Following being heavily pushed by local newspaper Northern Echo,
Any truth in it or just another snake oil presentation?
getecochip.com/article6/uk?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-vibt...E
dvd
Stuff like this is IMHO 100% snake oil rubbish. Fifth Gear tried similar 'devices' out some years ago and proved they were all bunk. Similarly, Aussie motoring journo (and engineer) John Cadogan has also rubbished this type of device on his YT channel.
I'm sure that actual remapping can provide a small amount of improvement in mpg and/or emissions, but this would be at the expense of performance if you keep all the original engine components.
Case in point is the mid-life update of the gen-1 Mazda3 1.6 petrol - the original has a 0-60 time of 11.2 sec, an average mpg of 38 and a CO2 rate of 172; the updated version (same engine) was tweaked to give an average mpg of about 42 and a CO2 rate of 149, but the 0-60 time increased to 12.2 sec.
Mazda likely did this because it likely reduced tax rates - it did in the UK (now £80pa difference, not sure what the effect on BIK was)
The 'article' looks like an 'infomercial', something that 'Dr' Nick Riviera of The Simpsons would host on TV.
|
The 'article' looks like an 'infomercial', something that 'Dr' Nick Riviera of The Simpsons would host on TV.
LOL Very true. Am sure I watched a clip of something like this on YouTube where they took one apart and it was basically a PCB with an LED that was made to flash and that was it.
The way I look at something like this is if for £40 car manufacturers could make big MPG savings then they would as it's a good selling feature.
And big oil companies would be more than happy to sell less oil...the just put the price up so they produce less which costs them less yet can charge more so everyone wins.
|
|
The best fuel savers I own are my bicycles. One is an ancient hybrid (salvaged from the tip, odd sized wheels, tyre tread around 1.5mm, good for a runabout within 4 mile walking distance home) and the other is a modest Apollo for 'best', i.e. annual cycling trips of more than 100 miles, kindly bought for me as a retirement present seven years ago. They cost only the occasional extra plate of sausage and chips to run. No shortage of chips........and thanks to our legislators' stupidity resulting in (amongst many other unforeseen consequences) a surfeit of overweight pigs, there should be a plentiful supply of sausages.
|
a surfeit of overweight pigs,
Watch out for the flying ones, they tend to leave larger deposits than the average gull.
|
|
|
|
You've done it now! You mentioned bicycles. Someone who hates cyclists will be along soon to castigate you for adopting two-wheel transport.
Edited by De Sisti on 25/02/2022 at 13:38
|
|
|
|
|
LOL Very true. Am sure I watched a clip of something like this on YouTube where they took one apart and it was basically a PCB with an LED that was made to flash and that was it.
Some chinese aux usb adapters are wired direct on pcb with led so would cause a fire in car, I took one apart to see as someone I know bought one and his phone stopped working. burnt out connector
|
|
This is a good watch, they take one apart to find it does b***** all
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgXwfBTKLGU
|
|
|
|
|
Following being heavily pushed by local newspaper Northern Echo,
Any truth in it or just another snake oil presentation?
getecochip.com/article6/uk?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-vibt...E
dvd
Stuff like this is IMHO 100% snake oil rubbish. Fifth Gear tried similar 'devices' out some years ago and proved they were all bunk. Similarly, Aussie motoring journo (and engineer) John Cadogan has also rubbished this type of device on his YT channel.
I'm sure that actual remapping can provide a small amount of improvement in mpg and/or emissions, but this would be at the expense of performance if you keep all the original engine components.
Case in point is the mid-life update of the gen-1 Mazda3 1.6 petrol - the original has a 0-60 time of 11.2 sec, an average mpg of 38 and a CO2 rate of 172; the updated version (same engine) was tweaked to give an average mpg of about 42 and a CO2 rate of 149, but the 0-60 time increased to 12.2 sec.
Mazda likely did this because it likely reduced tax rates - it did in the UK (now £80pa difference, not sure what the effect on BIK was)
The 'article' looks like an 'infomercial', something that 'Dr' Nick Riviera of The Simpsons would host on TV.
I dunno if this gizmo works (it couldn't work for me since I have purely mechanical engine management) but I find it slightly odd that, after rubbishing the idea, you go on to cite an example from a major manufacturer which shows that it could.
|
|
There's a big difference between these fake plug in gadgets and doing a proper engine remapping using professional equipment.
