Quote:
Originally Posted by rattroddrebel
I support the idea of what you are stating, however there are alot of posters that have personally crapped on anything I said, some are in your click, but i am going back to the drawing board and I will come back to this site when I have data that will NOT be argued. I have had numorous negative responses to my posts just because I am new here, or these guys are not objective. So I will follow your guidelines unlike several members and bring my data to the table. If i would have known I would get so much crap for giving information that I thought could help people, instead nothing but headaches. Thanks for the data suggestions.  |
Hey rattroddrebel, let me try to apologize a little. I read Old Mechanic's responses and am very impressed by the clearness and coolness with which he makes his case(s). I, on the other hand, will get all worked up, then get sarcastic in my comments, and come off as an insulting a$$hole. Maybe I can try to be more like him....
A couple of the other guys made the point that your "delivery" of info/facts/opinions can easily be read (mis-read?) to possibly give the wrong idea. An example in this particular post, (...
"just because I'm new here"...) Although your number of posts was mentioned by some, to me, that's not what it is. I only joined in October, myself. Rather, it's the - how can I say this - "barrage" of supposed "documentation" and "facts", etc. And then when questioned, an even bigger barrage of so-called facts, etc. along with your constant insistance of what an expert you are. Maybe you are, but to me, it was getting ridiculous, you were sounding (to me) just like a high-pressure, pushy salesman, and I started responing in my a$$hole way.
So again, I apologize for that. My main thing is this: Lots of "claims" are made in the field of fuel economy, and a lot of them simply don't hold up when put to the test. I was just offering to put this fuel additive to the test. If it really works, I'll see it in my test. If it doesn't (or the improvement is too small to show), then I'd think (in my own mind) that it's not worth buying. I've heard that keeping your car clean and waxed helps MPG too (better aerodynamics), but I don't see it in actual tests.
If that AmsOil stuff shows an improvement, I'll happily report it - and quite possibly start using it. And I realize this is ONLY as it applies to my car with all those factors you keep listing. It would be good if someone else here tested it, too, to either confirm or dispute to my results. Then we can take it from there.
But I guess my other thing is, if it "really works", it should work regardless of the ambient outside temperature, size of my engine, my tires, brand of oil, make & model of my car, etc. In other words, if it only works for cars meeting certain of these criteria, then maybe advertize it as working for only those criteria. I think that's what triggered all my sarcasm, etc.
Oh, and I don't think I attacked "everything you said" - just the stuff I thought was ridiculous (highly exaggerated). Too bad your car is too old for a ScanGauge - those things are worth their weight in gold. You might look into the other one they talk about here - the "MPGuino", or whatever it's called. Anyway, I'd better shut up now. - peace.
