Better Gas Mileage

Yes, the throttle response from a dead stop was noticeably different, and the throttle response under load was slightly better as well.

 

Yes, I too appreciate the oportunity to show you what I have observed. Maverick491 and I are in the process of compiling our results, and I fully plan on having a report presented to you by the end of this week.

Beyond that, I am looking into finding an emissions testing facility here in San Antonio that will allow me to test without the VPE and then with the VPE. I was planning on doing this the other way around, but Ben pointed out to me that the VPE will have changed the properties of some of the gas in the tank. This is due to the fact that the fuel system has a return line that takes unused fuel back to the tank as the fuel injectors only use a partial amount of what is in the fuel rail.

 

I am working for my own curiosity. As a side benefit, I get to share my observations with the members of TW.

 

Thanks for your response, you are getting pretty warm there, and you answered this very well. No I did not come to this forum to market my product or to make you look stupid. I was asked by 007 to let them prove the product by Real World Testing. I have not asked anyone on the forum to buy anything. In Fact I told them we would not offer a Group buy until they informed their members with the positive or negative results.
30 to 40 cents in savings per gallon to an average family means a lot to most
families out there. Our customers come back and buy for their additional cars and Motorcycles, ATV's and Boats. The product sells itself.
90% of our marketing has and is with Fleets and government agencies who have been and are using this product now for several years now. Unlike our competitors that you referenced above we have a solid backing.
Many new car Dealers are now offering our product as well.
If you believe our claims or not is totally your option.
Sorry my ECO-System won't help your headache but it will save you money at the pump to buy aspirins.
Thanks,
Ben

 

Though I, too, must claim some ignorance to the chemistry behind all of this. I had the same suposition that maverick491 had. I was under the impression that the rich mixture of the air-to-fuel ratio (that is inherently high in most Toyotas) was not allowing all of the gasoline to burn in the cylinders. I was also under the impression that by lowering the Reid Vapor Pressure you were allowing more (not all) of the gasoline to burn as a vapor rather than a spray of liquid as you would have in a regular combustion cycle.

The other factor that no one is talking about is temperature of combustion and exhaust gas. In diesel engines (and especially on the TDIclub.com forums where I am member TDIDragon) combustion temperatures and exhaust gas temperatures are a big deal as they tell you about the efficiency of the burn, the emissions system, and the turbo.

I read somewhere that the VPE's process raises these temperatures by creating a more efficient burn. Raising the temperature of an exhuast gas before it goes into the catalytic converter increases the efficiency of the catalytic converter. I know this from working on emissions testing software for compressors and generators.

The original application of the ECO VPE is to reduce emissions. They observed that the unit also improved fuel economy. I have observed this myself, and Adam and I will be posting a final report by the end of this week. I hope to put out a separate report that shows what difference there is in emissions from running with or without the VPE on the 2.7L engine.

 

I'm just getting my Taco broken in and would love to keep the same stats that you have been compiling and compare over the long haul. My motorcycle has it's own spreadsheet that has ever fill-up, date and mileage and I use it to track discrepancies that may be early indicators of required maintenance. Could you let me know what metrics you've been collecting?

Thanks again for all the efforts that you've both been putting into this, no matter what the results may be. Science is its own reward.

 

I don't know how many times your going to confuse people with the pressure in the fuel lines and reid vapor pressure. You can put pressure gauges before and after our device and there is NO changes in Fuel pressure. The RVP is the ability of the fuel to atomize better from the injectors. You stated that the RVP pressure makes very little difference but any fleet operator will tell you that there is a substantial difference in mileage from winter blended fuel and summer blended fuels because the change of the RVP.
You claim the Placebo effect which people will drive more Carefully. We did Star Shuttle in San Antonio with over 240 vehicles and as many drivers. Their fuel savings averaged 14 percent. Their drivers came and asked what fuel they had changed to because the vehicles responded much better. I don't believe your Placebo theory would work in this case. B-6 Trucking in El Paso say their drivers have less down shifting reports as well.
Most all of your statements are good but can be pulled up on the internet by anyone that loves to search.
Ben

 

Speedemon will continue to argue for the sake of arguing. Unless he owns stock in oil I don't know of any reason why he would want to bash us so hard. The only other people that bash us is our competitors.
I know all about the Lab tests and I also know about real world testing.
I too have to go to the fuel pumps and buy gasoline just like everyone else.
We have made this easy for even the biggest of skeptics. You buy a unit and if for any reason you are dissatisfied such as:
1 You did not get a fuel savings.
2 You did not get lower emissions
3 You did not get better performance
4 You did not like the way the unit looks under your hood
or any reason you are unhappy, within 90 days of purchase, just send us the unit back and we will refund your purchase price back to you.
You lose nothing but a few minutes of time.
Now take your fuel expense monthly and take 10% of that and put back in your pocket and what does that toal a year???
$400.00 $600.00 $800.00 or more a year????
An extra $600.00 to $800.00 makes Christmas look a little better.
Makes getting that EXTRA Mod for the TACO easier. Or even get the EXTRA Mods for Christmas easier.
Folks that is money your giving to the pumps!
I don't see Speedemon stepping up to the plate and telling you that if YOU DON"T buy the ECO-System he will pay you that 10% savings monthly!
or how about that if you buy it and it does work for you that he at least reimburse you for the cost of the unit?
No I don't think he'll put up with that. He can't find that answer on the internet.
There are scams out in the market and people need to research their purchases. It is a buyers be ware market. There still are good companies that believe in customer satisfaction and service. We are one of those companies.
Check with our customers and ask them about our service.
Thanks,
Ben

 

That's what I'm starting to think. Not only is speedy very certain (without any empirical evidence) that everyone should not only avoid buying this product, but that they should stop even listening to those performing as scientific a test as you can get in real world conditions. It's also curious that he has had absolutely no other posts than the ones in this thread. If he was really just trying to be a voice in this community, you'd think he'd have at least said hi in the newb section or read and responded to a few other posts.

"Anyways, Im done trying to convince people. Make up your own minds, its your money after all."

I'm hoping he sticks to his word. I just want to see the numbers. Hell, I'm trying to take stats now so I can possibly add to the data once I've got the Taco broken in enough to rule that out as a potential variable. The more data you have, the more information you can produce.

 

I talk to URD and they said they are not looking into it for various reasons. While under driving the water pump and steering could lead to heat issues, We are talking about maybe a 10% increase in diameter which should if anything only raise the temp 1 or 2 degrees. If I could find a way to run an electric water pump i would.

 

Ben

I must applaud you on your responses to all the flak. I guess it is par for the course when making a product like yours. Kudos to you

Until the data from 007 and maverick (sounds like a top gun remake here) I am in the very skeptic side but I am open to the the idea it could work. But a more in depth explanation from Eco systems on how the product works still would be helpful. You don't have to give away all the secrets.

A few questions to you.
What testing have you done on modified cars? I know we talked a while back and you had one for my M3. However I did not ask if the system has been tested on cars with extensive changes. Just wondering how your system would effect the car and the changes made to it if any?

If Speedemon is right and copper "ages" the fuel. To my understanding you always want to find a gas station that gets new fuel regularly as it give you the most power and performance than fuel that has been sitting a while?

Last question. You said one of the reason people might not like it is it looks bad under the hood. Based of the pics of the install kit, can shorter install ends be made?

 

Wow. And bad logic prevails once again.

You know what, go ahead everyone. Go buy it, waste your money.

The only reason I was so against it is because I KNOW the science behind it is bullshit. I figured I could be nice, and try and help a bunch of people out before they waste their money.

Its copper, plain and simple. It accelerates the natural breakdown process of gasoline. Thats it. If by using old gas you can get better gas mileage, lower emissions, and more power, then go for it.

Im sorry, I won't bother any of you again.

 

OK Bottom line for MPG improvment on 07 Tacoma Crew 4x4 at/ How much more can I expect real world. Burbs & rural areas driving?

 

WOW there. Kind of throwing the towel in early wouldn't you say? The book data you have given all of us has been more than helpful in understanding how the system works in theory. So I thank you for helping at least myself understand the system better.

However would you not agree that a theory needs to be tested to show that the book data matches real world data? 007 and Mav are doing that. I would be curious to know your opinion once the data is posted.

 

speedemon105, are you in San Antonio and are you a TTORA member?

 

I don'tunderstand where you get this B.S. from but if we made gas older your car would run worse. We work the opposite to make your fuel more volatile as I have kept repeating myself over and over. It seems like you understand what we are doing and then you turn it all around. However we know we can't please everybody but for you to try to keep people from saving their own money from the pumps and helping to lower emissions is beyond me!
Our own A.G.,s office here in Texas has had one of their investigators test our unit on a Dodge Dakota and he wound up with 14% in city drivng. It was posted on a kayak fishing forum. These were the same people that shut down the pill for your tank guys and many multi level marketing scams.
No we don't hide anything. The unit does the work and the consumers are happy. Your problem is you can't handle the fact that the unit works!
Thanks,
Ben

 

On average the Tacomas are in the 10 to 12 percent savings from our real world type testing.
Thanks,
Ben

 

I've been following this thread for some time now and just decided to join so I could respond.
Speedemon, there are many more of us out here that do appreciate what you are saying and would like very much for you to continue to respond.
I'm 43 now but when I was 21 I purchased a "platinum gas saver". It supposedly injected a small amout of platinum into a vacuum line. Bottom line this was to give you a 5% to 10% increase in fuel mileage. I spent $70 and it didn't work. I wish I had the internet back then so people like Speedemon could at least warn me of the high probability that these type of products are bogus.
Here is how I know this product is bogus. If it really worked it would be worth not millions but billions. Imagine every gas and diesel motor in the world saving the claimed amount of fuel by this product. It's huge. Automakers would stand in line to buy this to help with the fuel mileage requirements by the government.
Given this product is worth so much it wouldn't be out in the field being tested under horribly imprecise methods it would be in an independent lab under highly controlled verifiable conditions.

 

Copper catalyzes the breakdown of the gasoline, you are breaking down the hydrocarbon chains. You are speeding up the natural breakdown process of the gasoline. I know EXACTLY what you are claiming. So what if that makes the gas more likely to vaporize. How does that equal better gas mileage? By vaporizing more completely (the extreme temperature of the combustion chamber makes your little change in the vapor pressure insignificant)? By vaporizing sooner (it can't, it vaporizes after it leaves the injectors)? If it vaporizes before it hits the piston, you will burn up your pistons.



As far as waiting to see the test data, I tried to share my opinion of the test without upsetting you all. You put a lot of time and effort in this test, I realize that. But your testing method is flawed. There are too many uncontrolled variables. The amount of deviation from the data you already posted in this thread means that you would have to show a gain of at least 5 mpg just for your results to even be considered.

Thats why the EPA kept their test the same for so long. They always knew it wouldn't correspond to real world driving. That never was the main intention. You can't invent a "real world" test that will stay consistent, there are WAY too many variables. Their goal was to create a test that would allow comparison of results by minimizing uncontrolled variables. Which it did. They only recently changed the testing method mostly because it was wildly unreliable for hybrid vehicles.

 

ECO, I wouldn't respond to Speddy any more. He's going to continue speaking like his words are undisputable fact, not matter what anyone says to him. At least you have tried to have an openminded discussion with him. He's not interested. Evidently, book learning that goes unused for however long is much better than real-world testing.

That being said, his point about the tests is accurate, to a degree. You will never be able to 100% replicate normal daily driving conditions over any time span. Traffic patterns change, personal temperament changes, etc. What you look for in any statistical analysis is trending. This is hard to do with a limited test group but you can absolutely infer, with an understanding of accepted risk, an outcome. The risk in this case is the cost of the unit. You can easily find the acceptable margin of error from a given set of results that nets a break-even point to your assumed risk. I'm looking forward to putting my bean counting hat on once the results are posted and see where we fall.

One other thing to think about, even if it were just a placebo effect, it saves you money. If I unconsciously save myself gas that I would have used otherwise, doesn't that mean I SAVED GAS, regardless of cause? Very few people can change their own habits as easily as they can when the believe something else is the cause.

And yes, I am a financial / statistical analysis by day, mechanic by nature.