Automotive Science or Voodoo?

bolivar · March 2005

I worked many years for a major oil company.

Every once in a while I would go out to the R&D organization and look in the warehouse where they put all those carburators, and their design documents, test results, etc that the company had bought up. There were dozens of them!!!!

The company merged with another major. They then combined both companies bought-up carbs. It made an even larger amount.

As I understood it, there was a rotation list of major oil companys names. Whenever one of these devices came near to being marketed, or having widespread public knowledge, the next company on the rotation list had to 'take care' of it.

Fuel injection then came along. Since it had gotten into the public eye years ago, there wasn't much to be done about it. Mercedes, Corvettes, etc had developed it years ago. The car makers really needed it to reach the new government polution specifications. So, the auto manufactors started using them.

But, when the private inventers started improving on it, just like they had done with the carb, and getting V6 fuel injected motors up over 200mpg, the oil companies started buying them up too. The last trip I took to the warehouse, the latest positions in there were the new high-milage fuel injection systems.

And just think, I've only seem the storage for 2 majors. Think about what is out there in the other majors storage bins. It must be hundreds and hundreds.

It's the truth.

dialm4speed · March 2005

The Truth is Out There....

Mr_Shiftright · March 2005

Okayyyyyyyyyyyyyy....

I love stories like this!

0patience · March 2005

Actually, one of the reasons fuel injection got into the market before oil companies had any chance of doing anything about it, is because Bosch had already designed and installed the fuel injection in Europe.
Not much they could do then.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2005

Well American car companies did a pretty good job all by themselves of holding out for about 30 years after Mercedes put FI in a production car (1954 Mercedes 300SL) . Even VW beat Detroit by almost 20 years (1968 Squareback) . It's pretty sad.

Oil companies don't need to block Detroit from introducing innovation. They've always been very good at preventing it themselves.

A carburator couldn't possibly give the same mpg as fuel injection. It is too imprecise an instrument, being mechanically controlled and almost impossible to interface accurately with engine management systems.

Probably the Europeans hit the optimum mpg you could achieve with a carburator on a real car driven on real roads at real speeds, something around 40 mpg in a Renault 4CV. But these were very small engines.

Eight big American pistons are going to gobble fuel unless you have some very sophisticated controls and overdrive gearing(e.g., Corvette).

So I think all claims for high mileage carburators are groundless.

driftracer · March 2005

and I also think that the folks who invented the latest, greatest fuel saving device, but failed miserably, can easily blame the big fuel companies instead of facing his friends, relatives, and peers with the truth.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2005

It's very egotistical (polite term) isn't it, to think that Exxon is after YOU!

"We must destroy that genius inventor Shiftright. The stakes are too high!"

driftracer · March 2005

at parties, I suppose...

I was so smart, I scared three major oil companies into making me lose my business due to bad research, no backing money, and unreliable suppliers...

isellhondas · March 2005

Yeah, that's the one. For some reason, I think it was called a Hogue carburator.

I remember the articles and people talking about it but I never actually saw one.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2005

Close, isell, that was pretty good, but it's the Pogue carburetor.

Here's a good explanation why it didn't, doesn't and never will work:

http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm

Mr_Shiftright · March 2005

Close, isell, that was pretty good, but it's the Pogue carburetor.

Here's a good explanation why it didn't, doesn't and never will work:

http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm

yukon2005 · March 2005

I agree with the decrease in gas mileage when using K&N. I have it on my 2005 Yukon and it was came 16.5 to currently 16.2 on a K&N filter. I do a get slightly better acceration. I am not running an 89 octane, hopefully to benefit on acceleration from the K&N.

isellhondas · March 2005

Too close to really make any kind of a determination. The difference of .3 MPG could have been caused by anything I would think.

0patience · March 2005

I have sent an email.
Again, I am curious as to what this device is.
over the last 27 years, I have seen alot of things that made pretty staunch claims and I have tried most of them.

