this thing "works." One guy on the forum just measured how many miles he was logging between fill-ups, and didn't even record how much gas he put in.

Quote:

---

The Turbonator does not disguise itself as any form of engine tuning.

---

They claim more horsepower. That's close enough to "a form of engine tuning" for me, and the fact that every time I have seen one dyno tested, it failed, casts severe doubts on Turbonator's other claims.

Quote:

---

It is based on the idea of speeding the delivery of air through the intake, bringing “more” and concentrated air into the fuel-air mixture. In fact, although this is correct in principle, the rate of increase of an unassisted turbine would be so slight as to be insignificant in practice, more than defeated by the hose’s reduced aperture.

---

Actually, it's not even correct in principle - the device is an airflow restriction and does not bring in more air. It is not even technically a turbine, as a turbine is a device that converts fluid flow into shaft work. Since the Turbonator does not produce any rotary motion of any solid parts, it is not a turbine.

Quote:

---

So, if the moment of force is diminished by resistance,

---

"Moment of force" is a seldom-used term for "torque," but that isn't a torque that will ever reach the drive wheels. While the Turbonator does apply a torque to the incoming air, whether any rotation from it can make it through the throttle body, let alone an intake manifold, is very suspect.

Quote:

---

the effort is complementarily reduced: acceleration won’t help—it will only cause to reduce further how much air is passing through a “Turbonated” manifold, awaiting combustion.

---

A big fancy way of saying "The Turbonator is an air restriction, and the engine can't draw in as much air at full throttle with it there as it can without it."

Quote:

---

The effect is to simulate a more efficient higher compression ration in the cylinders;

---

Wrong. An airflow restriction will lower manifold pressure and thereby lower cylinder pressure, thereby lowering the engine's effective compression ratio. This is one reason why diesels get more fuel economy - they are never throttled, and hence do not have the same drop in compression.

Quote:

---

however, it is the driver who has become more efficient by demanding less of the machine across his travel.

---

I do not understand your point. Are you saying that driving with this thing in your intake will cause drivers to drive more slowly? If so, why?

Quote:

---

An analogy would be driving in low gear—a gain in real power at the expense of speed compels the driver to go slow—but shifting thence into high gear gives the perception of more power, which, in another sense, is accurate.

---

Actually, my Focus can get up to freeway speeds in third, and probably in second, too, on a five speed tranny. And this would not be good for gas mileage at all. You have to make a conscious decision to drive more slowly and not flog the car. And if somebody puts one of these things in a car and thinks, "Cool, more horsepower and more mileage!" that driver may very well drive the car hard to enjoy the non-existant horsepower gain that the owner thinks has occurred.

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.

---

Yea anyways before we all get in a big arguement over an airfilter device and someone ends up mad at carreview.com customers.. start talking about something worth argueing over like exhaust, intakes, carbs, that kind of stuff.. if your wondering why i came on here if i think turbonators or tornadoes or whatever are lame.. its because i wanted to see exactly what people had to say about them. I didnt actually think there would be an arguement..

Hey all - my first post. This thread has been very entertaining reading, and inspirational! The Turbonator/Tornado/VortexValve are absolutely not effective in increasing airflow or horsepower, but they may improve fuel economy by effectively reducing the engine's power capacity and preventing high fuel consumption rates. This is the same effect as going easy on the throttle or limiting the throttle to only open to 80%. The vortex concept does not seem all that bad. The problem, as mentioned earlier, is that the throttle plate interferes with any vortex induced prior to the throttle body. There are a couple of related developments however. The first is an engine without a throttle body (http://www.bmwworld.com/technology/valvetronic.htm) The airflow is controlled by variable intake valves. This provides unobstructed flow from the air filter. Is it possible a Turbonator or similar vortex generating device could actually have a positive effect in this engine? :eek: BMW claims this to be the first engine without a throttle butterfly, but go-karts and snowmobiles have had slide valve carburetors (for minimal restriction) for decades, and I found that Alpha-Romeo used slide valves carbs in the 60's. Anyway, the second advancement is the combination of a part-time supercharger and turbocharger ("SuperTurbo") in VW's Golf 5. What is new is that the ECU only engages the supercharger clutch up to the effective working RPM's of the turbocharger. The combination produces greatly improved torque and reduces the power losses from the supercharger. Now I'm just thinking out loud here :idea: - what we (turbo owners) need is a part-time electric supercharger that would provide enough PSI to the intake to make a difference - certainly not a boat ventilation fan! Then there are the issues of air flow metering and blow off valves, making it much more complicated than simply strapping a fan to your intake. But - it's always fun to try to think of cheap ways to add horsies. :p

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.

