Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 251
  1. #26
    Spam Reaper Site Moderator Slanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oxford, Georgia (USA)
    Posts
    728
    Only moderators can check the IP addresses. As CT said, these thee (MaV, uneed2know, and gsr2000) all come from different IP addresses. And MaV's IP address does indicate that it is from a .DK domain. I am quite willing to believe that these people are all different individuals.

    On the other hand, I am still conviced uneed2know is lying about the dyno shops. He really got greedy there claiming an 80 mpg increase and all, not to mention making up a 430 hp Civic with a very unlikely combination of mods. If you're reading this, uneed2know, let's see you try proving this. But I suspect he's run off with his tail between his legs. He knows his credibility is ruined if he can't produce the contact information for his fictitious shops.

    It is true that I have never tried the Turbonator. I have also never tried to get more horsepower by putting a lucky horseshoe in my air cleaner. When you have a part that (1) would need to defy the laws of physics to work as claimed, (2) never shows up on race cars where they spend thousands for just one more horsepower, and (3) has been dyno tested by several reputable magazines such as Sport Compact Car and found not to work, I don't really plan on trying it myself. Unless I'm planning to write a book about separating worthless cheap mods from ones that actually work, in which case I would probably get one so I could have a real dyno graph.
    Slanter - redefining "jury rigged repair" since 1997
    '66 Dodge Dart & 2000 Ford Focus -
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    or
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  2. #27
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    18

    Aem V2

    Hey Slanter, have you heard anything about the new aem v2 intake? I have heard good things about it, but don't know anyone who has tried it. I have an aem cold air on my integra and have loved it. I just don't know if spending another $280 on an intake would be worth it. Is it really that much better than previous aem models?

    GSR2000

  3. #28
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7
    Same as you, AEM CAI first version on my Civic, since one year now and I'm very satisfied with it. Wondering if the V2 can bring a noticeable gain.

  4. #29
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    5

    Cool thank you slanter

    Well.. I'm convinced of what concerns the turbonator. ;)

    But it gave me toughts of a direct air pathway through alu flex tubes.. I put a alu flex tube,(Ø 100mm.) starting at the bottom of the front bumper and then going up towards the air filter and ending right in front of it. The tube is curved so it "scoops" in air when driving! And it works. I know this because I have a inside outside termomether(sorry about spelling) where the outside cord ends inside the K&n filter. And when driving the tempeture falls remarkingly.. and as soon as I stop after few seconds the temp. raises again..

    this is my engine:

    http://catalog.dot-e.dk/billedmat/mo...mg/57-0055.jpg


    Right in the gap between the cooler hose and the battery (lower right corner) thats where in drag the tube up..

    mav

  5. #30
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1

    what it is

    hey whats up about the aem v2 intake it actually does give about a 3-4 extra bhp, my friend has a honda accord v6 and it realy is better, the sound definetly is different cause that how it works better. the dual sized chamber creates differing sound waves that increases air intake, and loweres air temp.

  6. #31
    Spam Reaper Site Moderator Slanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oxford, Georgia (USA)
    Posts
    728
    No personal experience with the V2, but I've heard of the same principle being used in some headers. Given AEM's reputation, I am pretty sure they've done a fair amount of dyno testing with this part, but I'm not sure how it compares to others.
    Slanter - redefining "jury rigged repair" since 1997
    '66 Dodge Dart & 2000 Ford Focus -
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    or
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  7. #32
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10

    Talking turbonator is good

    I have an old Camaro Z28, with a stock 5.0 w/ 4 barrel carb. I installed the turbonator and noticed a slight increase in power, and I think it saves some gas. This car GUZZLES gas, and it seems like the fuel lasts longer, and I'm going to the gas station a little less. I was worried about it breaking, and pieces falling into the carbeurator, but the pieces that are spot welded together seem to big to fit into the primary or secondaries. If one was so inclined, and really wanted to save money, you can measure the diameter of where you are supposed to put it, on the carb or in the intake. Go to the Home Depot, and MAKE onewith a little Burnzamatic! As a former plumber, I have torches and solder. If I had seen it first, I would have made my own, and saved about $50!!

  8. #33
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1
    Ok I joined this forum just to respond to this post, I dont know anyone else here, nore do i have any vested interest in any of the products in discussion. I am an ASE certified technician, and have worked for several performance shops. The following are not opinions, they are observations from my experience.

    1 - As a side note - I think some of you guys are using the mpg when you mean miles per tank.

