Should I Tell Randi About This One?
- Thread starter Solitaire
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fuel economy
LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 10,109
Holy crap. Is Turbo Roadtoad or Roadtoad's long lost brother? Either way, he kicks the ass.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Turbo might not have called Goldvestor an idiot, but I will.
What a pantload.
We see that crap day in and day out, and nine times out of ten, it's worthless, and one time remaining, it does unspeakable damage to your engine.
Thank you, no.
What a pantload.
We see that crap day in and day out, and nine times out of ten, it's worthless, and one time remaining, it does unspeakable damage to your engine.
Thank you, no.
Flange Desire
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2005
- Messages
- 572
Yes, I recon Randi should comment on this one, and they should be asked to step up to the line for the big prize.
Yes, turbo is doing a very fine job under the circumstances.
Note how goldvestor started off very polite but is now well past such niceties.
One wonders how these companies get away with their fraudulent claims, not just in the US either, but here in AU too.
Just what are our regulating bodies doing about such frauds? (rhetorical)
Three tenths of five eights of SFA it would seem.
Yes, turbo is doing a very fine job under the circumstances.
Note how goldvestor started off very polite but is now well past such niceties.
One wonders how these companies get away with their fraudulent claims, not just in the US either, but here in AU too.
Just what are our regulating bodies doing about such frauds? (rhetorical)
Three tenths of five eights of SFA it would seem.
While we're on the subject...
I've seen this in local automotive stores for years... and I've always assumed that it was either bogus or had overstated benefits.
True? Not true? Any comments, please?
Because if it's at all real and doesn't have any negative effects, I might consider buying one even if it only increases my mileage per gallon fractionally... given that gasoline will cost us between $3 and $3.50 by the end of the year.
I've seen this in local automotive stores for years... and I've always assumed that it was either bogus or had overstated benefits.
True? Not true? Any comments, please?
Because if it's at all real and doesn't have any negative effects, I might consider buying one even if it only increases my mileage per gallon fractionally... given that gasoline will cost us between $3 and $3.50 by the end of the year.
Psiload
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2001
- Messages
- 2,102
Re: While we're on the subject...
It's not Scottish.
Look at it this way... a gizmo that retails for 70 bucks , that would probably mean it costs around 5 bucks to manufacture.
If there really was a 5 dollar gadget that actually worked, wouldn't all of the auto manufacturers be installing them on their cars?
If you were the inventor of this gadget, would you market it en masse to the deep pockets of the auto manufacturers, or one-at-a-timey to Joe Meatball and Sally Housecoat?
If it's not Scottish, it's crap!
jmercer said:
It's not Scottish.
Look at it this way... a gizmo that retails for 70 bucks , that would probably mean it costs around 5 bucks to manufacture.
If there really was a 5 dollar gadget that actually worked, wouldn't all of the auto manufacturers be installing them on their cars?
If you were the inventor of this gadget, would you market it en masse to the deep pockets of the auto manufacturers, or one-at-a-timey to Joe Meatball and Sally Housecoat?
If it's not Scottish, it's crap!
Re: While we're on the subject...
The only realistic effect I can think of is that this gadget adds a small restriction to intake airflow, and thus a small (possibly unmeasurable) drop in fuel efficiency and power.
FWIW, I have a degree in mechanical engineering but no work experience in the automotive industry, so apply the appropriate amount of uncertainty to my statements.
My initial guess is that it has no detectable effect on airflow inside the engine's cylinders; the shapes of the intake valve(s) and combustion chambers have an overwhelmingly dominant effect.jmercer said:
The only realistic effect I can think of is that this gadget adds a small restriction to intake airflow, and thus a small (possibly unmeasurable) drop in fuel efficiency and power.
FWIW, I have a degree in mechanical engineering but no work experience in the automotive industry, so apply the appropriate amount of uncertainty to my statements.
Synchronicity said:
It is possible that the product contains very little energy itself but somehow allows your vehicle to have higher efficiency. Not all of the energy found in the fuel itself is used to move the vehicle.
Of course, it's also possible that the product is a scam.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Re: While we're on the subject...
I don't see how it would have ANY effect, one way or another, given the air has got to go through the carbuerator, into the manifold, and then through the valves. You'd be spending money for a chunk of metal that does nothing more than constrict air flow, however marginally.
My father-in-law is a retired diesel mechanic. He looks at this stuff and rolls his eyes, wondering just how stupid some people can be. He will not allow me to put Prolong or anything else like that into the oil, fuel, or transmission of any car or truck we own, but insists that we do regular oil changes and tune ups. (At least every 3,000 miles on the oil change, and twice a year on the tune up.) Truthfully, if you want to save money on fuel, change your oil frequently, avoid jackrabbit starts, and make sure your tires are inflated properly.
