Better Gas Mileage

For the record, I was "bothered" to read the entire thread and was fairly alarmed at how many people were excited to get their hands on this expensive device and trying to arrange for group buys. The one post which should have made this whole issue go away was buried somewhere around page 6...These fuel atomizers/vaporizers have been dyno tested already and failed. As the article states, nearly anything you attempt to do to your fuel system will be automatically corrected by the ECU, resulting in no net gains other than in the wallet of the product manufacturers. I'll stick to PM and their scientific dyno results, but thanks for all your hard work...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html?page=3

 

I understand what el smurfo was trying to say and i do think Mav was a little hard on him. I am very skeptical of this device. i know that most of these fuel savers have failed every test thrown at them. However, if Mav and 007 are willing to put a few months into testing it in the real world under real world conditions, i will be inclined to listen to their results and take them seriously. So far 007's results are not impressive. Mavericks results look a little more promising but are still incomplete. I would like to see some actualy dyno tests for this device to see if there are any gains and it would be nice to see some scangauge results too to see if there is any fuel being saved. The idea theoretically makes sense but "theoricitally" doesnt cut it for me.

 

Meh, it's the Internet...Everyone is 75% more flamey from behind an anonymous computer, so I don't sweat it. What I do sweat is the decline of logical thought and the scientific method in this country. I understand that a dyno test is not "real world", but any data that comes out of these experiments will be flawed based on the structure of the experiment. For the results to mean anything at all, the test would need to be double-blind with a control group. Any other method and you might as well call the device the Placebo Injector...

P.S. I hope it comes with a cool sticker with a guaranteed 25 HP in the butt-dyno...

 

P.P.S. When I was a dumb kid, I had a Jacobs ignition system on my car. Made the same sort of logical sense as this device, i.e. a double spark firing HAS to burn fuel more efficiently. Unfortunately, as stated in the PM article, a modern gasoline combustion engine burns somewhere around 99% of fuel injected into the cylinder, so any claim of more than a 1% efficiency increase is not possible.

As a final note, many forum members with gas records going back to 2005 will attest to the fact that the mileage on these trucks does get better as the engines break in, even up to 20K miles. Has this been factored into the results of this test?

 

I have been getting anywhere from 18-23 mpg. i have a cold air intake and a magnaflow exhaust. Recently my buddy said go buy 100% pure acetone and put 3 ounces in your full tank. So i did and yesterday i calculated my fuel econ. Breakthrough!!!!!!!!! I got 34 MPG! Holy crap! 5 dollars for a quart of this stuff is well worth it! I got almost 12 mpg better then just running 93 octane alone. i also noticed my truck runs even better! Its got allot more get up and go! The exhaust also does not get black! This stuff is great!

 

Hope these Tacoma fuel lines can handle that corrosive paint remover...

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive

 

I know what you're saying smurfo but it is possible to get a more efficient burn without burning a greater percentage of the fuel. even if it still only burns 99% it can burn it faster and cleaner, which would result in greater efficiency. I'm not saying this device will actually do it, i'm jsut saying that it is possible. I'm still more intersted in what actual users say rather than test results. I was a psych major so half of my time was spent developing and running experiments and trying to control variables and running statistics, but when it comes down to it, real world results are the only thing that really matter.

106tacoma: I agree with smurfo, are you sure its a good idea to run that through your system?

 

I'm guessing that any of your psych test results would not have been valid had the subjects known the exact parameters of the test? If you put on a white coat and give someone a Jujubee, telling them it's Prozac, they're going to probably feel pretty damned good. If you set out to test fuel economy, your subconscious preconceptions are going to affect your driving style. I can get myself a good 10% increase in mileage if I just think about it, driving the speed limit and anticipating other driver's actions. A dyno test with repeatable fuel delivery method doesn't suffer from this problem.

 

Driving style still has to give way to cruise control.

Besides you can only go beyond your habits for a short amount of time without a significant effort to counter act them. I have been testing the VPE for almost 2 months. My driving styles vary drastically depending on the situations.

Unfortunately, my truck has another issue (the dealership says that is the ECU) that is causing me a drop in fuel economy. My fuel economy has dropped since I took the VPE out of my truck. (I know - I keep forgetting to post the numbers.)

Also, on the note of "burning 99% of the fuel", you are forgetting two other factors. You are combining air and fuel to burn - not just fuel, and you have to take into account thermal efficiency. The burn may be complete, but if it isn't at the correct time or duration or temperature then you will loose efficiency.

There is no simple equation for total efficiency when it comes to engine dynamics, but when it comes to real world results - the results are either there or they are not.

 

100 Octane will make any car drive like a bat out of hell. Even a hugo LOL.

I thought the V6 was a low compression motor? Running higher octanes will actually hurt the motor unless I am mistake on my info which I probably am.

el_smurfo have you found any data about how running fuel through coper helps keep the motor clean or give the increase in power that the testers report? I am game to get one and test it out in a group by but I am still very skeptical.

Keep the info coming guys.

Also if you wanter better MPG for the long run here is the ideal setup.

Electric fan
Under drive the power steering
Under drive the water pump (All electric would be even better. This would free 5 hp at least.)
Cold Air intake
Iridium spark plugs
Software of some kind
Headers
High flow cats
Good flow muffler
Add nitrogen to the tires

 

The V6 has a 10:1 compressin ratio. i believe you're right about higher octanes hurting an engine with a low compression ratio. it makes sense to me.

 

M3dragon,

The 4.0L is a 10:1 compression motor. So it is right at the borderline. If I'm not mistaken 10.5:1 is technically where they start calling things high compression.

It is worth noting that on 91 octane the 4.0L puts out 245 HP and 282 lb. ft. of torque while on 87 octane the 4.0L puts out 236 HP and 266lb. ft. of torque. I obtained all of my base mileage numbers using 92 octane in my truck and that is what I have and will continue using through the duration of this test (in an effort to controll as many of the variables as possible), though at the conclusion of this test I intend to switch to 89 octane fuel as some members have reported better mileage on mid-grade fuel.

 

I'm not a chemical engineer, but it seems that there is general consensus that copper should not be used for any gasoline system. This particular link is a little technical, but several other searches seem to indicate that copper acts as a catalyst with many compounds found in gasoline to form deposits and sludge. There is a reason that automotive fuel systems use mainly stainless steel...it does not react chemically with the fuel.

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/enfuem/2005/19/i02/abs/ef049849h.html

 

I am fairly sure that the reduction in rated HP for the Tacoma from 245 to 236 is due to a change in the testing methodology, not in the use of different octane gasoline.

 

I stand corrected and summarily appoligize for assuming that you did not read the entire thread. I tend to have a short fuse, but I am equally quick to admit being wrong and appoligize when I am proven to be in-correct. As has been the case with you. However, just for the record that post was not solely directed at you, your post was just the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

I also was more under the impression that the readers were more eager to get their hands on the completed test results, than to necessarily get their hands on the device itself, atleast for now. As for the group buy, Ecotaz (the manufacturer'a rep) was the one setting that up and moving forward with it, and 007 and I have conferred and asked that it be held off untill the completion of our testing so as no-one gets rushed into buying anything without full information.

Dually noted, and agreed, and appoligized for.

Thank you ND. I know that my testing is not "completely scientific", but I am trying actively to control as many of the variables as I possible can, and am doing my best to doccument the variables that I can not control with each update.

I agree, and if anyone would like to buy me a scangauge I will happily provide that data as well.

For what it's worth el_smurfo, I would have laid into you just as hard in the mood I was in yesterday had we been sitting across from eachother at the local bar as I did via the internet. Just so you know that I am not in that 75%.

The problem with a double blind and a control group is that each engine and MAF sensor is a little bit different, and therefor no two trucks will be using the same air/fuel map, and therefor no two trucks will turn in the same numbers. If that is what you mean by the experiments being flawed, then I agree with you. However, unless you are talking about averaging something allong the lines of 100 test trucks and 100 control trucks, then no other method will be any less flawed.

The best 007 and I can do is control as many of the variables as we can, and report all the ones we couldn't for each tank we report on, and hopefully overall show enough consistancy to show if the device works at all, even knowing that the extent to which it works will be different for everyone.

As far as the butt dyno, I am afraid that the sticker claiming 25HP would be a lie, the best I figure that shows on the butt dyno is 5-10, pretty much the same as any other single mod like a cold air intake or high flow exhaust.

My testing was begun with roughly 3200miles on my truck, and as of this point in the test I have just shy of 4000 miles on her. My base numbers are comprised of the initial 3000 miles on the truck, so if we are talking about mileage getting better by itself in the 20,000 mile mark, then the test will be concluded long before then.

Sorry guys, a dyno test is just not in the cards. I don't have one, and the only local shop that does charges $90.00 a run and has something of a reputation for blowing up more peoples shit with it than they actually tune correctly.

 

The change in testing methodology was that manufacturers used 91 octane to perform the tests, but then when the consumers bought the product and put 87 octane in the engine they got noticably poorer numbers. the change came between the 05 and 06 model years across the board where if a manufacturer was going to test and report using 91 octane then they were required to indicate in the manual that the vehicle had to run on 91 octane.

http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/technical-chat/659-high-low-octane.html#post17569

Oh, and my first post mis-quoted the numbers, it should have been 236 hp with 266 lb-ft of torque on 87 octane, and 239 hp and 278 lb-ft on 91 octane

 

In 2005, the Society of Automotive Engineers introduced a new test procedure for engine horsepower and torque.[5] The procedure eliminates some of the areas of flexibility in power measurement, and requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. The test is voluntary, but engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified".
Many manufacturers began switching to the new rating immediately, often with surprising results. The rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 hp (328 kW) to 469 hp (350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 hp (157 kW) to 190 hp (142 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 hp (373 kW) to 505 hp (377 kW).

 

Basically, the new SAE certification requires all of the standard accessories be installed on the test vehicle.

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/10822/larry-webster-horsepower-confusion-and-resolution.html

 

You all know SAE stands for Stupid American Engineering right LOL JK

SAE test are voluntary as you stated

 

Testing methodology for engine and gas mileage
1) fill tank
2) drive until tank is on empty
3) continue above steps

In all seriousness, I have an 07 and have 55,000 miles on it, I am averaging 25-28 on the highway depending on the prairie winds more than the octane level, should I consider that adequate? I have run 87-92 octane and it doesn't seem to matter too much. I have considered my mileage good but I also drive like and old lady 28 days out of the month and like Mario the other days. This longwinded intro leads to my question, what advantage is there to putting in fuel saving devices, does anyone plan to do a cost comparison analysis in conjuntion with the mileage testing?