Tornado Fuel Saver

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

lc69hunter

lc69hunter

10 Year 15 Year
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Threads
93
Messages
1,386
Location
Tucson
I have just finished a 3000 mile test using the Tornado, on both my FJ-40 with a Holley carb, and my wife's 98 Ford Ranger 4X4 with EFI.

Both of us log every fill up and the mileage (I have my Landcruiser logs going back 19 years).

The result: I got a significant increase in gas mileage (roughly 22%) and without putting it on the dyno, it feels like I got an increase in horsepower.

However, on the wife's pickup with EFI, there was not one iota of difference in gas mileage, which corresponds with what the gov't testers (who only tested EFI) found out.

Anybody else with any experience or anecdotel evidence?
 
Is Tornado some fuel additive? Also, what're the specs of your 40?
I've been contemplating fuel economy lately (as many have been) and was looking for every possible method of decreasing the guzzlage of gas in my beast. I'm doing all the usual things like tire pressure, keeping it tuned, etc...but for a 3sp, I'd imagine the lower the rpms, the better the mileage.

Also, what is your before/after MPG?

Thanks.
:cheers:
 
I'm a little skeptical. Car manufacturers struggle to meet gas mileage requirements and MPG is a huge selling point these days with gas prices at what they are. Why wouldn't they install something so cheap from the factory?

how did you run your test?
 
I think that was the point...the newer car didn't see any improvment while the old truck did....Newer technology probably handles proper airflow fairly efficiently while the old ones didn't.....

Also, you'd be surprised at the cost saving stuff they use for mass produced cars that isn't as efficient as it could be...restrictive exhaust, ribbed air inlet tubes, restrictive air intake systems....they have to make the masses happy...which leaves a lot of people unsatisfied.:rolleyes: Red tape.....
 
I keep a log of every fillup, the miles, the gallons, and average mpg.
As I said in my first post, it didn't make a bit of difference on a newer vehicle that has fuel injection. In fact, my wife's mileage actually was .1 mpg less over the 3000 miles than it was before. However, that is not statistically significant.

I believe that putting it in a newer vehicle is a waste of time and money.

However, for an older carbureted vehicle, at least in my case, it made a difference.
 
X 3

kraeji said:
I'm a little skeptical. Car manufacturers struggle to meet gas mileage requirements and MPG is a huge selling point these days with gas prices at what they are. Why wouldn't they install something so cheap from the factory?

how did you run your test?
Click to expand...

If it was that easy the factories would do it.
 
kraeji said:
I'm a little skeptical. Car manufacturers struggle to meet gas mileage requirements and MPG is a huge selling point these days with gas prices at what they are. Why wouldn't they install something so cheap from the factory?

how did you run your test?
Click to expand...

They have known about Headers and MSD ignition systems for even longer (unless we are talking Aircraft engines).. and we still dont see those as standard equipment on most engines.. but the point you make I have pondered it a lot wondering why they dont do OBVIOUS things to help increase power/mileage..

My guess with the Tornado use is that with standard carb engines it helps create better fuel atomization... on a well tuned F.I. motor with good injectors those atomize pretty good as is..
 
The design of it looks as if it simply increases air flow.

Restricted air flow = poor engine efficiency = lower gas mileage.

I'd be willing to bet it wouldn't work as well with a dirty air filter element:grinpimp:

EFI's don't need/benefit it because they are not relying on mechanical adjustments?
 
Like many of you, I'm skeptical of these kind of devices, but I appreciate lc69hunter putting his time and effort into checking it out and reporting back to the rest of us. That doesn't mean I'm going to run out and install one, but it's nice to hear a report from one of our own. Thanks dude!
 
lc69hunter said:
www.tornadoair.com

I went from roughly 11.6 to 14.2.
Click to expand...

I think the Holley might be holding you back. I built a "new" '71 F engine. Its first 4000 miles gave me about 12.5MPG (round trip to California from Alabama). Now its getting 14.5MPG consistently. Stock everything with a Mark A. built Aisan.

Leon...
 
It might be worth a try if you can use it for 30 days and then return it. If it actually will yield around 20% more efficiency you'd see that in 30 days. Sure a longer-termed test would be more accurate, but if it does what it says it does, you'd see it pretty quickly.

I'd still like to know what your 40 is. All I know is that you're running a Holley. What's the tranny? Tires? Etc? If it's just a stock 69, then it's probably a 3sp that's pretty similar to mine...would still like to know, tho
 
I picked up 2mpg in me EFI cherokee with one. Got mine for free, otherwise I never would have tried it.
 
breckbone said:
It might be worth a try if you can use it for 30 days and then return it. If it actually will yield around 20% more efficiency you'd see that in 30 days. Sure a longer-termed test would be more accurate, but if it does what it says it does, you'd see it pretty quickly.

I'd still like to know what your 40 is. All I know is that you're running a Holley. What's the tranny? Tires? Etc? If it's just a stock 69, then it's probably a 3sp that's pretty similar to mine...would still like to know, tho
Click to expand...

Running a balanced 2F, Downey cam, D.U.I. ignition, MAF headers, BFG 33 inch tires, and a three speed tranny.
 
This is interesting, as there is not one documented case of any controlled testing revealing that any of these devices actually work. Mythbusters tested a bunch of these devices; none of them did anything. The US gov't has done the same. Do you REALLY believe a $2 piece of aluminum is going to improve mileage 22%? I don't. It's good that you have posted your data but I suspect there is a flaw somewhere in your analysis. I'm NOT ragging on you, but I bet there is more to this than you think. Many adjust driving habits, or it's a different time of year, routes are different...it's very hard to get control data for this kind of testing. Just food for thought.
 
But it could be that in this particular 2F with that carb that the tornado both mixes the fuel better and creates better flow into the manifold. The manifolds on a carbureted 2F are pretty "basic", it's not that surprising to me that better fuel distribution would make a difference.

Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom