1. Welcome to Tacoma World!

    You are currently viewing as a guest! To get full-access, you need to register for a FREE account.

    As a registered member, you’ll be able to:
    • Participate in all Tacoma discussion topics
    • Communicate privately with other Tacoma owners from around the world
    • Post your own photos in our Members Gallery
    • Access all special features of the site

secondary air filter/tornado

Discussion in '2nd Gen. Tacomas (2005-2015)' started by mjohnson927, Mar 6, 2009.

  1. Mar 6, 2009 at 9:21 AM
    #1
    mjohnson927

    mjohnson927 [OP] Newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Member:
    #13832
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    Pottsville, PA
    Vehicle:
    2009 RC, 2.7, manual, 4x4
    So I was wired up from my coffee at 6:00 am and decided to get under the hood of my truck and check this secondary filter out...I found it very easy to remove. All you need is a phillips screw driver and exacto knife (no drills, etc). After disconnecting that top half that the filter is in, I sat down at the kitchen table and cut cleanly along the inside of the "frame" all the way around (leaving nothing behind that could get sucked in). That's it...had it off and on in 10 minutes!

    I did not notice any performance changes (I have the 2.7, 4 cyl) on the 35 mile commute to work (I'll let you all know if it helps mpg's), but that may be because I had already enhanced air intake using a "Tornado". I know, some folks think they are just a gimmick...but I have had them in four different vehicles and they do improve mpg's by 7%-10%! I put mine in the Taco right away, so I don't have before/after mpg's, but I already had proven it to myself on the others. Anyway, I have been getting 25+ mpg on a daily drive that's 25% city/75% hwy (and that's with warming it up some in the morning...I expect to get better in the summer). You do have to put them in according to the instructions, and in the proper location (each vehicle may be slightly different). I had one vehicle that I did not get any help from it until I tried a different location for it...but then my son said he could even hear a slight difference in the exhaust sound (it was a V8) once I got it right.

    For what it's worth...as P.H. would've said.
     
  2. Mar 6, 2009 at 9:34 AM
    #2
    chris4x4

    chris4x4 With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Member:
    #6497
    Messages:
    106,132
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    FlimFlubberJAM
    Tenoe, AZ
    Vehicle:
    2013 Rubicon Unlimited,
    4.10 gears, sliders, and lots of buttons.
    FWIW, I have seen the Tornadoes on a dyno before....every one showed a loss in hp.
     
  3. Mar 6, 2009 at 9:34 AM
    #3
    chris4x4

    chris4x4 With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Member:
    #6497
    Messages:
    106,132
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    FlimFlubberJAM
    Tenoe, AZ
    Vehicle:
    2013 Rubicon Unlimited,
    4.10 gears, sliders, and lots of buttons.
    In fact, a guy I know had one on his truck, and I told him to remove it...He did, and said he felt more power with it removed.
     
  4. Mar 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM
    #4
    chris4x4

    chris4x4 With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Member:
    #6497
    Messages:
    106,132
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    FlimFlubberJAM
    Tenoe, AZ
    Vehicle:
    2013 Rubicon Unlimited,
    4.10 gears, sliders, and lots of buttons.
    Trust me....IT wasnt I.
    He is on this board, and if he wants his name to be revealed, he will chime in.
     
  5. Mar 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM
    #5
    rmb_crew

    rmb_crew My other ride has 18,400HP!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Member:
    #12837
    Messages:
    6,076
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Ryan
    Jacksonville, FL 30.243103, -81.591007‎
    Vehicle:
    2010 F150 XLT SuperCrew 4X4
    Access larado tonneau, magnaflow exhaust
    I heard the same thing. A friend put one in his ram and his HP and MPG dropped. Than as soon as he took it off it went back up.
     
  6. Mar 6, 2009 at 10:16 AM
    #6
    chris4x4

    chris4x4 With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Member:
    #6497
    Messages:
    106,132
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    FlimFlubberJAM
    Tenoe, AZ
    Vehicle:
    2013 Rubicon Unlimited,
    4.10 gears, sliders, and lots of buttons.
    Those Tornados and what not, are only good for carbureted engines. If it was put on your Lawnmower, it may help....But not on a modern Fueel injected engine.
     
  7. Mar 6, 2009 at 10:18 AM
    #7
    mjohnson927

    mjohnson927 [OP] Newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Member:
    #13832
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    Pottsville, PA
    Vehicle:
    2009 RC, 2.7, manual, 4x4
    I never put one of my vehicles on a dyno, but I keep mpg records religiously...Hmmm. I wonder if they put it at the best point of the air intake system...it must be on the engine side of the mass air flow sensor, and not at the point of a turn in the hose, etc. Also, the computer needs to be reset when you install.

