8th1der

I wonder if the "Tornado" would help increase mpg in the RX-8? Or is that thing just a gimmick?

SA22C

Good grief.

If a stupid twirly looking thing would improve gas mileage, don't you think that Mazda would have slapped the thing on the car from the start?

No, it will not work. Yes, it is a gimmick.

Give your head a shake

Haris

It might help RX8. It's only like $40 (on ebay), so you can try it and if it doesnt work you probably have 30 day money back guarantee. If it does work, let us know. You never know if it'll work for RX8.

Wankeler

Yeah that'd be really nice... an increase in fuel efficiency and/or power for $40 over the LIFE of your car.

Then again...

I've also purchased the Banjo Minnows and Flying lures from late night TV.... but fish are stoopid.... wait... so are people.

If it works, count me in... someone please try and get back with us. Thanks!

:D

ChurchAutoTest

JUst for reference, I once dyno'd a car (much less powerful than an RX8) that just wasn't performing quite as well as we expected. I tweaked everything, but timing, fuel, etc. were all about optimal.

I asked the owner if there was anything he hadn't told me about his setup. He thought for a minute and said, "I have one of those Tornado thingies in the intake".

So, we took it out and the car gained almost 6 hp on the top end. When we finished, he left and, not surprisingly, left his $50 piece of cut sheet metal (bent into a circle) in my shop. It now hangs on my "wall of shame".

SC

Wankeler

LMAO.

Hey at least the fishing lures work.

Too bad that thing wasn't still intact... it woulda been a free test.

Xenophanes

I always feel a good explanation helps people identify the 'snake oil' performance upgrades. So the deal with the Tornado things is as such:

The Tornado is supposed to "spin" the air into your intake. This turbulence is supposed to improve the AIR/FUEL mixing process. This sounds logical, but when you look at all the twist and turns the air takes as it goes through your upper intake any "spin" to the air will be lost.

Additionally, the injectors in modern cars as as good as mixing FUEL and AIR as it can get.

It is "possible" carb. engines "may" get increases, but I never fully believed this assertion for one simple fact. Any obstruction in your inake (in a N/A engine) will slow down the air in the inake. There is a reason why aftermarket CAI's are straight-ish and large in diameter (ignoring the 'cold air' aspect of CAIs). It decreases air flow restrictions, thus increasing the available air to N/A engines. The Tornado will slow down the air, thus decreasing power in almost any engine..... to what degree is up to speculation.

The above post is just my general 'non-technical' feeling about this. I will agree with the other posters.... the Tornado is CRAP.... same with some of those "grooved" throttle body spacers. Some ricers like the tornado/TB spacers because they sometimes give a 'whistle' or 'whining' to the intake..... they try to make people think they have a super or turbo.

Gord96BRG

Xenophanes covered it well - there's absolutely no possible benefit to the 'swirl' introduced by the Tornado by the time the air gets through the filter, manifold, head, to the combustion chamber. It goes counter to all proper engineering principles, and is just marketing BS to people who don't have an engineering background to see through the smoke and mirrors.

You want to know what it really is? Just an intake restriction - and it will do the exact same thing as any other intake restriction, and cause a loss of power and economy. I don't need to test it to verify this, it's been proven over and over.

Regards,
Gordon

The Beav

swirling air travels a longer distance and thus experiences more friction and thus is hotter, just ask AEM why their new intakes are the best on the market (the V2's) and they'll tell you it's because they cut down on any swirling the air does in teh intake, GM also makes teh claim that swirling air is better (VORTECH anybody?), but i don't buy it from them either

Squidward

The point of efficient air intakes is to have the LEAST resistance possible for air to get into your engine as fast as possible (before it can get warm).. Cold air contains more oxygen and improves combustion, that is a known fact. For that purpose, the most effective intakes have polished surfaces to improve airflow.

Contrastingly, anytime something is introduce into the air flow within the intake, it increases resistance, thus causing loss in compression and horsepower.

putting the "tornado" in your intake will do just as much good as stuffing a banana up one of your tailpipes...

8th1der

LMAO!!!

AnthonyS

There is one benefit to the Tornado. They make money and you lose money.

As an engineer, I'll try to explain it as simply as possible. Swirl is sometimes good. That said, swirl in the intake tract is bad. You want the air to get to the engine in the most direct route with the least resistance possible. In order for this to occur, you want laminar flow (straight and smooth with no swirl).

Swirl can be beneficial inside the combustion chamber for fuel mixing. That is why GM has Vortec heads. They are trying to ensure an even combustion inside the cylinder. It has nothing to do with the air intake side of things. Ford also has high performance swirl heads... the entire GT-40 series for small blocks.


