What's your trip fuel economy record(not instantaneous)?

"'Key" wrote in news:gNidnSGwbcfsT8LVnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

and with the AC on?

on 6/23/2008 12:42 PM 'Key said the following:

It was all downhill. :-)

I can't tell you what it would have been without Tufoil in the engine. From 10-40% less.

I was surprised too, but Tufoil is slippery stuff. My engine drops to

I don't want to spend anything to get it retuned.

FYI I put Tufoil in a Dodge slant 6 once, in the 70's. It slowly increased in idle until I was afraid to put it in drive. Had to learn to adjust the idle. It didn't do that in Dodge V8's. In some cars it lowers the temp. by 10 degrees. The Nissan isn't affected.

I got 21 mpg overall in the slant 6 (1/2 ton van). I was also using W6, a fuel additive I can't find anymore (it would take the smell out of diesels and give trucks an extra gear on hills, if their radiators could handle it, for 1 cent to treat a gallon, in the '70s - no company fleets would talk about it for fear of losing their fuel in the shortage), and a "ramjet" blowby carbureting device. I may have been using a Cagle, which auto-adjusted the fuel pressure by vaccuum in case of a float valve that wasn't real effective (going rich). Now I remember that I put in a flex-fan too.

I no longer have vans, but in my '86 Dodge 318 carbureted I put in one of those "Tornados" that spins up the intake air to help atomize the fuel. I felt more power right away, so I could give it less gas. Nothing massive but it was a change.

I've been considering trying a Tornado in the Nissan, but I don't know if the air will still be spinning much by the time it gets to the injectors, which seem to be in very narrow passages some way away from where the Tornado would go into the duct.

Hmmm, I had one of those to. The old 225 slant six in my 1973 Dodge Van. Great engine for it's time. You could not kill it. It had great power for a

So your saying that Tornado thing works? I saw them at NAPA the other day and wondered to myself, would NAPA be selling these if they didn't work? My assumption was, probably. Wonder if it would work in my old work horse a

Also have the same concern about it working in my wife's old 1991 Nissan

If it has a carb, or an air tube under the filter with an injector in it, then I would think so. The fuel would be mixing right in the spinning air.

Maybe there are testimonials on the net someplace.

Key,I agree.He didn't fill the tank all the way and his next fill up he only go 15mpg

Tufoil is bunk.Dupont makes TPFE and has said many times it does NOT make any decernable difference in MPG.I used it when it first came out (before Dupont debunked it and any other additve (extolling the virtues of Teflon in the oil).Didn't do squat.Changing to Mobil1 and Redline synthetic gear oil and trans oil with K&N airfilter did make a REAL difference but no 40%.

willshak wrote in news:cbGdnSEgvsj1Wf7VnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@supernews.com:

actually,spinning the air creates turbulence thus -reducing- air flow. and you get the added 'benefit' of possibly ingesting the metal parts of the "Tornado".

It breaks up the gas into a more atomized state, thus more of it burns. The Tornado was well-built.

In the late 50s I used a spinning prop device below the carb of a '49 6 cyl Pontiac. At that location it would affect the air gas mixture. It did improve the engine smoothness and gave me about 1-2 MPG HWY mileage improvement, all the way up to 23MPG imperial. After about 15K miles it's effectiveness went away. I removed the carb and the little spinner was gone, obviously inhaled by the engine.

It says something for the robustness of the Pontiac inline six that it could digest and then excrete such a device.