Fuel Saver Pro

[davefoc]

Iamme,
You said a lot of things in your post that I agree with.

One of the things that is worth considering is your idea that that the device might improve fuel efficiency for poorly tuned engines. In fact, this has been a scam in the past. The promoter carries around an engine that has a particular problem and then installs his gadget and amazingly the engine runs better. This doesn't mean that the device would improve or even not degrade the performance of a properly tuned engine, but some people just assume that if it makes an engine with problems run better then its going to help an engine without problems run better also.

I don't think greater fuel efficiency necessarily will cause less emissions. My guess is that better fuel efficiency would probably mean less CO, but I'm not sure what it would say about NOx type stuff.

I think it was Iconoclast that talked about how adding carburetor plates could sometimes make minor improvements in mileage. This rang true with me. My sense of it is that there are lots of ways to make minor tweaks to engines that in some situations would improve and in others would degrade mileage. The system of the engine is complicated enough that it is very difficult to predict which and it is easily conceivable that what increases mileage in a particular situation would decrease mileage and perhaps have other deliterious effects over the whole range of applications.

I am an electrical engineer that dealt with power consumption issues in hand held computers. I see considerable similarities between fuel economy testing and power consumption testing in electronic devices. At first it seems simple but if you are going to get reliable repeatable results a large number of factors need to be taken into account that require care and expertise.

I have three views of the way it works
1. It doesn't
2. It tweaks the air input resonances and thereby makes minor tweaks in the power and mileage of an engine which can at times be positive and at other times be negative.
3. It promotes mixing of the air fuel mixture in the carbureator and perhaps in the intake manifold so the fuel is burned more completely.

Real testing could analyse the third possibility in detail. Comparing tests with and without the fins in the device and monitoring the output gases for reductions in CO are some ideas that come to mind.

 

[ceptimus]

<p align="center">Up to 20% fuel savings, up to 15% more power!</p>By simply reading this post, you have improved your car's performance by up to 15% and reduced its gas consumption by up to 20%.

Please send $50 to me for providing you with this service. (PM for details). I absolutely guarantee this will work. A one year 100% money back guarantee applies if you can prove that my claim for this service has not been met.

Ah yes, the power of those two little words, 'up to'. (They're all over that Hiclone site).

 

[roger]

<p align="center">Up to 20% fuel savings, up to 15% more power!</p>By simply reading this post, you have improved your car's performance by up to 15% and reduced its gas consumption by up to 20%.

Please send $50 to me for providing you with this service.

That's wonderful, ceptimus! Thanks! I'll immediately send you up to $50 to show my gratitude.

 

[Iamme]

ceptimus---ah yessssss..."up to". There is a spray on truck bedliner being advertised, called "Rhino Liner", where they say that it is sprayed on "Up to" 1/4 inch thick! Ha!!!!!!!

 

[Iconoclast]

It's possible that air speed is increased by the Tornado as claimed. (I'll call it the wind tunnel effect.) It's also possible I suppose, that the swirling action can stay this way around some turns in the area of the carburetor. Just suppose this part is true so far.

It may be possible that for some reasons we don't know, either more gas is fully burned in the chamber, or, this device acts like some 'lean burner'. That is why I want to know if tests are done on recvently tuned up engines, rebuilt engines, new cars, etc.

Suppose that the Tornado seems to correct over rich carburetion due to improper jetting or a vehicle in need of a tuneup. If some device like the Tornado turns out to be some sort of compensator for over rich conditions, that could be corrected in some other manner...is it so terrible that one pay $45-70 or so in order to get better gas mileage?...with some device any person can install in a few minutes?

I've always found it hard to believe that scammers can find enough suckers to make their schemes worthwhile. Your last few posts have changed my mind.

 

[_Q_]

Thanx teddygrahams, for the link. I went there. Hmmmm. A Tornado copycat, I guess. I wonder why they call it Hiclone? What's with the "hi" in Hiclone?

lamme,

The Hiclone link came to you courtesy of yours truly.

It doesn't seem to me to be a "Tornado copycat", but rather the same product marketed under a different name. Take a look at some of the "test results" that are identical to those on the Tornado web site. They even have the plug from Jeff Brooks.

That's why I'm wondering about the one Tornado vs. two Tornado thing - if the product's the same, then wouldn't the recommendations be the same?

I'm also curious as to why the Tornado people aren't touting all of those "international awards for invention" noted on the Hiclone site? Gee, the awards are only 10-12 years old, and the product is already, uh, taking the world by, uh, storm...



