|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Sun July 15, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Works on most cars
|
|
Cons:
|
70$ price tag
|
|
I hate it when people diss this product, ive seen it on 2 cars, and it worked wonders for each, maybe because they are mercedes benz's. im not to SURE about the carburated versions of the tornado...
But for example, my parents 1997 mercedes C230 got on avg 28mpg at 70mph on a few 250 mile trips we took. one day we saw the commercial for the tornado, installed it when we could get it, and wallah, we did another 250 mile trip up and down at 70mph, and we tested 32mpg...
Take that all you haters out there who did tests on the tornado and found nothing improved.
ALso tested on a 2002 ML320 mercedes benz, it got on avg 18mpg on the highway at 70mph, we did the tornado as soon as we could and guess what! They take alot of 200-500 mile trips, and the car went from 18 to 21-22mpg on avg... EXPLAIN THAT!
Im sick of these people dissing the tornado and saying it doesnt work.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Wed September 26, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
did work!
|
|
Cons:
|
Flimsy feel, the price sucks.
|
|
I have a Dodge Dakota with a K&N FIPK 2, when I installed the K&N I found this in the truck already (used truck) I set it aside, I was getting only 12-13mpg with my k&n and decided to drop this back in after a year and a half, jumped to 16! not the best but much better, I also now break the tires loose whenever I want to... so it doesnt work? ha! maybe not the way some people install it, I put this right in front of the trottle body at the end of the FIPK tube, it originally was in the stock air box which went through 2 other tubes before reaching the trottle body, including through a resonator, so I'm sure those destroy the effect of this and ARE present on most cars.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Mon November 12, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? No |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Didnt do anything for my power or mileage...but then again i wasnt expecting anything.
If increasing mileage was as easy as adding a dollar worth of steel, all the manufactures would be all over it.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Mon January 7, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? No |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, easy to install
|
|
Cons:
|
Doesnt work
|
|
On my jeep liberty this did nothing but hurt the fuel economy. This product doesnt make sense on fuel injected vehicles because all it does is restrict airflow, the fuel isn't mixed on top on the engine liked a carb. My advice is to save your money to buy more gas.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Thu January 17, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
tber are none
|
|
Cons:
|
will not work no matter what vehicle you have
|
|
this product will not work positively on any car on the market. ive been in drag racing since i was about 19 and now i am 63 and this device restricts airflow which is essential to make more horsepower. even if this thing swirled the air in a vortex without restricting air it would still not make any power or milage gains becuase the computer that the car has is not mapped to have vortexed air. just the slightes bend in an air tube or a rough throttle body restricts alot of cfm of air and this thing is a huge blocker of air which in turn makes it harder for the engine to breath and messes with the mapping which causes mpg loss and no hp gains
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Sat March 8, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? No |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
makes your wallet lighter
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
Here is a few paragraphs of information that I read on EBay by a user with the handle tanked21 that I thought might be helpful in reviewing the tornado product.
First off, you normally want less turbulence in your intake, not more -- a turbulent air stream will have less throughput than a calm stream. Companies will claim that a perfect vortex will speed up the air, and while this is true, there is no way that this device will create a perfect vortex in the irregular shape of the intake manifold. As an example, polishing the intake to make the inner surfaces smoother (and reducing turbulence) will usually result in increased performance. And even if the vortex somehow managed to help, the Tornado is, on a lot of cars, installed far upstream of the engine near the air filter. The vortex of air has no chance of lasting long enough to make it into the combustion chamber.
Secondly, if a simple little device like this could unlock such potential, why wouldn't they be installed on all cars from the factory? Automakers would benefit greatly from increased MPG figures for their vehicles. Answer is, they would. This device simply doesn't work, and in some cases reduces efficiency and horsepower because it restricts the airflow.
Modern engines are efficient. They burn about 99% of the fuel present in the combustion process. This only leaves 1% potential to increase fuel atomization and efficiency. This is not to say the modern engine converts 99% of the energy in gasoline to mechanical motion - much is lost as heat and friction. But the energy in the gasoline is released.
Other products that claim to also create vortexes are just as flawed, such as many throttle body spacers. The vortexes these are said to create have the same issues as the Tornado mentioned above, although these have a side effect of increasing plenum volume with may or may not increase performance. In most cases there won't be much of an effect unless there have been modifications done to the engine.
Slightly different (but similar) products claim to create turbulence in the intake by pulsing air using a special one-way valve. Again, turbulence is bad, not good, and needless to say these products do not work. They can also be dangerous as they are often spliced into your brake vacuum booster line. Not something you want to lose vacuum on while driving.
I have personally tried one of these air pulsing valves, called the Ecotek. It made a loud sucking noise but that's about it. Actually, it made my car fail emissions by a huge margin. Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) quadrupled from about 94 to 400, CO increased, and HC's increased as well. The engine management computer doesn't know how to deal with an addon like this and cannot effectively control the engine with one.
If you want to save gas, don't waste your money. Keep your tires inflated, your air filter clean, and your engine running properly.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Fri July 4, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: $60.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Works best with older cars
|
|
Cons:
|
not everyone will see much of an improvment
|
|
IMHO the short answer is yes it works however with that said there are some caveats. Some manufactures of the newest cars are making the same type of technology an integral part of their engines, and thus in these cases little if any improvement will be realized. However for the majority of vehicles on the road that dont already employ high performance intake manifolds or employ metered air injection, a significant increase in efficiency can be realized. Basically the device works by providing a better mix of air and fuel. Here is a site that has some additional info about it and also some practical tips on saving gas: payingless4gas_com
It is always best to do your own research.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Wed August 6, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
enhances air intake
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
the person who stated:
"If increasing mileage was that easy, all the manufacturers would be all over it"
I dont think you understand that this device is someone ELSES patented design.. I doubt the manufactureres would really want to pay THAT PERSON.
He invented it to go on almost all older model
machines, as well as many newer..How can the manufacturers of the older model cars have used the "tornado" technology if they were yet to be invented for automobiles ?
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Wed October 1, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: $65.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Works dame good
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
Like they say it may not work on all vehicles. I put a mas air flow system on my 95 Ranger 4.0 and that wasn't enough so I thought what the heck so I put in this tornado right before the throttle body and man what a big differences it made. It gave me more power, you can test drive my truck without it and then with it and see for your self.
THIS THING WORKS......
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Fri October 17, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Not all vehicle designs are equal
|
|
Cons:
|
price
|
|
first off anyone asking why would a vehicle manufacturerwould not out it in all vehicles, simple truth even 1 dollar worth of metal multiplied by the amount of cars produced equals more overhead. second i am no expert by far in vehicles, niether is anyone posting here no matter what they claim or how old they are(you simply can't know everything). I have 8 years hands on experience in automotive repair and diagnosis, 3 years field in diesel service, 3 years auto diesel schooling UTI plus community(again i am still not an expert). in all my experience i have found some vehicles can run efficentley or not simply by how they are designed. personally i have purchased 1 tornado for a 1998 camry 4 cyl i had already put in double plat. plugs, K&N filter new oil filters etc normal maint. i commuted from shingle springs, California to Sacramento, California for 2 months straight M-F i had a measured average of 28.4 MPG, i then after installing the tornado driving anothr 2 months saw a measured average of 30.1 MPG. i also tried city only and noticed .1 MPG incresed so nothing in the city on this car. i installed one on my 1970 ford f100 2wd 2barrel 360cu, i went from 12 MPG avg to 16 again after a K&N. so basically i noticed small if no gains highway city not much of note but as i sadi not every car has the same air flow or design so all u can do is try it and if it does not work try to use the money back agreement with the company.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Sat October 3, 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
worked on 96 dakota.
|
|
Cons:
|
didnt work on 01 jeep.
|
|
Insalled on my 96 dodge dakota,incresed mileage about 2mpg on freeway,and eng felt stronger, also insalled in a 2001 jeep and i cant tell a diffence. both have k&n filters but the dakota gets its air via the grill. The jeep gets its air from under the hood. if i get new cars ill buy again.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Wed October 14, 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
increase in torque, increasing drivability
|
|
Cons:
|
perhaps deminished hp with regular driving, consequently less mpg
|
|
I've used several different types of these products, tornado fuel saver and vortech cyclone. Both have their pro's and cons. But I'll say a thing about the tornado.
