My argument is NOT that this system 'works'.
My argument is that EVERYONE who I have heard from, who has one of these things on their car, has 'reported' back to me, that they are getting more hp & mpg.
While I'll conceed that this is by no means proof, I haven't seen practical proof of otherwise.
Yeah, but they're making the unproven claim; not us. We're saying not only have they not demonstrated their claim, ***which should kill any belief in it right there***.
In addition, skeptics are familiar with past claims that sound utterly identical but also have been exposed as fraud or just wishful thinking. And not just recently: this failed model may be over 50 years old. We *have* provided you with a lot of links to discussion and debunking of these similar claims. There are probably thousands of bogus products on the market right now, all variations on two or three misguided hypotheses and subsequent wishful/tunnelvisionned evaluation.
Try these:
Were I to see ONE dynamometer test result that confirmed all the naysayer's theoretical conclusions, I would 'know' beyond any doubt exactly what to think about them.
In the absence of positive dynamometer test results, you should regard the claims as 'unproven' and 'anecdotal,' such as claims for leprechauns and fairies. We're not saying it *doesn't* work: we're saying there's no good evidence that it works, and a lot of reason to assume that it doesn't in the absence of evidence.
Further: please don't take this personally, but the debunker's work is never done. The debunker's experience is that if we were to test a vehicle and produce negative results, this merely triggers the excuse machine. We didn't adjust it right. We're biased. We used the wrong type of fuel injector or carburetor. We should have used a fuel injector instead of a carburetor. We should have used a carburetor instead of a fuel injector. We used the wrong type of fuel. We didn't tune the vehicle properly beforehand, so the benefits were lost. We didn't install the equipment correctly. Engine didn't run long enough. Engine ran too long. It was tested indoors. It was tested outdoors. Tests on a dynamometer are not representative of real-world situations.
Again, I am neither buying, selling, or advertising for, or suggesting to anyone that they buy and install one of these things.
I am merely here looking for information that I can take to my mechanic buddy to confirm or debunk his findings.
Well, the way to do that is to test, right? The confirmation/debunking is in the vehicle's test performance - not the opinion of anonymous posters.
The gold standard is double-blind, randomized, controlled.
Suggested protocol: equip half the fleet with the modification, but don't let the testers know which are which. Then, test the fleet's mileage on a dyno by draining a tank each. If you want to reduce the fuel consumption, bypass the fuel line with a locally mounted 1L bottle.
Horsepower could be tested by pulling against tension.
The information we are providing you is that these beliefs are extremely common but apparently misguided, and based on wishful thinking and misinterpreting ordinary effects. Consequently, experienced skeptics are cynical on your behalf that you will make any headway against their beliefs just by providing them with information.
It looks like you're missing the first and most important step: ask the claimants to prove their claims.
One other factor: Mythbusters did confirm that some fuel additives increased horsepower, but at the risk of engine damage and with the result of greatly reduced fuel efficiency. Watch for this tradeoff.
