Andy Williams
Member
Anyone ever look into the Air Razor or Velocity Tuner to increase MPG that is sold on Ebay. Doesn't sound very scientific to me, but always l
ooking for MPG help.
ooking for MPG help.
MPG Increase ???
- Thread starter Andy Williams
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Johnny O
Well-Known Member
Snake oil, save your money.
Kevin Palmer
Well-Known Member
Will do nothing positive for your Trac...
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
I know there a some on this board that swear by that stuff, Tornado, etc. I have read many, many independent studies. Save you money thase things dont work on dry manifold fuel injected engines...
Andy Williams
Member
Had the same feeling thanks all.
Andy G
Active Member
The theory behind these devices is somewhat sound. The location is the problem.
By "spinning" the incoming air charge, aerodynamic theory would suggest that the air will flow with lower resistance down an enclosed pipe. Lower resistance for the incoming air charge means your motor doesn't have to "pull" as hard to breath. This in turn will result in a bit of power increase, and some MPG.
The other thing "spinning" the air does, if the vortex effect is still present at the intake valve where fuel mixing occurs, due to the vortex effect and turbulance, more complete fuel/air mix will occur. This is the same theory as porting and polishing heads. The outside of a bend in your head gets polished, and the inside of a bend gets roughed up. The smooth outside encourages smooth air flow. The roughed up inside causes an "eddy" effect as the air goes through the bend, better mixing the air/fuel.
Now the problem. The "tornado" and "air razor" are supposed to be mounted in the intake tube BEFORE THE THROTTLE BODY. This is a problem. The throttle body is going to completely negate any "vortex" effect the tornado device introduces. The throttle body is a valve. If that valve is mostly closed, even if the air is spinning before the valve, after the valve it will be straightened out again. So the only time these "tornado" devices actually may have an effect, is when your TB is somewhat close to WOT (wide open throttle) where the TB valve is not interrupting the "spin" of the incoming air charge.
For the $20 that the ebay dude wants, I would give it a try. Just for $h!ts and grins. I mean, you may get a .5 MPG increase, you may not, but call it a $20 experiment. Thats just my opinion. I have been tempted to do the experiment myself, but due to the theoretical reasons/problems I have stated above, its not calling me.
There is a device by airaid, a TB spacer that supposedly does the same thing as the "tornado"...but it mounts AFTER the TB in the form of a spacer. This unit has a chance at actually working better, due to the fact it will be dealing with air that is not going to be interrupted until it hits an intake valve. I may try this one myself, just out of blind curiosity.
Keep in mind folks that the theory behind these devices is not purely dealing with air/fuel mix. As stated above in a dry manifold, spinning the air charge won't yield much in the mixing department. The other side of this theory is based on fluiddynamics and aerodynamics. Fluid or air that is spinning, will in fact travel down an enclosed pipe with less effort than air/fluid that is not. People on this board will easily go out and spend $200 + on a better air intake/filter for a few HP. One of these devices, esp the one that mounts after the throttle body, could decrease resistance of the incoming air charge in a very similar way, but using much more complex and hard to understand ideas.
Link below to the airaid unit, that in theory, actually holds some promise of adding perhaps 3-5HP and .5-1.0 MPG.....that is all you are probably going to see out of any of these devices.
cheers,
Andy
By "spinning" the incoming air charge, aerodynamic theory would suggest that the air will flow with lower resistance down an enclosed pipe. Lower resistance for the incoming air charge means your motor doesn't have to "pull" as hard to breath. This in turn will result in a bit of power increase, and some MPG.
The other thing "spinning" the air does, if the vortex effect is still present at the intake valve where fuel mixing occurs, due to the vortex effect and turbulance, more complete fuel/air mix will occur. This is the same theory as porting and polishing heads. The outside of a bend in your head gets polished, and the inside of a bend gets roughed up. The smooth outside encourages smooth air flow. The roughed up inside causes an "eddy" effect as the air goes through the bend, better mixing the air/fuel.
Now the problem. The "tornado" and "air razor" are supposed to be mounted in the intake tube BEFORE THE THROTTLE BODY. This is a problem. The throttle body is going to completely negate any "vortex" effect the tornado device introduces. The throttle body is a valve. If that valve is mostly closed, even if the air is spinning before the valve, after the valve it will be straightened out again. So the only time these "tornado" devices actually may have an effect, is when your TB is somewhat close to WOT (wide open throttle) where the TB valve is not interrupting the "spin" of the incoming air charge.
For the $20 that the ebay dude wants, I would give it a try. Just for $h!ts and grins. I mean, you may get a .5 MPG increase, you may not, but call it a $20 experiment. Thats just my opinion. I have been tempted to do the experiment myself, but due to the theoretical reasons/problems I have stated above, its not calling me.
There is a device by airaid, a TB spacer that supposedly does the same thing as the "tornado"...but it mounts AFTER the TB in the form of a spacer. This unit has a chance at actually working better, due to the fact it will be dealing with air that is not going to be interrupted until it hits an intake valve. I may try this one myself, just out of blind curiosity.
Keep in mind folks that the theory behind these devices is not purely dealing with air/fuel mix. As stated above in a dry manifold, spinning the air charge won't yield much in the mixing department. The other side of this theory is based on fluiddynamics and aerodynamics. Fluid or air that is spinning, will in fact travel down an enclosed pipe with less effort than air/fluid that is not. People on this board will easily go out and spend $200 + on a better air intake/filter for a few HP. One of these devices, esp the one that mounts after the throttle body, could decrease resistance of the incoming air charge in a very similar way, but using much more complex and hard to understand ideas.
Link below to the airaid unit, that in theory, actually holds some promise of adding perhaps 3-5HP and .5-1.0 MPG.....that is all you are probably going to see out of any of these devices.
cheers,
Andy
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Cacioppo
Well-Known Member
I said it before, and I'll say it again. I got a 3 mpg increase when I installed the Tornado on my '03 Trac. I also did a few mods on the Trac at the same time. The 75 lb cover was removed, I inflated all tires to 45 lbs. I removed the class 3 trailer hitch and the front bull bar. I decreased my cruise speed from 85 down to 55. I now consistently get 3 MPG better than before I installed the Tornado. If they made one for my lawnmower I'd buy one in a heart beat. I just can't say enough about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dale Carter
Active Member
MikeC - for reliable resutls you should only make one change at a time. You do realize that all of the other changes are proven to increase MPG? If you make the truck lighter, reduce the rolling resistance of the tires and slow down, your mileage will go up significantly. Slowing down 30 MPH wopuld probably result in nearly 3 MPG change.
The real test would be to remove the Tornado and see if it changes the MPG.
Unless you are being sarcastic, then it's funny.
The real test would be to remove the Tornado and see if it changes the MPG.
Unless you are being sarcastic, then it's funny.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted deleted
Well-Known Member
MikeC: I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, otherwise you'd never make it as a engineer.
55mph? Better be in the right lane so I can blow your doors off in my Toyota.
55mph? Better be in the right lane so I can blow your doors off in my Toyota.
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy,
The major advantage of spinning the air is two fold.
The first fact is that spinning air will go around corners and obsticals without dramatically reducint the flow.
The second fact is that if that spinning air contains atomized fuel vapors, the molecules of fuel will follow the spinning air and remain in vapor form rather than slamming into an inner wall of the intake manifold and returning to a liquid form. That makes the air/fuel mixture too lean.
The prinicples of these tornado devices work much better in a carburated engine whene the fuel an air are mixed and must travel some convoluted path before entering the combustion chamber. A spinning air/fuel mixture will maintain a more consistant mixture and distribute a more equial air/fuel mixture to each cylinder.
In a Port Fuel Injected engine the fuel is not injected into the air stream behind the intake valve and the path is a very short, straight line into the cylinder. So the effects of spinning the air in a port fuel injected engine are minimal.
The actual butterfly valves of the throttle body do not represent any real obsticle if the air is spinning. The spinnin air will just split into 2 spinning air columns on each side of the butterfly valve and typically will rejoin back into a single spinning air column of two spiraling air streams.
So yes there can be some advantages to using the devices that can spin the incomming air. The problem is that on a modern port fuel injected engine, and improvements would be so minor that they simply do not justify the cost. Many of these devices sell for $69-$89 and would require many years of operation to benefit from any fuel savings.
Even at $20 plus shipping would take so long to recoop your investment that catching an extra stop light on the way to work once a week would easily wipe out any gas savings accumulated for that month!
...Rich
The major advantage of spinning the air is two fold.
The first fact is that spinning air will go around corners and obsticals without dramatically reducint the flow.
