Does anyone have experience or know about the use of a fuel economy booster called "Eco-Fuel System"? If you "Google" the name, you'll find the website. This is an in-line modification that apparently increases fuel economy by improving the vaporization and creating a hotter, more efficient burn. The part uses copper screens mounted in a canister. It has the added effect of increasing power and making throttle response more crisp (manufacturer's claim). Increases are on the order of 1-4 MPG.
Improving Fuel Enonomy
- Thread starter MRLSC
- Start date
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
Thanks for the brief,artistic reply. Any reasons for your skepticism. The device has apparently been tested by a number of "consumer watch" news reporters in Texas and Nevada who have found the claim of increased mpg to be true. It is also being used by some municipalities for their fleet vehicles.
Thanks for the brief,artistic reply. Any reasons for your skepticism. The device has apparently been tested by a number of "consumer watch" news reporters in Texas and Nevada who have found the claim of increased mpg to be true. It is also being used by some municipalities for their fleet vehicles.
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
This device and others have been around for a long time. If it really worked as advertised I think we see it being used a lot more, more so when gas was over $3 a galon. Also, the auto manufactures have to meet CAFE standards, if they could get that kind of increase from a simple bolt on I am sure they would have done it by now.
This device and others have been around for a long time. If it really worked as advertised I think we see it being used a lot more, more so when gas was over $3 a galon. Also, the auto manufactures have to meet CAFE standards, if they could get that kind of increase from a simple bolt on I am sure they would have done it by now.
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
This device and others have been around for a long time. If it really worked as advertised I think we see it being used a lot more, more so when gas was over $3 a galon. Also, the auto manufactures have to meet CAFE standards, if they could get that kind of increase from a simple bolt on I am sure they would have done it by now.
[/div]
Unless the patent holders decide not to sell out.
I put the Fitch Fuel Conditioner pellets (which work the same way) in my gas tank and got an immediate 2 mpg improvement in mileage...more power too.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
This device and others have been around for a long time. If it really worked as advertised I think we see it being used a lot more, more so when gas was over $3 a galon. Also, the auto manufactures have to meet CAFE standards, if they could get that kind of increase from a simple bolt on I am sure they would have done it by now.
[/div]
Unless the patent holders decide not to sell out.
I put the Fitch Fuel Conditioner pellets (which work the same way) in my gas tank and got an immediate 2 mpg improvement in mileage...more power too.
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
In fact, it has been around since 1991. However, at that time,and up until very recently, gasoline prices were much more in line with the cost of other basic goods. Now, energy prices have surged ahead to the point that they are a more significant factor. There has been an increase in the interest in this device since several local news stations, including a major radio station in Washington, DC, have done positive stories on the device...finding that it does perform as advertised. Automobile manufacturers have met CAFE standards by using ultrapurified fuel (Number 1 grade) in a laboratory setting. The results they produce (the EPA MPG number posted on the window sticker of new vehicles)are rarely achieved in consumer use, mostly because of varying driving habits and the use of lower grade (Number 2) fuel. In addition, automobile manufactiurer's would have little interest in purchasing a device that would add to the build cost of millions of units, especially since the direct benefits are for consumers and not them. The point about the patent possibly not being sold to manufacturers is well made. It would not be the first time technology was bypassed due to patent claims.
In fact, it has been around since 1991. However, at that time,and up until very recently, gasoline prices were much more in line with the cost of other basic goods. Now, energy prices have surged ahead to the point that they are a more significant factor. There has been an increase in the interest in this device since several local news stations, including a major radio station in Washington, DC, have done positive stories on the device...finding that it does perform as advertised. Automobile manufacturers have met CAFE standards by using ultrapurified fuel (Number 1 grade) in a laboratory setting. The results they produce (the EPA MPG number posted on the window sticker of new vehicles)are rarely achieved in consumer use, mostly because of varying driving habits and the use of lower grade (Number 2) fuel. In addition, automobile manufactiurer's would have little interest in purchasing a device that would add to the build cost of millions of units, especially since the direct benefits are for consumers and not them. The point about the patent possibly not being sold to manufacturers is well made. It would not be the first time technology was bypassed due to patent claims.
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
So why did the auto manufacturers spend so much on hybrid technology to increase fuel efficiency? According to you they meet the CAFE standards and only the consumer benefits from the better fuel economy. With the economies of scale of such a simple device the added cost would not have been much if it produced the benefits it is claming.
GM and Ford jointly developed a 6 speed auto transmission just to gain a 4% increase in fuel economy. GM invested $450 million just in its plant to manufacture it.
Why don’t you buy one and try it out. Only install this part, don’t change anything else like fuel filter, air filter, plugs, tire pressure, etc. Use the same gas and don’t change your driving habits and tell us how it works. The fuel economy indicator fluctuates about 2.5% on the Marks computer with my normal driving routine. So I would expect if this device was to have a measured impact it would have to show a saving of grater then 2.5%. I would think a 5% increase would be more conclusive in this little experiment.
So why did the auto manufacturers spend so much on hybrid technology to increase fuel efficiency? According to you they meet the CAFE standards and only the consumer benefits from the better fuel economy. With the economies of scale of such a simple device the added cost would not have been much if it produced the benefits it is claming.
GM and Ford jointly developed a 6 speed auto transmission just to gain a 4% increase in fuel economy. GM invested $450 million just in its plant to manufacture it.
Why don’t you buy one and try it out. Only install this part, don’t change anything else like fuel filter, air filter, plugs, tire pressure, etc. Use the same gas and don’t change your driving habits and tell us how it works. The fuel economy indicator fluctuates about 2.5% on the Marks computer with my normal driving routine. So I would expect if this device was to have a measured impact it would have to show a saving of grater then 2.5%. I would think a 5% increase would be more conclusive in this little experiment.
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
So why did the auto manufacturers spend so much on hybrid technology to increase fuel efficiency? According to you they meet the CAFE standards and only the consumer benefits from the better fuel economy. With the economies of scale of such a simple device the added cost would not have been much if it produced the benefits it is claming.GM and Ford jointly developed a 6 speed auto transmission just to gain a 4% increase in fuel economy. GM invested $450 million just in its plant to manufacture it. Why don’t you buy one and try it out. Only install this part, don’t change anything else like fuel filter, air filter, plugs, tire pressure, etc. Use the same gas and don’t change your driving habits and tell us how it works. The fuel economy indicator fluctuates about 2.5% on the Marks computer with my normal driving routine. So I would expect if this device was to have a measured impact it would have to show a saving of grater then 2.5%. I would think a 5% increase would be more conclusive in this little experiment.
[/div]
Not trying beat a dead horse, but I got 10% with the Fitch Fuel Catalyst.
I also just remembered. I installed the Fitch In-line unit on my Wife's H2. The Hummer saw an increase of 2 mpg...which is 20%!
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
So why did the auto manufacturers spend so much on hybrid technology to increase fuel efficiency? According to you they meet the CAFE standards and only the consumer benefits from the better fuel economy. With the economies of scale of such a simple device the added cost would not have been much if it produced the benefits it is claming.GM and Ford jointly developed a 6 speed auto transmission just to gain a 4% increase in fuel economy. GM invested $450 million just in its plant to manufacture it. Why don’t you buy one and try it out. Only install this part, don’t change anything else like fuel filter, air filter, plugs, tire pressure, etc. Use the same gas and don’t change your driving habits and tell us how it works. The fuel economy indicator fluctuates about 2.5% on the Marks computer with my normal driving routine. So I would expect if this device was to have a measured impact it would have to show a saving of grater then 2.5%. I would think a 5% increase would be more conclusive in this little experiment.
[/div]
Not trying beat a dead horse, but I got 10% with the Fitch Fuel Catalyst.
I also just remembered. I installed the Fitch In-line unit on my Wife's H2. The Hummer saw an increase of 2 mpg...which is 20%!
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
So why did the auto manufacturers spend so much on hybrid technology to increase fuel efficiency? According to you they meet the CAFE standards and only the consumer benefits from the better fuel economy. With the economies of scale of such a simple device the added cost would not have been much if it produced the benefits it is claming.GM and Ford jointly developed a 6 speed auto transmission just to gain a 4% increase in fuel economy. GM invested $450 million just in its plant to manufacture it.
Geez, All I really wanted to know is if anyone here had experience with the "Eco Fuel System" product. I did not expect to get in to a discussion about why automobile manufacturers make certain decisions. I'm not sure why Ford and GM spent so much on a six speed transmission that is only an option on thier very expensive vehicles like the Corvette, which has poor fuel efficiency. Maybe that's why both companies are bleeding so bad financially. As for hybrid technology, it may greatly improve mileage but at a steep cost for consumers. A good example is the Honda Civic. The hybrid model costs around $6,000 more than the non-hybrid model. It would take more than the the expected life of the car for the owner to break even on fuel savings. But, it is a product Honda and others can market well as fuel prices surge. A engineer who developed Ford's hybrid engine said that the current technology could never overcome the weight disadvantages of the heavy batteries required to operate such systems to the point where it would be truly a gain. The real gains will come when alternative fuels like hydrogen can be safely and efficiently used, and that will eventually take the oil companies out of the picture completely...a longtime bond the automobile manufacturers are probably uncomfortable with breaking too quickly.
So why did the auto manufacturers spend so much on hybrid technology to increase fuel efficiency? According to you they meet the CAFE standards and only the consumer benefits from the better fuel economy. With the economies of scale of such a simple device the added cost would not have been much if it produced the benefits it is claming.GM and Ford jointly developed a 6 speed auto transmission just to gain a 4% increase in fuel economy. GM invested $450 million just in its plant to manufacture it.
Geez, All I really wanted to know is if anyone here had experience with the "Eco Fuel System" product. I did not expect to get in to a discussion about why automobile manufacturers make certain decisions. I'm not sure why Ford and GM spent so much on a six speed transmission that is only an option on thier very expensive vehicles like the Corvette, which has poor fuel efficiency. Maybe that's why both companies are bleeding so bad financially. As for hybrid technology, it may greatly improve mileage but at a steep cost for consumers. A good example is the Honda Civic. The hybrid model costs around $6,000 more than the non-hybrid model. It would take more than the the expected life of the car for the owner to break even on fuel savings. But, it is a product Honda and others can market well as fuel prices surge. A engineer who developed Ford's hybrid engine said that the current technology could never overcome the weight disadvantages of the heavy batteries required to operate such systems to the point where it would be truly a gain. The real gains will come when alternative fuels like hydrogen can be safely and efficiently used, and that will eventually take the oil companies out of the picture completely...a longtime bond the automobile manufacturers are probably uncomfortable with breaking too quickly.
7 sek mark
Registered
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
the best thing ive seen to improve fuel econ is hallow cats! when i punched mine out it went from 16 to about 18 with the same driving habits and same exhaust system and its free!!
the best thing ive seen to improve fuel econ is hallow cats! when i punched mine out it went from 16 to about 18 with the same driving habits and same exhaust system and its free!!
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
The Corvette has poor fuel efficiency ???? I get better MPG in my Vette then in my Mark.
Not the best benchmark for comparison.
EPA Mileage Estimates
Corvette M3 Crossfire SRT-6 Viper CLK55 AMG
City 18 mpg. 16 mpg. 17 mpg. 12 mpg. 16 mpg.
Highway 28 mpg. 24 mpg. 24 mpg. 20 mpg. 22 mpg
The Corvette has poor fuel efficiency ???? I get better MPG in my Vette then in my Mark.
Not the best benchmark for comparison.
EPA Mileage Estimates
Corvette M3 Crossfire SRT-6 Viper CLK55 AMG
City 18 mpg. 16 mpg. 17 mpg. 12 mpg. 16 mpg.
Highway 28 mpg. 24 mpg. 24 mpg. 20 mpg. 22 mpg
sleeper
Former LOD President
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
"The Eco-System is installed inline on your vehicle's fuel line after the fuel filter. When the fuel passes through the unit it creates a catalytic reaction, breaking up the hydro carbon chains in the fuel, causing the vapor pressure to increase. "
http://www.ecofuelsystems.com
BULL!!!
works the same as a half-dozen other snake oil products out there.
Popular mechanics tested some of these systems on a dyno recently. None improved power. None improved fuel efficiency. One of them caught fire on the dyno. Some of them reduced fuel efficiency by as much as 20%.
If you spend the money and put one of these on your car and want to believe it works, it likely will... you will drive differently and there will be a "placebo effect"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/1802932.html
It's crap i tell you.
And believe me, if this offered even 1 mpg improvement, manufacturers would be all over it. One reason: CAFE
As an engineer i can tell you that this would get nowhere near my car.
