truck-trans-dodge
truck-logo-dodge
Search Messages :  

2002 Dakota w\3.9 Junk

From : mikjo

Q: 17000 mi. and this powerless constantly downshifting piece of truck is idling rough and stalling out in traffic. should have taken the advice i was given in this group before i bought this truck. at only 18 miles to the gallon and the aggravation of a crappy running motor the extra $1000 the v8 would have cost would have been well worth it . so why is this thing breaking down already thanks. .

Replies:

From : budd cochran

or you couldas has been requested of you before tell us where you went to college and when so your claims could be verified. why should i tell you are you interviewing me for a job your buddy max wont even say what his two degrees are in never mind where he went to school so why should i max has listed his degrees. hes also asked you to post your alma mater but i dont think you have one. but you see max has established himself with me as being more trustworthy than you have. imho i wouldnt turn my back to you if we ever met. otoh i can be certain of where i stand with people like max fitch red roy denny cbhvac and many others because they dont start arguments with me to just be arguing and harassing like you. if they argue about something with me i can be sure its not just their vicious nature. but thatll never happen because you cant tell us the truth. -- so now you feel the need to calling me a liar how typical. i guess that just shows how incredibly weak your argument is. nope. just stating fact. imho youre dishonest and not to be believed about anything either. truth hurts dont it ya know i wondered how long it would be before you would begin an argument just to argue with me. it wasnt long at all but it must have been sheer torture to you. well you wont have to ever worry about it again. goodbye. budd .

From : budd cochran

btw if you are correct then why hasnt someone with racing experience or someone with known skills in physics stepped up to support your untenable position perhaps because anyone who has knowledge of this knows that i am correct and dont need any help. how did you ever find a place big enough to house your ego no the real reason youre bailing is because youve been caught with your lack of knowledge exposed again. you keep making this silly claim but when asked to back it up are never able to do so. i dont have to. youve been corrected so many times its pathetic...like for an example how a anti-slip / limited slip / anti-spin differential works. you had three or four tryin to straighten you out on that including me and max. you never did admit you were wrong. you just bailed out like you did in this thread with some lame-brain whiner excuse that tries to put the blame on others because you havent the guts to admit you lost the discussion. btw when did i say that i was bailing. i see that once again you got it wrong imagine that. i said that if you intend to turn this into another name calling fest like you usually do when losing an argument i would stop responding to it rather than let it degenerate to that again. i tried to do a few gentle teases and you got bent over them. forgive me for ever thinking you could be a friendly person at all you anti-social boorsh cretin. youve had your third strike tom. goodbye. iow you are going to run away like the coward that you are while trying to put the blame in me. well i guess that it is better than continuing to look like a complete idiot and demonstrating just how little you actually know. bye budd. see what i mean you lost the discussion about the physics involved in the tornado and now you try to say im the name calling coward to hide your loss. lol you are definitely the pathetic loser. i should never have given you a second chance but then im kind to dumb animals. i wont make the mistake again. budd .

From : tbone

on fri 05 sep 2003 052937 gmt budd cochran mr-d150spam@citlink.net wrote or you couldas has been requested of you before tell us where you went to college and when so your claims could be verified. why should i tell you are you interviewing me for a job your buddy max wont even say what his two degrees are in never mind where he went to school so why should i max has listed his degrees. hes also asked you to post your alma mater but i dont think you have one. hoopty fuckin do. just because max went to clown college and the east coast school of interior decorating what does that have to do with anything aww man now you made me spray coffee all over my notebook. this thing is a bitch to clean back up. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : theguy

on fri 05 sep 2003 052937 gmt budd cochran mr-d150spam@citlink.net wrote or you couldas has been requested of you before tell us where you went to college and when so your claims could be verified. why should i tell you are you interviewing me for a job your buddy max wont even say what his two degrees are in never mind where he went to school so why should i max has listed his degrees. hes also asked you to post your alma mater but i dont think you have one. hoopty fuckin do. just because max went to clown college and the east coast school of interior decorating what does that have to do with anything but you see max has established himself with me as being more trustworthy than you have. jeez what fuckin drugs are you on budd imho i wouldnt turn my back to you if we ever met. what what did you have in mind otoh i can be certain of where i stand with people like max fitch red roy denny cbhvac and many others because they dont start arguments with me to just be arguing and harassing like you. if they argue about something with me i can be sure its not just their vicious nature. ok that makes perfect sense. but thatll never happen because you cant tell us the truth. -- so now you feel the need to calling me a liar how typical. i guess that just shows how incredibly weak your argument is. nope. just stating fact. imho youre dishonest and not to be believed about anything either. truth hurts dont it ya know i wondered how long it would be before you would begin an argument just to argue with me. it wasnt long at all but it must have been sheer torture to you. well you wont have to ever worry about it again. goodbye. budd oh come on you tease you. .

From : theguytbone

on fri 05 sep 2003 054147 gmt budd cochran mr-d150spam@citlink.net wrote btw if you are correct then why hasnt someone with racing experience or someone with known skills in physics stepped up to support your untenable position perhaps because anyone who has knowledge of this knows that i am correct and dont need any help. how did you ever find a place big enough to house your ego he probably just moved into the place you left when they moved you into the home. no the real reason youre bailing is because youve been caught with your lack of knowledge exposed again. you keep making this silly claim but when asked to back it up are never able to do so. i dont have to. youve been corrected so many times its pathetic...like for an example how a anti-slip / limited slip / anti-spin differential works. you had three or four tryin to straighten you out on that including me and max. yeah and this is really important shit. i mean the world just turns on anti spin differentials and hey the relevance of limited slip well dude that is just really important shit. thats all i can say this is just really big stuff mr. cochran. you never did admit you were wrong. you just bailed out like you did in this thread with some lame-brain whiner excuse that tries to put the blame on others because you havent the guts to admit you lost the discussion. seemed to me that he just lost interest of playing with the bankrupt genius bar bouncer and the moron. btw when did i say that i was bailing. i see that once again you got it wrong imagine that. i said that if you intend to turn this into another name calling fest like you usually do when losing an argument i would stop responding to it rather than let it degenerate to that again. i tried to do a few gentle teases and you got bent over them. forgive me for ever thinking you could be a friendly person at all you anti-social boorsh cretin. cretin havent heard that one for a while. youve had your third strike tom. goodbye. iow you are going to run away like the coward that you are while trying to put the blame in me. well i guess that it is better than continuing to look like a complete idiot and demonstrating just how little you actually know. bye budd. see what i mean you lost the discussion about the physics involved in the tornado and now you try to say im the name calling coward to hide your loss. lol you are definitely the pathetic loser. i should never have given you a second chance but then im kind to dumb animals. i wont make the mistake again. budd lmfao. you are so fucked up. .

From : tbone

or you couldas has been requested of you before tell us where you went to college and when so your claims could be verified. why should i tell you are you interviewing me for a job your buddy max wont even say what his two degrees are in never mind where he went to school so why should i max has listed his degrees. hes also asked you to post your alma mater but i dont think you have one. no he didnt not when i asked him anyway. why do you think that i responded in kind. but you see max has established himself with me as being more trustworthy than you have. iow he agrees with you. imho i wouldnt turn my back to you if we ever met. like i said back to the name calling and passing the blame for your acts back on others. otoh i can be certain of where i stand with people like max fitch red roy denny cbhvac and many others because they dont start arguments with me to just be arguing and harassing like you. that is just ignorant to say. you were the one to start the argument and the name calling. perhaps you should look back into the thread. if they argue about something with me i can be sure its not just their vicious nature. what a load of crap that is. you were the one starting with the attacks and the name calling and are still not man enough to admit to it. but thatll never happen because you cant tell us the truth. -- so now you feel the need to calling me a liar how typical. i guess that just shows how incredibly weak your argument is. nope. just stating fact. imho youre dishonest and not to be believed about anything either. truth hurts dont it if it were true then possibly but as you said it is just yho. you are still bitter about things from the past and are just looking for a reason to say that it still exists. i said in the front axle thread that i was ending the bs and i have. look in this thread and tell me who was the first one to start up with the name calling. you may call it teasing but we both know the truth. ya know i wondered how long it would be before you would begin an argument just to argue with me. it wasnt long at all but it must have been sheer torture to you. well you wont have to ever worry about it again. oh stop crying budd. i simply disagreed with your conclusion and nothing more. your conclusion would make a dirty air filter increase mileage and that just doesnt happen. god forbid that someone disagree with you. goodbye. i have seen this before but if you say so goodbye. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

they cant afford me. the national debt wouldnt be enough. im not cheap like you. or smart like me either. now thats the biggest lie youve told yet. lol no it isnt and you help prove that with every response you post. since a liquid has far more density than a gas the reactions will be different and while the vortex dies quicker it does not instantly vanish so thanks for proving my point. still clutching at straws it doesnt prove your point but mine as the vortex stops in less than a second. got proof of that i didnt think so. but even if that were true you also claimed that air is spun up to 46000 rpm and would only be in the intake for less than 1/30th of a second so by your calculations if you can call this laughable bs that it should still be spinning strong when it reaches the cylinder hahahahaha hehehehehe. i never claimed an instant vanishment but because as you state the difference in viscosities the air would stop quicker. oh really care to explain that. lol you really love to argue dont you ill bet this is another case where you wouldnt use the device on a bet but you just gotta pull someones chain. iow since you cannot argue this point you need to resort to spin and changing the subject. nope your comment is senseless idiotic and proves you have no knowledge of what your arguing. actually it proves your lack of knowledge in the subject and you further pointless attacks he simply confirm that. btw if the flow is more efficient there is less opportunity for mixing. got it the whole point in the high injector pressure is to eliminate the need for heavy mixing. it just needs to be carried to the cylinder efficiently and btw faster flow improves the dispersion so once again you are wrong. i dont doubt that you do. the uneducated unexperienced and unwilling to think for themselves often fall for advertising hyperbole without question or reasoning. and the closed minded refuse to ever think that they are wrong and never seek to increase their knowledge. even when the evidence that they may not know it all is pounding them in the head they just close their eyes and claim that it cant be true with no proof that it is not. thats the difference between you and i tom. ive had an innate curiosity that has led me to educate myself in ares that i dont understand or have a question about. that is a complete load of shit. i went to college and am now taking more clesses to increase my knowledge and get a valid education from people that actually understand the subject. all you seem to be doing is picking up a few technical terms but have no real idea what they actually mean. physics is one of those areas specifically aerodynamics which includes fuid dynamics. you on the other hand are one of millions of misled trusting souls that accept advertising claims as your gospel. bullshit. the problem is that you dont understand what you are looking at with your self education and are coming up with totally incorrect bs statements based on your lack of understanding. once again you resort to spin. the air can and does still flow smoothly while in the vortex. even their smoke tests demonstrates that. are the test done with bidirectional probes inside an off the shelf intake to plot the flow directions and pressures if not its a deliberate pun smoke screen. if you knew even a tenth of what you claim to know you would realize that the probes themselves would screw up the airflow and distort the test and that it is completely unnecessary and pointless for carb to perform that type of testing. that type of testing is done during the design phase of the product. you need the third grade hand-out-the-window-at-thirty-miles-per-hour demonstration of impingment lol getting desperate are we. once again not only can you not admit to error you cant even let it drop. it works just like any other vacuum servo it has a spring loaded flexible diaphragm forming an air tight seal across two sides of a chamber hence no air passes through it. a port not a restriction connects one side to the intake and the other is exposed to the outside atmosphere. outside atmosphere are we measuring the map or barometric pressure to see if we want to go fishing once again you show your complete ignorance of the subject. since the dodge pcm does not have a separate barometric pressure indicator it has to combine both of them in the one unit. i dont really know why i am explaining this to you since you really dont know shit about any of it anyway. the back side of the diaphragm is connected to some type of variable resistor. such an incredibly intelligent answer . . .why didnt you just call it the thingamabob and save yourself the strain back to your childish name calling again i see. do you know the exact type of variable resistor they are using budd. since you didnt ev

From : tbone

btw if you are correct then why hasnt someone with racing experience or someone with known skills in physics stepped up to support your untenable position perhaps because anyone who has knowledge of this knows that i am correct and dont need any help. how did you ever find a place big enough to house your ego what does ego have to do with it no the real reason youre bailing is because youve been caught with your lack of knowledge exposed again. you keep making this silly claim but when asked to back it up are never able to do so. i dont have to. youve been corrected so many times its pathetic...like for an example how a anti-slip / limited slip / anti-spin differential works. you had three or four tryin to straighten you out on that including me and max. yet more lies. yes i wasnt thinking and mixed up the test of the clutches with the check for the type and admitted that. either denny or mac laughed and said not to worry about it. if you dont believe it research the thread. unlike you i dont claim to be perfect or hide form stupid mistakes. as for you and max all you were doing is trying to malke more out of it than it was. if there are so many times list 5 if them. i can list that many with you in this thread alone. you never did admit you were wrong. yet another lie. you just bailed out like you did in this thread with some lame-brain whiner excuse that tries to put the blame on others because you havent the guts to admit you lost the discussion. is this something that you and others in here have in common accuse the other person of doing exactly what you are doing and then bail out because of it. i didnt bail out of that on and if you accuse me of it then prove it. i didnt bail out of this one either that would be you now. btw when did i say that i was bailing. i see that once again you got it wrong imagine that. i said that if you intend to turn this into another name calling fest like you usually do when losing an argument i would stop responding to it rather than let it degenerate to that again. i tried to do a few gentle teases and you got bent over them. now who is lying. how many times did you call me an idiot claim that i have less than a third grade education in physics and claim that i have no knowledge in cars. and just about every one of them was in responce to a question that you could not answer. no budd it was not teasing and you know it. forgive me for ever thinking you could be a friendly person at all you anti-social boorsh cretin. here we go again. youve had your third strike tom. goodbye. iow you are going to run away like the coward that you are while trying to put the blame in me. well i guess that it is better than continuing to look like a complete idiot and demonstrating just how little you actually know. bye budd. see what i mean oh i see when i do it to you it is an attack and i cant help myself but when you do it it is just teasing. sorry budd but you are simply a liar. you lost the discussion about the physics involved in the tornado and now you try to say im the name calling coward to hide your loss. lol only in your tiny little mind budd. you are a name calling coward and are doing it in this small post as well. your understanding of even simple physics is nothing more than a joke and you are just too closed minded to see it. lol you are definitely the pathetic loser. i should never have given you a second chance but then im kind to dumb animals. i wont make the mistake again. the classic budd / max maneuver. accuse the other person of doing wrong and then crawl away hoping that nobody will notice that it was you. go ahead budd we both know the truth and who is not man enough to admit to it. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : paul jensen

bullshit. if you had gotten that you would be at about..umm...20mpg...or better.. my high is 21.3... .

From : speekerneil nelson

charles bronson dead at 81. -- ta-daa denny .

From : paul jensen

you have to resort to making up things to try to get your point across and what would that be troll first you say you got 1mpg increase from the word go then you said you had to run several tanks.. really!!! where exactly did he say that thats what i was wondering. the increase was immediate and has been consistant thru many many tanks since then. .

From : budd cochran

pure unadulterated bull. if youre getting better mileage with a dry intake port injected engine its only because the partial restriction to airflow by the tornado is keeping you from getting normal acceleration for the throttle opening youre using. budd i would never buy the dakota with the 3.9 l again. it is a dog. i think i am getting about 16 avg. mpg. i put a tornado on and am getting 19 mpg and compared to my previous truck a ranger 4-banger my dak 3.9 is a helluva lot more powerful than that! .

From : cbhvac

you have to resort to making up things to try to get your point across and what would that be troll first you say you got 1mpg increase from the word go then you said you had to run several tanks.. btw troll is the last thing you need to be calling me but thats ok...what was it you stated something about name calling..lol... moronic dumbass is what you are...have fun.. hey roy...looks like i got a new sf and bestestf for the list...what we up to now about 50 now sigh...another sucker pissed off that he spent $60 for a pos that has yet to be proven to work except in his own mind..thus his reluctance to stick to topic and resorts to name calling... i can do it to..and he will lose...lol.. .

From : tbone

pure unadulterated bull. if youre getting better mileage with a dry intake port injected engine its only because the partial restriction to airflow by the tornado is keeping you from getting normal acceleration for the throttle opening youre using. budd this doesnt make any sense at all dude. since when has a restriction in the intake that reduces normal acceleration ever improved someones mileage. while i dont believe that the tornado will give anywhere near the drastic mileage and hp increases that they claim it does 1 to 1.5 mpg may be possible. lets not forget that the tornado is working on two principles. the first one is to improve fuel atomization and the second is to improve the airflow characteristics of the intake. while i would agree with you that in a port injected engine while the opportunity to increase atomization is minimal it is not non-existant. we are not talking about direct cylinder injection here. the vortex that it claims to create may reduce turbulance in the intake effectivly reducing the overall air restriction and may improve the airflow past the injectors which could improve the atomization of the fuel slightly. do i know this for a fact no but neither you or anyone else in here can say for a fact that it doesnt. if the person claims that he is getting better mileage maybe he is. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : thehotone

2002 dakota auto 3.9l 3.93 axle i have 21k on mine no problems yet i average 20-22 on the highway i have a tonneau cover i have herd a few with the 2.55 axle having no guts any trouble codes if i remember right hold in trip button and turn ignition on without starting to go thru self test code on odometer correct me if im wrong .

From : gary b

on my 01 you turn the key to acc off acc off acc and the codes will cycle on the odometer. i would never buy the dakota with the 3.9 l again. it is a dog. i think i am getting about 16 avg. mpg. it does help to turn off the od around town. gary 2002 dakota auto 3.9l 3.93 axle i have 21k on mine no problems yet i average 20-22 on the highway i have a tonneau cover i have herd a few with the 2.55 axle having no guts any trouble codes if i remember right hold in trip button and turn ignition on without starting to go thru self test code on odometer correct me if im wrong .

From : Annonymous

on fri 29 aug 2003 031158 gmt gary b garyb@neo.rr.com wrote on my 01 you turn the key to acc off acc off acc and the codes will cycle on the odometer. i would never buy the dakota with the 3.9 l again. it is a dog. i think i am getting about 16 avg. mpg. it does help to turn off the od around town. gary ditto! i have a 2003 with the 3.9 and it is a p.o.s. dog slow no power and 14mpg with a tonneau cover! ill probably keep the truck for 2 years then look for another sucker to dump it on. next truck will be a toyota. no more funky shifting dodge-dogs for me. .

From : cbhvac

i would never buy the dakota with the 3.9 l again. it is a dog. i think i am getting about 16 avg. mpg. i put a tornado on and am getting 19 mpg and compared to my previous truck a ranger 4-banger my dak 3.9 is a helluva lot more powerful than that! lol..tornado.... ptb was right...ones born every minute.. .

From : trey

2.55 or 3.55 i have a 99 dak 4x4 with 3.55 gears... and it feels rather lacking. how much would it cost to have them changed to 3.92 or 4.11 4wd so there is two diffs 2002 dakota auto 3.9l 3.93 axle i have 21k on mine no problems yet i average 20-22 on the highway i have a tonneau cover i have herd a few with the 2.55 axle having no guts any trouble codes if i remember right hold in trip button and turn ignition on without starting to go thru self test code on odometer correct me if im wrong .

From : tbone

$$$$$$$$$ -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving 2.55 or 3.55 i have a 99 dak 4x4 with 3.55 gears... and it feels rather lacking. how much would it cost to have them changed to 3.92 or 4.11 4wd so there is two diffs 2002 dakota auto 3.9l 3.93 axle i have 21k on mine no problems yet i average 20-22 on the highway i have a tonneau cover i have herd a few with the 2.55 axle having no guts any trouble codes if i remember right hold in trip button and turn ignition on without starting to go thru self test code on odometer correct me if im wrong .

From : paul jensen

you have to resort to making up things to try to get your point across and what would that be troll .

From : denny

hey roy...looks like i got a new sf and bestestf for the list...what we up to now about 50 now i wonder if anybody saved a copy of the sf list. itd be kinda fun to go thru the names again.. fond memories......... sigh...... denny .

From : cbhvac

hey roy...looks like i got a new sf and bestestf for the list...what we up to now about 50 now i wonder if anybody saved a copy of the sf list. itd be kinda fun to go thru the names again.. fond memories......... sigh...... never fear..its still around. as soon as i can get doofus to mail me the damn site again its got its new home... denny .

From : tbone

i really didnt want to get involved in this but it is really getting out of hand. paul jensen pjensen@gnt.net wrote paul jensen pjensen@gnt.net wrote this could easily be attributed to seasonal changes in ambient air temperatures seasonal changes in the gasoline blend changes in the motor oil youre now using etc. oil wasnt changed at that time and my records are precise. change was immediate that day. how does several months worth of milage records translate to change was immediate that day are you really this dumb if i have 3 months showing mileage x then put in device y then have 3 months following the addition of the device showing a consistant increase in mileage of 1 to 1.5 mpg then i would have s e v e r a l months of records showing an i m m e d i a t e change in my mileage. iows we can only respond to what you post here if the story is going to change youre wasting your time due to an obvious transparency issue. you may want to read what was written then instead of putting your spin on it. there was no change to his story. i stand by what i posted the results you observed over several months could easily be attributed to the things i mentioned. then you would once again be wrong. how can you expect to be considered credible when you change the parameters now that would be you who is changing the story and your credibility point with that is well taken. how does one go thru several tanks of fuel in just one day he never made that claim you did. perhaps you should comprehend what was written before attacking someone. btw where is your proof that it could not have done what he claimed -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : denny

nono. i was referring to a ram air set up. sorta like a air scoop or if you recall the set up i had on the impala ss and was trying to get to fit on the v10. anyway before the carb or injection. like the shaker hood or gto ram air. that type of set up. shaker hood gto can you explain these are they some kind of religious cult i guess im just not old enough to have experience in this..... denny not a cult. but after driving on of them youd be talking to god. now that i think about it im surprised that dc hasnt put one of those shaker scoops on the so called hemi. they have cheapened the name might as well go for all of it. roy actually somebody is making the shaker hood for the old style trucks. one came thru the shop last spring with the hood and a stepside bed on it. dammed nice looking truck. by the sound of it the 360 was warmed up a bit too. he wouldnt tell me where he got the parts at tho. said he didnt want another one around town. i havent spent the time looking but ill bet he got the bed and hood out of one of the van conversion outfits in indiana. it seems like they are always making a few things that dont fit conversion vans. denny .

From : paul jensen

lol..tornado.... ptb was right...ones born every minute.. my milage increased by just over 1 mpg which at the rate i drive will pay for itself inside of a year. since i bought the unit gas has increased to close to $2.00 per gallon so lol to you. have you ever actually tried one or are you just a moron im not one of these people in here whining im only getting 16 mpg with my dak 3.9. lol!!! .

From : paul jensen

now....5mpg...that might impress me...but 1mpg please. if you can not afford to drive it park it. one whole mile per gallon. wowsa... that 1mpg equates to a free gallon every tankful and i go through two tanks a week. the payback is less than a year. i know 5th grade math may be a bit tough for you. .