    Other than that, I don't know what to say except for my personal mpg experience with four different vehicles. I guess they will give your money back if it doesn't work for you.

    As for the removal of the secondary filter...adid anyone have any mpg improvement?
     
  8. Mar 6, 2009 at 10:26 AM
    #8
    chris4x4

    chris4x4 With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Member:
    #6497
    Messages:
    106,132
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    FlimFlubberJAM
    Tenoe, AZ
    Vehicle:
    2013 Rubicon Unlimited,
    4.10 gears, sliders, and lots of buttons.
    Keep in mind, the Tacoma engineers went thru alot of time designing the intake to have as smooth of a flow as possible. By generating turbulence in the intake, the engine becomes less efficient.
     
  9. Mar 6, 2009 at 10:35 AM
    #9
    mjohnson927

    mjohnson927 [OP] Newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Member:
    #13832
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    Pottsville, PA
    Vehicle:
    2009 RC, 2.7, manual, 4x4
    Well, I'm not sure if your premises are correct...I'm not an engineer to argue that. I do think I can stand by the mpg numbers I previously came up with...

    But back to the secondary air filter (I guess I derailed things by mentioning the Tornado)....anyone see any mpg improvement?
     
  10. Mar 6, 2009 at 11:40 AM
    #10
    Evil Monkey

    Evil Monkey There's an evil monkey in my truck

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Member:
    #2352
    Messages:
    8,337
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Robert
    Escondido, CA
    Vehicle:
    07 4x4 DC SR5 TRD Off-road
    Weathertech front & rear mats, rear suspension TSB, Toytec AAL for TSB, Hi-Lift Jack, Bilstein 5100 & Toytec Adjustable coilovers, Built Right UCAs, KMC XD 795 Hoss Wheels, Definity Dakota MTs 285/75R16, Leer XR, Thule Tracker II & Thule MOAB basket
  11. Mar 6, 2009 at 12:25 PM
    #11
    chris4x4

    chris4x4 With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Member:
    #6497
    Messages:
    106,132
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    FlimFlubberJAM
    Tenoe, AZ
    Vehicle:
    2013 Rubicon Unlimited,
    4.10 gears, sliders, and lots of buttons.
    Whoever wrote that article is not completely informed. Yes, Turbulence in the COMBUSTION chamber is a GOOD thing. Now.....How is the combustion chamber going to be efficiently filled with turbulent air? The Tacoma engine (and most DOHC engines for that matter), use a Pent Roof designed combustion chamber. Think Hemi. And cross flow heads. To maintain a high VE, the air comming into the CC needs to be laminar. A nice laminar flowing stream of air is less dense than a turbulent flowing stream. When the air stream goes into the CC, it THEN becomes turbulent, and propperly mixes the Air and Fuel. Also, as I mentioned in another post, the air going into the CC is helped along the intake tract via pulses created by the valves opening and closeing. These pulses allow for more VE. A turbulent air flow will dissipate the pulses, thus negating them. If this was not the case (which I assure you, it is), manufactures would introduce vortex generators into the air intake tract to more efficiently burn the fuel. This applies to TBS's also. If a simple block of aluminum made even the smallest gain, it would be implimented into the intake design.
     
  12. Mar 6, 2009 at 12:33 PM
    #12
    Evil Monkey

    Evil Monkey There's an evil monkey in my truck

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Member:
    #2352
    Messages:
    8,337
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Robert
    Escondido, CA
    Vehicle:
    07 4x4 DC SR5 TRD Off-road
    Weathertech front & rear mats, rear suspension TSB, Toytec AAL for TSB, Hi-Lift Jack, Bilstein 5100 & Toytec Adjustable coilovers, Built Right UCAs, KMC XD 795 Hoss Wheels, Definity Dakota MTs 285/75R16, Leer XR, Thule Tracker II & Thule MOAB basket
    He lists his qualifications on the site:
    http://fuelsaving.info/biog.htm

    Also, he wasn't defending the turbulance device.
    His conclusions:
    • Engines already have high levels of turbulence, and the physics is well understood
    • Adding more turbulence can give only a tiny fuel economy benefit - this is proved by experiment
    • Ignition must be adjusted to suit the faster burn, or the effect will be worse economy
    • Increased turbulence at full load will most likely damage the engine unless the ignition is retarded
    • Anything in the inlet manifold is extremely unlikely to affect in-cylinder air motion anyway
     
  13. Mar 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM
    #13
    mjohnson927

    mjohnson927 [OP] Newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Member:
    #13832
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    Pottsville, PA
    Vehicle:
    2009 RC, 2.7, manual, 4x4
    Wow...It sounds good, but you way lost me with all the technical speak! So is your conclusion that intake system devices creating turbulence help with efficiency, or not?
     
