The first link didn't work for me....

I would be tempted to call shenanigans on these folks, just on the basis of what they claim. There are tons of these types of "ideas" out there for improving fuel economy. Cow magnets, acetone, and others, and none of them work except to lighten your wallet.

The companies website is short on details. They have a video from a Chinese newscast (perhaps appropriately labelled TVBS).

In the off chance that there is something real, they will need to have an independent audit by a 3rd party to prove it, but if I were in a position to do such an audit, I would probably consider it a waste of my time.

The Engadget link mentioned the California Environment Engineering Center for Environmental Research. Google couldn't find a match for this outfit with a redundant name. Sure smells like snake oil.

Oddly, I too have a fuel saver to sell...

http://www.mattonimages.co.uk/images/jpg/is_ie163-001.html/sok-pushing

$1,500 bucks each.

Bargain.

Looks to be the exact same thing they had here in the US a few years ago.

They gave us some and we tried them in our motorcycle engines. We were never able to verify fuel savings.

As far as emissions the data was inconclusive, but we only used 5 gas infrareds for ECU mapping and not a full emissions lab. Maybe on that. The one thing that was very noticeable is that especially on some of our very high compression ratio engines the device seemed to prevent detonation, in the sense that we could run pump fuel with it when we had to run race fuel without it.

Perhaps one could make the case that given lesser tendency to detonate one could map the ignition with more advanced curves and gain some economy that way. Some of the more sophisticated closed loop ignition systems that use spark ionization as input like the very high end Bosch systems might do it for you.

I wouldn't expect it to work with no adjustments on less sophisticated systems. 

LINK

I did some research on this area when I was approached to endorse a similar device to my clients.

Always check this page first:
Gas Saving and Aftermarket Retrofit Device Evaluation Program
http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/reports.htm

These devices are typically long on claims and short on actual results.

-Andre'
------------------------------------
Peak Oil, Climate Change and Business
Free, Bi-Weekly Executive Briefing
www.inspiringgreenleadership.com/peak-oil-climate-change-and-business

From the Dresserator carburetor to magic polymerizers to magnets on fuel lines, all kinds of devices have been introduced. Their main claim to success has been in separating their customers from their money.

Carl Dresser (if memory serves) introduced his carb in the late 60s/early 70s and did manage to get Ford to look at it. They never committed obviously. Several car enthusiast magazines tried for some time to get access for evaluation purposes. Popular Mechanics I think it was finally got access around 1980 or so with very unsatisfactory results.

They installed one on several different engines and even after extensive tuning achieved negative results. In most cases mileage actually worsened with the miracle carb. This is the carb that popular mythology says 'was bought out by the oil industry' lol.

The auto companies have had incentive to do the best they can ala fuel mileage, most especially since the EPA and CAFE regs starting affecting business. I would hate to venture a guess as to just how much money has been thrown at it, billions surely.

New engines, intake and exhaust system design, combustion chamber design, fuel composition, you name it. Roller bearings in the valve train, 4 valve heads, computer controlled fuel injection with exhaust feedback, improvements to coefficient of drag, rolling resistance, weight savings with novel materials, all kinds of advances have been made.

There is no lack of trying in the industry to achieve the best possible fuel mileage. The basic formula hasn't changed a lot though in the last half century. A 3200 lb. car with a small block V8 in 1967 could reach 25 mpg on the highway if driven correctly. A new Corvette weighs roughly the same, has much better aero and can do only slightly better, rated at 29 mpg highway, probably more realistically 25 to 27.

We're up against physical limits here it would seem. Cut the weight drastically with much smaller cars, go bonkers on rolling resistance, aero and engine size and then teach people how to drive for mileage. Instant 50+ mpg.

All kinds of things out there to separate you from your money. Until outfits like this one come clean with details I remain skeptical.

Many years ago, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, Mechanics Illustrated or one of the other similar magazines (don't remember which, but it was long before the internt) purchased a variety of gadgets that guaranteed increased mileage by various percentages and installed them all on the same car. The percentages added up to something like 115%.

As a result they had to stop the car every 200 miles to drain some of the gas out of the tank. "Just kidding" they said. "Milage actually fell off by 15%."

Lets look at the scale of problem:

Current energy usage at 15 trillion watts 86,400 seconds a day for 365.25 days means 475 million trillion joules per year.

Oil provides 33% of this by 31 billion barrels per year, 5,113 million joules per barrel.

Gas provides 24% of this by 3 trillion cubic meters per year, 38.5 million joules per cubic meter. Equivalent of 22.6 billion barrels of oil per year.

Coal provides 26% of this by 5.15 billion tons per year, 24,000 million joules per ton, equivalent of 24.18 billion barrels of oil per year.

Total energy usage from fossil fuels is equivalent of 77.78 billion barrels of oil comprising 83% of total energy.

The total human energy usage is equivalent of 93 billion barrels of oil per year.

For comparison, 6.5 billion humans each consuming 2500 calories per day use 24.93 million trillion joules of energy per year, 5.25% of total energy consumption.

If we want to use bio-fuels of any kind as energy source, we have to look at the fact that the most efficient plant in terms of energy is alfalfa which without fertilizer feed can grow 1600 kg per acre. If we do use fertilizers and pesticides we can boost the output to 4000 kg alfalfa per acre but then it would be energy sink. Assuming we can convert 100% of energy in alfalfa into biofuel it would be 1600 kg * 4000 Calories/kg * 4200 joules/Calorie equal to 26.88 billion joules/acre/yr or equivalent of 5.25 barrels of oil. So to get energy equivalent of 93 billion barrels of oil we have to keep aside 17.7 billion acres just for biofuel production. World's total land area is 37.5 billion acres out of which 15 billion acres produce some kind of food. That includes all forests, orchards, peats, meadows, farms etc. Remember that total food production of this planet is equal to the 2000 calories/day need of 15 billion people, 40% of this is utilized by humans and rest 60% is used by other 4 million species of plants, animals, birds and insects.

If we want to get energy directly by sunlight using photo voltaic cells we must note that per watt PV cell cost is atleast $3 and solar is at best 25% times working rest is when there is night, cloudy days, winter etc and atleast 20% of stored energy is lost in storage. So to have 15 trillion watts we have to have atleast an installation of 75 trillion watts of solar PV cells which cost is atleast $225 trillion dollars even if we ignore costs of installation, costs of conversion of current vehicle fleet to electricity etc.

World GDP is $40 trillion out of which $15 trillion is from industry.

From the Moletech website:

The Moletech Fuel Saver has the ability to change three areas within the spectrum of gasoline by absorbing the CH (Benzene) of saturated and unsaturated hydrocarbon. According to the university research papers, the ceramics absorb the thermal energy from their surrounding environment then release it in a specific wavelength, breaking the intermolecular van der Waals force (the force that binds molecules) between the gasoline molecules. This results in the change of aggregation of gasoline molecules from 'cluster' to 'single molecule'. This changes several properties of the gasoline, such as surface tension and flash point. The surface tension is decreased, resulting in better atomization (smaller droplets) of the fuel, which provides a greater surface area to make contact with air, leading to far greater fuel efficiency. This in turn increases horsepower, reduces fuel consumption, reduces carbon build-up and reduces toxic and greenhouse exhaust emissions.

Comments?

Another one, from a company called Biosfuel, is Ecotube. This is from a company that, in 2005, claimed to have a technology called "enriched water", that allowed you to run your car on nothing more than water. A video of the TV article, about enriched water, is available on their website.

Maybe this is ceramically-induced polypetrol, with magical and undetectable transformation of aspects of molecular structure unknown to those stodgy chemists and physicists who waste years studying for degrees, publishing peer-reviewed papers, and so on. Such would follow naturally and inevitably in the discredited footsteps of past rubbish like polywater. Oh, no, wait a minute, we already have polypetrol, only we call it plastic. As this only makes the Fuel Saver kit even more unaccountably mysterious, it will necessarily be held to be ultimate truth by the conspiracy nutters on the 'internets'. </sarcanol>

These articles and adverts that are "short on details", written by egotistical but secretive folks who claim to be saving the world and refuse to say how, or by gullible, shiftless reporters who cannot be bothered to do even the most elementary fact-screening, nearly always arise out of fraud or self-delusion. With fuel saving devices, there's so much history of abject failure that it ought to compel great openness and verification before anyone bothers to pay attention. The furtive secrecy in this case is precisely the opposite, so I feel compelled to vote for fraud.