From : cbhvac

lol..tornado.... ptb was right...ones born every minute.. my milage increased by just over 1 mpg which at the rate i drive will pay for itself inside of a year. since i bought the unit gas has increased to close to $2.00 per gallon so lol to you. have you ever actually tried one or are you just a moron im not one of these people in here whining im only getting 16 mpg with my dak 3.9. lol!!! i dunno....lol to me..ok... let me explain one thing...first there are free ways to get more out of that engine than 1 mpg...and most can do that without spending a cent of money or time. second...its your money. third i get 17mpg with most of my service vans loaded to the gills with parts tools and equipment. i cant help it if the fords got a better idea. i get over 30mpg with a couple of our mopar products...and i can get up to 26mpg with my v8 firebird. now...mpg varies...from vehicle to vehicle. person to person. and...if the tornado was so damn good..its not btw proven it would be on every truck from factory. its a gimmick. if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside that you are running a 50 cent piece of stamped tin in your intake thats great. bet ya run slick 50 too... its simple...the only gain you will see is in your head and that 1mpg could be argued....now....5mpg...that might impress me...but 1mpg please. if you can not afford to drive it park it. one whole mile per gallon. wowsa...moron no...i am afraid that when it comes to things like this i am no moron. those that know me know this...most in here also know that i really dont give a damn about mpg when one of your daily drivers is a hemi426 that might get 4mpg on a good day...again..if you cant afford to drive it you park it. we average here in the land of cheap gas has yet to go over $1.70 here unless you count that 102octane that running for $4.99 a gallon and is currently about $1.40 on average in my area a fuel bill for the company of about $275 a week. big deal. trucks still run biz still gets done...profits still made. 1mpg laughable and even harder for you to prove. get you a k+n and get 5 more..lololol... sheesh. lets see... http//www.myauto.tv/tornado/referal=4153125 28% better mpg 13 more hp... bullshit. if you had gotten that you would be at about..umm...20mpg...or better.. and at $64 what a bargan!! crap guy...my sheetmetal guy can punch one out in about 30 minutes and it seriously would cost about 50 cents in metal.. and better fuel atomization...oh yea..in a fi vehicle...excellent...i love it... get the magnets for your fuel line too sucker...they claim another 15%. i might add that when you learn something about the modern fi engine you will see why its a total waste of your time and the only improvement in mpg you saw was when your wallet was lightened. marketing works wonders on simple minds..... .

From : roy

hey roy...looks like i got a new sf and bestestf for the list...what we up to now about 50 now it has to be higher than 50. i thought that sean kept up the list. wtf has he been guess he really fell in love this time. sigh...another sucker pissed off that he spent $60 for a pos that has yet to be proven to work except in his own mind..thus his reluctance to stick to topic and resorts to name calling... i can do it to..and he will lose...lol.. it still amazes me that people still fall for the hp claims and buy this crap. ive yet to see or hear of any of them do a public before and after dyno pull. sure they have their own dyno test figures but what do they say about figures something like figures never lie but liars always figure. roy .

From : paul jensen

are you really this dumb if i have 3 months showing mileage x then put in device y then have 3 months following the addition of the device showing a consistant increase in mileage of 1 to 1.5 mpg then i would have s e v e r a l months of records showing an i m m e d i a t e change in my mileage. thatr right! someone gets it. .

From : roy

bullshit. if you had gotten that you would be at about..umm...20mpg...or better.. my high is 21.3... paul let me ask you this if these things are so wonderful dont you think that the auto manufactures would install them to help meet the required mileage levels i know they go to great expense to meet those standards. just to give you a quick example. my 01 corvette z06 came with a 6 speed transmission. care to guess what gear that it hit its top speed in it is 5th gear. the 6th gear is there solely to satisfy the mileage requirements. im sure youll agree that having a 6th gear cost more to install and maintain than a thing spinning around in your intake. as a aside. engine builders for years have been trying to smooth the air flow not create a bunch of turbulence. roy .

From : roy

just for compaison does anyone here remember the set of airvanes sold in the late 50s and early 60s that were supposed to reduce the vortices in manifolds and improve power / mileage / etc. roy red they were designed to do the exact opposite of the tornados and they didnt work either. ah that would be red in the 50s and the 60s. denny perhaps he sure looks old enoughg air vanes you talking about velocity stacks they did work and also smoothes the air. you guys can go at this all night but heres a couple of thoughts. for a ram air system to work you have to have a speed of 60mph or better for any notable change. that would probably apply to this thingy as well. i question the turbulence that this thingy creates. smooth air flow is what ya want. im curious what kind of damage one of these things will do if part of it gets sucked in. as before i want a public before and after dyno pull. they can keep the fancy marketing bs. roy too young to have been there .

From : roy

nono. i was referring to a ram air set up. sorta like a air scoop or if you recall the set up i had on the impala ss and was trying to get to fit on the v10. anyway before the carb or injection. like the shaker hood or gto ram air. that type of set up. shaker hood gto can you explain these are they some kind of religious cult i guess im just not old enough to have experience in this..... denny not a cult. but after driving on of them youd be talking to god. now that i think about it im surprised that dc hasnt put one of those shaker scoops on the so called hemi. they have cheapened the name might as well go for all of it. roy .

From : tbone

tbone fatchance@noway.now wrote i really didnt want to get involved in this but it is really getting out of hand. i guess ill have to make it real simple to understand. perhaps you need to understand it youself before you try to explain it to anyone else. paul jensen pjensen@gnt.net wrote paul jensen pjensen@gnt.net wrote this could easily be attributed to seasonal changes in ambient air temperatures seasonal changes in the gasoline blend changes in the motor oil youre now using etc. oil wasnt changed at that time and my records are precise. change was ^^^^^^^^^^ immediate that day. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ how does several months worth of milage records translate to change was immediate that day are you really this dumb no but obviously you are. awww did i hurt your widdle feelings. if i have 3 months showing mileage x then put in device y then have 3 months following the addition of the device showing a consistant increase in mileage of 1 to 1.5 mpg then i would have s e v e r a l months of records showing an i m m e d i a t e change in my mileage. but that is not what he posted. oh really show me exactly how it was not. go up about 15 lines in the copied text i underlined his words with ^^^^^^^^ which with a help of a three year old even you should be able to find and understand. apparently you need far more help than that. why is this sooooo hard for you to comprehend. while his example may not have been worded the best anyone with a minimal intelligence level should be able to figure it out. all he was saying was that it didnt take days weeks or months for the change to occur it happened as soon as he put the part on the truck. iows we can only respond to what you post here if the story is going to change youre wasting your time due to an obvious transparency issue. you may want to read what was written then instead of putting your spin on it. there was no change to his story. take your own advice. yes there was. sorry dude the only change was your spin on his words at least i hope that it was spin and not your inability to comprehend. i stand by what i posted the results you observed over several months could easily be attributed to the things i mentioned. then you would once again be wrong. according to you which rates a great big so what if you really believe that why did you respond to it how can you expect to be considered credible when you change the parameters now that would be you who is changing the story and your credibility point with that is well taken. really so you consider oil wasnt changed at that time and my records are precise. change was immediate that day. to be a credible statement sure i do why cant you lets see oil wasnt changed that day sounds ok to me. do you change your oil every time you work on your truck my records are precise do you know if they are or are not. if not then how can you discredit the statement. and finally change was immediate that day if the part does what he says that it does then the change would be immediate and on that day. what proof do you have that it doesnt none i thought as much. my what a colossal joke you are. yes you are. how does one go thru several tanks of fuel in just one day he never made that claim you did. he made the claim that the change was immediate that day. and where is your proof that it was not since hes making these claims about a fuel economy increase and any claims -about- such an increase should be backed up by several samples i.e. tanks of fuel what else could he mean you really are a pinhead. he claims to have several months of such records showing that there was an increase and that it began the day he put the tornado on his truck. perhaps you should consult that three year old or at least attend a grammar school english class. perhaps you should comprehend what was written before attacking someone. btw where is your proof that it could not have done what he claimed same goes for you as in hey shit fer brains do ya see where how does one go thru several tanks of fuel in just one day is posed as a question you didnt answer my question. i dont need to prove that it did he claims to have the proof of that. you are saying that he is wrong with nothing to back it up. as for the sever tanks of fuel he never claimed that he did that in a day and if you claim that he did show me exactly where he said that. it was more like he said that the change happened that day and that he has data from several tanks of fuel to back up the mileage increase and that it was not some weather related condition or an oil change that caused it like you claimed. so tell me tbone how long have you had -your- tornado air/fuel swirly thing-a-ma-bob installed i dont have one. i dont see how it could cause any substantial in

From : denny

the late 50s and early 60s that were supposed to reduce the vortices in manifolds and improve power / mileage / etc. roy red they were designed to do the exact opposite of the tornados and they didnt work either. ah that would be red in the 50s and the 60s. denny perhaps he sure looks old enoughg im sitting here behaving myself and then i get sucked into a debate about a tornado. i only look old. im actually very young-hearted inside. which is a lot more than i can say for some of the old fogeys around here. g somewhere in this discussion somebody asked if someone knew what the inside of this intake looked like. knowing what one looks like how could a spinning vortex on air asuming it could happen go thru the throttle body wouldnt the partially open blades knock the shit out of the spinning vortex into this relativly large open chamber reverse direction to start up the runner go up and over the chamber and down towards the intake port in the head then it gets its squirt of fuel. how in the hell could that work roy too young to have been there keep telling yourself that........... vbg denny .

From : budd cochran

well at least i didnt say anything about you know what . . . budd the late 50s and early 60s that were supposed to reduce the vortices in manifolds and improve power / mileage / etc. roy red they were designed to do the exact opposite of the tornados and they didnt work either. ah that would be red in the 50s and the 60s. denny perhaps he sure looks old enoughg im sitting here behaving myself and then i get sucked into a debate about a tornado. i only look old. im actually very young-hearted inside. which is a lot more than i can say for some of the old fogeys around here. g somewhere in this discussion somebody asked if someone knew what the inside of this intake looked like. knowing what one looks like how could a spinning vortex on air asuming it could happen go thru the throttle body wouldnt the partially open blades knock the shit out of the spinning vortex into this relativly large open chamber reverse direction to start up the runner go up and over the chamber and down towards the intake port in the head then it gets its squirt of fuel. how in the hell could that work roy too young to have been there keep telling yourself that........... vbg denny .

From : roy

well at least i didnt say anything about you know what . . . budd you are much too kind. so ill say it. xtra large pink bunny suit roy im glad i was able to supply the cheap entertainment on this rainy-ass labor day!!! denny looks like we are in for a wet week. quite a storm building out in the ocean as well. roy .

From : budd cochran

just for compaison does anyone here remember the set of airvanes sold in the late 50s and early 60s that were supposed to reduce the vortices in manifolds and improve power / mileage / etc. roy red they were designed to do the exact opposite of the tornados and they didnt work either. ah that would be red in the 50s and the 60s. denny perhaps he sure looks old enoughg air vanes you talking about velocity stacks they did work and also smoothes the air. nope. it was a device that installed under the carb with straight flat plates in a criss-cross araingement that was supposed to straighten the flow before it made the turns into the runners...but that was the problem to be effective they went 3/4 of the way to the manifold floor and blocked flow. it really needed to be four inches long with a carb spacer to mount it in. you guys can go at this all night but heres a couple of thoughts. for a ram air system to work you have to have a speed of 60mph or better for any notable change. that would probably apply to this thingy as well. the long ram 30 inch sonoramic crossram was effective from 1500 rpm up to 5200 rpm at any speed any gear. the short 24 was good from 2400 to 6500. the rat roaster is good from 3000 to 8000 rpm. i question the turbulence that this thingy creates. smooth air flow is what ya want. im curious what kind of damage one of these things will do if part of it gets sucked in. as before i want a public before and after dyno pull. they can keep the fancy marketing bs. roy too young to have been there budd .

From : roy

just for compaison does anyone here remember the set of airvanes sold in the late 50s and early 60s that were supposed to reduce the vortices in manifolds and improve power / mileage / etc. roy red they were designed to do the exact opposite of the tornados and they didnt work either. ah that would be red in the 50s and the 60s. denny perhaps he sure looks old enoughg air vanes you talking about velocity stacks they did work and also smoothes the air. nope. it was a device that installed under the carb with straight flat plates in a criss-cross araingement that was supposed to straighten the flow before it made the turns into the runners...but that was the problem to be effective they went 3/4 of the way to the manifold floor and blocked flow. it really needed to be four inches long with a carb spacer to mount it in. i knew i was too young. g you guys can go at this all night but heres a couple of thoughts. for a ram air system to work you have to have a speed of 60mph or better for any notable change. that would probably apply to this thingy as well. the long ram 30 inch sonoramic crossram was effective from 1500 rpm up to 5200 rpm at any speed any gear. the short 24 was good from 2400 to 6500. the rat roaster is good from 3000 to 8000 rpm. nono. i was referring to a ram air set up. sorta like a air scoop or if you recall the set up i had on the impala ss and was trying to get to fit on the v10. anyway before the carb or injection. like the shaker hood or gto ram air. that type of set up. i question the turbulence that this thingy creates. smooth air flow is what ya want. im curious what kind of damage one of these things will do if part of it gets sucked in. as before i want a public before and after dyno pull. they can keep the fancy marketing bs. roy too young to have been there budd roy .