And there really isn't any funny business when it comes to gasoline formulations and EPA tests. It's a standard test, running a standard fuel. If a different fuel improved economy and emissions, believe me the states (commiefornia esp.) would mandate it in a hurry.
"The Eco-System is installed inline on your vehicle's fuel line after the fuel filter. When the fuel passes through the unit it creates a catalytic reaction, breaking up the hydro carbon chains in the fuel, causing the vapor pressure to increase. "
http://www.ecofuelsystems.com
BULL!!!
works the same as a half-dozen other snake oil products out there.
Popular mechanics tested some of these systems on a dyno recently. None improved power. None improved fuel efficiency. One of them caught fire on the dyno. Some of them reduced fuel efficiency by as much as 20%.
If you spend the money and put one of these on your car and want to believe it works, it likely will... you will drive differently and there will be a "placebo effect"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/1802932.html
It's crap i tell you.
And believe me, if this offered even 1 mpg improvement, manufacturers would be all over it. One reason: CAFE
As an engineer i can tell you that this would get nowhere near my car.
And there really isn't any funny business when it comes to gasoline formulations and EPA tests. It's a standard test, running a standard fuel. If a different fuel improved economy and emissions, believe me the states (commiefornia esp.) would mandate it in a hurry.
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
"The Eco-System is installed inline on your vehicle's fuel line after the fuel filter. When the fuel passes through the unit it creates a catalytic reaction, breaking up the hydro carbon chains in the fuel, causing the vapor pressure to increase. "http://www.ecofuelsystems.comBULL!!!works the same as a half-dozen other snake oil products out there.Popular mechanics tested some of these systems on a dyno recently. None improved power. None improved fuel efficiency. One of them caught fire on the dyno. Some of them reduced fuel efficiency by as much as 20%.If you spend the money and put one of these on your car and want to believe it works, it likely will... you will drive differently and there will be a "placebo effect"http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/1802932.html It's crap i tell you.And believe me, if this offered even 1 mpg improvement, manufacturers would be all over it. One reason: CAFEAs an engineer i can tell you that this would get nowhere near my car.And there really isn't any funny business when it comes to gasoline formulations and EPA tests. It's a standard test, running a standard fuel. If a different fuel improved economy and emissions, believe me the states (commiefornia esp.) would mandate it in a hurry.
[/div]
I usually agree with you Dave, but I can't on this one.
After installing the Fitch Fuel Catalyst on my car, I gained 2 mpg, and it has stayed there for about two years. I can understand a possible placebo effect and adjusting one's driving habits for a short period of time...but not two years. I am an aggressive driver who floors the pedal all the time. I wouldn't change my habits to improve my mileage, prove anyone wrong, or any other reason.
Further proof...I installed the Fitch on my wife's H2, and though she knew I did it, she didn't know what it was for. She went from 9 mpg to 11 mpg in about a week. There obviously couldn't have been a placebo effect here since she doesn't know a fuel filter from a coffee filter, so it MUST work. I've done nothing else to the Hummer besides install the Fitch.
The reason I even tried the Fitch in the first place is for two reasons: I really wanted to improve on the 9 mpg, and I figured with the 30 day-no-questions-asked-money-back-gaurantee, all I'd lose is the time I spent installing it, which was about 30 minutes.
Improving the H2's mileage by 20% has already saved me the $300 it cost for the system. My Mark's mileage only improved by about %10, so I'm guessing that its effects will vary by engine. I'm guessing that our 4.6 DOHC engines are more efficient than the 6.0 Vortech in the H2.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
"The Eco-System is installed inline on your vehicle's fuel line after the fuel filter. When the fuel passes through the unit it creates a catalytic reaction, breaking up the hydro carbon chains in the fuel, causing the vapor pressure to increase. "http://www.ecofuelsystems.comBULL!!!works the same as a half-dozen other snake oil products out there.Popular mechanics tested some of these systems on a dyno recently. None improved power. None improved fuel efficiency. One of them caught fire on the dyno. Some of them reduced fuel efficiency by as much as 20%.If you spend the money and put one of these on your car and want to believe it works, it likely will... you will drive differently and there will be a "placebo effect"http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/1802932.html It's crap i tell you.And believe me, if this offered even 1 mpg improvement, manufacturers would be all over it. One reason: CAFEAs an engineer i can tell you that this would get nowhere near my car.And there really isn't any funny business when it comes to gasoline formulations and EPA tests. It's a standard test, running a standard fuel. If a different fuel improved economy and emissions, believe me the states (commiefornia esp.) would mandate it in a hurry.
[/div]
I usually agree with you Dave, but I can't on this one.
After installing the Fitch Fuel Catalyst on my car, I gained 2 mpg, and it has stayed there for about two years. I can understand a possible placebo effect and adjusting one's driving habits for a short period of time...but not two years. I am an aggressive driver who floors the pedal all the time. I wouldn't change my habits to improve my mileage, prove anyone wrong, or any other reason.
Further proof...I installed the Fitch on my wife's H2, and though she knew I did it, she didn't know what it was for. She went from 9 mpg to 11 mpg in about a week. There obviously couldn't have been a placebo effect here since she doesn't know a fuel filter from a coffee filter, so it MUST work. I've done nothing else to the Hummer besides install the Fitch.
The reason I even tried the Fitch in the first place is for two reasons: I really wanted to improve on the 9 mpg, and I figured with the 30 day-no-questions-asked-money-back-gaurantee, all I'd lose is the time I spent installing it, which was about 30 minutes.
Improving the H2's mileage by 20% has already saved me the $300 it cost for the system. My Mark's mileage only improved by about %10, so I'm guessing that its effects will vary by engine. I'm guessing that our 4.6 DOHC engines are more efficient than the 6.0 Vortech in the H2.
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
Dave,
Thanks for the very nice write-up. This is what I was hoping to get...a point of view with some "teeth" in it. These devices sound great in theory, but in the hands of a competent tester, the facts will be laid out in black and white. The Popular Mechanics article was great. What I can't understand is the radio and television station reporters who tried this device and proclaimed it a "winner" I guess I know the answer and that is that reporters were testing it instead of engineers or mechanics and these days it seems reporters can be some of the biggest suckers!
Dave,
Thanks for the very nice write-up. This is what I was hoping to get...a point of view with some "teeth" in it. These devices sound great in theory, but in the hands of a competent tester, the facts will be laid out in black and white. The Popular Mechanics article was great. What I can't understand is the radio and television station reporters who tried this device and proclaimed it a "winner" I guess I know the answer and that is that reporters were testing it instead of engineers or mechanics and these days it seems reporters can be some of the biggest suckers!
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Dave,Thanks for the very nice write-up. This is what I was hoping to get...a point of view with some "teeth" in it. These devices sound great in theory, but in the hands of a competent tester, the facts will be laid out in black and white. The Popular Mechanics article was great. What I can't understand is the radio and television station reporters who tried this device and proclaimed it a "winner" I guess I know the answer and that is that reporters were testing it instead of engineers or mechanics and these days it seems reporters can be some of the biggest suckers!
[/div]
Doesn't explain why it worked on my vehicles. See my post above.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Dave,Thanks for the very nice write-up. This is what I was hoping to get...a point of view with some "teeth" in it. These devices sound great in theory, but in the hands of a competent tester, the facts will be laid out in black and white. The Popular Mechanics article was great. What I can't understand is the radio and television station reporters who tried this device and proclaimed it a "winner" I guess I know the answer and that is that reporters were testing it instead of engineers or mechanics and these days it seems reporters can be some of the biggest suckers!
[/div]
Doesn't explain why it worked on my vehicles. See my post above.
sleeper
Former LOD President
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Doesn't explain why it worked on my vehicles. See my post above.
[/div]
Neither does the Fitch website.
I still say it's complete BS and any gains you realized were due to either a placebo effect, altered driving habits/patterns, or a mathematical error.
I tried to read the fitchfuelcatalyst.com website and my brain about exploded. i don't want to take the time to debunk any of their claims. if it works for you, great, but i still call it like i see it, and it looks to me to be snake oil.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Doesn't explain why it worked on my vehicles. See my post above.
[/div]
Neither does the Fitch website.
I still say it's complete BS and any gains you realized were due to either a placebo effect, altered driving habits/patterns, or a mathematical error.
I tried to read the fitchfuelcatalyst.com website and my brain about exploded. i don't want to take the time to debunk any of their claims. if it works for you, great, but i still call it like i see it, and it looks to me to be snake oil.