Tornado: Air intake device

When I was doing my senior project evaluating the engine for a potential 100 mpg vehicle I did. They did not work. Virtually no signicant difference was detected. Swirl in the intake sounds like a good thing. Sounds like it would lead to better mixing. But where the swirl or mixing should actually take place is in the combustion chamber not the intake tract. In the intake you want unobstucted flow to fill the cylinders the way the designer intended. All of the manufacturers have employed swirl in the combustion chambers in modern day engines with good results. Nothing the EPA has ever tested like this has resulted in the gains claimed. Sorry to disappoint you. When I was testing my swarups (that's what they called them in 1979) a professor was driving around with a pyramid shaped air cleaner. We both go about the same results, lol!

 

You'll find websites that swear by the tornado, but only if they are selling them. As stated, are that is circulated at the intake loses it's 'swirl' by the time it reaches the chamber thus negating the effect.

 

All of these after-market "miracle" devices are predicated on the assumption that some guy (or gal) with a lathe and a drill-press in the garage can produce a more efficient engine than a skyscraper full engineers with a half a dozen supercomputers and every possible kind of equipment.

Or, alternatively, that the car companies are in cahoots with the oil companies, and intentionally left out the "miracle" device so that we'd all have to buy more gas.

 

Or that people are desperate to eek a few extra MPG's out of their cars. By default Prius owners are already doing that. :mrgreen:

Jon

 

I might mess with a '5 Chevvy V-8.

But I surely would not mess with an Atkinson Closed-Cycle, Hybrid Synergy Power Train.

Unh-Unh.


Bob

 

I did look at all the devices, additives, etc the EPA has tested and you'll notice that a lot of these tests were done during the 70's and 80's. They even tested Analube synthetic oil that resulting in a baseline improvement of 3.6% in gas mileage, but an increase in CO and reduction in CO2. But they deemed that not to be significant due to the repeatibility of their testing and basic experimental error. So apparently it would take a major improvement or a very refined, controlled, statistically significant, test for the EPA to endorse a device, additive, or method. Which of course is as it should be. The epa list is here for any interested:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/reports.htm

It seems like some of these things like all the various sythetic oils and various tires now available should be re-tested by the EPA with all the sensor/test equipment improvements that have taken place since the 70's.

 

It is just so funny how a thread like this pops up on every automotive forum at least once a year.

Tornado claims a 1-2MPG average improvement on their site. I would not try it in my Prius, but if some lost soul is willing to try it, if the odd device is made to fit a 2004 Prius (which it is not yet), please report your results. Be sure to test multiple times, controlling for air temp, humidity, engine temp, driving technique, and so forth.

If Toyota could have bumped the mileage up by 1-2MPG by swirling the intake airsteam, don't you think they would have done so in the Prius?

Disclaimer: Such air-intake devices may actually promote improved fuel economy in some vehicles. I have no proof to counter any claims by the manufacturers.

P.S. - I believe in the Easter Bunny.

 

Actually, most automakers already do induce swirling into their intake systems. The Honda CVCC system was one exampe, as is the GM Vortech engines. Tuned intake runners are another way to do this, and even my old Daewoo had inifinitely variable intake runners. All this does is help breathing, and the automakers are able to do it in such a way as to get around the throttle body, where as mentioned, the effect would be cancelled out.