From : roy

well at least i didnt say anything about you know what . . . budd you are much too kind. so ill say it. xtra large pink bunny suit roy .

From : denny

well at least i didnt say anything about you know what . . . budd you are much too kind. so ill say it. xtra large pink bunny suit roy im glad i was able to supply the cheap entertainment on this rainy-ass labor day!!! denny .

From : denny

nono. i was referring to a ram air set up. sorta like a air scoop or if you recall the set up i had on the impala ss and was trying to get to fit on the v10. anyway before the carb or injection. like the shaker hood or gto ram air. that type of set up. shaker hood gto can you explain these are they some kind of religious cult i guess im just not old enough to have experience in this..... denny .

From : nosey

paul let me ask you this if these things are so wonderful dont you think that the auto manufactures would install them to help meet the required mileage levels i know they go to great expense to meet those standards. just to give you a quick example. my 01 corvette z06 came with a 6 speed transmission. care to guess what gear that it hit its top speed in it is 5th gear. the 6th gear is there solely to satisfy the mileage requirements. im sure youll agree that having a 6th gear cost more to install and maintain than a thing spinning around in your intake. as a aside. engine builders for years have been trying to smooth the air flow not create a bunch of turbulence. roy the manufacturers do go to great lengths to satisfy mandated requirements. i was researching tires and found this interesting. from extending the lifespan of tires final report by shmuel l. weissman and jerome l. sackman symplectic engineering corp. 3.5 original equipment tires some original equipment oe tires because of their composition have a shorter lifespan and therefore also contribute to reducing the overall average tire-life. oe tires are optimized specifically for a single vehicle to deliver a certain feel and performance that the automaker deems desirable laclair 2002. for example to meet corporate average fuel economy cafe standards the automaker may require that the tire maker reduce the rolling resistance of a tire which typically comes at the expense of tire wear see appendix a for a detailed discussion of this issue.20 as a result of the optimization that goes into oe tires a tire mounted on vehicle type a may be quite different in terms of rubber compounds layering and tread depth than a tire with the same marking i.e. manufacturer type size and utqg ratings designed for vehicle type b. in contrast replacement market tires are designed to deliver balanced performance across a broad array of vehicles and are optimized for the concerns of the aftermarket consumer who typically places a higher priority on tire longevity than do carmakers. as a result oe tires average only about 77% of the life mileage of replacement tires cec 2003b. for some tire models oe tires may achieve only 50% of the longevity of replacement tires.21 oe tires constitute roughly twenty percent of the total tires shipped in the us rma 2002a. therefore a loss of one percent of tire-life mileage for an oe tire constitutes a loss of 0.2% for the entire light-duty tire population. thus if for example the average oe tire achieves only 77% of the tire-life mileage of a replacement market tire as reported by cec 2003b then the overall tire-life mileage is reduced by 4.6%. in california this reduced average life translates to about 1.1 million extra waste tires. it should be emphasized that the consumer is not notified that oe tires are different from the replacement tires. also the limited warranty provided with oe tires may differ from one vehicle type to the next and yet again differ from that provided with the replacement market tires. the tire makers maintain that the consumer can get the oe tires also as replacement tires. however the consumer should first be alert to the difference between oe and replacement tires and most consumers are not. moreover should the consumer specifically request that the same tires as the oe tires be installed on their vehicle they will typically have to special order the tires. if the automakers go to these extremes to have tires designed specifically to help pass fuel requirements they probably already tested the tornado. i have never heard of a manufacturer installing them in any new car. .

From : paul jensen

and...if the tornado was so damn good..its not btw proven it would be on every truck from factory. its a gimmick. if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside that you are running a 50 cent piece of stamped tin in your intake thats great. so your answer is no you havent tried it so you are a moron. you are talking about something you have not used yourself so you are clueless. i have several months worth of milage records from both before and after the tornado was installed and the average increase is 1 - 1.5 mpg which i am quite happy with so i dont really give a crap what you think. if my happiness with the tornado bothers you that is your problem not mine. it is proven in my truck. .

From : steve

on sat 30 aug 2003 121252 -0400 cbhvac webmaster@carolinabreezehvac.com wrote let me explain one thing...first there are free ways to get more out of that engine than 1 mpg...and most can do that without spending a cent of money or time. hey cbhvac i am always game to get better gas millage. what are a few of your free tips not putting you down. would really like to know. also are you on another group where i can ask you a few questions about my payne furnance. no pronblem with it just a change i made in the venting. thanks steve dault@spamattbi.com remove spam for e-mail .

From : paul jensen

then shut the fuck up about your overpriced pos. k easy as hell to understand. oh..wait... slow for you.. s h u t t h e f u c k u p t h e n. now..you are happy with it..fine. some guys are happy with a dick in their ass too but i dont see you telling the world about that... you are quite a class act. thats quite a vocabulary you have. i bet your parents are proud of you. frustrating to not be able to communicate isnt it .

From : cbhvac

and...if the tornado was so damn good..its not btw proven it would be on every truck from factory. its a gimmick. if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside that you are running a 50 cent piece of stamped tin in your intake thats great. so your answer is no you havent tried it so you are a moron. nope...just took out about 40 of the damn things... sorry... you are talking about something you have not used yourself so you are clueless. i dont need it. i dont want to try it. i dont need to try it... lets figure in 4th grade math for you... i fill up and say...spend $55 on fuel. i get about 300 miles to a tank..and lets just say its getting 10mpg for making it easy for you. that $55 makes me about $2900. do i really give a damn about 1mpg no. i have several months worth of milage records from both before and after the tornado was installed and the average increase is 1 - 1.5 mpg which i am quite happy with so i dont really give a crap what you think. then shut the fuck up about your overpriced pos. k easy as hell to understand. oh..wait... slow for you.. s h u t t h e f u c k u p t h e n. if my happiness with the tornado bothers you that is your problem not mine. it is proven in my truck. goodie. no...what bothers me is that you are of such a simple mind to actually believe that the friggin thing works.. your vehicle is not carbd. therefore unless and follow along here skippy....unless a 3rd party not hired by the makers of it can prove that it works as stated...well....then you can bite my ass. k+n..i tried em...i wont ever use that pos again.....but then...when you hit 4 digits in the hp range on a hemi..whats 15 more lolol!!! now..you are happy with it..fine. some guys are happy with a dick in their ass too but i dont see you telling the world about that... see a point here no ok..fine by me..you use what you want. i will use what i want....and good old fashioned know how will beat out snake oil every time. .

From : neil nelson

paul jensen pjensen@gnt.net wrote so your answer is no you havent tried it so you are a moron. you are talking about something you have not used yourself so you are clueless. i have several months worth of milage records from both before and after the tornado was installed and the average increase is 1 - 1.5 mpg snip this could easily be attributed to seasonal changes in ambient air temperatures seasonal changes in the gasoline blend changes in the motor oil youre now using etc. .

From : neil nelson

tbone fatchance@noway.now wrote i really didnt want to get involved in this but it is really getting out of hand. i guess ill have to make it real simple to understand. paul jensen pjensen@gnt.net wrote paul jensen pjensen@gnt.net wrote this could easily be attributed to seasonal changes in ambient air temperatures seasonal changes in the gasoline blend changes in the motor oil youre now using etc. oil wasnt changed at that time and my records are precise. change was ^^^^^^^^^^ immediate that day. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ how does several months worth of milage records translate to change was immediate that day are you really this dumb no but obviously you are. if i have 3 months showing mileage x then put in device y then have 3 months following the addition of the device showing a consistant increase in mileage of 1 to 1.5 mpg then i would have s e v e r a l months of records showing an i m m e d i a t e change in my mileage. but that is not what he posted. go up about 15 lines in the copied text i underlined his words with ^^^^^^^^ which with a help of a three year old even you should be able to find and understand. iows we can only respond to what you post here if the story is going to change youre wasting your time due to an obvious transparency issue. you may want to read what was written then instead of putting your spin on it. there was no change to his story. take your own advice. yes there was. i stand by what i posted the results you observed over several months could easily be attributed to the things i mentioned. then you would once again be wrong. according to you which rates a great big so what how can you expect to be considered credible when you change the parameters now that would be you who is changing the story and your credibility point with that is well taken. really so you consider oil wasnt changed at that time and my records are precise. change was immediate that day. to be a credible statement my what a colossal joke you are. how does one go thru several tanks of fuel in just one day he never made that claim you did. he made the claim that the change was immediate that day. since hes making these claims about a fuel economy increase and any claims -about- such an increase should be backed up by several samples i.e. tanks of fuel what else could he mean perhaps you should comprehend what was written before attacking someone. btw where is your proof that it could not have done what he claimed same goes for you as in hey shit fer brains do ya see where how does one go thru several tanks of fuel in just one day is posed as a question so tell me tbone how long have you had -your- tornado air/fuel swirly thing-a-ma-bob installed .

From : theguypaul jensen

on mon 01 sep 2003 182805 gmt budd cochran mr-d150spam@citlink.net wrote jerry he told jill irelands previous husband he was going to steal her away. not very honorable in my opinion. budd oh for crying out loud dont you ever just shut up. stop it. please someone anyone please make this moron go away. the type of actor that if you knew he was in the movie it would be worth watching. give him credit for one thing devoted to his wife before and after her death. jerry .

From : paul jensen

paul let me ask you this if these things are so wonderful dont you think that the auto manufactures would install them to help meet the required mileage levels no. results will certainly vary from vehicle to vehicle and would be dependent on driving style. i agree with those who say the claims they make are outrageous. for example i believe they claim milage increases up to 28%. of course an increase of 0.1% would not make that a false statement. as i said earlier i do a lot of driving and about 60-70% of that is highway driving. i suspect that if i did mostly city driving the effect could easily be nothing. if my highway/city driving habits change soon a possibility it will be interesting to note changes. of course i would need to first uninstall the device for a couple of months to establish a new baseline. besides someone surely owns a patent on this and since the unit is somewhat overpriced as it is i dont imagine the automakers are interested. they generally seem to take a dim view of after-market parts at least that has been my observation. i didnt know what to expect. i do understand the principle at work here and i figured what the hell have an open mind and give it a shot. i figured a 1 mpg increase would pay for itself within a year. it came with a 30-day money back guarantee so if it was as worthless as some here say it is i could have taken it back. hell i wanted 40 mpg! - i looked to some car people i know and respect and they thought what the hell why not try it. nationally known car people such as bobby likkis and sam memmolo recommend it. in fact i bought it at likkiss shop. epa and carb licensed labs tested it with positive results. the folks at the sema web site thought the science was sound. finally there was my understanding of bernoullis principle which every pilot should understand. the faster air flows the lower the air pressure allowing more air to flow. this is why planes fly. i installed it several months ago and have noticed a consistant 1 - 1.5 mpg increase. earth shattering not hardly. but it was an increase nevertheless. it was simply something that was fun to tinker with. when someone else reported they were only getting 16 mpg with their 3.9 dak thus the subject of this thread i simply reported my mpg with the qualifier that i had a tornado on my truck. if you think thats worthless fine. i believe otherwise. when i take all the evidence i have stated here then consider a bunch of people i do not know who as far as i know have not tried the device who tell me the thing cant work the only logical conclusion for me to make is that these people are wrong. they cannot tell me its not working in my truck. in my opinion to not have tried the product and to say it cannot work is extremely arrogant. that is my position on this subject. im sure i havent changed anyones opinion - dont expect to. but i cannot change the results of my tests. i love my truck and am satisfied with the tornado. if some people here have a hard time with that thats too bad. now i will not waste any more time responding to the troll that started this mess by making the p.t. barnum crack on me then followed up with numerous f-bombs when responding to me. i will follow the discussion and do find this board very educational. thank you good night and drive safely. .

