You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Improving Fuel Enonomy
- Thread starter MRLSC
- Start date
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
[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]
So the 30 day money back gaurantee is not enough to possibly realize a 2 mpg increase?
You should try it. This way, you can report your results to the people on the board.
Just saying you are an engineer and stating that something doesn't work because you don't THINK it does doesn't get anyone anywhere. I'm an engineer who graduated at the top of my class from a top engineering school AND who has worked on some top secret government work, but I don't expect the members here to put too much stock in that...I wouldn't.
I guess I'm just frustrated when someone says they won't believe what you say until you do a thorough, scientifically valid, bias free, real world, placebo free before-and-after test, and then still doesn't believe you after you've done it and reported the results.
I'M NOT DOING THIS OUT OF PRIDE...I HAVE SHOWN THAT IT REALLY WORKS. Until someone installs it for themselves and proves me otherwise, they really shouldn't comment.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
[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]
So the 30 day money back gaurantee is not enough to possibly realize a 2 mpg increase?
You should try it. This way, you can report your results to the people on the board.
Just saying you are an engineer and stating that something doesn't work because you don't THINK it does doesn't get anyone anywhere. I'm an engineer who graduated at the top of my class from a top engineering school AND who has worked on some top secret government work, but I don't expect the members here to put too much stock in that...I wouldn't.
I guess I'm just frustrated when someone says they won't believe what you say until you do a thorough, scientifically valid, bias free, real world, placebo free before-and-after test, and then still doesn't believe you after you've done it and reported the results.
I'M NOT DOING THIS OUT OF PRIDE...I HAVE SHOWN THAT IT REALLY WORKS. Until someone installs it for themselves and proves me otherwise, they really shouldn't comment.
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
I made a summary of concerns raised in the posts so far and asked the inventor of the ECO Fuelsystem to answer them. Here is what he said in an email back to me:
"It is hard to get good information as to exact fuel savings on any vehicle and be able to say "The Use of XYZ Product is garaunteed to give you 15% savings always.
1. This is because 5 of us could get into 5 exact vehicles, and each one of us is going to get different miles per gallon. Due to driving habits
2. The stories from Popular mechanics are true and this is my favorite part. The testing they do is always in a controlled environment (in a lab) which is perfect for testing new vehicles, and the protocols used are mostly EPA's which many consumer groups have complained because they are over 30 years old and don't fit with todays new technologies and driving conditions.
Popular mechanics used a brand new truck to do the tests with and that is a vehicle in peak condition, with the new computer systems on these engines, running 2 to 5 gallons of fuel before and after in testing is not enough time for the computers to recalibrate themselves to the new fuel it is sensing. In a lot of cases it will take 2 to 3 tanks before the computers recalibrate unless you manually recalibrate it. So yes, there will be very little difference!
3. As for dyno tests we have done one with a cummins engine, and one with a cat engine, and both engines using the same fuel flow and the same RPM's before and after gave us 12 to 14 horsepower more. We have done some racing engines as well with good results.
4. As for a vehicles burning all but 1 percent of the fuel, well now that one really gets me, because if that were true,
Why do we need the expensive catalytic converters? Why do we need Smog test on Vehicles? Why is their Black Smoke out of Diesels, And why do you need Tune-ups? If your emissions test is reading Hydrocarbons that is unburnt fuel my freind.
I think a brand new vehicle does run pretty clean and efficient, but after 20,000 miles it's a whole new story.
Call me if I can be of further help.
Thanks,
Ben R. Talamantez
Emissions Technology of Texas, LLC
210-842-0703"
So that's the stort directly from the source. Any comments?
I made a summary of concerns raised in the posts so far and asked the inventor of the ECO Fuelsystem to answer them. Here is what he said in an email back to me:
"It is hard to get good information as to exact fuel savings on any vehicle and be able to say "The Use of XYZ Product is garaunteed to give you 15% savings always.
1. This is because 5 of us could get into 5 exact vehicles, and each one of us is going to get different miles per gallon. Due to driving habits
2. The stories from Popular mechanics are true and this is my favorite part. The testing they do is always in a controlled environment (in a lab) which is perfect for testing new vehicles, and the protocols used are mostly EPA's which many consumer groups have complained because they are over 30 years old and don't fit with todays new technologies and driving conditions.
Popular mechanics used a brand new truck to do the tests with and that is a vehicle in peak condition, with the new computer systems on these engines, running 2 to 5 gallons of fuel before and after in testing is not enough time for the computers to recalibrate themselves to the new fuel it is sensing. In a lot of cases it will take 2 to 3 tanks before the computers recalibrate unless you manually recalibrate it. So yes, there will be very little difference!
3. As for dyno tests we have done one with a cummins engine, and one with a cat engine, and both engines using the same fuel flow and the same RPM's before and after gave us 12 to 14 horsepower more. We have done some racing engines as well with good results.
4. As for a vehicles burning all but 1 percent of the fuel, well now that one really gets me, because if that were true,
Why do we need the expensive catalytic converters? Why do we need Smog test on Vehicles? Why is their Black Smoke out of Diesels, And why do you need Tune-ups? If your emissions test is reading Hydrocarbons that is unburnt fuel my freind.
I think a brand new vehicle does run pretty clean and efficient, but after 20,000 miles it's a whole new story.
Call me if I can be of further help.
Thanks,
Ben R. Talamantez
Emissions Technology of Texas, LLC
210-842-0703"
So that's the stort directly from the source. Any comments?
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong][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]So the 30 day money back gaurantee is not enough to possibly realize a 2 mpg increase?You should try it. This way, you can report your results to the people on the board.Just saying you are an engineer and stating that something doesn't work because you don't THINK it does doesn't get anyone anywhere. I'm an engineer who graduated at the top of my class from a top engineering school AND who has worked on some top secret government work, but I don't expect the members here to put too much stock in that...I wouldn't.I guess I'm just frustrated when someone says they won't believe what you say until you do a thorough, scientifically valid, bias free, real world, placebo free before-and-after test, and then still doesn't believe you after you've done it and reported the results.I'M NOT DOING THIS OUT OF PRIDE...I HAVE SHOWN THAT IT REALLY WORKS. Until someone installs it for themselves and proves me otherwise, they really shouldn't comment.
[/div]
I ask when did you graduate, and from what school was this?
I too am an engineer (aerospace) and go to the #4 ranked school in the nation for AE. Parks College of SLU. I agree 100% with Dave on this one. I can attest that many of the old guys are far out of date, we have some old time professors here and they can't believe how much its changed. And if you know anything about aerospace at all you may have heard of some of these names.
Dr. George
Dr. Ferman
Dr. McVey
All 3 of them are old engineers with more experience under their belts than anyone could ever dream about. Sadly Parks is slipping though... Our top 10 ranking for AE won't hold for much longer.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong][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]So the 30 day money back gaurantee is not enough to possibly realize a 2 mpg increase?You should try it. This way, you can report your results to the people on the board.Just saying you are an engineer and stating that something doesn't work because you don't THINK it does doesn't get anyone anywhere. I'm an engineer who graduated at the top of my class from a top engineering school AND who has worked on some top secret government work, but I don't expect the members here to put too much stock in that...I wouldn't.I guess I'm just frustrated when someone says they won't believe what you say until you do a thorough, scientifically valid, bias free, real world, placebo free before-and-after test, and then still doesn't believe you after you've done it and reported the results.I'M NOT DOING THIS OUT OF PRIDE...I HAVE SHOWN THAT IT REALLY WORKS. Until someone installs it for themselves and proves me otherwise, they really shouldn't comment.
[/div]
I ask when did you graduate, and from what school was this?
I too am an engineer (aerospace) and go to the #4 ranked school in the nation for AE. Parks College of SLU. I agree 100% with Dave on this one. I can attest that many of the old guys are far out of date, we have some old time professors here and they can't believe how much its changed. And if you know anything about aerospace at all you may have heard of some of these names.
Dr. George
Dr. Ferman
Dr. McVey
All 3 of them are old engineers with more experience under their belts than anyone could ever dream about. Sadly Parks is slipping though... Our top 10 ranking for AE won't hold for much longer.
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Can he be more specific about the new fuel the computer is sensing? As far as I know there are no sensors that sensors the properties of the fuel it self. So what exactly does it take 3 tanks of gas to sense and what does it recalibrate.
[/div]
I don't know, but his phone number is at the bottom of the post. He'll answer himself and I'm sure he'd be glad to go into further detail for you.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Can he be more specific about the new fuel the computer is sensing? As far as I know there are no sensors that sensors the properties of the fuel it self. So what exactly does it take 3 tanks of gas to sense and what does it recalibrate.
[/div]
I don't know, but his phone number is at the bottom of the post. He'll answer himself and I'm sure he'd be glad to go into further detail for you.
RE: Improving Fuel Enonomy
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
I ask when did you graduate, and from what school was this?I too am an engineer (aerospace) and go to the #4 ranked school in the nation for AE. Parks College of SLU. I agree 100% with Dave on this one. I can attest that many of the old guys are far out of date, we have some old time professors here and they can't believe how much its changed. And if you know anything about aerospace at all you may have heard of some of these names.Dr. GeorgeDr. FermanDr. McVeyAll 3 of them are old engineers with more experience under their belts than anyone could ever dream about. Sadly Parks is slipping though... Our top 10 ranking for AE won't hold for much longer.
[/div]
Really doesn't make a difference. Proof is in the pudding. Our H2 used to get 9 mpg. I installed the Fitch without my wife knowing. Now she gets 11 mpg and she doesn't know why.
All the degrees and intelligence in the world can't argue against those results. So please, unless you are willing to try the product for literally little money, don't comment with your theories. Everybody's got them and they aren't worth very much.
[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
I ask when did you graduate, and from what school was this?I too am an engineer (aerospace) and go to the #4 ranked school in the nation for AE. Parks College of SLU. I agree 100% with Dave on this one. I can attest that many of the old guys are far out of date, we have some old time professors here and they can't believe how much its changed. And if you know anything about aerospace at all you may have heard of some of these names.Dr. GeorgeDr. FermanDr. McVeyAll 3 of them are old engineers with more experience under their belts than anyone could ever dream about. Sadly Parks is slipping though... Our top 10 ranking for AE won't hold for much longer.
[/div]
Really doesn't make a difference. Proof is in the pudding. Our H2 used to get 9 mpg. I installed the Fitch without my wife knowing. Now she gets 11 mpg and she doesn't know why.
All the degrees and intelligence in the world can't argue against those results. So please, unless you are willing to try the product for literally little money, don't comment with your theories. Everybody's got them and they aren't worth very much.