[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by sarguy01

With thousands of customers, none of them ever asked how your devices work? They just install them on their car and go?

Pretty much, yes! I do explain my theories in my books but in the end it's all about results. Most of my customers are generated from word of mouth, a happy customer tells his friends and often even installs a few himself. A few people bought my book, installed on their own vehicle and then went on to make a good living installing on other people's vehicles.

Originally Posted by sarguy01

How many carbureted vehicles have you personally tested before and after in controlled situations?

I did personally modify a couple of hundred carburetors with the Carburetor Enhancer Method when I was installing them and I did keep records of their performance (I would do a before and after acceleration test and exhaust temperature test to assure the customers that they weren't losing power or going to burn their valves).
I did spot tests of pollution (so I could report how pollution levels drop) but mileage gains were mostly (except for my own vehicles) just customer testimonials. Again, I know testimonials are NOT scientific proof but since the gains were mostly 25%+ the customers were 100% happy. The customer's testimonials were generally in sync with my personal tests.

Once I wrote the Carburetor Enhancer Manual and started selling it, the people who 'self-installed' reported the same gains as I and my customers noticed. Again, all empirical evidence, not independent scientific validation.

Originally Posted by sarguy01

Surely you have this data already compiled somewhere since you have claimed increase on all of your products.

I do have self-generated data, which is in storage 2500 miles away. I have very few independent scientific studies. For my customers I have a 60 day no questions asked moneyback satisfaction guarantee. I have less than a 2% return rate and most of those are from people who never tried the product/project. I may be fooling myself but I think that makes it pretty clear that people are getting what they think they'll get.

This is getting to be 'defending myself' again. Sorry. Trying to answer your questions clearly (not obfuscate).

Originally Posted by sarguy01

What was you testing criteria? What test vehicles were used?

Sorry, I KNOW you are looking for proof that qualifies with the standards of this website. I don't have it now. I WILL have it this spring, once I get the 84 Honda Civic back on the road. Not only will you have my fuel mileage records in the ecomodder garage, but anyone who wishes can visit and prove it for themselves. Again, this is where I ask for patience.

The best I can do now is make my eBooks available for free and then help ecomodders duplicate what I've done, one step at a time; using their own skills and resources and at low cost (buying nothing from me).
I'll have no financial interest in their projects beyond trying to help them get the best mileage possible (without hurting their vehicle). Then the ecomodders who actually have equipment that can make proper scientific tests will be able to prove for themselves that the technology works or not.

As for which vehicles, pretty much everything but there's no way I can list them or prove who did what to what; except my own vehicles and that's where my 'stories' come in. I can tell you my 'stories' but that's not proof.

Generally, the technologies I've developed are pretty universal and adaptable to individual vehicles. Some technologies, like the HyCO 2DT, are designed for specific applications, in this case turbocharged engines.

Originally Posted by sarguy01

I want to see the how you came up with a 25-100% increase in mileage claim. How is 25% typical? If you know that it works in 75% of carbs, you must have collected data to come up with such a figure.

I took a box of testimonials and my own testing data and made piles in a row. I then counted them up. OK, not scientific but it gave me an answer I could give people who were asking.

Originally Posted by sarguy01

Why won't this work in 25% of carbureted

vehicles?

THAT is a really good question! It took me awhile to figure out the common denominator between the carburetors that got really GOOD results and the carburetors that got really BAD results.

The answer, once I found it, was simple. Air Bleeds. The carburetors that had more sophisticated air bleed systems were the ones that got the best gains. Carburetors with minimal air bleed technology got little or no gains.

Full understanding of how the Carburetor Enhancer Method works is in the Carburetor Enhancer Manual, which I will be posting in the next couple of days. I call it a 'method' because it isn't a device, it's a custom tuning technique that significantly increases a carburetor's ability (via the air bleeds) to make smaller fuel droplet size.

What carburetor was best? The Motorcraft 2150 was the top of the pile because it not only has an excellent air bleed system, it has 'variable' air bleeds. About 20% of those installations doubled mileage while retaining full power and performance. Exhaust temperatures dropped and pollution of all types was reduced.

Again, I acknowledge I have NO proof to show you. But since it can be done with $15 worth of parts acquired from an automotive store and it only takes an hour of actual work to do, it's worth a shot, is it not? (disclaimer: your first application will likely take an afternoon as you learn how to do it).

Oh, and just in case it matters, Ford engineers 'knew' about the Carburetor Enhancer method (they didn't call it that of course). They finally used it in the high end models of the 7200 VV carburetor, to give the carburetor oxygen sensor feedback AFR control, just like I'd already been retrofitting carbureted cars for years (plus I added deceleration fuel shutoff, which they didn't do).