Torque up with "Hiclone"

On or around Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:04:16 +0100, "Les Milner" enlightened us thusly:

personally, I reckon it sounds like rose-fertilizer. But I've never actually tried one.

I've seen various discussions on this in forums, and most people think it's a load of rubbish. I have heard a few people say it makes a difference; they usually then go off to check out the difference on a rolling road and you never hear from them again. I don't think I've found anybody yet who's found any hard evidence that it actually makes a difference. Any difference seems to be psychological. But who knows.

David

How is putting an obstruction into the air intake going to improve power?

Older carburetted petrol engines *may* have benefitted from such a device because it adds turbulence which might improve petrol/air mixing.

As for improving a direct injection turbo diesel engine - hah! What a load of nonsense.

Tell them that you'll take your vehicle for a before and after dyno test. If there is no significant improvement then you'll want a full refund plus the cost of the dyno test. If they don't agree then tell them where they can stick their Hiclone.

Agreed. How on Earth is one of them things meant to work on air that goes through a turbocharger and an aftercooler before the intake valves? Answer is that it doesn't and probably wouldn't do anything even if the engine was naturally aspirated diesel. Snake oil.

Huw

I can see why a K&N filter would allow your engine to 'breathe more easily' and how something like a Vortex exhaust will allow a faster exit of exhaust gas. I think if you put a Hiclone in your air intake you will have suceeded in putting an expensive bit of twisted metal in your air intake, and nothing else!

Stew.

I have installed a similar device in a petrol engined 16 valve, variable camshaft, four cylinder, multipoint fuel injection engined FIAT Barchetta two seater I used to have back in 1996 and it made some difference especially in mid range rpm acceleration and a slight decrease in fuel consumption.

Installing one in the intake side (right after the intercooler) in a 1993 model year Discovery 200Tdi that I also used to own back then (and still do) has resulted in no power gains and no decrease in fuel consumption.

On the other hand installing a large full frontal intercooler has resulted into spectacular increase in performance and torque and a decrease in fuel consumption when the performance gains where not exploited.

Take care Pantelis

I'm not sure myself what a Hiclone does, but in very dusty conditions a centrifugal pre-cleaner can stop a significant amount of crud from even getting to the filter -- not all expensive bits of twisted metal are useless.

I wonder if some of the claimed improvements arise from poor filter maintenance, and the engine spending less time struggling against a clogged air filter.

The Hiclone doesn't centrifuge anything out, it just sits passively in the intake hose, so it wouldn't help with what you describe above. Any crud coming through it would have nowhere to go but the engine.

David

This is most baffling! When I moved my snorkel forward, and compromised the design of the Safari, my mpg went down to about 9mpg with the snorkel as the main intake! There was too much turbulance. I run with the front of the airbox opened now when on the road, and luckily get some MPG back ;-)

So...I can't see how annoying the air prior to a turbo helps at all. Bizzare. You can buy them for the V8 too - and at £100 I think I know where they can keep it :-)

thanks peeps" received and understood, i.o.u... you"ve saved me £120

In message , Neil Brownlee writes

Just to throw in my 2p worth ...

I got some of these to test on an old carb V8. HC emissions were reduced at 2000rpm by between 30 and 40% with repeatable results depending on whether they were fitted before or after the intake elbows. I'm not sure what they do otherwise, that's too subjective, but I'm currently getting over 16.5mpg out of my V8 in toodle about mode with a set in place ... I'm about to take them out for a while and see if it makes a significant difference.

I agree that there will be no obvious benefit to fuel mixing if the 'modified' airflow is interrupted before fuel is added (installation before a turbo or intercooler for instance). There are other possibilities with intercoolers such as the decrease in laminar flow and better cooling of the charge due to the turbulent surface airflow but that's just me thinking out loud and possibly not at all relevant ... I also find it difficult to see how an injected engine with tight emission feedback control could radically change apart from perhaps getting better fuel economy due to better overall burn efficiency - torque etc shouldn't change because the control system should alter the mixture to compensate for the lower exhaust oxygen ...

Used in older, intrinsically less efficient engines I can see the possibilities but in newer ones I can't.

A number of LROC members (Sydnbey, Australia) tried them duroing a fuel economy test. One member had his car dynbo tested before and after fitting the Hiclone. There was no difference. Most members found no difference although one member claimed a significant improvement.

To me it's snake oil

Ron (who gets 12-13 litres/100km (highway) out of a P38A 4.6 RR on petrol without any Hiclones but with a heavy right foot. That's 21 mpg Imperial)

One can only say - wow. (Or, how?)

Dunno, but other P38A owners I speak to seem to get the same figures on the highway. Around town I get 18 litres/100km.

On LPG, I get 18 litres/100 on the freeway and 21-22 around town.

I think the 4.6 doesn't have to work as hard as the smaller donks.

Ron Beckett Emu Plains, Australia