fuel-saving devices

School holidays....

Should have tested the "search" function first

All excellent points, but many people think of only how to save 50% from their fuel bill, not the small increments available from a multitude of methods.

All those small improvements add up and help improve economy - like run narrower tyres for on road usage, minmise aerodynamic drag (no roof rack)

I included these and a few others in a recent newletter. I;d be greatful for more constructive practical tips that I might have overlooked (no products please).

My previous thread went on a tangent re methanol devices...I wanted to know more on the current promotions i saw in the Courier mail last weekend...

they say if it's too good to be true .......

I like to be well informed; that's why I've invited comment from those who know more than me...

thanks for your obsrvations

stef

You wont find too many supporters of the Futch (intentional misspelling, no free hyperlink) on this forum, in part due to the aggressive marketing by one employee/manager on this forum, remembering this is a forum, not a place for free advertising. The management (Exporoz) saw fit to ban the individual from spruiking their product on this forum, and in fact banned him altogether. If you want to do business with an advertiser that openly flouts the forum rules, then so be it.

As to the product itself, do some research on this forum and visit some of the many links provided that totally debunk the products effectiveness. All the promoter of the product could offer was unsubstantiated testimonial "evidence", and even then not even from the customers themselves (always told by the promoter," A customer report that he is saving....").

The promoter would not subject his product to any scrutiny by way of a simple dynamometer test to prove its effectiveness, always finding some reason why he could not submit it (how many dynos are there in Sydney area, 100 or so????). The fact that most ricers spend most of their weekends hooked up to a dyno sort of blows any credibility of that excuse out the window.

Are we ringing enough alarm bells yet???????

Best left WELL alone.......

This is the best link to explain it . www.fuelsaving.info/debunk.htm

From now on I am going to recommend fuel saver gadgets to people who wont search;)

That sounds like a good idea.

Recommend them to people who don't search?? Sounds good - they will get what they deserve.

Hang on....... what about the people selling these devices? If you recommend them then the charlatans will make money out of the uneducated! That would only encourage them to continue selling them!

I think the above responses are adequate - if you don't want to give correct info, and you don't want to just have a joke, then maybe better to just say nothing?

Hey Dave, ie. prado_95 ,

You forgot to mention along with your reply that you have a vested interest in CLAIMING that this 'tin can' actually works, you sell them through your business do you not ?

Cheers
Pezza

LOL......"whoops, i forgot that i sold them on my website" :-)

Andrew

Prado 95 ,I am not interested in your figures. Supply me with some independant figures from an accreditted laboratory.

A/C on some of the time ,headwinds at 10 to 20 knots are all variables and make your results even more meaningless.

How do you change the parameters in a ECU to suit the f*itch???

My figures are from actual usage, not from here-say, not from lab tests conducted in any specific manner. From actual usage. The conditions which the measurements had been made are relate to the weather conditions at the time - nobody has much control over those (however I would have liked to have less/no head wind on the return journey - perhaps the fuel usage would have been reduced even more :-).

The only 'independant lab tests' figures I have access to are those of the manufacturer. Believe the lab test results or disbelieve them - thats your call.

However thats why I tried it myself. My results are calculations of each fill, including just before and after the Fitch unit was fitted.

Most modern (ie since about mid '90's) EFI engines have what is known as adaptive learning. This permits the engine to adjust to different quality fuels, engine wear, senor drift, and long term changes. The ECU uses these (if present) to calculate dynamic changes to fuelling, ignition timing etc. These parameters are 'averaged' (very slowly) and stored by the ECU as the new default parameters. If they are not available (ie batttery disconnected for some time and the ECU memory has lost power), then the pre preogrammed base (as in brand new unit) parameters are used as a starting point. These parameters are then changed by the ECU to suit actual operating conditions instead of the generic starting parameters.

This strategy is one reason that the standard tune up is not required on a regular basis (as it was with carby & points engines). There are books and other references on this topic.

Those who point out that I list them on my site are correct, however you will also have observed that no link or reference to it was provided - ie I was not promoting them - just answering the question.

It would be a poor position not confirm/deny the performance of a product you are discussing.

So on that note I suggest you contact one of the fitters listed on the manufacturers site, and make your own 'independent' tests. That way you will know first hand how it works on YOUR vehicle, how YOU drive - after all thats all that matters. Dont even buy it from me if you are concerned that I will gain some benifet.

Now, remember the original question? Yes it worked on my car - thats what is important to me.