From : neil nelson

paul jensen pjensen@gnt.net wrote paul jensen pjensen@gnt.net wrote so your answer is no you havent tried it so you are a moron. you are talking about something you have not used yourself so you are clueless. i have several months worth of milage records from both before and after the tornado was installed and the average increase is 1 - 1.5 mpg snip this could easily be attributed to seasonal changes in ambient air temperatures seasonal changes in the gasoline blend changes in the motor oil youre now using etc. oil wasnt changed at that time and my records are precise. change was immediate that day. how does several months worth of milage records translate to change was immediate that day iows we can only respond to what you post here if the story is going to change youre wasting your time due to an obvious transparency issue. i stand by what i posted the results you observed over several months could easily be attributed to the things i mentioned. how can you expect to be considered credible when you change the parameters how does one go thru several tanks of fuel in just one day or did you put your truck on a calibrated dynomometer and sample the exhaust gasses with a flame ionization detector final question; have you ever seen the inside workings of your intake manifold .

From : budd cochran

pure unadulterated bull. if youre getting better mileage with a dry intake port injected engine its only because the partial restriction to airflow by the tornado is keeping you from getting normal acceleration for the throttle opening youre using. budd this doesnt make any sense at all dude. yes it does. read on. since when has a restriction in the intake that reduces normal acceleration ever improved someones mileage. on a carbureted vehicle it would destroy the economy by acting like a partially closed choke but were talking an engine with f.i. so the need for turbulence to maintain the mixture is advertising hype. while i dont believe that the tornado will give anywhere near the drastic mileage and hp increases that they claim it does 1 to 1.5 mpg may be possible. lets not forget that the tornado is working on two principles. the first one is to improve fuel atomization and the second is to improve the airflow characteristics of the intake. while i would agree with you that in a port injected engine while the opportunity to increase atomization is minimal it is not non-existant. its non-existant here because the fuel enters the airflow just above the valve head . . .too close to the cylinder to be affected by the tornado. its only in the port for a millisecond or less. look at a wind tunnel the vanes in a wind tunnel straighten the airflow that is turbulent because of the fans bends etc. found in the system. in a manifold air has mass hence the need for a mass air flow sensor and follows newtons second law of motion an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force so every twist and turn the intake runner makes would add turbulence to smooth airflow anyway. if you give the flow too much spin the runners will reduce it by literally blocking some directions of flow. only in cartoons and tornados advertising hype does a tornado like vortex go around corners. just for compaison does anyone here remember the set of airvanes sold in the late 50s and early 60s that were supposed to reduce the vortices in manifolds and improve power / mileage / etc. roy red they were designed to do the exact opposite of the tornados and they didnt work either. we are not talking about direct cylinder injection here. im not either but it would be even less affected of course. port injection is directly above the intake valve. the vortex that it claims to create may reduce turbulance in the intake effectivly reducing the overall air restriction and may improve the airflow past the injectors which could improve the atomization of the fuel slightly. do i know this for a fact no but neither you or anyone else in here can say for a fact that it doesnt. if the person claims that he is getting better mileage maybe he is. all the engineering theories about induction design for the last 50+ years are aimed at reducing turbulence in dry intake fuel injection systems. you need maximum flow not turbulence. turbulence found in carbureted engine manifolds helps maintain the fuel/ air mixture on the long tortuous path from throttle plate to intake valve hence the caution when porting intake manifolds to not go for a super smooth surface. the reason he sees a mileage increase is logical the reduced airflow caused by the tornado signals the computer to inject less fuel to maintain the correct f/a ratio for economy. ill bet if the computer speed limiter were set high enough he would notice a reduction in top speed because of it. as it is he probably cant tell. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving tom put your hand on the d ring and pull hard . . but dont wait for the ground to slap you first. ok vbg budd .

From : roy

paul let me ask you this if these things are so wonderful dont you think that the auto manufactures would install them to help meet the required mileage levels no. that says it all. snip i looked to some car people i know and respect and they thought what the hell why not try it. nationally known car people such as bobby likkis wtf is likkis and sam memmolo recommend it. a guy on tv show that is actually a info-mercial and he becomes an expert you gotta be kidding next they will hire billy mays or whatever his name is to hump the product n fact i bought it at likkiss shop. epa and carb licensed labs tested it with positive results. i noticed you said carb licensed that means shit they are independent labs who work for whoever is paying them. enjoy your new toy. roy .

From : cbhvac

fucking troll still trying to get his point across.. paul..i was gonna be nice... but now... just go take your piece of shit and blow it out your ass... also from someone that actually worked on mbb ab325s you are incorrect. in order for a plane to stay aloft the air over the wings must be accelerated. creating a decrease in pressure 90 degrees to the direction of aceleration...its the low pressure area above the wing that keps it aloft. the faster the flow the greater the difference in pressures. all daniel bernoulli discovered was that a fluid will lose pressure as its velocity increases and since air is a fluid that works but your description was wrong. at least if you are going to call someone a troll get the person right prick. btw its called bernoullis lift when describing airfoil lift. now newtonian lift can also keep a plane aloft..but airfoils use bernoullis principle and newtons third law of motion to work. sheesh..and you want to argue why your tornado is a piece of shit ok... its like this dumbass...in order to increase hp and increase mileage you need to increase the thermal dynamics of the engine. if you can increase the volumetric efficientcy of the engine in question with a restriction in the already limited airflow of the intake that is used on that motor then you have beat physics. you can not do it with a restriction nor a decrease in volume or pressure to the engine. 1mpg ok..what you prob did was trick the o2 sensor into thinking the engines gone rich. therefor the injection system has compensated by leaning the curve. since you have restricted the airflow and leaned out the engine you have lost hp gained about 1 point in torque and thusly gained your 1 entire mpg...but you had to lose power to do it...and depending on when the engines at lean you risk doing damage to the engine. you do what you want. its obvious you want to play and havent brought the right toys. troll man..thats hilarious. newbie fuck. get a clue oh..oh..better yet...use the money you are saving to go buy one. paul let me ask you this if these things are so wonderful dont you think that the auto manufactures would install them to help meet the required mileage levels no. results will certainly vary from vehicle to vehicle and would be dependent on driving style. well fucking duh...that can be said with a fully stock vehicle. i agree with those who say the claims they make are outrageous. for example i believe they claim milage increases up to 28%. of course an increase of 0.1% would not make that a false statement. marketing that you fell for. as i said earlier i do a lot of driving and about 60-70% of that is highway driving. i suspect that if i did mostly city driving the effect could easily be nothing. if my highway/city driving habits change soon a possibility it will be interesting to note changes. of course i would need to first uninstall the device for a couple of months to establish a new baseline. besides someone surely owns a patent on this and since the unit is somewhat overpriced as it is i dont imagine the automakers are interested. they generally seem to take a dim view of after-market parts at least that has been my observation. there are alot of parts that someone owns a patent on that are on your truck..sheesh...dodge didnt make every damn part on it... i didnt know what to expect. i do understand the principle at work here and i figured what the hell have an open mind and give it a shot. i figured a 1 mpg increase would pay for itself within a year. it came with a 30-day money back guarantee so if it was as worthless as some here say it is i could have taken it back. hell i wanted 40 mpg! - buy a honda. i looked to some car people i know and respect and they thought what the hell why not try it. nationally known car people such as bobby likkis and sam memmolo recommend it. in fact i bought it at likkiss shop. epa and carb licensed labs tested it with positive results. the folks at the sema web site thought the science was sound. finally there was my understanding of bernoullis principle which every pilot should understand. the faster air flows the lower the air pressure allowing more air to flow. this is why planes fly. i installed it several months ago and have noticed a consistant 1 - 1.5 mpg increase. earth shattering not hardly. but it was an increase nevertheless. it was simply something that was fun to tinker with. glad your happy with it...richard simmons is nationally known too but i would not buy a part from him...idiots in action.. when someone else reported they were only getting 16 mpg with their 3.9 dak thus the subject of this thread i simply reported my mpg with the qualifier that i had a tornado on my truck. if you think thats worthless fine. i believe otherwise. when i take all the evidence i have stated here then c

From : cbhvac

paul let me ask you this if these things are so wonderful dont you think that the auto manufactures would install them to help meet the required mileage levels no. that says it all. no kiddin.. snip i looked to some car people i know and respect and they thought what the hell why not try it. nationally known car people such as bobby likkis wtf is likkis some wannabe on am radio... so far hes not even funny how bad his show is. kinda like when you hear the rest of the story and then goes into a pitch about some bs radio thats overpriced... and sam memmolo recommend it. a guy on tv show that is actually a info-mercial and he becomes an expert you gotta be kidding next they will hire billy mays or whatever his name is to hump the product oxy-tor....increase your gas mileage up to 45%!!!!!!!!!! n fact i bought it at likkiss shop. epa and carb licensed labs tested it with positive results. i noticed you said carb licensed that means shit they are independent labs who work for whoever is paying them. california air resource board....a joke in itself. enjoy your new toy. roy .

From : roy

paul let me ask you this if these things are so wonderful dont you think that the auto manufactures would install them to help meet the required mileage levels i know they go to great expense to meet those standards. just to give you a quick example. my 01 corvette z06 came with a 6 speed transmission. care to guess what gear that it hit its top speed in it is 5th gear. the 6th gear is there solely to satisfy the mileage requirements. im sure youll agree that having a 6th gear cost more to install and maintain than a thing spinning around in your intake. as a aside. engine builders for years have been trying to smooth the air flow not create a bunch of turbulence. roy the manufacturers do go to great lengths to satisfy mandated requirements. i was researching tires and found this interesting. from extending the lifespan of tires final report by shmuel l. weissman and jerome l. sackman symplectic engineering corp. snip if the automakers go to these extremes to have tires designed specifically to help pass fuel requirements they probably already tested the tornado. i have never heard of a manufacturer installing them in any new car. do ya think because they dont work g roy .

From : roy

nono. i was referring to a ram air set up. sorta like a air scoop or if you recall the set up i had on the impala ss and was trying to get to fit on the v10. anyway before the carb or injection. like the shaker hood or gto ram air. that type of set up. shaker hood gto can you explain these are they some kind of religious cult i guess im just not old enough to have experience in this..... denny not a cult. but after driving on of them youd be talking to god. now that i think about it im surprised that dc hasnt put one of those shaker scoops on the so called hemi. they have cheapened the name might as well go for all of it. roy actually somebody is making the shaker hood for the old style trucks. one came thru the shop last spring with the hood and a stepside bed on it. dammed nice looking truck. by the sound of it the 360 was warmed up a bit too. he wouldnt tell me where he got the parts at tho. said he didnt want another one around town. i havent spent the time looking but ill bet he got the bed and hood out of one of the van conversion outfits in indiana. it seems like they are always making a few things that dont fit conversion vans. denny dont think they would be hard to make. cut a hole and fab a air cleaner up into the hole and seal around it. of course with the beer can metal that is being used you have a shaking hood right from the factory. roy .

From : tbone

nono. i was referring to a ram air set up. sorta like a air scoop or if you recall the set up i had on the impala ss and was trying to get to fit on the v10. anyway before the carb or injection. like the shaker hood or gto ram air. that type of set up. shaker hood gto can you explain these are they some kind of religious cult i guess im just not old enough to have experience in this..... oh please even i dont buy this one. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : denny

actually turbulence is not good for a carbureted engine either. the surfaces in the aftermarket intake on my magnum are pretty smooth. a friend of mine that used to port heads said that the main caution while porting was not to remove too much material trying to make it smooth and wind up destroying the piece or screwing up the air flow worse than it already was. just curious what kind of aftermarket intake do you have denny .

From : tbone

pure unadulterated bull. if youre getting better mileage with a dry intake port injected engine its only because the partial restriction to airflow by the tornado is keeping you from getting normal acceleration for the throttle opening youre using. budd this doesnt make any sense at all dude. yes it does. read on. ok since when has a restriction in the intake that reduces normal acceleration ever improved someones mileage. on a carbureted vehicle it would destroy the economy by acting like a partially closed choke but were talking an engine with f.i. so the need for turbulence to maintain the mixture is advertising hype. well budd they claim that it reduces turbulance which btw is never a good thing. while i dont believe that the tornado will give anywhere near the drastic mileage and hp increases that they claim it does 1 to 1.5 mpg may be possible. lets not forget that the tornado is working on two principles. the first one is to improve fuel atomization and the second is to improve the airflow characteristics of the intake. while i would agree with you that in a port injected engine while the opportunity to increase atomization is minimal it is not non-existant. its non-existant here because the fuel enters the airflow just above the valve head . . .too close to the cylinder to be affected by the tornado. its only in the port for a millisecond or less. any way that you look at it the airflow is what is carrying the fuel from the injector into the cylinder and because of that anything that changes that airflow will have some effect. look at a wind tunnel the vanes in a wind tunnel straighten the airflow that is turbulent because of the fans bends etc. found in the system. do not compare a wind tunnel with an intake manifold. wind tunnels are a straight line and serve a specific purpose that requires the air to be moving flat and in a straight line. in a manifold air has mass hence the need for a mass air flow sensor and follows newtons second law of motion an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force so every twist and turn the intake runner makes would add turbulence to smooth airflow anyway. ok lets look at this. as im sure that you know air always has mass and btw not all systems use a mas dc uses a map instead. as for newtons second law of motion you are completely correct but what you are not taking into account are the angles involved. motion equates into two things speed and direction. when air comes tumbling into the manifold it is going in many different directions and speeds. this slows it down even when it is going straight and makes it even worse when it hits a bend. the principle behind the tornado is to get all of the air going in the same direction and going straight. this allows the air to get around the bends easier. if you give the flow too much spin the runners will reduce it by literally blocking some directions of flow. the rotational spin of the air will have little effect in slowing the air down because it is in a different plane with respect to the curves of the intake. only in cartoons and tornados advertising hype does a tornado like vortex go around corners. that is simply not true. just for compaison does anyone here remember the set of airvanes sold in the late 50s and early 60s that were supposed to reduce the vortices in manifolds and improve power / mileage / etc. roy red they were designed to do the exact opposite of the tornados and they didnt work either. i believe that they were intended to eliminate turbulence in the intake but the design of the intakes themselves did not lend themselves well to it. they then came up with velocity stacks that seemed to work better in many instances. we are not talking about direct cylinder injection here. im not either but it would be even less affected of course. port injection is directly above the intake valve. but the incomming air still picks up the fuel and carries it into the cylinder. i didnt say that the effect was great only that it is there. the vortex that it claims to create may reduce turbulance in the intake effectivly reducing the overall air restriction and may improve the airflow past the injectors which could improve the atomization of the fuel slightly. do i know this for a fact no but neither you or anyone else in here can say for a fact that it doesnt. if the person claims that he is getting better mileage maybe he is. all the engineering theories about induction design for the last 50+ years are aimed at reducing turbulence in dry intake fuel injection systems. you need maximum flow not turbulence. and that is the whole point budd. the tornado does not create turbulence it is designed to reduce it. please dont confuse turbulence with a vortices. they are not the same thing. turbulence is a mass

From : budd cochran

nope. it was a device that installed under the carb with straight flat plates in a criss-cross araingement that was supposed to straighten the flow before it made the turns into the runners...but that was the problem to be effective they went 3/4 of the way to the manifold floor and blocked flow. it really needed to be four inches long with a carb spacer to mount it in. i knew i was too young. g please roy. ive got a hemorrhoid operation next week im not supposed to laugh too hard before then or theyll be stuffing my guts back in instead of my rectum. vbg nono. i was referring to a ram air set up. sorta like a air scoop or if you recall the set up i had on the impala ss and was trying to get to fit on the v10. anyway before the carb or injection. like the shaker hood or gto ram air. that type of set up. oh. you mean a cold air system not ram air. no i meant ram air. that was the name on the gto with the ram air option. iirc the cam was a little warmer to go with the option. anyway we are on the same page. pontiac may have called it ram air but it was a sales gimmick. it was like on the 442s a cold air system. fwiw most including the hemi shaker didnt give any boost until you passed 150 or so and then only about 0.5 lbs/sq. in. i wonder how fast you have to be going before the tornado does its magic. didnt ya hear with a tornado you can hit warp 10.5 in less than a nanosecond. ive forgotten which vehicle had the v-10 i thought you had a vette. the v10 was in a 2k 2500 4x4 that after a ton of power steering problems was replaced by the current 2k 2500 4x4 with a cummins. ok. the 10s filters were up front werent they maybe a couple pcv u bends back to center hood and a modified 6-pack type scoop on a pan mounted to the engine just sold the z06 and replaced it with a tahoe z71. gm sure loves those initials. yep but why do they use the last letter in the alphabet so the mopar owners will know who they are lapping maybe budd .

From : budd cochran

nationally known car people such as bobby likkis and sam memmolo recommend it. in fact i bought it at likkiss shop. could it be becvause they are paid to endorse it epa and carb licensed labs tested it with positive results. it gets passed once it shows it does not screw up the emissions controls...thats all. the folks at the sema web site thought the science was sound. sema has done wonders for aftermarket product acceptance in the past but thats all theyre cconcerned with not wether or not it really works. finally there was my understanding of bernoullis principle which every pilot should understand. the faster air flows the lower the air pressure allowing more air to flow. this is why planes fly. wrong!!! planes fly because the lowered air pressure over the wing due to bernoullis principle effectively sucks the wing up to try and fill the vacuum. you really arent a pilot i hope. i installed it several months ago and have noticed a consistant 1 - 1.5 mpg increase. earth shattering not hardly. but it was an increase nevertheless. it was simply something that was fun to tinker with. when someone else reported they were only getting 16 mpg with their 3.9 dak thus the subject of this thread i simply reported my mpg with the qualifier that i had a tornado on my truck. if you think thats worthless fine. i believe otherwise. when i take all the evidence i have stated here then consider a bunch of people i do not know who as far as i know have not tried the device who tell me the thing cant work the only logical conclusion for me to make is that these people are wrong. they cannot tell me its not working in my truck. in my opinion to not have tried the product and to say it cannot work is extremely arrogant. no youre simply ignoring the advice of folks with better experience in general . . .not to mention a knowledge of bernoulllis principle. that is my position on this subject. im sure i havent changed anyones opinion - dont expect to. but i cannot change the results of my tests. i love my truck and am satisfied with the tornado. if some people here have a hard time with that thats too bad. now i will not waste any more time responding to the troll that started this mess by making the p.t. barnum crack on me then followed up with numerous f-bombs when responding to me. i will follow the discussion and do find this board very educational. thank you good night and drive safely. 1-2 mpg difference could be nothing more than a slight difference in weather especially if the humidity went up 5-10%. otoh taking a 14.5 mpg vehicle and getting a consistent 19.7 -21.2 mpg with an absolute best of 23.1 mpg on an engine with over 300000 miles on it might show that that person has a bit of knowledge and experience. ive experimented for over 20 years with various economy enhancing devices and ive learned that a you need the leanest possible mixture for a given rpm b you need all the spark advance the engine design can tolerate for that fuel grade c you do not want to block any airflow at all intake or exhaust. d if you have detonation use water injection to control it and ive been able to 41.52 mpg from a 1965 valiant with a 225 slant six and manual transmission. now sit on that and spin. budd .

From : budd cochran

nope. it was a device that installed under the carb with straight flat plates in a criss-cross araingement that was supposed to straighten the flow before it made the turns into the runners...but that was the problem to be effective they went 3/4 of the way to the manifold floor and blocked flow. it really needed to be four inches long with a carb spacer to mount it in. i knew i was too young. g please roy. ive got a hemorrhoid operation next week im not supposed to laugh too hard before then or theyll be stuffing my guts back in instead of my rectum. vbg nono. i was referring to a ram air set up. sorta like a air scoop or if you recall the set up i had on the impala ss and was trying to get to fit on the v10. anyway before the carb or injection. like the shaker hood or gto ram air. that type of set up. oh. you mean a cold air system not ram air. fwiw most including the hemi shaker didnt give any boost until you passed 150 or so and then only about 0.5 lbs/sq. in. ive forgotten which vehicle had the v-10 i thought you had a vette. budd .

From : budd cochran

hes comparing it to a box of rocks maybe bg budd actually turbulence is not good for a carbureted engine either. the surfaces in the aftermarket intake on my magnum are pretty smooth. a friend of mine that used to port heads said that the main caution while porting was not to remove too much material trying to make it smooth and wind up destroying the piece or screwing up the air flow worse than it already was. just curious what kind of aftermarket intake do you have denny .

From : budd cochran

on a carbureted vehicle it would destroy the economy by acting like a partially closed choke but were talking an engine with f.i. so the need for turbulence to maintain the mixture is advertising hype. well budd they claim that it reduces turbulance which btw is never a good thing. from the tornado website at www.tornadoair.com note this is not an endorsement what exactly is a tornado its an air twister with years of research and development behind it. a non-moving part tornado is designed to enhance fuel economy. how does it work the tornados unique airflow dynamics creates a swirling fast-burn effect in the combustion chamber. this creates finer particles atomized fuel allowing better flame propagation and more complete combustion. it creates what they call a vortex. stir a cup of coffee and youll see a simple vortex and where is the coffee that is normally in the middle its non-existant here because the fuel enters the airflow just above the valve head . . .too close to the cylinder to be affected by the tornado. its only in the port for a millisecond or less. any way that you look at it the airflow is what is carrying the fuel from the injector into the cylinder and because of that anything that changes that airflow will have some effect. answer this tom . . .if the fuel is in the flow for a distance of less than 2 and for a time period of less than a second just how much additional mixing do you really think is going to take place look at a wind tunnel the vanes in a wind tunnel straighten the airflow that is turbulent because of the fans bends etc. found in the system. do not compare a wind tunnel with an intake manifold. wind tunnels are a straight line and serve a specific purpose that requires the air to be moving flat and in a straight line. i used it to demonstrate what the vortex from the tornado cannot be. in a manifold air has mass hence the need for a mass air flow sensor and follows newtons second law of motion an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force so every twist and turn the intake runner makes would add turbulence to smooth airflow anyway. ok lets look at this. as im sure that you know air always has mass and btw not all systems use a mas dc uses a map instead. yep and its a manifold absolute pressure meter and measures the flow by the pressure past a nominal restriction. the tornado could really in theory at least screw one of these up. as for newtons second law of motion you are completely correct but what you are not taking into account are the angles involved. yes i am youre not. if the arc of the vortex motion is perpendicular to a manifold wall dont you think the wall would then be a external force acting upon its momentum try running into a wall head first for a demonstration. motion equates into two things speed and direction. agreed. when air comes tumbling into the manifold it is going in many different directions and speeds. this slows it down even when it is going straight and makes it even worse when it hits a bend. the principle behind the tornado is to get all of the air going in the same direction and going straight. this allows the air to get around the bends easier. look at the website tom. do you have a friend that smokes have them blow the smoke at a playing card one time at the edge and parallel to the smoke stream and once at the edge with the card angled. does it deflet it from a straight line or not the tornado is a buch of vanes at an agle to the flow entering the engine and can only disrupt the flow. if you give the flow too much spin the runners will reduce it by literally blocking some directions of flow. the rotational spin of the air will have little effect in slowing the air down because it is in a different plane with respect to the curves of the intake. you really had to stretch for that one friend. gyroscopic effect will prevent the air mass from changing its rotaional plane to squirm into the cylinders to cause the advertised spin in the combustion chamber. this is not allowig for the chamer design which in modern engines already generates tremendous swirl. only in cartoons and tornados advertising hype does a tornado like vortex go around corners. that is simply not true. then you need to watch more tasmanian devil cartoons. vbg just for compaison does anyone here remember the set of airvanes sold in the late 50s and early 60s that were supposed to reduce the vortices in manifolds and improve power / mileage / etc. roy red they were designed to do the exact opposite of the tornados and they didnt work either. i believe that they were intended to eliminate turbulence in the intake but the design of the intakes themselves did not lend themselves well to it. they then came up with velocity stacks that seemed to work better in many instances.

