|
Last Sat\'s Telegraph motoring section had a big ad for a gizmo that claimed to save on average 15% on your fuel consumption. From memory it was £50 and it wittered on about creating swirl effect in your fuel supply or something. Has anyone ever proved beyond all reasonable doubt that these things do/don\'t work?
|
|
You mean the Ekotek. Do a site search and you'll discover recent and old threads. It also prevents alien abduction and warts.
|
|
Ah yes, having read a couple of these threads it seems my £50 will be better spent on lottery tickets (as I kind of suspected all along). Now if someone could fit a voice circuit to my on-board computer which shouted "Nooooooooo!" whenever my fuel consumption touched single figures...
|
This is the motoring equivalent of snake oil, and if memory serves, the first iteration of it I came acros was c. 1960.
|
I somewhat naievely got one. I am glad I did. It saves me 2 mpg, makes my car run better. Mot emissions are down. Full money back refund that is guaranteed indefinately as so few are returned. Not that I work for them or anything. It works for me, I have had it over a year. I love it when people say things are useless and have never tried it.
Ignorance is bliss
|
|
Roscopervis: If you look at the other threads you will see a general concensus that it does not work for modern cars in proper condition. Many knowledgeable people commented. Some seemed very knowledgeable on engine combustion and fluid flow. Some suggested that it would compensate when a car was running rich hence saving fuel. I won't go on as it rehashes old threads and others know more than I do on this.
|
Maybe but have they tried that device? I have on three different modern cars (Xantia 2.0 16v, Primera 1.6 and Toyota Celica 1.8 ST) and in good condition and in each I have found petrol savings and performance improvements. The theory, the practice. I am a scientist. If you can get the practice it beats theory.
I am not saying it works on every car, indeed it doesn't but it has on all the cars I have tried. Its not placebo either, MOT results show that with emissions and an extra 15 to 20 miles per tank.
You have nothing to lose anyway try it, it doesnt work then get your money back. Try it , it works you get your money back.
It really annoys me when theory takes precedence over practice. If this were the case then lots of things that don't work in theory wouldn't be benefitting mankind today.
|
I am intrigued.
Can you name a few things that don't work in theory yet work in practice?
Sign me up for a perpetual motion machine powered car!
Have you considered it having a placebo effect, coupled with a coincidental improval in emissions tests?
Onan.
|
The only conclusive way to prove it would be to do test it on a rolling road under identical conditions with the same car and repeat a few times. A person could only carry out the tests in the real world if they didn't know whether the car had the device fitted or not. Perhaps it is something that a motoring programme/ newspaper motoring section would like to try with a few willing volunteers if real world proof is desired? It would be especially suited to people who had pretty much the same routine month by month I would have thought and they would probably have to test it over quite some time.
I can see the titles now: science or snakeoil.....gold dust or guff.... :-)
teabelly
|
Science is all very well but I would look for the self-fulfilling kid-myself theory, i.e. I've bought it, so it must work and now I'm going to find evidence to support my assertions (unconscious change of driving style etc).
Over the years there've been so many of these things, and if they really worked why aren't they standard equipment?
|
Didn't you know Growler? The Petrochemical companies are in cahoots with the motor manufacturers and pharmacutical companies to increase fuel consumption and fuel dependency, leading to excess pollution so more drugs are needed for respiratory problems.
And the world is run by lizards.
|
|
|
Dave Walker from CCC magazine did back to back testing of this device on a chassis dyno and (suprisingly) it did naf all. At the end of the day if it worked OEMs would be fitting it - Is it really plausible that some sort of bizarre bicycle tyre valve reduces emissions more than a sopsisticated EMS that has cost millions to develop? They probably fitted it to a knackered old escort running on two cylinders and have gone 'look! the emissions have improved by 24% or whatever'!
|
|
|
|
|
As I recall, an aerodynamicist once worked out that a bumblebee, given its weight and relative wing area, cannot fly...
|
One scientist doing his math wrong is not evidence.
A scientist providing irrefutable proof that bumblebees can't fly, and the proof being corroborated by the scientific community as a whole, *that* would be evidence.
