1. Welcome to Tacoma World!

    You are currently viewing as a guest! To get full-access, you need to register for a FREE account.

    As a registered member, you’ll be able to:
    • Participate in all Tacoma discussion topics
    • Communicate privately with other Tacoma owners from around the world
    • Post your own photos in our Members Gallery
    • Access all special features of the site

Better Gas Mileage

Discussion in '2nd Gen. Tacomas (2005-2015)' started by Manofs, Aug 28, 2007.

  1. Nov 15, 2007 at 12:06 PM
    #401
    speedemon105

    speedemon105 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Member:
    #3437
    Messages:
    18
    Because he STILL has not said HOW changing the vapor pressure equates to better gas mileage. All I've heard is "more complete combustion". But I haven't heard HOW it attains more complete combustion. By more completely vaporizing? How? When?
    Im continuing to speak this way because he hasn't answered my questions, or found somebody that could.
    He only responded to my questions in 2 posts. The first:
    I already answered #2, just because the fuel has been burnt completely, there will still be some chains of hydrocarbons. And all the Nitrogen in the air, and carbon from the fuel will combine to form CO and nitrogen oxides, the other chemicals that a catalytic converter removes. And he's flat wrong on #3, which he somewhat corrected himself on later.

    The second time he actually responded to me he said:
    The vapor pressure won't change anything in how the fuel is atomized. Atomization is achieved by passing a liquid through a small nozzle at pressure. Changing the vapor pressure of the fuel won't affect that. You want better atomization you change the nozzle shape or the injector pressure. Also, now he's changed his words again, now they aren't vaporizing anything, they're helping to atomize more.

    Everything else he said was him trying to sell these things.
     
  2. Nov 15, 2007 at 12:29 PM
    #402
    ECOTAZ

    ECOTAZ Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Member:
    #3093
    Messages:
    37
    B.S. They changed the method because of pressure from the consumers to give them a MORE ACCURATE Real World average on mileage and not the old method numbers that 90 percent of the public never acheived. That article came out in USA Today and can be veiwed on our website.
    Thanks
    Ben
     
  3. Nov 15, 2007 at 12:35 PM
    #403
    007Tacoma

    007Tacoma I dub thee malicious!

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Member:
    #643
    Messages:
    6,644
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Mark
    San Antonio, TX
    Vehicle:
    2015 4Runner Trail Edition Premium
    Cloaking Device
    Speedemon105, I just wanted to test the VPE because I found it interesting. I will be home in a few hours, and I plan on working on that report as soon as I get there (nevermind the fact that I need to pack for my vacation to North Carolina next week).

    I never said that the report was perfect. Going into work at 4:30-5:30 in the morning, I encounter no traffic. Coming home at 3:15 in the afternoon, I encounter heavy traffic in town and moderate on the highway. That is just life. Traffic may be bad, but biggest thing that hurts the 2.7L is wind resistance above 75 MPH. My mileage drops drastically from 75 to 80 (about 3 MPG and 4 MPG at 85). That is why I tried to keep my speed as close to 75 MPH as I could using cruise control.

    With 27,000 miles on my truck in 11 months, I need to make the most out of every drop of gasoline I use. I am sorry if you think the science isn't going to work. I am still willing to give it a try. Please don't sit here and bash that. You have made your point, and I will gladly sit here and listen as it has much validity. I just want to see for myself.

    Many members have told me of their concern since this is the only thread that you are posting in. Please find another way to contribute to our community without bashing the testing that Adam and I are willing to share.
     
  4. Nov 15, 2007 at 12:42 PM
    #404
    ECOTAZ

    ECOTAZ Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Member:
    #3093
    Messages:
    37
    Thanks it's good to talk to people with common sense as well as brains.
    I have to agree with speedy that AS LONG AS HE KEEPS HIS TRUCK IN THE LAB our unit will not work. Unless they change the protocol.

    I'm sure that you as well as I know that if you have monies left over from fuel cost and maintenance cost it is the money that interests 100% of all the readers here. Regardless of science.
    Thanks,
    Ben
     
  5. Nov 15, 2007 at 12:52 PM
    #405
    speedemon105

    speedemon105 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Member:
    #3437
    Messages:
    18
    My intention never was to bash the testing you are trying to do. I thought I made that clear. It seemed to me that if this testing even showed 1/2 a mpg better result, people were going to rush out and buy it. All I was trying to do was get you not to do that since that would be a bad interpretation of your test results. If I offended any of you, Im sorry.
     