"...Most modern (ie since about mid '90's) EFI engines have what is known as adaptive learning. This permits the engine to adjust to different quality fuels, engine wear, senor drift, and long term changes. The ECU uses these (if present) to calculate dynamic changes to fuelling, ignition timing etc...."

Actually it is there to cater for the gradual wear of the engine and actuators, and drift of the sensors. The ECU automatically adjusts the ignition timing up to its limit of ignition advancement on a continuous basis (up to the point of the knock sensor being activated then slightly retarding the ignition from there), even adjusting the timing on a "per cylinder" basis on some vehicles. This occurs up to the predetermined maximum advancement for the original fuel type (ie, 91 RON) in that engine, and feeding the engine a higher octane fuel is pointless. Resetting the ECU to its factory default settings will not affect the performance of the vehicle, it will only reset the sensor readings back into the "learning" mode.

The fuel injection duration is controlled in a closed loop using the O2 sensors to calculate the optimum air:fuel ratio. Once again, not able to be fiddled with, nor is there any desire to fiddle with it (engine is at the point of maximum efficiency as designed).

"...The only 'independant lab tests' figures I have access to are those of the manufacturer. Believe the lab test results or disbelieve them - thats your call..."

Once again, how can they be "independent" if they are the only ones supplied by the manufacturer? An absolute contradiction in terms....

BillS got banned for amongst other things peddling his wares on the forum. Can you confirm or deny that you have any financial or business links with F*tch? This question was asked of you above by someone else....Just like to know where we stand here....

Gary,

thanks for taking the time to expand on my brief explanation of dynamic ECU tuning.

However some of your (true) data is irrelevant in my results, since as stated I used LPG, and the ECU has no control over the mixture delivered (by the IMPCO system). There is no closed loop (excepting the accelerator pedal). The ECU does have control over the ignition timing as you pointed out correctly (but I never said otherwise & most people already understand that).

The reason I tried it because of the money back guarantee offered at the time, and I wanted to know if & how it would work on my car. Note that I am not
supporting the +30% economy improvements claimed by some taxi's using the product and running LPG - I'm only supporting what I have seen personally.

As a result of experience using the product on my vehicle I offer them for sale (as stated previously). Buy one - don't buy one - it makes no difference to me. Thats where I stand.

The claims made by the manufacturers are their own claims. I can't help it if you don't like the manufacturers claims, they are their claims, and your dislikes. I have no control over either their claims or your dislikes. Believe them, believe them partially, disbelieve them - either way thats between you and them. I would suggest you take up that discussion directly with them, as I'm not the manufacturer, not their distributor, nor their testing facility. I don't have to prove (or disprove) somebody else results, and neither do you. I'm just somebody who has used the product (and like it).

Conversely, are you affiliated with an alternative/competing product (does it even matter anyway), or just not prepared to do YOUR own 'independent' testing? If you have an alternative/competing product please contact me off list - I'd like the oppertunity to take a look at it too.

Don't attack others trying to help the original poster answer his question until you have your own experience to add (then by all means add your own experience about using it).

Lastly, from a pure financial position, before we all get excited ;-), ASSUME that you get 10% reduction in fuel economy. Do the maths - will you be able to recover you money within an acceptable time frame (perhaps 9 months)?

a. If yes - if in doubt find somebody who has tried it on a similar vehicle operations to yourself (and whom you believe), or try the 120% money back guarantee (its listed on the bottom of their page) - what have you got to loose?
b. If not - end discussion - don't buy it and be happy

PS: There is a calculator on their site to help with the maths.
PPS: note no links to keep the warlords happy

Happy Holidays

I have asked more than one fitter of fuel saving devices for independent evaluations and they try and fob me off with a pile of rubbish like you.

The reason we ask for independent results is so it can be compared on a relative scale before we buy.

If you were really trying to help the original poster you would offer him some proof before he buys ,not a money back guarantee and I've heard from those that have dealt with Bill that the guarantee is not water tight.

"Believe the lab test results or disbelieve them"
A proper accredited lab would offer irrefutable proof one way or the other,but peddlers of fuel saver junk wont go near them,why is this so?

Also Bill has offered 2 versions of the test that I recall on his site. The 1st he said he went off on a drive round town on his own,the 2nd version had him stuck in a workshop.

Every other automobile part from nuts and bolts to oil to windscreen wiper blades conforms to some recognised standard,yet your mob continually avoids going down that path which can only lead one to believe your device has nothing to offer the motoring public

Ross,

I dont care what Bill offered or explained, because the proof that the product works for me is in the reduced fuel consumption I have by about 9%. It makes NO difference if you believe that or not, as I have the reduced fuel consumption (and your trying find ways to prove it never happened).

