Utemad replied:

I wouldn't call $300 nothing however the general consensus seems to be that they are a waste of money. Although I have never used one.

Member - 'Lucy' replied:

Toy60

Had two in a 75 series 1HZ.

Result can only be described as a WOFTAM. Waste Of F$$$ing Time And Money.

However, member PESTY uses them in his Yota and swears by them. (been sniffing too much of that stuff he sprays I think). Anyway ask him to elucidate his experiences re same for you.

Regards

Ken Robinson

Truckster (Vic) replied:

How do they work..

1) you hand over $
2) you take home and fit..
3) you remove and take back for your $$ back.
4) Burn the $ you would get the same result. o

5) get your car properly tuned with the $300 you would have wiped your buttox on instead.

Try searching... there is $()!@)$(@!#)$(@#)(n 0213982039840 threads on it.

Uppy - Member replied:

Hi Toy60,Ive got a gq efi 4.2 Ive had them in my wagon for 3 years,Ive found that they did decease my fuel consumption around about 10% and a bit more on the open road,for my model gq they do work.People well tell you that they dont work .But in my case the do.And I do get my wagon tuned every 10,000 ks.
regards uppy

Mike Harding replied:

The consensus on the aus.cars.offroad newsgroup is that they don't work but you could try posting and asking - we haven't had a good laugh on there for a while :)

My understanding is that they are a ring (cone?) like bit of shaped metal? So you have to ask yourself: such a device could be made in it's millions for a few cents each and if it save 10%? fuel why aren't the car manufactures fitting them? They spend many dollars on electronics to optimise their engines so why not a few more cents?

Mike Harding

mike_harding@fastmail.fm

fourstall2000 replied:

I had one fitted to a 62 series Toyota,it did improve the torque slightly at certain speeds,which is probably why modern engines have variable length intake chambers.
But as for fuel economy they do not live up to the promise,you may get 1% but for the money they are just not worth it.
As previous posts say $300 is better spent on either Tuning or a Gas conversion.
I went this way with LPG,once the bill is paid you forget about the cost and enjoy the thrill of half price motoring.
Bite the Bullet.

ross replied:

I always send potential purchasers of this "wonder product" to the site below.
It is written by a qualified automotive engineer.It includes info on all the common fuel savers including the hiclone.

http://www.fuelsaving.info/debunk.htm

Oh and by the way I had one fitted to my petrol landcruiser by the PO and it was f%#@ing useless. .
I am banned from buying their products after I repeatedly asked their rep for independantly audited tests :) .
They dont have any and we know why!
Dont be conned

Member - aussichef (SA) replied:

I have one in my 94 gq petrol patrol & well all i can say is my mileage has improved so unless u have tried one you shouldnt comment
It seems that its always the ones who have never tried them that come out the most against them
Having said that mine works so i will let the experts who havent got any make all the comments
lol
warren

D-Jack replied:

Toy 60

Here's a no crap reply

I purchased 2 as a sceptic, but willing to give them a try on my 99 TD JAckaroo. Firstly, I was pretty much aware of what my fuel consumption was doing after 6 months of pretty accurate records.
Secondly, I conducted some tests just before I had them fitted. Grab a passenger, find a point at the bottom of a hill, sit on a constant speed before you hit the hill (say 80km/h) then floor it in 4th. Time how long it takes you to get to a fixed point at or near the top of the hill, and/or your speed at that point. Do it 5 times and like me you fill find they are almost exactly the same each time.

Now, get the Hiclones fitted. Go straight back to the same ill and repeat the test 10 times. My logic tells me if you have a power increase then you average time will drop at least something. If it does, and there was no extreme temperature change (mos't cars run better in cooler rather than hotter air) , then chances are you have a slight power increase. Which in turn should mean you have a fuel consumption reduction.

For me in my TD Jackaroo, they didn't make a scrap of difference to power or economy over 2 months (I negotiated a 2 month warranty - you should be able too)

That doesn't mean they won't work you your truck. You've got nothing to lose if you fit them yourself (don't pay anyone to do it - it is a piece of cake, even for me) - just take off a hose, slip the thing in and put the hose back on. Comes with individual vehicle/model/engine instructions. I got my money back - they do honour their warranty.

They say the more hiclones the merrier - go two and if two won't work, then one certainly won't and get you money back. I think $300 would buy you two anyway.

Its the old thingy that you have to take risks to get ahead. Hope this helps.3

D-Jack

p.s. or you could just put it on a dyno before and after!!!!
p.s.s let me know how you go,

Rick Blaine replied:

Guys... months ago Choice magazine tested them and stated clearly, categorically and emphatically that they do not do what they claim... strange though how all these wiz bang things seem to come out of Queensland.....

Member - Jeff M (WA) replied:

I agree that people should not knock things unless they have first tried, esepcially on a product that has a tried and proven money back guarantee.
But in saying this when I bought my 1995 TD Surf it had two Hiclone boxes with the books etc. Assuming that I have two installed, I get no better fuel economy than any of the other 1kz-te surf owners I have spoken to or read about on the net. Not scientific, but I would be saying that they are not real flash in the saving of fuel department.
However as somone menitioned above it may well be that they do not give the same results on turboed vehicles as the turbo would just "undo" any of these changes they are claimed to make in the airflow.
So it may well be that for a naturally aspirated ULP guslling old 60 it may well be benificial. Hell you can ask for your money back... Just make sure you get them through a reputable dealer and ensure that they are aware that you will be brining them back if there are no results in fuel efficaiancy gain.

fisho64 replied:

tried it in my naturally aspirated hilux on an 1800k trip and same trip without. No difference but it wasnt $300 it was $90 and a 30day money back guarantee. The salesman asked what car it was for when i told him he said Oh yeah theyre best in hiluxes LOL. Returned it 2 weeks later and he said Oh weve never had one returned HAHA Bollocks I think

fourplayfull replied:

Well I was sceptical to the point where I did before & after non involved dyno tests with a guarantee of refund if there was not an appreciable power gain . Results - 8 hp through whole range but no better fuel economy .

Savvas replied:

I'll throw my opinion in. Hiclones will deliver some result in only very specific situations.

Those that are familiar with the airbox on a V6 Jackaroo will know that there is a plastic cyclone just before a 180deg bend on the airfeed pipe that enters the airbox. In that situation, the cyclone will create a swirling effect that enables the air to negotiate that bend with minimum turbulence.

So in situations like that, you may find the Hiclone will deliver some minor benefit. But I would not expect that it would be a miracle fix to fuel consumption on a 60 series.

And $300 for a piece of stainless steel like they are is a ripoff.

Member - Collyn R (WA) replied:

During my years with General Motors Research Division we probably tested almost every fuel economy' device on the market. Here's a few generalised comments.

1. Passenger cars (incl 4WDs) are a compromise in many areas that include: power, torque, flexibility, fuel consumption, longevity etc. It is often possible to increase one area, but almost invariably at the expense of another. I have yet to see any device of any sort that can increase both power, torque and fuel consumption - let alone do so at the expense of longevity.

2. Many airflow modifying devices will improve fuel consumption - but most do so simply because air flow is restricted and power output reduced (A recent 4WD magazine 'test' showd just that). Much the same saving could thus be effected by driving with a lighter right foot.

3. It is extremely difficult to compare fuel consumption measurements - there are a huge number of variables. Even a change in barometric pressure will alter the amount of fuel you can pump into a tank by a surprising amount. During my later involment with Kerry Packer's motoring magazines, I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that there is at least 7% experimental error with fuel consumption measurements performed without lab-standard testing gear - with identical cars driven in a frequently leader-changing convoy.

4. Re Hiclone, this is probably one of the more promising contenders and I believe you can probably obtain a marginal gain with vehicle that have spectacularly bad inlet manifolding that causes unequal cylinder filling. The early (1970s) Toyota Coasters are an example and exhibit a measureable torque increase when a Hiclone is fitted. But I very much doubt if there will be any OVERALL gain with any well-designed engine.

Gnerally tho, and as Mike rightly says, if they all that is often claimed why would the car makers not use it. And it's nothing to do with patents! If there'd been anything worth pursuing, GM certainly would have followed it up.

As an aside - one of the motoring magazines back then (of which I was briefly managing editor) - was publishing comparative quarter mile acceleration data to two decimal places - yet was measuring that quarter mile by pacing it out! Error plus/minus 10% in the paced distance alone. Plus at least another 1-2% in reading the stopwatch. Plus at least another 3% in driver variation.

Repeatability was never better than 10%.

Despite accuracy of no better than 15% the magazine was publishing the results to 0.01% (!!!!!!!!!). And readers used to furiously debate Ford vs Holden on the basis of this totally meaningless data.

This goes on today. Fridge performance variations referred to on Forums are usually far more to do with installation and usage differences than the fridges themselves!
Collyn Rivers

ross replied:

If you must try one to soothe your own curiosity ,dont pay $90-$300.
They always come up in parts adverts for $20-$50

From those that claim to get better mileage and/or fuel consumption,just how did you arrive at the exact percentages?
As stated correctly in the other posts you need highly accurate fuel metering equipment and a set standard of tests.
Looking at your speedo and fuel gauge will not give you an accurate reading.

The US Enviromental Protection Agency did exhaustive tests on many models with various types of fuel delivery and could not get any improvement in any vehicle.

I also believe the NRMA and RAC have also debunked the hiclone and others.

Why dont the companies that make them ever get independant testers to verify their claims?
For reputable inventors this would be the 1st step and the most rock solid claim you could make in your advertising.
And if the claims that they only work on certain types of cars are true,then couldnt those cars be identified to save the owners of non benefitting cars wasting their time.

crowie replied:

NO

carl923 replied:

i drive a 5L V8 befor i had the hiclone doing a trip from roxby to adelaide (aproxamatly 600 km) i would hae to refill before i go to adelaide now with the hiclone apart from the power increase i now can drie down there on one tank and have enough fuel to drie around for the day i dont no if its different between different cars but i would recomend the hiclone.

Member -Dodger replied:

I had a 2.6 petrol ford courier and the hiclone did not help one bit.