    2 - Since performance intakes/filters have been brought up in the discussion of these "tornado" type things, lets compare the two. Everyone knows that the added mileage/performance from an aftermarket filter/intake comes from opening up airflow. Thats pretty much universally agreed upon. In fact, one of the reasons K+N intakes are so expensive, is that they are often much straighter than the stock ones - allowing the air to turn LESS and build up more speed - yeilding more power. So how can anyone of you contend that something that then restricts the airflow, and forces air to change direction is going to have the same effect?

    3 - These products claim that they cause a "swirling effect" in the air, which lets it burn better when ignited with the fuel mixture. Have you ever looked at the inside of a throttle body? Its a tube, with a big, flat metal plate running down the middle. There is no way any "swirling" of the air is going to have a lasting effect after that.

    4 - Lets talk tubos. Ive had 5 turbocharged cars in my short life, each with loads of aftermaket parts. For those of you who arent aware, generally the turbo forces air into this big thing called an intercooler (like a big radiator filled with air). The intercooler is pressurized. i.e. even if that "swirl" made it through the turbo, it would be totally lost when the air was pressurized in the intercooler!! And then it would have to pass over the throttle body - as we discussed a moment ago.

    5 - Modification of ANY sensor in the car by just smacking in a resistor is just f***ing stupid. Those sensors are there to make sure the right amount of fuel gets in to burn with the air (as previously stated by one of the few people in here who seems to knwo whats going on). Running too lean causes, knock, detination, pre-ignition, and just outright destroys engines!! Ask anyone who knows performance - they'll tell you, running leaner gives you more power, but it is a dangerous game. Most high performance engines run 13:1 air to fuel ratio (14.7:1 = stoich = not lean or rich) or less (less =more fuel per air = richer)!! I urge you not to take this risk with your cars.
    Last edited by SkpBarberGrad; 06-16-2005 at 11:46.

  9. #34
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10

    Talking

    The whole idea is with the Turbonator, Tornado, or similar product, you can install one in your car WITHOUT altering any sensors, or anything. It is generally safer than 'amateur modifying' and the like. I am no mechanic, but I know a little more than 'Joe Shmoe'. Before I got the Turbonator, I spoke to my mechanic about it. I have a very good relationship with those guys, and have been frequenting their establishment for years. They told me results will vary car to car, as some cars are maintained better and run better than others. You might see a small difference, if none at all, and let us know your results. I've been driving my Z28 for years, and I know the way the car runs by now. I believe the product works. As I said before the difference is small, but it seems I was putting gas in my car a little less often than usual. When you drive one car for so long you get used to putting gas in say, evry 8 days or something like that. Any good difference, you will notice it. I didn't actually compute miles per gallon, or miles to tank or anything. Then again, if your car has bad blow-by, a worn out engine, combustion problems, bad timing, missing, or the like, it doesn't matter what you put in it, it's not going to work. The whole concept of the thing, is an easy, inexpensive way to slightly improve performance and gas mileage. And we all know, gas is FREAKIN' EXPENSIVE!! Find a local auto store that sells them (there is one 5 min. from me that does), save the box and if it doesn't work, bring it back!! It is not a miracle product. If your car has been decently maintained, and runs fairly well with know obvious engine trouble, I recommend the product to you all. If you have a late model BMW, or an Audi A8 or something like that, obviously, you don't need products like that. I think they are made with the older car in mind. Like I said, find a store that sells it, if it doesn't work for you, just bring it back. And no, I don't work for any of the companies that produces these products!!!!!!

  10. #35
    Spam Reaper Site Moderator Slanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oxford, Georgia (USA)
    Posts
    728
    JediKnight,

    Have you tried any real testing of this thing? Dyno results would be great, but I'd settle for just taking it to the dragstrip and making several runs with the Turbonator and several runs without it. See if your times, or more importantly, your trap speeds improve. That way you'll have some real numbers to post instead of just claiming it feels better.

    Also, gas mileage can depend on a lot of things, some of which have little to do with the setup of the car. I pay attention to how many miles I've put on my car when I fill up my tank. On my Focus, the mileage has gone anywhere from 27 to 33 miles per gallon. Quite a wide spread even though I haven't made any tweaks to the car. If you want to prove it saves gas, you're going to need some well controlled testing. Otherwise you can't prove that the increase was purely due to your driving habbits. And you haven't even measured your miles to the gallon. With no measurements, you haven't proved anything.

