Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 251
  1. #151
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1
    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

  2. #152
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2

    We will see!!!!

    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.

  3. #153
    Spam Reaper Site Moderator Slanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oxford, Georgia (USA)
    Posts
    728
    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.
    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.
    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.

  4. #154
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1

    Turbonator Dyno Test

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

  5. #155
    Spam Reaper Site Moderator Slanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oxford, Georgia (USA)
    Posts
    728
    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.
    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.

  6. #156
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2

    Why the Turbonator may but doesn't work - a perspective

    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.

  7. #157
    CAR REVIEW ADMlN Registered Member Easy E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,392
    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.
    Thats my 2 cents.

  8. #158
    I'm in your head Registered Member CVStroker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Madison WI
    Posts
    2,280
    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.
    Life: It's the ultimate sin; a game with no rules that you're expected to win

  9. #159
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2
    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!

  10. #160
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1
    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

  11. #161
    Spam Reaper Site Moderator Slanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oxford, Georgia (USA)
    Posts
    728
    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.
    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.

  12. #162
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1

    Angry I put it in and it didnt do anything

    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.

  13. #163
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    1

    Turbonator

    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.

  14. #164
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4

    Thumbs down TURBONATOR increased Donkey power

    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.

  15. #165
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4

    Turbonator Not Impressed

    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.

  16. #166
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4

    Turbonator

    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...

  17. #167
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    3
    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!

  18. #168
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3

    Angry of course i looked through this forum after buying into the scam

    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!

  19. #169
    Spam Reaper Site Moderator Slanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oxford, Georgia (USA)
    Posts
    728
    Riceburn, I'll answer your questions in a new thread.
    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. #170
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3

    Vortec Cyclone worked for me

    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.

  21. #171
    Spam Reaper Site Moderator Slanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Oxford, Georgia (USA)
    Posts
    728
    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.
    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. #172
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1

    Confused!!!

    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.

  23. #173
    Resident Cynic Registered Member FordXplod93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    616
    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
    Often imitated, never duplicated.

  24. #174
    Junior Member Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3

    You're both correct

    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".

  25. #175
    Resident Cynic Registered Member FordXplod93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    616
    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.

    ~FordX
    Often imitated, never duplicated.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 10 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
  •