The second fact is that if that spinning air contains atomized fuel vapors, the molecules of fuel will follow the spinning air and remain in vapor form rather than slamming into an inner wall of the intake manifold and returning to a liquid form. That makes the air/fuel mixture too lean.
The prinicples of these tornado devices work much better in a carburated engine whene the fuel an air are mixed and must travel some convoluted path before entering the combustion chamber. A spinning air/fuel mixture will maintain a more consistant mixture and distribute a more equial air/fuel mixture to each cylinder.
In a Port Fuel Injected engine the fuel is not injected into the air stream behind the intake valve and the path is a very short, straight line into the cylinder. So the effects of spinning the air in a port fuel injected engine are minimal.
The actual butterfly valves of the throttle body do not represent any real obsticle if the air is spinning. The spinnin air will just split into 2 spinning air columns on each side of the butterfly valve and typically will rejoin back into a single spinning air column of two spiraling air streams.
So yes there can be some advantages to using the devices that can spin the incomming air. The problem is that on a modern port fuel injected engine, and improvements would be so minor that they simply do not justify the cost. Many of these devices sell for $69-$89 and would require many years of operation to benefit from any fuel savings.
Even at $20 plus shipping would take so long to recoop your investment that catching an extra stop light on the way to work once a week would easily wipe out any gas savings accumulated for that month!
...Rich
R 2
Well-Known Member
Gang......FYI...common sense stuff but worth re-iterating...
Facts not Fiction
The following are some fuel-saving driving
Use Cruise Control on Flat Terrain
Cruise control does a better job of maintaining a steady speed than we do. And the fuel economy difference can be impressive. For example, in the edmunds.com test, the Mustang GT improved fuel economy by 4.5 percent with cruise control. The other tested vehicle, a Land Rover LR3, showed a 13.9 percent improvement in fuel economy with cruise control.
Turn Off the Engine Rather Than Letting It Idle
Today's vehicle engines don't need to be “warmed up†and should be turned off if you're waiting more than 30 seconds. Whether it's a traffic jam for road construction or waiting at the bank drive-through window, turn off the engine.
Avoid Excess Weight
And that doesn't mean around the waistline. When the trunk, back seat(s) and roof racks are empty, a vehicle's fuel economy is better. In fact, removing an aftermarket roof rack could also help by making the vehicle more aerodynamic.
Regular Maintenance
When wheels are aligned, air filters are changed as recommended, and the correct octane fuel and recommended motor oil are used, fuel economy will improve. A dirty air filter can decrease mpg by as much as 10 percent.(1)
Don't Drive Like a NASCAR Driver
Easing up on the gas pedal to avoid hard acceleration and on the brake pedal to avoid hard stops helps improve fuel economy. So does driving at lower speeds. In fact, once a vehicle's speed climbs above 65 mph, every extra 5 mph can decrease fuel economy by 7 percent.(1)
Keep Tires Properly Inflated
Underinflated tires require more energy to roll, which means more frequent fill-ups. Fuel economy improves by about 3.3 percent if tires are properly inflated.(1)
And Then the Old Windows, A/C Debate
The Question
Which saves more fuel, driving with air conditioning off and windows down, or with air conditioning on and windows up?
Pros and Cons
The A/C compressor pulls power from the engine, requiring more gas. But the effect is minimal in modern cars. Rolling the windows down increases drag on most cars, canceling out the gain from turning the A/C off.
The Answer
Both driving techniques reduce fuel economy. You may get slightly better fuel economy by turning the A/C off and rolling down the windows, but the overall difference in fuel consumption is truly marginal.
Mustang GT in Fuel Economy Test
Recently edmunds.com tested the fuel-saving techniques described in this article, using a 2005 Mustang GT with the 5-speed manual transmission. The chart below shows how Mustang performed in the tests:
Fuel Economy Test Results from edmunds.com
With cruise control(2) 23.3 mpg
Without cruise control(2) 22.3 mpg
Percent change 4.5% improvement
With A/C on, windows up(3) 29.5 mpg
With A/C off, windows down(3) 30.7 mpg
Percent change 4.1% improvement
With lead foot(2) 18.1 mpg
With feather foot(2) 23 mpg
Percent change 27.1% improvement
Bottom Line
The bottom line is that when drivers make simple changes in their driving techniques,
they'll improve their vehicle's fuel economy and spend less time and money at the pumps.