    One other note. Carbureted engines may react to this a little differently from injected engines. The Turbonator is a big piece of sheet metal that goes just upstream of the carburetor and restricts your airflow. What else fits that description? The choke! That's right, driving with the Turbonator is like driving with your choke partially on. This means that it can make the car run slightly richer, depending on how restrictive the thing is. So in a way, it is like the mechanical equivalent of fooling a sensor. But if you want your carbureted engine to run richer, it's better to do things right and replace your jets.
    Slanter - redefining "jury rigged repair" since 1997
    '66 Dodge Dart & 2000 Ford Focus -
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    or
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  11. #36
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Slanter

    On the other hand, I am still conviced uneed2know is lying about the dyno shops. He really got greedy there claiming an 80 mpg increase and all, not to mention making up a 430 hp Civic with a very unlikely combination of mods. If you're reading this, uneed2know, let's see you try proving this. But I suspect he's run off with his tail between his legs. He knows his credibility is ruined if he can't produce the contact information for his fictitious shops.

    It is true that I have never tried the Turbonator. I have also never tried to get more horsepower by putting a lucky horseshoe in my air cleaner. When you have a part that (1) would need to defy the laws of physics to work as claimed, (2) never shows up on race cars where they spend thousands for just one more horsepower, and (3) has been dyno tested by several reputable magazines such as Sport Compact Car and found not to work, I don't really plan on trying it myself. Unless I'm planning to write a book about separating worthless cheap mods from ones that actually work, in which case I would probably get one so I could have a real dyno graph.
    I think he was saying the total mileage increase for the tankful? I know I sure wouldn't expend the time and money to perform tests on so many vehicles without compensation.

    The device does not defy the laws of physics. Please explain. It is possible to increase airflow by actually reducing the cross section of the intake area (the venturi effect in a carburetor for example). The evolution of hood scoops demonstrates this. Compare today's Pro Stock to say 10 years ago.

    Cylinder heads as well. It's not all about flow either; the combustion chamber design plays a big role in volumetric efficiency and the burn. That is one reason a typical modern Corvette can attain 25 mpg yet still make very respectable power, whereas one from 30 years ago sucked the gas and had lackluster performance. I think it's quite amazing how much power today's engines are putting out.

    I will say up front generally I don't go by what magazines report or even EPA. Depending on the motives, a simple test and statistic can be anything you want the outcome to be.

    There's been much controversy surrounding the Tornado and other similar devices, so I decided to buy one myself and test it. It is true that most 'mileage enhancers' don't work as advertised, but some do. I personally doubt this one works as claimed, but I'll find out.

    I drag raced for many years, but hung up the keys in 2001. Now I'm bored so instead of squeezing as much power as I can without regard to fuel mileage, getting as much MPG out of an engine is now my hobby.

    The test vehicle I will be using is a 2003 Dodge Durango with a 4.7L engine. Currently I'm comparing the E3 spark plug to OEM. No, I won't bother going to the strip.

  12. #37
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10

    Talking

    I have removed the turbonator and filled up the car with gas. Once the tank is empty and the mileage recorded, I will fill it up again, install it again and record the mileage when it's empty again. This page is for posting opinions on the product, and I thought my opinion would be helpful. Apparently not. I thought that was all this was started for in the first place. SLANTER: Do you actually expect people to go to the extent of putting cars on a dynamometer to test this thing?! If you don't own a shop or have a good friend that does, you're out of luck. I have GREAT mechanics who I really trust, but time is money and I'd have to probably pay them for clogging up one of their Bays for testing this thing. Or go to a strip and clock times? Maybe you should go call the Discovery Channel or log on to their website and get 'MythBusters' to test it. What do you expect people to do? Most people do not have the time or resources to do extensive testing on this thing. I'm merely stating my opinion which is based on the facts of my experience with it- it will SLIGHTLY improve performance and save a little bit of gas. Also, it won't obstruct air because it is vented with little holes, or slots. I don't think it is obtrusive enough to restrict air flow. If it did that I believe my car would be running so awfully, I would have to remove it. I will post my gas results within 14-20 days, as it will take time for me to use up two full tanks of gas. By that time, maybe this thread won't even exist??!

  13. #38
    31/m/NC Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1

    Lightbulb

    So, Uneed2know, you work for Turbonator? That product and all like it are next to trash and do virtually nothing for a car. Thankfully they offer a 30-day money back guarantee, that's a plus.

    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.

