Does the tornado booster really work?

I just recently saw that informercial about the tornado thing you put in your air intake to rotate the air for more horsepower. Before I go and spend any money, I just wanted to get some input on it. So far I am
sceptical becasue even if it could spin the air, all the curves and twist the air has to go through would cause the tornado effect to disperse. Just wondering, Darrenoid
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't know for myself, but I've read they're a bunch of BS. (I believe for the exact reason you mention)
That's the problem with "customer testimonials". The customer can claim anything and it does not have to be proven by the manufacturer. Advertisers know that testimonials catch our attention. Little do we know it's mostly because of that loophole that they use so many testimonials.
Plus, anyone who can turn a quarter cent worth of metal in to a $50 miracle device makes me a little skeptical.
I believe if there was an advantage to twisting the air through the intake, then the manufacturer would deign it in. Is there a manufacturer who does so? (I don't know... but I've never heard of one)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[This followup was posted to alt.autos.ford and a copy was sent to the cited author.]
says...

MAYBE a teeny, tiny bit on a carburetor car. On a modern fuel-injected engine, with computer modeled air flow and mass air flow sensors and such, screwing with the air flow could make things MUCH worse.
Basically, it's snake oil.
--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Darrenoid wrote:

if you believe that then i am selling an electronic gadget that you put on the fuel line that will get you double the gas mileage on your car.. you simply wrap the wire around the fuel line and it picks up electrons from the atmosphere and it is self energizing... it boost the gas up so much that if you fill your tank up once a week, you can now get two weeks of driving on one tank of gas.. the cost it $29.95 and no batteries are required and free shipping....if you are interested please post your good email address on this newsgroup.... and if someone tries to sell you the brooklyn bridge, well dont buy it as i will be selling it next week.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Tornado does not work..plain and simple. First, lets examine the obvious. If such a cheap device could give even a 2% increase in fuel economy the auto makers would pounce on it. Imagine meeting CAFE standards without having to spend millions in R&D. Obviously, since better fuel economy is in their interest and since they show NO interest in this device, one can surmise that they don't believe it works.
Second, with modern fuel injection, mixing problems are a thing of the past. In a carb set up, fuel is streamed in a course squirt from the jets into the venturies. There it mixes with the intake air and atomizes before being drawn into the combustion chamber. Long plenums, rough surfaces inside the manifold and polished intake ports all help to mix the gas/fuel mixture better so that it burns with greater efficiency. In such a case, a Tornado device "might" help unless it restricted air flow in which case it would reduce power rather than boost it. However, in the case of modern engines with electronic fuel management and port injection, the gas is as atomized as it is ever going to get. And the air flow is monitored to get the ideal fuel/air ratio. Thus, the Tornado won't to squat.
Third, have you ever heard of any racers using this device? I didn't think so. The reason is plain and simple. In a game where winning is measured in thousandths of seconds and where the slightest edge can mean the difference between taking home the money or going broke, these guys use what works and junk the rest. Since they don't use the Tornado, you can again surmise that it doesn't work.
Last but not least, have you ever wondered why the makers of the Tornado don't have lab tests to back up their product? I don't mean guys they hire to do biased, a-priori investigations but rather independent, nationally recognized labs such at those run by Consumer Reports or one of the automakers? It's because they won't get the positive results they need to sell the product. In a controlled averment where human input is removed, the Tornado just won't work...period. So you ask, why do some "satisfied customers" report such an improvement? Well, my guess is they subconsciously drive better because they are so intent on seeing what improvement they can gain through this device. If you pay attention to your driving and drive smarter, you will see an easy 2% increase in fuel economy, perhaps even as much as 10%.
So, in conclusion, the Tornado does not work. Save your money. Or, send your money to me. I do work but I get paid far too little and could use more money. I won't help your gas mileage any nor will I make your car run better but shoot, I will spend your money with the same enthusiasm the guys at Tornado do and I'll not lie to you to get it.
--
R. J. Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think the Tornado thing really works for what it was designed to do. It enriches the people who sell it.
As far as improving gas mileage or efficiency, I doubt it. Turbulent does not flow as smoothly as air free of turbulence. Some cylinders would get air that has more turbulence than others. This would really mess things up. The passageways in intake manifolds and cylinder heads are designed to get air in the cylinder. Because the design of every engine is different, the makers of the Tornado would be hard put make a general design work with every engine.
Plus if it were that easy, the automakers would put it in their intake manifolds already.
So don't waster your money.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Glad to hear the tornado is a bust. I don't need to be spending any more money anyway. Now my question will take a different turn...(haha a pun) Anyways, the tornado idea might have some implications. You know that when you tie two 2 liter bottles open end to open end and fill one with water... You can create a tornado in the water. To me it looks like the effect is optimizing the flow of water to the other bottle. If you were to take the same concept and apply it to... say...the gas line... Would the gas reach the motor at a faster rate than an open tube? I am only a student in working with cars now...Go figure my first repair job would the heater core of a 92 T-Bird. Just wondering, Darrenoid