From : roy

nope. it was a device that installed under the carb with straight flat plates in a criss-cross araingement that was supposed to straighten the flow before it made the turns into the runners...but that was the problem to be effective they went 3/4 of the way to the manifold floor and blocked flow. it really needed to be four inches long with a carb spacer to mount it in. i knew i was too young. g please roy. ive got a hemorrhoid operation next week im not supposed to laugh too hard before then or theyll be stuffing my guts back in instead of my rectum. vbg nono. i was referring to a ram air set up. sorta like a air scoop or if you recall the set up i had on the impala ss and was trying to get to fit on the v10. anyway before the carb or injection. like the shaker hood or gto ram air. that type of set up. oh. you mean a cold air system not ram air. no i meant ram air. that was the name on the gto with the ram air option. iirc the cam was a little warmer to go with the option. anyway we are on the same page. fwiw most including the hemi shaker didnt give any boost until you passed 150 or so and then only about 0.5 lbs/sq. in. i wonder how fast you have to be going before the tornado does its magic. ive forgotten which vehicle had the v-10 i thought you had a vette. the v10 was in a 2k 2500 4x4 that after a ton of power steering problems was replaced by the current 2k 2500 4x4 with a cummins. just sold the z06 and replaced it with a tahoe z71. gm sure loves those initials. roy budd .

From : paul jensen

wrong!!! planes fly because the lowered air pressure over the wing due to bernoullis principle effectively sucks the wing up to try and fill the vacuum. and why is the pressure over the wing lower because it is flowing faster. i was not wrong. you get an f in reading comprehension. .

From : budd cochran

you said the faster air flows the lower the air pressure allowing more air to flow. this is why planes fly. and this part allowing more air to flow is wrong. it ignores bernoulli. nope i dont want to ride with you in a plane. budd -- budd cochran wrong!!! planes fly because the lowered air pressure over the wing due to bernoullis principle effectively sucks the wing up to try and fill the vacuum. and why is the pressure over the wing lower because it is flowing faster. i was not wrong. you get an f in reading comprehension. .

From : tbone

an edelbrock performer series. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving actually turbulence is not good for a carbureted engine either. the surfaces in the aftermarket intake on my magnum are pretty smooth. a friend of mine that used to port heads said that the main caution while porting was not to remove too much material trying to make it smooth and wind up destroying the piece or screwing up the air flow worse than it already was. just curious what kind of aftermarket intake do you have denny .

From : tbonetbone

on a carbureted vehicle it would destroy the economy by acting like a partially closed choke but were talking an engine with f.i. so the need for turbulence to maintain the mixture is advertising hype. well budd they claim that it reduces turbulance which btw is never a good thing. from the tornado website at www.tornadoair.com note this is not an endorsement i dont know budd it sorta looks like one to me. - what exactly is a tornado its an air twister with years of research and development behind it. a non-moving part tornado is designed to enhance fuel economy. how does it work the tornados unique airflow dynamics creates a swirling fast-burn effect in the combustion chamber. this creates finer particles atomized fuel allowing better flame propagation and more complete combustion. gee budd it sounds like you really have a handle on this now. perhaps they should add your name to the list of experts bg. it creates what they call a vortex. stir a cup of coffee and youll see a simple vortex and where is the coffee that is normally in the middle i know what a vortex is budd. now perhaps you should look up the definition of turbulence. you will see that they are not the same thing. its non-existant here because the fuel enters the airflow just above the valve head . . .too close to the cylinder to be affected by the tornado. its only in the port for a millisecond or less. any way that you look at it the airflow is what is carrying the fuel from the injector into the cylinder and because of that anything that changes that airflow will have some effect. answer this tom . . .if the fuel is in the flow for a distance of less than 2 and for a time period of less than a second just how much additional mixing do you really think is going to take place it would depend on how much more efficiently the air is flowing past the injectors. look at a wind tunnel the vanes in a wind tunnel straighten the airflow that is turbulent because of the fans bends etc. found in the system. do not compare a wind tunnel with an intake manifold. wind tunnels are a straight line and serve a specific purpose that requires the air to be moving flat and in a straight line. i used it to demonstrate what the vortex from the tornado cannot be. the air does not have to flow straight and flat for the purpose of an intake. in a manifold air has mass hence the need for a mass air flow sensor and follows newtons second law of motion an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force so every twist and turn the intake runner makes would add turbulence to smooth airflow anyway. ok lets look at this. as im sure that you know air always has mass and btw not all systems use a mas dc uses a map instead. yep and its a manifold absolute pressure meter and measures the flow by the pressure past a nominal restriction. the tornado could really in theory at least screw one of these up. actually this is incorrect. the map sensor measures the vacuum within the intake with a diaphragm like a vacuum advance and no air passes through it. since it is measuring manifold absolute pressure the swirling of the tornado should have no effect on it. as for newtons second law of motion you are completely correct but what you are not taking into account are the angles involved. yes i am youre not. if the arc of the vortex motion is perpendicular to a manifold wall dont you think the wall would then be a external force acting upon its momentum no because like i said before the rotational motion is on a different plane from the direction of the air flow. the air is not slamming into the sides of the intake runners but is traveling down them while rotating. try running into a wall head first for a demonstration. that would prove nothing and only possibly entertain you. when you throw a football you also put a spiral on it as well. the football still travels in one direction while rotating in another just like the air from the tornado. motion equates into two things speed and direction. agreed. when air comes tumbling into the manifold it is going in many different directions and speeds. this slows it down even when it is going straight and makes it even worse when it hits a bend. the principle behind the tornado is to get all of the air going in the same direction and going straight. this allows the air to get around the bends easier. look at the website tom. do you have a friend that smokes nope. i used to be the one who smoked until i wised up and quit. have them blow the smoke at a playing card one time at the edge and parallel to the smoke stream and once at the edge with the card angled. does it deflet it from a straight line or not the tornado manufacturers use smoke to demonstrate their product and the flow through it looks pretty s

From : budd cochran

from the tornado website at www.tornadoair.com note this is not an endorsement i dont know budd it sorta looks like one to me. - im not going to ask you what looks like a chocolate candy bar to you . . . .. what exactly is a tornado its an air twister with years of research and development behind it. a non-moving part tornado is designed to enhance fuel economy. how does it work the tornados unique airflow dynamics creates a swirling fast-burn effect in the combustion chamber. this creates finer particles atomized fuel allowing better flame propagation and more complete combustion. gee budd it sounds like you really have a handle on this now. perhaps they should add your name to the list of experts bg. they cant afford me. the national debt wouldnt be enough. im not cheap like you. it creates what they call a vortex. stir a cup of coffee and youll see a simple vortex and where is the coffee that is normally in the middle i know what a vortex is budd. now perhaps you should look up the definition of turbulence. you will see that they are not the same thing. now that youve got the coffee swirling around good tilt the cup. the vortex dies off quicker. the turns in the manifold do the same to the tornados vortex. answer this tom . . .if the fuel is in the flow for a distance of less than 2 and for a time period of less than a second just how much additional mixing do you really think is going to take place it would depend on how much more efficiently the air is flowing past the injectors. lol you really love to argue dont you ill bet this is another case where you wouldnt use the device on a bet but you just gotta pull someones chain. btw no measurable change in the mixture will take place. i used it to demonstrate what the vortex from the tornado cannot be. the air does not have to flow straight and flat for the purpose of an intake. lol the air does need to flow smoothly . yep and its a manifold absolute pressure meter and measures the flow by the pressure past a nominal restriction. the tornado could really in theory at least screw one of these up. actually this is incorrect. the map sensor measures the vacuum within the intake with a diaphragm like a vacuum advance and no air passes through it. since it is measuring manifold absolute pressure the swirling of the tornado should have no effect on it. if theres no restriction no venturi wheres the vacuum coming from and the air flow impinging hitting the diaphagm can affect the reading. do you need the third grade hand-out-the-window-at-thirty-miles-per-hour demonstration of impingment yes i am youre not. if the arc of the vortex motion is perpendicular to a manifold wall dont you think the wall would then be a external force acting upon its momentum no because like i said before the rotational motion is on a different plane from the direction of the air flow. the air is not slamming into the sides of the intake runners but is traveling down them while rotating. you dont understand gyroscopes or momentum either i see. try running into a wall head first for a demonstration. that would prove nothing and only possibly entertain you. when you throw a football you also put a spiral on it as well. the football still travels in one direction while rotating in another just like the air from the tornado. lets see the football dissapate into an atmosphere of football. apples and oranges tom. air isnt a solid that must retain a given shape. look at the website tom. do you have a friend that smokes nope. i used to be the one who smoked until i wised up and quit. same here going on my third year. have them blow the smoke at a playing card one time at the edge and parallel to the smoke stream and once at the edge with the card angled. does it deflet it from a straight line or not the tornado manufacturers use smoke to demonstrate their product and the flow through it looks pretty smooth to me. since the tornado does not use just one vane in its product your example is invalid. its valid but the tornado is claiming to spin the air which it does. im saying the spin doesnt help the engine because the angled vanes have air resistance due to what is know as angle of incidence. any angle of more than about 11-15 degrees and you get boundary separation and turbulence. even in the pictures the steep angle is obvious. the tornado is a bunch of vanes at an angle to the flow entering the engine and can only disrupt the flow. where do you come up with this stuff there are reasons for the angle of the vanes and the primary one is to maximize their ability to correct the airflow. that is why the straight vane type that you were talking about was ineffective. and you have a degree in aerodynamics or physics if you do then you need a refresher course. you love to ignore everything that

From : cbhvac

snipped arguement look..its simple.. its fluid dymanics. air is a fluid..like it or not. the tornado has what is called a static pressure when placed in the airstream. the tornado can not increase airflow....its simply impossible. it can however restrict and disrupt it. its like those little magnets that some like..if you use them and you like em...who really gives a damn...just dont try to convince those of us that know better and can and have explained why it cant work that it does. .

From : budd cochran

i have to agree. you have forgotten everything you ever knew about it if you ever knew anything about it to begin with. since theres no evidence you did . . . -- budd cochran sorry budd but i have forgotten more about this stuff than you will ever know. .

From : budd cochran

aw steve . . .i was trying to keep it in language he could understand. vbg -- budd cochran snipped arguement look..its simple.. its fluid dymanics. air is a fluid..like it or not. the tornado has what is called a static pressure when placed in the airstream. the tornado can not increase airflow....its simply impossible. it can however restrict and disrupt it. its like those little magnets that some like..if you use them and you like em...who really gives a damn...just dont try to convince those of us that know better and can and have explained why it cant work that it does. .

From : tbone

snipped arguement look..its simple.. its fluid dymanics. air is a fluid..like it or not. the tornado has what is called a static pressure when placed in the airstream. the tornado can not increase airflow....its simply impossible. it can however restrict and disrupt it. wrong. yes the tornado has a static pressure but for that matter so does the air filter. funny how you guys seem to think that one has no effect and then discount the advantages of better breathing filters. the point is that the manifold also has its own internal resistances and inefficiencies caused by turbulence and other airflow problems that can add up to a higher relative static pressure then the tornado has. if the tornado can eliminate enough turbulence to reduce these internal resistances and inefficiencies more than its own static pressure then it will increase the airflow and you have yet to prove otherwise. they do have the proof on their site that it can do it in some cases. its like those little magnets that some like..if you use them and you like em...who really gives a damn... you talk about these magnets a lot why is that just dont try to convince those of us that know better and can and have explained why it cant work that it does. lol. your explanations are not valid because they are incomplete. you choose to believe that it cannot work and refuse to look at the whole picture. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran

-- budd cochran they cant afford me. the national debt wouldnt be enough. im not cheap like you. or smart like me either. now thats the biggest lie youve told yet. it creates what they call a vortex. stir a cup of coffee and youll see a simple vortex and where is the coffee that is normally in the middle i know what a vortex is budd. now perhaps you should look up the definition of turbulence. you will see that they are not the same thing. now that youve got the coffee swirling around good tilt the cup. the vortex dies off quicker. the turns in the manifold do the same to the tornados vortex. since a liquid has far more density than a gas the reactions will be different and while the vortex dies quicker it does not instantly vanish so thanks for proving my point. still clutching at straws it doesnt prove your point but mine as the vortex stops in less than a second. i never claimed an instant vanishment but because as you state the difference in viscosities the air would stop quicker. answer this tom . . .if the fuel is in the flow for a distance of less than 2 and for a time period of less than a second just how much additional mixing do you really think is going to take place it would depend on how much more efficiently the air is flowing past the injectors. lol you really love to argue dont you ill bet this is another case where you wouldnt use the device on a bet but you just gotta pull someones chain. iow since you cannot argue this point you need to resort to spin and changing the subject. nope your comment is senseless idiotic and proves you have no knowledge of what your arguing. btw if the flow is more efficient there is less opportunity for mixing. got it btw no measurable change in the mixture will take place. and you can prove this how oh... thats right... you cant. funny how they have independent test results that show that it can and does. sorry budd but as far fetched as they appear i will take their independent tests over your unfounded opinions. i dont doubt that you do. the uneducated unexperienced and unwilling to think for themselves often fall for advertising hyperbole without question or reasoning. thats the difference between you and i tom. ive had an innate curiosity that has led me to educate myself in ares that i dont understand or have a question about. physics is one of those areas specifically aerodynamics which includes fuid dynamics. you on the other hand are one of millions of misled trusting souls that accept advertising claims as your gospel. i used it to demonstrate what the vortex from the tornado cannot be. the air does not have to flow straight and flat for the purpose of an intake. lol the air does need to flow smoothly . once again you resort to spin. the air can and does still flow smoothly while in the vortex. even their smoke tests demonstrates that. are the test done with bidirectional probes inside an off the shelf intake to plot the flow directions and pressures if not its a deliberate pun smoke screen. yep and its a manifold absolute pressure meter and measures the flow by the pressure past a nominal restriction. the tornado could really in theory at least screw one of these up. actually this is incorrect. the map sensor measures the vacuum within the intake with a diaphragm like a vacuum advance and no air passes through it. since it is measuring manifold absolute pressure the swirling of the tornado should have no effect on it. if theres no restriction no venturi wheres the vacuum coming from and the air flow impinging hitting the diaphagm can affect the reading. do you need the third grade hand-out-the-window-at-thirty-miles-per-hour demonstration of impingment lol getting desperate are we. once again not only can you not admit to error you cant even let it drop. it works just like any other vacuum servo it has a spring loaded flexible diaphragm forming an air tight seal across two sides of a chamber hence no air passes through it. a port not a restriction connects one side to the intake and the other is exposed to the outside atmosphere. outside atmosphere are we measuring the map or barometric pressure to see if we want to go fishing the back side of the diaphragm is connected to some type of variable resistor. such an incredibly intelligent answer . . .why didnt you just call it the thingamabob and save yourself the strain the vacuum port will be located in a part of the intake that is shielded from drafts and venturie effects that would give false readings. it is beginning to look like it is you who really doesnt know all that much. yeah right. . . only in your uneducated mind. yes i am youre not. if the arc of the vortex motion is perpendicular to a manifold wall dont you think the wall would then be a external force acting upon its m

From : budd cochran

or you couldas has been requested of you before tell us where you went to college and when so your claims could be verified. but thatll never happen because you cant tell us the truth. -- budd cochran bull. actually budd fact! if you did you wouldnt support the product i dont support the product as in buying one for myself but that doesnt mean that it doesnt work. they claim that it does have proof that it does with independent tests from carb which has no reason to lie on their web site. this guy also claims that it worked for him with a modest improvement and what looks like valid data of his own. you have come up with no other valid reason for the mileage gain that he claims happened as soon as he put the device on his truck so sorry budd but even in a court of law you lose. you wouldnt have argued scientific fact i didnt because you didnt supply any. i hope that you are not referring to your magical math that i still want to see where you came up with your 46000+ rpm rotational speed bs and then your gyroscopic forces on a gas comedy hour routine. and on top of that you are unable to comprehend the multi-plane football example of motion which alone shows that you really dont know as much as you think that you do. and i wouldnt have had to use third grade level examples to demonstrate it all for you. you use third grade examples because that is the best that you can do and like most third graders you dont really understand the concepts involved or take all of the relevant data into account. fortunately i know its a waste of time to try and teach you anything but you do work well as a flunky or idiot savant to use to explain the faults of the product. iow you know that you are starting to look foolish and are trying to save face with more petty insults. no i take that back i really dont think that you are bright enough to realize that and are just getting mad because your silly and invalid third grade arguments are so easily disproved. i guess that its just that you cant understand the science that backs that device up. but dont worry i will not let it degenerate into that petty name calling crap again and if you are not adult enough to carry on a reasonable debate then i will just get out of it. it is sad that you have once again turned into this level of a coward that you cannot admit to any error even the obvious ones. oh well i guess that with your past history i should have expected as much. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : budd cochran

btw if you are correct then why hasnt someone with racing experience or someone with known skills in physics stepped up to support your untenable position no the real reason youre bailing is because youve been caught with your lack of knowledge exposed again. youve had your third strike tom. goodbye. -- budd cochran bull. actually budd fact! if you did you wouldnt support the product i dont support the product as in buying one for myself but that doesnt mean that it doesnt work. they claim that it does have proof that it does with independent tests from carb which has no reason to lie on their web site. this guy also claims that it worked for him with a modest improvement and what looks like valid data of his own. you have come up with no other valid reason for the mileage gain that he claims happened as soon as he put the device on his truck so sorry budd but even in a court of law you lose. you wouldnt have argued scientific fact i didnt because you didnt supply any. i hope that you are not referring to your magical math that i still want to see where you came up with your 46000+ rpm rotational speed bs and then your gyroscopic forces on a gas comedy hour routine. and on top of that you are unable to comprehend the multi-plane football example of motion which alone shows that you really dont know as much as you think that you do. and i wouldnt have had to use third grade level examples to demonstrate it all for you. you use third grade examples because that is the best that you can do and like most third graders you dont really understand the concepts involved or take all of the relevant data into account. fortunately i know its a waste of time to try and teach you anything but you do work well as a flunky or idiot savant to use to explain the faults of the product. iow you know that you are starting to look foolish and are trying to save face with more petty insults. no i take that back i really dont think that you are bright enough to realize that and are just getting mad because your silly and invalid third grade arguments are so easily disproved. i guess that its just that you cant understand the science that backs that device up. but dont worry i will not let it degenerate into that petty name calling crap again and if you are not adult enough to carry on a reasonable debate then i will just get out of it. it is sad that you have once again turned into this level of a coward that you cannot admit to any error even the obvious ones. oh well i guess that with your past history i should have expected as much. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

sorry budd but i have forgotten more about this stuff than you will ever know. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving aw steve . . .i was trying to keep it in language he could understand. vbg -- budd cochran snipped arguement look..its simple.. its fluid dymanics. air is a fluid..like it or not. the tornado has what is called a static pressure when placed in the airstream. the tornado can not increase airflow....its simply impossible. it can however restrict and disrupt it. its like those little magnets that some like..if you use them and you like em...who really gives a damn...just dont try to convince those of us that know better and can and have explained why it cant work that it does. .

From : budd cochran

bull. if you did you wouldnt support the product you wouldnt have argued scientific fact and i wouldnt have had to use third grade level examples to demonstrate it all for you. fortunately i know its a waste of time to try and teach you anything but you do work well as a flunky or idiot savant to use to explain the faults of the product. thank you. -- budd cochran sorry budd but i have forgotten more about this stuff than you will ever know. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving aw steve . . .i was trying to keep it in language he could understand. vbg -- budd cochran snipped arguement look..its simple.. its fluid dymanics. air is a fluid..like it or not. the tornado has what is called a static pressure when placed in the airstream. the tornado can not increase airflow....its simply impossible. it can however restrict and disrupt it. its like those little magnets that some like..if you use them and you like em...who really gives a damn...just dont try to convince those of us that know better and can and have explained why it cant work that it does. .

From : tbonetbonetbone

they cant afford me. the national debt wouldnt be enough. im not cheap like you. or smart like me either. it creates what they call a vortex. stir a cup of coffee and youll see a simple vortex and where is the coffee that is normally in the middle i know what a vortex is budd. now perhaps you should look up the definition of turbulence. you will see that they are not the same thing. now that youve got the coffee swirling around good tilt the cup. the vortex dies off quicker. the turns in the manifold do the same to the tornados vortex. since a liquid has far more density than a gas the reactions will be different and while the vortex dies quicker it does not instantly vanish so thanks for proving my point. answer this tom . . .if the fuel is in the flow for a distance of less than 2 and for a time period of less than a second just how much additional mixing do you really think is going to take place it would depend on how much more efficiently the air is flowing past the injectors. lol you really love to argue dont you ill bet this is another case where you wouldnt use the device on a bet but you just gotta pull someones chain. iow since you cannot argue this point you need to resort to spin and changing the subject. btw no measurable change in the mixture will take place. and you can prove this how oh... thats right... you cant. funny how they have independent test results that show that it can and does. sorry budd but as far fetched as they appear i will take their independent tests over your unfounded opinions. i used it to demonstrate what the vortex from the tornado cannot be. the air does not have to flow straight and flat for the purpose of an intake. lol the air does need to flow smoothly . once again you resort to spin. the air can and does still flow smoothly while in the vortex. even their smoke tests demonstrates that. yep and its a manifold absolute pressure meter and measures the flow by the pressure past a nominal restriction. the tornado could really in theory at least screw one of these up. actually this is incorrect. the map sensor measures the vacuum within the intake with a diaphragm like a vacuum advance and no air passes through it. since it is measuring manifold absolute pressure the swirling of the tornado should have no effect on it. if theres no restriction no venturi wheres the vacuum coming from and the air flow impinging hitting the diaphagm can affect the reading. do you need the third grade hand-out-the-window-at-thirty-miles-per-hour demonstration of impingment lol getting desperate are we. once again not only can you not admit to error you cant even let it drop. it works just like any other vacuum servo it has a spring loaded flexible diaphragm forming an air tight seal across two sides of a chamber hence no air passes through it. a port not a restriction connects one side to the intake and the other is exposed to the outside atmosphere. the back side of the diaphragm is connected to some type of variable resistor. the vacuum port will be located in a part of the intake that is shielded from drafts and venturie effects that would give false readings. it is beginning to look like it is you who really doesnt know all that much. yes i am youre not. if the arc of the vortex motion is perpendicular to a manifold wall dont you think the wall would then be a external force acting upon its momentum no because like i said before the rotational motion is on a different plane from the direction of the air flow. the air is not slamming into the sides of the intake runners but is traveling down them while rotating. you dont understand gyroscopes or momentum either i see. gyroscopic forces and momentum have very different effects on gasses then they have on solids. perhaps you need to review this. try running into a wall head first for a demonstration. that would prove nothing and only possibly entertain you. when you throw a football you also put a spiral on it as well. the football still travels in one direction while rotating in another just like the air from the tornado. lets see the football dissapate into an atmosphere of football. apples and oranges tom. apples to oranges lol. sorry budd it is just that you dont seem to understand the concept. just like the football the air can also rotate while moving foward. air isnt a solid that must retain a given shape. agreed but while this has nothing to do with movement on multiple planes it completely discounts your gyroscope and momentum bs that both depend on mass and rigidity. look at the website tom. do you have a friend that smokes nope. i used to be the one who smoked until i wised up and quit. same here going on my third year. going on my 10th and gave up a 3 pack a day habit. have them blow the smoke at a

From : tbone

or you couldas has been requested of you before tell us where you went to college and when so your claims could be verified. why should i tell you are you interviewing me for a job your buddy max wont even say what his two degrees are in never mind where he went to school so why should i but thatll never happen because you cant tell us the truth. -- so now you feel the need to calling me a liar how typical. i guess that just shows how incredibly weak your argument is. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

btw if you are correct then why hasnt someone with racing experience or someone with known skills in physics stepped up to support your untenable position perhaps because anyone who has knowledge of this knows that i am correct and dont need any help. no the real reason youre bailing is because youve been caught with your lack of knowledge exposed again. you keep making this silly claim but when asked to back it up are never able to do so. btw when did i say that i was bailing. i see that once again you got it wrong imagine that. i said that if you intend to turn this into another name calling fest like you usually do when losing an argument i would stop responding to it rather than let it degenerate to that again. youve had your third strike tom. goodbye. iow you are going to run away like the coward that you are while trying to put the blame in me. well i guess that it is better than continuing to look like a complete idiot and demonstrating just how little you actually know. bye budd. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .