Fuel Savers

[SR_Racing]

Maybe of interest...

We have a full service race shop here with chassis dyno, engine dyno, flowbench etc. We are often called upon to do testing for retailers, manufactures, consumers on performance or economy products. Over the years, we have tested, Oils, bolt-ons, headers, additives, etc. I won't go into all the scams or positive results, except for one that we did recently.

We have tested several Fuel additives and gadgets that are currently in the vogue. However a few months ago we were contacted by a company "Fuel Mizer" to test their device. (a clamp with several magnets in it that is installed on the fuel line to "give better performance and economy." This was to be done in conjunction with an advertising company that would be filiming a commercial during testing. We agreed with the test and contract.

Basically we would be doing several dyno runs collecting several engine parameters (HP/Torque/RPM, Fuel Flow, Temps, etc.) with and without the device.

They only had one vehicle to be tested. (a statistical limitation, but acceptable). Anyways, after the base line pulls it was obvious the vehicle (Dodge SUV, V8) wasn't in the best of condition. Of 6 pulls, all of the measured parameters varied each time. (a MAF sensor was suspect)

The "Fuel Mizer" was then installed and several more runs were done. THe Mizer was then removed again and several more pulls were done. The variances across each individual run was as much as 15%. However, statistically there was no difference in performance or economy with or without the device. Graphs were supplied to the customer. The contract indicated that they could use our name as the testing facility, but with no endorsement.

We assumed that the results would be of no use to them for advertising.

BUT...The ad appeared both on local TV regular programing and on some 30 min. infomercials. They simply took the worst graph of before install and the best of after install and used them in the commericials. Sure enough, there was a 15+% gain in economy and performance when using the Fuel Mizer! <g> In fact, there was about a 1% deterioation in performance. (no statistical value)

So, when you see those "independent lab" reports beware.

Jim

[LTC8K6]

http://www.gaspricefreedom.com/

Been seeing this FFI pyramid fuel mileage capsule scam a lot lately...

[LTC8K6]

http://www.atf1898.myffi.biz/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=4&id=16&Itemid=27

[SR_Racing]

Hey, We also tested MPG caps also... No results other than some debris in the fuel filter.

BTW, The actual name on the Fuel Mizer was "FuelMiser". It was not the device marketed as the Fuel Mizer, which is some sort of ECM piggyback controller. We haven['t tested that one.

Jim

[Just thinking]

They only had one vehicle to be tested. (a statistical limitation, but acceptable). Anyways, after the base line pulls it was obvious the vehicle (Dodge SUV, V8) wasn't in the best of condition. Of 6 pulls, all of the measured parameters varied each time. (a MAF sensor was suspect)

Jim

Why didn't your lab refuse to continue with the tests until the vehicle was repaired?

[dudalb]

Ah,the Miracle Gas Mileage Pill. A Golden Oldie of Scams,dating back to 1973 and the first Gas Crisis.

[BPSCG]

We agreed with the test and contract.

(...snip...)

They only had one vehicle to be tested. (a statistical limitation, but acceptable).
In light of subsequent events, do you still believe that?

The contract indicated that they could use our name as the testing facility, but with no endorsement.

We assumed that the results would be of no use to them for advertising.

BUT...The ad appeared both on local TV regular programing and on some 30 min. infomercials. They simply took the worst graph of before install and the best of after install and used them in the commericials. Sounds like you need to re-work your standard contract.

Something else you might do: This kind of claim has all the earmarks of a JREF challenge claim. When someone applies for the challenge, the nature of what he proposes to do is posted here in the Million Dollar Challenge forum. Then the JREF'ers pick it apart, looking for defects in the protocol.

You might want to try that next time someone comes to you with a gas-saving device. Your shop doesn't need to have its reputation damaged by being associated with scam artists.

[Freethinker]

Jim,

Skimming your post at first, I thought you were pushing the product. Sorry about that. :p Good information and thanks for posting it.

