Surprising result worth noting (Turbo Air Guide)

[GLASMITHS]

Ooooo, man that hurts! :-laf



[BTW, I didn't bother with fuel magnets... I just always drive due North. :-laf ]



-Ryan

Didn't hurt me. Just makes the folks from OHIO look like retards. :-laf

 

[brods]

What is accomplished by poking fun of the product instead of bringing up logical objections? It appears to be a sound idea, the question is does it work well enough to justify its cost. Clearly this device is not for maximum power increases. It appears you will sacrifice some peak power for improved efficiency lower in the power band. To that end you must operate the engine in the range where this device produces the most benefit. If the customer’s driving style is not suited to the TAG’s operating range, then they will be a dissatisfied customer. This is where the manufacturer needs to give clear advice and back it up with numbers.



If I understood the gist of it, the device improves the efficiency of the turbo allowing a cooler and therefore more dense air charge for a given boost pressure. Assuming this is true, the next question is can the stock engine computer take advantage of this cooler, more dense charge? Are there other benefits besides improved fuel mileage? What is the sweet spot for this device, both in terms of rpms and throttle position? (Does throttle position even matter on a diesel?) Are the best results for sustained highway driving or around town stop and go driving?



Looking at the $160 price it will have to save around 70 gallons of fuel to pay for itself. Assuming a 1 mpg increase and an average of 15 mpg before installing the TAG, it would take about 16,800 miles to pay for itself if. The lower the mpg the quicker the payback; the higher the mpg the longer the payback. At 10 mpg the payback is in about 7700 miles. Likewise the more expensive the fuel costs the quicker the payback. Since everyone drives differently it would be expected that the results could vary widely. Again it comes back to the manufacturer who should clearly define when and how the maximum benefits are obtained.

 

[JHardwick]

What is accomplished by poking fun of the product instead of bringing up logical objections?

I already have, several times. I think there is 13 pages of debate in this thread alone.



In fact, I spent a little time in Solid Works to determine exactly how much surface area was lost. It was fairly substantial, even with the honeycomb material only being . 004" thick.





That being said, most users see no gain/loss in HP or fuel economy telling this dumb Ohioan that it increases efficiency enough to negate the loss in surface area. But, I rely on too much logic sometimes.

 

[brods]

JH, Your calcs are exactly the kind of response that is productive, nice work by the way.



You are comparing the reduction in open area of the TAG to that of the tube. I’d be more interested in the open area of the turbo inlet. As long as the TAG area was greater than the turbo inlet area, I don’t see it as a great concern (though I’m just speculating). Just curious, how did you come up with the 30% more drag number?



I have read the entire thread, which leads me to believe there might be a narrow operating band where certain driving styles could see a benefit. My guess is steady cruising in a certain rpm range is where the TAG gives the most benefit. That might explain why some people get mpg improvements while others who just pass through that rpm range don’t. Just trying to understand the thing.

 

[Matt400]

Interesting reading

I didn't read all the posts on this one but it is interesting.



The TAG III design I have a little trouble with.

Of course reducing the inlet will increase velocity but that increase in speed is from the turbos work that is drawing the air so I see that as a restriction.

Kinda like if some is good then more is better so why not choke it down more for an even faster flow into the blades?

 

[JHardwick]

You are comparing the reduction in open area of the TAG to that of the tube. I’d be more interested in the open area of the turbo inlet. As long as the TAG area was greater than the turbo inlet area, I don’t see it as a great concern (though I’m just speculating). Just curious, how did you come up with the 30% more drag number?

I don't really remember any of my figures, that was 6 months or so ago. But you do need a smaller inlet area to maintain a sufficient low pressure situation.



My final decision (for whatever that is worth) was that the TAG reduced area, but didn't help/hinder performance. Although it did shape the torque curve a bit if I remember correctly. To me that means it "bought" it's weight. It hurts airflow in one respect, but gains it back in another.



My suggestion then and is still to reduce area! The material is . 004" thick and the honeycombs are . 125". Make the honeycombs . 250", . 3125" or even . 375"!! At some point the material may need to be thickened to eliminate a flapping situation which would produce a surface stall. But overall, if the same theory was applied while reducing the surface area lost, a gain in efficiency should be seen.



Another point I made 6 or 8 months ago was this. I've programmed and machined turbo inlet faces for Garrett. It's pretty intense. The same goes for GE inlet airfoils. If you look at one of these machined surfaces, it looks like a continuous radius. Thats far from the truth. These surfaces are tabulated cylinders made up of thousands of straight line moves ... ... ..... it's a spline, not a radius. Do you or anybody really think that 60 years (or more) of turbo technology is gonna be set on it's ear over a TAG?



I immensely respect the intention and devotion, I just don't think there is much of a future there.