In most cases, you can debunk the product, just by looking through the MSDS of the product.
In some cases, they come out with a product that actually works to a point, but really isn't worth the money, time and modifications for it.

As with any product, if it sound too good to be true, then it probably is.

gagrice · April 2005

I've tried K&Ns three times on three different cars, and was not able to measure any gas mileage improvement on any of the cars.

I had a K&N installed on my Suburban. No difference in mileage. I was a bit disappointed as it was noticeably noisier.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2005

It might be possible, if a person's OEM filter were all clogged up, or if the design of the original filter housing were abysmally bad and this were changed ALONG WITH the K&N, that the K&N could cause a little leanness and give a slight boost in mileage (probably at the expense of power), but that's about it.

Adding air alone without adding fuel isn't going to do very much, nor is adding fuel without adding air (which is what chips do, add fuel enrichment to the OEM map which tends to favor leanness). You want POWER you are going to have to maintain about a 13:1 ratio of air/fuel and if you upset this, you lose. You can run leaner for fuel mileage but you'll run hotter and have less power...you can add richness and maybe get a few HP out of that at certain power band positions.

stevewa · April 2005

I would not use any oiled filter in a modern vehicle that has a MAF or MAP sensor in the intake path. Even a throttle body gets dirty enough by itself without help. The purpose of an air filter is to CLEAN the air, not to ADD OIL to it.

driftracer · April 2005

those MAF horror stories are generated by people from the "if a little bit's good, a whole lot's better" school of thought.

If you clean it regularly, like every third oil change with mine, and oil lightly like you're supposed to, it's not remotely an issue. If you use half a can on the cool red oil, you'll have problems, and you (non-specific person, not directed at anyone) deserve to, since you can't read directions.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2005

I tend to agree, it's a problem of "mis-use" but still, putting a product that needs careful reading of directions, into the hands of the general public, is risky. Corvairs didn't flip unless you underinflated the tires, and a few people did just that and oh, man, the flak was considerable and ruined the product.

For people who are racing, they are used to risks to machines and their physical bodies. They expect an occasional disaster and are usually equipped to deal with it.

But many folks unfortunately embrace these oiled filters like they were miracle drugs or something.

I've used K&Ns, (but not any more) and really, if you follow directions explicitly, it's a bit tedious to oil and clean them "by the book". I would imagine a lot of folks don't have the patience.

driftracer · April 2005

if someone has to put too much thought into something new, and analayze it to death, they probably shouldn't be buying the product.

dialm4speed · May 2005

I got a bottle of this Blue Sky stuff and now we'll see if it works. I'll be filling up the tank and driving 55 MPH. Turns out ya don't have to use the whole bottle just a few ounces. Wish me luck and I'll keep ya posted.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2005

You should plot MPG over the course of multiple fill-ups, and try to go to the same pump at the same spot, and just "fill to the click", don't squeeze more in.

If you change gas stations or where you fill up you can skew the results. Also a 1 mpg gain or loss would be statistically plausible even if you did nothing different and used no additive.

dialm4speed · May 2005

Well I'll declare it a success if I get at least 20 miles more than I usually get from a tank. Why is going to the same pump necessary?

Could be my imagination but the engine already feels smoother after one day!

isellhondas · May 2005

It's a placebo effect.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2005

Well you go to the same pump so that your car sits on the same ground at the same level. Also you are using the exact same calibration.

20 more miles on a tank won't prove anything---the wind could cause that on any given day. Unless you record gas mileage over many fill ups there is really no evidence here.

epicentre · June 2005

Dear All

What I know about diesel engines you can write on the back of a cigarette packet, however I'm a business man who has told about a potential opportunity involving a new invention. I wonder if I could trouble anyone who would care to reply for their advice concerning the following questions. All answers gratefully received.

Here is some basic background information

2 engineers one an electronics expert and the other a petrol chemical engineer claims to have developed a product which when fitted to any haulage truck will guarantee a minimum of 20% diesel fuel consumption as well as reduced emissions.