_Q_

 

[fsol]

It's possible that air speed is increased by the Tornado as claimed. (I'll call it the wind tunnel effect.)

Explain how a stationary object can change the direction of flow and make it travel faster along the air intake and you might have a point.

Have a look at the Subaru system. It only operates at low load. This is because when you are trying to get maximum power from an engine you want as small a pressure drop across the air intake as possible. Anything you put in the way, regardless of shape, will increase the pressure drop. Volumetric efficency will be decreased and so will the power output of the engine. At low loads the device is useful for promoting the mixing of fuel and air (note it does this before the combustion chamber, not in it as the tornado claims), this is because at low loads by definition you are not worried about maximum power.

Suppose that the Tornado seems to correct over rich carburetion due to improper jetting or a vehicle in need of a tuneup. If some device like the Tornado turns out to be some sort of compensator for over rich conditions,

How does the presence of a tornado in your air box increase the flow of air to compensate for the rich mixture? It is a stationary device. It can't do anything of the sort.


"windtunnel effect?" please explain how this works.

 

[davefoc]

I sent an email to Russell Banush of the EPA asking if the EPA had tested the Tornado device or similar devices (I mentioned the Hiclone device).

His reply included the following:

We have not evaluated this product, so we are unable to provide comment on it. We have evaluated some one hundred or so devices in this program. None has demonstrated statistically significant fuel economy benefits. ...

... We find that today's vehicle are very fuel efficient and that regular manufacturer recommended maintenance of one's vehicle and good driving habits will optimize fuel economy.

Russell Banush, SEE
Senior Environmental Scientist
Certification and Compliance Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality

He also provided this link:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer.htm

I had visited the link before, but I did reread some of the documents there. There is a bit of a parallel to the Randi million dollar challenge. The EPA requires that the efficacy of the device be established in an independent laboratory before they will do testing on the device. This might explain why there are so few recent reports, there just aren't applicants who have devices that they feel confident enough in to take part in the process.

Given that the device has been around for ten years or so, it seems very unlikely that if it was effective a senior scientist at the EPA wouldn't know of it and condition his general view that these devices don't work with the proviso that this one did. I would think an aftermarket device that could reduce fuel consumption by 10% would be just about the biggest news going in this guys department.

 

[Iamme]

Well...I did what I said I was going to do; I called up the Tornado Company in California today. I talked to a guy in their "tech" dept. I told them about this forum. He actually clicked into it while we were talking. He said his time was limited and that for me to address him fuirther I should e-mail him personally. His e-mail address is: Gabriel@Tornadoair.com. We talked for probably about 20-30 minutes. I told him about that mechanic, Vince Ciulla, who has a website that says that HIS tests show less than favorable results. He wants me to e-mail him the address of that site. I was going to recite it to him, but he said that due to his time constraints, I should just e-mail it to him. He will then get back with me. He was a very nice friendly guy. I told him I was calling from Eau Claire, Wisconsin and that we are having an absolutely beautiful Indian summer fall day... blue sky, about 80 degrees.

The name of the independent testing lab is Ecologic labs, which is sanctioned by the EPA.

I asked him if carbureted vehicles due better than fuel injected ones, and he said he believes they do.

I asked him if their tests were primarily run on older cars that perhaps needed a tune up, and he said, actually, they have run tests on new vehicles also, like a 2003 Honda Accord (and others), 4 cyl., 2.4L= went from 27.38 mpg to 30.58 when the Tornado was installed, with no other engine work or adjustments.

I asked him if I could buy one for $45, and he said no. They all cost $69.98, no matter which model you get. There is no additional shipping/handling charges, even if you go to NAPA and they have to order one. He said that the only way you can get them for $45 is through E-Bay. I said, "Well were did THEY get them from?" He said that Tornado learned that some of their wholesale distributors were buying them up in bulk and dumping them on the auction block. Tornado has 'fired' these distributors as he said there came into play a conflict of interest with distributors like NAPA.

Now, I guess, I just commit and buy one. They have that guarantee, so I have nothing to loose, except some mailing costs I guess.

If you have any questions...e-mail him at the address I listed near my start.

 

[teddygrahams]

That's why I'm wondering about the one Tornado vs. two Tornado thing - if the product's the same, then wouldn't the recommendations be the same?


_Q_

One of the recommendations is the same... the one to disconnect the battery to reset the engine controller.

 

[davefoc]

Iamme,
The EPA publishes detailed test guidelines for doing a fuel economy test. The link from the EPA lists some relevant documents here.