As I said, their are not my claims, they are the claims of the manufacturer and the various testing agencies. Your discussion is with them - not me.

Just to help you and others out with the independant tests, I've checked the website, and find a list of testomonials, and lab tests by (US) govt endorsed agencies, along with some local testing (VIPAC - Australia). I beleive the VIPAC says they used the UN/ECE R-83 process (whatever that is). You can find the Reports and Tesing section here; " target="EOF" class="lbg">Site Link

How are VIPAC and the listed US agencies not a proper acrediited organisations, and is the process not appropriate for the tests being carried out? What is the appropriate alternative testing process?

Note that there is a link to ninemsn report too (under Video Gallery on the Fitch www site). You'd think that they wouid point out if it did not work to claims. The vdeo footage is available online here; " target="EOF" class="lbg">www.fitchcatalyst.com.au/video.asp - its the top one. Are you suggesting that Chan 9's integrity is suspect becasue they found in favour?

On the guarrantee, what better guarrantee can you get than 120% money back if it does not work. I cant get a car manucaturer to offer any money back guarrantee if the car does not want to do what I want to do, let alone 120% money back.

I guess you can say that they are putting their money where their mouth is! Thats hard to go past in anybodies terms.

I have no reason to want my money back, as its working as described in their liturature (actually being a sceptic myself I was expecting half what was claimed the average improvement in economy.)

Thanks for having me explore further into this than I would have otherwise done - now I know they used a world wide recognised standard, and did here in Australia.

If you have a better alternative for use in my operating conditions, then please share with us all.

PS: a little web search identifies that there is a correlation between ADR regulations 37,79,& 80 and UN/ECE R-83 for Euro2, Euro3, Euro4 forlight vehicles. UN/ECE is a worldwide standard.

I've already checked these US standards and they are compulsory for any device that is to be added to a fuel system in cars there.

Its a standard that demands the device will not increase pollutants,it does not say the device will save fuel or give more power.

Stating these standards is an old furphy commonly used by companies flogging fuel saver gadgets

I think VIPAC was the testing company Bill used and they allowed him to drive the vehicle in the tests.
Proper testing would be done without anyone who has a interest in the company having any involvement.
That's a normal scientific procedure and is laid down in the AS somewhere.

All the commercial TV channels have a history of presenting paid infotainment as genuine news.
In fact if it was on there ,then all the more reason to suspect it factually incorrect

By the way,neither link worked for me.

Ross,

UN/ECE standard is a United Nations standard (with lots of ECE input / adopted standards). I dont see how who the 'driver' is would effect the results IF the test is conducted according to the standard (if not the results cant be treated as authentic). I dont think it was Bill whom they interviewed at VIPAC showing the vehicle under test on the dyno, nor was it him who operated the dyno related testing shown.

Those standards to outline a specific testing process, which must re-producible. It the SAME test process is carried out (even if not officially stamped) with the same test subject(s), then a mean can be arrived at for pre and post modification. From there it is possible determine the improvement. If a more rigorous test process is used for the post modification test, then it can be argued that the results COULD be better than those measured.

Mine you, most people do not drive in the manner described by any testing standard - the roads, driving styles, traffic and weather conditions are to chaotic for that to occur. As a result any tests done by somebody else are not indicative of your results in the short term. Long term (over months) results over the range of operating conditions are what creates the average fuel consumption for the average vehicle. This is why its important to have fuel consumption figures on a fill by fill basis for the last 12 months (min) to determine the pre & post modification figures. Thats what mine are based on (not somebody elses results that I cant verify). Thats what my brothers truck consumption results are based on.

Seems the URL got munged when inseted into the response, to try these;
" target="EOF" class="lbg">www.fitchcatalyst.com.au/video.asp
" target="EOF" class="lbg">Site Link

Regarding infomercials, there where two other products tested that provided some benefit in economy according to the report (one has dropped their last known email address and the other had nothing to do with the fuel system at all). One of the featured installers (on one product) that did not get much named exposure (no infomercial value to him), but did support the improved economy perspective AND did put it into perspective.

Remember - the world was still believed to be flat until well after Columbus sailed around the world (and here where no standards for doing that, but is a well believed view today ;-).

Happy New Year

Looks like ExplorOZ is adding a to the end of the typed URL - just deletye that from the imbeded URL & you will get there.

Happy New Year & drive safe