[OldTigerCub]

I recall seeing a product similar to the one described (basically a magnet that was clipped onto the fuel line) back in the late '70's - early '80's. It brings to mind another more recent offering, the Vortec Cyclone (http://www.vorteccyclone.com/index.html), which claims better gas mileage and performance, though there doesn't appear to be any real scientific evidence to back up the company's claims...just a few testimonials.

[Plantfoam]

I recall seeing a product similar to the one described (basically a magnet that was clipped onto the fuel line) back in the late '70's - early '80's. It brings to mind another more recent offering, the Vortec Cyclone (http://www.vorteccyclone.com/index.html), which claims better gas mileage and performance, though there doesn't appear to be any real scientific evidence to back up the company's claims...just a few testimonials.

The "Cyclone seems eerily similar to The Turbonator. (http://www.turbonator.com/index.html) (even the price?!

Most studies that have been conducted outside of these companies show quite the opposite of their claims. If anything, these devices inhibit airflow. There is a lot of turbulence to begin with in the intake and combustion chambers,so any difference made by these gadgets is minimal at best...and possibly detrimental to performance.

[littlehulkster]

There are things that can increase gas mileage.


These things involve routine maintenance and a steady foot.

I guess Americans just want more MPG without having to drive like they're sane or give up their precious horsepower.

[technoextreme]

There are things that can increase gas mileage.


These things involve routine maintenance and a steady foot.

I guess Americans just want more MPG without having to drive like they're sane or give up their precious horsepower.
I don't know. I remember the exact opposite being true. Driving like an insane maniac actually nets you better MPGs.

[webfusion]

Gas mileage increase? Here's a video that shows how to DOUBLE your MPG's.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/524517/double_your_gas_mileage_2x/

[krelnik]

Gas mileage increase? Here's a video that shows how to DOUBLE your MPG's...

Snopes says the last tip on that video (adding acetone) does not work (http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/acetone.asp).

--Tim Farley

[littlehulkster]

Gas mileage increase? Here's a video that shows how to DOUBLE your MPG's.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/524517/double_your_gas_mileage_2x/

Double your MPGs and halve the life of your entire fuel system.

Sounds like a deal to me!

Seriously, folks, if any of this stuff worked, it'd already be present in our cars or our fuel. It's in an automaker's best interests to increase MPG however they can. If a $0.50 piece of metal could save gas, it would be installed in every new car.

The same goes with gasoline. They dump millions of dollars and hours into researching additives. If anything could make it cleaner/more efficient, it'd already be in the fuel.

Just keep your car maintained and don't drive like you stole it. Better yet, ride your bike to work. That gets infinite MPG, and can help you get into shape.

[Plantfoam]

One of my favorite episodes of Mythbusters is where they test the MPG improvement gadgets. And yes, they tried acetone as well. I mean come on, if it were that easy, it would be more than an internet secret by now. Half of the peole I know will drive to the next town to save 3 cents a gallon:p

[dahduh]

Folks, if you want to save 10-15% off your fuel consumption just drive more slowly, in one gear lower than you would normally be. And don't stop at stop signs; pulling off is a real drain, and it doesn't really work well in 2nd.

[DickNJo]

These gadgets and various modifications, including the 100MPG carburator, go back in my memory to 1942, and gas rationing in the US. Oh. and they've all been bought up and buried by the evil Automakers and Oil Barons

[BPSCG]

If a $0.50 piece of metal could save gas, it would be installed in every new car.Except that the oil companies are paying the auto manufacturers $0.60 per car to not put them in.

:scarper:

[littlehulkster]

Except that the oil companies are paying the auto manufacturers $0.60 per car to not put them in.

:scarper:

And the oil companies are linked to the INTERNATIONAL ZIONIST CONSPIRACY, which in turn is run by REPTOIDS!

Damned Reptoids, always ruining everything.

[Just thinking]

Changing spark plugs and air filter? Only if they need changing will that help you.

Synthetic oils? Not to the degree they're claiming. And some cars are now listing those as recommended oils for their cars --- so it's already in there.

Acetone additive? Come on ... that stuff can break down some cars fuel system's rubber gaskets and seals.

Shutting the car off and on? No way!! Besides, that's when most of the engine's wear damage occurs. Not to mention the load you're putting on your starter and battery all the time.

Hey ... want to get worse mileage? Oxygenate your fuel and put a 10% ethanol mixture of gasoline in your tank.

[Shrike]

Shutting the car off and on? No way!! Besides, that's when most of the engine's wear damage occurs. Not to mention the load you're putting on your starter and battery all the time.


Not necessarily, mostly with a cold engine. A lot of manufacturers are integrating these systems as standard in their cars.
You can do it manually, but it's only worthwhile when you know for certain you're gonna be stopped for longer than about 30 seconds to a minute.

One of the best mileage tips: learn how to drive properly.
Anticipate, don't build up speed when you see you're going to have to brake again.
Learn to take corners at speed. Of course, not ridiculous speeds, but you can take corners much faster than most people think. This way, you don't lose speed.
Keep your car in good condition and clean.
Etc.

[Just thinking]

Not necessarily, mostly with a cold engine. A lot of manufacturers are integrating these systems as standard in their cars.

Sure ... with hybrids, which of course has this feature designed into them. But with cars 10+ years old in good condition, I wouldn't mess with it. (If you're waiting for a bridge to re-open due to boat traffic below, then sure --- turn it off.) The only place you're going to really make a dent with it is in stop and go traffic, which by itself is hard on a car. And if your car has carburetors ... well, we needn't get into the waste of fuel doing this "trick".

[Shrike]

Sure ... with hybrids, which of course has this feature designed into them. But with cars 10+ years old in good condition, I wouldn't mess with it. (If you're waiting for a bridge to re-open due to boat traffic below, then sure --- turn it off.) The only place you're going to really make a dent with it is in stop and go traffic, which by itself is hard on a car. And if your car has carburetors ... well, we needn't get into the waste of fuel doing this "trick".


No, not just hybrids. Even the modern BMW's have this feature.
But then we're still talking about modern cars, and, indeed, not ten year old cars.

[The Atheist]

Shows how much I haven't been in here lately - I've just about completed work on destroying one of these things - Fuelstar. (http://www.immortality.co.nz/fuelstar.html)

The perfect method of destruction - turn their own BS straight back at them.

Loving it.

[Shrike]

Good work, TA, keep us posted.

[JusCogens]

Folks, if you want to save 10-15% off your fuel consumption just drive more slowly, in one gear lower than you would normally be. And don't stop at stop signs; pulling off is a real drain, and it doesn't really work well in 2nd.

I like your thinking, but unless it's the only way to control your eager foot, you really should try to avoid shifting into a lower gear. Ideally, you would want to lower your revs without shifting into a lower gear (thereby pushing your revs up again) if possible.

But I just love these fuel-saving thingamajiggas people are buying these days. There doesn't really seem to be any limit on human gullibility, does it?

[thomps1d]

Seriously, folks, if any of this stuff worked, it'd already be present in our cars or our fuel. It's in an automaker's best interests to increase MPG however they can. If a $0.50 piece of metal could save gas, it would be installed in every new car.

My wife's family fell for one of the fuel pill scams a while back. They thought that it was a genuine innovation that "big oil" was suppressing through conventional channels due to its potential to cut into their profits.

I calmly explained to them that if one of the members of the oligarchy thought that introducing such an additive would squeeze out some extra MPGs, they would incorporate it as a "super-ultra-premium-deluxe" fuel, advertise it as saving you 10% on your fuel, and sell it for 9% above normal market prices - and that, by doing so, they would be able to patent the additive and watch their market shares soar.

I'm pretty sure they still believed in the scam, but at least they quit trying to convince me of it.

[bruto]

I like your thinking, but unless it's the only way to control your eager foot, you really should try to avoid shifting into a lower gear. Ideally, you would want to lower your revs without shifting into a lower gear (thereby pushing your revs up again) if possible.

But I just love these fuel-saving thingamajiggas people are buying these days. There doesn't really seem to be any limit on human gullibility, does it?Not necessarily true in hilly terrain. It depends of course on gearing among other things, but it can actually be more economical sometimes to run in a lower gear and slightly higher rpm's than to use a gear so high that you need to floor the throttle to maintain speed. The stick shift Jeep Cherokee (of which I have two) is a good example of this. You get better fuel enconomy on local highways in fourth than in fifth most of the time.

[fishkr]

Maybe of interest...

BUT...The ad appeared both on local TV regular programing and on some 30 min. infomercials. They simply took the worst graph of before install and the best of after install and used them in the commericials. Sure enough, there was a 15+% gain in economy and performance when using the Fuel Mizer! <g> In fact, there was about a 1% deterioation in performance. (no statistical value)

So, when you see those "independent lab" reports beware.

Jim

Jim,

I really appreciate the post. Empirical evidence is always good! And in this case, cynically funny. Sort of.

Magnets on the fuel line? Exactly what is this supposed to do? Shape the fuel molecules? These guys need to get into Homeopathic meds after their pyramid tumbles.

M

[biomorph]

i found this little gem at

http://www.atf1898.myffi.biz/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=38

here's the blurb.....
(I've added some comments, in brackets........)


The vast majority of fuel additives, treatments, conditioners, etc. marketed and sold in the U.S., are merely detergents that serve to clean the fuel system

(not true, detergents prevent and remove carbon build up in the combustion chamber from the burning fuel. So why clean the fuel system? how much dirt is in your fuel? (or tank?).


but do nothing to the combustion characteristics of fuel, or more importantly, to the combustion chamber itself.

(not true, if you chuck anything in your fuel, it'll change the burn somehow, either way)

This is exactly what separates our products from all others,

(true, it will not even clean the carbon off)

and where our technology and products are formulated to perform!

Think of our products as engine efficiency supple-ments. The fuel carries the supplement, with the active compounds,

(so the active ingredients are not the supplement? they need some sort of carrier to be used? sounds somenwhat like homeopathy to me. are the so-called active parts really chemical compounds? how much per % of active ingredient is in the product as a whole?)

into the combustion chamber where they are "activated" to perform the process they were engi-neered to create: the burning of fuel more cleanly and quickly.

(is it good english or science to say that an active ingredient needs activating? minor point perhaps, and spelling...? ok mine is not so good.)

The many claims that our competitors make about improving fuel combustion are simply false.

(not true IMHO, stick lead in, and then see your old banger sound great, and fly, well , within reason!)

With modern fuels, the combustion rate is 99.5%, so just how much of a gain would anyone expect to get with these competitive products?

(well a petrol engine used to be about 25% efficient (steam 5%), so whats the 99.5% about? it seems to suggest that the rate (speed?) is 99.5%, of what? Speed of burn? Eh? however this I'm sure is mistranslated by the reader as efficiency, which is not burn rate. And if the fuel burns faster, I think you'd need to adjust your ignition timing?. Not good. If it burns too fast, it'll all go bang before the piston gets to the optimum position. This is called pre-ignition, or pinking. Most fuels have to have some additive ie., lead, otherwise your engine would pink all the time anyhow.)

When we created the technology used in the MPG-CAPS™, we took a long careful scientific approach to the situation.

(Yeah, right, prove that please)

We know the dynamics of combustion vary depending on pressures, temperatures, ignition techniques, vaporization, and chemical characteristics of the fuel

(ok, only in petrol engines, diesel engines do not use vaporisation in the same way if at all really).

We know that fuels are efficient to a point of 99.5%. So how can we improve on this? Simply, we addressed the state of the combustion chamber itself, and the relationship therein of the fuel and how it is "processed"

(Improve what? isn't the 99.5% good enough for you? Wish my engine was 99% efficient! you can keep the 1/2% thanks...processed? - you mean good ol' burnt..and isn't the "state" of the combustion chamber mostly carbonised, after the first turn of a new [clean] engine it sure is! And how has this been acheived? if possible...which I doubt.)


What we have developed is a method of providing a catalytic coating in the combustion chamber.

(This chamber at the moment in a used engine is very, very likely to be dirty. so, where does this stuff go? on top of the carbon? They state that they do not use detergents, so that carbon is still there..haha!)

This catalytic coating provides an infinite nano-phase surface area for the catalyst to deposit on. This catalytic coating causes a catalytic reaction to occur in its presence.

(well nanophase what? yup woo machine, full throttle here...hang on, I'm sure there is some circular logic here, I'll let you decide.)

So now we utilize the fuel to carry the MPG-CAP™, in its dissolved state, to the combustion chamber, where the heat of combustion activates the chemical compound, and creates a very thin coating on the metal surfaces of the internal components within the combustion chamber.

(Again, what metal?, it's coated in hard burnt carbon, I mean you need a roto rooter to get it off, there is no metal as such. Do people really think that their engines are clean inside? Even with detergent it's not a complete burn, so deposits do occur.)

What this catalyst does, for our purposes, is to cause a change in what is called the "in-cylinder rate shaping" of the combustion. This, in turn, provides for a 30% increase in pressure on the down stroke of the piston, in a time frame slightly altered from a non-catalyzed state. This results in the improved performance.

(Well if this worked, what do you think your engine would do if it had 30% increase on the piston when on the power stroke? All the time. Bye bye engine in about 3 seconds. Sheer nonsense.)


The teflon comparison: Here’s an easy way to explain MPG-CAPS™ to first time customers. Ask them if they know how a non-stick frying pan works.
(yup I think I do)

They’ll be familiar with the way the coating keeps stuff from sticking to the surface of the pan.

(And how quickly it scrapes off)

That’s how MPG-CAPS™ work too, by coating the combustion chamber of your engine with sacrificial catalytic coating.

(Carbon aside, if it could, all that would do is raise your compression ratio. If its 30% thats a fair bit, not for stock engines, if any. how long will your motor last? Not long...... Raising your compression ratio increases your fuel consunption, and performance, if done with care. The opposite of the claim)

This micro-thin coating acts to catalyze pump fuels and dramatically improve your performance.

(Not that much increase in compression then , is there? Micro thin? Clinging precariously to all that carbon in the combustion chamber, how do you service the thing? Scrape off that dirt when rebuilding, and watch your so-called additive go too. Don't catalyst's stay intact? so you would need a one time treatment then? Ah! in between decokes though!..Yeah, get that outa here!)

As long as you continue to use the MPG-CAP™, the catalyst will continue to inhibit detrimental effects of sulfur molecules and other impurities found in pump fuels, retarding the formation of sludge, varnish and acids that are harmful to your engine. Your engine runs smoother, cleaner, has more pep, and you get the benefit of better gas mileage.

(So it does pretty much what standard detergents do, by description. These are already in the fuel from the pump, or your engine dies super quick. I've never seen sludge, varnish? in any motor I've had apart in the COMBUSTION chamber.,This has now got very misleading.)

Apologies for the long post.
My point is, could this be alternative medicine for engines (yup)

And as it is a publicly accessable document, can/would it be a candidate for the $1m?

I'm a bit incensed by this as it, to me, seems really bad science.
I have built a lot of motors too.
And it's about fuel, as per the OP

regards and thank you letting me rant.:)
BM

[Mongrel]

With modern fuels, the combustion rate is 99.5%, so just how much of a gain would anyone expect to get with these competitive products?

(well a petrol engine used to be about 25% efficient (steam 5%), so whats the 99.5% about?

From my understanding and a bit of squinting....

The 'combustion rate' refers to how much of the fuel (petrol) is burnt per cycle.

There's much better info here (http://www.fuelsaving.info/debunk.htm)

[biomorph]

From my understanding and a bit of squinting....

The 'combustion rate' refers to how much of the fuel (petrol) is burnt per cycle.

There's much better info here (http://www.fuelsaving.info/debunk.htm)

Of course, of course.....thats the one.
I think the average driver would equate that with some sort of efficiency, rather than know how relelvant that value is.
Soooo........if I burnt a quantity of fuel in a lab experiment, I would expect 1/2% left over of partly non combustables (nitrogen?) and particulate matter (carbon) and unburnt combustable matter not burnt due to time , air flow, or other real limiting factors.? I can see that being somewhat the case.
Thanks for the link, and the clarification, good one........I ought to have worked that out really.
regards
BM
:)