A key question is whether they have been using an established test protocol or whether they have ever used an established test protocol for any of their tests. If the lab is indeed an EPA sanctioned lab I suspect that are very well acquainted with these protocols and if somebody was looking for real information about the efficacy of their product they might have chosen to use such a protocol.

In my business when we ran tests we routinely looked around for existing protocols so our results could be used for comparative purposes with others that had used the same protocols. There are also some ethical issues with making up ones own protocols. There is far greater latititude when making a claim if you control the way that claim is tested than if you use a test procedure developed by a disinterested third party.

I would be far more impressed by one statement anyplace on their web site that they had done testing based on such and such an EPA test protocol and a test report than an infinite amount of lame amway type hype and highly suspicious testimonials from a radio talk show host that appears to be employed by them.

If they had done testing to these protocols, it would be a simple procedure to submit their device to the EPA for efficacy testing. I don't see any information that this has happened. Note EPA testing for efficacy is different than EPA testing to determine that the device is an acceptable aftermarket device because it doesn't screw up emissions.

As this thread as gone on I have found it increasingly unlikely that this is a legitimate product. I do look forward to hearing any results that you share with us, though.

 

[_Q_]

Now, I guess, I just commit and buy one. They have that guarantee, so I have nothing to loose, except some mailing costs I guess.

lamme,

Have you given much thought to how you would go about determining the effectiveness of the Tornado on your car? How would you test it, and how large of a change would you have to see to be fairly confident that the difference is attributable to the Tornado as opposed to other factors?

I'm thinking of fuel economy here, which to me seems to be the most accessible thing to check, but still awfully thorny. As an example, if I were to look at my records for fuel use in my daily driver (mostly commuting miles) over, say, a 6- or 12-month period, how much do you think the apparent fuel economy would vary from one tankful to the next? If I were to plot these, how bumpy would the curve/line be?

Now, I would expect it to smooth out some if I were to figure the fuel economy in bigger chunks - miles driven with the amount of fuel consumed over two or more tankfuls. When I start looking at it that way, 30 days doesn't seem very long at all.

Before you undertake a measurement, it's good to have some idea of what would constitute a meaningful result. Such considerations might cause you to redesign the experiment before ever performing it.


_Q_

 

[Iamme]

_Q_---The answer to your question as to how I am planning on testing the device when I put it in: I am in a fortunate position in that I put on a lot of miles daily. They are a good mix of highway and city driving. It is quite consistant on a daily basis. I go through tankfuls quite often. But even so, the weather and wind conditions can change. This time of year, it can be about 80 for a few days, and then go down into the 50's...and into the 30's or upper 20's at night, and be rainy. This will affect gas mileage, for sure.

So how am I going to be able to tell within a fairly tight margin of certainty? I will alternate by putting in the Tornado, and then taking it back out, etc. If every single time, my mileage increases when I have the Tornado in there...then you can bet it is having a positive effect.

But how am I going to know if it really is the Tornado, or, the Tornado is acting as some sort of fuel mixture equalizer whereby my out of tuned, rich-running van gets better with the Tornado? Well, for now I'm not going to worry about that. IF I get, say, a 10% gain out of it...give or take some...maybe I should care less, as $70 spent to make this correction is not bad. If it were $200, I would think twice.

Other posters have questioned as to how a windtunnel effect could be at work here, with a stationary restrictive device that alters the direction of the flow of the air. Well, how about if we just cut to the chase and first see if it works in my vehicle. IF it does...THEN let's try to analyze it as to why. There is a money back guarantee, as I've stated before. I'm willing to take a chance. I have tried things, my whole life. I have even tried 'stuffing envelopes', as I had to see for myself.

 

[clusterm2]

Lamme, I expect you will see an improvement, heard of self fulfilling prophesy? Scammers reading some of these posts will sleep easy in their beds tonight.

I myself converted to LPG several years ago, now that WILL save you 40% of your fuel costs (a little more expensive initially granted)

 

[_Q_]

So how am I going to be able to tell within a fairly tight margin of certainty? I will alternate by putting in the Tornado, and then taking it back out, etc. If every single time, my mileage increases when I have the Tornado in there...then you can bet it is having a positive effect.

lamme,

Let me put the question this way. If you were to record, at each fill-up, the number of miles driven and the amount of fuel required to fill the tank afterwards, then how much will the apparent fuel economy vary across a number of fill-ups, even if no changes have intentionally been made? Do you have this sort of historical information for your daily driver?

