Exactly. Also, think about it. The auto companies spend millions if not billions of dollars trying to improve fuel economy. Don't you think they'd be running these parts that cost like $10 to put in if they could get even .5 mpg better per car?
Dan

 

Once again...

 

you still got that hooker catback unit

 

I don't think there is any better way of looking at it than that. Good point in the extreem. And $10 bucks is a little rich for that thing.... I'd guestimate it cost the manufacturer $10 per 100 units. My friend got one, and when it came we thought it was a joke. No improvement on his Jeep BTW.

 

thanks for the replys i wasnt planning on buying one at all i was just curious if anyone had one cause i see the commercial for it all the time and was just curious, obviously noone has one. thanks for all the info though

 

although you have the right idea you are wronge.....

cutout cost 30 bucks take a guess if it improves your gas milage
there are alot of things holding back car companys from putting out the most fuel conservative and powerful cars.... most have to do with emmissions... there are cheap tricks that work....

descreen maf , cutout, port tb ... ect ect ect....hell desilencer your stock lid...

that being said......
your engine is an air pump.... more air in more air out the more eficiant it goes.....
if it is a restriction it hurts you...
use common sence... look at it... if it makes no sence then guess what...

 

steve2001sh said what I was trying to say, but a lot clearer. Thanks. Would I buy I tornado for my truck? Nope. I've never looked inside a set of intake runners, but I was wondering if they have any kind of helical boring to make the mixture swirl as it's going to the heads. Anyone know?

 

i agree that more turbulent air would mix fuel and air better together. So as someone has already stated, on a carburated engine would be the only chance in hell it would work. On a fuel injected engine its just a joke IMO.

 

[QUOTE=jaberwaki]
descreen maf , cutout, port tb ... ect ect ect....hell desilencer your stock lid...
[QUOTE]

The cutout would help, but none of that stuff on the intake side of the engine will help gas mileage. The biggest restriction in the intake at part throttle is the throttle plate, that's its job. So here's an easy way to get rid of the restriction: open the throttle all the way. Oh ****, you didn't make anything more efficient, you're just speeding up.

 

I bought one... to dice fruits and vegetables with!!

 

[QUOTE=P Mack][QUOTE=jaberwaki]
descreen maf , cutout, port tb ... ect ect ect....hell desilencer your stock lid...
you wanna test that theory?

 

erm, bringing this thread back to life.... but from what i have been told.... there actually was a 100 mpg carb...... and it was purchased by the government or a car company or somthing.... and plans were burned....... 100 mpg carb is true from several stories i ahve been told.... lol but, you cant really believe everything.....

engines that run on water.... well from what i have seen they have them in cali.... certain places, ihave hydrogen fueling stations..... or i could just be wrong... lol

Dan

 

no, they did have those carbs, and the gov supposedly used them on their jeeps and tanks in ww2. the plans were bought by ford after that, and they promised to have an 80 mpg car by the 80's. then the price of gas dropped, so did the plans for the carb!

 

Hydrogen isn't water.

 

ah, but they take the h out of the h2o :-D hydrogen is in water.... ;-)

 

And have you looked to see how much energy is required to get the hydrogen out of water? Just another reason (besides the Hindenberg) that hydrogen as a fuel isn't a good idea.

 

http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp

http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm

http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm

 

Holy Thread Reserection Batman!!!!!!!