Its a performance product, thats why people are satisfied with it- immediate torque increases. My understanding is it creates a pressure system between the device and the piston, consequently increasing compression, especially at wide open throttle. The MAF knows the pressure system because its taking in different amounts of air at different throttle positions, and it compensates with more or less fuel. I believe because the higher compression, the more fuel is used. But only minut amounts more fuel. For the performance gains, the decreased gas mileage, as small but real as it is, made the tornado piece worth while. I will use it in all my cars that dont have super or turbo chargers on them. What a luxery! Food for thought, I love em.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Sun December 20, 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, Performance, install and forget
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
For the price and the price of gas, what do you gave to lose. I own a 93 Ford 5.0, and removed factory air baffle on intake, installed K&N filter, and those special multi-prong spark plugs. Along with the tornado I saw quicker acceleration, smother idle and better power throughout the rpm. My 5.0 is all original with over 150K miles. I have gone through 3 transmissions but the motor is still great!
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Mon December 21, 2009
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: $29.99
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
improved gas mileage
|
|
Cons:
|
0
|
|
Let me first say, I am a very skeptical person and I think that everything is a scam, but at the recommendation of a friend installed this item on my 2007 toyota 4runner v8 4wd, my MPG went from 18.1 MPG to 21.2 MPG on a V8 4WD, I am so getting one for my BMW as well
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Fri February 12, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? No |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Piece of junk - what a waste.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Fri February 19, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
NONE
|
|
Cons:
|
Burn out spark plugs
|
|
Installed the Tornado on my 1999 Jeep Cherokee 4.0. I got lousy gas mileage and burned out my spark plugs. The product was returned to the dealer for a full refund.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Fri April 9, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? No |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
More power
|
|
Cons:
|
Gas mileage decreases.
|
|
I tried the Tornado on my Camry V6 2000, and the mpg decreased from 26 mpg to 21mpg. However, the car seem to produce more power at the wheels. I guess that the extra power must come from the extra gas and less oxigen mixture.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Sun May 1, 2011
|
Would you recommend the product? No |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
None
|
|
Cons:
|
Many -- first concept is early 1980's
|
|
Hey Guys -- for an independent study -- go to -- Consumer Reports. They report no fuel savings -- at best.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/tires-auto-parts/car-maintenance/gassaving-devices-904/overview/index.htm
For all of the claimants of increased mileage, hp and torque -- well that's great & I'm happy for you. But likely -- you're in no way, shape or form conducting a controlled study to reach scientific conclusions. In fact look up the ancient Westinghouse study -- and you'll likely get some incite into why you may believe that you are seeing improvements.
The modern "vortex-creating" and other "Tornado-like" devices likely came from -- an old GM problem, solution and patent. GM's patent-protection ran out about a decade ago.
Devices like Tornado that spin air are not new -- it is just the location of the device that is new. In the very early eighties -- Corvette developed a new hood profile and revised engine compartment with reduced height and inner clearance -- consequently the engineers had to develop a new "very low-rise intake" to lower the carburetor so to fit under the hood. No problem -- right!!?? Pretty sleek and sexy -- but did it run like a Corvette ?? The GM engineers had a performance disaster on their hands !! The engine was a dog -- little torque and no HP. Problem -- without a sufficient "drop" -- there was little intake velocity and no "packing effect" at high RPM. The drop from the carb to the base of the intake was about 3-4 inches -- while having to make very hard 90 degree turns in order to get to the runners. Result -- they couldn't get the mixture to stay atomized and suspended -- and they couldn't get sufficient flow to the ports.
So what was the solution ?? GM engineers invented bladed "vortex" inserts for under the carb -- built into the top of the intake manifold. Only function -- to spin the air fuel mixture -- since a spinning volume can turn corners more easily than a straight falling column of mixture. Well that's about it -- one "spinning" story created for a specific purpose -- and one that is well know to many OEM engineers. The Corvette bladed device was patented by GM -- but the patent ran out about 10 years ago. GM simply made their one bad situation -- better. Performance still being marginal -- during the next redesign cycle -- they corrected the original problem. Bandaid was gone.
For the gentleman who inferred that a "US Patent" would stop the automakers from desiring to leap-frog the competition with a "proven gas saving devise" -- either with or without licensing the device from the inventor -- is nieve. He must not have heard about the infamous "intermittent wiper" law suit. Regardless -- there are about 20 or so global automakers -- and if any one felt that the "Tornado" was worth while -- then one would have licensed or stole the idea already. (ie -- take China, Russia, etc -- do you think they care about US Patent Protection in their markets ? ) In order for an inventor to protect the worldwide market -- they need to file for patemt protection separately in different countries or regions -- globally. As soon as you go to market in any country -- and you haven't filed in all other countries or regions -- your device can be "knocked off". Normally -- it just won't be sold by another company legally -- where you hold patent protection. US law has no standing. So -- has anyone ever seen any OEM in the world -- with such a "gas saving device" in it ?? Consumer's Reports likely has the reason why.