(1) According to the U.S. Department of Energy.
(2) Tested at a variety of speeds.
(3) Vehicles tested were driven at 65 mph.
Facts not Fiction
The following are some fuel-saving driving
Use Cruise Control on Flat Terrain
Cruise control does a better job of maintaining a steady speed than we do. And the fuel economy difference can be impressive. For example, in the edmunds.com test, the Mustang GT improved fuel economy by 4.5 percent with cruise control. The other tested vehicle, a Land Rover LR3, showed a 13.9 percent improvement in fuel economy with cruise control.
Turn Off the Engine Rather Than Letting It Idle
Today's vehicle engines don't need to be “warmed up†and should be turned off if you're waiting more than 30 seconds. Whether it's a traffic jam for road construction or waiting at the bank drive-through window, turn off the engine.
Avoid Excess Weight
And that doesn't mean around the waistline. When the trunk, back seat(s) and roof racks are empty, a vehicle's fuel economy is better. In fact, removing an aftermarket roof rack could also help by making the vehicle more aerodynamic.
Regular Maintenance
When wheels are aligned, air filters are changed as recommended, and the correct octane fuel and recommended motor oil are used, fuel economy will improve. A dirty air filter can decrease mpg by as much as 10 percent.(1)
Don't Drive Like a NASCAR Driver
Easing up on the gas pedal to avoid hard acceleration and on the brake pedal to avoid hard stops helps improve fuel economy. So does driving at lower speeds. In fact, once a vehicle's speed climbs above 65 mph, every extra 5 mph can decrease fuel economy by 7 percent.(1)
Keep Tires Properly Inflated
Underinflated tires require more energy to roll, which means more frequent fill-ups. Fuel economy improves by about 3.3 percent if tires are properly inflated.(1)
And Then the Old Windows, A/C Debate
The Question
Which saves more fuel, driving with air conditioning off and windows down, or with air conditioning on and windows up?
Pros and Cons
The A/C compressor pulls power from the engine, requiring more gas. But the effect is minimal in modern cars. Rolling the windows down increases drag on most cars, canceling out the gain from turning the A/C off.
The Answer
Both driving techniques reduce fuel economy. You may get slightly better fuel economy by turning the A/C off and rolling down the windows, but the overall difference in fuel consumption is truly marginal.
Mustang GT in Fuel Economy Test
Recently edmunds.com tested the fuel-saving techniques described in this article, using a 2005 Mustang GT with the 5-speed manual transmission. The chart below shows how Mustang performed in the tests:
Fuel Economy Test Results from edmunds.com
With cruise control(2) 23.3 mpg
Without cruise control(2) 22.3 mpg
Percent change 4.5% improvement
With A/C on, windows up(3) 29.5 mpg
With A/C off, windows down(3) 30.7 mpg
Percent change 4.1% improvement
With lead foot(2) 18.1 mpg
With feather foot(2) 23 mpg
Percent change 27.1% improvement
Bottom Line
The bottom line is that when drivers make simple changes in their driving techniques,
they'll improve their vehicle's fuel economy and spend less time and money at the pumps.
(1) According to the U.S. Department of Energy.
(2) Tested at a variety of speeds.
(3) Vehicles tested were driven at 65 mph.
Michael Cacioppo
Well-Known Member
Dale and Darin, I am a retired Mechanical Engineer and know how to test cars. It did improve mileage................................naaaah, just kidding. I feel bad that some of you took me seriously. I guess I should have used smiley faces.
RichardL, I think I take acception to your spinning air description. The spinning air, which will only spin a short distance since there is nothing sustaining the motion, will more likely cause more turbulance, not less. With more turbulance you will get less flow. The proof of the pudding (now where the hell did anyone come up with that phrase?) would be on a flow bench. I would bet that the Tornado would cause less, not more flow.
RichardL, I think I take acception to your spinning air description. The spinning air, which will only spin a short distance since there is nothing sustaining the motion, will more likely cause more turbulance, not less. With more turbulance you will get less flow. The proof of the pudding (now where the hell did anyone come up with that phrase?) would be on a flow bench. I would bet that the Tornado would cause less, not more flow.
Wes Davis
Well-Known Member
And you only drive down hill, right MikeC. LOL
[Broken External Image]:
[Broken External Image]:
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Cacioppo
Well-Known Member
Yup, both coming AND going!
MikeC,
The air will continue to spin as long as it is in a confined/restricted channel or pipe. The more restrictive the pipe the faster the air will spin. The spin will disapate or be reduced to turbulance if the air is forced into a larger space because the air volocity/speed is reduced when it enters a larger are. Just as it increases in speed when it passes through a narrower passage. That is called the venture effect.
That is pretty much the principle behind the Dyson Vacuum cleaner and that is highly visible through the canister on most bagless canister vacs.
As long as the spinning air continues to travel down a narrow tube like structure it will continue to spin. Each intake stroke of a piston will cause the air stream to turn down the the leg of the intake manifold that supplies that piston with air. Since the speed of the moving air can approach sonic speeds, the spinning air has it's own momentum.
...Rich
The air will continue to spin as long as it is in a confined/restricted channel or pipe. The more restrictive the pipe the faster the air will spin. The spin will disapate or be reduced to turbulance if the air is forced into a larger space because the air volocity/speed is reduced when it enters a larger are. Just as it increases in speed when it passes through a narrower passage. That is called the venture effect.
That is pretty much the principle behind the Dyson Vacuum cleaner and that is highly visible through the canister on most bagless canister vacs.
As long as the spinning air continues to travel down a narrow tube like structure it will continue to spin. Each intake stroke of a piston will cause the air stream to turn down the the leg of the intake manifold that supplies that piston with air. Since the speed of the moving air can approach sonic speeds, the spinning air has it's own momentum.
...Rich
Dale Carter
Active Member
MikeC - that is the reason for the disclaimer at the end HAHA
Question for you engineer/physics types - since the Tornado is turned by the incoming air, rather than the incoming air being turned by the Tornado, wouldn't there be some tiny parasitic loss due to reduced airflow?
If there were an outside force turning the Tornado blades, as with the crankshaft with a blower or the exhaust gas with a turbo, that would not be the case.
BTW, anyone ever seen how much power a blower USES to make more power?
Question for you engineer/physics types - since the Tornado is turned by the incoming air, rather than the incoming air being turned by the Tornado, wouldn't there be some tiny parasitic loss due to reduced airflow?
If there were an outside force turning the Tornado blades, as with the crankshaft with a blower or the exhaust gas with a turbo, that would not be the case.
BTW, anyone ever seen how much power a blower USES to make more power?
Michael Cacioppo
Well-Known Member
On a funny car or dragster the number is huge, a couple of hundred ponies. Then again they can help generate 8000 HP on nitomethane burning engines. Turbos are drastically less parasitic than superchargers since they use the exhaust gases to spin the rotors rather than the crank.
RichardL, The Venturi effect is a occurs in a case of fluid or air flow through a tube or pipe with a constriction in it. The fluid must speed up in the restriction, reducing its pressure and producing a partial vacuum via the Bernoulli effect.
The air gains kinetic energy as it enters the constriction, and that energy is supplied by a pressure gradient force from behind. The pressure gradient reduces the pressure in the constriction, in reaction to the acceleration. Likewise, as the fluid leaves the constriction, it is slowed by a pressure gradient force that raises the pressure back to the ambient level.
I understand the velocity increase, same principle used in a carb, with the fuel jet supplying fuel via the Benoulli effect. I'm not certain that a non forced circular motion can be maintained when the force creating the swirl is the tangental angle of the Tornado blades and the air flow velocity entering the unit with a max velocity of about 10 ft/sec at 6000 RPM ( a few assumptions..4" diameter and 600CFM air flow at redline)
In the case of the vacuum, there is more tangential force from the blades imparted onto the air since they are driven by the motor.
RichardL, The Venturi effect is a occurs in a case of fluid or air flow through a tube or pipe with a constriction in it. The fluid must speed up in the restriction, reducing its pressure and producing a partial vacuum via the Bernoulli effect.
The air gains kinetic energy as it enters the constriction, and that energy is supplied by a pressure gradient force from behind. The pressure gradient reduces the pressure in the constriction, in reaction to the acceleration. Likewise, as the fluid leaves the constriction, it is slowed by a pressure gradient force that raises the pressure back to the ambient level.
I understand the velocity increase, same principle used in a carb, with the fuel jet supplying fuel via the Benoulli effect. I'm not certain that a non forced circular motion can be maintained when the force creating the swirl is the tangental angle of the Tornado blades and the air flow velocity entering the unit with a max velocity of about 10 ft/sec at 6000 RPM ( a few assumptions..4" diameter and 600CFM air flow at redline)
In the case of the vacuum, there is more tangential force from the blades imparted onto the air since they are driven by the motor.
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeC,
Much of the spin imparted to the air remains because there is a continuous degrease in the diameters of the tube from the MAF to the intake valve. On a Sport Trac, the intake pipe starts at about 3" (75 mm) at the MAF where the Tornado device is installed. The stock Throttlebody is about 70 mm and the individual runners per cylinder are less than 2" (50 mm) in diameter. The air at the valve is moving quite fast. The momentum of the spinning air along with the increased speed will keep the air spinning until it reaches the cylinder.
The real point I'm trying to make is that since the air does not contain atomized fuel, there is little if any benefit of the spinning air. It may allow the air to pass through the full length of the intake path with less turbulance but not so much that most people would even notice.
If yoou are getting more MPG with your Tornado device, then the effect of the spinning air on a port fuel injected engine may be greater than I expected, or something totally unrelated to the installation of the Tornado is actually the reason for your MPG imporvement.
What is your current MPG?
...Rich
Much of the spin imparted to the air remains because there is a continuous degrease in the diameters of the tube from the MAF to the intake valve. On a Sport Trac, the intake pipe starts at about 3" (75 mm) at the MAF where the Tornado device is installed. The stock Throttlebody is about 70 mm and the individual runners per cylinder are less than 2" (50 mm) in diameter. The air at the valve is moving quite fast. The momentum of the spinning air along with the increased speed will keep the air spinning until it reaches the cylinder.
The real point I'm trying to make is that since the air does not contain atomized fuel, there is little if any benefit of the spinning air. It may allow the air to pass through the full length of the intake path with less turbulance but not so much that most people would even notice.
If yoou are getting more MPG with your Tornado device, then the effect of the spinning air on a port fuel injected engine may be greater than I expected, or something totally unrelated to the installation of the Tornado is actually the reason for your MPG imporvement.
What is your current MPG?
...Rich
Michael Cacioppo
Well-Known Member
Rich, I think you misunderstood my first post. I do not have a Tornado. I, as I assume you do, do not think that this type of device has any affect on a dry manifold type engine (port injected). My first post was a spoof. Some people say that they have gotten more MPG on a Trac with this device. The only conclusion I can make is that the device allows more restriction overall, and as such will slightly enrich the mixture due to the lessening of air intake. This may bring the A/F ratio away from a too lean mixture and more toward the stochiometic value to a point more combustion efficient than the present lean mixture.
I think we are now on the same page.
BTW, I have an '03 4X4. My MPG is about 15 around town back roads in CT and maybe 18 on the highway. I cruise at about 75 which is not very efficient. I have a bull bar, class III hitch, a rear step bar and a 75 lb OEM cover for added weight. I think it tips the scales at around 4850
pounds. I have a sct tune, K&N FIPK, and a magnaflow exhaust. I am a little heavy on the gas pedal. I used to have an F150 a while back that got 13 MPG period, no matter how you drove it. The Trac is an improvement. The Truck the track replaced was a V6 Dodge Dakota (170 HP). I had mods on it also. U/D pullies, Jacobs ignition, K&N, magnaflow exhaust, Electric Fan, and Jet chip. It weighed 4400 pounds and only got 19 when I milked it on the highway. It also had a lot less performance than the Trac.
I think we are now on the same page.
BTW, I have an '03 4X4. My MPG is about 15 around town back roads in CT and maybe 18 on the highway. I cruise at about 75 which is not very efficient. I have a bull bar, class III hitch, a rear step bar and a 75 lb OEM cover for added weight. I think it tips the scales at around 4850
pounds. I have a sct tune, K&N FIPK, and a magnaflow exhaust. I am a little heavy on the gas pedal. I used to have an F150 a while back that got 13 MPG period, no matter how you drove it. The Trac is an improvement. The Truck the track replaced was a V6 Dodge Dakota (170 HP). I had mods on it also. U/D pullies, Jacobs ignition, K&N, magnaflow exhaust, Electric Fan, and Jet chip. It weighed 4400 pounds and only got 19 when I milked it on the highway. It also had a lot less performance than the Trac.