  6. Nov 15, 2007 at 12:53 PM
    #406
    ECOTAZ

    ECOTAZ Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Member:
    #3093
    Messages:
    37
    Again you twist words as your stocks in oil continue to grow.
    I used the word atomize for you to understand. As you can see e have not changed anything on the website.
    You keep your lab tests and your non real world applications and we will continue to save people money. As I posted earlier, money talks and B--- S--- Walks. Your not the first genius to butt heads with us.
    Ben
     
  7. Nov 15, 2007 at 12:53 PM
    #407
    speedemon105

    speedemon105 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Member:
    #3437
    Messages:
    18
    So now your product won't work in a lab? Then how will it work in the real world?

    Now we should just ignore the science and just blindly follow you?

    Atomize and vaporize are 2 totally different things, and you interchange them freely. I know the difference, you don't have to dumb anything down for me.

    Get one of your engineers on here to answer my questions if you can't.
     
  8. Nov 15, 2007 at 12:58 PM
    #408
    007Tacoma

    007Tacoma I dub thee malicious!

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Member:
    #643
    Messages:
    6,644
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Mark
    San Antonio, TX
    Vehicle:
    2015 4Runner Trail Edition Premium
    Cloaking Device
    I don't think that people are going to rush out and buy it. It isn't for everyone, and to some people even 15% increase in fuel economy isn't enough for them to bother (you know - the people that do the statistical 12,000-14,000 miles/year).

    My test results will be the numbers that I have collected in my log book and receipts, and Adam has verified (mostly my math to avoid foot-in-mouth syndrome). It is not going to be an advertisement. It is just an set of numbers based on observations. I am not into pushing people into anything.
     
  9. Nov 15, 2007 at 1:01 PM
    #409
    speedemon105

    speedemon105 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Member:
    #3437
    Messages:
    18
    Oh no, I didn't think you would push anybody into anything, I just didn't want people to draw bad conclusions from your data.
     
  10. Nov 15, 2007 at 2:27 PM
    #410
    hokihigh

    hokihigh Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Member:
    #1753
    Messages:
    28
    I would tend to agree that most of these so called fuel saving devices are a bunch of BS, hell I fell for the Tornado fuel saver back in 2002 when I had my F150, so been there done that. But we have two guys doing independent real world testing and they are going to be posting their findings in a day or two. Although not perfect, I think these finding should help people know if these devices are for real or just another pipe dream. Also, if buy one of these and you are not happy with the results you can send it back for a full refund, so what's the problem.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is thanks for the scientific heads up, but Speedy sometimes things work in spite of the science.

    So now let's end the pissing contest and let 007 and MAV post their results and let the chips fall where they may.

    That's my .02

    hokihigh
     
  11. Nov 15, 2007 at 11:11 PM
    #411
    ECOTAZ

    ECOTAZ Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Member:
    #3093
    Messages:
    37
    Since you claim to be so brilliant over all the readers here I thought you would have figured this out yourself.
    I will not lay out the info for you to copy it. You may quit your business and try to compete with me.
    As far as flip floppin you posted earlier that you don't believe our dynos because of the possible changes by loosening or tightening straps and guess what EPA's Lab test is also on a dyno. So the human error can still be there.
    I have been around lab tests and real world tests for 9 years. Including in Mexico and Canada.
    I still haven't seen you offer anything except for the members to keep feeding their hard earned money to the pumps.
    Ben
     
  12. Nov 15, 2007 at 11:19 PM
    #412
    ECOTAZ

    ECOTAZ Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Member:
    #3093
    Messages:
    37
    How can saving fuel and spending less money be a bad conclusion?
    Unless you have an interest in people using more fuel!
    Ben
     
  13. Nov 16, 2007 at 12:07 AM
    #413
    ECOTAZ

    ECOTAZ Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Member:
    #3093
    Messages:
    37
    Thanks and that is what we have said that there is no risk for the consumer as far as losing money. You either save money or it costs you nothing.
    However I would like to state that speedy wanting the members here to ignore the tests done by professionals that did the testing and the Fleet managers that they themselves have degrees and their job every day is to run their fleet as effiicient as possible is absurd. These men and women work everyday in the automotive field and make sure we stand up to our claims. These people do know the automotive feild and know the difference between fuel pressure in a fuel line and Reid Vapor Pressure which is the measurement of the ability of a liquid fuel turning into a gas (or as I call it Vapor)
    They do not have any interests in any of this other than to save money for their companies or agencies. I know speedy sounds good but any of you can do the same by just researching the web and believing that everyone drives their car as the testers in a lab. Average speed is 50 mpg, no A.C. on a dyno, with indolene fuel and at 72 degree temperature. The mileage is not figured by weighing and measuring the fuel it is based on the carbon method.
    Well I think everyone gets the point here that none of us drive like that.
    I have never said that the EPA's science is wrong But I do believe that the one single test that speedy wants is not the way to test devices that will cause recalibration and clean carbon build up out of vehicles. The protocol just needs to be changed a little.
    Anyway I will sign off and let the chips fall. Thanks to Mav and 007 for taking their time and money to prove us either way, and I thank the members for your patience and I do apologize for a lot of the BS posted here.
    Thanks,
    Ben
     
  14. Nov 16, 2007 at 4:38 AM
    #414
    007Tacoma

    007Tacoma I dub thee malicious!

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Member:
    #643
    Messages:
    6,644
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Mark
    San Antonio, TX
    Vehicle:
    2015 4Runner Trail Edition Premium
    Cloaking Device
    Wow. The pressure is on. :)
     
  15. Nov 16, 2007 at 6:52 AM
    #415
    nd

    nd Radical Town. It's a hell of a place!

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Member:
    #1047
    Messages:
    12,619
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Nate
    Greenville, SC
    Vehicle:
    07 TRD Off-Road 4x4 debadged
    De badged, 5100's, Black Toyota Baja wheels
    I forgive you
     
  16. Nov 16, 2007 at 7:44 AM
    #416
    death valley fan

    death valley fan National Champions

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Member:
    #1869
    Messages:
    62
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Chris
    Louisiana
    2007 TRD OFF-ROAD
    I dont see what the problem is here. I don't give a crap if it shoots little leprecuns(sp?) into the motor to help with performance and fuel economy. As long as at the end of the day I use less fuel and possibly get a little extra performance with no damage to my truck bring it on. I for one am interested only is the results. And as for the placebo effect, if the placebo fixes the problem use it.
     
  17. Nov 16, 2007 at 9:03 AM
    #417
    T-Will

    T-Will New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Member:
    #3471
    Messages:
    3
    Vehicle:
    Tacoma
    This product is a joke. If there were and validity to it you wouldn't be wasting your time pushing it to obscure fleet managers and random individuls on the internet. You'd be selling it to the big 3 automakers and every other automaker for that matter. You would have independant labs (more than one), not someone you likely gave a discount to try the product, verifying your claims. We shouldn't be wondering weather your product really works we should know. I predict that because of your lack of any type of real scientific testing that your product dosn't really do anything and it will finally be tested by someone or some company, it will be proven not to work and will fade away like every other snake oil product. However I might be wrong look at the staying power the turbonator has.
     
  18. Nov 16, 2007 at 10:01 AM
    #418
    cvillechopper

    cvillechopper Jackass to the masses

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Member:
    #3378
    Messages:
    637
    Gender:
    Male
    Charlottesville, VA
    Vehicle:
    '24 DCSB TRD Off-Rd, Premium Package
    Console lock-box, Studly Driver
    Sounds like Speedy. "I know, absolutely, without any evidence, and will not even entertain the idea at all!" This mentality is not only immature, but very counterproductive. Unless you have proof (as in tests that have been carried out on the product) that it doesn't work, keep your mouth shut and let us see what the data collected has to offer. If you don't believe the data, don't buy it. If the data says that this thing is a total waste, don't buy it. But whatever you do, please shut the hell up.
    Statements like the one above are irrational and only prove that you don't have a clue. "We shouldn't be wondering...we should know." Give me a F..ng break. Every product has to gain exposure to a market. Using your logic, no new products are worth anything because we don't already know that they are worth something.

    I usually don't get worked up about stuff but I really can't stand stupidity.

    *steps off soap box*
     
  19. Nov 16, 2007 at 10:11 AM
    #419
    Critter

    Critter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Member:
    #1773
    Messages:
    83
    Well call me whatever BUT if this REALLY worked Auto Shops woulld be installing it with Guarantee and Warranty! Till I see alot more exposure and Independent source info I mark it a myth! Kinda like the show!:mad:
     
  20. Nov 16, 2007 at 11:20 AM
    #420
    m3dragon

    m3dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Member:
    #2799
    Messages:
    320
    Sacramento
    007 and MAV

    It is getting hostile out there. Hope you can post your results soon.
     

Products Discussed in

To Top