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.