Fuel line magnets?

cptyerman

New member
I have a 2005 4Runner with the 4.7L V8 engine. I'm trying to get a little better gas milage. I purchased a tornado air intake device. Haven't installed it yet.

I am curious if anyone has any information on these fuel line magnets. Has anyone used one and do they work?

I've found one with 90 day moneyback guarantee. Costs almost $40 with shipping.:confused:
 
Register to hide this ad
I can't help you with the fuel line magnets. However, you may want to do a search for a Consumer Reports test of the tornado intake device before you install it. I remember reading a CR test of these fuel saving devices, and they didn't work. In fact, in some cases, they may have even experienced decreased gas mileage.:(
 
I wanted to say this before anyone else :D You didn't buy a V8 4Runner for gas mileage purposes. If gas mileage was your biggest concern you would have bought a yaris..... Anyway The best way to get better gas mileage is to let the engine breath better (i.e. cold air intake and bigger exhaust which are probably only going to yield minimum results in which case you would have saved more money on not buying them and just driving slower and making sure your tires are inflated properly.
 
In a fuel injected engine the fuel is injected just before the intake valve, so there's no reason to spin the incoming air with a Tornado. As previously stated, it can actually decrease mileage due to the increased turbulence and drag it creates in the intake manifold.

It's nothing more than snake oil, and to add insult to injury, probably doesn't cost more than a buck or so to manufacture. If you can return it I would do it immediately.
 
Send it back , its crap !!

You have a V8 , get used to it ! The cold air intake and exhaust will get you no better milage either , or a very , very little at best and will never make up the cost of the intake & the exhaust + installation if you can't do it yourself.

Best advice for optimum milage , keep engine in good tune , run good gas , keep recommended tire pressure , and put a road tire on instead of an all terrain when tires need replacing.

Some might have a thought on running synthetic oil , I dont know anythiong about that so they can chime in.

Sorry to burst your bubble on the toys.....
 
Hmmm, I always wondered about those things, now I know... waste of time and money is the cliff notes version.
 
Hey guys thanks for the input, but I'm always looking for ways to save fuel in good times and in bad. It's good for everyone to do so.

Some of you backed your advice up and I appreciate it. Others took my question as an opportunity to "stroke themselves" rather than answer it with statistical data. If you don't know, just say I don't know or don't answer it in the first place.

I joined this site to seek information and have devoted some time to looking into these items - some people have gotten good results or they may be deceptive, I can't tell.

But, If I don't see the statistics, I can't tell if your lyeing either.

If both these items put together only save 1/2 mile per gallon, over the life of this truck ( at least 10 years ) how much have I saved compared to cost?

I don't understand all this animosity from a simple question.:mad:
 
I think that Toyota has all the engineering prowess and incentive they need to maximize fuel economy. I doubt that there would be something capable of improving fuel economy without compromising performance or a huge price tag.

Only way to improve fuel economy would be proper tires and inflation, well tuned and subdued driving habits.

I've got the V8 and Nitto TerraGrapplers so I can't really worry about it. Can't think of any other vehicle I'd be as happy with despite the gas mileage.
 
Since you have already purchased the Tornado, why not do a long term test for the board? Start tracking fuel consumption over the next couple weeks and then add the Tornado and see if there is a REAL difference.
 
Yeah,

I plan on doing so, I purchased the item on an insured credit card with a 60 day gaurantee.

I'll be glad to post the results for others; worst case scenario - it costs me some added fuel burn over 3-4 tanks of gas to find out.
 
Dude, trust us, don't install that tornado thing, it is a TOTAL waste of money. Although it uses the same concept as a throttle body spacer (TBS), it is way too much of an impedance to incoming air. There have been plenty of tests done to see if these type of gimicks work, and they have all given the same results, the same or worse fuel consumption.