Edited by RichT54 on 02/03/2022 at 08:50
|
Case in point is the mid-life update of the gen-1 Mazda3 1.6 petrol - the original has a 0-60 time of 11.2 sec, an average mpg of 38 and a CO2 rate of 172; the updated version (same engine) was tweaked to give an average mpg of about 42 and a CO2 rate of 149, but the 0-60 time increased to 12.2 sec.
Not sure where these figures come from, but the source I often use says 0-60mph in 10.5 seconds for the original and 10.6 for the facelifted car. Power and torque figures are identical (including the rpm) and the facelifted car is stated as being only 5kg heavier, so I really can't see why it would take an extra second to hit 60mph?. I did consider gear changes, but if anything the facelifted car would have longer gearing than the original not the other way round (so if the original would hit 60 in second, it is highly unlikely the facelifted car would need an extra gear change)
|
|
|
|
I find it slightly odd that, after rubbishing the idea, you go on to cite an example from a major manufacturer which shows that it could.
You are comparing a random chip you plug into your car to a redseign by the manuafctuer of the specific engine - I can't see any comparison there.
|
I find it slightly odd that, after rubbishing the idea, you go on to cite an example from a major manufacturer which shows that it could.
You are comparing a random chip you plug into your car to a redseign by the manuafctuer of the specific engine - I can't see any comparison there.
Does a remap involve a redesign of an engine? I'd have thought it was a different stored lookup table.
Here are some simple modifications that apparently can work
https://www.autospeed.com.au/cms/a_110955/article
|
|
|
|
Following being heavily pushed by local newspaper Northern Echo,
Any truth in it or just another snake oil presentation?
getecochip.com/article6/uk?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-vibt...E
dvd
Stuff like this is IMHO 100% snake oil rubbish. Fifth Gear tried similar 'devices' out some years ago and proved they were all bunk. Similarly, Aussie motoring journo (and engineer) John Cadogan has also rubbished this type of device on his YT channel.
I'm sure that actual remapping can provide a small amount of improvement in mpg and/or emissions, but this would be at the expense of performance if you keep all the original engine components.
Case in point is the mid-life update of the gen-1 Mazda3 1.6 petrol - the original has a 0-60 time of 11.2 sec, an average mpg of 38 and a CO2 rate of 172; the updated version (same engine) was tweaked to give an average mpg of about 42 and a CO2 rate of 149, but the 0-60 time increased to 12.2 sec.
Mazda likely did this because it likely reduced tax rates - it did in the UK (now £80pa difference, not sure what the effect on BIK was)
The 'article' looks like an 'infomercial', something that 'Dr' Nick Riviera of The Simpsons would host on TV.
I dunno if this gizmo works (it couldn't work for me since I have purely mechanical engine management) but I find it slightly odd that, after rubbishing the idea, you go on to cite an example from a major manufacturer which shows that it could.
I suggest you re-read my comments. What these devices claim to do is improve mpg and emissions without penalty to performance, which clear was stated that happened when Mazda re-mapped the engine I spoke of.
The other difference is the scale of the former's claims compared to the real-world latter, where the mpg increased by about 10% and the CO2 emissions dropped by about 15%, but at a cost of 10% to the 0-60 time (don't know about other performance figures).
The snake oil products do not have any information stored in them for every make and model of car, thus they cannot remap an engine, which as is widely known, needs more than just a glorified OBD2 connector, a battery and some flashing lights on the case.
Essentially they are a basic dongle with LED lights, rather like those used for CAD computers to copy-protect the expensive software and nothing else.
|
|
Fair enough.
I was reacting to the "If it worked, don't you think manufacturers would use it " Panglossian jive.
As your example illustrates, engine optimization is a compromise, and different compromises are available, so everything is not necessarily for the best in the best of all possible worlds. As your example also illustrates, of course it is not possible to get something for nothing.
Whether useful changes can be made via an OBDII connection I don't know but would rather doubt.
OTOH, it is apparently possible to make potentially useful changes quite cheaply and simply by modifying sensor signals received by the ECU using, for example, variable resistors. There are some examples in the link I give above.
Another relatively simple approach is to modify driver behaviour by giving additional feedback on engine operation. Vacuum gauges were traditionally used in this way.
Here is "a PCB with an LED" that does that, and plausibly (?) claims a measured 15% fuel economy improvement.
www.autospeed.com/a_111510/hdg34ultp_1/cms/article
|
Fair enough.
I was reacting to the "If it worked, don't you think manufacturers would use it " Panglossian jive.
As your example illustrates, engine optimization is a compromise, and different compromises are available, so everything is not necessarily for the best in the best of all possible worlds. As your example also illustrates, of course it is not possible to get something for nothing.
Whether useful changes can be made via an OBDII connection I don't know but would rather doubt.
OTOH, it is apparently possible to make potentially useful changes quite cheaply and simply by modifying sensor signals received by the ECU using, for example, variable resistors. There are some examples in the link I give above.
Another relatively simple approach is to modify driver behaviour by giving additional feedback on engine operation. Vacuum gauges were traditionally used in this way.
Here is "a PCB with an LED" that does that, and plausibly (?) claims a measured 15% fuel economy improvement.
www.autospeed.com/a_111510/hdg34ultp_1/cms/article
As you and others have said, surely car manufacturers would be incorporating such 'tech' if it worked, because they always want to be 'one up' on rivals, particularly where it is at a low cost to the consumer as an outlay for a big gain over the medium to long term.
I agree its not as though remapping is not a new thing either. The problem comes when firms/individuals with little expertise start fiddling with ECU settings which, on their own might seem harmless or even make a positive difference here and there, but which might have far more major and negative impacts on other components and/or the lifespan of any it affects.
I seriously doubt that much quality R&D goes into the making of a device that likely retails for less than a tank of petrol. If they were that good, surely some big firm would've bought the rights to enable them to make a fortune. That none have yet leads me to believe that most if not all of these gadgets are no good - I suspect most do nothing.
I remember a similar 'device' (even simpler) as a mechanical building services 'energy saver' - putting magnets on gas pipes to somehow boost efficiency of the fuel burnt and to 'reduce emissions'. All the rage in the early - mid 2000s but nothing to back up the claims ever since.
|
|
Others said “surely car manufacturers would be incorporating such 'tech' if it worked”
I didn’t
Car manufacturers cater to a mass market. An individual may wish to make different choices.
One of the simple mods I link to above allowed the writer to advance his ignition timing by “fooling” a temperature sensor. (I can advance timing just by moving the distributor, but I gather it is not so easy on a modern car.) The writer is apparently very aware, and (elsewhere on that useful site) describes audio monitoring for detonation. Joe punter is quite likely to bust his engine doing the same thing, and a manufacturer would be nuts to encourage it.
The second link is to a “PCB and LED” gadget (Fuelsmart) that monitors TPS and MAP sensor and gives the driver a visual cue (the LED bit) to keep them in the optimum range. I find it technically plausible, and if I had a car it would work with I might try and get one (I did drive around with a vacuum gauge for a while but as the article points out that’s a bit flawed.)
Could Joe punter be bothered? Is giving him the extra workload, and drawing attention to ocaisional engine inneficiency good marketing? Might he crash while looking at the LED? Is he An American with litigation in mind? A manufacturer might have to consider these things.
I’m not specifically commenting on the OP’s gadget, but it seems possible that such monitoring could be done via OBDII, though as I understand it the Fuelsmart gizmo does not work that way, and the OP’s gadget isn’t providing driver feedback.
Most of the above commentators aren’t specifically commenting on the OP’s gadget either, so I don’t feel too apologetic. “Stuff like this” ” Fifth Gear tried similar 'devices' “something like this” and now magnets on gas pipes (?) are all rather non-specific blanket statements
Rubber hammer, knee
Snake oil is probably generally the way to bet, but it does risk flinging the odd baby out with the large volume of dirty bath water
Edited by edlithgow on 03/03/2022 at 00:58
|
|
|
|
<< I seriously doubt that much quality R&D goes into the making of a device that likely retails for less than a tank of petrol. >>
If it retails for much more than a tank of petrol (at today's prices) it will take the buyer quite a while to recover the cost of the gadget - unless it is extremely effective.
|
<< I seriously doubt that much quality R&D goes into the making of a device that likely retails for less than a tank of petrol. >>
If it retails for much more than a tank of petrol (at today's prices) it will take the buyer quite a while to recover the cost of the gadget - unless it is extremely effective.
The one mentioned will take a lifetime as it doesn`t work, I gather it takes the data signal and uses that to operate the leds, with no return data connection it can`t do anything but give a lightshow while draining the battery
all clever stuff not, apart from scamming people!
|
|
Very similar to the scam to save you electric in the home which was dominant a month or so ago. Very convincing just plug this into your wall and save £££££s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
