Remember the Tornado? That little piece of foil you stuck instead your car’s intake with the hope of improving your fuel economy? Despite the fact that I still see one from time to time at the local car parts store, I’m thankful to say that this ill-advised craze has passed, for the most part.

However, there seems to be a grassroots revitalization of the tried and true “put some junk in your intake and increase fuel economy 150%” formula for selling these scams. Recently, I noticed one, known as the Gadgetman Groove, has gotten a local NPR reporter to take the bait.

This scam sports all the warning signs of your classic fuel economy scam:

• Claims to work on any vehicle, regardless of fuel type;
• Takes almost no time;
• Increase power, fuel economy, while reducing emissions;
• Is cleverly overlooked by every vehicle manufacturer in every model of vehicle ever made;
• Uses current events (this time, the oil spill) as well as fuel prices in order sell the product;
• Claims scientific proof, but presents none;
• Offers to turn you into a distributor of the product/service.

If you want to know more, don’t hesitate to check out the gadgetman’s site, but please, don’t swallow the medicine on this one. If you need an in depth discussion of these issues, please check out Tony’s Guide. For those of you who don’t want to do the reading, here’s his summary:

So in summary:

• Engines already have high levels of turbulence, and the physics is well understood
• Adding more turbulence can give only a tiny fuel economy benefit – this is proved by experiment
• Ignition must be adjusted to suit the faster burn, or the effect will be worse economy
• Increased turbulence at full load will most likely damage the engine unless the ignition is retarded
• Anything in the inlet manifold is extremely unlikely to affect in-cylinder air motion anyway

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhyrCuVlaq8&feature=player_embedded

It’s been a long time coming, but the FTC is finally putting a stop to the kind of deceptive advertising you see above. For years these scammers, which claim their electrolysis kits will double your gas mileage and “turn any car into a hybrid” have spammed blog comments and lied to unsuspecting consumers.

While there have been a few people who bought into the (false) hype over the years, I think the FTC gets to the bottom of it very well:

However, in papers filed with the court, the FTC states that these and other claims defy well-established physical principles and contain “gross errors and misrepresentations of fact.” According to an expert hired by the FTC, the device does not even meet the scientific definition of a “fuel cell,” and several of the processes touted by the companies either are impossible or would lead to a net loss of energy. The promoters “are marketing a product that cannot exist and function as claimed,” the FTC stated in the court papers.

Though the case has just been opened and there is no verdict, the defendent is clearly guilty here, so I fully expect the FTC to drop the banhammer on these sorts of advertisements. Hopefully now they will stop showing up faster than we can ban them on Google Adsense and we can all move on past some of the high gas price-inspired insanity.

Lots of advertisements will tout “real world” fuel economy increases and testing procedures in an attempt to make their product look more desirable. Surely, if you wanted to buy something to increase fuel economy, testing that proves it actually does would be good, right? And what’s more conclusive than someone actually taking the thing you plan on buying and driving around with it?

Well, unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

How the EPA does testing

The EPA doesn’t just stick a driver in a car, give them a course, and tell them to drive around it and hope that they do it consistently every time. Instead, they put test vehicles up on a dyno and run a course designed to simulate driving.

Many people fault the EPA for this method, but I believe they have put a lot of effort into developing and refining their testing methods, and at the very least, they are internally consistent, which is what’s most important when comparing vehicles. In fact, it is internal consistency that the EPA is most concerned with, and also the reason that their EPA ratings often conflict with our own real life observations.

Sure, the EPA may have rated my car at 27 mpg combined, and I might get 40 mpg by EcoDriving it, while you might be upset that you only get 25 mpg by driving normally. But therein lies the great flaw of “real world” fuel economy numbers. No driver, road, traffic, or weather condition is ever consistent enough to make comparison fruitful.

How scammers do testing

Using acetone as an example of a scam (and not wanting to link any pages for fear increasing their reputation with Google), you can see that it’s proponents will often talk about “beating the EPA” or the “inefficiency of modern internal combustion engines.” They use these buzzwords to lead you into their story, which hinges on “real world” benefits for “drivers like you.”