So -- odds are -- save your hard earned money -- the data and logic are not with devices like these. But -- Nat Gas is on the way -- so "vote" and "invest" accordingly !! Keep jobs and our money in the old US of A !!
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Fri August 5, 2011
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very easy to use
|
|
Cons:
|
not everyone will be happy
|
|
I had a 2000 Ford Excursion 6.8. gas triton engine. I was getting 10 miles per gallon around town and 12.5 on the hwy. I then heard about the k and n filter and toronado. I installed both. I went to 12.5 around town and 17 mpg on the hwy. That was a great leap in increase. I can’t say the power was much different but I was only looking for increase in mpg’s. I have found that the around town driving in most cars is not where you should expect changes in mpg’s. It is on the hwy that you will notice the change. I also found that any turbo cars would not see any increase. The best results were with cars or trucks that got low mpg’s to begin with.
On a different note. I have seen a lot of negative reviews and when I first got my truck, I told the mechanics at Ford that I was using this and they told me that I was wasting my time. They also said that the K and N filter would ruin my MAP sensor. Boy were they wrong. In fact, I have shocked them completely when I told them what I was getting. They doubted me but were shocked after seeing the gauge in the truck showing my hwy mpg’s at 17.5. There was no way I could have fudged that. They knew it and could not believe me. I heard later that they started to use k and n filters in their performance cars. Funny how that happens. Now for all those that wrote “ if this really worked all manufacturers would be using it”. That is just wrong. Manufacturers could care less about what works better or not. They care about their product and only theirs. I also did research prior to getting this and found the govt putting a bad rap on it too. Good thing I did not listen to them.
If you are doing around town driving, don’t bother with it as you will not be impressed. If you do most of your driving on the hwy, you can’t go wrong trying this product. If it does not improve your mpg’s, you can return it. I would however recommend that you use both the Toronado and the K and N together. I did not find that the results were better just using one over the other.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Wed February 8, 2012
|
Would you recommend the product? No |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
None. It's a scam.
|
|
Cons:
|
Um. It's a scam.
|
|
You people who are saying this device works (or any other "fuel economy booster", for that matter) cannot be serious. Show some common sense and critical thinking.
These types of devices have all been exhaustively tested under highly controlled conditions and NONE of them work. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. YOU ARE WASTING YOUR MONEY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_saving_device
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Mon March 19, 2012
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: $60.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
I have a 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee with the 4.7L V8. Before I installed the Tornado Fuel Saver I was getting an average of 14.9 MPG both according to the computer and doing the math. After installing it I was only getting 14.8, so no really difference. I did get my MPG up to 15.4 by installing a K&N Air Filter. Next I will be upgrading to the K&N Cold Air Intake system to increase power, MPG, and give it a higher intake for water fording (I lost a 2002 Cherokee in water).
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Mon July 2, 2012
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Lots of power and fuel savings
|
|
Cons:
|
Not all cars can use it
|
|
I have used this product for more than 10 years on at least 5 different brands and car models and they all got me more power/torque. I got all my cars brand new and for at least 2 months, I drove each of them without the tornado and I got the the usual manufacturers' rating. But as soon as I installed the tornado on each of them, I got appreciably better mileage and torque. It has literally saved my life from accidents by accelerating out of possible collisions. I always manage to get ahead of the pack on a green light in city driving. Highway driving always feels exhilarating because of the confidence that increased power can get you out of a mess, even from a small 4-cylinder engine. I am not much about fuel saving, but 2-3 MPG increase is always a welcome benefit especially with the gas prices nowadays.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Mon July 9, 2012
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great response, added fuel mileage
|
|
Cons:
|
installation might be difficult with some cars
|
|
Installed on a SAAB 900S 2.3L non-turbo.
Many things can be done to improve gas mileage. If anyone is interested, read on.
First and foremost, I installed a non-restrictive air filter. K&N is the first product I installed where I first noticed improvement in performance and gas mileage (2-3mgp). This started me on a long and beneficial relationship in looking for other improvements. I've owned nothing but the turbo versions of the SAAB 900, 1984 thru 1987, so I understand something of the relationship between extra air and performance (the turbo, conceptually speaking). So when I heard about the tornado, it made some sense.
Hearing about it is one thing, but once it was installed, I had a completely different vehicle. I had maybe 2-3 mpg more in gas mileage but my 2.3L 4cyl engine had much more torque and horsepower and even SAAB mechanics would rave over how such an old car ran so good. Great response, great acceleration, simply fun to drive. You can't make this up.
Other notes, on smaller cars, even if not required, I have only used premium fuel, you also have to change your O2 sensors as recommended by the manufacturer. As it was something not previously considered.
One thing I hadn't approached, as my car reached 182,000 miles (yes you heard me) was O2 sensor importance. Once these were changed my mileage was up to 31-33 (5+ mpg )and I was beside myself over the results.
As to the naysayers and the people who say "the tornado does not work" and "the tornado restricts air flow" I have some other comments. Based on my knowledge and understanding, air in a vacuum cannot be restricted anymore with the tornado than without. If there is restriction, it's can only exist at the beginning of the chain, and that starts with the air filter.
Based on my results, once the K&N non-restrictive air filter was installed
I had a air flow system to work with. My statement that "you can't restrict air flow within a vacuum with the tornado" must have some truth to it based on the hp and mpg gains, otherwise the opposite result would have been produced. Having more air to work with the tornado does allow for more concentrated air flow, so I would recommend people to get a K&N or similar air filter first.
Also, think of the tornado as fins on a GPU, CPU or memory chips in computers. Without a doubt, just by coming in contact with air flow within a computer case or chassis, the fins create wisps of air that cool the metal and the air it comes in contact. Cooler, concentrated air, even if by a few degrees is also beneficial to the air intake system of car (for eg. intercoolers in turbo vehicles).
Albeit the tornado is a very limited conceptual cousin of a turbo engine, and based on the mfr science, I can't argue with the concept as I see the results.
Lastly:
First step is to get that non-restrictive air filter installed. Second, make sure you are losing no vacuum (check all your air hoses), Third, install the tornado as recommended, Fourth, make sure you are replacing your O2 sensors at mfr recommended intervals, fifth, use high octane fuel (benefits can only be seen after several tanks), sixth, change your spark plugs/wires.
Step by step you will see improvements, but don't knock this tornado. I did an experiment two months ago -as the tornado has been in my car since 160K mark- I took it out and I could not believe the difference. Boring, almost unimpressive acceleration, I hated it. The tornado will never be again removed from my vehicle. At 250K miles, I believe my SAAB 900S is at it's best performance state, and no matter who drives it, they all find it impressive and fun to drive.
I have a theory, that it's never the car but the owner that makes or breaks a vehicle. Don't knock the fads or trends that come along and say your car can be better than it is. The tornado works, the K&N Air filters work, its all about costs to the car manufacturers and you wish they would be keen to adopt anything if not everything to help save fuel. Do not forget the U.S.A's economy has been fueled by the oil industry, and no car can run without fuel for the most part. So car manufacturers have little interest in biting the hand that feeds them. Oil companies have the ability to develop fuel that gets better mileage and burns with little or no emissions but this would cut into profits. Until car manufacturers and oil companies dedicate their efforts to providing the best mileage possible you got to stay on top of things.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Fri October 12, 2012
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: $69.95
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
it works
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
As promised when i purchased the product for my 2003 F150 super crew it increased my mileage from 15mpg to 17mpg city to 21mpg highway.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Sat February 23, 2013
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
2009 ford edge from 22 highway to 25 at 73pmh cruising....1998 caddy deville 26+ mpg highway cruising at 70+...no need to lie about..may not work for all cars, but did for me.
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Tue April 23, 2013
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Installed this on my 3000gt back in 2006 and after a long drive from San Jose CA to centralia WA. I was getting 340mi to a half tank 19.8gal tank puts it a touch over 34mpg... Best I ever got before was 24. Idk if its just the intake design, how people drive or whatever but it worked wonders for me and is always a go to when talking to others! I never got any gains in town not sure why but commutes I saw huge gains. No noticeable hp
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
Review Date: Wed January 15, 2014
|
Would you recommend the product? No |
Price you paid (per item)?: None indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
I installed one in my S-10, did get better mileage but at 56,000 miles the catalytic converter burned out.
|
|
|
;)
;)
