ECO Systems VPE Test Results

How about you guys post some proof from someone other than yourselfs...like poplular mechanics or a college or something huh? Heck, I'd even believe mythbusters. Sorry to stir the pot and possibly hurt feelings, but I just don't believe it. And my contribution is my experience with these sorts of things, if they worked don't you think Toyota or GM would put them on every car or truck to get that 1 mpg to put on the window sticker, especially when that is the largest factor in the market when buying a truck or car!!

Good luck on selling the thing..its snake oil IMHO. I'm out of this discussion.

 

Why don't YOU post it since you're the one that's so adamant about it while others like myself have searched and found nothing.

"oh it's out there... you can find it" blah blah blah. Show us what you're talking about so that we can read it and see you're not full of crap spouting about something you know nothing about.

 

Experience? Do tell..... Because you've offered absolutely NOTHING to give yourself credibility. You've just bashed the one person trying to be scientific about testing and providing evidence one way or another.

And you're talking about a company that puts in 13 cup holders, but doesn't illuminate the 4wd switch. C'mon, like they're going to add a $200 piece of equipment to each vehicle for 1mpg when they want the cost low enough for people to buy. And according to Eco's website some dealers are installing them on all vehicles. So maybe find out who those dealers are and check on it.

 

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/gasoline_saving.html debunked - please read all

maybe its got a star by what you tested under another "name" but again its not practical.

googel "what this thing does gas myth"

Or search Titantalk. com tundratalk...they all bash this thing and everyone that jumped on the bandwagon..years ago this thing isn't new are trying to sell them and will tell youthey didn't work LMFAO...

 

for sure dude...it really is that important.

 

Read that link. Not one mention of Ecosystems or their product. So where did they test it?

Searching for "Ecosystems", "fuel enhancer", "vapor" and a few others turned up nothing. The closest thing is "Mixture Enhancers (under the carburetor)" which this thing is not.

So nothing really useful there. Absolutely nothing I can see even related to the product being discussed or actual testing as you claim, "dude".

As for the google search, first few results are something like this: http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2005/06/debunking_gas_m.html?t=archive

Completely irrelevant garbage.

 

Please get your information straight before bashing our members.
(first off - there is no such website as "tundratalk". It's called )

I am going to agree with other members here. I still don't see any proof from you (wiscdave) that shows what we found for ourselves wasn't accurate. I stand behind my findings.

Do I advertise the ECO Systems VPE? - no.
Do I get anything from ECO Systems? - no.
Was I bored and wanted to give it a try? - yes.
Did it improve my fuel economy? - yes.
Do I think everyone needs one? - no.

I just sold my 2.7L Tacoma that I used for the test. Will I be buying a new VPE for my 4.0L truck? - no.

I have found it is much easier to save gas by car pooling with a coworker and change my driving style to accomodate my thirsty engine. I can't justify spending the money on a device when I will not be using the vehicle half as much.

You asked why automobile manufacturers aren't putting these in cars now. The answer is simple - economics. It doesn't make sense to spend hundreds of dollars on a device that only slightly increases your fuel economy.

Now, please, provide some positive feedback and some accurate information (proof - one way or the other) if you are going to post again.

Thanks.

 

My point was that if they don't bother doing an illuminated 4wd switch (which already exists for the 4Runner, same switch) due to cost or whatever, then why would they include a $200+ part for 1mpg increase? I mean, if 1 mpg was the deciding factor how many people would by a Tacoma instead of a Tundra just for that? (Tundra gets roughly 1mpg less than the Tacoma from the estimates.)

Also, MP3 capability would be free to include, but they don't. Or other parts (hood struts, bed lights) that would be less than the Ecosystems VPE and would have better marketability, but aren't added.

 

Illuminating the 4wd switch doesn't effect your company's average MPG rating mandated by the EPA. Putting a $200 item (which would be much less in volume) would be a simple way to raise the company's average fuel economy. For one vehicle it wouldn't make much difference but for the entire fleet of cars offered, it would make a huge difference. Toyota dropped from it's 1987 average of 26 to 24 in 2006. A device which can put them up 7% would put them almost back where they were instantly. The claimed average of 10% would put them above the older rating with bigger vehicles.

 

Good point there. I hadn't thought about that. And that's a perfectly good reason to add it! Over hundreds of thousands (millions maybe?) of cars that would actually add up.

I just wish we could actually find some testing of this exact thing by some scientific body. I look at it this way, there may be similar devices that are supposed to do the same thing, but this may be different. As in, I can build a computer, but would you rather buy it from Dell/HP/Sony/etc who have tested all their configurations, know they work, and might work a little better than something I put together with parts I bought from Newegg?

I mean, some people act like no one can take a technology that didn't work (or didn't work as well), and improve it/make it better.