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

when
water...
core
It depends on the situation. If you are displacing air/liquid like in the cheesy bottle demo then yes, a swirling would be better as it will allow air to displace the liquid in the top container as its able to equalize through the middle if the swirl.
In a closed pipeline, I imagine you want the flow as smooth as possible with no current/eddies in it to compensate for friction against the walls of the tube.
As for why you would want "more gas" to get the the engine. The fuel system of a vehicle now doesn't use all the available flow from the gas line anyways. Most vehicles return the extra flow to the tank via a return line.
Those infomercials sure get people confused sometimes. You just need to step back and think "How will this claim make my engine more efficient".
Just my .02
-Dje
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in the bottle demo they are transferring liquid from the top bottle to the lower bottle; since it is a closed environment, the air in the lower bottle must be displaced to the upper as the water descends. The vortex provides a passage for the air's upward travel. In a pressurized loop system, such as a fuel system, there is no air that needs to go the opposite way through the feed line on it's way to the tank. I for one would think that agitating the fuel could do nothing, unless the possibility of heating and/or slowing the fuel flow from inducing friction.
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:11:37 -0700, Darrenoid wrote:

--
remove 'spamsucks' from mail addy for replies.
I fart in Darl McBride's general direction.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Darrenoid wrote:

I'd doubt it. In modern cars, the fuel is already being pumped by a electric fuel pump in the tank, with a head pressure of about 35-40 PSI in most cases. Optimizing flow wouldn't help very much there.
-lee
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

twist
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No it would not. In the soda bottle example, gravity is pulling the water down and the swirl helps to overcome the natural vacuum created by the departing water on top. The vortex of the swirl permits air to rise up as it is displaced below thus permitting the water to pass between the two bottles without all of the usual gurgling and bubbling that disrupts the flow and slows the process. Fuel pumps put positive pressure on the line so no transfer of air back through the fuel line is necessary or desired. Simply put, the soda bottle example is a two-way transfer and the swirl makes it possible. The fuel line in a car is a one-way line and no swirl is required. The positive pressure model will always transfer more fuel per minute and is considerably more efficient.
--
R. J. Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Reece Talley wrote:

It's not for the fuel line, but the air intake. OTOH, the same applies. IF the engine was generating very low pressure, it would help, but it isn't. The engine will pull in as much air as it needs - that's simple physics.
Barring insufficient airflow. which the car is generously designed to have to begin with, it will always work as well as possible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The original poster switched concepts and wondered if a Tornado like device would work in the fuel line, hence my second post. Confusing isn't it?
--
R. J. Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is a scam. Do not waste your money.
Ed
Darrenoid wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If this is some sort of powered fan that forces more air into the fuel chambers then it will indeed give you more 'power' under certain conditions. If it is just a windmill that is set spinning by the airflow then it will restrict the airflow and have an opposite effect.
--
For Welsh Military Flying visit .......
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/V-A-S/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks for all the input everyone... Althought like many of you said, it really would be pointless to make the gas go any faster to the motor. It sounded good at the time when I thought of it... Thanks, Darrenoid

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.