Looking For A Miracle: We Test Automotive 'Fuel Savers'

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html?page=1

Can copper tubing, cheap magnets and wacky gimmicks really boost your mileage by as much as 300 percent? PM's Mike Allen puts the latest MPG gadgets to the test. Please step back from the truck.

By Mike Allen

Shop photography by Brent Humphreys, Detail photos by Burcu Avsar
Published in the September 2005 issue.

As long as there have been cars, there have been gadgets that promise revolutionary improvements in performance and mileage. And every time there's a spike in fuel prices, these gadgets proliferate like mushrooms after a spring rain. Like now, with crude oil over $60 per barrel. Scan the Internet, store shelves and, yes, even the classified ads in the back of PM, and you will find dozens of devices promising to boost power, reduce emissions and, of course, improve mileage by 20, 40, even 300 percent!

Hey, we're not gullible. But we're not close-minded either. Could it be that the basement tinkerers behind most of these products have stumbled upon some heretofore undiscovered principle of physics or thermodynamics? Is it possible that the major auto companies have overlooked--or deliberately avoided--simple engine modifications that would give their cars and trucks an overwhelming advantage in the marketplace? Instead of dismissing such far-fetched notions out of hand, we decided to give the gas-gadget makers a chance to prove their miraculous claims.

[Warpy]

1. The Mythbusters show on gas gizmos was hilarious

The fuel line magnets were particularly hilarious. Don't people know octane is a non polar molecule that won't be affected by a magnet? Apparently not, must be the same fools who put them all over their bodies to cure cancer.

The gas additives universally reduced mileage. At least the magnets did nothing.

[Oeditpus Rex]

2. The dyno says:

The truck we tested showed about a 15-hp loss with the Ionizer. About 10 miles into our economy test, the left bank of rubber capacitor blocks started to melt and sag onto the red-hot exhaust manifold. When smoke started to fill the dyno room, we interrupted the test and redressed the wires and capacitor blocks more securely. But when one on the right bank liquefied and dripped onto the manifold, we had flames a good 2 ft. tall, requiring the use of a 20-pound fire extinguisher. This, of course, terminated the test. Besides, most of the capacitor blocks looked like yesterday's chewing gum. Consequently, we have no comment as to the abilities of the Electronic Engine Ionizer Fuel Saver to reduce fuel consumption.



:rofl:

[truedelphi]

4. Thanks for posting that part of it. I guess I won't bother with the

Ionizer until I can remember where we put the 20 pound fire extinguisher. SOunds like we'll need it!

[skids]

3. Weird picks...

If I had wanted to pick some of them to test, I would have tested chechfi.ca, airtabs, and maybe one of the exhaust-heat-based "cracking" or fuel preheat systems. They seem to know a lot about gas engines -- maybe they are just trying to pick the ones they know will fail. Not that they don't do a service by debunking the true bunk, but...