Originally posted by Katshot I've heard good and bad from people that tried them. Bottom line: if they REALLY did anything, the OEM would use them.
This has got to be one of the biggest misconceptions that people have - a true Urban Legend.
As far as the Vornado goes, I have no idea if it works or not - not from firsthand knowledge anyway. But it is ridiculous to think that the car manufacturers would use every available product or device that could improve their vehicles. There are many reasons why they would not use such devices, for instance:
-reliability concerns.
- they do not want to pay royalties.
-they do not want to increase manufacturing costs.
-they do not want to spend money testing the products.
-they have similar technologies under development - or soon will.
-small improvements may not be worth the R&D needed to implement.
-they are not willing to make certain trade offs such as more intake or exhaust noise for the small improvement realized.
IMO, the bottom line is that the auto manufacturers spend a lot of time and money developing vehicles designed to meet a certain price point and marketed to a specific segment of the population, many of whom couldn't care less about such things as the Vornado and who certainly would not want to pay for it to be incorporated into their cars. These incremental improvements in power and efficiency are better left to the aftermarket.
Sandman,
I think you're missing the point. To be honest, I've never heard of a "Vornado". I was assuming that he was referring to the "Tornado" device that is widely supported by many of it's users as a simple device that both increases power AND gas mileage.
I did some field-testing of the device years ago (approx. 1996). I installed it on one of our '94 Fleetwoods. I chose a car that just happened to have only one driver consistentlyto assure the greatest degree of accuracy in the test data.
Over a period of 30 days, the driver's log showed that there DID seem to be an mpg increase of approx. 5% and the driver DID claim that the car "felt" more powerful.
Was the driver imagining the power increase because he knew I had installed the device? Maybe. I decided that the 5% gain in MPG was too small to prove anything about the device especially since our cars consistently experienced a 5-7% MPG deviation monthly anyway.
But my comment about the OEM using it if it actually worked was true whether you choose to believe it or not. CAFE standards are SO costly to the OEMs that they DO IN FACT sweat tenths of miles/gal. so any technology that would be so simple to incorporate and would actually net real MPG gains would definately be utilized.
Your comment seriously undermines your credibility.
Originally posted by Katshot ...my comment about the OEM using it if it actually worked was true whether you choose to believe it or not. CAFE standards are SO costly to the OEMs that they DO IN FACT sweat tenths of miles/gal. so any technology that would be so simple to incorporate and would actually net real MPG gains would definately be utilized.
True as in you know for an indisputable fact and have firsthand knowledge thereof, or true as in you think so pretty sure that's how you would do it? Have you actually sat in on high level corporate strategy meetings? I don't mind reading your *opinions* but please don't confuse them with actual facts. My *opinion* follows:
What you so casually describe as "simple to install" could actually entail unacceptable cost (see post above). GM would not "simply" start installing a product on millions of vehicles - it would need to do extensive R&D. Other components might need to be changed, reliability testing done (think hidden warranty costs if there are undiscovered problems lurking), NVH evaluation (most people want their cars to be quiet and smooth with *adequate* power), and marketing studies to determine if the additional cost for the vehicle were justified (GM *would* charge you for the extra part, and the cost involved in putting it in, wouldn't they?). GM and the other OEM's utilize their R&D resources on major projects, look years down the road, for technological innovations that make a *big* difference while conforming to their design philosophy.
Auto manufacturers have their own way of doing things. As a quick example, look at the design of intake and exhaust systems. Most OEM setups are restrictive and inefficient (but very quiet), and simple modifications to them could result in better fuel efficiency and higher power output. Although they do improve these systems slowly over time, it is not nearly to the same extent as the aftermarket. The design goals for these vehicles lean heavily toward NVH reduction, so increased induction or exhaust noise is *not* an option, making meaningful increases in efficiency much more difficult. The priorities of the OEM's revolve around sales. If all GM cared about was CAFE numbers they would build more cars, less trucks, and smaller, less powerful vehicles. But no, they sell *lots* of trucks, most with *plenty* of power - heck, "standard" horsepower jumps up every day...300 or even 400 horsepower barely rates a second look these days - now it's got to be 500 horsepower to play with the big dogs. Now, due to CAFE they may lose a couple of bucks on each car they sell, but they are still making a profit. They mostly want to sell lots of vehicles - as many as they can. And the Government, seemingly content to take the money on these vehicles, does not seem to be pushing nearly as hard as it once did for greater fuel efficiency. Maybe they just like collecting the penalties.
No, I disagree with your basic premise. I think what GM does is determined (in it's own Corporate mind with it's own corporate beancounters and marketers) by what design priorities will lead to the most sales (either directly or indirectly). Once that is set, once they have designed the vehicles they will build, then they think about CAFE numbers. These numbers may help determine how many vehicles with a certain powertrain are built, but I do not believe that they will compromise their design paradigm for the reasons in my post above. Heck, as long as the Government agents don't come knocking at the front door it wouldn't surprise me if GM didn't care much about CAFE numbers - as long as they're selling millions of cars. In fact, if you study the right demographic a lower CAFE numbers could actually be correlated with *higher* sales. There may be periods of national crisis when social and political forces do cause OEM's to *really* concentrate on raising their CAFE numbers - we are not now in one of those times. GM is laughing all the way to the bank.
If what you said is true, about the OEM's sweating tenths of a gallon mpg's, wouldn't every new vehicle come from the factory with synthetic engine oil and transmission fluid - these products are shown to increase mpg, certainly "tenths of a mile per gallon". Wouldn't entail much R&D cost being as it is OEM on certain high performance applications. Why do you think they don't do it - obviously because it would add unnacceptable cost to the price of the vehicle which the buying public would not appreciate...
Quote:
Your comment seriously undermines your credibility.
In your eyes perhaps. Your comment tells us something too.
My God, do you just love to hear yourself talk?!
To answer your question, YES, I HAVE sat in on fairly high level meetings, engineering meetings chaired by the brand manager (actually, I believe they were called "project leader" or something back in those days) at the time where we all sat around and discussed many key points including powertrain calibrations, and component choices, HAVE YOU?
Have you ever even SEEN the device I was speaking of? I doubt it because if you had, you wouldn't be making such a fuss. Did you notice I used the word "technology" in my next to the last sentance? I'm not necessarily suggesting that the OEMs would just "bolt-on" any piece of hardware that might work.
Of course I understand the compromises that are inherent in any mass-produced consumer goods, especially motor vehicles.
I'm sure you think I'm a total friggin' idiot and I'm totally wasting my time here but to be honest, I feel that from your post, it's very clear that you speak from knowledge gained by reading magazines and not from any REAL experience. In fact, I'll bet you spend all kinds of time pouring over Road & Track, Car & Driver, probably even Automotive News and think that makes you quite the expert. Do us all a favor and think before running off at the mouth.
Originally posted by Katshot
My God, do you just love to hear yourself talk?!
Oh my, a nastygram. Nothing more substantive to say?
Quote:
To answer your question, YES, I HAVE sat in on fairly high level meetings, engineering meetings chaired by the brand manager (actually, I believe they were called "project leader" or something back in those days) at the time where we all sat around and discussed many key points including powertrain calibrations, and component choices, HAVE YOU?
Mid-level at best. The high level meeting is the one between the head guys from the mid-level meetings, the marketers and beancounters, and the upper level executives (VP's and such). It's where the engineers are told what to design and build. I have never attended.
So, what did you hear at the "fairly high level meetings" you "sat in on" that would substantiate your position that if the Vornado or similar device did actually work that GM "would" use it. Now, if you read carefully, and don't cop an attitude, you can see I'm not saying that they'd *never* use it, just that the fact that they don't use it doesn't *prove* that it doesn't work . Get it? See, that's the crux of my disagreement here. You tried to use the fact that OEM's are not using the device as proof that it doesn't work. That is not a logical conclusion if one considers all of the issues involved. Hint: Concentrate your efforts on addressing the preceding 2 sentences - this is the heart of the matter.
Quote:
Of course I understand the compromises that are inherent in any mass-produced consumer goods, especially motor vehicles.
Of course...
Quote:
I'm sure you think I'm a total friggin' idiot and I'm totally wasting my time here but to be honest, I feel that from your post, it's very clear that you speak from knowledge gained by reading magazines and not from any REAL experience. In fact, I'll bet you spend all kinds of time pouring over Road & Track, Car & Driver, probably even Automotive News and think that makes you quite the expert. Do us all a favor and think before running off at the mouth.
You're response would be more effective if you dropped the personal attack, read everything carefully, and answered with a point by point refutation of the issues I've raised. If you have any *specific* points worth making other than dissing me, dismissing my argument entirely without a well thought out (or at least well-expressed) position, and ignoring most of the substance of what I took the time to write then by all means lets hear it. Just try to keep it focused on the discussion and don't get yourself all worked up.
A "total friggin' idiot"? On the contrary, I think that you are very knowledgeable in your areas of expertise. Sometimes, though, you blur the line between fact and opinion. And you have some issues when it comes to being disagreed with.
Quote:
Gimme a break. It's a friggin' internet forum for God's sake...Sandman made a lot of good posts but then he was gone for awhile..I don't care what he says, I call 'em like I see 'em, if I agree with him, I'll say so, if I don't, I'll say so. End of story.
See, not personal. Just a discussion on a "friggin' internet forum".
Honestly, does it really matter??? If it works for some cars, great, if it doesnt, its a waste of money......... Who really cares if the OEM uses it..... You could get better gas mileage by driving slower, although that wont happen!!!
Your comment tells us something too. 
