View Single Post
Old 07-27-2008, 08:15 PM   #27 (permalink)
needs more cowbell
dcb's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,038

pimp mobile - '81 suzuki gs 250 t
90 day: 96.29 mpg (US)

schnitzel - '01 Volkswagen Golf TDI
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 158
Thanked 269 Times in 212 Posts
Some of the folks who are reporting no gains with your plugs are not here, you will have to locate them to query their methods. There's nothing in it for me, they have no profit motive for saying it didn't work, in fact they have risked some in suggesting it was a mistake that they spent the money. And they are part of a community I trust in general, all the more so when they can be so honest and not afraid of ridicule.

Originally Posted by dparker View Post
..knowing which product has been installed, it is already a flawed test...
Just saying it was done in a "lab" does not eliminate bias. The order of the tests, and the interpretation of the results are still being done with profit in mind. This is why ABA and independent verification are important, regardless of the equipment. There are still humans with human faults and biases looking for an advantage, consciously or not.

But for fun, let's assume you are both correct. That there is something about efficient driving style that negates the mpg advantage of these plugs.

Consider that these folks spend very little time idling and aren't racing down the hiway at 80mph or flooring it and slamming on the brakes everywhere.

Where does your test results actually show the improvement coming from? Is it in certain rpm and load settings? Do you have a before and after (and before again) BSFC map, that would tell the story pretty well also. And, FYI, you cannot be too detailed in describing the test setup and the assumptions and adjustments being made. The PDF file isn't really detailed enough to be considered useful.
  Reply With Quote