EcocleanFuel.org can save you money on fuel

[Gary Palmer]

Well I may be totally out of place, but in the test report all it does is talk about emissions testing. This site and most of the people on it are not interested in making worse emissions, or better, per se. Were interested in getting better mileage. How in the world does getting a summary from some test station, on emissions help me get better mileage? I don't get it.

Reread it. I see hybitgibbity, mumbitiumbito, but I still don't get. Can someone, else, interpret or explain the mileage numbers?

[Hockey4mnhs]

^^^^ dude i have no idea. what i do know tho is im getting 40% over epa without this crap and any outer money making bs that rips people off.

[repete86]

Originally Posted by ecocleanfuel.org

Here is some information that you can screen for your pleasure?
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.
October 13, 2006
Mach 3 Automotive Products, LLCAttn: Mr. Dennis Leung, General Manager17188 Hazelwood Dr.Riverside, CA. 92503
Subject: HIGHWAY EXHAUST EMISSIONS TEST REPORT ON MACH 3
ULTIMATE ME2 FUEL ADDITIVE
Dear Mr. Leung,
Automotive Testing an Development Services, Inc. (ATDS) is please to report the results of testing conducted for Mach 3 Automotive Products, LLC. on possible Exhaust Emissions benefits of the ULTIMATE ME2 additive in a gasoline passenger car application.
Automotive Testing and Development Services, Inc. has been commissioned to conduct a series of tests for Mach 3 Automotive Products, LLC. on the ULTIMATE ME2 fuel additive (EPA Registration #20340001) for evaluation of its effects on fuel economy and emissions using industry standards tests. This test sequence was conducted in our laboratory using the Federal Highway Test driving cycle. The fuel used was the Federal unleaded test fuel. The vehicle was a 2005 Ford Taurus with a six cylinder engine and approximately 41.000 miles on the odometer. The test was run in two parts, first a baseline sequence of two tests using regular test fuel then the ?ULTIMATE ME2? was added to the fuel supply, 300 miles of over the road driving was performed and the Highway tests run twice more.
The test results show that test vehicle, with the ULTIMATE ME2 additive mixed into its? fuel, achieved a 7% reduction in Hydrocarbon Emissions, a 33% reduction in Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions and a 44% reduction in Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) emissions when compared the results with regular fuel.
The results of this test are summarized on the enclosed table. The 2005 Ford Taurus shows large reductions in Highway Exhaust Emissions therefore it appears possible that there is a beneficial effect in this application.
Sincerely,
Linwood Farmer
Vice PresidentATDS, Inc.
Enclosure (1) Summary Table of Highway Exhaust Emissions Testing on a Ford Taurus: Mr. William Wu, President, China oil (USA), Inc. Mr. Jay Sergeant, President, Essentially Yours Industries, Inc.

October 7, 2005 (revised August 23, 2006)
Mach 3 Automotive Products, LLC
Attn: Mr. Dennis Leung, General Manager
17188 Hazelwood Drive
Riverside, CA 92503
Subject: ON ROAD FUEL CONSUMPTION TEST REPORT ON MACH 3 ULTIMATE ME2 ADDITIVE
Dear Mr. Leung,
Automotive Testing and Development Services, Inc. (ATDS) is pleased to report the results of testing conducted for Mach 3 Automotive Products, LLC. Wherein their ?Ultimate ME2? fuel additive was tested for fuel economy benefits in a Diesel Medium Duty Truck application.
Testing was conducted in an on-road environment using public highways and loosely based upon the concept of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1321* test protocol. Two medium duty Isuzu cab over box trucks were provided for test by the client and were reported to be of the same make, model and year. Both trucks were six-cylinder intercooler turbo diesels. ATDS drivers drove both trucks over a real-world road route in the Ontario, CA area. Truck number 14V8 was used as a control and did not receive any product additive, while truck number 14V5 was the test truck and did receive two 12 ounce bottles of ?Ultimate ME2? fuel additive (US EPA Registration #204320001) during the ?with product? phase of the test.
Both trucks were driving in their ?as received? condition for baseline runs. Three identical 150 mile laps were driven on both trucks. After addition of the product to the test truck, two ad?ditional 150 mile laps were driven in both trucks. In all cases, the trucks were driven together to minimize the effects of varying traffic and weather conditions, that is, as they were driving together, the traffic and weather seen by one truck was similar to the conditions seen by the other. Furthermore, in evaluating the effects of the product, only the ration of test truck fuel consumption to control truck fuel consumption was considered. The absolute value of fuel economy for the test truck with product is not compared directly to the economy in the baseline condition. Instead the ratio of test vs. control truck is computed and then compared from day to day. This ratio comparison minimizes the effects of differing traffic and weather conditions from one day to the next.
Both trucks were refilled with commercial diesel fuel prior to departure for the driving laps. The trucks were filled again at the completion of the day and the fuel consumed is assumed equal to the amount refilled. Attempts to refuel the truck to the same level both at the begin?ning and end were limited to visual fuel level estimation in the filler pipes of both trucks.

