Tornado Fuel Saver

[LarryB]

Those turbine thingies ar the biggest buttload of crap since tabletop fusion. They do work great for one thing though, making the marketer rich. Kind of like those boob-be-bigger creams. (. )(. )

 

[illflem]

I don't know Larry. I put some of that boob-be-bigger cream on my turbo, 2 cm bigger in just a week. Would have been more but the magnets on my fuel line kept sucking it off.

 

[Steve M]

Someone actually bought one of those things?:--)

 

[Koa Man]

A couple of years ago Car & Driver magazine did an extensive test on this gadget and found it did not work. Don't waste your money.

 

[DaveN]

My .02

For the record I am an engineer, but not an engine designer, but based on what I know here's my take on it... ...



The only time I could see this helping at all is with a carburated gasoline engine that's in rough shape. Some older out of tune carbs tend to want to dump gas into the intake versus atomizing the fuel. You may get an improvement at higher RPMS with respect to fuel atomization, but I would think you'd get more bang for the buck by getting your carb tuned properly.



Most of the new cars use injectors which are designed to atomize the fuel, so any increase in the "swirl" of the air would be negligible with respect to atomization.



With a CTD, I would think that a turbo spinning at umpteen thousand RPM would create just as much of a "vortex" or other disturbance in the airflow to get the same effect. But I don't think that's the point.



I think what these people did was took a little factual science and turned it into a money maker. One of the things that a combustion engineer looks at is swirl in the combustion chamber. If you can get the air spinning or tumbling as it enters the combustion chamber you tend to get more even atomization of the fuel, and therefore better flame propogation, even combustion rates and lower emissions. Someone probably said "why don't we help it out?" And help out our wallets? Problem is that the air speed at the intake is much slower than the air speed at the valve or in the combustion chamber, so whatever extra movement you're putting in at the intake is negligible compared to the movement that the vaccum is creating from the cylinder.



My 0. 02, I don't think they will work. But I wish I was the guy that invented it. I wouldn't have to push these stupid calculator buttons anymore..... and I'd probably have more BOMBed components in my CTD!!!

 

[THerman]

I am an engineer as well. I agree with Don M, the only place this sort of shaping would help a turbo-d engine is in front of the turbo... And then ONLY if it improved airflow into the compressor... . small improvements on the intake side can make a difference, but it would take major improvements on the manifold to make any measureable changes.....



And, jet engines do have flow shaping components in front of the compressors... .



I agree with the majority here... .



HP increase... . hmm let me see... How much does $60 weigh? Subtract that from the weight of the vehicle running a 1/4mi... . back calculate HP... . Hmmmm



I could market this!!! If the $60 was all in pennies, By buying this item, you could shave off... .....



Tod

 

[Don M]

Yes, I agree THerman. there is no benifit to the "thingee" being in the intake side of the turbocharged engine. The picture above is what Im refering to. The sharp 90 degree turn after the "thingee" and the grid heaters are gonna destroy whatever you try and do in that area anyway as far as air shaping goes.



There is a small amount of gain to be had in the compressor side of the turbine with air shaping. Not just with vortex but with velocity improving designs. I have some ideas for this area and will post after I get some HP data.



Back to tumble and swirl. The biggest problem I see is the intake ports are designed with about 21 lbs of boost usually being the maximum amount they are designed for. Change that to 40 or even up to 80plus as some guys are doing and you begin loose some benefits of the original design. Combined motion of the swirl and tumble can be lost and upset with added boost from stagnation and recirculation zones in the ports. The entire velocity profile is changed at our BOMBED boost levels.



During the above we need to evaluate spray technology to match the in-cylinder air combined motion. Droplet size, droplet velocity, spray jet cone angle, spray and droplet penetration rates, and timing of injection. Lets not forget the valve opening, size of valve, cam timing, etc. Until we get into the heart of the matter, so to speak. We will be mostly making guesses where we will need to go from here to make more power.



Wish I had more bucks and time to spend on this.





Don~

 

[NVR FNSH]

a while back somebody made replacement silencer ring that gave a much more gradual transition to the compressor inlet - I think he claimed an increase of ~7psi.



There is room for improvement on the inlet side of the turbo - reduce pressure drop ahead of the compressor and you'll improve your boost level - it's that pressure ratio thing again



Brian

 

[rbattelle]

Makes me kinda wonder about the tornado and 5 hp improvements on chassis dyno's.



Brian

I have a theory that the difference in horsepower they show on the infomercial with the chassis dyno is entirely explainable as the difference between a cold engine and one that's up to operating temp.



-Ryan

 

[RClark]

Look at the TAG 1 or 2. I noticed some improvement and a lot less torbo huff.