If you want me to try one, let me know. Also happy to be honest!
I've had a pair fitted to the Disco[1]. While I haven't measured it closely, I reckon that I'm getting 50-80 miles more out of a tank of diesel than I used to. I've also found that going up some of south Wales' steep hills, I have better acceleration than I used to. All of this, however is pretty much subjective.
The company has offered units to the local Mountain Rescue team for use and I believe the team may be doing some calculations to see what effect they have.
Apologies for repeating this as I believe I've posted something similar before in a similar thread but hear we go again ...
FWIW, these are my thoughts on the matter from my own experience.
This is one of the few products I ever looked at that had some kind of merit to the way it claimed to work - indeed many high performance inlet tracts are using various methods of spinning air as it flows to increase efficiency. This made me interested.
I was supplied with two pairs of the units of differing sizes. Each was fitted in turn to a pair of Stromberg carbed, V8 Range Rover intake elbows, the smaller size at the at the carb end, the larger at the air filter end. All other settings were basically standard and remained constant.
The engine emissions were tested when the engine was hot, not just 'run up' but at a full running, stable temperature.
Testing was carried out at two engine speeds - idle (about 800 rpm) and again at 2000 rpm - this was due to my own gut feeling having read other material about these devices. As I suspected, neither of the devices showed any deviation over the stock system at idle speed - probably due to the low air flow. I was not particularly surprised. However at 2000rpm the tests indicated that with the larger Hiclones installed, engine emissions of HC reduced by 30%, CO emissions rose by
8%. I have ideas but will not speculate as to why the CO emission rose but both figures were reproducible in the test set-up. When the smaller Hiclones were installed the HC emissions fell by 40% and the CO by 4% over standard settings.
I do not argue about why I got these figures, just that I recorded then under relatively stringent test conditions on one particular set-up of carburettored vehicle with no emission/fueling feedback regulation. I was somewhat surprised by the level of the results but they were repeatable and verified by a *very* sceptical mechanic who was in charge of the equipment!
I will not make purely subjective evaluations and I cannot quote dyno tests as I do not have the facility for such testing. I am currently carrying out long-term fuel economy testing and will give those results as soon as it is complete and accurate and not before.
I am not associated with Hiclone in any way except that I asked for units to test as the results of a retail advert so I have no axe to grind or pocket to line. I am naturally sceptical about 'gizmos' and I'm particularly concerned about dubious scientific testing methodologies. I am particularly concerned about the testing of emissions on vehicles with emission control systems installed as the results will be, by definition, inconclusive (note: this is not a comment on the accuracy or results of the test quoted above as I have no knowledge of the particular equipment involved) and, conversely, selective use of statistically inaccurate results to favour products.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.