Corvette Fever Magazine Article

[Mark W.]

In the March 07 issue, there is an article on increasing the fuel economy of a Corvette. One of the items they cover is the TornadoFuelSaver, which the author (Tom Benford) claims improved both power and gas mileage (from 15 to 18 mpg) on his 67 BB. I have seen this advertised for the past several years and blew it off as just another gimmick trying to take a suckers money, so I was very suprised to see Corvette Fever test it and then back up the claims. Has anyone ever used this and if so, did it work?

[Donald T.]

Re: Corvette Fever Magazine Article

If it really worked, don't you think the car manufacturers would be using it to meet CAFE standards? All of those gimmicks are only designed to line their pockets, and nothing more.

[Peter J.]

Re: Corvette Fever Magazine Article

It was tested on Mythbusters on the Discovery channel and the thought was it was a gimmick to take a sucker's money. Sam on Two Guys Garage has been pushing this gizmo for sometime. It is one of his TV show's sponsers. Money talks.

[Myron Sleeva]

Current production is best to date ?????

So, is it logical to think that you believe the auto manufacturers are producing cars that are optimized?

[Joe L.]

Re: Current production is best to date ?????

Myron-----

No, they're not necessarily optimized. However, I can guarantee you this: if ANY auto manufacturer could increase the mileage of their cars by 15% just for the cost of one of these devices, the company that makes the device wouldn't be able to make them fast enough.

One of the biggest profit-makers for any of the US car manufacturers are the SUV-type vehicles. Gas prices have absolutely KILLED the sales of these vehicles. So, if the car makers could simply add a device that improved the fuel economy by 15%, they could probably get back to selling a LOT more of them than they can now.

These devices, every single one of them, are pure, unadulterated "snake oil". Period.

[Michael M.]

Joe, I agree and Corvette Fever has been...

diminished in my eyes. I read the article right after I received the magazine at my home. I was surprised they gave the "Tornado" a thumbs up but once I saw it mentioned on this Board, it started to bother me more (not sure why). Are they recommending a suspension part because it is really good or because they were paid to plug it. What about restoration parts that we all rely on to improve the condition of our vehicles, many individuals (me included) use these types of magazines to alert us to new products or new techniques to repair our vehicles, etc. and we (at least me) are expecting some level of objectivity. To so obviously plug a gimmick such as this makes me question any technical article they may write now or in the future. Anyway, we should all be thankful for the advice and opinion we receive from the TDB.

-Mike

[Chris H.]

Re: Joe, I agree and Corvette Fever has been...

I have not read the article but it may have been sucessful in the Corvette Fever testing. However the test may have been flawed in some way and results skewed.

Was the test done on a dyno? This would be the best way to prove the concept. Most likely though it was tested in a vehicle under uncontrolled driving conditions. (ambient, road, driver, etc.)

[Mark K.]

Popular Mechanic's debunking

Read the attached document. Consider that an engine is nothing more than an air pump. Restrict the opening and you will restrict the power. This is precisely what Popular Mechanics found with this devise. As for fuel economy, by placing this device near the air filter you are too far away from the injection nozzles to impact their flow characteristics. Fluid engineers will tell you that the best way to increase turbulence is to increase the "Reynolds number" of the fluid above a certain level (restricting the fluid through a venturi or by increasing the pressure are two ways to accomplish this). Above that level you have turbulent flow. Below that number you have laminar flow. This devise will not affect the flow characteristics near the port and that is why there is no fuel gain.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html

[Myron Sleeva]

Re: Joe, I agree and Corvette Fever has been...

Not to diminish anyone or any source, exactly how DOES one determine what is better? Can the big 3 be trusted to look out for our best interests or would adding a Tornado add $35 to the cost of a vehicle and further increase the curent $4000 loss per vehicle attributed to GM? Always, you have to factor in the discipline chauvinism - we work for the biggest so we must be the best. Don't discount the fact that some of the best innovations have come from "shade tree" community. Then there is the methodology of testing - a dyno does not live in the real world either. Far be it for me to rush out and buy a Tornado but then again........ I'm confused!

[Dale S.]

Re: Joe, I agree and Corvette Fever has been...

Listen to Joe. My friend bought one a year ago and put it on his 2004 Dodge 318 pickup. It did absoluely nothing either way. He said at first he was driving easier because he had invested in it and wanted it to work. When he started pulling his travel trailer long distances and where he was keeping records it made no difference. Dale

[Chris H.]

Re: Joe, I agree and Corvette Fever has been...

Myron, you were joking, right?

[Edward M.]

Re: Corvette Fever Magazine Article

Follow the money! Find out how much money was paid to Corvette Fever (or any other magazine owned by the same company) from the makers of this thing. Magazines endorse products all of the time, and a lot of the time the "endorsement" takes the form of a technical article.

[Donald B.]

Re: Corvette Fever Magazine Article

As much as some of you hate Consumer Reports - they are not perfect - at least they don't take advertising $$$. Let's face it, these "rags" are in the business to make money and pay people's salaries. Money talks !

[Geoff C.]

How not to NOT restore your Corvette

[Patrick H.]