Direct quote from CNN.com story (via Popular Mechanics study):

"In the test, the Tornado reduced a Lincoln Navigator's fuel mileage by just under a mile per gallon, from 18.4 mpg without the device to 17.5 mpg with it installed."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/08/07/gas.saving.investigation/index.html


As for the TBS, I have seen good results, but unfortuneately no one makes one for the '05-'06 V8.

If you want better gas mileage, the best way is to make sure your tires are inflated at or above factory specs, and drive like a grandma, that's pretty much it.

Other more involved ideas include running a synthetic oil like Royal Purple and changing the dif fluids to a synthetic brand.

As for an air intake and exhaust, I believe that these performance mods help fuel economy because they enhance the engine's ability to move air, which is essentially the primary function of an engine. Although I haven't done any scientific studies of my own, I can tell you that my fuel economy has improved at least 1-2 mpg with the intake/exhaust install. I average about 16-17 mpg and I drive the truck HARD.

Seriously though, send the Tornado back, you'll thank us later.
 
Last edited:
OUTRNNR said:
As for an air intake and exhaust, I believe that these performance mods help fuel economy because they enhance the engine's ability to move air, which is essentially the primary function of an engine.

I was once told that there are two reasons intake and exhaust help fuel economy are the fact 1) Yes the engine breathes better and therefore it makes it more efficient, and with better efficiency you get more horsepower, with more horsepower the engine doesn't have to work as hard to make 4500 lbs move one foot as it did without the added horsepower. A less harder working engine doesn't consume as much fuel.
 
NoLimitSoldier said:
I was once told that there are two reasons intake and exhaust help fuel economy are the fact 1) Yes the engine breathes better and therefore it makes it more efficient, and with better efficiency you get more horsepower, with more horsepower the engine doesn't have to work as hard to make 4500 lbs move one foot as it did without the added horsepower. A less harder working engine doesn't consume as much fuel.
That is partially correct. Power is power no matter how hard an engine works. If an engine making 200 hp is using all 200 hp to move a vehicle it expends the same amount of energy (fuel) as a 400 hp engine moving the same vehicle the same distance in the same amount of time.

The reason the engine becomes more efficient is acutally because it doesn't waste energy by pulling/pushing air through systems that have more impedances than an optimized system (aftermarket). For example, the stock intake system in the 4Runner pulls air from the passenger front fender. From there it makes a bunch of 90 degree turns until it enters the intake manifold. this is fairly inefficient because the alot of the momentum of the moving air is lost in friction with the pipes and bends, hence requiring more energy to move it. In an aftermarket intake, such as the Volant, the path to the intake manifold is much more direct, there are more places to pull air from, the filter is less restrictive, and the pipes are usually smoother with smooth bends to reduce pipe friction. This all adds up to the engine requiring less vaccum to pull the same amount of air. Less vaccum means less negative force on the crankshaft and more power. Think of it this way: if you have a syrenge with a small needle diameter its going to be harder to pull on the plunger than an identical syrenge with a large needle diameter. Although this approach is a bit exaggerated by differing needle sizes the fundamental concept is the same. The differential pressure between the back of the plunger (sealed crankcase of the engine) and the front of the plunger (combution chamber) differs less with less vacuum (more efficient intake system). This smaller differential leads to less forces on the piston by the greater crankcase pressure (during the intake stroke) pushing on the back of the piston. More power.
 
Last edited:
Mythbusters did an episode on fuel saving devices. I know its not the most technical of shows, but from memory nothing they tried made any significant inprovement at all. They did the tornado thing, the magnets, fuel additives etc...
I did know someone who installed 2 Hiclone devices (like the tornado thing) in a 100 series turbo diesel landcruiser and he claimed a performance improvement, but not a fuel saving.
 
