Miracle Cures

Steve,

A turbo is a add on, and I think that they work.

Wayne

I think you missed 2 things you can sacrifice to get extra power or economy
1 is cost and the other is reliablity
Gas injection is supposed to give better power and economy but is expensive especially as it doesnt give you the complete benifits of lower cost gas as it supplements diesal not replaces it.
i am also unsure what effect it might have on reliability for a vehicle not desighned for it.
Otherwise i firmly believe the majority of stuff is in the same catogary as the 5 min fat blaster video. Hair regrowth clinics, Anti Wrinkle Cream etc etc In that they target what people want making it an easy sell. It has been going on forever and instead of the internet making people more wary with additional information rather they use it to spread the word of their miricles - No longer does the salesman have to ride into town with his boz of miricle elixers

You are right . The above replies are about turbo diesels which are incorporated into modern designs. Therefore your argument has yet to be challenged. Irrelevent answers are endemic to sites like this; generally questions aren't answered

Heres a thought.........

Steve M may NOT have been talking about turbo's.......

He might have been talking about the bolt-on add-ons.... things like FITCH, Hi-Clone etc.............

it's entirely possible I am wrong here...

Just a thought

Cheers

Brian

Hi Steve, I'm a pidgeon

I think their is a mechanism by which some things can work which your
statement does not cover.

Almost all weird things and reported results from the number of UFO's to
fuel savings in gizmo x , move back towards reality as the measurements
systems and control of results improve.

But, your statement implies that A/ the manufacturer has
incorporated proven features in car model X and-
B/ That those features are set/working at optimum.

Taking a practical example , say a Unichip operating in the
open loop mode.
It can improve things by ensuring the air/fuel mixture is optimum
in areas that the normal ECU control system doesn't significantly affect.

For cost reasons the manufacturer of my car (4800 petrol Nissan patrol)
does not incorporate an "open loop control system feedback loop"
and like most just use a closed loop oxy sensor system.
(p.s. I know the self contradiction in those terms - but its a good
layman analogy)
Now Nissan relies on fixed settings determined during development
which are an approximation and for saftey opt on the rich side.

By measuring the real world results on a given vehicle and
programming them back in for daily running all round imrovements
can be made.

Hence for cost and practically reasons - the best setup was
not originally used.

Herein lies the opportunity for practical improvement.

Robin Miller

What about the block of wood under the accelerator pedal .

three cheers for steve m,

Steve M

Next you will be criticising gadgets that impress a charge of ions all over the vehicle's paintwork to stop rust.

The aftermarket industry has to find faults to suit the products available for sale.

It is about leveraging the dollar out of the consumer's pocket into the entrepreneur's wallet.

It's a bit like bottled water: first you make consumers dissatisfied with what they've got (ie find 'problems') then you sell them the 'remedy'.

How else do you explain thousands of fourbies running around cities with massive steel bullbars? ; )

Like many a marriage, passenger car and 4WD engine design tends to be a compromise between overall practicality and performance.

Because of this it is often possible to improve one aspect but usually at the expense of another. It is often readily possible to extract more power or torque but at trhe expense of fuel consumption and (commonly) the engine rev range across which the improvement is obtained. Even turbos may increase torque at middle and upper rpm, but decrease it at low rpm.

In my years at GM Research I never once found an add-on device, fluid, or any other mechanism that improved one parameter but not at the expense of another.
If we had, does anyone seriously believe we would not have used it??

In that industry, were one to make an overall (even) '1% improvement', one's Ph.D would be virtually in the next post!
Collyn Rivers

One factor seems to have been forgotten. The element of time. The design to sale cycle is often quite long. Should something that works appear, it could be on the market as an aftermarket for a while before it's noticed by the R@D Dpt. A good example of this was the electronic ignition and spark fatterners that were on the market well before they became everycar items.
All we have to do is to find something that works :((

I actually think this statement is incorrect.

Additives DO work, and manufacturers DO use them all the time.

Let's get scientific for a minnie - For a theory to be disproven, only ONE example needs to be given.

So - My limited slip diff will die without an additive in the oil for the clutches. I f I use normal diff oil, it's dead.

One example, theory out the window.

Hi Steve

Firstly, what you say is probably correct as a VERY BROAD generalization, and this is exactly why there is so much scepticism to additives & gizmos. However, look long enough and hard enough and you will find some that do live up to their claims. Yes, even on new engines.

Secondly, all your engine testing would be done on as new engines, for obvious reasons, but none of us use new engines for very long, and eventually build up of deposits occur in numerous areas, which can cause deteriorated performance. Maintenance or lack of it, can be the cause, but not always. Sometimes engine duty cycle, (eg short runs, excessive idling) is to blame. The correct use of an appropriate product is the most cost effective means of correction. This will RESTORE both lost power and efficiency. Most dealers routinely use injector cleaners. Toyota have their own brand. I don't think they'd bother selling piddly amounts of a chemical just to boost their bottom line!

By comparison, the costs of mechanical repairs/cleaning, and the associated downtime are many, many times dearer. In addition, if an operating problem is causing the problem, why undergo mechanical repair at regular intervals, when preventative measures are available?

As far as comparing one product against another on a deposit fouled engine on the dyno, it is not possible. A clean, as new engine makes a good reference point for comparison. You can't get two identically fouled engines to compare test products. Also, you can't test two products on the same fouled engine, since any degree of cleaning alters the reference point. You can test one product before and after on a fouled engine, but how do you quantify the initial reference point, when there is no standard for a fouled engine? For most additives/devices dyno tests on a new engine do not demonstrate their intended purpose, so it's not surprising that you come to the conclusion that you do.

Finally, in fairness, I should point out that I am a chemical supplier, whose products are often reported on, in this forum, so I felt a need to challenge Steve's point of view. My apologies to all who might be offended by what might be perceived as biased comment.

Regards
Brid Walker
Cost Effective Maintenance (CEM)