|
My FE Conclusion...
The comparison of 4 tanks using the additive vs. tanks during the same time of year (fuel fills from December-March, inclusive) were taken into consideration. The data set from the first Winter of 2005/2006 was noted as an outlier due to considerable experimentation, and not considered part of the Control Group -- Winter seasons in 2006/2007 up to 2011/2012 were considered.
Mean Average...
Control Group:
Sample Size = 39 fuel fills
Average = 32.61 MPG
TCW3 Additive Group:
Sample Size = 4 fuel fills
Average = 33.48 MPG
Is the increased average FE statistically significant?
Using a Single-Factor ANOVA at a confidence level of 95%...
The P-value was 0.53, F = 0.40, and Fcrit = 4.08.
Conclusion/Explanation: To qualify for the least validity, the P-Value needs to be 0.05 or less, meaning there is at least a 95% chance the data differs in a meaningful way. In this case, the P-value indicates a 47% chance -- which is very weak in Statistics. I also ran the full control group, and the similar Winter season of 2010/2011 -- the latter produced a P-value of 0.38: better, but still not significant.
Final Statement: TCW3 did not significantly improve fuel economy, based on previous Winter seasons; further, engine idle smoothness and occasional "stumbling" under load were noted as unscientific observations. Further testing is not considered at this time.
RH77
__________________
“If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research” ― Albert Einstein
 _
 _
|