I'm considering installing the much advertised Vortex (or Tornado) device in my 95 corvette. It claims that the secret to its performance is the vortex (funnel) motion of air that increases horsepower and especially gas mileage. Is this device worth investing in?

 

No. If something that cheap and simple could have improved the car's performance Gm would have added it at the factory.

 

You definitely want to stay away from that thing. As far as I'm concerned putting anything in your intake is just going to restrict the amount of air that can come in, no matter what direction if spins the air. You will be better off just getting a nice aftermarket intake system. I have the Blackwing on my car and don't have any complaints...although I think Lee said he didn't have great results with it on his set-up (correct me if I'm wrong Lee).

 

The Blackwing adds maybe 3-4 HP, not a lot but then, every bit helps. The Vortex or the Tornado does nothing but interfere with air flow, probably costing you HP.

The Vortex Tornado has been around for years and years. It operates on the theory that it spins the air to add turbulence in the airstream through the intake manifold, this increasing the thorough mixture of the air-fuel mixture and thus adding a tiny bit to power.

It actually works on some carburated engines with poorly designed intake manifolds, particularly at part throttle where airflow is slow, adding torque and fuel economy.

The problem with putting this on a 'vette is that there IS no air-fuel mixture in the intake manifold: the fuel is added in the ports by the fuel injectors, so the Vortex is only going to interfere with the carefully engineering flow of air alone through the manifold.

 

do you guys have any data to back up your claims, cause I tried It and it showed about a 2hp increase.

 

The Tornado? 2 HP? You can't measure a difference that small -- less than 1% of a C4's output -- on any chassis dyno with any dependability at all. Typically you get a 1-2% difference from one valid dyno run to another: about 3-5 HP on a C4, particularly if you do the tests a day or a week apart.**

If you are talking about a BLackwing adding only 2 HP, on a C4 I might believe only that: it adds only about 3-4 HP on a C5 so, proportionally, it would add less on a C4 and indidivual car variations could account for the rest. But again, that little is hard to measure.

And I don't have to back up any claim. Based on 40 years of experience, a lot of engineering knowledge, and having seen things just like the Tornado (maybe exactly it, I don't remember the ) I don't believe they work and would not have one on my car. But I doubt it hurts very much. The important thing: You're the one that has to live with it and like it, and if you do, fine.
------------------
**For those who care, here is why. First, there are just differences in any days' testing situations, supposedly you can adjust for air pressure, temp, humidity differences with the SAE adjustment formulae, but those are only approximate, within maybe .5% -- that is 1.5 HP right there on a late model C4, 1.o on an earlier model.
Then, just the tighteness of the harness holding the rear axle down on the rollers, and the exact place on the rollers can make a couple of HP difference: we did a test of a stock, completely heat soaked C5 one day between tight and really tight straps and it took off 3 HP. Not that you would do this, but its a matter of a bit of luck EXACTLy how tight the car is strapped down one week versus another and how it is positionin on the rollers (pointing even a degree or several off straight on is not detectable to the eye but takes another .5 or so HP).
Heat soak? . . .refers to the fact that as the engine heats up from repeated high output runs, it gets a bit less efficient(any engine does as it gets hotter): on my Porsche, stock, the first run was 265, that right after - as quick as we could reset the dyno log, was 263, the next 261, the next lower, etc. all the way after nine runs to a lowest of 256, which was as low as it got (completely heat soaked).

Here is how a lot of people get fooled into thinking something worked> They drive to the dyno place, put the car on the dyno a few minutes later and test the car, getting say, 225 HP. But the car was hot, partially heat soaked, it had been driven prior to the test. Leaving it on the dyno, they open the hood (starting to really cool the engine) and work on the car for say, 10 minutes installing the "device" then they repeat the test. the engine has cooled during that time and they might get 230 Hp now and assume the device added 5 Hp. But if they had just opened the hood and let the engine cool for that same period, adding nothing, it would add the same amount to the next dyno test.

 

" The Tornado? 2 HP? You can't measure a difference that small -- less than 1% of a C4's output -- on any chassis dyno with any dependability at all. Typically you get a 1-2% difference from one valid dyno run to another: about 3-5 HP on a C4, particularly if you do the tests a day or a week apart.**

If you are talking about a BLackwing adding only 2 HP, on a C4 I might believe only that: it adds only about 3-4 HP on a C5 so, proportionally, it would add less on a C4 and indidivual car variations could account for the rest. But again, that little is hard to measure.

And I don't have to back up any claim. Based on 40 years of experience, a lot of engineering knowledge, and having seen things just like the Tornado (maybe exactly it, I don't remember the ) I don't believe they work and would not have one on my car. But I doubt it hurts very much. The important thing: You're the one that has to live with it and like it, and if you do, fine. "


-as for those who care, I care about test results -(keep in mind I am not sweating this little tin piece of crap) not know it alls that blow wind up your butt without having to back up anything, soley based on the fact that their old timers and have seen everthing- if they can remember or not. read what you wrote- your shooting from the hip-experience-hip-experience sounds like you just made up a nice story to debunk something without testing it. as I recal, dyno's run on 1hp/tq increments, not 3-5- anyway thats how todays ones run.
it seems that every forum has one, your the one here I guess.

 

for those who wish to get current with modern technology.

 

Fine, you're an expert. Your tornado produces gobs of power, probably improves your gas mileage, and maybe your sex life, too - whatever you say.

I don't appreciate your words or attitude, buddy.

I've seen more than my share of dyno runs and am very much a numbers only guy. I stated very precisely and clearly the fact-based the reasons why including the fact that I've seen that device dynoed with No results.

Note that you are the one who seems defensive and has resorted to name calling.

And modernh technology? I have more in any one of my three cars than you have in yours (and dyno sheets to prove that it all works).

 

Interesting: you say you are the expert, yet then say that modern dynos are calibrated in 1 HP increments. Just how many dyno runs have you really done?

All the dynos I use or have used in the past ten years or so: the DynoJet or the Mustang chassi dyno, as well as the Sheldon and Osmotive engine-stand dynos, are digital, and read out to one tenth of a HP.

But that does not mean the readings they give are ACCURATE or even consistent to .1 HP or even HP increments. All measurement equipment have some standard deviation of readings, and bove I explained why you really can depend on only about 3-5 HP uncertainty band in chassis dyno tests. It's a lot like a bathroom scale: those may be calibrated in 1 lb increments, but typically vary from day to day and depending on temp, and just how you step on them, by about 2-3 lbs. (the same for that matter, with the set of four race scales I have: the four are identical models and very good ones, too, yet we know from testing them that they vary their readings within a band of about 5 lbs (which, out of 1000 lb max per scale, is not too bad).