?? Does the "Tornado fuel saver" really work ???

I have this thing on my car, but don't really know if it really works. I've
read here somewhere on the internet that it restricts air flow and loose
power but since Im getting about 21.5 MPG in a 94 New Yorker, I dont know if
I should remove it and see if I get more power and milage or if it is really
working and leave it there...What do you guys think ?? Thanks.

 

Yes it does work, why would they lie about it.

..

 

The ads show that the air goes in by gravity - that is, they
completely forget to mention that in a normal engine, the
air is pulled into the engine, so how it gets there is moot -
it will pull as much as it needs.

The only way to deal with this is to either make it more dense
(turbocharger/intercooler) or to move lots more of it(supercharger).

A piece of spinning aluminum isn't going to do anything unless your
engine is completely worn out and not developing pressure - in which
case, you have bigger problems.

OTOH, replacing your computer chip does make a difference as most
OEM ones are set to run as lean as possible for emissions.

 

Air is most certainly *not* "pulled" into an engine.

Are you suggesting that there is a difference between the two?

That "not developing pressure" part, is that what "pulls" air
into the engine?

Might be a true statement -if- discussing a vehicle from the
early-mid 70s, certainly not true for a 94 Chrysler New Yorker,
but then very few vehicles from the early-mid 70s actually *had*
any sort of computer chip, so it's anyones guess what you're
attempting to describe here.

 

Surely at standstill, as the pistons do the downstroke, air is 'pulled'
(sucked, if you prefer) in behind them..

The ad shows the bottle and water trick.. one has to wonder whether air
really shows the same physical properties, allowing for the fact that auto
intakes have joins and bends in them that are guaranteed to create eddy's..

I would sooner spend the money on wind deflectors for side windows.. being a
smoker, it is useful to have windows down slightly while minimizing the
amount of rain that can enter.. prolly does little for the drag coefficient,
and increases the A pillar blind spot coverage..

 

Can't you compare the results to the 94 Lumina you posted the exact same
question on in alt.trucks.chevy?

 

Actually, no, and anyone who believes it so needs to go back and
review their automotive theory basics.

I wasn't debating the merits of the whirly-gig snake oil device.
Steve Lacker gave a full scientific on why these things and those
like it are absolute horse manure.

Okay...

 

Was the tip off the fact that he cites 21.5 mpg for both vehicles?

 

or their physics: it is the side that Creates the pressure
difference that actually does the "work". So while it is
the higher pressure outside that pushes the air, it is the
lower pressure in the intake cycle piston that expends the
energy (does work). - RM

 

That's like saying that 'it's my empty kitchen sink that causes
water to come out of the faucet.'

 

Ixnay, the sink supplies no energy, in fact it absorbs some from
the falling water.

 

">

Please elaborate, oh great one.

 

He's being a smartass. In short, he's saying that you can only pull (or
suck) air
from a closed system, such as a pressure vessel. With an engine intake open
to
atmosphere, it can't "suck" or "pull" air because at the same time that one
end
of the engine is taking air in, the other end is expelling it, so in
actually all an engine
is is a sort of air pump.

What this ignores of course is that the word "suction" is extremely loosly
used and
as such in a non-technical discussion it's pretty much equally valid. For
example
if you look at air conditioning systems, the refrigerant lines are labeled
"pressure"
and "suction" oftentimes, even though an A/C refrigerant system is basically
a
refrigerant pump same as an engine.

Ted

 

That is the same mileage I got on my 94 LHS without any stupid
contracptions.

 

Your opinion, wrong as it may be.

I've said no such thing at all.

Sure is.

Who decided this was a non-technical discussion?

A refrigerant system is a closed system, an internal combustion
engine sich as used on a modern automobile, is not.

Sad that so many here do not know what a pressure differential is.

 

Sad that so many here do not know what a pressure differential is.
I guess many here are just not as smart as you, oh wise one.

 

Yes you have you idiot. From an earlier posting of yours in rec.autos.tech,
dated
5-17-2003, Message-ID:


"...Depends on the criteria. The amount of air PUMPED would be the same, the
density
between the two conditions would be different..."


Now quit being a jackass.

Ted

 

Why don't you explain it for us all?

Matt

 

My comment: "I've said no such thing at all" in my previous post
relates to the contents of the entire paragraph that it was meant
to answer. (i.e., this thread) If you feel the need to pick and
choose little snippets of text, by all means, show us how
desperate you are.

Oh, wait.... 'Googling' back 6 months to a totally different
thread has already done that.

Sorry, that would be the person who thinks that air is
"sucked" into an engine.
They get the same classification as people who refer to
electricity and/or electrical current as "juice."

Actually Ted, were it not for the fact that you're a nobody, I
might actually feel flattered.

 

I have, many times on usenet.

If you don't know how to 'google', ask Ted for some instructions.

Hell, you might even stumble across some totally irrelevant text
that you may find handy at some point.