<-Back to Energy Quiz

Excerpt from Popular Mechanics

Looking For A Miracle: We Test Automotive 'Fuel Savers'

Can copper tubing, cheap magnets and wacky gimmicks really boost your mileage by as much as 300 percent?  Popular Mechanic's Mike Allen puts the latest MPG gadgets to the test. Please step back from the truck.
By Mike Allen
Published in the September 2005 issue.

MIRACLE MAGNETS
There are dozens of fuel-line magnets on the market. We tested two. They all make similar claims: substantial improvements in fuel economy, reduced emissions and increased horsepower.

According to the people selling these devices, as gasoline flows past the magnet, the magnetic field will "break apart clusters of fuel molecules so gas burns more efficiently." Problem: Gasoline molecules aren't magnetic, not at all. But wait, there's more. If the fuel line is steel, as many are, the lines of magnetic flux will follow the fuel-line walls instead of passing through the fuel.

THE DYNO SAYS: As we suspected, neither device had any significant effect on performance or economy.

VORTEX GENERATORS
These devices, which are usually installed on the upstream side of the mass airflow (MAF) sensor, use stationary vanes or, on some devices, spinning blades to make the inlet air between the air cleaner and intake manifold whirl around in a mini-tornado. This vortex supposedly mixes fuel more thoroughly with air, which means the fuel will, theoretically, burn more completely in the combustion chamber. Trouble is, there's a lot of intake tract downstream from these devices designed to maximize a smooth airflow. Turbulence, coupled with the restricted airflow caused by the device, can only reduce the amount of air sucked into the manifold. Less air means less power.

Again, we tested two devices. The TornadoFuelSaver is a nicely made stainless steel contraption, available in an assortment of sizes to fit most vehicles. We installed it on our truck's intake tract immediately upstream of the MAF sensor. We purchased the second device, the Intake Twister, on eBay. It was crudely handmade from sheet-aluminum flashing and pop rivets. It looked like something we could make in about 10 minutes from an old soda can. The staff at UTI was reluctant to install it: The bent sheetmetal vanes looked as if they might break off and be digested by the engine. The device is one-size-fits-all, and is simply bent into a curl to insert it into the intake duct.

THE DYNO SAYS: Both devices reduced peak horsepower by more than 10 percent. The Intake Twister increased fuel consumption by about 20 percent; the TornadoFuelSaver provided no significant change.

======================================================================

The   New York Times




August 6, 2006
Technology

Simply Amazing! (The Promises, Not the Gas Savings)

By TIM MORAN

THE federal Environmental Protection Agency maintains a full laboratory where it will gladly test a miraculous fuel-saving device for $30,000. But so far, the biggest customer of the lab has been the Federal Trade Commission, which uses it to debunk false advertising claims.

Such claims of astounding mileage gains have increased as gizmos promising gas savings — some newly hatched and others a fresh twist on old themes — have proliferated, draining the pockets of gullible drivers seeking relief from high gasoline prices. From clamp-on magnets to water sprays, from air spinners and vaporizers to fuel vibrators and gas tank pills, gadgets promising higher mileage are not new.

For at least a century, tinkerers have tried everything from exhaust cutouts that bypassed the muffler to “cow magnets” (normally used to extract bits of metal from the digestive systems of ruminants) clamped to gasoline lines to mysteriously align the molecules in fuel.

The latest products have received a lift from the Internet and television infomercials. But while the inventiveness of the marketing has improved, the success of the devices has not.

“We tested about 100 products, a little more than a hundred, and we can boil them down to saying that they don’t work,” John Millett, an E.P.A. spokesman, said.

The F.T.C. lists the results of its tests at the E.P.A. lab on its consumer protection Web site.  If the F.T.C. decides a product is falsely advertised it can take action against the company selling it.

The E.P.A. reviews the chemicals used in gasoline additives, to ensure that what comes out of the tailpipe is no more harmful than emissions from regular fuel. It then issues a registration letter.

This letter does not constitute approval or endorsement, but marketers often use it to claim E.P.A. “certification.”

Some fuel or oil additives can be a problem for engines and fuel systems. Additives displace protective chemicals in gasoline and engine oil; some may corrode fuel pumps or gas tanks, or make flexible fuel hoses and fittings brittle. Instead of enhancing engine life and economy, users might shorten their car’s life.

A senior editor at Popular Mechanics magazine, Mike Allen, found results similar to those obtained by the E.P.A. when he took a crateful of fuel-saving contraptions to a Texas testing lab to check their effectiveness. “None of them improved fuel economy, several of them increased fuel consumption and most of them cost horsepower,” Mr. Allen said in an interview. ...

Some gadgets were hard to install; others were hazardous. “This device had something they called ‘capacitor blocks,’ ” Mr. Allen said of the Electronic Engine Ionizer. “They melted and dripped onto the adjustment bolt and caught fire.” ...

Mr. Allen reported on his findings in the magazine’s September 2005 issue. He recalled recently that after a week of testing he had gained respect not for the technology involved, but for the persuasive skills of promoters. ...

Auto companies employ some of the world’s top engineers, and they are desperate for an edge in the economy sweepstakes. “The possibility that some guy who’s tinkering in his back yard is going to come up with it is really remote,” Mr. Allen said.

Why do people who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on a well-engineered car believe that the $100 Fuel Genie, the $198 Platinum Gas Saver or the $70 TornadoFuelSaver might reap huge benefits? ...

Dr. Carl Haugtvedt, a social psychologist who is an associate professor of marketing logistics at Ohio State University, said that the kind of faith that draws consumers to gadgets like these was actually important to human mental health. Part of the attraction stems from hopefulness and a willingness to trust that something can improve a painful situation. Another factor is self-delusion, which protects the ego by letting a person overlook bad decisions.

“You could admit to yourself that you were wrong, you wasted this money, you burned this money, say ‘I’m an idiot,’ ” Dr. Haugtvedt said. “That’s very tough on the self.”

People who are hopeful enough to try out a fuel-economy enhancer will look for any positive sign they can find to convince themselves that they made a good decision. They may put the device in their car and, at the same time, get a tune-up — something suggested in the installation instructions with many devices. Or, because the owners are paying more attention to their cars, they may realize that their tires are underinflated and add some air. Then, each time they add fuel at the gas pump, they attribute any mileage gain to the device.

Consumer Reports’ experts are accustomed to such consumer behavior. David Champion, director of automobile testing, urges people to be aware of how cars work so they can be wiser buyers. When the magazine recently tested the Fuel Genie, the TornadoFuelSaver and the Platinum Gas Saver, it found they had no effect. ...

Mr. Champion said drivers should look beyond the powerful advertising behind the devices and, instead, modify their driving. “Drive as if you’ve got a cup of coffee on your dashboard and you don’t want to spill it,” he said. “No heavy acceleration, no heavy braking.”...

Back to Energy Quiz