The Gadgetman Groove: Latest Fuel Economy BS Hits NPR

[SVOboy]

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 that ill-advised craze has passed, for the most part. However, there [...] Related posts:

1. VW’s New TDI Blog (with Fuel Economy Competition)
2. One Big Reason Not to Trust “Real World” Fuel Economy Testing
3. PLX Announces New Kiwi MPG Fuel Economy Gauge

More...

[RobertSmalls]

This crisis of journalistic integrity isn't as bad as it sounds. AFAI can tell, this piece was written by a KUAR reporter, probably a college student who needed something to write a piece on and figured this was as good as any. Although KUAR is an NPR station, this is not an NPR article.

NPR is great about responding to feedback from the listeners, and many listeners are experts in some field or another. If NPR had published this piece, I would write to them, citing evidence that intake vortex generators are a scam, and they would issue a correction or retraction promptly.

As it is, Ben, maybe you should send KUAR a friendly note with a link to your blog post.

[SVOboy]

Indeed, I'd thought about it and then got distracted

[MetroMPG]

FYI, the owner/representative of the product in question has commented below the blog entry, taking Ben to task for misusing his voice in leading readers away from the "Truth" (yes, of the capital "T" variety) regarding this device.

Goes without saying of course that I'm also highly skeptical.

I'd simply say to any company that markets a gas saver device in the U.S.: don't even bother talking to me until you've subjected it to (and seen significant results from) the EPA's approved testing regimen for fuel saving devices.

EPA Motor Vehicle Aftermarket Retrofit Device Evaluation Program

It's that simple. Testimonial evidence from customers isn't worth squat.

[micondie]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

[ It's that simple. Testimonial evidence from customers isn't worth squat.

Amen to that

[RobertSmalls]

I sent an e-mail to the author, CC the news/programming director, and got a nice reply back promptly. He says they're working on a companion story to address the concerns of myself and other skeptics. Look for it "in the coming days".

Letters to the editor get results. Don't let me be the only one writing them.

[MetroMPG]

Mr Smalls: nice rational response to the inventor/promoter in the blog thread. (Assuming you posted as "Rob".)

[jkp1187]

Popular Mechanics has also questioned the validity of Hatton's claims. See below:

KUAR: Skeptics question the claims of "Gadgetman Groove" backers (2010-07-07)

Mike Allen, Senior Automotive Editor for Popular Mechanics Magazine, says he's tested dozens of devices making similar claims, and while he hasn't tested this particular procedure, Allen says its basic concept of increasing turbulance in the combustion chamber is based on "a specious principle."

"I'm always suspicious of any device that relies so heavily on anecdotal evidence... They have not, to my knowledge, actually done a real dynomometer test before and after."

Allen says if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. "In a global market where the car manufacturers are spending literally hundreds of dollars per vehicle to achieve that last one tenth of a mile per gallon to meet very stringent corporate average fuel economy requirements, if anybody with a simple device like this, which would cost almost nothing at the manufacturers' level to implement, any company that had such a device available would have such an overpowering advantage in the marketplace they'd be all over it."

[RobertSmalls]

Originally Posted by jkp1187

Popular Mechanics has also questioned the validity of Hatton's claims. See below:

KUAR: Skeptics question the claims of "Gadgetman Groove" backers (2010-07-07)

This is KUAR's follow-up piece. The creator of the Groove says he's going to hire an independent laboratory to run some tests, but we all know how that could go. If it's a dyno study at primarily low load, low RPMs, instrumented with an MPGuino, then the results should be valid. But if it's an on-the-road before and after study, it will leave way too many variables in play, and the results might just be skewed in favor of the party hiring the laboratory.

@Darin: Nah, I've been using my real-life name (Matt Gates) more and more across the internet. I used to post mostly in forums about current events and the latest video games, and having a veil of pseudonymity was nice. But now that my hobbies are a bit more grown-up, the forums I hang out in are the kind where you can use your real name.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

Letters to the editor get results. Don't let me be the only one writing them.

No they don't.

I wrote to several news outlets re: Doug Palmear and his scam Mustang. Some never replied even after a follow-up from me; some did reply but they never expressed any interest correcting their wrong, acknowledging their role in promoting a scam, and/or putting any correct information out there.

Everything the media presents must be evaluated with a VERY jaundiced eye.