Don't know anything about those cyclone deals, but someone did point out that it could make things worse by introducing turbulence. Fluids (liquids and gases) have laminar and turbulent flow depending on several factors. Fluid velocity is in the numerator, so higher fluid velocity could push the Reynolds number into the turbulent flow range. Cross sectional area is also important, and a smaller area increases the Reynolds number. Fluid viscosity is also important, but the other two factors would seem to have more of an effect. Gases have low viscosity, whereas liquids are obviously higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

As far as a magnet, I can't imagine how a weak magnet could affect a non-polar, non-magnetic substance like gasoline. I think the makers claim it "aligns" the molecules or something, maybe even claims it "ionizes" the gas. I'm a physician and we use MRI a lot. Now that's a very powerful magnet (probably thousands or millions of times stronger than the magnet in these fuel saving things), and the magnet definitely affects water by affecting the hydrogen proton. A weak radio signal is given off when the protons "relax" and the computer converts this to a picture. But we're talkin' a very strong magnet.

Anybody who's had an MRI will tell you they're not fast. Even for a knee or shoulder, it probably takes about 45 minutes of laying very still in that strong magnetic field. I can't imagine a little bitty magnet doing anything to gasoline as it flows by for a few seconds. I saw one claim that said it "changed the molecular structure" of gasoline with a magnet. Gas is a mixture of hydrocarbons, but if you change the molecular structure of something, say H20, then it's not H20 anymore. You can have the same chemical formula, but different structures. That's an isomer. But gas is formulated to contain a certain mixture of hydrocarbons, so if the structure changed to an isomer, the mixture is different and wouldn't perform as gasoline. It would still burn, because it's a flammable hydrocarbon, but it might be akin to trying to run a gasoline engine on diesel fuel. So they're saying, "it's not gas anymore" because its structure changed? Doesn't even make sense.

I'd say bunk on both.

Aftermarket intakes help with power because, if it's a cold air intake, it's taking cooler, denser air. And air is the limiting factor. A gallon of gas takes many, many cubic feet of air to combust completely, so air is the limiting factor. If you can make the path bigger, straighter, smoother and with less resistance, you're helping get more air to the engine. Cool gases are more dense, so for the same volume (a cubic foot of "hot" air versus a cubic foot of "cool" air, the cooler air is denser (more of it in the same volume) and there's more oxygen. Air is only 21% oxygen and not very dense, so you've got to move a lot of it for the same amount of gas. Superchargers and turbochargers compress the mixture for even more bang. Ever wonder why top fuel dragsters and funny cars burn nitromethane? Those engines gulp huge amounts of air, but it's still the limiting factor. So what to do? Use nitromethane, which has its own O's built right in. Doesn't take as much air (although still a crap-load), but now air is less of a limiting factor and you can burn several times the amount of nitormethane compared to gasoline. Here's a better explanation off the 'net:


Nitromethane is used as a fuel in racing, particularly drag racing, to provide more power.[2] In this context, it is commonly referred to as "nitro" or just "fuel".

The oxygen content of nitromethane enables it to burn with much less atmospheric oxygen in comparison to hydrocarbons such as gasoline:

4CH3NO2 + 3O2 → 4CO2 + 6H2O + 2N2

14.6 kg of air are required to burn one kg of gasoline, but only 1.7 kg of air for one kg of nitromethane. Since an engine
 
Last edited:
cptyerman said:
Hey guys thanks for the input, but I'm always looking for ways to save fuel in good times and in bad. It's good for everyone to do so.

Some of you backed your advice up and I appreciate it. Others took my question as an opportunity to "stroke themselves" rather than answer it with statistical data. If you don't know, just say I don't know or don't answer it in the first place.

I joined this site to seek information and have devoted some time to looking into these items - some people have gotten good results or they may be deceptive, I can't tell.

But, If I don't see the statistics, I can't tell if your lyeing either.

Here's some data I was able to pull in a quick Google search that will back up what most of the folks here are saying. I'm sure there's more, but this is a start.

http://autorepair.about.com/cs/productreviews/fr/aafpr052002.htm
http://www.salemboysauto.com/tornado.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html?page=2

If you do install the device be sure to report real before and after mileage numbers based on mileage and gallons of gas used to fill the tank, not those from the POS trip computer in the 4R.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
278,309
Messages
3,554,071
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top