Acetone rests on a very shaky, some would say fraudulent, technical background, and relies mostly on “evidence” from fuel economy “tests.” Most of these tests, however, consist of walking up to someone who has never thought much about fuel economy and telling them, “Hey, I’m going to put this stuff in your tank and you’ll see 30% better fuel economy.” From there, the testers, who sometimes don’t even calculate fuel economy, will give reports like, “I’ve driven my car with acetone for two weeks now and the needle is still above the halfway line! OMGLOLWUT.”

Other, slightly more intelligent scammers will run tank-to-tank testing, meticulously recording their findings, but ignoring major variations in weather, type of driving, or driving technique. Just take a look at my fill-up history from the last three years and tell me if you think it’s a consistent enough to base tests on:

Other, even trickier scammers, usually companies, will pay for “3rd party” testing to be done at some “university” or other credible place. This is a tricky area, because there are many reputable places working on fuel economy testing, but there are also many devices that’ve “shown increases” at such facilities that have also been declared scams when brought to court by the government or investors.

How I do testing

I use my MPGuino to record fuel economy over predetermined courses using predetermined driving techniques. I try to be meticulous about what RPM a shift at, how much throttle pressure I use, and control as many factors as I can. However, I’m not here to say that even given how much effort I put into it, I’m not much better than those scammers.

Recently, I attempted to test fuel economy changes when removing the alternator belt on my car. It’s relatively well-known that the parasitic drag from the alternator reduces fuel economy. However, I was interested in seeing for myself the difference that it made on my own car.

In NJ, where I usually reside, I have a test loop where I can usually get mpg reading within +/- .5% through consistent driving. Generally, others have high confidence in these tests due to the low deviation in my results. In MO, where I am now, there is a similar loop, albeit a hilly one. I used the same ideas to test my fuel economy with the alternator, without the alternator, and then with the alternator again, and these were my results:

First, I’d like you to notice that the distance was a very consistent 7.31 miles. Now, please notice how inconsistent the mileage readings were. I lost mpgs without the alternator, then lost them again when I reattached it! These numbers are, of course, not good, and a result of faulty testing. Not only are they not internally consistent, but they are inconsistent with the results that many others have demonstrated.

So who should you believe?

The takeaway here is that you can’t take fuel economy testing at face value. Not from me, or anyone else. The people most worth trusting are those that are transparent about the difficulties of accurate numbers and their testing methods. Take a look at the methods used and decide for yourself if they are prone to error or not. And remember, even the most well-intentioned testers can make errors.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Recently the BS-o-meter of many forum members was tripped by a guy claiming to get 110 mpg out of his 1987 Ford Mustang. Though the claim seems a little ridiculous, and I think most people would be quick to dismiss it, the fact that it’s getting some media attention warrants a debunking.

The first thing to say is that conspiracy theories will not be considered here. I am not on the payroll of big oil, the government, Saudis, terrorists, or any of that. Nor is there any real evidence that any of these agents are going above and beyond normal business tactics to keep the US addicted to oil. Sure, the Saudis may produce more oil to lower prices and make the need for alternatives less pressing, but is Exxon assassinating the “water4gas” internet spammers? I think not. So, if your argument for the feasibility of this device is that it’s always been possible and the man is keeping it down, then don’t waste your breath arguing.

Now on to this specific case. Here we have a mechanic named Doug Pelmear with an ’87 Ford Mustang that he claims gets 110 mpg, 400 horsepower, 500 ft-lbs of torque, and can do 0-60 in 3 seconds. According to Doug, the builder:

“My grandfather had the idea back in the 40′s that he can make a difference then,” Pelmear says, “There was quite a need at that time also with the war going on and everything, there was quite the need then.” And quite a need now.

This should throw up our first red flag. His grandfather had an idea back in the 40s that this guy has remade into some sort of miracle device 60 years later? Nevermind the fact that automakers spend billions of dollars working on having the best of the best in terms of both power and efficiency, and that to date the Honda Insight holds the mileage crown at with a combined EPA rating of 53 MPG. Doug Pelmear claims to more than double that using something his grandfather thought up 60 years ago? Engine technology from that period is nothing like the fuel injected, computer controlled tech of today, but this device still works wonders?