---

Holy f&*k! i didnt think there was such a thing as 85 mpg. Screw buying a smart car im going to go buy a turbonator for my v8 that gets 21 mpg. lets see.. that will e 21+85.. thats 106 mpg! I can't believe it. Thanks for all the tips and ******** advice on your plastic air-fogging device.

P.S. Your father should slap you for making him look so bad.

Let say this thing (turbonator, etc) works on your car, and get u small amount of hp. Will this improve performance of chiptining on ECU if u do it(I think higher value that is prescribed for tuning on that engine)?

My first post. I enstalled the Tornado in my 97 F150 4.6 auto. G-tech showed 10 more hp and i'm getting 1 more mpg. It works in some applications.

I haven't baught one of these things but I have alot of friends who are mechanics and most of them say it might restrict airflow but would produce a better air/fuel mixture, which would give you more power due to a more efficient burn, IF the 'vortex' makes it past the throttle.
Personally I dont think it would do a whole heck of a lot, but I'd be willing to spend the money just to shut you people up. BUT it wouldn't help, the non-beleavers would say I was full of crap if it worked, and the beleavers would say "thats just your car" if it didn't.

And a footnote to the jerkoffs who said things like "85mpg increase ! My car would get like 106 MPG!" You really need to work on your reading and interpretation skills. It says "85mpg per tank increase" so obviously the guy messed up when he was typing and he meant to say 85 mile/tank increase.


Someone call MythBusters and we'll get this problem sorted out right away! :thumbsup:

If you're wondering why I am so skeptical of test results, Ninja, it's because I put the odds of this thing actually working at so low that I think it is more likely for someone to have made an error in testing than for the device to have worked. Particularly if the test is a less precise means of testing, such as a G-Tech.

Here are a couple of ways that I can see a G-Tech test go wrong:

• Testing on different days - weather affects horsepower.
• Testing on different stretches of pavement - if the pavement is not perfectly flat, it'll throw the results off.
• Not conducting enough test runs to average out differences in driving.
• Making very short test runs, like a sprint to 30 mph.

If you test it in a more precise environment - particularly on a dyno, ideally with a couple pulls both with and without it - I'll listen.

You may wonder why I didn't listen to uneed2know's claims about having it dyno tested. Bottom line, he was a lying troll, and several of his claims gave him away. He claimed to have mods on his car that no tuner in his right mind would have attempted to use at the same time, repeated claims from ebay scam artists almost verbatim, etc. So I showed him no mercy - with automotive trolls, it's either ridicule as many things about their posts as possible and then call their bluffs, or ban them and erase all traces of their existance. If those dyno shops existed, he could have easily proven me wrong and made me look like a fool. But they don't exist.

So, NinjaArmadillo, if you really want to put up your own money and try to prove me wrong, go ahead and have this thing tested on a dyno and post the graphs here. I've been itching to get ahold of one of these things and subject it to some scientific tests myself - only I've been trying to get some member of the media to pay for my testing and sell them an article so I don't have to put up my own money. :)

MaxC, you mind if I ask what you did to keep your G-Tech test accurate? Keep in mind what can throw these tests off. Have you tried backing that up with something more precise, like dragstrip runs?

Shunta, chips normally work only if you have real internal mods like cams or increased compression, unless the factory has detuned the car for some reason. Chips do not normally do much for just intake and exhaust mods. But since the Turbonator's opertating principle makes no sense, if one of these things worked, there's no telling. :) It's sort of like asking if a purple cow would need the same medicine as a normal one if it got sick - first you'll have to tell me why it's purple.

Spyder (and some others) - you may be interested to hear that the EPA tested a device meant to cause turbulence in the intake ports rather than the intake upstream of the throttle. This one had a manufacturer who admitted it would hurt rather than help horsepower, but thought it would improve mileage. The EPA found it didn't. You can read their reports here and here.

so its not worth the money? or should I try it anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by first ford

so its not worth the money? or should I try it anyway?

---

100% without a doubt not worth the money.

/THREAD

~FordX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxc

My first post. I enstalled the Tornado in my 97 F150 4.6 auto. G-tech showed 10 more hp and i'm getting 1 more mpg. It works in some applications.

---

I tested it 4x same day, same place, same rpm shift!!

Is that four times total - two with it and two without it? I personally would rather have more data points, but would you care to post all four results here anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slanter

Is that four times total - two with it and two without it? I personally would rather have more data points, but would you care to post all four results here anyway?

---

2 160 horse without it (1) 169hp with (1) 171hp with. The book hp on my engine is 190...........wrong. It was 50F that day testing.

The 190 hp is at the flywheel - a Gtech's supposed to measure power at the wheels, which is a bit lower. How fast did you get the truck up to for these tests? I'm still a bit skeptical on account of how much evidence there is of these things not working in more precise tests.

Would you be willing to back this up with a test at the dragstrip? Preferable what's called an ABA test - a few runs without it, a few runs with it, then make a few more runs without it to see if something else might have changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slanter

The 190 hp is at the flywheel - a Gtech's supposed to measure power at the wheels, which is a bit lower. How fast did you get the truck up to for these tests? I'm still a bit skeptical on account of how much evidence there is of these things not working in more precise tests.

Would you be willing to back this up with a test at the dragstrip? Preferable what's called an ABA test - a few runs without it, a few runs with it, then make a few more runs without it to see if something else might have changed.

---

41 mph each time. I tested it at 40F to 80F outside temps and got hp difference you would expect. I raged on the truck too much testing, that's enough, I plan selling it. But not the tornado. It will fit nicely in my newer truck.

Thanks for clarifying that. Looks like you've got a fair number of samples then, but it would get more data - and more accurate data - if you could test it over a whole quarter mile. A short sprint is going to be more affected by things like traction and launch technique. I know on the dragstrip there are times when a little more throttle can slow you down in the first critical 60', and there are times when having a little less horsepower can perversely make it easier to get the car off the line.

I don't mean to be a pest, but the way this thing seems to have bombed on every dyno test I've ever seen and seems to defy a few rules of engine tuning has made me think that a positive result is just as likely to be a problem with the experiment as proof that it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slanter

Thanks for clarifying that. Looks like you've got a fair number of samples then, but it would get more data - and more accurate data - if you could test it over a whole quarter mile. A short sprint is going to be more affected by things like traction and launch technique. I know on the dragstrip there are times when a little more throttle can slow you down in the first critical 60', and there are times when having a little less horsepower can perversely make it easier to get the car off the line.

I don't mean to be a pest, but the way this thing seems to have bombed on every dyno test I've ever seen and seems to defy a few rules of engine tuning has made me think that a positive result is just as likely to be a problem with the experiment as proof that it works.

---

As heavy as my truck is there is no tire spin. My dad is going to sell me hes 02 F150 5.4 4wd. Put that 5000lb+ beast in 4wd and test it with the larger engine. Have you seen in person dyno tests of higher horsepower cars say 250 rwhp? Peak g's is what the meter uses to determine hp. That will happen at peak hp, not effected by launch techniques

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxc

Have you seen in person dyno tests of higher horsepower cars say 250 rwhp?

---

Yes. Even had to duck a piece of flying drive belt after a supercharged Chevy V8 had its water pump self-destruct. I've also run a test on an engine dyno personally.

Quote:

---

Peak g's is what the meter uses to determine hp. That will happen at peak hp, not effected by launch techniques

---

Actually, peak g's happen during the launch itself. The G-tech's manual is not all that specific about how it calculates horsepower, whether it's from an instantaneous spike or whether it tries to average things over a wider area. Trying to get a single peak reading (which would be the peak value of g's times speed) would be a less accurate method, as that's more vulnerable to noise getting in.

BTW, the "Read this first" section of the G-tech manual also mentions that it's "likely to have performance variations up to 10%" between any two individual measurements even without making any changes. Accuracy problems like this are why I have been asking people who have tested these sorts of mods with an accelerometer to either get enough data to do a statistical analysis or back things up with a more precise instrument, even something like the timing system of a dragstrip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slanter

Yes. Even had to duck a piece of flying drive belt after a supercharged Chevy V8 had its water pump self-destruct. I've also run a test on an engine dyno personally.



Actually, peak g's happen during the launch itself. The G-tech's manual is not all that specific about how it calculates horsepower, whether it's from an instantaneous spike or whether it tries to average things over a wider area. Trying to get a single peak reading (which would be the peak value of g's times speed) would be a less accurate method, as that's more vulnerable to noise getting in.

BTW, the "Read this first" section of the G-tech manual also mentions that it's "likely to have performance variations up to 10%" between any two individual measurements even without making any changes. Accuracy problems like this are why I have been asking people who have tested these sorts of mods with an accelerometer to either get enough data to do a statistical analysis or back things up with a more precise instrument, even something like the timing system of a dragstrip.

---

true. I should have said where the engine pulls the hardest in the upper rpm ranges.My 351c has a home made water injection system. that gave 47 more horses. 350rwhp at 6200rpm. 397 at 6700rpm. with no ing.timing change. You pull it past 6200 with no water still reads 350,sorry that can be new subject. The tornado is very low bang for the buck. There is other things even simpler and better than nos. AND IT WILL NOT MELT YOUR ENGINE,BUT I BLEW A HEAD GASKET AND A CLUTCH

Slanter...

When this thread started you were the most educated and skeptical of these products...

Did anyone way your opinion or have you found at least 1 of them to work (even a bit?)

I can hammer on my truck 10 times in row and get 160hp + or - 2hp. The one time i put the tornado in and get 170hp. That's the time the g-tech meter is off? What are the odds on that?:mad2: