Gas savers? Hokey bologna?

-
It says you cant get it in retail stores, so my guess is not that many people know about it. I would like to maybe try it, but it does look a little pricey. I guess I'll wait to hear if anyone else has had it work for them. I dont think older cars would see as big of gains as new ones.
 
Until somebody gets a fuel additive to pass the EPA fuel economy tests, I'm going to lump this one in the "hokey bologna" category. There's a rather interesting collection of mileage gadget tests you can check out here:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/reports.htm

About a half dozen items on the list were fuel additives, and every last one of them has bombed.
 
I read through the claims and a lot of the "science" that they are claiming sounds like a load.

The one claim that sticks out is that premium fuels get better gas milage. I know this not to be true. Higher octane fuels get less milage than lower octane fuels.

Also the point about "Where did all the smog go?", most of it was burnt in the catalytic coverters and smog systems that were added to cars in the '70s. Not from secret fuel additives the oil companies had to add.

Finally, I think their efficency math is a little bungled. If engines were only 20 percent effiecient, I think we would be burning a lot more fuel than we already are.

I'll chalk this one up to the ever present "snake oils"
 
ElephantKiller said:
Finally, I think their efficency math is a little bungled. If engines were only 20 percent effiecient, I think we would be burning a lot more fuel than we already are.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, that one's actually pretty close to the truth. And a broken watch is right twice a day.
 
Finally, I think their efficency math is a little bungled. If engines were only 20 percent effiecient, I think we would be burning a lot more fuel than we already are.
Click to expand...

I think it was 20 percent ineffiecient, as in wasted power probably due to the auto trans used in there testing. Old tranny are or actually I should say can be that bad.

Nower days, the better designs and lock up converters help out.

I wonder about there video claim from FOX 5 TV and so on. Who can put this to the test?

I think they said $20 a bottle that treats 160 gallons. (?)
 
I looked around and found that these people have been sued multiple times for bait and switch among other offenses. The developer of this claims to have a degree from Harvard and be a Nobel Peace Prize canidate. All False. The guy ran a junkyard in San Diego.

Lots of investors and private sellers have been duped including some pretty smart cookies and people are running like crazy to get away from the impending implosion.

Snake oil.
 
rumblefish360 said:
I wonder about there video claim from FOX 5 TV and so on.
Click to expand...

They gave them an incredibly expensive additive that does reduce soot from deisel engines originally developed for the military to make tanks more stealthy. The maker of that additive is suing them (Ethos).

I've found independent tests that show that it does nothing.
 
Ramcharger.....it does do something...sucks money right out of your hands.

Like the guy that wanted to sell me some of those Tornado Vortez Intake Blades.
I asked him how it kept the vortex going all the way to the combustion chamber after it hit the throttle blades and the valves.
He never could answer that one.
 
yellowdartdave said:
Ramcharger.....it does do something...sucks money right out of your hands.
Click to expand...

lol! Ahhh.... The Vornado, I loved the two plastic bottles taped together that's supposed to "represent my engine".

This is complete bull and was my first tip-off:
"When you drive up to a gas station and see the different grades of gasoline... Basic, Premium, Plus... etc... These are just different grades of molecule spacing. They're making the gas more effective, and charging you more money for it!"
 
rumblefish360 said:
I think it was 20 percent ineffiecient, as in wasted power probably due to the auto trans used in there testing. Old tranny are or actually I should say can be that bad.
Click to expand...

The engine isn't able to extract anything near 100% of the energy that's theoretically in the gasoline. Although around 98% of the gas does get burnt (one frequent claim of scammers is that it doesn't burn all the gas), a lot of the energy ends up going into heating up the radiator, out the exhaust as heat and noise, etc. And that's not even counting the bearing friction, power needed to drive accessories, etc.

If a motor with 10:1 compression had perfectly frictionless bearings, a zero backpressure exhaust, thermal coatings that reflected so much heat back into the combustion chamber it was able to run with no coolant, and a bunch of other things that won't ever happen in the real world, it still wouldn't go over 60% efficiency.
 
I was thinking not what the engine is capable of ... or not... but how muh is lost through the trans, drive shaft and rear.
 
rumblefish360 said:
I was thinking not what the engine is capable of ... or not... but how muh is lost through the trans, drive shaft and rear.
Click to expand...

I think that depends a lot on the drivetrain, but I've heard anywhere from 10% to 20%. That would be crank vs. rear wheel hp. There's a rear wheel dyno place just a few blocks away from the new pad, and from what Madcap racing has told me, their a "tuner" joint. Can't wait to take Orangezilla there, lol! I would imagine that the full time 4WD on the '74 RC would be 20% to 25% with the front drive shaft dropped and the transfer case in 4WD lock. Most likely much less on a 2WD A-body with synthetic lube in the rear end, a 904 and a 8 1/4. Less yet with a synthetic lubed manual trans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top