Fuel Saver Pro

[_Q_]

Alright you guys. Maybe I *will* have to invest in one of these. They have a 30-day money-back guarantee. You are supposed to get 1-2 MPG increase on the average. I was just over to some websites about it. Balcamp is the diostributor for them and they are being sold aftermarket in NAPA and other automotive stores.

I quickly calculated that one of these $70 devices should save me about $150 a year, or in that ballpark, on gas.

Plus, there would be pleasure in saying, "SEEEEEEEE?"...if it works .

lamme,

I would recommend that you content yourself simply with the money you save.

I doubt that many people here will put much stock in one person's anecdotal results. It's not a question of honesty; it's just too hard to get reliable data that way. See the article to which roger linked, where people could really "feel" the extra power that the dyno says wasn't there at all. Even though the fuel consumed is something that can be measured objectively, a sample size of one subject (who knows that a test is being conducted) isn't very good. It doesn't necessarily take much of a change to driving habits (even changes made unconsciously) to make a 1 MPG difference in fuel economy.

Now, my suggestion about the consulting thing and properly controlled big fleet tests, well, THAT would really impress people. Then, you could say, "SEEEEEE?" and really make it stick. Plus, you'd be filthy stinking rich, to boot.


_Q_

 

[teddygrahams]

teedygrahams---it sounds like you have learned your stuff about horsepower and torque. But i have to say, "Huh?"...to you when you said, "Even if it does use LESS fuel and makes MORE power that is not automatically good...if the combustion is not complete..."

If you have some device, and you made no other changes, that increases both mileage AND power...how on earth can this not be better than how the vehicle was before?..from the fuel standpoint, power standpoint AND emmissions standpoint?

Well, my statement is hard to defend because I'm not in the auto industry, but your challenge is a no-brainer... it's not easy to simultaneously balance emisions, mileage, and power. So it's very unlikely that a device could increase mileage, power and not increase emissions.

 

[Iamme]

teddygrahams---You are wrong in your assessment of what occurs when an aspirating engine burns its fuel more completely. You'll have more emmisions and less power, and less fuel economy when fuel is not completely burned. You give off more CO, for one thing. All you need to do to increase mileage and power both, is to burn more of the fuel completely. That is all the Tornado does. Pure and simple concept. And, BTW, it was being plugged again today by Jeff Brooks on his nationally syndicated call in radio car repair show. Up to 20% more mileage and up to 15 more horsepower.

 

[teddygrahams]

teddygrahams---You are wrong in your assessment of what occurs when an aspirating engine burns its fuel more completely. You'll have more emmisions and less power, and less fuel economy when fuel is not completely burned. You give off more CO, for one thing. All you need to do to increase mileage and power both, is to burn more of the fuel completely. That is all the Tornado does. Pure and simple concept. And, BTW, it was being plugged again today by Jeff Brooks on his nationally syndicated call in radio car repair show. Up to 20% more mileage and up to 15 more horsepower.

Lean burning engines are more fuel efficient, yet NOx emissions are increased.... what does Jeff Brooks think about that ? What kind of research does Jeff Brooks do ? Why does it the tornado ad say

Gas mileage increases averaging 1 to 2 MPG have been documented.

... but in the lab the results were 11-28% increase (all over 2 MPG increases).... that's odd isn't it ? Where are the results of the emissions tests ? What was the engine RPM ? Where is the graph of before/after torque and HP ? There's a lot missing there.

http://tornadoair.com/road.php

 

[teddygrahams]

How does it work? The Tornado's unique airflow dynamics creates a swirling, fast-burn effect in the combustion chamber.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the mixture must be compressed by the piston before ignition... here they claim that it is still swirling as it is burning ! I could give them the benefit of the doubt that the swirling will make it to the intake valve, but to still be swirling as the spark goes off ... that's a stretch !

 

[davefoc]

Iamme,
I thought Roger did an excellent job of arguing that the Tornado product was unlikely to significantly improve mileage and he included a link by somebody that sounded competent that had actually tested them and found no improvement.