The results of this test are summarized on the following page. An approximate 16% fuel sav?ings was demonstrated with the ?Mach 3 Ultimate ME2? fuel additive in this test; therefore it appears possible that there is a beneficial fuel economy effect in this application.
Sincerely,
Linwood Farmer
Vice President
ATDS, Inc.
Enclosure (1)
? The J1321 Test protocol is a copyrighted product of the Society of Automotive
Engineers. No endorsement of this test is implied.
? This report was revised on August 23, 2006 to include the new commercial Private Brand name of ULTIMATE ME2 and its associated EPA Fuel Additive Registration Number: 204320001.
ATDS-Project #1142
Client: Mach 3 Automotive Products, LLC ?ULTIMATE ME2, USEPA Reg# 204320001?
Summary Report for Abbreviated On-Road Fuel Economy Trial Based Upon SAE J1321 Protocol
Date: 10/7/2005 (Revised August 23, 2006)
Test Truck #14V5
1997 Isuzu Cab Over Diesel Truck

Condition ODO Miles Gallons Refilled MPG
Baseline 1 154 13.92 11.1
w/Product 301 19.98 15.1
Baseline 2 303 21.87 13.9
Baselines
Combined 457 35.79 12.8


October 13, 2006
Mach 3 Automotive Products, LLCAttn: Mr. Dennis Leung, General Manager17188 Hazelwood Dr.Riverside, CA. 92503
Subject: HIGHWAY EXHAUST EMISSIONS TEST REPORT ON MACH 3
ULTIMATE ME2 FUEL ADDITIVE
Dear Mr. Leung,
Automotive Testing an Development Services, Inc. (ATDS) is please to report the results of testing conducted for Mach 3 Automotive Products, LLC. on possible Exhaust Emissions benefits of the ULTIMATE ME2 additive in a gasoline passenger car application.
Automotive Testing and Development Services, Inc. has been commissioned to conduct a series of tests for Mach 3 Automotive Products, LLC. on the ULTIMATE ME2 fuel additive (EPA Registration #20340001) for evaluation of its effects on fuel economy and emissions using industry standards tests. This test sequence was conducted in our laboratory using the Federal Highway Test driving cycle. The fuel used was the Federal unleaded test fuel. The vehicle was a 2005 Ford Taurus with a six cylinder engine and approximately 41.000 miles on the odometer. The test was run in two parts, first a baseline sequence of two tests using regular test fuel then the ?ULTIMATE ME2? was added to the fuel supply, 300 miles of over the road driving was performed and the Highway tests run twice more.
The test results show that test vehicle, with the ULTIMATE ME2 additive mixed into its? fuel, achieved a 7% reduction in Hydrocarbon Emissions, a 33% reduction in Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions and a 44% reduction in Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) emissions when compared the results with regular fuel.
The results of this test are summarized on the enclosed table. The 2005 Ford Taurus shows large reductions in Highway Exhaust Emissions therefore it appears possible that there is a beneficial effect in this application.
Sincerely,
Linwood Farmer
Vice PresidentATDS, Inc.
Enclosure (1) Summary Table of Highway Exhaust Emissions Testing on a Ford TaurusCc: Mr. William Wu, President, Chinaoil (USA), Inc. Mr. Jay Sargeant, President, Essentially Yours Industries, Inc.
Test

Mach 3 ULTIMATE ME2 Highway Exhaust Emmisions Test
Baseline
Test ID THC CO NOx CO2
ONT08089 0.0062 0.2103 0.0285 237.5447
ONT08103 0.0064 0.1954 0.0245 237.0813
0.0064 0.1954 0.0245 237.0813
With ULTIMATE ME2
Test ID THC CO NOx CO2
ONT08089 0.0056 0.0515 0.0049 235.2699
ONT08170 0.0061 0.2186 0.0249 234.4385
0.0061 0.2159 0.1351 234.8542
Improvement: %7 33% 44% 1%

I already dug up info on this company that 'tested' your product showing that they are a fraudulent business making money off of false claims and products that don't work. Try again.

[cfg83]

ecoclean -

Originally Posted by ecocleanfuel.org

I will supply you with some product if you have a reputabile shop to do the test

This is a website of MPG enthusiasts, not an official reasearch facility. We don't have a lab environment for testing. I think the closest we could provide is a "smog test" garage type environment where we run the car at different speeds and measure the emissions output. Our main test equipment is the ScanGauge, a OBDII based jack of all trades when it comes to calculating MPG, but at least a tool that would be good for showing relative MPG gains.

One thing you have to realize is that it doesn't matter if your are the "real deal". You are offering a product in a field that is jam-pack-filled with charlatans and snake-oil salesmen. You've got to be willing to admit this. Because you have put "your hat in the ring", you have to understand that the burden is on you to prove you are innocent first, not for us to prove you are guilty. It may not be fair from your POV, but I think it is realistic to make this assumption.

Matt has said time and again that we are willing to test the stuff.

Form a sales POV, it would make more sense for you to send samples to X number of people. Of those, some would have success and others wouldn't (not all drivetrains are the same). After that, people would have to buy it. If it works and it saves us money for some people, they'll buy more and become advocates.

CarloSW2

[cfg83]

Gary -

Originally Posted by Gary Palmer

Well I may be totally out of place, but in the test report all it does is talk about emissions testing. This site and most of the people on it are not interested in making worse emissions, or better, per se. Were interested in getting better mileage. How in the world does getting a summary from some test station, on emissions help me get better mileage? I don't get it.

Reread it. I see hybitgibbity, mumbitiumbito, but I still don't get. Can someone, else, interpret or explain the mileage numbers?

Mach 3 ULTIMATE ME2 Highway Exhaust Emmisions Test

Baseline
Test ID THC CO NOx CO2
ONT08089 0.0062 0.2103 0.0285 237.5447
ONT08103 0.0064 0.1954 0.0245 237.0813
0.0064 0.1954 0.0245 237.0813

With ULTIMATE ME2
Test ID THC CO NOx CO2
ONT08089 0.0056 0.0515 0.0049 235.2699
ONT08170 0.0061 0.2186 0.0249 234.4385
0.0061 0.2159 0.1351 234.8542
Improvement: %7 33% 44% 1%

For one variable only :
THC :
(.0062 + .0064) / 2 = 0.0063 --> Baseline
(.0056 + .0061) / 2 = 0.00585 --> with ME2
=> 0.00585 / 0.0063 = 0.9285 => 0.93 => 93% => 7% less emissions => 7% improvement.

In terms of the MPG test, the "real world conditions" are interesting, but they way these drivers drove the truck could not be ascertained. I think they should have a different test as follows :

1 - Put the trucks side-by-side in a Smog-Test Garage.
2 - Make sure the tanks are empty (hard to do?)
3 - Put X gallons of gas in each tank.
4 - Run each truck at 35 MPH under cruise control conditions (remove human driving bias).
5 - Run the tanks to empty.

This will establish baseline performance of each truck. Hopefully, they will run out of gas at the same time or within a statistical margin of error. If they don't, then multiple baseline test runs may be required to asceratin the baseline truck MPG differences.

Then, repeat the test, except with one truck having the fuel additive.

The test could also be repeated for different MPH cruising speeds.

I think that real-world driving tests are good, but in this situation, we want to eliminate as many variables as possible.

CarloSW2

[DracoFelis]

Originally Posted by ma4t

He just opened the door. I'll try just about anything if I see some good data arising out of A-B-A testing.

That's part of the problem. If you look carefully at how that commercial site did their testing, it wasn't A-B-A (before, after, and back to before) testing, but instead they clearly stopped at A-B (before, after) testing.

Furthermore, the company making the product supplied the cars that the testing was done with, and we have no idea how well those cars were maintained before the test (my guess is that they were well ridden cars with carbon buildup problems, before the test was done). Finally, many of the benefits that the product claims to offer, are in fact benefits that could easily be had by cleaning out built-up carbon in the fuel system (especially the engine itself). In fact, a good job of carbon cleanup could easily result in much more benefit than this company is claiming their product offered!

So I'm wondering if this product is nothing more than a decent fuel "detergent" additive, and possibly also a top head lube. Here's why I think this theory may have some merit:

1) Buildup of carbon in the engine (especially anywhere near the combustion chambers) is known to rob performance, hurt FE, and even result in more pollutants in the air.

2) Carbon buildup is a VERY COMMON problem in engines. And while this can be kept to a minimum with the proper fuel additives (especially the proper "detergents" in the fuel), a large fraction of the fuel out there doesn't have enough of these additives to keep most engines free of this carbon buildup.

3) The proper fuel additives are known to be able to clean out this builtup carbon. As just one example (of several out there), you can buy "Techron" concentrate (the same stuff in some higher end "brand name" gas), and add it to your own fuel. And if you have builtup carbon in your engine, adding these additives to your fuel will tend to help both the engine and FE (by clearing out the carbon, that is preventing the engine from working as well as it should).

4) At the same time, it is known that engine oil can't get to all parts of the engine. Therefore, having a little "lubricant" (additive) in your gas, can also help lubricate (lower friction) in parts of the engine the gas gets to but the oil doesn't.

5) BUT, if this is what is going on, than a noticeable fraction of the benefit will continue AFTER the additive is no longer used (as one main purpose of the additive was to clean out the engine, so it was again working as a properly tuned engine should). Which means that an A-B-A test of the additive would show that much of the benefit remains AFTER the additive was no longer in the gas (as it would take a while before the car engine again got polluted with carbon byproducts of combustion). But guess what? The testing done by that site showed only an A-B test, not the A-B-A test that would tell if the (small) benefit remained after the additive was no longer in the car...

NOTE: If this "miracle additive" is really a gas detergent and/or a "top head lube" it no doubt is useful. However, the question then would be benefit for cost. Because there are already a number of companies that sell decent "detergent" and/or "top head lube" additives you can add to your gas (some of them reasonably inexpensive to buy), as a way of making sure the gas you use has more additives than the few the cheap gas stations put in for you. My current personal favorite combined lube/detergent fuel additive is "FP Plus" (concentrate) from http://www.lubecontrol.com/fuel.htm , but (as I said) there are a number of products that exist in this area. So really, to be fair about this, you really have to way the cost/benefits of these various fuel additives (especially the detergents and fuel system lubes) against each other, vs just comparing a single "miracle additive" against the default case of doing nothing (and IMHO that web site's "testing" really only tested their product against the default "do nothing" case, and even there the results weren't that impressive vs the results of some of the other fuel additives out there)...

[OdieTurbo]

Originally Posted by cfg83

I think that real-world driving tests are good, but in this situation, we want to eliminate as many variables as possible.

CarloSW2

Well said. Mr. ecocleanfuel.org, time to supply some snake oil for us guys to test.

Would those who are willing to test please step forward?

[popimp]

So did anyone ever get any of this stuff? Has any sales person given anything to anybody on this site for testing?

[Hockey4mnhs]

i think he left were not dumb enough for it

[repete86]

Originally Posted by popimp

So did anyone ever get any of this stuff? Has any sales person given anything to anybody on this site for testing?

Doubt it. You know how we are on here. Guilty until proven innocent. There have been too many snakes coming on here to try to sell a product tat doesn't work.