(And, just to note, I'm sure Tim's late FIL, Colin, would probably agree.)
jmercer said:
I don't see how it would have ANY effect, one way or another, given the air has got to go through the carbuerator, into the manifold, and then through the valves. You'd be spending money for a chunk of metal that does nothing more than constrict air flow, however marginally.
My father-in-law is a retired diesel mechanic. He looks at this stuff and rolls his eyes, wondering just how stupid some people can be. He will not allow me to put Prolong or anything else like that into the oil, fuel, or transmission of any car or truck we own, but insists that we do regular oil changes and tune ups. (At least every 3,000 miles on the oil change, and twice a year on the tune up.) Truthfully, if you want to save money on fuel, change your oil frequently, avoid jackrabbit starts, and make sure your tires are inflated properly.
(And, just to note, I'm sure Tim's late FIL, Colin, would probably agree.)
Shrike
Warning: May Contain Nuts
Seeing how car manufacturers are having to meet strict fuel economy laws in the US (please correct me if I'm wrong), any car sold today would use a 'Turbonator' and Prolong standard.
Same with emission laws, manufacturers are spending millions on developing cleaner cars, and they'd 'forget' about things like this?
Come on....
Same with emission laws, manufacturers are spending millions on developing cleaner cars, and they'd 'forget' about things like this?
Come on....
For the record... the only reason I ever even wondered about the stupid thing even a little is because I've seen it in virtually every automotive store I've been in, usually as a counter display. I can usually spot a gimmick a mile off - and this one qualified - but the truth is that sometimes I feel like I'm in danger of dismissing something just because it doesn't make sense to me, and not because it's actually garbage.
One reason I love these forums so much is because people can usually give reasons for dismissing junk like this.
Regarding Prolong - yeah. I used to run racecars (quarter-milers) and do a lot of my own work. There's so much junk out for that market it's incredible... however, one interesting thing I found was that if you use synthetic oil from in a new engine there's a lot less wear and tear on the engine over it's life. Still have to change it and it's more expensive than regular oil; plus it's not worth switching over to it if you've been running it for a while on regular oil.
Thanks, folks. I feel better for being skeptical about the $#*# thing.
One reason I love these forums so much is because people can usually give reasons for dismissing junk like this.
Regarding Prolong - yeah. I used to run racecars (quarter-milers) and do a lot of my own work. There's so much junk out for that market it's incredible... however, one interesting thing I found was that if you use synthetic oil from in a new engine there's a lot less wear and tear on the engine over it's life. Still have to change it and it's more expensive than regular oil; plus it's not worth switching over to it if you've been running it for a while on regular oil.
Thanks, folks. I feel better for being skeptical about the $#*# thing.
According to this Cecil Adams article, the incomplete burning of fuel is insignificant in modern cars -- fuel combustion today typically exceeds 97 percent. Even if an additive somehow magically increased this combustion completeness to 100%, this would result in a 3% increase in fuel economy, not a 10-18% increase.reefpip said:
The only other way this additive could possibly improve fuel economy is if it changes the wat the fuel combusts so that more of the energy released is turned into mechanical work and less is turned into waste heat. Theoretically, this could provide a significant increase in fuel efficiency if it could be done, because according to the same Cecil Adams article, only 20-35 percent of the fuel energy is converted to useful work.
The question then is, how could a fuel additive possibly improve an engine's ability to turn a combusting fuel-air mixture into a downward force on the piston? If it changed the combustion temperature or caused the engine to run a little bit leaner, would it make a difference?
The Kilted Yaksman
Sense Offender
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 568
I would think that any significant changes in A/F ratio or EGT would be detected by the O2 Sensors and ECU in any modern gas-powered vehicle and would be dealt with accordingly. Either method I can think of right off hand, either retarding ignition timing or increasing fuel flow, would probably negate any benefits.tracer said:
RapmasterT
Student
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 34
I have to take issue with that advice.jmercer said:
You're very correct that synthetic oil will result in demonstrably less wear on an engine, but whether to use it from the start in a new engine or not is not a black or white issue.
A BMW comes from the factory with synthetic oil, and it's recommended for the full life of the engine. A Mazda rotary engine should NEVER have synthetic used or you will have horrible exhaust and emission system problems. Somewhere in between is the majority of engines that should be run through the manufacturers recommended break-in period on conventional oil before synthetic is used. Using synthetic too soon will prevent the engine from breaking in properly and it will never reach its peak efficiency.
As to switching not being worth it, how old does an engine have to before you don't care about wear anymore? Many parts in an engine effectively STOP wearing when synthetic oil is used. In my opinion older engines need it more than newer ones.