  14. #39
    Spam Reaper Site Moderator Slanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oxford, Georgia (USA)
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by glider
    The device does not defy the laws of physics. Please explain. It is possible to increase airflow by actually reducing the cross section of the intake area (the venturi effect in a carburetor for example). The evolution of hood scoops demonstrates this. Compare today's Pro Stock to say 10 years ago
    Sure, I'd be glad to explain.

    First, keep in mind that air speed (measured in feet per minute, miles per hour, or what have you) is not the same as total airflow (measured in cubic feet per minute, if you're not using the metric system). A venturi increases air speed, but it doesn't increase the flow rate. The ones on a carburetor are not designed to increase the airflow, but to create a pressure drop so that the carburetor can meter fuel. A carb would actually flow better if you drilled out the venturis, but it wouldn't actually work as a carburetor if you did that.

    The Turbonator on most installations is designed to sit in a straight section of intake pipe. They claim it makes the air flow through the pipe more efficiently. Now, here is a simple way to demonstrate that you cannot improve flow through a pipe by sticking anything in it. In physics, this would be called a thought experiment.

    Suppose you had a horizontal length of pipe just wide enough to slip a Turbonator into, where it can slide loosely. Or any other solid piece of metal, for that matter. And suppose the pipe is hooked up to a blower. Now imagine that you stick the Turbonator into the pipe and let go of it. Now turn on the blower. What happens?

    The Turbonator gets blown out of the pipe. Right?

    Now repeat this, only holding the Turbonator in place. You would feel it pushing back against your fingers. That means that the air is exerting a force on the Turbonator, trying to push it out of the pipe. Newton's Third Law of Motion states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means that if the air is pushing back on the Turbonator, then the Turbonator must be pushing forward on the air. Pushing the air in an upstream direction.

    So, we have established that the Turbonator must apply a force to the incoming air. And at least a part of this force is directed in a way that pushes against the direction in which the air is moving. Therefore, the force that the Turbonator applies to the incoming air must work in such a manner as to slow the air down.

    The conclusion is that any non-moving part stuck in a cylindrical tube must be partially obstructing the airflow.

    You are correct, however, in stating that there are cases where a part with a small cross sectional area can flow better than one with a large one. Usually this is something like a cylinder head port or other part with a complex shape where the air cannot flow through the entire cross-section. In these cases, a badly designed part may only have the air flowing through a small amount of its cross section.

    Good luck in your test. As I noted earlier, it may be possible in some cases for the thing to act like a partially closed throttle and possibly save some gas at the expense of power. Keep us posted, Glider.

    For JediKnight and others, here's why I'm asking for dyno tests or drag tests. If you claim it is giving you more power, you should demonstrate that. If you say it makes more power, it is up to you to show that it actually does make more power. So if you want to demonstrate that, the best way is to make a measurement that you can share.
    Slanter - redefining "jury rigged repair" since 1997
    '66 Dodge Dart & 2000 Ford Focus -
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    or
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  15. #40
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10

    Talking

    OK. I have ran one full tank of gas, and have recorded 163 miles to the tank. I have re-installed the turbonator, re-filled the tank, and will post the mileage results. As for the power increase, this I will have some difficulty with. But first and foremost, I will focus on 'miles to tank', because my car has no fuel computer. I will post my results with said product when I have ran through another tank of gas. This will probably take 7-10 days.

  16. #41
    Spam Reaper Site Moderator Slanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oxford, Georgia (USA)
    Posts
    728
    Thanks, JediKnight. How much did you put in?

    Also, to be sure, it will help to repeat this test a couple times. My Focus has gotten anywhere from 300 to 360 miles per tank depending on how I've driven it and such.
    Slanter - redefining "jury rigged repair" since 1997
    '66 Dodge Dart & 2000 Ford Focus -
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    or
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  17. #42
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10

    Talking

    Uh-Oh! Did I need to record the gallons of gas I put in?! I never had to do something like this. I've had other cars with built in fuel computers (Lincolns/Cadillacs), and this car does not have one. If I need to do that, PLEASE let me know, so I can re-do this test as soon as I can. I assumed that a full tank of gas would have been an adequate measurement. If not, please post something here! I will start my test all over again to get it right the first time. Thanks, guys. May the Force be With You!

  18. #43
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10

    Unhappy

    WHOA!! 300+ miles to a tank of gas?!?! Man, I need a new car! I wish my car got mileage close to that. Hazard, Georgia? Is that the inspiration for the 'Dukes of Hazzard'?

