The Tornado Fuel Saver: Does it really work?

[Matt Timion]

Author:Timion, Matt
Publication:www.gassavers.org
Date:10/19/2005

The Tornado Fuel Saver has been around for years now, claiming to give you an increase up to 24% in gas mileage.

The theory behind this device is that is will swirl the air coming in from the intake, which when mixed with gasoline will increase combustion and make the combustion more complete. In theory this means you have to use less gas to achieve the same speed and power, resulting in higher miles-per-gallon.
Many independant magazines and websites have tested this device over the years, which have all concluded that this device will not work, especially on modern fuel injected cars.
Even though Consumer Reports, the Department of Energy, the E.P.A, and countless other resources have tested this and other similar products with no positive results, people still convinced that this item may work.

Below is a review of the Tornado Fuel Saver from amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&camp=1789&tag=filamexperien-20&creative=9325&path=http://www.amazon.com/)

The Tornado Fuel Saver is a great idea for the patent holder and anyone else making money from its sales.
As an automotive technician I have encountered many devices that claim to improve performance or gas mileage. The Tornado is nice and shiny and makes an excellent paperweight or doorstop.

The theory of swirling the air/fuel mixture into the combustion chamber is nothing new; many modern vehicles are able to attain this with intake valves that open at slightly different times. There is very little doubt within the automotive industry that the better atomization of fuel within the combustion chamber yields better performance and as a result efficiency (mileage) for each unit of fuel and air that is taken into the motor.

However the Tornado Fuel Saver does not work for most modern cars and here is the reason: <br>
When the tornado is placed before a Mass AirFlow Sensor, otherwise known as a MAF, all that swirling air will be turbulent once again after passing through the sensor. Most MAFs have screens protecting the fragile wires (Hot Wire MAF) inside. If you have a Vane style MAF, then your airflow is even worse. No help from the Tornado before the MAF.

Stock intakes these days have a whole lot of ridges and baffles built into them, some are for strength so the intake piping doesn't collapse under vacuum, some are there to help quiet the roaring sound of the intake. If you place the Tornado after the MAF, but still within a stock intake, you are unlikely to see any improvement as the ridges and pockets will cause turbulence.

A modern vehicle with Sequential Fuel Injection will not see much benefit. Usually the fuel injectors are pointed towards the intake valve(s) meaning that fuel is squirted on top of the valve seat. This is where the swirling is the most important; however this is well into the intake manifold where a Tornado cannot be installed.

Fuel injectors on a modern day vehicle are designed to atomize the fuel as efficiently as possible. The atomization of fuel is in the design of the intake manifold, the fuel injectors, valves, and head.
The vehicles that it may have a positive effect on would be the older carbureted cars with an air filter that sits directly atop the carb. The swirling may help atomization a minute amount as the air passes through the carburetor's venturis. However, the benefits in that case are still minimal and not worth the lighter wallet.

Tornado Fuel Saver's infomercial mentions commercial vehicles while showing large 18-wheel big rigs. The mention of using one of these on a Diesel engine is laughable. Diesel engines compress the incoming air before fuel is added to it, once again the gains are minimal, assuming there are any gains using this product in a Diesel engine.

Some vehicles these days, especially European cars, are equipped with turbochargers (Kompressors for you Mercedes folk). A turbocharger unit forces more air (measured in Cubic Feet) and pressure to the engine. That extra pressure, commonly called "boost" helps atomize any fuel that has collected at the valves. (Fuel injectors running at a low 50% duty cycle are still spraying on a closed valve about half of the time). The "extra" air forced into the engine allows for more fuel to be burned during the combustion process. This creates an engine with a higher volumetric efficiency, meaning more power/liter for that particular engine. If you have a turbocharger, you don't need a Tornado, because you already have something much better.

The mileage gains that people see are likely to be from driving habits. This claim is backed up with anecdotal evidence, someone explains that their first tank of gas with the Tornado went a long way, but after a while it dropped back down. How can this happen? Its the right foot.

When gas prices jump, everyone is easy on the gas. Mileage is on your mind every time you pull away from a stoplight, the same happens when you install the Tornado. The first few days you are easy on the gas, improving your mileage, after a week or so you get back to your normal driving habits and your old gas mileage.

More reviews on amazon.com can be read here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&amp;camp=1789&amp;tag=filamexperien-20&amp;creative=9325&amp;path=tg/detail/-/B00078XING?v=glance)

On John Matarese's &quot;Don't Waste Your Money&quot; website, he found the Tornado Fuel Saver to offer no more than 1% increase. Read about it here (http://www.wcpo.com/external/dwym/c3b519.html).