Going back to this car device, I agree with teabelly and Dan J:
- a double-blind test would prove the device useless
- 15-20 miles per tank can be explained easily by the sensitivity of the cut-off on a fuel pump nozzle, let alone driving conditions!
Onan.
|
|
|
|
|
How do you measure another 15 to 20 miles per tank? My Vectra will do anywhere from 280 to 440 miles on a tan depending on how I am driving it that week and the kind of journeys I am making. That's a spread of 160 miles!
In general day to day driving my mileage generally varies from 320 to 370 though. I don't see how it is possible to notice a 15-20 mile difference that isn't caused by your driving?
Dan
|
|
I don't think that any reputable organisation (Which, AA, RAC etc) has done an independent test on these things. Another similar device is the Br*qu*t catalyst device which some people say is fantastic and others say has no noticeable effect. The ASA made them change the wording of their advertising at some point in the past. If these things are so marvellous why aren't they fitted as standard by the manufacturers? Years ago there was a 'swirl' device called the Mangoletsi Manifold Modifier, or something like that. If it was so marvellous where is it now?
|
I have just found this, from a Google search. It seems that tests HAVE been carried out but I have doubts about anything giving a 21.8% improvement in fuel consumption. Not being very technically minded, I don't quite see how anything plumbed into a a brake servo pipe, which sucks air out of the engine, can create useful pulses or swirl effects in the inlet manifold! Comments welcome!
Ecotek
What is it?
Called the Ecotek CB26P, which stands for 2.6 (litres, max) Petrol. For engines over 2.6 litres two devices are needed; it fits almost any petrol engine including EFI and Turbo. The device is designed and made in England. Patents are pending.
How does it work?
The Ecotek CB26P fits to the inlet manifold via a breather pipe, the brake servo hose, or is tapped directly into the manifold. The device acts in three distinct ways: First, it bleeds a small amount of air at tick-over which improves emissions without affecting smooth running. Second, at medium revs it oscillates, creating pulses of air which cause turbulence in the manifold and Thirdly, at high revs, it creates a vortex or swirl in the inlet gases.
The net effect of all this is a better suspension of the fuel molecules and thus more efficient and cleaner combustion.
Says who?
Independent tests conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry at the Warren Spring Laboratory showed improvements in the emission of Hydrocarbons, Nitrous Oxides, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide and Oxides of Nitrogen. Most significantly petrol consumption was down by 21.8%.
|
> Most significantly petrol consumption was down by 21.8%.
Well, if that is the case, car manufacturers must be complete idiots for not fitting these gizmos as standard! Unless, of course, they have tried it and know it does not work.
Onan.
|
I've already said. It's the lizards.
|
|
|
|
QVC have a *fuel saving device* on offer for £16.17 plus p+p. From what you're saying, this is the same thing as they're selling. Two half magnets that you clamp around the fuel hose and the magnets polarise the fuel, change the atoms, or something like that.
Device is called "Pilot Green"
www.qvcuk.com/ukgasp/frameset.asp?dept=UKHG Click on "Car Care", then "Engine Treatments"
|
Had a quick look at the test results on the Ecotek web site : difficult to draw any conclusions without full details of each test; but looking at the Carlton figures for example:-
Constant 60 mph 24 mpg before fitting the device : that seems like one knackered engine if it can only manage 24 mpg! I would expect at least 35 mpg under these conditions.
You can 'prove' anything you like by testing; just make sure the test conditions are carefully selected to give you the answer you want!
|
|
Just one more thing....'patent pending' means very little : just because an invention is patented doesn't mean it has to work : just means that no-one has thought of it first.
|
>>One scientist doing his math wrong is not evidence.
It used to be widely accepted that science could not explain why bumble bees could fly - no matter who was doing the maths.
However, bumble bee wings don't work the way it was first assumed. My distant recollection is that the vortex created on the edge of the wings created the missing lift need to keep them in the air.
And 'Onan', how clever you are, ducking under the swear filter with a synonym for masturbation.
|
Scientists saying "we don't yet know how it works" is a long way from saying "we can prove it cannot work, yet it does".