To be clear, I use the word "apparent" because, even though actual fuel economy will vary, there also might be a question of how consistently the fuel pump fills the tank each time. If one were averaging many miles over a number of tankfuls with the car in a given configuration, then such an effect would become smaller. If, however, one were alternating configurations with each tankful, then such an effect would be at its worst - an "underfilled" tank makes the previous tankful look "better", and the current tankful look "worse". Now, I don't happen to know how consistently pumps refill the tank - I'm just pointing it out as an example of a possible source of error in such an experiment.

_Q_

 

[dissonance]

He could have someone else put in/take out the Fuel Saver thing, so that he doesn't know on any given day if it's in use. Do that for, oh, let's say a month, and then compare his impressions of which days he used less fuel to the days when the Fuel Saver was/wasn't in the car.

 

[Iamme]

_Q_---This is all quite simple I believe. I do have a long history of taking mileage checks on vehicles I have owned. Indeed, there is always a variance. Suppose I had a vehicle with NO Tornado that gave me altering readings of 12. 07, 13.25. 11.88. 12.88. Now suppose that after the Toprnado, I got readings of say, 14.2.12.95, 13.9, 14.5.

Would you suppose there was a problem with the testing? What if no matter how many mileage checks one took, the Tornado average was 1-2 mpg higher than when the Tornado was not in there?


Because testing will not be done under lab conditions, I have to be somewhat honest with myself. For example: If I know the Tornado is in there...I can't suddenly start driving as if I have an egg under my gas pedal, or to try to avoid as many red lights.

I came into some money today. Today is the day (or tomorrow) that I go out and buy one of these suckers.

 

[ceptimus]

I came into some money today. Today is the day (or tomorrow) that I go out and buy one of these suckers.

I think today (or tomorrow) is the day you prove you are a sucker. Nethertheless, I look forward to seeing your results.

 

[fsol]

Because testing will not be done under lab conditions, I have to be somewhat honest with myself. For example: If I know the Tornado is in there...I can't suddenly start driving as if I have an egg under my gas pedal, or to try to avoid as many red lights.

I can't help but agree with ceptimus I am afraid.

 

[_Q_]

_Q_---This is all quite simple I believe. I do have a long history of taking mileage checks on vehicles I have owned. Indeed, there is always a variance. Suppose I had a vehicle with NO Tornado that gave me altering readings of 12. 07, 13.25. 11.88. 12.88. Now suppose that after the Toprnado, I got readings of say, 14.2.12.95, 13.9, 14.5.

Would you suppose there was a problem with the testing?

OK, this starts to answer some of my questions about your intended method of testing. Before, I knew that you were planning on alternating Tornado/non-Tornado configurations, but it wasn't clear to me how much driving would be done between configuration changes. One tankful would be terrible, as noted in my previous message; four tankfuls sounds better.

As far as your example is concerned, I wouldn't bet my life on a history of four tankfuls. I'm not a statistician, but I'll go out on a limb here and say that more is better (but I don't know enough to tell you exactly how many is "just enough"). That's one reason why I was asking how detailed your records are for fuel consumption of your test vehicle, especially in recent history. If you don't have pretty good numbers for this, it might be a good idea to delay your purchase of the Tornado until you do, because you have a limited period of time in which to to test it (and still have the option of returning the product if you're not satisified).

If you were to hand me a Tornado for my daily driver tomorrow, I'd be ready to test it (OK, maybe we'd have coffee first). In a year's driving at a rate of about one fill-up per week, I probably record all but three or four fill-ups, so the non-Tornado configuration is not that badly characterized. I figured fuel economy on some of this information the other day, and found that I've been doing a smidge better than I thought I was. I also found that variation in the apparent fuel economy (fill-up to fill-up) was smaller than I would have guessed.

What if no matter how many mileage checks one took, the Tornado average was 1-2 mpg higher than when the Tornado was not in there?

Well, that would be very convincing. I would probably be testing one in my own daily driver before you completed your infinite amount of testing.

Seriously, based on looking at my own fuel consumption records, I think (gut feeling here, not real statistics) that a consistent 10% improvement in fuel economy would be obvious to me within a month or two of Tornado testing. 10% would be a lot, I think.

This brings to mind a question raised at least once earlier in the thread: If these work so well, then why don't we hear about large scale, properly controlled fleet studies (in other words, lots and lots of careful empirical testing) demonstrating the effectiveness of the product?


_Q_