23 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHFuel saving device. Scam or real?
Leading reported evidence
Run about 18.1 mpg according
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
With this current tank, I'm running about 18.1 mpg according to the car's computer.
Leading evidence: 'Run about 18.1 mpg according' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Run about 18.1 mpg according' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Carbbed - run big jets for the baseline and then install smaller for the "magic snake oil" run.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
23 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
1 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Outcome without a verified action link
No change in driving habbits and mpg was hand calculated
This is not 996 specific but with the tech knowledge here on this board, I'm sure people will chime in.
http://www.aedccorp.com/index.php
I have a co-worker installed it on his '06 MDX and he sees huge improvements:
14mpg->17 mpg city
17mpg->23 mpg highway
No change in driving habbits and mpg was hand calculated
well, i assume it's a scam unless proven otherwise.
however, you can earn up to $6000/month as an installer of the e3 fuel saver 7000!
http://detroit.kijiji.com/c-Jobs-Gen...AdIdZ132115474
that is an "atomizer", theory is that normally you waste a few drops of fuel in each ignition due to it passing as straight liquid. So these devices (and there have ben tons o them over the years) atomize the liquid fuel in front of the vacuum lines, which should deliver "vapor" to the fuel rails. In theory it should work like direct injection, problem is in practice your ECU will eventually lean things out. Another practical consideration is that you won't get even burn in most motors, in fact it could be very uneven with closer cylinder getting very lean and further cylinders very rich. More harm than good. Moral f the story is that modern vehicles have a lot of systems which are designed to keep the engine and emissions operating as they were designed to, and no matter what you do they will eventually find there way back to equilibrium. If you want the benefits of direct injection on fuel economy in a package you've come to love, I think you need to pony up for a 997.2 or do something absolutely crazy like remap your ecu to back off the timing
here's an interesting read, i'm sure there's a million more tests debunking the effectiveness
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...32.html?page=3
I can do the same results too on FI cars and carbbed alike.
Carbbed - run big jets for the baseline and then install smaller for the "magic snake oil" run.
Voila! Less fuel usage.
EFI - turn up an adjustable regulator a few PSI or simply have larger injectors. Turn back the fuel pressure or put the right sized injector in for less fuel usage.
That is probably all they are doing.
Hahaha....I say it's a scam too but I can't explain the gain seen by my co-worker though. Maybe the canister holds some slow-releasing high concentration fuel...
Hahah. He is a financial analyst so I think he can do at least simple division
He said he has had the system installed for 2 months now and still see consistent gain and I think THAT is the puzzle I'm trying to solve.
and to say I got 17 over 14 mpg.... hell, I "can" get higher than that...(but whats the fun) for a couple tanks - I want to see how LOW your friend can get his MPG
To cut my mileage by 60 to 100%, should I instal 2 of them parallel or serial?
I mean, if 1 is good, then 2 should be.....
I vote Snake Oil! When I clicked on the link that said "Test Results -->" what I got was a page of customer testimonials.
Honestly, there are too many variables to tell much of anything about gas mileage over a couple of tanks of gas. The last tank in my Targa, I got about 19.2 mpg. With this current tank, I'm running about 18.1 mpg according to the car's computer. I'm driving the same old routes I always take. More red lights? More head winds? The fact that the average ambient air temp is over 100* F and about 15* higher than on the last tank? Who knows.
Saving my cash on this one...think I'll buy a CD and listen to The Eagles instead and not fret over my mpgs.
YMMV
in for 4.....
it sounds like he may have eased up on the pedal a bit. I think that those numbers are on the higher side of the epa estimates.
I bet after installing it, he didn't drive as hard and fast as he used to, who knows.
Complete bull. Any gain he has seen is because he's now conscious about his fuel usage so that he has driven in a style more appropriate for fuel savings.
Any time you see garbage like this the first question you have to ask yourself is: "If it provides suchprofound gains and is so cheap to install, why hasn't every car manufacturer jumped all over it and bought the rights to the tech for billions of dollars?"
The answer is always "Because it's nonsense." Just put in a flood of technical jargon that makes it seem like there's science behind it and every shill will fall for it. They should really enact a law that requires all "fuel saver" modifications to be EPA tested and approved.
Personally I would first go out and buy an oxygen generator, an inverter to run it, turn it up to HIGH output and pipe the output into the intake just upstream from the MAF/IAT.
Raise the intake oxygen content above the normal.....
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