But I concede that it is still possible that the Tornado does improve fuel economy.

The problem with their summary of test results is that they are almost completely useless at assessing the efficacy of the product without being able to look at the actual testing that was done.

When the EPA tests a product it not only releases a summary of the result, it also releases a detailed test report. Speaking as an engineer, a test result, without a test report is less than useless. The number of permutations in this kind of test is enormous and it is important to understand which subset they chose. for example, age of car, how long since last tuneup, kind of driving, number of trials, length of the trial, brand of gas, type of oil, type of spark plugs, etc. Were there some conditions where no improvement or a reduction was found. What was the spread of the results? How careful were they in ensuring that the conditions for comparative test were the same. Endless questions, for which if there is no answer there are no useful results.

I don't quite understand how the product is supposed to work. Does it go before or after the air cleaner? When I've seen the infomercials it seems like it might go before the air cleaner. If so wouldn't this pretty much eliminate any swirling from getting into the cylinder?

Another question, that perhaps somebody could shed some light on: Don't Honda engines already feature some sort of valve and port design that causes the air to swirl?

 

[clusterm2]

What a load of rubbish. Why do car manufactures spend so much time and money designing cylinder heads (combustion efficiency) pistons (lower mass / reduced friction) and fuel injection systems (we'll ignore the low rolling resistance tyres for the moment)? We're not talking a few thousand dollars in development costs here are we?
And all this time all they had to do was put a $70 device in the fuel line that's been available for 20 odd years that I know of....ho ho someones having a laugh. I can't believe anyone on this forum gives credence to such nonsence..<snigger>

 

[teddygrahams]

Here's another, from the Tornado Faq:

(Optional) To reset computer. Disconnect Pos. & Neg. terminal on battery and reconnect. This will reset the computer.

Hmm... how many tests were conducted immediately after the computer was reset ?

 

[clusterm2]

The speed and force at which the air is sucked into each cylinder would negate any eddys generated by such garbage as a'Tornado'. I can't believe people get taken in by this trash in this day and age but will say that if I was the scamming con man whos product it was I'd make sure the tyre pressures were low and the engine running rich for the 'before' tests

 

[Iconoclast]

Just thought I'd clear up a few misconceptions.

Dual-point distributors that came on the scene before our current electronic ignition systems did seem to work. Probably like all after market devices, the results would vary from vehicle to vehicle.

Dual point systems addressed a specific problem with high reving engines, namely that as RPM increased the dwell time of the points decreases. The amount of energy that can be stored in the ignition coil is a function of dwell time. Adding a second set of points that opened and closed slightly later than the first set of points allows us to extend the total dwell time between sparks almost up to the theoretical limit, 60 distributor degrees for a 6 cylinder engine, 45 distributor degrees for a V8.

With regard to speed, air resistance increases the faster you go, meaning you'll need to burn more gas to cover the same distance at a faster rate.

Well, if air resistance increased linearly with speed then -- all other things being equal -- you'd get the same gas mileage regardless of speed. Unfortunately, air resistance increases with the square of speed, so vehicle efficiency decreases with increasing speed. And since Power is a linear function of speed also, it turns out that to double our speed we're required to deliver 8 times as much power. This explains why many Formula 1 teams own their own wind tunnel, reducing aerodynamic drag is much more profitable than getting more power from the engine

I must correct something. As the throttle opens, less fuel and more air flow into the carb, leaning out the mixture.

While you're correct that opening the throttle open would ordinarily produce a momentary lean condition (a flat spot), in practice this is not the case since automotive engineers are a cluey bunch. The problem is that when the throttle is snapped open, the vacuum signal at the manifold momentarily drops to almost zero before coming back up again, and since fuel has more inertia than air it takes longer to get it flowing from the venturi again.

But, that's why god invented Accelerator Pumps, Power Valves (in Holleys), Step Up Rods (in Carter AFBs and Thermoquads), and Dampened Pistons (in SUs), these are all methods of supplying a little extra fuel when the throttle opens so that the air fuel ratio stays where it should be.

I thought the mixture stayed pretty constant, around 15:1, so that three times more air going in means that pretty close to three times more fuel would be going in too.

The theoretical A/F ratio for perfect burning is called the Stochiometric Point, and that's at 14.7:1, we're talking by mass here, not volume, so the amount of fuel delivered to each cylinder is a tiny amount indeed. At stoichiometry, the only byproduct of the combustion process should be water and something else that escapes my memory.

However, we know that we can get more power from an engine by reducing the A/F ratio to as low as around 13:1 during acceleration, and we can get better economy at idle and overrun by increasing the A/F ratio to around 16:1. Advanced engines such as the "Stratafied Charge" engines used in some Hondas can get A/F ratios of up to 20:1 without engine damage.

I don't understand how the horsepower graph relates to the point. I know that horsepower goes up with RPM, but fuel consumption goes up too. The best efficiency (fuel used per revolution) would be at the lowest RPM that the engine can go without bogging down - something less than 2000 RPM would be my guess.

No, engine efficiency is a function of engine RPM, as engine speed increases it's efficiency will as well, up to a point. This is due to many interrelated factors such as:

- Fuel atomises better with faster flowing air.
- The amount of mixture entering the cylinder (known as the Volumetric Efficiency) increases with faster flowing air.

Originally posted by jimlintott
The motor can only draw its displacement in air with one revolution (unless a blower is involved).

If a 1 litre cylinder is able to draw in 1 litre of mixture on each intake stroke then it has a VE of 100%. A typical street car has a VE in the range of 65% to 75%, mildly modified street cars can get up to around 85%. But there's another effect called "Ram Charging" that can help to increase VE, to better than 100%.

As the valves open air is sucked through the intake runner and into the cylinder. Then, the valve closes but the air keeps trying to move towards the cylinder due to it's inertia. It banks up against the back of the valve, then reverses direction and moves back towards the intake plenum. We can see that standing waves are being set up in the runners, and as the moving mass of air reaches the plenum end of the runner it again reverses direction. At certain engine RPMs, the valve will just happen to open again just as the air is reflecting off the plenum end of the runner, and that's the principle of ram charging. The air is already moving before the valve has opened, so we can get more than 100% filling of the cylinder.

Originally posted by teddygrahams
Horsepower comes into it by the magic "5252" formula...

Well, only if you're an American, civilised people use the even more magic "Torque x Angular Velocity" formula.

Originally posted by teddygrahams
Since HP is low at low RPM, the only way to get power out of an engine is to increase torque at the low end.

Eh? How about just spinning it faster?

Originally posted by davefoc
I don't quite understand how the product is supposed to work. Does it go before or after the air cleaner? When I've seen the infomercials it seems like it might go before the air cleaner. If so wouldn't this pretty much eliminate any swirling from getting into the cylinder?

For a donut style air cleaner it goes inside the air cleaner element itself, for fuel injected engines it goes at the inlet port of the throttle body.

Originally posted by davefoc
Another question, that perhaps somebody could shed some light on: Don't Honda engines already feature some sort of valve and port design that causes the air to swirl?

Yep, they call it not incidently "Swirl Chamber Combustion". And no, I don't believe this device could work. While the manufacturers might be selling the device for A$70, a quick look at the photo of one shows it to be a piece of stamped sheet metal, perhaps 50 cents worth.

 

[teddygrahams]

Eh? How about just spinning it faster?

I meant the only way to get more power at low RPM... obviously you can increase RPM and get more power, but that's not increasing the amount of energy the engine is producing at any particular RPM.

Iconoclast, do you remember Fueling ?SP?, the guy who designed the Olds Quad 4 ? He was working on a tunable intake manifold. I haven't seen any engines with one, but I haven't been looking. Now that would be worth more than a piece of tin in the air intake.

 

[Iamme]

O.k., I can see there is going to be theoretical arguments going on here about the Tornado. So this is what I am going to ATTEMPT to do: Try to get Jeff Brooks himself to come online here. I am going now to see if he has a site I can e-mail. Be back soon.

 

[davefoc]

Iconoclast.
Thanks for you informative post.

I thought I'd just expand on the your mention of dwell if there's somebody that doesn't know what that is.

Current flows into the coil when the points are closed. The coil is charged during the time that current flows into it. The coil is discharged through the spark plug when the points open up. In a car with a single coil the coil must charge and discharge once for each cylinder per revolution. Dwell is a measurement in degrees of how long the points stay closed per cylinder per revolution. So as Iconoclast said the maximum dwell is 60 degrees for a 6 cyclinder engine (360/6).

 

[Iamme]

It's a done deal. I just e-mailed the radio station that he operates out of. So, I cross my fingers and hope that either he, or a factory rep come on line and join us here. I mentioned how some posters can't believe the product works considering that the car manufacturs haven't included it on production cars as a way to help meet EPA standards.

 

[Iamme]

Iconoclast--Just because the Tornado appears to be $.50 worth of sheetmetal, does not mean that it can't work.

Were the Japanese cars that came out during/just after the 1973 oil embargo, worth their cost? No! They knew they could get Americans to buy them because we became deperate to save on gas. Those cars back then, if you recall, were just cheap undersized (from our standards) tin cans.

Same with the Tornado. you pay through the nose for such a like privelege...plus all the advertising and marketing that has gone into these.

I actually considered trying to make my own. They are so similar to the fan blade of say a bath fan or high efficiency furnace or gas water heater 'power ventor'. But, one thing I am not quite sure about is why they have all those perforations in the fins. Why not just the fins? You'd think the perforations would take away from the swirl. Maybe it's simply a matter that they needed all the air volume area that the holding area of the air cleaner chamber or air intake line would allow.

Regarding the talk above about higher low end torque or simply creating more horsepower at the lower end by increasing rpm: Yes, at the drag strip, there have been manya 327 that have done in big blocks by cranking out 8-10,000...a range that would cause their big block brothers to fly apart. But, many of us hot rod type could never stand the whine of a small high rev engine. We prefer the raw power...that throaty roar from a low rpm, high torque engine. Same in the motorcycle industry. That is why large bore Harleys are so popular. The low end power and that big roar, as opposed to the tinny whine from those ""Yamahowakamasakis" they had , that could actually out quarter mile the Harleys. But who would want one of these street screamers. (Some DID though)

 

[teddygrahams]

Iconoclast.
Thanks for you informative post.

I thought I'd just expand on the your mention of dwell if there's somebody that doesn't know what that is.

Current flows into the coil when the points are closed. The coil is charged during the time that current flows into it. The coil is discharged through the spark plug when the points open up. In a car with a single coil the coil must charge and discharge once for each cylinder per revolution. Dwell is a measurement in degrees of how long the points stay closed per cylinder per revolution. So as Iconoclast said the maximum dwell is 60 degrees for a 6 cyclinder engine (360/6).

You almost have it there except you forget that most if not all auto engines now are 4 stroke engines, only half the cylinders fire on each revolution. So the maximum dwell is 360/3 according to that. But of course, new engine electronics are changing that.

At the end of this thread every reader should have a pretty good idea what goes on under the hood (nobody cares what goes on under a bonnet.)

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Well, if air resistance increased linearly with speed then -- all other things being equal -- you'd get the same gas mileage regardless of speed.

That doesn't sound right. I think you'd get the same gas mileage at all speeds if air resistance were the same at all speeds.

 

[teddygrahams]

Air resistance increases with the square of speed.
Think of air as just individual molecules of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. At the very least, you have to make some molecules move out of the way, so you have a squared component due to changing the molecules momentum.

 

[Badger]

Iconoclast, thanks for the extra info. I appreciate it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast, do you remember Fueling ?SP?, the guy who designed the Olds Quad 4 ? He was working on a tunable intake manifold. I haven't seen any engines with one, but I haven't been looking. Now that would be worth more than a piece of tin in the air intake.

I thought there was at least one production engine that used variable intake runners, the length changed with engine RPM, can't remember which engine though. Is that what you meant by tuneable intake manifold or are there different techniques?