So far they claim to have it installed on 100 trucks which have provided them with the data that supports their claims.

They are now seeking to market the product commercially and have appointed a small marketing company which knows nothing about diesel engines. the cost of the product is anticipated to be in the order of $20,000.

They went to a major truck manufacturer who they claim was very interested in the product but required a two year validation period. They were not prepared to wait and are now considering road hauliers.

I need to know the following

1. If their claims are true would 20% decrease in fuel consumption be of major interest to road hauliers with a $20,000 price tag?

2. What technical questions should I ask them to validate their claims ?

3. I am considering entering into a franchise or direct sales agreement with them but I need to make sure that I'm not being sold down the river and given the price that there is a market for their product.

Thanks in advance for your replies

Epicentre

john500 · June 2005

Based upon your information, it sounds suspicious to me and I would probably not invest. However, here are the questions that I would have:

1. What is the mechanism for which fuel economy increases? If it is a simple computer chip swap, the markup would be about 20-fold (personal trucks sell chip setups for $1-2K) and the results are typically haphazard. If it is an actual device, tell them you will need to see the schematic and US patent #.

2. How long is the product guaranteed and who will honor the guarantee after 3 years (i.e. are the owners moving to the Virgin Islands at the end of year 1)? A semi truck probably gets about 5 mpg with a 20 % gain resulting in 6 mpg. To pay off an initial investment of 20 K, a minimum of about 250,000 miles would have to be driven with gas in the $2.50 / gallon range. Is the device transferable to another engine? What is the expected life of the device? Thus, there is the potential for money savings, however, the 20 % gain must be guaranteed for at least 250,000 miles and preferably indefinitely with no additional maintenance costs. Remember that a diesel engine can last about 300,000 to 500,000 miles if taken care of, significantly longer than a gas engine,

3. What is the cost of the part? The 100 vehicles that have been fitted would have cost possibly over $1,000,000 already and $2,000,000 if they are selling at cost. How long have the vehicles been tested (surely over 250,000 miles if they expect to get $20 K) and who paid for the testing?

4. The description about two engineers also makes me leary. The "electronics expert" makes me think this is a computer chip based device, which makes $20 K absurdly expensive. I am not aware of any chemical engineers that know a hoot about diesel engines. Mechanical engineers would be responsible for designing machined parts to be fitted to an engine.

gagrice · June 2005

Very good response. I say it is Voodoo. Diesel engines as a whole are very efficient. I would want to see the device installed & patent before even thinking about putting out a dollar of my money. If it is for real they could buy trucks install the device and undercut the competition on cross country hauling. It is a tough business and 20% drop in fuel cost would assure them big profits. Be wary!

Mr_Shiftright · June 2005

Personally I have never seen any device plugged into or poured into any vehicle at any time that resulted in a reliable and consistent 20% increase in fuel mileage. Such a substantial increase would, IMO, require significant mechanical modification.

However, let's presume that there IS this chip and that it DOES give a 20% increase.

Now the question I would ask as a fleet manager is WHAT does this chip do to get that mileage? Am I leaning out this engine dangerously? Am I screwing around with something that shouldn't be screwed around with?

From my experience, reliability is a far more significant factor with fleets than a couple MPG. They can usually pass the fuel costs on to the consumer (and they do, which is why your apples cost more than two years ago), but if the apples don't ever get there, they "eat" them so to speak.

So I agree whoeheartedly with the others---if the inventors will not fully disclose to you the engineering principles behind this device, I wouldn't touch it. And the price is VERY suspicious. It sounds like a grab and run scheme based on that alone. A fleet could fit all kinds of aero devices, better lubricants and filters and higher maintenance to get better MPG, for less money per truck than that.

isellhondas · June 2005

Every few years someone comes out with one of these "inventions" and it's usually timed with gas price increases.

Voodoo...pure and simple!

epicentre · June 2005

Dear All

Many thanks to all of you who responded to my request for advice concerning this new invention. Your replies were excellent and gave me plenty to think about. I've since spoken to the marketing company and they have been able to give me more information which I would be grateful if you could let me have your further opinions on.