 

FYI

My wife's 4runner had about 6k miles on it before we put it on, yeah, the mileage went up about 1.0/gal. My taco is still too new (she never gets driven, except to the store on weekends).

 

So you have one too? Any other comments on it?

 

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof (and boosting your fuel economy by 10-20% is extraordinary). The burden of proof belongs on the manufacturer, not us.

Even in the news reports off the site, the way they test is sloppy, uncontrolled, not a double-blind study and the results are mixed or inconclusive (they're reporters, not scientists). The San Antonio news report states that the government outfitted 75% of their vehicles even though the data was inconclusive (Probably improved gas mileage? What kind of study was that?). The Wallace study offered as proof shows negligible results <2% on both emissions and mpg. In some cases, the mpg and emissions were worse. The testing method, though better, was too limited. Much of the variation could just be statistical variation. Are they hoping you won't read it? It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

The problem with waiting for a scientific body to do it is there's just too much stuff out there, it's impossible to get everything.

 

I know what you mean, but if all the studies were funded or ran by the company would you believe the? That's like a study by the music industry proving that downloading music kills sales of CD's!

Maybe not a scientific body, but some 3rd party. Like a trucking company putting them on their fleets where they keep strict vehicle logs, or some other agency with fleet vehicles. They claim companies and agencies do that, but no link on the site for any of those entities admitting it on their own.

 

Even with an independent trucking company there is bias. People who authorize or recommend the devices don't want to look stupid.

Eco Systems could follow EPA guidelines for the testing of fuel saving/emission reducing devices:
http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/b00003.pdf

Here's a list of EPA-recognized independent labs (there are four in Texas):
http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/lablist.pdf

 

I am all for some scientific proof, but I don't think I will spend the money again when I can get a quicker return by just changing my driving habits a bit.

 

My 2 cents on the ECO Systems VPE. I'm one of the ones that jumped on the GB this past fall/winter. However, I haven't submitted my mileage results to be tracked with cvillechopper's data. My truck only has 4500 miles on it so it's hardly even broken in. I put the device on back around 2500 miles and it's been on since. With my 4.0 V6 4x4 DC SB I average about 18-20 mpg. I can conserve my driving a bit and I get 20-21 mpg which the ScanGauge has helped with. I can even break 22-23 if I cruise on country roads at 55 mph. Typically when I cruise on the highway at 70 mph, I'm getting right in the 19 mph +/-.5 ballpark.

I have seen an increase in mileage since I first got the truck but that is most likely contributed to the engine breaking in. Also, since I got the scangauge a month or so back, I'm much more aware of my driving habits so that also contributes to my mileage results. I agree completely with piercetiger that there are so many factors that affect your mileage that it's hard to track it scientifically. I've got a roof rack and a bed rack and very often I'm traveling with kayaks on top and/or bikes in the back. I'm sure this affects the mpg results but how much and how do you track that.

So to sum up what I think of the ECO Systems VPE thus far. I'm not convince it works but honestly I would like to think it does since I shelled out a couple hundred for it. The 1 or 2 mpg that it might improve is insignificant to driving behavior, weather and road conditions. Until you can get two identical trucks in a controlled environment traveling at the same speeds, on the same roads, accelerating and breaking at the same rates we may not know if this device truly works because the improvement is so insignificant. I think this was brought up a while back on another thread but assuming it does improve your mpg by 1, the return on investment takes quite a while. I think it was around 25000 miles.

Boks

 

No, nothing official. It was really (pitifully) easy to install. As for the claims it makes? Like someone else posted, for the money I put out for it I want to believe it works. I really cannot say for sure. It is a fair amount of money to earn back at an extra 1 MPG. I think if you can afford it, try it, what can it hurt? If you cannot afford it, you could probably drive more moderately and save the extra 1 MPG on your own. I just want to squeeze all I can from my petro-dollars.

 

I know what you mean! My corolla is rated at 34mpg (old estimates I think), and I get 37 consistently, 40 on long highway trips at 65-75-mph. I upgraded the grounding wires and that's what bumped my mileage up (didn't notice any increase with intake, exhaust, etc until I did the wires).

I was hoping when I bought this truck I could do a few things here and there for 1-2mpg increases and get it from the est. 18mpg to around 20-25. Sadly, nothing I do seems to help. Doesn't matter if I drive like grandma, or cruise at 60-65 on side roads passing people. I still get 17-18mpg per tank. I just switched to an AFE Pro Dry filter, and so far it looks like 19mpg for this tank! I'm going to watch it over a few tanks, but so far this seems to be the only thing having any affect. At the very least I won't have to by $20 OEM filters every few months now even if it doesn't really help mpg! I even did the bigger ground wires on the truck thinking it would help like the car, but no affect.