My co-worker was telling me about this thing he saw on TV called the Cyclone. You put it between your air filter and your throttle body (either carb or fuel injector). It suppossedly caused the air to enter the engine in a spiral pattern giving you more power and better gas milage. I personally don’t trust it, it sounds like a rip-off. Any one out there know the straight dope on this? Anyone bought one and seen the results?
I’ve seen quite a few infomercials for it. It’s just a bit of metal with vanes to make the air spin as it enters the engine. There’s one at http://www.tornadofuelsaver.com/info/ and another at http://www.spiralmax.com/
My question is this: if this sort of device worked as well as they claim it did, wouldn’t every car already have it? If a dollar of sheet metal really improved horsepower or fuel efficiency, all the automakers would have been using it for a long time.
I have a hard time believing it. Interrupting the flow of air will only cause to slow it down. That, and the venturi effect of the vanes would, I doubt, be overcome by any positive benefit of cyclonic action of air into the manifold/cylinders. There are enough bends in manifolds to undo any circular flow in the air and by the time the air passes the valves, the flow would be completely disrupted. No, I can’t see any cyclones entering the cylinders. sorry. (Unless I misunderstand the product.)
I don’t think a car cares what direction the air is coming in…BTW, some cars already have the air
forced in don’t they?
Guess you folks have never heard of the “high swirl combustion engine.” Every now and then a car maker starts to tease us with talk of these engines. I have an Popular Mechanics magazine from September 1950 that talks about such an engine built by Texaco for experimental purposes. Some of the benefits of the engine are:[ul][li]30 % more MPG[/li][li]knockproof[/li][li]lower emissions[/li][/ul]
Why these engines have never been mass-produced (though I think that the Mopar hemi engines might offer some of the same benefits), I don’t know. Does the Cyclone work? I don’t know. I do know that various car magazines have tested them over the years and claim to have seen an improvement in fuel economy.
Guess you folks have never heard of the “high swirl combustion engine.” Every now and then a car maker starts to tease us with talk of these engines. I have an Popular Mechanics magazine from September 1950 that talks about such an engine built by Texaco for experimental purposes. Some of the benefits of the engine are:[ul][li]30 % more MPG[/li][li]knockproof[/li][li]lower emissions[/li][/ul]
Why these engines have never been mass-produced (though I think that the Mopar hemi engines might offer some of the same benefits), I don’t know. Does the Cyclone work? I don’t know. I do know that various car magazines have tested them over the years and claim to have seen an improvement in fuel economy.
Wow, sorry for the double post, board hiccup.
I’ve personally never heard of the high swirl engine, but I’d bet that the swirl takes place, right before the injectors (as opposed to at air filter). That would make a difference.
Auto manufacturers spend tons of money on research and development. There is a great incentive for them to use technology which results in improvements in engine power, fuel mileage, and emissions. The fact that they don’t use these things tells you all you need to know.
There are any number of existing and rumored devices that purport to increase power and/or mileage. I’m not aware of any that have verified their claims with results from a legitimate testing facility. It’s easy to make claims, and it’s usually easy to come up with persuasive demonstrations. What’s hard is coming up with what would generally regarded as proof–unless it works.
Yes, but even auto manufacturers can become victims of “NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome.” There have been numerous inventions which have sat on the shelf for years because people were either unable to see the potential for the invention, or because the cost of tooling up for the invention was insanely prohibitive. Let’s say, hypothetically, that someone comes up with a high efficiency automotive engine that is radically different in design, operation, and maintence than any currently in use. They’d have a hard time pitching it to the automotive folks. One reason for this is that the automakers would have to spend billions retooling assembly plants, training workers, and educating consumers about the new engines. Not to mention redesigning their current models (and future models) to use the new engines, plus all their current research on improving the engines they’ve been making up to that point would be totally worthless to them. We’re talking mega-bucks here, and companies are loathe to dump that kind of money into something unproven.
Buckminster Fuller designed a car back in the 1930s that would do in excess of 120 MPH and got over 30 MPG, far out pacing the cars of the day. Aside from a few prototypes the car was never built. Why? A group of investors were taking a test drive in the car one day when there was an accident involving the car and that of a car driven by the drunken son of a powerful politician. One of the investors was killed in the crash and the fact that the accident was caused by a drunk driver was covered up just long enough for interest in Bucky’s car to die out. (The cover-up was so that nothing would happen to the politician’s son, not to keep Bucky’s car off the market.) There was nothing remarkable about the engine in the car, in fact, it was a Ford V-8. What was remarkable about the car was its aerodynamic design, which gave it a drag co-efficient of something like .19 or less (still lower than cars today). To date, no one has pulled Bucky’s design out, updated it, and marketed it. Why? Because the industry doesn’t think that there’d be a demand for such a vehicle. Yet, how will they know if they don’t make an active effort to build it?
Given that the auto industry has long resisted improvements like seat belts, airbags, and emissions controls, I’d have to take this claim with a big grain of salt.
The auto industry IMO will only care about greater fuel efficiency when the public starts clamoring for that. Until we do, they’ll be content to sit tight and peddle 12mpg oversized SUVs to the public.
That, unfortunately, is all too true.
I’m not saying they do it out of the goodness of their hearts (if they have any). The incentives are from government mandates (emissions, gas mileage) and consumer demand (power, gas mileage). All the plastic body/interior panels and aluminum heads and transmissions cases that are used today cost more to manufacture than the steel and cast iron parts they replaced, but they weigh less and improve mileage, helping the manufacturers meet CAFE standards while still offering the popular SUVs you mention. If significant mileage improvements were available as cheaply and easily as using the devices the OP mentioned, the auto makers would be first in line to take advantage of them.
Rule #1 in evaluating the worth of any "new improved"gadget on the market.If it’s chief outlet is in a tv infomercial it won’t live up to it’s billing.
People have been trying to sell these "forced air"gadgets for as long as I can remember.If you’re looking for more air to fuel get a supercharger-at least they work.
Well, I do agree with you Lure. It’s amazing the CRAP they sell on TV. But sometimes (and I can’t stress the ‘sometimes’ enough here) something comes along that is sold solely on TV and is actually a legitimate product.
The intent of this device is not to force air down the manifold like a turbo/supercharger. It mearly puts the air into a cyclone/tornado just prior to the carb/fuel injector. What i’m asking here is: Does this actually do anything for fuel efficency or power. I personally can’t picture it being any bit helpful. As Spritle posted earlier, there’s just to many bends in the manifold and due to the shape of the intake valves I would think that it would be pointless to “turn” the air as it passed through.
When I started this thread, I was really hoping that someone had actually bought one and could give a personal opinion. Ah, you can’t always get what you want.
I’ve never seen this infomercial,but from your description sounds like a gadget somebody was selling years ago that sat under your carb.
Installation was simply unbolt carb,sit the gadget on the flange,then bolt the carb on it.Looked like a litle fan-and the claim sounded like your “swirling air in motion” gadget.
This one didn’t do anything (noticeable) for a friend who put it on.
I’m guessing this new one is SOS newer generation (we have EFI now).I’ll bet it sells for $19.95 plus s&h and they throw in a wrench or something.
Try $70 plus S&H!!!
I mean if it really can save you gas mileage, I’d be tempted to throw one in the LUV. After a few months, it would pay for itself. But I don’t know, I’m trying to keep everything stock on my truck, and I don’t feel like wasting $80 on a worthless piece of metal.
New Auto gimmicks come around about every 5 years. I remember one way back that said you
could drive your car on water. What a hoot.