1. The device uses a combination of LPG (Liquid Pressurised Gas) with diesel, I know this is nothing new, however they claim the electronics optimises the firing cycle in combination with LPG.

2. They claim they have run tests with a single truck over 150k miles and the resulting diesel consumption was reduced by 37% therefore they guarantee a minimum of 20%

3. As for the price of the unit, they do not intend to sell them, rather they insist on a monthly lease over three years and wish to retain ownership of the device after the lease period and charge only a peppercorn rent thereafter. Apparently the electronic control also contains some sort of satalite vehicle location tracking program which can be software upgraded.

4. Apparently Mercedes Benze Truck division have expressed an interest to license the product but require 2 years to evaluate it within their quality system which is too long for the inventor.

5. Apparently upon emission testing, the emissions where so low that they could hardly be detected. The testers thought the emission equipment was faulty but concluded this was not the case and the emissions were simply extremely low.

Does this sound more feesable or more worrying ?

Thanks one again in advance for your thoughts on this

Kind regards

Epicentre

isellhondas · June 2005

But I suppose I could be wrong...

gagrice · June 2005

It may be legit. If so why not incorporate and sell stock over the counter? I have had several friends get into get rich quick schemes and none are rich. Most of the time it is just a scam someone put together. Some very elaborate. If they incorporate and sell stock they have laws to abide by that protect you the investor. That does not mean it is a sure thing. It is just a bit safer than owning a piece of paper that was printed on someone's deskjet.

One other thing. They said the diesel consumption was 37% less. What was the LPG consumption?

Mr_Shiftright · June 2005

yeah, how do you save fuel by using more fuel exactly?

trueus · June 2005

I know im bringing back a very old post, but I've been trying to find out. Is Green better than K&N? Green is a brand i never heard of, but my friend Jim said the air filter did a lot more for his car than the K&N he had in it ever did. He owns an 02' cavalier.

Mr_Shiftright · June 2005

What does he mean by "did a lot more"? There's really not much just dropping in an air filter can do, unless maybe you modify the whole intake system.

0patience · June 2005

I have to tell you, as someone responsible for the maintenance and running of a heavy truck fleet, I wouldn't be very interested in any product that makes any claims of 20% increase in economy without major engine or computer work on the engine.

And IF they could show some data to back up their claims, I would have to see the approval that they have from DEQ and EPA that will attest to the fact that the engine would still maintain the EPA standards. Not likely.
EPA standards must be met and maintained in order for any manufacturer to endorse or condone anything being installed on their engines. Anything that voids the manufacturer's warranty on a heavy truck is junk. Plain and simple.

So now, with that said and remembering that when you talk about heavy truck fleet, that is what I do, I will address some of the things you commented on.

So this may be long, so I will split it into 2 separate posts.

1. The device uses a combination of LPG (Liquid Pressurized Gas) with diesel, I know this is nothing new, however they claim the electronics optimizes the firing cycle in combination with LPG.
LPG is the equivelant of Nitrous oxide to a diesel engine. While it is great for boosting power on a diesel, long term affects on the engine are controversial. I have seen several LPG boosted engines with destroyed pistons, while I have also seen many without problems. So, until someone can come up with firm, controlled data on what the long term, constant use would be for all manufacturers, LPG will never see the trucks in the fleet I work on.

2. They claim they have run tests with a single truck over 150k miles and the resulting diesel consumption was reduced by 37% therefore they guarantee a minimum of 20%
As was stated, I would like to know the LPG consumption. I can run a multi-fuel engine that will run 50% less diesel, if I switch to another fuel.
What engine were they running? What transmission? What gear ratios on the differentials? What year was the truck?

3. As for the price of the unit, they do not intend to sell them, rather they insist on a monthly lease over three years and wish to retain ownership of the device after the lease period and charge only a peppercorn rent thereafter. Apparently the electronic control also contains some sort of satalite vehicle location tracking program which can be software upgraded.
:lemon: Ok, this is the point where the salesman would find the door in 90% of the fleets they will deal with. Very few fleets will allow much of anything to be installed on their trucks that they don't own outright. Leasing anything is a pain and if something should happen to the unit, they are out the cost.
And for what reason would they have to put a location tracking program on it?

0patience · June 2005

4. Apparently Mercedes Benz Truck division have expressed an interest to license the product but require 2 years to evaluate it within their quality system which is too long for the inventor.
I would like to see the copy of the letter of intent in order to believe such a claim.

5. Apparently upon emission testing, the emissions where so low that they could hardly be detected. The testers thought the emission equipment was faulty but concluded this was not the case and the emissions were simply extremely low.
So let me get this straight. Caterpillar, Detroit, Navistar, Mercedes and Isuzu all had to file extensions because they couldn't meet the 2004 DEQ/EPA regulations for emissions, but all they had to do was install this device and they could exceed those standards?? :confuse:
Remember, when you are talking about a diesel, hardly detectable emissions isn't that achievable. Soot from diesel is there no matter what, which is why they have gone to catalytic converters on diesels, to try and cut down the amount of unburned HCs [soot].
As someone who has been dealing with diesels for over 25 years, I find this claim extremely hard to believe.

Does this sound more feesable or more worrying ?
From the information provided, I would have to say NO, it doesn't sound feasible.
There are so many reasons why this reeks of snake oil salesmen, but it is a possibility.
One thing you have to remember about anything that is claiming to improve fuel economy and emissions, is that in order for these things to be approved by DEQ and EPA, there are so many things that they have to prove, not claim.
If these things cannot be proven, then the manufacturers can deny any warranty on an engine with this equipment installed and no fleet will take that chance.

basils · June 2005

In my opinion, K&N's are not worth the money or the risk. I tried them before and NEVER noticed any performance gain. Even worse, the F150 I put one into started running rough at idle. A shop tech told me it was from some cast off oil coming from the filter media and coating some sensor. I got rid of the K&N after that and went to Purolator. It wasn't worth the hassle.

john500 · June 2005

I agree with 0patience. I would want these additional answers just based upon logical inconsistencies now and disregarding whether it actually works without damaging the engine.

1. A patent is required to avoid reverse engineering problems that will siphon business (it will already happen from overseas competition, but a US patent will give some protection). Get the # and expiration date.

2. What happened to the "100 trucks" fitted with the system? One truck is crap. 100 trucks with the system compared to 100 without would be legitimate statistical proof of an actual mpg improvement (a minimum of 30 trucks is needed). A large part of the mpg improvement might simply be from good engine tolerances of that specific truck.

3. Leasing the part is a complete 180 degree turn from charging $20 K and a purchase. What is with the huge change in business strategy? Now a whole new set of break-even parameters are required for a lease coupled with LPG refilling costs.

4. I think fleet managers would not give a rat's [non-permissible content removed] about emissions as long as the emissions do not EXCEED a certain maximum. Why are they harping on this aspect?

epicentre · June 2005

Dear ALL

Just wanted to express my sincere thanks to all of you who responded to my emails for advice. The wealth of knowledge and exprience on this site about diesel engines speaks for itself. You have all given me a lot to think about and questions I can put to the team representing this inventor.

I am going to be meeting with them on Tuesday 14th next week to receive a presentation and ask as many questions as I like. You can bet that I will be putting many of the points you identified to them.

Just to answer one of the questions raised by John500 regarding the lease strategy versus purchase. Apparently the list price for one these items is approx $20,000 . This was percieved as being prohibitive for truck owners to find, therefore
the inventor has a deal with a lease company (financial house) who purchases the unit up front but leases the unit to the truck owners over a 3 year term. At the end of the lease the truck owners pay a greatly reduced peppercorn rent but never own the device. The peppercorn rent entitles the truck owners free software upgrades as required.