Those this technology could be working to increase the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine, as one ecomodder pointed out,  thermodynamic efficiency can only be increased so much before it is at 100%, which would be impossible. Given that car engines are typically 25-30% efficient, there is only so much gain to be had before you’re claiming to have broken the laws of physics.

As for the car itself, 1987 Mustangs come with EPA ratings from 17-24 MPG, with 17 being the number assigned to the V8 variety.  Completely disregarding the performance claims Doug is making, if we are to assume he’s using the 5.0L V8 as a base, he’s claiming a 640% increase in fuel economy. While ecomodders regularly report increases of 50% to 100% on the extreme side, does such a huge improvement seem feasible? And if so, how could it be done while dramatically increasing power output?

The next red flag comes up when we learn that Doug won’t tell anyone what he’s done to the car or what technology he’s using:

While Pelmear won’t let us look under the hood, he says the technology can easily be applied to smaller engines for even better gas mileage. He’s entering the car in the prestigious Progressive Automotive X competition; a race where inventors from around the world compete for the best mileage with a car that is the most marketable. Pelmear says, his technology is very marketable because it will allow people to drive large cars and SUV’s without sacrificing gas mileage.

As the original report notes, the X-Prize is a prestigious competition, but to me it seems like he is only using the name in order to make his claims appear more legitimate. While his plan to sell his design to automakers in order to make it big certainly could explain why he wouldn’t want to make a DIY and post it online, but he can’t expect anyone to believe his claims if he’s not even willing to drive the car around and fill it up at the pump to throw a little weight behind his claims.

And even that brings up another question. Evidently Doug’s job was recently cut in Ford’s latest round of lay-offs. If he intends to use this invention to bring back the US automotive industry, why didn’t it see the light of day during the years he worked for  billion-dollar manufacturer? This kind of technology would have definitely gotten him a nice promotion, a fat paycheck, and position as the savior of his company. Instead, he doesn’t mention until he’s out of a job.

If you watch this video from CNN, you will see a few more interesting things:

httpv://youtube.com/watch?v=sBG2QGM8SUI

The first thing that I notice is that he’s running (or at least claiming to run) E85. While E85 is higher octane, it is also known for returning lower fuel economy in flex-fuel vehicles. Wikipedia notes that  the flex-fuel Chevy Tahoe is rated for 18 mpg with regular gasoline, but only 13 mpg using E85. That’s 38% less fuel economy in a vehicle designed to run on E85.

Secondly, when the 110 mpg image pops up, you’ll note that it actually says “MPGe.” This stands for “miles per gallon energy equivalent,” which, coupled with the knowledge that he is running E85 suggests that he is getting less that 110 mpg and using a conversion factor to make the number sound more impressive than it otherwise would. Using the previous Chevy Tahoe example as an analogy, this means that he might only be getting 80 mpg while deceptively claiming 110 mpg. Though his website does show “MPGe” and state that it means “energy equivalent,” he neither explains this to readers nor to the reporter. This, at least, seems as if he is trying to mislead us and makes me question his other claims.

Finally, you’ll notice that even though the two men behind the scenes are talking up the performance of this car, we only see it peacefully cruising the neighborhood streets. Were the reporters to daft to ask for a ride or is that another one of Doug’s secrets? Surely a muscle car like that would be capable of a few burnouts or revs to show off for itself. However, we’re left knowing nothing more than that it actually runs under its own power.

In the end, Doug Pelmear doesn’t give us any reason to believe his claims. All his website states is that on the 14th of June the car will be tested at a race track. Sadly, that was posted on the 16th of June, and there were never any results. There are plenty of reasons to believe this is nothing more than a fuel price-related scam cooked up by someone pissed off that he got fired from his job at Ford, and unless there is some great revelation, I’m calling this a hoax. As always, feel free to disagree.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.