Click this link to search google for more information on the Tornado Fuel Saver (http://www.google.com/custom?q=%22tornado+fuel+saver%22&sa=Search&client=pub-4790368784617558&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3B VLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3 A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000% 3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en).

View this site to read more about turbulence devices such as the tornado (http://www.fuelsaving.info/turbulence.htm).

The bottom line is that if such a simple device really worked, it would come pre-installed on all vehicles from the manufacturer. If you insist on spending this money on your vehicle, you would be much better off getting new tires or perhaps buying a bicycle to use instead of your car.

[DaX]

As the review from Amazon states, swirling air fuel mixtures is nothing new. I just thought I'd add this tidbit of information:

During the gas crisis of the 70's with increasingly stringent EPA emission standards coming out, Honda motors was developing a technology called Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion, or CVCC [yes, this is where the name for the beloved Civic comes from]. A more appropriate name for the technology they were developing would be 'Stratified Intake Charge, Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion.' The idea was to create a cylinder head with a pre-combustion chamber right next to the spark plug electrode and a regular combustion chamber. The smaller pre-combustion chamber was filled with a richer air fuel mixture [actually, closer to a regular AFR found in most cars] than the regular combustion chamber, which was filled with a larger but leaner mixture during cylinder intake [hence the 'stratified intake charge']. The small rich charge was easy to ignite, and the flame could then propagate across and ignite the leaner charge. This allowed for overall leaner fuel mixtures to be used, hense better gas mileage and lower emissions. Honda tried to introduce a compound vortex into the mix, but found it difficult to control, and abandoned attempts, especially since the stratified charge worked so well.

Anyhow, thought that was interesting.

[CruiseControl]

The idea of managing the turbulence of the intake air flow first appeared to me when I was shopping around for Motorcyles (great gas mileage...) in the early 80s. Most companies offered a standard butterfly valve to manage the air/fuel mixture enterig the carborator, however the competition offered a Constant Velocity alternative featuring a clam shell design of two plates converging in the shape of an eye. Imagine what water would look like being poured over a butterfly value. It would be all over the place. Now imagine it being poured into your cupped hands, and then seperate them in the middle. Smooth huh? Why would I want to "swirl" my airflow if it was going to be directed at a butterfly valve, which would mess it up again? The Tornado device would have to be mounted AFTER the butterfly valve which would require cutting most intake plenums in half! Gotta be a gimick. :|

[JustMe]

Popular Mechanics tests the Tornado
<a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/1802932.html?page=2&c=y">test results</a>

[Matt Timion]

I went to Pep Boys yesterday and I was shocked to see the Tornado for sale.

$65.

Even if it did work, screw that.

[MetroMPG]

Popular Mechanics tests the Tornado
<a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/1802932.html?page=2&c=y">test results</a>

not just the tornado - also a water injection system, fuel line magnets, some crazy spark plug wire thing, a fuel pre-vapourizer...

that's awesome!! i love to see sound testing techniques thrown at these gimmicks.

they all ended up either hurting both power and efficiency, or having no effect at all (aside from lightening your wallet).

[SVOboy]

Water injection is not a gimmick, sir.

[Matt Timion]

Water injection is not a gimmick, sir.

With all respect, you cannot just throw a statement like that out and not provide any backing.

I know that we've talked about water injection on this site before, but I'm still waiting for numbers to show it is not a gimmick.

Even most of the h2 generators cannot provide actually evidence that their product helps with gas mileage.

Properly controlled testing has no bias, and as such will show gimmicks as gimmicks.

If you are convinced that water injection is not a gimmick please point people in the right direction.

[SVOboy]

Well, if you want proof it's not a gimmick go to basically any forced induction section of any serious forum (h-t por ejemplo) and ask if it's a good idea. I may say whatev popular mechnics tested may be crap, because FI people spend hundreds on these kits. But they do indeed cool the charge, allow for leaner burn conditions, more ignition advance, and suppress knock. So bleh.

[MetroMPG]

to be clear, the article doesn't trash water injection as a theory, just the kit tested.

actually, it starts out describing how water injection does work under extreme conditions - for short bursts of more power though, not for fuel economy.

[SVOboy]

True, but water injection can be applied to fuel ecocnomy, especially in terms of more power for the same amount of fuel, and it seems many people have done it in the past. (such as a lot of the links I have posted around here.)

[JustMe]

Most of the positive comments I have read on water injection related to turbocharged or supercharged engines.