Apparently the inventor also has an insurance policy which indeminfies the truck owner against any damages or loss for the first year should the product malfunction in any way. I believe there is also reduced cover for years 2 and 3 but I'm not sure what the terms are.

I know this may all be pie in the sky and I wish I had some decent knowledge about diesel / LPG engines, however at least I've been fortunate to find this site and ask the wealth of experience on it, THANK YOU ALL once again

If nobody has any objections, I would like to keep you all posted as to the outcome of the meeting, who knows, if it turns out to be genuine, the world is a big place and you may want to exploit the opportunity for yourselves

Thanks and regards

Epicentre

bolivar · June 2005

You said "I wish I had some decent knowledge about diesel / LPG engines"

Why, why, why, why would you take an interest in an investment area where you admit you have no 'decent knowledge'????????

Run away, run away, run away!!!!!!!

isellhondas · June 2005

And invest them in a well managed mutual fund instead!

sailormon · September 2005

I used a K&N on my ford diesel and all was fine. If you go to the jeep lib. diesel forum, they reduce mileage by 10% as they seem to mess up their system as they are not set up for dif. filters. BR

sailormon · September 2005

I just happened on this site and so am throwing this out. As soon as it is posted I plan to duck out of the way of incomming jibes. Go to pureEnergySystems.com and check out artical on acetone in fuel. I did a short term in the last week or so trial with no real difinitive results, but will throw them out there anyhow. My little car which always gets 26 mixed driving did get 30 mpg for the first time. I will run long term to check this out further. My diesel ford 250 seemed to run nice and I was at 450 miles on a tank before I put fuel in it, only a half a tank as it is being sold in the morning. The only significant thing here is, I need to fill up when traveling before 400 miles on the highway and this tank was stop and go and mixed. Interesting enough to follow a little further with this from my view. Br

Mr_Shiftright · September 2005

You know though, an article written by a chemist telling you that acetone dissolves the compounds of which fuel injection seals and O-rings are made isn't a "jibe" exactly-- it's a fact that one should give serious consideration.

PureEnergySystems also says this, by the way:

"CAUTION: Acetone degrades cheaper plastics. While we would expect that all components used in all automobiles would be of a more durable nature, this may not necessarily be the case."

One screw up in your fuel injection system and all the gas "savings" are out the window, BIG TIME.

sailormon · September 2005

That thought came to me also considering some of the shody shorcuts that seem so prevalent in manufacturing today. However I did read that some of the additves that are commonly used in fact contain acetone. I am not advocating their use either, just searching for a way around big industry price gouging on fuel, but that is an issue for another forum. Perhaps we should go to mopeds and park our suvs. BR

Mr_Shiftright · September 2005

You know, if acetone were some sort of trouble-free miracle, it'd be in all the pumps in all the gas stations in all the world, but it isn't, because it isn't. People will tout "conspiracy theories" time and time again, but in fact it is totally impossible to suppress any product that is so readily available to everyone as acetone is.

If it were all true, a gas station could easily add it to their underground tanks and totally annihilate every other gas station within a five mile radius.

Why don't they? Obviously, fear of product liability.

user777 · September 2005

A general question,
Does anyone know of a company that designs software for an OBD-II interface that apply's a little expert knowlege and suggests to the user what could be the cause of poor / off-design fuel economy? Is it even practical?

It seems many posters in the past few months are complaining of poor fuel economy (no surprise with the cost of fuel right)?

While the OBD-II interface can be used to read and reset codes and look at real-time parameters for different devices that are monitored, it would seem there would be a market to design software that would help localize the root cause of poor engine fuel economy / performance. I realize they can help locate causes of poor emissions, but what about the fuel economy portion of the equation?

Mr_Shiftright · September 2005

This doesn't sound like the right approach to me....ultimately, ANY computer read out is only as good as the person reading it, and I don't think you can actually nail down anything certain using software like that....I would think it would be better to do a real world dyno pull or two and read out the tailpipe. Then you have some "real" numbers.

Automotive Science or Voodoo?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles