# another MAF screen delete question with a Twist?



## alptbird (Feb 20, 2006)

Ok I know you guys and gals are tired of hearing this question butI was thinking about it and the biggest negative thing performance wise that removing the screen does is make the air going into the intake very turbulent? am i right on this? well her is my new twist. I have the parts from PFYC.com that gives a bigger over all path for the air to flow but these parts delete the screen, and if it makes the air turbulent then why couldn't you get one of those "TORNADO's" for 35 bucks that is suppost to spin charge and focus the air, after the MAF on your intake tube (K&N FIPK)? Would this not counter the turbulent air and allow for more air flow? Granted there is still an unprotected sensor because of no screen but is it just me or does thins make a little sence? I mean hey if it works you can actually give the product (TORNADO) feed back that a person could actually believe? I am curious about this and I think if enough of you are wanting to know how it does I will get back to you on it. but it will be a couple of days before I get the TORNADO in.

Comments welcome!

God bless Fly low!


----------



## SilverGoat (Oct 30, 2004)

Popular Mechanics did a review of this and other mileage enhancing products. None of them work. Quote from the article;

Again, we tested two devices. The TornadoFuelSaver is a nicely made stainless steel contraption, available in an assortment of sizes to fit most vehicles. We installed it on our truck's intake tract immediately upstream of the MAF sensor. We purchased the second device, the Intake Twister, on eBay. It was crudely handmade from sheet-aluminum flashing and pop rivets. It looked like something we could make in about 10 minutes from an old soda can. The staff at UTI was reluctant to install it: The bent sheetmetal vanes looked as if they might break off and be digested by the engine. The device is one-size-fits-all, and is simply bent into a curl to insert it into the intake duct.
THE DYNO SAYS: Both devices reduced peak horsepower by more than 10 percent. The Intake Twister increased fuel consumption by about 20 percent; the TornadoFuelSaver provided no significant change.

Link to article for the whole report. http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/1802932.html

Save your 35 bucks and try something more proven than this hokey stuff. Sorry to rain on your parade.


----------



## alptbird (Feb 20, 2006)

SilverGoat said:


> Popular Mechanics did a review of this and other mileage enhancing products. None of them work. Quote from the article;
> 
> Again, we tested two devices. The TornadoFuelSaver is a nicely made stainless steel contraption, available in an assortment of sizes to fit most vehicles. We installed it on our truck's intake tract immediately upstream of the MAF sensor. We purchased the second device, the Intake Twister, on eBay. It was crudely handmade from sheet-aluminum flashing and pop rivets. It looked like something we could make in about 10 minutes from an old soda can. The staff at UTI was reluctant to install it: The bent sheetmetal vanes looked as if they might break off and be digested by the engine. The device is one-size-fits-all, and is simply bent into a curl to insert it into the intake duct.
> THE DYNO SAYS: Both devices reduced peak horsepower by more than 10 percent. The Intake Twister increased fuel consumption by about 20 percent; the TornadoFuelSaver provided no significant change.
> ...




Ok. Thank for the reply. But this is an answer to a question I didn't ask. I know this Tornado is a piece of crap and does not help add horse power or fuel mileage in any way. I know that, and I don't care, that isn't the question at hand. The question is, Will it reduce the amount of turbulence coming thru an aftermarket MAF sensor in order for it to compensate for the screen that was in the stock MAF sensor. I could give a rats less if it adds power(the tornado) All i want it to do is calm the air flow down into a more focused path. In theory it would do the same job as the screen in the MAF sensor? Does this help clear up the question i am asking?


----------



## CrabhartLSX (Feb 12, 2006)

No. Whatever your question is the answer is no.


----------



## socal gto (Mar 10, 2006)

*another Maf screen delete question with a twist*

that tornado is a joke my teacher is a mechanical engeneer from cal poly pomona and tested that thing on a test engine and it gained ZERO power and no increase in efficiency. if you look at the gains they say it is 0-10. don't forget 0 is also a gain


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

The Tornado increases turbulence in the intake system. If you change to a MAF without a screen you need to have your engine dyno tuned. By changing to a larger and descreened MAF you are exceeding the stock programing of the computer. The only way to get any benefit is to tune the computer after the install. 
So to answer your questions: The Tornado increases turbulence, and restricts airflow. These are both negatives.


----------



## alptbird (Feb 20, 2006)

fergyflyer said:


> The Tornado increases turbulence in the intake system. If you change to a MAF without a screen you need to have your engine dyno tuned. By changing to a larger and descreened MAF you are exceeding the stock programing of the computer. The only way to get any benefit is to tune the computer after the install.
> So to answer your questions: The Tornado increases turbulence, and restricts airflow. These are both negatives.



Thanks man! that was the answer I was looking for! I just wont mess with it. I thought it might be interesting to look at and try for an experiment, but now I just wont mess with it.


----------



## baron_iv (Nov 17, 2005)

It's interesting in theory, to *twist* the air inside the intake, which would in turn "suck" more air into the engine, similar to the way a tornado vortex "sucks" things off the ground. Nobody has been able to make an efficient contraption that would do such a thing. I suspect that the intake tubing itself would need to be rifled (only outwardly instead of inward) to get the air to spin/rotate. The problem with that is that you'd need to STOP the air spinning at some point so that it would distribute to the cylinders equally. If you were using a 1-cylinder engine, the swirling air may be perfect because it only has to go into one place. Trying to get swirling air to calm down enough to go into 8 individual holes would be quite a task.


----------