  14. Mar 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM
    #14
    JDCPA

    JDCPA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Member:
    #10777
    Messages:
    933
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Jim
    SW FL
    Vehicle:
    09 5 Lug Access Cab SR5
    Curt Hitch and etrailer.com wiring harness.
    They do not. If they did no one would ever bother to have their heads and intake manifolds polished
     
  15. Mar 6, 2009 at 1:32 PM
    #15
    chris4x4

    chris4x4 With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Member:
    #6497
    Messages:
    106,132
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    FlimFlubberJAM
    Tenoe, AZ
    Vehicle:
    2013 Rubicon Unlimited,
    4.10 gears, sliders, and lots of buttons.
    Im not impressed with his "qualifications". His article is still in error. And if this (red part) is the case, why is the intake and exhaust tracts one of the most reaserched and engineered parts of the engine? A slight change in the valve angle has a great affect. AND, Why have a tuned intake runners, if they have no effect? I could go on....


    X2.
     
  16. Mar 6, 2009 at 1:48 PM
    #16
    Evil Monkey

    Evil Monkey There's an evil monkey in my truck

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Member:
    #2352
    Messages:
    8,337
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Robert
    Escondido, CA
    Vehicle:
    07 4x4 DC SR5 TRD Off-road
    Weathertech front & rear mats, rear suspension TSB, Toytec AAL for TSB, Hi-Lift Jack, Bilstein 5100 & Toytec Adjustable coilovers, Built Right UCAs, KMC XD 795 Hoss Wheels, Definity Dakota MTs 285/75R16, Leer XR, Thule Tracker II & Thule MOAB basket
    With the red part, I think he was referring to aftermarket turbulance generators which attach to the intake manifold, since the point of the post is whether or not aftermarket turbulance generators can improve fuel economy.

    What is the error in the article? He accepts criticisms or clarifications at mail2 (at) fuelsaving (dot) info
     
  17. Mar 6, 2009 at 5:01 PM
    #17
    AZFizik

    AZFizik Slowpokeologist

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Member:
    #11793
    Messages:
    86
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    James
    Phoenix
    Vehicle:
    07 TRD OffRoad Prerunner
    TRD Catback & CAI, Fogs only, Recovered Armrests, BFG AT's
    I would figure if these "tornado" dohickeys are so great, why don't we see them in high performance cars, sportbikes, piston driven airplanes, offshore raceboats, or anything? I don't care what the salesman says. The guys who build the engines don't put them in, even the guys building the engines that don't go through a smog sniffer. Thats all the proff I need.

    Show me one F1, CART, MotoGP, World Superbike, or SCORE racer who uses one.
     
  18. Mar 6, 2009 at 8:05 PM
    #18
    neslerrah

    neslerrah Taco lovin'

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Member:
    #4803
    Messages:
    6,743
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Harrelsen
    Tucson
    Vehicle:
    5 lug BEAST!
    Secondary air filter removed, elbow mod, BFG T/A KO (31x10.5R15), 15" American Racing Mojaves, BHLM, Dome Light MOD (Blue), Pioneer headunit, Sockmonkey 'TACOMA' Decals, Readylift 5-lug SST, Rear Shocks - Bilstein TRD, Dynomax Super Turbo #17748, DDM Slim Ballast HID Kit H4 Hi/Lo -35W 6000K in headlights, Apexcone Raptor HID Kit H3 - 35W 6000K in Hella 500s, aFe CAI #51-10762, WeatherTech Floorliner, 200W Smart AC Inverter

    How much miles are on your Taco?
     
  19. Mar 7, 2009 at 8:14 AM
    #19
    mjohnson927

    mjohnson927 [OP] Newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Member:
    #13832
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    Pottsville, PA
    Vehicle:
    2009 RC, 2.7, manual, 4x4
    My '09 bought 2/7/09 has 1600 miles already...I put the Tornado in at about 100 miles (first day). So you can see why I look for ways to stretch the fuel...even though I did not buy a Taco for economy. In fact I had a Yaris and traded it in after 11 months (took a soaking on it) because I just couldn't stand it any more, even with 40 mpg!

    Perhaps by the end of next week I will be able to tell if removing the secondary filter helped mpg. If it didn't help, I guess I will be looking for a replacemnt filter at some point.
     
To Top