Regarding my name, it is not unusual for children to be given biblical names. My parents were just slightly more humorous than most, much to everyone's amusement (:
Onan.
|
SHMBO's like that:
She goes on an' on an' on an' on.
|
There are 4 people on the electroral roll called Onan, so it's possible. But you say your folks did it for a laugh - that I can't believe.
|
Should I be flattered that you would go to the bother of investigating me?
I was joking when I said my parents did it for a laugh -I hope they didn't, I don't have the money to have a shrink dig into that Freudian bog!
Onan -basking in my uniqueness.
|
Hope I haven't offended you - I just couldn't resist finding out whether anybody really was called Onan. Your initial posts had the whiff of the wind-up merchant about them. Now seems I was wrong.
|
No offense taken.
Regarding my earlier posts, I am sorry if I came across as winding anyone up.
Onan -back to motoring, everybody.
|
|
You see everyone, he's a nice guy - not Onan the Barbarian at all.
|
There were two other things I recall. One was a thing shaped like a fuel filter, heavily advertised in the Exchange and Mart for about 17/6d inc p & p, and you cut the HT coil-to -distributor lead and inserted the ends of the HT wire in it. All it did was create a gap for the spark to jump across before it got to the distributor. This was somehow claimed to improve fuel consumption, power, etc. Dad put one on his Austin A30 and it immediately refused to start!
Another was a set of pumice-like stones one put in the fuel tank.
They were somehow meant to improve the anti-knock and combustion qualities of the fuel. They didn't.
Face it, these things rely on gullibility, hard sell, (probably fake) testimonials, like the guy who drove from Dallas to Austin with an empty sump at 65 mph after adding ******** to his oil then draining it, and offering jam tomorrow. (That ad still plays endlesly on my cable shopping channel).
What I can never understand is what does that prove anyway? Who in their right mind is going to be impressed by someone driving without oil when everyone knows that is not a sensible thing to do. And how is that somehow going to make me buy this gloop when my car runs fine on what it says in the manual?
|
The proof that they don't work is simple.
If you invented a revolutionary gizmo that improves performance/consumption, would you:
a) patent it, sell it to (e.g.) Ford and make a couple of euros per car Ford sells in the future, or
b) struggle to sell it to a couple of gullible/adventurous people on QVC?
I know what I would do.
Onan.
|
You see everyone, he's a nice guy - not Onan the Barbarian at all.
Oh good grief. Friday has come early.
|
Interesting stuff. (not the gizmos, the arguments)
I\'m going to buy one of each. I reckon I\'ll be doing about 275 mph by the end of the week.
|
Actually Ford are using a device that is similar to the Ecotek on the new Zetec engines.
And its quite easy to quantify mine and my friends results.
I, until recently, used to drive 40,000 miles per year. My Xantia always got around 29-30 mpg. Always.
I get it as I cant lose money on it, full guarantee, and lo and behold it goes up to 32-33mpg. My friend is impressed He gets one for his 1997 1.8 Celica. He does the same drive every day with hardly any scope for a change in driving style. His tank always used to last him 350 miles. Ekotec fitted and he gets 380 and still does.
After a while you forget its on and as it makes the car feel more tractable, you actually tend to floor it a bit more. Having been to university to do a science degree, then working in a science field I know the value of good science. Since the device is easy to fit/take off my xantia I took it off. Back down to 30 mpg. I even asked my brother to take it off/ put it on just to see if I could spot the difference. 10 out of 10 times. (over a period of a few months) That has nothing to do with economy, but the performance.
It doesn\'t claim to add power but it makes the car feel more eager to rev.
I was actually thinking of glaciers and climate change when made the comment about theory and practice but there are lots of examples.
My point is that dont knock it until you try it. It costs £50 and if you think it doesn\'t work or even if it does and your stubborn, you can send it back and get all your money back. If it works, work out the maths. You get your money back!
|
|
As to the emissions, I can check the emissions with it off and on as my brother works in a garage so I have. Emissions are definately lower with the Ecotek fitted.
|
|
Has anyone ever sent one back and got their money back? A lot of people saying you can...but has anyone done that...would be interesting...
|
Actually Ford are using a device that is similar to the Ecotek on the new Zetec engines.
Good news for Ford then! Does that mean that new Fiesta Zetecs are going to provide 20% better fuel economy than the competition?
And its quite easy to quantify mine and my friends results.
[..]
Those results are very interesting. It would seem that it does give you 10% better fuel figures. I particularly like the fact that you could tell the difference every time on a blind test.
However as a scientist you must also see that a simple blind test cannot be trusted when measuring things as subjective as \"tractability\" and \"eagerness to rev\".
I\'d like to see if you could tell the difference on a double-blind and random test.
I was actually thinking of glaciers and climate change..
Not very good examples at all, being highly chaotic non-linear systems.
My point is that dont knock it until you try it. It costs £50 and if you think it doesn\'t work...
Absolutely agree. Personally I\'m not adventurous enough to try it, but as an apparent 0-risk investment in can\'t be flawed.
As Gen said, has anyone actually returned one successfully?
Onan -too keen on the scientific method?
|
I know that,as a scientist, I cant measure tractability and eagerness to rev but those are seat of the pants things. I remember once, on my way home from Shrewsbury through to my home in South Wales through some really great driving roads. This was after meeting my friend and looking at my car showing him the engine etc.
Driving along and the car feels not as perky as it should. It was a seat of the pants thing, it didn't feel as good as it did earlier. I open the bonnet and notice that the device is closed, thus the engine is back to standard. I tune the device and it feels more eager again. I had no idea that my friend had fiddled with the device, then, as he was unsure what to do, he closed it off for safety hoping that I wouldn't notice. I did about 5 miles down the road. That is a completely random test that I knew nothing about. At least with my brothers test I knew it was either tuned or not.
Some would say the air entering the cylinders can be a highly chaotic system too. I was just thinking of examples where the theory doesn't match the practice.
The device doesn't work on Vauxhall's modern V6 engines. Those that have bought it not knowing that the device doesn't fit have all been refunded, some other cars as well are not compatible as the device would only work on one cylinder due to the location of the vacuum used. These have all been refunded.
If you go to the site, especially the forum there you can read for yourself what they say.
It has paid for itself and then some. I reckon it has saved me about £180 so minus £50 equals £130 saved.
Dont dismiss things without trying them for yourself. Experience not ignorance.
|
|
Onan. Do you cut hair for a living? Sorry if you see the painful conclusion of this question.
|
Onan. Do you cut hair for a living? Sorry if you see the painful conclusion of this question.
I'm afraid I don't. Explain?
Onan.
|
|
I am afraid this is going to be painful. If you did cut hair for a living, you would be Onan the barber man. Mmm. I think I had better just saunter off quietly ...
|
LOL
I've never had that one before, I like it! (:
Onan.
|
|
I can provide a little more information on the Ecotek device, I have taken a bit of an interest in it.
Some facts: (please note I know nothing technical about engines!)
1) The patent front pages are available to view at gb.espacenet.com/ - the number is on their site
2) Despite their crap it DOES NOT SAVE FUEL BY SWIRLING VORTICES. The patent is for a modified air bleed device which have apparently been around years. We can assume any fuel saving is by leaning the air mixture.
3) The tests performed by \"DTI Warren Springs\" (now privatised) was in 1993 on two Vauxhall Cavaliers both with over 160,000 miles on the clock. The tests were in city traffic, none on a motorway.
4) The tests were not performed on an Ecotek device, nor were they performed for Ecotek.
5) Comparative results between the two cars in the test were not possible as the timing was altered by the client on one of the cars mid-test. That car had greater emissions than before, the other produced lower emissions. IIRC fuel consumption was not monitored, I\'ll have to look at the documents when I get home.
6) The test was devised and performed by the same person that tested the \"Ecoflow\" magnetic devices, and confirmed that it worked. The tests were also performed on Vauxhall Cavaliers, very possibly the same pair! I\'d love to run a test with an Ecotek and an Ecoflow - perhaps they will put fuel back in the tank!?!
They are breaking a fsckload of advertising regulations, and let\'s just say an investigation has been going on for a long time by Royal Kingston-on-Thames Trading Standards and the ASA, and this advert (I\'ve not seen it myself) should produce a lot more complaints.
Gareth
|
Could anybody quote the text used in the advert?
Also, note that they advertise in most of the magazines that did favourable tests, and no major publication has tested it yet, nor has any major club/organisation/government dept. commented.
Gareth
|
Aw! And there was me going to order one for each cylinder and become a net producer of fuel as a result.
|
|
I was going to put two together in a loop and join OPEC ;-)
|
|
|
A good few years ago a friend of mine devised a magical economy system for his Mini. Can't remember the exact details, but it involved a tube plumbed into the top of the dashpot on the SU carburettor, the idea being to run a very lean mixture under light load. On the first long test run he claimed to have achieved 65 mpg and got wildly excited. This was the invention that would make him rich beyond his wildest dreams. Unfortunately, the second test ended with his Mini towed back to base with a holed piston....
Richard Hall
bangernomics.tripod.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gareth, I've read the Warren Spring's report, for what it is worth. If they were not testing an Ecotek device then what were they testing? I think that Warren Springs is a reputable organisation but nobody that we have all heard of has done a proper in depth test and published the results, or have they?
|
They were testing a generic air-bleed device I think. I've got a copy of a fax of a preliminary test from Warren Springs. The test was merely testing what happens, not *why* it happens, nor is it a "rigorous" test as the Advertising Standards Authority demands.
Chat amongst people on a newsgroup found that what would be required is a brand new engine run-in on a special load (can't remember what they are called but I think they are hydraulic or electromagnetic) and then run double-blind for a good period over various loads, alternating between being fitted and not fitted but the switch being done by somebody not performing the tests.
The fuel consumption, power output and emissions would be logged but not displayed until the end of the tests.
Obviously this costs money, but driving around two tatty Cavaliers around a town with a simple data logger is hardly rigorous for a device which makes such extraordinary claims. They say they have sold 50,000 devices so they can't be short of money. They are made from CNC machined aluminium for maximum perceived value- if they were injection moulded in nylon they could be sold for £10 or less in Halfords.
As mentioned, the principle of operation has been well known and discounted/ignored for may years - if you look at the patent details it refers to many near-identical devices patented over the past 50 years. All are used in 99.99999% of all cars on the road. The 0.00001% are the riceboys who saw it in "Max Power" and liked the colour.
Gareth
|
|
Well nobody said it came in pretty colours - I've got to have one now.
|
Here's some links to patents that might be of interest:
l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/bnsviewer?CY=gb&LG=en&D...+ (Ecotek's)
l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/bnsviewer?CY=gb&LG=en&D...+
l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/bnsviewer?CY=gb&LG=en&D...+
l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/bnsviewer?CY=gb&LG=en&D...+
- This engine claims to produce vortices that make the engine more efficient at low speeds - the actual engine is designed to produce them, yet Ecotek claims that their product does this with any car.
|
|
Most modern engines are designed to induce swirl as the air-charge enters the cylnders - its nothing new. Some multi-valve engines even close one of the inlet valve ports on each cylinder with a flap which is known as a swirl valve. The idea is to promote better combustion as the air/fuel charge is better mixed. The fact that the company tested this thing on a pair of old Cavs says it all, I bet they probably had clogged up old air filters so any extra air would be bound to help!
|
That's a point: my motorbike guru who tunes up the local racers' rides won't listen to requests to polish the inlet ports, says a rough cast on the metal benefits the fuel air mixture.
|
Not polishing prevents fuel condensing on shiny inlet ports, thus messing up the air/fuel ratio. It still a good idea to smooth the walls of the ports though to aid air flow through the ports.
Back to the EcoTEK thingy - I love it when people insist these silly devices work, it like when people think they get 10+ bhp for their cone air filter and rude-boy big bore back box - nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
