The answer is the Government must be wrong, as the percentage increases are based on the results of hundreds of treatments. With a measured COF by a Tokyo bearing company of .0008 - that's damn near zero.
The US Army didn't believe me either, which is why I laid down $35K for testing and was awarded the Mil Spec, and everything else is just oil.
If you screw people on ebay, negative feedback will show up - especially when charging hundreds for MPG enhancement kits, and then look at my feedback. 20% has been the lowest increase in MPG, so consider the treatment unique.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT
I've read through all this and common sense would step in to ask,
What percentage of power generated by the engine is lost to friction?
So I find this. FuelEconomy.Gov
Now it looks to me like the friction loss is 3%, you can't claim your product eliminates friction, so even if you cut it in half, you only reduce engine loss by 1.5%.
How does this yield a 10% or better increase in MPG?
You understand this right? 3% of engine loss is due to friction, how does eliminating this yield a dyno test result that's 20% more horsepower?
A bunch of stories about how much better a gun shoots or how happy people are is not considered evidence as to the effectiveness of a product. Show us independent testing result numbers, cousin Bob winning his first race does not count.
And for the sake of Pete, do NOT go on some pseudo-science technobabble diatribe here, you will look pathetic if you try.
Plain English and simple terms following a logical progression of how it is that you can make a 3% loss result in a 20% gain would be really appreciated. |