No, I am saying you are either a scam artist or you have deluded
yourself into believeing something is true that is unreasonable.
People do it everyday. I am confident that if you ran a carefully
controlled "fair" experiment you would discover the Toronado does not
improve fuel economy or performance of modern fuel injected engines.
The old explanation of how "mixers" worked on carburatted engines at
least had a little credibility (very little). But trying to claim that
the "vortex" created in the intake pipe in front of the throttle plate
somehow continues past a mostly closed throttle plate, through the
intake runners and improves the mixing of the fuel at the intake
valves is pure hogwash. Either you have been scammed, or you are
scamming.

The following is from a Popular Mechanics article (
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html?page=2 )

"VORTEX GENERATORS

"These devices, which are usually installed on the upstream side of
the mass airflow (MAF) sensor, use stationary vanes or, on some
devices, spinning blades to make the inlet air between the air cleaner
and intake manifold whirl around in a mini-tornado. This vortex
supposedly mixes fuel more thoroughly with air, which means the fuel
will, theoretically, burn more completely in the combustion chamber.
Trouble is, there's a lot of intake tract downstream from these
devices designed to maximize a smooth airflow. Turbulence, coupled
with the restricted airflow caused by the device, can only reduce the
amount of air sucked into the manifold. Less air means less
power.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."

Or how about this (from
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/OnlyinAmerica/story?id=2188905&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312  
):

"The infomercial for the Tornado Fuel Saver says "its fast and easy
installation can save you up to $20, $40, even $60 a month at the gas
pump."

"The company's president, Jay Kim, appears in his own infomercials to
plug the Tornado. Kim says scientific tests, including some done by
ABC affiliates, prove that his product works, but other experts say
those road tests don't mean anything. According to Kim, he's sold
100,000 of these products.

'"People put the Tornado in, they are so happy with the product, they
tell a friend," Kim says. "So I'm very confident that [the] product
works."

"But Consumer Reports disagrees. At its test track in Connecticut, it
did road tests and found the Tornado didn't save gas.

'"During those tests, we splice a fuel meter into the line, run them
through very strict tests, so we really get to know whether these
things work or they don't," says David Champion, director of
automobile testing.

'"We tested it on two cars, [it] made no difference at all."

"But Kim still stands by his product.

'"I think that someone made a mistake," Kim says. The tests that Kim
is referring to, he says, are like "actual real-life, real-on-the-road
testing" that came from the ECOlogic Engine Testing Laboratories.

"But we spoke with ECOlogic, and the man who signed off on the test,
Donel Olson, says he's sorry that it has his signature on it.

"Kim maintains, "Tornado works. That is the bottom line." '

The following text is from the Consumer Reports Web Site:

"TornadoFuelSaver

"The Tornado ($49.95 with shipping) is a similar device made of
stainless steel with thin metal blades. Versions are sold for both
carburated and fuel-injected engines. It is installed in the air inlet
hose between the throttle body and the air filter. This is the same
product we tested for a July 1999 report, when we said it didn't
improve power or gas mileages in two test vehicles.

"We installed the fuel injector type in a Ford Ranger pickup truck and
a Volkswagen New Beetle. We ran our standard acceleration and fuel
economy tests with and without the Tornado installed. The Ranger saw
no improvement in acceleration, while the New Beetle saw slightly
worse performance. Neither vehicle showed an improvement in fuel
economy....."

You'll love this reference -
http://www.kirotv.com/consumer/2220354/detail.html - they actually
measured a 5.3% increase in fuel economy increase for a truck with a
Toronado installed which sounds impressive until they compared it to a
truck with a piece of duct tape installed that got a 6% increase in
fuel conomy. This points out how hard it is for people to evaluate gas
mileage claims. There are so many factors that come into play that
make it difficult for individuals to evaluate these devices.

Other interesting references:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut10.shtm
http://www.carbibles.com/productreviews_fuel.html#tornado
http://tinyurl.com/649ua6

Ed

Like I said......give it a week and the O2 and MAF will adjust to the
tornado. Net effect- no real increase.
And I do agree that you felt/feel a change, but it's more from
confusing the MAF. It won't last.

CD