Had a look on their web site. Looks impressive. Any good? They say more power and better fuel economy. That's like saying a square cylinder. :think:

not on a magna no,
but if u wanna go try see for yuself

yes and no... the old man put one on his WH Statesman and the fuel "economy" went down to a great 14.1L per 100km when he drove like an old man, but as to the power factor... we all know that power=fuel consumtion, therefore less fuel=less power eh. only marginal but what are you after, less cost at the BP, of more cost due to the licorice off the line!! take it ease

Didn't record any difference in my MX-5 in overall fuel consumption.

Immediately after installation, engine was noticeably smoother with more torque at lower revs so that I can change gears @ 1500rpm where i normally see the same effect @ 1800rpm. This joy was short lived.

Got round the corner & noticeably less top end power above 5500rpm. Also took very much longer to rev up 6500 rpm. Kept the device for 2 years testing and checking fuel readings on weekends .

After that, concluded with what every 2nd Year Engineering student is taught about fluid mechanics: inrease turbulence by spinning air in "turbulent flow" in a pipe and you'll increase resistance to flow - eventhough you have a better air fuel mixture - which is the selling point of the device.

Pulled out my 2nd engineering notes and found with calc. that airflow into mx-5 engine changes from "lamina" to "turbulent" @ exactly 2000 rpm, so effect of device is not necessary above 2000 rpm except to act as a virtual air restrictor at higher revs in an mx-5.

Deduced that this was a kill joy device and got it removed.

I'll be interested to do the same calcs for a magna when i return to perth tomorow and notify - althought I think spinning air stuffs up the magna's air flow sensor.

I don't see this device helping much at all, the Plenum isn't designed for the sort of flow hiclone produces. And by the time it goes down each of the pipes in the plenum, the flow would have become laminar again, and that's when fuel is mixed with air... so what's the point in swirling the air before the plenum but when it gets into the plenum it becomes some-what laminar again?

also, how does your MX5 intake manage to draw turbulent flow only at 2000rpm??? What air velocity is it drawing, cfm is easily calculated, hence with the smallest intake cross sectional area you would be able to deduce air velocity, and with that you could calculate Reynolds number, which predicts the flow pattern and with it you can easily deduce whether it was laminar or turbulent, but it would be heavily dependent on the shape of your intake, did you model your intake on a computer programe or just assumed it was a straight pipe?

General guide of thumb, in a straight pipe, air will remain laminar (except for the pipe surfaces) until the air speed reaches or is near the speed of sound.

...General guide of thumb, in a straight pipe, air will remain laminar (except for the pipe surfaces) until the air speed reaches or is near the speed of sound.That "general rule of thumb" is incorrect.

No, no, no, no no, and no :P
we've had plenty of them in vehicles on the dyno and they dont do jack **** - they cant if you look at it. The idea being to swirl the air to mix fuel and air more efficiently, well they swirl it, then the air moves down the intake, splits into runner etc on an injected car, looses any swirl it had and mixes with fuel. Rendering it redundant, all it does it restrict your intake.

Matthius

That "general rule of thumb" is incorrect.

:stoopid: