Better Gas Mileage

007, can you or someone else provide a website (or other information) that show these gadgets do nothing? I'm tempted to try one but really don't need any snake oil at the moment

 

How much did this cost and at what percent will it wash the price of it itself?I work 4 miles away so if its like 200.00 and fuel is 3.00 per gallon and I get 15 per gallon....well, we are all smartttt people...Anyway it will be neat to see if yet another claim in the fuel economy business will pay out the way out..I have always had my best millege from high tire presure a decent oil and sound engine and driving easy...Cheers

 

I don't have a website off the top of my head, but I am sure that one of the news channels has a story on it. NBC loves to get their local channels to de-bunk those kind of gadgets.

As for my latest test results, I will post them in the morning. 2 of the tanks had something very wrong with the fuel I got in Houston. I was getting under 20 MPG for one of them without driving hard.

More tomorrow...

 

Okay, these numbers stink, and I can't figure out why. For the first two tanks, the truck was sluggish and downright unresponsive (not typical of the 2.7L).

I think that I may have picked up some bad gas in Houston while I was there on the weekend of September 8th. The only other explanation that I can come up with is that the ECU was having issues calibrating between the Air/Fuel ratio, the MAF readings, and the engine output (which would be skewed by the VPE). I think it is more along the lines of the first issue since it did go away within 3 tanks. The next few tanks will tell me for sure.

Tank 1 (Sept 9-14) was after we got back from Houston - to and from work Monday thru Friday.

363.2 miles / 18.318 gallons = 19.827 MPG (that is the WORST unloaded fuel economy I have ever gotten while unloaded.)
*My cruising speed was 75 MPH.
*Top speed was 78 MPH.
*Minimal "heavy footed" driving.
*42% (151.8 miles) was spent in heavy city traffic (coming home).
*58% (211.4 miles) was highway driving with minimal traffic.
*The Air Conditioning was on 100% of the time in fairly sunny weather.
*No towing.
*No hauling.
*The truck seemed slugish like I was driving in the mud constantly.



Tank 2 (Sept 15) was going back to Houston towing an empty open trailer.

265.0 miles / 15.525 gallons = 17.069 MPG (COME ON! This is absurd.)
*My cruising speed was 72 MPH.
*Top speed was 80 MPH.
*100% highway driving with minimal traffic.
*The Air Conditioning was on 100% of the time.
*VERY DIFFICULT TO DRIVE - I had to heavy foot it just to get up hills! I didn't have this much issue with a U-Haul!!!



Tank 3 (Sept 15) was driving back to San Antonio with a loaded trailer. This time I filled up at a Shell instead of Kroger.

269.4 miles / 15.837 gallons = 17.01 MPG (How can I get the same loaded as unloaded?)
*My cruising speed was 75 MPH.
*Top speed was 82 MPH.
*100% highway driving with moderate traffic.
*The Air Conditioning was on 100% of the time.
*I had no problem holding a hill even with the load. 75 MPH uphill - no problem!

Here are some pictures of the last tank...

http://www.tacomaworld.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1061/size/big/cat/500/ppuser/643

 

We are still working on the price. I haven't looked any more into it, and I probably won't until both Adam (maverick491) and I have concluded our testing. We will let you know more as we go.

 

So far things aren't looking so hot for the ECO system. You're getting worse mileage than me and i have 2 extra cylinders! I'm interested to see how Maverick is affected by the ECO system

 

Yeah, I am going to email Ben later today and see what he thinks about all this. One thing that my boss brought up is that the 2.7L is much bigger than most 4 cylinders. In fact, the V6 in the Hyundai Tiburon is a 2.7L. The ECO-1 may be too small and therefore restrictive on the 2.7L... I will let you guys know what Ben says.

 

SteveO, you were looking for a website that shows what these gadgets do and don't do...

Here you go -> http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html

 

Things look bleak for our superhero..............stay tuned!!!!!

 

Just to keep everyone posted, I had been in touch with Ben from ecosystems, and had received my test unit last Friday, but then the "Honey-Do" list got in the way, and I finally managed to complete the install this afternoon. I took pictures, and made notes that I will post tomorrow, and hope to begin being able to report some findings to all of you soon.

Thanks for your patience.

Adam

 

007, thanks for the website!

 

No problem. Any other questions - just ask!

 

Adam,

I got an email from Ben yesterday in response to my question about the poor MPG I got. He seems to agree that the different fuel (Kroger) was most likely the cause.

Ben also mentioned that my testing was a bit erratic for a good comparison. I agree. There haven't been two tanks that were consistent in driving style, terrain, or traffic.

I am trying to find a way to do a test that is consistent, but still in real world conditions (going to a racetrack and doing laps won't cut it). The towing tanks aren't going to tell me much anyway since none of them are consistent (I don't carry the same load twice).

I think I am going to leave the towing/hauling tanks out of it for now and just focus on the weekday tanks (to and from work, Mon-Fri). I am going to top off when I go home this evening. We will see what we have then. I will use that tank and the next 2 or 3 for our final report.

Do you agree with that?

 

I just realized something. I couldn't figure out why some of my gas mileage was so erratic. Sometimes I got phenominal gas mileage and other times I would get crap gas mileage. I was trying to think of what would cause such a difference even on consistent tanks.

The answer: not filling the tank all the way. I know what you're thinking, "...but I top off the tank every time?!" I know I do, but I noticed last night when I filled up my wife's RAV4 that the gas pumps are on an incline. (Picture coming soon) As you can see from the snapshot below, the filler cap on the Tacoma is towards the rear of the tank. This is true for both AccessCab and DoubleCab Tacomas. Don't believe me? Check this out. This means that anytime you fill up with your truck pointed up hill, you will have an air pocket form in your tank, and you won't get an accurate MPG reading.

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2008/tacoma/key_features/ext360.html



So now I feel a little embarrased, AND I have to start this test all over starting today. I apologize to those of you that have been following this thread closely. I will be testing the ECO-1 based on Mon-Fri commuting and in-town driving on a tank that is filled the same way everytime (filler cap on the up-hill side).

 

Mark,

In regards to your last post about filling station angle. At first glance I agreed with you, but as I thought about it a little more while setting up the sprinklers to water the new grass seed (honey-do list item) I think that is not the case.

While the incline of the pumps could account for why tank A enabled you to drive 400 miles before the light came on and tank B enabled you to only drive 350 miles before the light came on. It should not change you overall average mileage that much. Here's my thinking, it is not like you pumped gas into that air space, so if when the needle is on E the truck takes 18 gallons to fill, and you were facing up-hill, then that day it probably only took 17 gallons before the pump kicked off, so supposing that you had a gallon of air space in the tank, and you get an average of 21 MPG, then we are only talking about a 1.1 MPG swing here. Conversely, if you filled up nose down on tank 1, and then nose up on tank 2 then the mileage calculation for tank one should be 1.1 MPG higher since it would not have pumped as much fuel as you really used.

Then in the end for the final report, as long as we average all like tanks, say running solo, hauling, and towing, then the 1.1MPG swing should cancel itself out.

So as far as I can tell your best bet will still be to use the same grade gas from the same station as often as possible, as that big mileage swing that you experienced last weekend is still most likely the result of bad gas.

As far as the final report goes, I'd say you can still include towing and hauling information, (though I'd exclude last weekend's bad gas tanks) and simply make a note that the load varried greatly, so people should make the decision to purchase based on your running solo numbers. While my towing numbers should remain fairly consistant as the RV pretty much weighs the same every trip out.

What do you think?

 

I agree with you on 99% of it. However, I think the discrepancy is more along the lines of 1.5-2 gallons difference based on incline.

The tank from last week (solo Sept 9-14) didn't seem to fill all the way up. Usually the needle on my fuel gauge does not begin to drop from F (completely full) until I hit 63 miles on the odometer. On the tank in question, it began to drop after only 20 miles on the odo. At a horrible average of 19 MPG (let's say it was 20 accounting for error in fueling) - I lost 2 gallons right off the bat.

Combine the "not filling up" scenario with the poor fuel quality issue, and that is probably how I ended up at 19 MPG with an empty truck. That is just plain crazy on a 2.7L.

I agree with you. I think that it is a minimal difference, but Ben has a point. We need to compare apples to apples. I need to make sure that I have at least three consistent tanks for comparison. As of now, I don't have two that are alike (driving style and other conditions).

I will include the hauling numbers. We will just have to categorize them separately.

Thanks for the feedback!

 

Hell my 4.0 gets 19.5-20mpg! And that is in crappy San Antonio IH10 traffic! I don't see a small airpocket making the difference because the displacement of the fuel is more dense and should force it out of the tank.

 

ok, for the one who started this thread (me)......thought i would give myself a little props on that one. i just wanted to say, that all i was looking for was better gas mileage. and it seems that there is a whole lot of calculating goin on here and i wanted to say thanks to those guys who are willing to take a chance and spend their money on a product that could be a scam, thanks maverick and 007. 007, after reading your incline or decline issue i dont think much of that has to make a bigger difference except that fact your not filling up your entire tank. accurate gas mileage could be calculated just by what you have when you fill up your tank to what is left in your tank when you fill up again. Maverick, man i cant wait for your numbers i have a 4.0 also and its given me horrible gas mileage, i really want to see what you get. but once again guys, thanks and keep us posted.

 

I agree, but thanks for those that are testing this stuff out for the rest of us. It does not go un-appreciated.