[JustMe]

In regards to the test results of the fuel vaporizer, I have this comment: George Wiseman states that fuel savers will not work on fuel injected engines unless they have an oxygen sensor override. See this link about the EFIE:
http://www.eagle-research.com/fuelsav/efie.html
Maybe Popular Mechanics would have received a different result if the two were tested together.

[diamondlarry]

Maybe Popular Mechanics would have received a different result if the two were tested together.

I firmly believe that this is the case. Since the ECU is trying to keep everything at a certain level, anything that is done to lean things out will be counteracted by the ECU when it senses, through the O2 sensor, that the oxygen level has increased. Higher O2 and the ECU thinks things are running lean and it injects more fuel.

[DaX]

Maybe Popular Mechanics would have received a different result if the two were tested together.

I firmly believe that this is the case. Since the ECU is trying to keep everything at a certain level, anything that is done to lean things out will be counteracted by the ECU when it senses, through the O2 sensor, that the oxygen level has increased. Higher O2 and the ECU thinks things are running lean and it injects more fuel.

This may be the case, but you can't expect a national magazine to tell you how to disable an emission control device.

[diamondlarry]

This may be the case, but you can't expect a national magazine to tell you how to disable an emission control device.

No they sure wouldn't. I would never do that either since it may be illegal.;-) I've heard a lot about it though.;-)

[DaX]

Just like you should never hollow out your catalytic converter for less backpressure. Eye-wink

[diamondlarry]

Just like you should never hollow out your catalytic converter for less backpressure. Eye-wink

(Tool man grunt) I heard something once about taking the converter off and poking a rod through it repeatedly until you could pour the contents out the end. Since I don't have a rack or ramps I haven't tried this though.

[DaX]

The guts are a ceramic like material. You would never want to use a hammer and piece of rebar to hammer through repeatedly and chip the material out. You would never want to wear a dust mask when doing this because of the carcinogenic dust.

[diamondlarry]

The guts are a ceramic like material. You would never want to use a hammer and piece of rebar to hammer through repeatedly and chip the material out. You would never want to wear a dust mask when doing this because of the carcinogenic dust.
Yeah, and you would probably want to do it in a small room like your bathroom or your closet with the door closed.

[MetroMPG]

or you could just do what matt's mom and i did: ignore your check engine light and let a bad O2 sensor send fuel-rich exhaust to destroy the catalyst matrix.

the pieces will collect in your muffler and after a while you can just take it off and pour them out!

of course, you'll be getting worse mileage with this approach.

and then again - i have also read in numerous places that you don't want to reduce backpressure. it hurts low rpm performance, where you do the majority of economy-minded driving. you may be hurting more than air quality by taking out your cat for that reason.

[diamondlarry]

and then again - i have also read in numerous places that you don't want to reduce backpressure. it hurts low rpm performance, where you do the majority of economy-minded driving. you may be hurting more than air quality by taking out your cat for that reason.
Yeah, I've heard about that. I don't remember where it is, but somewhere I was reading an article that talked about the science behind this. It also had some way of calculating the length of pipe needed and the backpressure needed. I think it was written from a performance standpoint but I'm sure it could be converted to an economy version.

[quattrodave]

I think the engines are designed for a given backpressure. Change that, and lots of other things change. The cat on my '91 RX-7 (O2 sensor-equipped) plugged, and the car was a dog. I pulled the exhaust apart, saw the melted mess inside the cat and reamed it out, and put it all back together. Car was back to normal power. Did not seem like more power than before. I had to order the replacement cat and went through a few tanks of gas waiting for it to arrive. No change in FE with the cat hollowed out. Might have been different with a reciprocating engine.

[kickflipjr]

Ahhhhhh the famous "tornado" I just found this (pro-tornado) video on google.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=149355627811530513&q=fuel+economy&pl=true

I don't think it works. And plenty of people say it dosn't work. velocity is good i just don't thik you would get it from the tornado. Mabyee you will get more air restriction.

[ZugyNA]

For what it's worth:

"I've tried this device on about 150 cars . ( I called it ''air deflector'' so here's another name to add on your list Laughing ) and it was working quite well on some cars but not at all on some others.

I would say about 50/50 chance it works.

I noticed that Honda's had the biggest mpg increase with 20-35%. I bought plans on Ebay and made them myself using aluminium flashing. I saw a huge difference on my 98 Civic and went up to 61 mpg driving 100 km/hr on highway. I had a not-very-clean air filter, old spark plugs, winter tires at 30 psi in summer but driving a sunny day with no wind.

Afterwards, I noticed that GM pick-ups (and all the vortek engines), hiyunday and the newest cars were not improving mpg after they installed the device.

The air deflector was especially effective on Jeep, Dodges pick-ups, Honda and some Ford engines.

Other names I know of are: ''vorticulaire'' (by a guy in Trois-Rivières ou claimed to be the inventor), spiralmax and cyclone. They're all patented and slightly different."


http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:VortexValve

"In one independent test, a couple of 1997 Saturns were each equipped with a VortexValve™. The sedans belong to a security company in the Los Angeles area. The vehicles are just about as "identical" as you can make them. And, they are driven on routes which are pretty consistent. The main variable for the test was the drivers. One Saturn got a 52 percent increase and the other one got a 43 percent increase in gas mileage."

[maxc]

I gained 1 more mpg on my F150, enstalled a smaller one, an additional mpg, all mixed driving. Size dos make dif.:D

[SVOboy]

This modification makes no sense. Any swirling that occurs at that point will be eliminated as the air is forced through the intake plenum and runners.

[diamondlarry]

That's why the Power Lynz that were put into the intake ports on my head-mod make more sense. It gets the air swirling just before it enters the combustion chamber.

[95metro]

This modification makes no sense. Any swirling that occurs at that point will be eliminated as the air is forced through the intake plenum and runners.

And the 1-2 mpg "increase" proves it. The change is far too variable trip to trip, but most people don't realize it. I showed my Dad my Excel chart the other day and he couldn't believe how much my mpg peaked and dipped over the months. He didn't know it varies so much.

[zpiloto]

For what it's worth:

"I've tried this device on about 150 cars . ( I called it ''air deflector'' so here's another name to add on your list Laughing ) and it was working quite well on some cars but not at all on some others.

I would say about 50/50 chance it works.

I noticed that Honda's had the biggest mpg increase with 20-35%. I bought plans on Ebay and made them myself using aluminium flashing. I saw a huge difference on my 98 Civic and went up to 61 mpg driving 100 km/hr on highway. I had a not-very-clean air filter, old spark plugs, winter tires at 30 psi in summer but driving a sunny day with no wind.

Afterwards, I noticed that GM pick-ups (and all the vortek engines), hiyunday and the newest cars were not improving mpg after they installed the device.

The air deflector was especially effective on Jeep, Dodges pick-ups, Honda and some Ford engines.

Other names I know of are: ''vorticulaire'' (by a guy in Trois-Rivières ou claimed to be the inventor), spiralmax and cyclone. They're all patented and slightly different."


http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:VortexValve

"In one independent test, a couple of 1997 Saturns were each equipped with a VortexValve™. The sedans belong to a security company in the Los Angeles area. The vehicles are just about as "identical" as you can make them. And, they are driven on routes which are pretty consistent. The main variable for the test was the drivers. One Saturn got a 52 percent increase and the other one got a 43 percent increase in gas mileage."
Are you a dealer? How did you test it on 150 cars?

[thisisntjared]

the swirl in air probably causes a low pressure area near the honda MAP sensor, causing the car to run lean.

[ZugyNA]

The quotes mean I'm quoting other people.

I think it might work...if it does...... by the swirl effect creating a vortex which speeds up the intake flow at the outer edges of the intake tube and allowing a faster flow...working like the spiral mufflers are supposed to. Might not have much to do with increased turbulence or vaporization. Just a guess.

I remember something about someone trying swirlers on a 3 L na Nissan which has a long intake tube...he said the people selling them told him he needed to use 2 of them due to the long intake. Never heard as to the results...he got sort of booed off the forum.

Think you want to use the stationary type...not the one that spins a propeller....would be sort of pointless?


Here's an Ebay search for various gas saving stuff:

http://search.ebay.com/save-gas-improve-mileage-fuel-economy-save-fuel-save-diesel_W0QQbsZSearchQQcatrefZC6QQcoactionZcompareQ QcoentrypageZsearchQQcopagenumZ1QQfclZ3QQflocZ1QQf posZQ5AIPQ2fPostalQQfromZR10QQfrppZ50QQfsclZ1QQfsc lZ1QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQfssZ0QQfstypeZ1QQftrtZ1QQftrv Z1QQmppfqyZQ28Q22saveQ20gasQ22Q2cQ20Q22improveQ20m ileageQ22Q2cQ20Q22fuelQ20economyQ22Q2cQ20Q22saveQ2 0fuelQ22Q29QQsacatZQ2d1QQsacurZ0QQsadisZ200QQsargn ZQ2d1QQsaslcZ2QQsaslopZ1QQsatitleZQ28Q22saveQ20gas Q22Q2cQ20Q22improveQ20mileageQ22Q2cQ20Q22fuelQ20ec onomyQ22Q2cQ20Q22saveQ20fuelQ22Q2cQ20Q22saveQ20die selQ22Q29QQsbrftogZ1QQsofocusZunknownQQsorefinesea rchZ1

Don't have to pay $70 to try one? You can make one yourself if you look at the pics...just a strip of heavy sheetmetal with the vanes cut and bent...getting the right number and angle might be an issue though. Would want one losing a vane though.

[MetroMPG]

Tony's guide to fuel-saving gadgets
Devices to increase turbulence
http://www.fuelsaving.info/turbulence.htm

[Matt Timion]

Tony's guide to fuel-saving gadgets
Devices to increase turbulence
http://www.fuelsaving.info/turbulence.htm

You beat me to it.

[ZugyNA]

People who analyze stuff from the top down don't always get it right.

Sometimes you actually have to test things to see if they work. And a lot doesn't...many times because it isn't applied correctly.

Somehow I've managed to increased my mpg by 20% or so by using various means.

[MetroMPG]

Popular Mechanics: We test automotive "fuel savers" (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/1802932.html?page=2&c=y)

VORTEX GENERATORS: Both devices reduced peak horsepower by more than 10 percent. The Intake Twister increased fuel consumption by about 20 percent; the TornadoFuelSaver provided no significant change.

[ZugyNA]

Tony's guide to fuel-saving gadgets
Devices to increase turbulence
http://www.fuelsaving.info/turbulence.htm

I notice your testing has slowed down a lot. Can't test stuff if you convince yourself that it won't work before you test it? :eek:

[95metro]

ZugyNA - How about doing some A-B-A testing with whatever mods you've got and providing us with some hard numbers. We're kind of a "believe it when we see it" crowd.

What kind of vehicle do you have and what mods?

[MetroMPG]

Can't test stuff if you convince yourself that it won't work before you test it? :eek:
I think it makes sense to pick the low-hanging fruit first, and to do the stuff that isn't hypothetical or based on questionable "science".

You're right that I haven't been doing as many tests recently, mainly because I've been spending most of my tinkering time working on the EV.

I'd love nothing more than to do an experiment each week, but to do one properly takes a significant amount of time. I have to budget at least 2 hours to do & write up a very basic one.

I agree with Metro95 - if there's something that you'd particularly like to see tested, go for it, and present the detailed results for all to see.

[maxc]

I used g-tech meter to check horse power with tornado. 13 more with it!!On my 160 h.p. F150.It DONT LIE. I use it also to have consistant acceleration for mileage checking.:cool:

[katman]

How about starting a new thread on using the G-Tech and give some details?

[maxc]

After i eat.

[ZugyNA]

I think it makes sense to pick the low-hanging fruit first, and to do the stuff that isn't hypothetical or based on questionable "science".

You're right that I haven't been doing as many tests recently, mainly because I've been spending most of my tinkering time working on the EV.

I'd love nothing more than to do an experiment each week, but to do one properly takes a significant amount of time. I have to budget at least 2 hours to do & write up a very basic one.

I agree with Metro95 - if there's something that you'd particularly like to see tested, go for it, and present the detailed results for all to see.

I'm depending on you to do the serious testing. :) I try to keep an open mind about mods though.

The mpg game is ripe for exploitation. Some think...oh they are looking for mpg gains...so I'll just post some really good gain from some fictious mod and watch them take the bait. Or I'm selling this "device"...maybe I can drum up some business. Or somebody finds something that works and doesn't give good details.

In reality this mpg game isn't an easy one...I find that I'm lucky to manage a 2-3% gain from one mod if that. With no scan gauge I'm limited to fillups...plus I'm messing with 2 different cars...and maintaining them also.

The fuel heat is one thing I've tested and have some decent data on....one specific car though.

I mostly try to think about what is likely to work and what makes sense and just do it.

Recent mods: air dam at height of most undercar components....blocked front openings other than for rad...partially insulated fuel tank...EFIE...warm air intake...ozone air bleed....fender skirts...

So it just takes a lot of time...might actually get my FA2000 clone tested and dialed in this summer after having it installed for 2 years now.

