oh no fuel saver gadgets again
Submitted: Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 15:53
ThreadID:
43032
Views:
2527
Replies:
7
FollowUps:
7
This Thread has been Archived
ross
I hear everyone groan when the mention of fuel saver gadgets comes up but this is interesting:D
Last sept Popular Mechanics tested 7 of the most types of fuel saver gadgets debunking them on a dyno
test for power and economy.
One gadget even set an engine on fire.
There is 4 small pages in plain English ,no mumbo jumbo.
This for our favourite former advertiser who never had time to
test his own gadgets but always had time to take the money and offer worthless advice;)
Site Link
Reply By: Scoey (QLD) - Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 16:20
Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 16:20
Thanks for the read! ;-)
Cheers
Scoey!
AnswerID:
226095
Reply By: Member - Ian W (NSW) - Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 16:50
Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 16:50
But did they allow three months for the devices to flush the system?
Ian
AnswerID:
226097
Follow Up By: Member - Ross H (QLD) - Tuesday, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:15
Tuesday, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:15
If it worked maybe they would offer a 90 day money back instead of 30 day
ross
FollowupID:
487906
Reply By: Member - Blue (VIC) - Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 16:56
Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 16:56
Dr Carl declared them all to be bleep today... That's good enough for me.
AnswerID:
226098
Reply By: nissnut - Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 17:00
Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 17:00
Hi
Ross, I've always been of the opinion that auto designers and manufacturers have massive research, developement and technical departments which would produce a vehicle that was the most efficent for its intended use. I cant see how fuel saving gadgets etc would improve economy. I think what sometimes happens is you purcase an HSV or XR8 and expect it to have the same economy as a GETZ. At times Im a little curious as to why there a so many inquiries about fuel economy of various 4wd's on this site. Seems to me that you buy a 4wd to do a certain job, be it touring, playing, towing or working, if it takes X amount of litres to cover 1000kms then you factor that into your journey. I also think that fuel economy is more directly linked to driving habits rather than induction systems. Just the way I see it ............Regards.......Lionel.
AnswerID:
226101
Follow Up By: ross - Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 18:24
Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 18:24
Lionel,the main reason I posted it up is there is a lot of inquires about them on this site and often someone will pop up and defend them to the teeth.
I suspect some of them have a financial interest in fuel saver devices but dont want anyone to know.
However they will never offer any scientific data from a respected organisation.
When they do,the tests they purport to have undertaken have little to do with the product.
In America the motoring public are much better informed which I believe is mainly because their EPA has periodically been testing devices like these for 50 years and publishing the results.
I think its about time devices that offer savings in fuel be required to comply with testing in accordance with Australian Standards or have a warning that they are unable to comply.
FollowupID:
487002
Follow Up By: nissnut - Friday, Mar 09, 2007 at 00:16
Friday, Mar 09, 2007 at 00:16
Yep mate, I do see your point. Ive got to admit when I see ads for these types of gadgets that are "PROVEN" to do this and that, I do ask myself "PROVEN" by whom. Just goes to show, the power of marketing lays in not what is said but more in what is not said.[if that makes any sense]......Cheers Lionel.
FollowupID:
487095
Reply By: Time - Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 17:00
Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 17:00
This is also an interesting read www.fuelsaving.info/debunk.htm
AnswerID:
226102
Follow Up By: ross - Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 18:25
Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 18:25
Its an old favourite of
mine too;)
FollowupID:
487003
Reply By: Muddy doe (SA) - Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 22:03
Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 22:03
I particularly like the closing comment "No doubt there will devices on sale with weeks of this article being published that say "As featured in Popular Mechanics"!"
You know what they say - any press is good press.
You just wonder how many people would see a tag line like that on a product and buy it thinking the featured article was actually positive without actually checking.
Many thanks for an informative and relevant link, unlike some of the absolute BUMPPFFF that some self promoters push onto us on here and on other forums.
Muddy
AnswerID:
226199
Reply By: Member - John (Vic) - Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 22:46
Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 22:46
They didn't
test a Futch!!!
I'm so disappointed :-((
AnswerID:
226209
Follow Up By: Pajman Pete (SA) - Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 23:55
Thursday, Mar 08, 2007 at 23:55
Thats because they were only debunking the ones that didn't work???
Isn't it nice when science runs into snake oil.
Pete
FollowupID:
487092
Follow Up By: ross - Friday, Mar 09, 2007 at 14:28
Friday, Mar 09, 2007 at 14:28
Which ones do work Pete? I might buy one if it has some proper testing to australian standards;)
FollowupID:
487199
Follow Up By: Pajman Pete (SA) - Tuesday, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:35
Tuesday, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:35
Choose option "E - None of the above"
FollowupID:
487892