I do think lots of folks expect a cost-free solution to all our problems, a magic spell granting infinite population and economic growth at zero cost. Certainly that's what the candidates of both parties in the USA are selling, and certainly it's what these other fraudsters and dupes are also selling. So this sort of thing is probably a moneymaker for media firms. Sad, though, how it distracts from looking for real solutions.

The entertainment industry mythology about the car that runs on water, but was squashed by a nefarious group aligned to the automotive & oil industry is just too strong in the public imagination. I don't think we will ever see the end of this sort of thing. Those "how it works" quotes were great, reminds me of grade C scifi.

"It does rather sound like snake oil." Indeed. Perhaps it would be better to find a bit of evidence that it's anything else before putting it on the front page of TOD. A report from "California Environmental Engineering" does not mean much once you google them and find out they've reportedly found similarly amazing results for such things as magnets placed near the fuel line.

Tony's Guide to Fuel-Saving Gadgets

I also have a foolproof gas saver design that I give away for nothing. It is a small piece of notched wood with a tie wrap that attaches to the underside of the gas pedal. It's called a poor mans governor.

Stoichiometric of the air/hydrocarbon, is way off. With a large excess of Gas to air. This is because the Gas burns rather than explodes, as it would at 1:1. If some means could be found to power autos with hydrocarbons at 1:1 rather than the present ratio this would be a help.

Quick question from a non-engineer: Why isn't compression ignition used with gasoline? On the face of it, with the gasoline injected like normal diesel fuel at TDC (thereby avoiding pre-ignition), one could use far higher compression ratios and presumably achieve similar efficiency to diesel fuel.

The "oiliness" of diesel is needed to lubricate the injector pumps etc in a normal diesel engine. I have been tempted to trying running my diesel VW Golf on gasoline with some biodiesel mixed in to provide lubricity, but am worried that I will damage the engine. I know for instance that you can mix gasoline at up to 50% with no ill effects in diesel cars. (If you make a mistake filling it up - don't panic, try and siphon/drain some/most of it off and top it off with diesel).

Why? - it is apparent that diesel fuel is going to be in short supply before gasoline. It is a "vital" fuel, where as gasoline is far more discretionary.

I installed an msd ignition on my 1982 VW HOT rabbit [1989 Fox 1.8 liter engine, 5 speed, headers and 2 inch Tectonics exhaust] and logged mileage before and after, while having lots of fun posting.

I got crisper starts, maybe a bit more power, but advertised gas mileage improvement as a result of the msd ignition is questionable.

But installation of exhaust headers caused the emissions to drop by about 90% and added LOTS of horsepower and perhaps increased mileage a bit. The 2 inch tectonics exhaust helped too.

Grey rabbit has had problems for about a year and one half.

Next step is to try a "new" fuel pump.

Then pull the head if the problem is not fixed.

But I've been too busy with other projects to devote time to try to figure out what is wrong with grey rabbit.

I liked the comment about critical peer review.

Publish or polish.

:)s from us guys

Experimenting with target="_blank"

Us seniors, 45 days younger than saddam, deserve a senior citizen posting mistakes [misteaks?]
discount.

right?

Somewhere in the estate of my friend/ex-employer/Ex-prof there was a 'here's how to save fuel' book from the 1970's. I should dig that book out....

About the only 'change' I can think of that did work was he use of water mist into the air intake. Had to do with the change in volume in the cylinder is greater then the effect of heat, if I remember what was said.

Funny thing about the term "snake oil": Originally the term for the patent medicine ingredient was "Seneca oil" after the Seneca indians of Western Pennsylvania. They collected this oil by skimming it off the surfaces of ponds. It was crude oil.

Think of it - the entire U.S. economy runs on snake oil. Use of the substance is promoted by snake oil salesmen.

But you already knew this.

And yet there are those who will try to sell us snake oil in order that we might use less snake oil. The snake bites its own tail.

M.H.

The modification of gasoline so as to reduce surface tension isn't anything new.

No one needs to spend hundreds for that.

Lots of people mess around with acetone to achieve the same thing.

LINK

For those who are seriously interested in improving fuel economy, here are some solutions that are known to work but not widely used:

a) Direct Gasoline Injection

Improves combustion efficiency - savings of around 15% compared to conventional Multipoint Fuel Injection (See: http://www.hitachi.co.jp/Div/apd/en/products/ems/ems_001.html)

b) Hotel Load Reduction

The hotel load of vehicles (Air conditioning, entertainment, etc. have steadily risen. Reducing the load by improving insulation / heat unwanted gain / loss in the passenger cabin, and improving the efficiency of electrical appliances can potentially save a few % of fuel. Right now, the electrical load is 500-700w and rising by 150w or so a year. Widespread use of LEDs, HID lighting, less power hungry computers and entertainment systems, elimination of marginally useful electrical gadgets like electrically heated seats, etc. can all add up.

c) Shed the Weight

Vehicles have steadily become heavier and bigger. The regulatory environment gives no bonus points for vehicles that are lighter and more efficient to move around, and also, less of a mass to bring to an abrupt stop in an accident.

Every kg of mass shed in the vehicle create a positive feed forward for a lesser sized engine, etc.

The Rocky Mountain Institute did a study several years back of how a car can be far more efficient manufactured out of light weight (carbon fiber composite) materials.

Likewise, shouldn't consumers have a choice over whether to have their cars equipped with 100lbs of airbags and accessories when plain old fashioned seat belts provide nearly the same benefit?

The amazing thing is how the auto industry, whose livelihood require the existence of affordable liquid fuel, have not embraced these nearly no brainer 'development' as opposed to 'research' projects.

A top-to-bottom review of all the rules and regulations governing vehicles and reassessment of its impact on innovation and cost / benefits in light of fuel costs 3X to 10X today's should be done by the US, leading to the creation of an alternative classification of vehicles "super efficient" that are exempt from most 'safety', 'emissions' and other rules and for, say, 20 years to encourage innovation.

At the same time, these new "super efficient" vehicles need to be shielded from liability lawsuits (i.e. a maximum legal award of $100k per vehicle for any reason) for a period of 20 years while the vehicles are in the 'experimental' category, then followed by a period of transition where the liability cap is gradually raised in the next 20.

Unless something like this is done, the center of high efficiency auto / transportation innovation is going to go to places where the innovation can happen without a lot of rules --- like China.

I would at the outset, set the bar for 'high efficiency' at 120mpg or equivalent (for non-gasoline fueled vehicles) for the first 15 years of the program.

I like this forum due to the seemingly intelligent commentary...but I think on the subject of mileage saving devices I'm seeing mostly the same derision I might see on most average forums where the subject might be appropriate.

I've "studied" the mpg subject for the last 2-3 years and have managed to improve mpg with 2 vehicles by around 30% on my own.

Yes there are a lot of snake oil gadgets out there and improving mpg is not that easy. You need to keep an open mind and do your own actual research. Usually just installing one device results in little gain.

Here is a site that might rock your boat a little:

http://www.preignitioncc.com/befreetech/

I'm speaking of the HAFC...not the PICC.

I know (at least online) some of the people involved with training for the HAFC installation...and though I don't have direct experience with it...I do believe it is the real thing.

The HAFC is a SYSTEM...that is...it uses quite a few mpg boosting techniques together.

There are also other "systems" available such as these:

http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/index.html

http://www.escortfocus.com/html/mileage_build-up.html

* I'm not promoting these sites or systems...posted as FYI only.

According to this AFS chart, less than 70% of the oil is used for transportation and of that less than 40% is used for personal cars.
That says that you could take 10% of the cars off the road and still only reduce our oil consumption less than 3%. Big, big problem.

http://afstrinity.com/worldoil.htm