May I also suggest people go back and read a few posts before popping off about these stupid Ohioans? RBattelle is an engineer, and he bought into it ... ... ..... the theory is sound.



BTW, I'm also talking to GLASMITHS who thinks we are retards here in Ohio :-laf

 

[GLASMITHS]

I don't really remember any of my figures, that was 6 months or so ago. But you do need a smaller inlet area to maintain a sufficient low pressure situation.



My final decision (for whatever that is worth) was that the TAG reduced area, but didn't help/hinder performance. Although it did shape the torque curve a bit if I remember correctly. To me that means it "bought" it's weight. It hurts airflow in one respect, but gains it back in another.



My suggestion then and is still to reduce area! The material is . 004" thick and the honeycombs are . 125". Make the honeycombs . 250", . 3125" or even . 375"!! At some point the material may need to be thickened to eliminate a flapping situation which would produce a surface stall. But overall, if the same theory was applied while reducing the surface area lost, a gain in efficiency should be seen.



Another point I made 6 or 8 months ago was this. I've programmed and machined turbo inlet faces for Garrett. It's pretty intense. The same goes for GE inlet airfoils. If you look at one of these machined surfaces, it looks like a continuous radius. Thats far from the truth. These surfaces are tabulated cylinders made up of thousands of straight line moves ... ... ..... it's a spline, not a radius. Do you or anybody really think that 60 years (or more) of turbo technology is gonna be set on it's ear over a TAG?



I immensely respect the intention and devotion, I just don't think there is much of a future there.



May I also suggest people go back and read a few posts before popping off about these stupid Ohioans? RBattelle is an engineer, and he bought into it ... ... ..... the theory is sound.



BTW, I'm also talking to GLASMITHS who thinks we are retards here in Ohio :-laf

Good. There had not been any posts for some time, so my question was is this thing for real - any updates? this is supposed to be a forum of mature people. so my saying that your response was retarded, still stands.

 

[JHardwick]

Good. There had not been any posts for some time, so my question was is this thing for real - any updates? this is supposed to be a forum of mature people. so my saying that your response was retarded, still stands.

:-laf Are you for real? Do some friggen research!! Why do you think it died? There were threads here, in the products/accesories forum, on DTR etc ... ... .



I actually deticated time to see if it was worth the money for me and I'm retarted? There is a days worth of reading on the subject, do your own research instead of asking "is it worth it"?



Retard? :-laf

 

[Matt400]

Just thinking outside the box a little. . if laminar flow allows the turbine to function so much better, why is this technology not used on jet aircraft?

 

[JHardwick]

Just thinking outside the box a little. . if laminar flow allows the turbine to function so much better, why is this technology not used on jet aircraft?

Your not outside the box, that's one of my points exactly. Billions upon billions of dollars has been spent from our tax dollars on this. Beyond that, major jet engine companies like GE, Pratt and Whitney etc only survive if they make more thrust with less weight and better fuel economy. They have no TAG.



I stand by my retarded "tornado" comment. Oo.



Ryan, do you really get better fuel economy while always driving due North? :-laf

 

[Matt400]

Kinda what I thought too



With no magnets to pull you north, I would think better economy would come from driving south. After all its downhill. . at least on a map unless your like my wife who turns the map around so you are always driving up! :-laf

 

[JHardwick]

Kinda what I thought too



With no magnets to pull you north, I would think better economy would come from driving south. After all its downhill. . at least on a map unless your like my wife who turns the map around so you are always driving up! :-laf

OMG!!!!



I trail ride horses in several states. We are always going to new places. My girlfriend and her friend are always turning the map!!! I don't understand that theory, LMAO

 

[rbattelle]

Don't you guys know anything? Driving North all the time breaks up the long hydrocarbon chains in my fuel and aligns them all in a straight line so they burn better when they get to the combustion chamber. Duh.



:-laf :-laf



Anyway, Matt you mentioned that large jets don't have a big 'ol TAG on their inlet. This is true, but there are a couple things to keep in mind:



1. A TAG large enough to fit a commercial engine would reduce airflow too much (not to mention it would cost a fortune to make). You'd therefore have to make the inlet much larger to compensate and that gets impractical. Plus, keeping the holes clean would be nearly impossible.

2. Bear in mind that just behind that first stage fan on the core-side of the engine is a row of stator blades that serve (in part) a function similar to that of a TAG (that is, reducing swirl and straightening flow).

3. In my opinion, if it were practical to do so, there would be a TAG-like device on jet engine inlets. They would also use inlet air filters, but let's face it that's really impractical!

4. There are engines out there that have something roughly equivalent to a TAG. Some older military engines use a series of struts at the inlet whose purpose is not only to support the front bearing but also to improve the inlet air flow to the engine, especially under conditions where air flow is not perfectly axial (like during turns and climbs and what-not).

5. Since commerical engines are generally just hung on a wing and see relatively little inlet distortion (commercial jets are not usually doing barrel rolls and flying around at very high mach numbers and angles of attack), their inlet "treatment" can be rather mild.

6. Military engines (things like F-15, F-16, F-14, whatever) do have extensive inlet ducting and active/passive flow control systems (things like porous or slot bleeds, moveable ramps, and other things) that work very hard to ensure that flow at the engine face is as straight, smooth, and high-pressure as possible. Don't make the mistake of thinking they're just letting the air run around all willy-nilly in there!



I fully respect both sides of the TAG argument. I have not noticed any particular improvement in anything since installing it. My fuel log doesn't indicate any change in fuel economy whatsoever since I installed it. My arse is not calibrated well enough to be able to tell any difference in performance. So I can understand why people might not be willing to spend the cash on it.



-Ryan

 

[Car_nut57]

So are there any real results? Is this still available?

Here is some more information http://www.dieselpowerproducts.com/tag We try to up date this page as reliable information becomes available.

 

[Matt400]

Driving North all the time breaks up the long hydrocarbon chains in my fuel and aligns them all in a straight line so they burn better when they get to the combustion chamber.

Never knew that! must be a long trip back once you get to where you are going :-laf :-laf

Don't make the mistake of thinking they're just letting the air run around all willy-nilly in there!

I didn't think that at all, I just figured with the expense of a single jet like the F16 one BHTAG would not be a cost issue if it really was all that great.

 

[RustyJC]

The science supporting honeycomb flow straighteners is sound. These devices are commonly used in applications such as wind tunnels - example HERE.



Common powerplant engineering practice for decades has required a length of straight pipe equal to 5 diameters leading into a turbocharger to provide clean, non-turbulent flow. If that is not possible, the use of flow straighteners is required. So long as the thickness of the honeycomb flow straightener is more than 5 times the individual cell "diameter", the honeycomb flow straightener will provide the same effect.



Rusty

 

[silkey]

ok,i bought one,and these are my thoughts on the subject. the theory is sound,the applacation is impracticle. in order to use it ,you stick it in tube end closest to the turbo. problem one is in order to install it,the unit sits partully(excuse spelling,got a headache)in the curve ,exposing a piece of the air guide,itself becomming a restriction. what we need is a extended hose in which the air guide body can sit outside the hose. kinda like a screw in section,taking out part of the drag it imparts by the whole guide being there. we need to eliminate the drag the air dog imparts,or at least make it smaller,that would help. also,why cant we make the screened area larger?does it have to be that small?if we increase the inside area of the screen,at what point would the air tumble inside each honeycomb?a thought comes to mind,when ford invented the d shaped port in the sixties,it was found that the exzaust would travel in the u part,(it didnt matter where the d was placed,upside down on its end,whatever,the gas would always find the u shape and use it. the result was higher velocity compared to any other shape. maybe thats something to try. anyway what i got with my truck was higher boost per given rpm. sounds great,but with my truck the higher the boost per rpm,the more gas i use. responce was more crisp,but i was going for better miles per gallon. it just might be that the restriction it imparts in the tube forces you to use more peddle. since there is less air available,you are forcing the turbo to supply more boost to go a certain rpm. you gotta make it up somewhere,this seems more logical.

 

[d.miner]

You guys are amazing...



They say a Raccoon will wash an ice cube till it's gone. Over the years I've heard reference to peeling an onion layer after layer until there is nothing left.



You guys keep debating over and over... and really change nothing.



I put one in my truck, it runs better, spools faster, improved towing. I'm pleased.



Enough said !

 

[Tim]

$200 on intake restriction? Am I reading what I think I'm reading?



Anyone want to buy my old muffler bearings?

 

[silkey]

d. miner,i know what you are saying. the engine did feel better,smoother even. but if you look at your boost at any given rpm,you will find you are useing more. why?my miles per gallon went down. this was because the ecm is putting in more fuel to compensate for more boost. just what its supposed to do. in my view the engine is trying to get to speed but it cant because something is restricting the air flow. we only changed one thing and that was the air dog. hence that is the reason . i feel the engine felt smoother because more boost was introduced(the velocity)which will help overcome any port restrictions to a point. the turbo is working harder,its pushing harder to maintain crusing speed. that is why it feels better. the air mass is moving faster,but its taking more fuel to do it. my egt also went up,a byproduct of more boost. who needs that?i also did not notice any extra pulling power in my truck. i am glad it works for you. maybe i just got a bum truck,who knows?(i am just trying to put forward a theory as to why it did this in my truck,no flame intended,)