Why would you need the spirals? It's fuel injected, the spirals are for atomizing the fuel better which the spacer will never see.

 

You know, I try to be a help wherever I can on the forum and try to keep in good graces, but when somebody is totally blind to the point that is being made, I just can't keep my mouth shut! Here's the deal, and if your talking about Dyno performance, you proved that you've totally missed the point. "****ing waste", really? If you think that you can measure mpg's on a dyno, then you have allot to learn about mechanics. If someone could post hard facts that a TBS cannot get even slightly better MPG, and has done the testing and post some kind of numbers, then I would love to hear it. Oh, and totally respect the opinion. You can measure hp and torque on a dyno, not mpg. Warlockk could post dyno numbers that prove that my warm air intake produces no hp gains, or he could post dyno numbers that show that a less restrictive intake, warm air or not, produced or reduced those numbers. I could prove that the new fuel injection systems that shut down a number of pistons and lower hp also produce higher mpgs. That's their design. We've each got valid arguments to our points. Your argument that you'll prove it on the dyno is totally, well........better left unsaid. Post your hp numbers. That would be interesting for the hp guys. Then if someone says, "The TBS gained me X number of HP" we'll have some real world info. If your gonna spout off about what a modification will or won't do for your mpg, your gonna have to make an investment of gasoline over a longer period of time than it took you to type it out on your keyboard. You just can't prove that a mod will or won't produce a slight mpg gain without the fuel, miles and cautious right foot to accurately measure it. You also have to write down and keep track of how much fuel you used before and after the mod over a specific distance and what your driving habits were during the testing. You spouting off about the dyno tells me that your probably not going to keep your foot out of the throttle to perform these tests accurately.

I'm sorry to the OP for dragging this thread off topic. It wasn't my intention.

 

I was on my soapbox while you were asking the question. I think your right Sean. I don't think that the spiraling air would still be swirling by the time it made it to the combustion chamber, so................ As with the intake spacer, it, in theory, should be just the added space. Again, not promoting the TBS, just gonna have to break down and buy or build one and be the ginny pig. I've got two big computer builds in front of me and I can't dump any funds into the truck at the moment. It will happen, at some point. I don't mind the testing.

 

Everyone is going to waste money in life. Some people choose to waste it on magic parts to hopefully improve MPG, some people (like me) choose to waste it on gas. To me buying a 20+ year old truck and worrying about MPG's is like buying a Prius and worrying about HP. Im not disputing the good, known upgrades that will improve MPG like an E-fan or different gearing but a $10 chunk of aluminum is not going to help. If it did then why didn't ford install one 20+ years ago?

 

Why didn't ford install e-fans 20 years ago? Why didn't ford make the intake runners longer? Why didn't they want to retool the plant and do this or do that? Why didn't Ford use active fuel management? Why did they not use hemi heads? Why didn't they all come in all wheel drive? My old truck is my sole means of transpo right now. I drive long distances every time I crank the truck up. Why not? What's wrong with getting higher mpg? What's wrong with saving a few bucks? They built a platform. They cut corners to save build cost and increase profits. You think they would have used the best rotor button, the best cap, the best wires? Get real. It's not about what Ford or Chevy or Dodge could have done 20 years ago. Their wasn't a government preaching gas guzzler tax either. If they'd wanted to build the best, there was lots of stuff they could have done. That's such a non argument.

 

It's not one truck fits all. There's give and take in every aspect of design, for consumers, for regulations, etc.

 

I don't think my truck will do 108mph, much less at 22.3mpg. IF the sticker wasn't so high, I might have to try out the infamously slow Prius! Lol

 

My post was towards the people claiming more power etc..
And there are way to many variables to claim a increase in mpg from a tank or two.. Needs a LONG stretch of tanks and a solid non moving variable of traffic and temp and gas quality.

And in reality a dyno to test mpg's can do that minus wind resistance. And rolling weight resistance. But I'm not gonna buy dyno time by hours to show it. I'll simply do dyno power pulls to show it and to show a speed density Tune truck will make 300ish. But that's. Whole other thing

 

A dyno could show mpg increase, but not the correct mpg because of no wind and weight resistance, but you could show if a mod increased mpg or not, and I would assume the difference in mpg you saw on the dyno would be the same in real world driving, but overall mpg would be lower. Just my thoughts on the whole thing, but that's not what this thread is about, it's about jet chips.

 

In my opinion the question of why ford didn't do it originally is valid. Its one that should be addressed anytime a modification is considered. Why didn't they add e fans? Expense and reliability. Old Efans were unreliable. Longer runners? Cost, space, and a balance between torque and highway driveability. Why no hemi heads? Hemi ( true hemispherical not just a tag name ) only produce optimum power at high rpm. That's why they were used on fords trans am type racers. The ones they used create much more useable torque and a more efficient burn. So that's something to think over before throwing hemi heads in your truck. And the point at hand, why not add a 10 machined piece of aluminum? $10 is a lot of money for a small part on the production line. Add in machine and tool work and a whole new step in the line and you have created quite a loss in a world where profit is counted in fractions of a cent multiplied by millions of vehicles or billions when you count how many models and years in which the same engine is used. There better be a good reason to throw that on. I apply the same logic to removing parts. Why would ford spent those billions to add a part when the vehicle would run better without it. Look for a good answer before deciding to delete something. Sometimes its regulations, smog, safety, etc. Sometimes its a part that was thought to work and ended up not working correctly. These parts won't be present on newer models. Other times they actually work. Like unit505 said there is little to be gained with belittling others. I post up what I have read as claims and posted my knowledge and gathered data to prove or disprove those theories. Using physics and mathematics we should be able to come up with a reasonable hypothesis about how this part could or couldn't work. Then we can design a good test to prove or disprove that hypothesis. That's the scientific method and thus far the only accepted way of proving things. It is the only way to come to a true conclusion that can be agreed upon. Anything else is too subjective. So far only unit505 has offered any theory as to how this thing might actually do anything. True a longer intake run creates a higher velocity air flow which creates more torque, but I have trouble believing 1/4" would make any difference. A simple test could be done with some tube and a spacer of any material and a cheap air speed gauge. If air moves faster we have a positive result. I think we have all dismissed the theory of swirling air. As I posted earlier the intake turns immediately causing turbulence and the fuel isn't introduced at the throttle body so there is no assist in atomization. There no heat transfer to block with heat resistant material. So other than the slightly longer intake I haven't seen any idea as to how this thing might work. Any more ideas?