[95metro]

In reality this mpg game isn't an easy one...I find that I'm lucky to manage a 2-3% gain from one mod if that. With no scan gauge I'm limited to fillups...plus I'm messing with 2 different cars...and maintaining them also.

And we're just trying to point out that gains (or losses) of 2-3% can be seen on any vehicle at any time due to the excessively high variability of fuel efficiency. For that matter, the difference could be 20-30% depending on the circumstances.

For ANY single device/additive to improve FE by 20-30% is a huge claim and should be supported by mass amounts of data and tons of A-B-A testing before it should even be considered as legit. Even at that point, 20-30% on a 20 mpg vehicle is only 4-6 mpg...generally attainable simply by adjusting your driving habits.

But, there's not much point it going on about it. I just felt like writing something...:D

[ZugyNA]

I will tell you what I've told other people with this kind of opinion...if you continually insist that something doesn't work...then it follows that you would be required by adherence to the scientific method...to PROVE that it doesn't....by testing to see if it does.

It's not enough to give a lot of reasons why it won't...or probably won't.


With this particular car my worst mileage this last winter was 23.5...while the previous winter it was pretty consistantly around 21. Winters before this averaged lower.

I can understand wanting massive amounts of clean verifiable data to prove something....but in the DIY world...it won't happen too often.

I also understand the placebo effect...and the difference driving habits can make.

My approach is to look for evidence (such as it is) that something might work...and then go ahead and test it. I also try to find examples involving the same make/model of vehicle...cause not everything works with any particular car.

I haven't seen the 20-30% gains from one mod some claim.

Main thing is to spend 80% of time spent actually testing this and that...and keeping accurate notes...NOT 80% researching and talking about it....or why it won't work.

Or so I tell myself.

And...it's only a hobby...not an obsession.

As far as the swirlers...I think it's possible one might work on some EFI cars...but I won't pay $70 to find out. Got some sheet metal and metal shears though. And enough pics around to try and duplicate one.

[maxc]

I gained 1 more mpg on my F150, enstalled a smaller one, an additional mpg, all mixed driving. Size dos make dif.:D I lost 10 hp with the smaller one.:( One vortex can be composed of smaller vortexes.

[ZugyNA]

I lost 10 hp with the smaller one.:( One vortex can be composed of smaller vortexes.

How about a few details...I'm eventually going to try to make one myself.

Does your truck have two intake inlets or do you have the 2 swirlers in series?

Smaller vs larger....do you mean the opening thru the vanes where the air passes thru?

[maxc]

How about a few details...I'm eventually going to try to make one myself.

Does your truck have two intake inlets or do you have the 2 swirlers in series?

Smaller vs larger....do you mean the opening thru the vanes where the air passes thru?I have 1 85mm one, then enstalled 65mm one. Right now i have a bad injector and old plug wires. When i do tests same place on road. I do tests @70F and 50% humd. bar. at 30.00. 4.6 F 150 2wd auto.

[maxc]

I have 1 85mm one, then enstalled 65mm one. Right now i have a bad injector and old plug wires. When i do tests same place on road. I do tests @70F and 50% humd. bar. at 30.00. 4.6 F 150 2wd auto.I did the tests 3 years ago. It was + or- 2 hp with the g-tech. A year ago i put 85mm one on my dads 5.4 F150 4wd without telling him. He's normal mileage was 12.2 it went up to 13.5. Most small engines already have to large of a throttle body so it cracked open only a little at low speeds. A 50mm throttle body can flow 500cfm way to much for a 2.0 liter.

[ZugyNA]

I did the tests 3 years ago. It was + or- 2 hp with the g-tech. A year ago i put 85mm one on my dads 5.4 F150 4wd without telling him. He's normal mileage was 12.2 it went up to 13.5. Most small engines already have to large of a throttle body so it cracked open only a little at low speeds. A 50mm throttle body can flow 500cfm way to much for a 2.0 liter.

Generally you are inserting these right before the throttle body?

That's a 10-11% gain. Pretty good for a big 4WD.

[maxc]

Generally you are inserting these right before the throttle body?

That's a 10-11% gain. Pretty good for a big 4WD.The 85mm one is enstalled inside the MAF. Throttle body side. The smaller one fits tight in the tapered down air snorkel about 10 inches before the throttle body. Both not used at the same time!

[Ted Hart]

This may be the case, but you can't expect a national magazine to tell you how to disable an emission control device.

Right! Too many lawyers! Too many "do-gooders"! Too many "experts"! Too many laws / regulations / codes / bureaucrap! National magazines walk a fine line! Truth often suffers....