  19. #44
    Spam Reaper Site Moderator Slanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oxford, Georgia (USA)
    Posts
    728
    Well, my claim to where I live is sort of a joke. There isn't a real Hazard County. But I live in the area where they filmed the first episodes were filmed, Newton County (It's also where they filmed the TV version of In the Heat of the Night.). They have Dukes reunions every year, with the people who bought the cars from the original show or built replicas making anual pilgrimages.

    As for recording the amount you put in, it's usually a bit more accurate than the fuel gauge. I've had cars where filling it up on "empty" could differ by a gallon between fill-ups. But the pumps always fill it to pretty close to the same amount before shutting off.

    Yeah, those mpg computers sure are handy, aren't they? I had two cars that had them.
    Slanter - redefining "jury rigged repair" since 1997
    '66 Dodge Dart & 2000 Ford Focus -
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    or
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  20. #45
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10

    Angry

    WOW! Slanter, that is pretty damn cool! I LOVED the 'Dukes' when I was a kid. I even liked the 'cousins' alternates they used when they had that legendary contract dispute fiasco. I have no faith in the new movie coming out soon... Anyway, Slanter, something I was thinking. Do you think heavy Air Conditioning use would bog up my test? I almost always have it on now, and I was thinking today it might seriously mess up the usage numbers. The car idles much faster when the AC is on, living in the Bronx and all, I'm in traffic a lot. What do you think? And, yes, I wish my car had a fuel computer! I had a nice Continental that had one, and a Coupe DeVille. It would be great right now! Anyway S, if you could reply to this, that would be sweet. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A FUEL COMPUTER?????

  21. #46
    Spam Reaper Site Moderator Slanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oxford, Georgia (USA)
    Posts
    728
    I'm wouldn't worry about A/C. As long as you use it about as much in both tests and test a couple tankfuls each way, it should balance out.

    And I definitely regret that I missed seeing the time they had a live General Lee jump here a few years ago.
    Slanter - redefining "jury rigged repair" since 1997
    '66 Dodge Dart & 2000 Ford Focus -
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    or
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  22. #47
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10

    Talking

    Yo, Slanter. While I'm conducting my test, it will take a few weeks to accurately complete. Is there anyway you have pictures of your cars? If so, you can leave me a private message. I'd like to see them. If not, that's ok to. My friend around the corner has a Dart, I think it's a '66. He's like 80, and the car has like 300,000 miles on it. The car runs great, too!! The engine runs super smooth. I think it's incredible. They just don't make 'em like they used too!

  23. #48
    Spam Reaper Site Moderator Slanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oxford, Georgia (USA)
    Posts
    728
    I don't have any pictures of the Focus or Spitfire yet. The Focus is just a stock silver hatchback anyway. Right now the Spitfire is trapped in my carport, but I will get some pictures when it is moving under its own power.

    But I do have some pictures of the Dart. They were in the old Gallery but I hadn't uploaded them when they updated the Gallery software. I'll put them in the Gallery now. Here's the link:

    http://gallery.carreview.com/showgal...&ppuser=232951
    Slanter - redefining "jury rigged repair" since 1997
    '66 Dodge Dart & 2000 Ford Focus -
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    or
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  24. #49
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10

    Talking

    Thanks, Slanter.

  25. #50
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JediKnight
    Uh-Oh! Did I need to record the gallons of gas I put in?! I never had to do something like this. I've had other cars with built in fuel computers (Lincolns/Cadillacs), and this car does not have one. If I need to do that, PLEASE let me know, so I can re-do this test as soon as I can. I assumed that a full tank of gas would have been an adequate measurement. If not, please post something here! I will start my test all over again to get it right the first time. Thanks, guys. May the Force be With You!

    OK, OK, OK, I know these things probably do not work but I am curious to see how this test plays out with JediKnight.
    What you need to do JediKnight is fill up and record the number of miles then divide that by the number of gallons. You then will have the MPG number. Record that number and keep it somewhere easy to find. If you could do that for 5 tanks of gas with normal driving and then do it with 5 tanks of gas of normal driving without the "vortex generator" I would be interested in knowing the results.
    I am in no way a mechanic but I am always interested in more power and better mileage.
    On a side note my girl drives a Jetta TDI and VW's big claim with the TDI is that the engine creates a "vortex" that will then allow for a more thorough and cleaner burn of the diesel. Just an observation.
    Thanks
    TMillard
    www.fattmattsskate.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Help Eclipse DA7232 Wont Work, sorry so long
    By seans in forum Car Audio
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-07-2004, 22:37
  2. FM/AM Anetenna booster, does it really work?
    By zeniac in forum Car Audio
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-05-2004, 10:06

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •