Fuel saver 7000-mpg...Fact or Fiction?

[mpg_maniac]

on an advertisement on this very site I noticed THIS website.
Anybody have any experience or comments on this product?

[GasSavers_DaX]

Sounds pretty bogus to me. One of the listed features on the Fuel Save 7K page is "NEW LASER ETCHED LABEL- No more sticky labels for the 7000." Sounds like they're scrounging for ideas to promote this thing with.

Based on THIS DRAWING I would say it would actually decrease gas mileage, at least on a Honda (where the majority of my knowledge lies). If you look at the drawing, the gasoline supplied to the module comes from the fuel line - I'm guessing the one supplying the rail with fuel. They claim that fuel consumption is decreased by the injectors because of this device's ability to re-inject fuel vapor mixed with light emissions. The sneaky thing they don't mention is that the ECU has NO control over the fuel pressure in the lines - the fuel pump is constantly running and returning fuel to the tank while maintaining a set rail pressure with the fuel pressure regulator. Regardless of whether or not the ECU trims fuel at the injectors, it cannot trim fuel going to this device.

Essentially all this thing does is bypass the injectors to get unmetered fuel to the combustion chamber. If their claims are correct that by vaporizing the fuel better you will see an increase in mileage, then my DPFI engine (which injects fuel further upstream than an MPFI engine) will get better mileage due to better atomization of fuel than an MPFI engine.

As always, I would consider all these things "guilty until proven innocent."

As for the place you found it, I think Matt has Google ad's that are related to Fuel Efficiency help pay for the site. He can't pick and choose the good sites from the snake oil sites.

[Matt Timion]

on top of that, reintroducing the exhaust into the fuel would create a closed exhaust system, and would most likely destroy your oxygen sensor and internals due to excessive heat.

[s2man]

Fran Giroux, over on hydrogen-boost.com, has a similar device in his kit. He reports it to have increased mileage 2.3% on one of his test vehicles. And from -5% to 25% increase on others.

The theory is, since only gaseous gasoline burns (not liquid gasoline), introducing vaporized fuel will achieve better burn rates and decrease the amount of unburned gasoline being exhausted and torched in the catalytic converter. Sure, the vapor quantity is uncontrolled, but the ECU is supposed to compensate by injecting less liquid fuel and maintaining the proper air/fuel ratio. This is also the theory behind the WAI mods. And those 200mpg carburators in the '70s.

Also check out powrehaus.com for their method of cutting helical grooves in the intake ports. They claim the grooves trap the liquid fuel along the hot intake manifold, allowing it vaporize before being ingested by the cylinder.

So, the Fuel Saver 7000 may do something beneficial, but I doubt the 15-57% increase they claim, and I'm not going to spend $170 to find out. And that's my comment.

S2man

[DracoFelis]

Originally Posted by s2man

The theory is, since only gaseous gasoline burns (not liquid gasoline), introducing vaporized fuel will achieve better burn rates and decrease the amount of unburned gasoline being exhausted and torched in the catalytic converter. Sure, the vapor quantity is uncontrolled, but the ECU is supposed to compensate by injecting less liquid fuel and maintaining the proper air/fuel ratio. This is also the theory behind the WAI mods. And those 200mpg carburators in the '70s.

Interesting analysis. I would have at first thought that the device was totally bogus. But given your analysis, it sounds like it MIGHT (not necessarily, but MIGHT) have some basis in fact.

Of course, the only way to tell for sure, is to have someone "run the experiment" (and no, I don't trust the results of the company trying to sell the thing), and see if it helps or not. And no, I'm not volunteering...

Originally Posted by s2man

So, the Fuel Saver 7000 may do something beneficial, but I doubt the 15-57% increase they claim, and I'm not going to spend $170 to find out.

I agree. I'm not even sure I trust this device to do ANYTHING useful (I put it in the "guilty until proven innocent" category, like a lot of the "snake oil" on the market). And even if this device works, it sounds like other mods (as just one example, I plan to add a cruse control to my stick-shift CRX, and modify that new cruse control so it can also "lock" at a specific throttle position) have more of a sure gain to them, than this contraption. And remember, it's $170 just for the device, but it's not totally trivial to install. So expect to add in a few $$$ for mechanic time, unless you are an avid DIY type when it comes to cars...

[DracoFelis]

Originally Posted by HEK

Two things, but first coughing and covering mouth, BS!!!!

Quite possible, as there are a lot of useless (or worse) "snake oil" devices on the market. So I'm putting this device in the "guilty until proven innocent" category.

However:

Originally Posted by HEK

If this actually worked, then the auto company executives would have installed on current vehicles at the factory and not bothered to go to Washington and lobby against improved mileage vehicles.

I'm afraid that is false. Yes, there are a lot of bogus devices on the market. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of such stuff doesn't live up to it's hype (at best), or is downright a useless fraud (at worst). But not all!

Even just the limited testing that members of this forum have done, have confirmed that there are cost-effective ways to save gas (sometimes very significant gas savings, percentage wise) that the car makers (for the most part) are NOT doing. As just one obvious example, improving car aerodynamics can have a significant effect on FE, and can often be very easy to do (sometimes even easy for "after market" mods, much less when you design the car/truck in the first place). Yet car makers continue to churn out poor aerodynamic designs (although this is very slowly changing), because they just don't care. And aerodynamics (while a big issue) is far from the only "sin" that the auto-industry makes when it comes to fuel efficiency.

So even though your line of reasoning is a popular theory, the facts show that reasoning to be false (because the industry actually avoids doing some simple, and reasonably cheap, things that would help fuel economy). So while the USA automotive industry is good at "spin doctoring" their marketing message, the real truth is that (for the most part) fuel economy is only important to them when failure to get good FE results in government fines and/or significant loss of customers for their vehicles. At all other times, the industry is happy to sell the biggest "gas guzzlers" on record, and then try to market them (at a large profit) based upon claims (some of them bogus) of "safety", "performance" (even when the consumer doesn't need that power level), etc. Just look at "Hummers" as an extreme example of this sad trend...

[Bill in Houston]

Originally Posted by DracoFelis

(because the industry actually avoids doing some simple, and reasonably cheap, things that would help fuel economy).

Like rear view mirror deletes and side skirts? Do you understand why they don't do those things? Can you separate in your mind things like that vs a simple device under the hood? Do you see how one is a tough sell from a customer acceptance standpoint, and one is a slam-dunk? Just because manufacturers don't put a big basjoos tail on every car, you can't say that they are willingly avoiding simple things that would improve FE.

[Bill in Houston]

Originally Posted by HEK

Consider the following from automakers that seems to contradict adding vapor to the intake air. Direct injection into the cylinder of liquid fuel is showing FE gains for this Mazda engine.

Even before I saw your post I was thinking that the DISI was the exact opposite of the vapor-maker 7000, or whatever the device is called. Hmm, one built in a garage, one built by dozens of brilliant engineers spending millions of dollars...

[DracoFelis]

Originally Posted by Bill in Houston

Like rear view mirror deletes and side skirts?

No, I'm not in favor of deleting mirrors, unless something better (cameras?) replaces them. As that's a safety issue.

However, wheel skirts is a great example of what should be done (as the main "down side" is that the smooth side of the car looks different than consumers have been conditioned to expect). Another very obvious mod is a belly skirt (smooth the air flow UNDER the car).

Originally Posted by Bill in Houston

Do you understand why they don't do those things?

Yes. Anything different than what they have conditioned the population to expect (in either appearance or how the car drives, even if/when the driving change are BETTER in some ways) would have to be explained to consumers, and cause the consumers to finally realize that they have been fed marketing BS over the years...

Originally Posted by Bill in Houston

Can you separate in your mind things like that vs a simple device under the hood? Do you see how one is a tough sell from a customer acceptance standpoint, and one is a slam-dunk?

You mean because the car makers have spent YEARS of aggressive marketing, trying to convince consumers what "looks good" and what is "safe" (which somehow always seemed to match the exact shapes that they were previously selling)? Yeah, I get it. They have "painted themselves into a corner", from a marketing perspective.

However, even with no desire to do things that are obviously VISIBLE (such as a modifying the shape of the rear of the car), there are still a number of aerodynamic thing they don't do. For example, how come they don't put a shutter system on the grill, that is controlled by a thermostat? That would allow the car to have a "grill block" (thereby getting the better aerodynamics) that automatically goes away (because the shutters auto-open) when the extra cooling is needed (and it wouldn't cost very much for a car maker to do)? And that's just one example of an "invisible" aerodynamic mod that would be reasonably cheap to make...

Originally Posted by Bill in Houston

Just because manufacturers don't put a big basjoos tail on every car, you can't say that they are willingly avoiding simple things that would improve FE.

I'm not saying car makers are actively avoiding FE. I'm sure they would be OK with better FE (if only as a selling point) if it cost them $0.00 to do, and they didn't have to explain how the car looked or drove any different (even if the drive and/or look was superior to before, they don't want to do anything to explain it to consumers).

However, I am making the lessor statement that many auto-makers (especially the US auto-makers) don't have FE as any sort of priority at all. i.e. the US auto industry gives lip service to FE, but then fails to follow through. And even when devices (or simple mods) might help, they usually don't do them if it costs anything significant to do. i.e. the industry is infamous for wanting to shave $5 off the cost of building the vehicle, even if/when that "money saving" change ultimately costs the consumer many times over in higher fuel requirements and/or higher maintenance costs (i.e. it's all about the short term profits, not long term issues)...

[Bill in Houston]

Originally Posted by DracoFelis

auto industry gives lip service to FE, but then fails to follow through.

Heh heh. And THAT'S what the CAFE standards are for, huh? It will be interesting to see the effect the new standards have.