Is there any truth here or just junk science?

SavageUrge · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:58 pm

What are your opinions on these products?
The Air Razor
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/02-06-Je ... dZViewItem

or

The Velocity Tuner
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/SAVE-GAS ... dZViewItem

Dje Ryu · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:01 pm

If it were actually a powered fan, it might work but, as is, can only slow air down... junk.

jcphoto20 · **Joined:** Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:36 am **Posts:** 507

when i began my mileage improvements, i made a similar device.

then i performed a back to back road test, first with nothing in the intake tube and next with my vortex generator installed, steady cruise control on 65, down the same exact stretch of highway, 10 minutes later, same direction:

...according to the computer (yea i know) it showed a steady 18 before and a steady 25 after. both directions with each showed same figures.

real world test, actual data, no opinions involved.

ok, from someone that knows, does the computer base its data on fuel flow to mix with speed/distance or is it just throttle position?

the only thing ive heard is that its based mainly on throttle position. if this is the case, then based solely on my test, the engine requires less throttle to run at the same speed/load situation.

if its mainly based on fuel flow, then its still able to provide the same power to match the same speed/load with less fuel.

either way, its still hauling the same load down the road at the same speed more efficiently.

i would appreciate anyone else providing some actual test data they have seen, not downloaded, instead of just opinions.

spoonplugger1 · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:33 pm

Think about it, if something is spinning, it's distance to where it's doing you some good has been lengthened. Do you have anything in your education and natural observations to now that says that's a good thing? Sometimes you have to check to see if your BullPucky meter is turned off.

DaveKJ02 · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:37 pm

Here's a fact, dont hold in your farts. They travel up your spine and thats where $hitty ideas like installing one of those comes from.

Oh yeah... :wink:

tjkj2002 · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:38 pm

DaveKJ02 wrote:

Here's a fact, dont hold in your farts. They travel up your spine and thats where $hitty ideas like installing one of those comes from.

,sorry couldn't help myself,but that was darn funny!

jcphoto20 · **Joined:** Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:36 am **Posts:** 507

why would the distance matter?

the longer your intake runners are, the lower your maximum torque will be. this tends to be more fuel efficient. but this is mainly after the throttle.

so focusing on the intake tube before the throttle blades, one that is too small of a diameter will cause a restriction that will limit power. or if a tube is the right diameter, making the tube longer will increase surface friction, which may or may not lower the airflow enough to limit power.

either way, the liberty has neither a long tube nor a small diameter one. while im sure the twisting of the air increases the distance it has to travel, it doesnt seem that significant to me. of course this is just a W.A.G.

i do not have an education in fluid dynamics but i have ported a head or 3 in my time. i know that swirl is used here and there to mix the fuel and air.

this isnt the objective in this case, its to enhance the flow of air only, mainly at lower rpm, which it seems from my test, it does just that.

at the same time, im very sure once you reach the RPM that airflow is restricted by the vortex generator, you will lose power. maybe over 4500 or so in a Liberty. this may turn off some folks, but i rarely see over 2500 rpm in a whole day of driving in the mountains.

i could be totally wrong, but i only have my test results and subsequent more infrequent fuel stops to go by.

jcphoto20 · **Joined:** Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:36 am **Posts:** 507

[quote="DaveKJ02"]Here's a fact, dont hold in your farts. They travel up your spine and thats where $hitty ideas like installing one of those comes from.

Oh yeah... :wink:

[/quote]

another counterproductive case of guessing and bashing

tjkj2002 · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:34 pm

Quote:

the longer your intake runners are, the lower your maximum torque will be. this tends to be more fuel efficient. but this is mainly after the throttle.

Actually the longer the intake runners the more torque is produced,but only if the runners are the same length.The air molicules have more time to settle down and are less turbulent in long intake runners which in turn allows more denser air in the combustion chamber.Those "tornado" type devices actually stir up the air more thus getting less power.But the down side off long intake runners is it allows the incoming air to get much hotter then short runners,so the manufactures do a "inbetween" length to a balance of power and cooler intake charge temps.Now the intake runners on a forced induction engine(turbo,supercharger) doesn't matter as long as they are equeal length or the clinders will get different amounts of air.

jcphoto20 · **Joined:** Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:36 am **Posts:** 507

[quote="tjkj2002"][quote]the longer your intake runners are, the lower your maximum torque will be. this tends to be more fuel efficient. but this is mainly after the throttle.[/quote]Actually the longer the intake runners the more torque is produced,but only if the runners are the same length.The air molicules have more time to settle down and are less turbulent in long intake runners which in turn allows more denser air in the combustion chamber.Those "tornado" type devices actually stir up the air more thus getting less power.But the down side off long intake runners is it allows the incoming air to get much hotter then short runners,so the manufactures do a "inbetween" length to a balance of power and cooler intake charge temps.Now the intake runners on a forced induction engine(turbo,supercharger) doesn't matter as long as they are equeal length or the clinders will get different amounts of air.[/quote]

its the ramming effect of longer runners tuned to a certain frequency in time with the valves opening and closing that increases low rpm torque. look at one of those mid 60s chryslers with the 2 carburetors feeding the cylinders on the opposite side of the car.

i dont want to argue all your points but some of what you have said is accurate (longer runners may cause an increase in air temperature) , but the rest is either slightly in error or way off base.

unixxx · **Posted:** Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:59 pm

jcphoto20, stupid question.... Did you reset the gas mileage average before you performed each test? Highway driving will infinitely increase your average, yielding a higher result with each test, especially if you mostly drive in the city.....

jcphoto20 wrote:

...according to the computer (yea i know) it showed a steady 18 before and a steady 25 after. both directions with each showed same figures.

jcphoto20 · **Joined:** Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:36 am **Posts:** 507

[quote="unixxx"]jcphoto20, stupid question.... Did you reset the gas mileage average before you performed each test? Highway driving will infinitely increase your average and thus yield a higher result with each test....

[quote="jcphoto20"]
...according to the computer (yea i know) it showed a steady 18 before and a steady 25 after. both directions with each showed same figures.
[/quote][/quote]

those were not the average display, those were the instant mileage figures

Jeger · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:50 am

You already know this, but never trust the evic for MPG figures. Reset your trip meter each time and drive your regular drive 10 times and figure your MPG, then put the doohickey back in drive 10 times and see if it makes a difference either way. Or better yet, do it to someone that doesnt know, that way driving habits wont be changed...even subconsciously. I have read a few independent tests on these things, they never turned out good.

jcphoto20 · **Joined:** Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:36 am **Posts:** 507

could someone please explain why there was a difference at all, and especially since it was showing 7mpg difference?

with this certain throttle/load/speed setting, im only trying to compare steady state driving with this point.

so driving back and forth averaging would be irrelevant. i said they were both the instant figures, they were the same in both directions for installed and same in both directions for before installation.

18mpg without the vortex generator, and 25mpg with.

can anyone give me a logical/accurate reason?

i have been able to make more trips to town with the same amount of gas. so i know there is an actual improvement.

sleeve84028 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:10 am

I don't want to argue about long intake runner length, air atomization, intake charge & temperature or port velocities. But if any type of "electric supercharger" or turbo-tornado generator was really that effective at increasing the MPG figures in a vehicle the engineers that design & build those cars would be using them to meet C.A.F.E requirements. I've yet to see any car, truck or SUV produced with a similar device.

Gris · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:06 am

jcphoto20 wrote:

could someone please explain why there was a difference at all, and especially since it was showing 7mpg difference?

Wind? Where the external wind conditions the exact same on both trips? I know that when I feel a strong gust hit the jeep the instant, expecially head on, it drops the MPG downa good chunk.

Here's a general idea we should all follow. When one person says the exact opposite of what every person who has ever tested a product, including leading magazines following everything from import tuners to deisel super-trucks, we should all just nod our heads, and simply say:

"You are entitled to your opinion. Although the aforementioned product has time and again proved it's lack of improvment and in most cases, caused a LOSS of efficiency, once agian you have the rare experience of owner the one unique vehicle that defies the laws of physics."

Instead of arguing points over and over with the one single person that owns the unique vehicle mentioned above.

Kugellager · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:02 am

Snake Oil.....

John
];')

Wasatch15 · **Joined:** Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:52 am **Posts:** 242

Mythbusters already done a show on these type devices, along with acetone. Neither showed any improvement. Save your money and take your significant other out for dinner...you'll actually get some mileage out of that :wink:

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:34 pm

SavageUrge wrote:

What are your opinions on these products?
The Air Razor
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/02-06-Je ... dZViewItem

or

The Velocity Tuner
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/SAVE-GAS ... dZViewItem

Let us know your results if you decide to install one. The cost is minimal, so any increase in mileage or power would be worth it. :wink:

scoobybri · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:11 pm

Determining the viability of any device like this has too many factors to determine if it actually works in a particular application. They claim that it works for every engine which is horse hooha. If you know anything about engine tuning, there are sooooooooooooooooooo many variables involved that you never know how changing something like air flow is going to affect the performance. Most factory ECUs are will try to run at a set specification and if you do something like add airflow or open up the exhaust, the ECU will change all kinds of parameters to get the engine to run the way it did before the mod. That's why you see all of these rice racer kids that have carbon all over their bumpers. They open up the air intake and exhaust and then the ECU starts dumping fuel to compensate for the extra air and the engine runs dirty. The ONLY way to get engine mods to work properly is though a programmable ECU where you can adjust parameters and test (on a dyno or hooked up to a log reader.) That's what DC did when they designed the Libby and it's ECU. It is programmed to work a certain way under certain conditions. When you take one of the parameters out of spec the ECU will do some funky things to compensate...which can lead to worse emissions, power loss, etc.

Is there any truth here or just junk science?

Who is online