There are literally tons of snake oil products sold for cars in the US. People buy most of them up hoping to get better mileage and more power. It sounds so good, but the products never deliver. I was watching what used to be TNN yesterday (Spike?) and they had all their car shows on. There was an commercial for mufflers claiming increased mileage! I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that one. I'm not going to get into all the products pedeled that really don't work, but lets just say the tornado and those fuel line magnets are some of them. Once the FTC (Fed. Trade Comm.) finally gets around to investigating them, they will not be allowed to advertise anymore just like Splitfire plugs and Slick50. You can still buy those products, but at least they can't peddle their junk on my TV.

lilhondi

Hello: This is my 1st post. I purchased an RX-8 3 weeks ago. The gas milage is poor and I did hear about the buy back and the power issue. Do you think if we return the car we will also get back the payments we have already made? Thank you, lilhondi

Shard

Why would you put that in a thread about the tornado? I'm sure the information you are looking for is in about 400 differnent threads right now.

kidmarc

There are many items that improve gas mileage that are not used by car manufacturers. Because something works is not evidence a car manufacturer will use it. You only have to look at the aftermarket industry for the auto industry.The "Tornado" is supposed to vortex the air. Although the data behind it is sound, the implentation isn't.

Regarding injectors... one can only speculate at what was meant given the typing errors, however, injectors are a far cry from being efficient at mixing fuel and air.

CAI's do not decrease restrictions. They merely add more air (cooler) while minimalizing the addition of more restrictions.Actually, the "Tornado" is placed after the filter.As is [a restriction] the filter, manifold, carb, MAF, and valves (piston engines) to name a few.The air vortexes and is center-seeking. The heat travels outward.Not anytime... many times.In a perfect world of human vision, yes. Thankfully, that doesn't exist as it is an impossibility . :-) [true laminar flow]So says the unknowing public. Products providing a minimal improvement (mid single digits) are not shown on government tests. Their (federal government) test equipment is outdated and won't detect the measurements. Most gains are negated by advanced fuel systems. [That does not speak highly of the fuel systems.] Change the method of emissions attainability to open standards and those devices said not to work, will.Slick 50 is one example of sound data (support), bad implementation.

Peace
marcus

Doctorr

Mr. Kidmarc,

You take exception when someone says 'spin' instead of 'vortex'? You think maybe a vortex is magic?

You state that the 'vortex' is centre seeking - wrong.

You state that the heat goes to the outside- wrong.

In any vortex, denser material goes out, lighter (warmer/hotter) seeks the centre. Simple laws of physics. It is POSSIBLE to apply such a spin to air as to seperate it into very hot and very cold streams, (NASA uses this effect,) but the hot always comes from the vortex centre.

Gord's point about no benefit to rotating the air flow is valid.
Anthony's assertion as to laminar flow being superior is also valid, given that obviously, true laminar flow is not going to happen.

I assume that given your level of denial, you sell 'em?
.
.
.
doc

ChurchAutoTest

There are many items that improve gas mileage that are not used by car manufacturers. Because something works is not evidence a car manufacturer will use it. You only have to look at the aftermarket industry for the auto industry.The "Tornado" is supposed to vortex the air. Although the data behind it is sound, the implentation isn't.

This is a specious argument. Considering that the manufacturing cost on something like a "Tornado" is on the order of $0.50-$1.00 and that auto manufacturers are always striving to meet CAFE requirements, why wouldn't they use one if it worked? Car companies are businesses. They don't implement new technologies if the drawbacks are larger than the benefits. Drawbacks include high cost, poor reliability, etc. So, since the "Tornado" has no moving parts (shouldn't break) and minimal cost yet claims to offer much sought after fuel economy gains, why wouldn't auto makers use the technology? And don't say patent or licensing issues since several versions of the "Tornado" are sold on the informercial circuit.

CAI's do not decrease restrictions.

Actually they do in many cases. We often see a reduction of WOT intake restriction of up to 50-60 mbar of pressure. Larger tubing, fewer bends, smoother, etc.

As is [a restriction] the filter, manifold, carb, MAF, and valves (piston engines) to name a few.

So more restrictions are useful? Come now, let's be realistic.

Slick 50 is one example of sound data (support), bad implementation.

Says who, Slick 50? Even the maker of the PTFE solids Slick 50 uses was publishing long ago that claims of friction reduction by using suspended PTFE solids were not supportable. Nor is PTFE good at surviving high temperature metal to metal interface conditions.

SC

AnthonyS

marcus, I see my attempt at subtle education didn't take. I'll be more blunt this time.

The Tornado is junk. Laminar flow does exist in reality. It is the very reason that racing teams spend millions of dollars a year on wind tunnel testing. Laminar flow creates less drag (friction and loss of hp) than turbulent flow. This is true on the exterior of the car as well as inside the intake tract. Spinning the air on purpose generates turbulence and more drag thus losing power. Every person who has studied fluid mechanics in the world will tell you the same thing which is why you don't see any engineers backing the Tornado.

Air intake systems often have very smooth mandrel bent tubing. This smooth tubing does increase intake flow and does generate power. The filters used on your average air intake sold on the aftermarket leaves something to be desired though.

Slick50 is junk, and the FTC said so. Government testing is far more sophisticated than your claim that it isn't. You offer no evidence, but make grand claims. Slick50 uses Teflon which was created by the 3M company. 3M tells you point blank that Teflon is not for use in internal combustion engines, and they invented it!

http://www.miata.net/garage/garagemaintenance.html

Go to that link and read the 4 artilces under Snake Oil. Slick50 is junk, and so are Splitfire plugs.

The sad part of the automotive culture and entreprenuial aspects of society in the USA is that junk will always be peddled. It really ruins the myth of truth in advertising, doesn't it? I firmly believe that the same small group of investors continue to peddle the junk, change the label on the bottle, slightly change the formulation, get a new company registered in a new state, and peddle their garbage on some willing to give anything a try. I bet the same investors are behind Slick50, Prolong, the Tornado, Splitfire plugs, the fuel line magnets, and all the other garbage heaped on the public as great inventions.

marcus, when you actually have some substantive evidence to support your grandiose claims, then please share it. Until then, don't tell me that principles founded on actual science and engineering are incorrect. No snake oil can defy the laws of the universe no matter how colorful the label, how cool the infomercial, or how great the marketing.

kidmarc

Fluid in a pipe

A fluid is either liquid or gas (or both). It [fluid] has no set stable shape or structure until set in motion. At that point the fluid will develop (temporarily) shapes and structures. Characteristic of fluids, they will not move in a straight line, linear. Try as you will, fluids will resist and move in their natural way: in and out of vortices. The current method is to avoid making the fluid "swirl". As stated people tend to grind or formulate the walls (interior and exterior) to the level of "as smooth as glass". The goal here is to reduce the surface structure from causing the fluid to move perpendicular to the desired flow (laminar) causing a crosscurrent, generating heat and hindering the "laminar flow". This helps with the flow at the walls but does nothing for the fluid moving not along the walls nor with the eventual bends, no matter how non-acute you make them.

The alternative is to "control" the vortices by rolling over the crosscurrents/vortices generated against the wall. In doing so, there is a characteristic of the vortex that the flow will accelerate. The current method is to fight against the fluid flow's characteristic; the alternative is to utilize its [fluid] characteristic to enhance flow.

Slick50

The original Slick50 used a formula that is now called Xcel Plus; there was no use of PTFE's at that time. A company by the name of Fluoramics had been R&D'ing PTFE's in solution. Based on an actual development, Fluoramics sought to use PTFE's in engines. The development was an engine bonded with PTFE's via plasma torch (which can be done cheaper today). The engine showed promising results. What Fluoramics learned was the problem with PTFE's when inappropriately applied. The PTFE chains bollixed and flaked off. PTFE's needed a high temperature (upwards of 400°C) to bond to the metal which does not occur in the operating temperature of an ICE. However, by decreasing the size of the PTFE's to .2 microns one could have temporary success of using PTFE's without the high temperatures necessary. It also allowed for their removal without damage to the engine.

In the late 70's - early 80's, the company producing Slick50 had a schism. Part of the company (marketing) wanted to use something (gimmick) to sell the product and chose Teflon as their poster child. The inventor with his formula went one way, and Slick50 and the rest went the other. Slick50 adopted some of the data from Fluoramics but not the necessary ones. Slick50 introduced Teflon at 5 to .5 microns. Those numbers don't work, and from there it has been downhill ever since. That's Slick50 in a nutshell. If you want to read a little more on the subject, just ask.

As stated before, a sound basis... bad implementation. Both the Tornado and Slick50 attempted to do something (with basis) incorrectly. This is evident that I was/am not supporting either product.

A few side notes... One can make one's own "Tornado" out of a used beer can; no purpose in buying one. It was DuPont that invented PTFE's; not 3M. In 1990, DuPont began making PTFE's for ICE's. I never implied more restrictions are useful. I implied that with intentions (good) came problems, as with the others; no one was perfect.

Peace
marcus

vudoodoodoo

If the Tornado really works, don't you think every car manufacturer would put it in their cars?

ChurchAutoTest

Hope you had a rearview mirror because when you backpedal that fast you need one!

SC

Xenophanes

He must sell them.

Alright here is my response to his comments:

quote:
Xenophanes wrote:

I always feel a good explanation helps people identify the 'snake oil' performance upgrades. So the deal with the Tornado things is as such:

The Tornado is supposed to "spin" the air into your intake. This turbulence is supposed to improve the AIR/FUEL mixing process. This sounds logical, but when you look at all the twist and turns the air takes as it goes through your upper intake any "spin" to the air will be lost.

Additionally, the injectors in modern cars as as good as mixing FUEL and AIR as it can get.

It is "possible" carb. engines "may" get increases, but I never fully believed this assertion for one simple fact. Any obstruction in your inake (in a N/A engine) will slow down the air in the inake. There is a reason why aftermarket CAI's are straight-ish and large in diameter (ignoring the 'cold air' aspect of CAIs). It decreases air flow restrictions, thus increasing the available air to N/A engines. The Tornado will slow down the air, thus decreasing power in almost any engine..... to what degree is up to speculation.
The "Tornado" is supposed to vortex the air. Although the data behind it is sound, the implentation isn't.

quote:
dill munch said:

Regarding injectors... one can only speculate at what was meant given the typing errors, however, injectors are a far cry from being efficient at mixing fuel and air.

CAI's do not decrease restrictions. They merely add more air (cooler) while minimalizing the addition of more restrictions.



Here are my comments.

CAI/restrictions:
Look man. First off you obviously are just out to attack people, however, I will respond to your post. A good CAI should reduce restrictions as well as cool air. See how I said, "There is a reason why after market CAI's are straight-ish and large in diameter (ignoring the 'cold air' aspect of CAIs)." Here I mentioned the "cold" air aspect of it. Just like any good after market intake CAI's should be straighter than the stock intake with less resistance. Unfortunately the stock filter and the stock intake definitely slows down the air into the engine (with the filter being the largest restriction in the intake). This is why K&N and other short ram intake's exist. They take advantage of reducing intake restrictions from the filter and intake. There are countless dyno's proving that filter and/or intake replacement results in more HP. Granted, the degree of the performance gain varies, but it does help.

Spelling:
Obviously you just want to attack someone here. I only made two spelling errors. First: I misspelled intake (inake) Sorry man.... missed a 't'. If you don't know what I meant.... you don't deserve to. Second: I misspelled implementation (implentation) I know how to spell this. It was a typo. Sorry man... I don't spell check each of my posts. I guess someone who attacks people all day long, such as you, must cover your bases all day long.

Injectors:
Lets think about this. Why would modern cars use injectors if they weren't more efficient? Why aren't we still using carb engines? I don't see how you can argue this point of view. Additionally, turbulent air coming from the 'tornado' is completely lost when it hits the fuel delivery system in modern cars.... older carb engines (as I said before) "may" (repeat) "may" have gains.


All in all, sorry that you sell these pieces of crap. As grandfather say, "Time tests all things." And the Tornado is one of them. It will be quite fun to go to car shows in the future and see the displays of snake-oil car products.

rotarygod

I'm going to just avoid the technical arguments here and state one example of the Tornado's use in a car. There was a dyno test done a few years ago on a 1st gen RX-7. I can't remember who did it but it is somewhere in the archives of the RX-7club forum. It was a standard carb 12A engine. 2 dyno runs were done. One without the Tornado and one with it installed in the airbox. The result was that the 2nd dyno run produced 1 hp less than without and showed no gain anywhere in the powerband. Even if the 1 hp loss was due to other things, it did demonstrate that on that car there was no gain. My big question is that if swirling the air in the intake at the filter really helps mix air and fuel better, how does it continue to swirl after it has split into each seperate intake runner? I can't see how it would but I'd love a technical response from one of you guys if it can.

Boozehound

The laminar/turbulent argument is driving me nuts. Everyone makes claims in the absolute.... A few things:

1. Has ANYONE ever heard of a Reynolds number? How does it compare to oh... let's say... the number 4000?

2. If you have honey in a 1/8" glass tube, you can attain almost perfectly laminar flow.

3. Laminar flow does not always decrease drag. Why do golf ***** have dimples? To increase turbulence and decrease pressure drag.

4. Does anyone here want to start talking about boundary layers and the navier-stokes equation?


If you feel that "science" stands behind the tornado, go buy one. I'm too cynical for that, and much too lazy to do the equations that proves my intuition correct. I'd rather spend my 50 on something slightly more satisfying and useful. But if you want one, order it, but don't forget to adjust your malt liquor and ramen noodle budget accordingly...

o_town_racer

Save your money and wait for an aftermarket engine re-programmer (more HP, torque, and generally better MPG).