Save up to 35% on any fuel... at any pump .... anywhere!

[kickflipjr]

I love the butt dyno.

[n0rt0npr0]

yep I'll start a new thread if and when the testing starts

Any clue as to how many tanks would be enough data to swing one way or the other on this?

And how could I minimize or delete the "placebo" effect? Would one way of doing that be electronicly limiting my rpm?

[JanGeo]

ScanGauge on the same stretch of highway at the same speed pretty much shows what is going on in my xB. If the change is going to be cost effective it has to be big enough to be noticed.

[Matt Timion]

Originally Posted by n0rt0npr0

yep I'll start a new thread if and when the testing starts

Any clue as to how many tanks would be enough data to swing one way or the other on this?

And how could I minimize or delete the "placebo" effect? Would one way of doing that be electronicly limiting my rpm?

Didn't you say they claim it takes 4 tanks to realize the effects? 4 tanks would definately be enough data. I would record as much as you could for each tank though, including miles driven, air temp (if possible) etc.

The only way to eliminate the placebo effect is to have you do the same experiment twice, once with the right pill and once with a pill that doesn't do anything. Of course, you couldn't know which pill was which. Maybe I can get the pills and either send you vitamins or the gas pills.

If you keep it strictly controlled I don't think you'll have to worry about placebo.

It might be best to ask someone to put it in your tank when you don't know, only to find out afterwards which tanks had the pill in it, but that's a lot of work too.

[krousdb]

Originally Posted by Matt Timion

Didn't you say they claim it takes 4 tanks to realize the effects? 4 tanks would definately be enough data. I would record as much as you could for each tank though, including miles driven, air temp (if possible) etc.

The only way to eliminate the placebo effect is to have you do the same experiment twice, once with the right pill and once with a pill that doesn't do anything. Of course, you couldn't know which pill was which. Maybe I can get the pills and either send you vitamins or the gas pills.

If you keep it strictly controlled I don't think you'll have to worry about placebo.

It might be best to ask someone to put it in your tank when you don't know, only to find out afterwards which tanks had the pill in it, but that's a lot of work too.

I think the claim means that you need to use it for 4 tanks before you will even begin noticing the difference, similar to acetone where you won't notice it until the second or third tank. I guess that really what has me skeptical about this. Why would it take 4 tanks before you notice a difference?

Winter, at least where I live, IMHO is the worst time to do long term testing like this because cold temps, strong winds and driving through snow will have a huge effect on your mileage. If you dont experience the same weather during a 4 tanks, temps, wind, snow, etc, your data can be questioned, especially if your 4th tank happens during the spring thaw and you see a 5% increase. Could you draw a conclusion from that? Heck no. You just have to do the test again. Since conditions in the summer, at least where I live, are more consistent from week to week and the temperature range say 70-95F doesn't have much effect on MPG unless you use AC. So I recommend waiting until summer to do these tests or have someone in a warmer climate do the testing. Also you should not AC during the tests.

[GasSavers_DaX]

Originally Posted by Matt Timion

Maybe I can get the pills and either send you vitamins or the gas pills.

LoL, what if this miracle gas pill is really just like a Centrum or something like that. "Centrum Silver, from A to 50 mpg"

[rh77]

Originally Posted by DaX

"Centrum Silver, from A to 50 mpg"

LOL! Where do you get this stuff?

Seriously, I wouldn't spend the money on it. It's a ploy and the guy hasn't been back to defend his product.

RH77

*yeah another edit -- I need to read the whole post :-P *

If it totally debunks this stuff and we can get it out there on the 'Net, then it may be worth it.

[n0rt0npr0]

I question the same 4 tank thing too and all I can come up with is that thats how long it took them in testing on a few vehicles to dissolve the pill(even tho they say like a couple hours is how long the pill takes to dissolve). This stuff comes in powder too.

Preliminarily, I have ranked the most calm months in my area for 2005. These 6 months had the smallest temp spread:

1) August 37.4 | 1.61
2) December 38.6 | 1.80
3) July 39.8 | 2.18
4) February 41.8 | 2.46
5) June 46 | 0.75
6) September 54.7 | 0.94

I'm not going to annalyze this, I'm just throwing it out there as some rough data. The second part is my personal mpg spread during those months. Since krousdb also mentioned wind and precipitation, I will edit this once more with those values on the 15th... (could these values corrolate with each other?)

But I would really like to know if anyone *thinks* that an electronic RPM limiter would be of any benefit or would not be a benefit to mpg testing?

[krousdb]

Originally Posted by n0rt0npr0

But I would really like to know if anyone *thinks* that an electronic RPM limiter would be of any benefit or would not be a benefit to mpg testing?

I really don't think a rev limiter would help me personally. I have my trip down to a science, what rpm to shift at, what vacuum to hold while accelerating or hill climbing. I can almost do it blindfolded, although I think that would be illegal. :-) There are so many other things that will effect the tank data such as temps, rain, snow, and energy lost to braking, that we might want to look at other areas to control. Maybe counting stoplights and idle time.

Or maybe we should take a different approach. Instead of trying to analyze the first four tanks, when the manufacturer says there may not be a difference anyway, lets just focus on a shorter repeatable test. We would run a control test under a certain set of environmental conditions and record the data with a scan gauge or the car's computer display. Then put in the pills, run 4 tanks through and on the 5th tank, duplicate the control test under the same environmental conditions. Im not a statistician, but a 50+ mile test, back and forth to negate wind and elevation changes should give us solid evidence if these pills work. I guess the same would work with acetone but you only need to run 2 tanks through.

[Matt Timion]

Originally Posted by krousdb

Or maybe we should take a different approach. Instead of trying to analyze the first four tanks, when the manufacturer says there may not be a difference anyway, lets just focus on a shorter repeatable test. We would run a control test under a certain set of environmental conditions and record the data with a scan gauge or the car's computer display. Then put in the pills, run 4 tanks through and on the 5th tank, duplicate the control test under the same environmental conditions. Im not a statistician, but a 50+ mile test, back and forth to negate wind and elevation changes should give us solid evidence if these pills work. I guess the same would work with acetone but you only need to run 2 tanks through.

This sounds very viable to me. A member of our forum, also from Salt Lake City, named Ernie Rogers modified his vw bug to decrease aerodynamic drag. He drives from Salt Lake City, UT to Wendover, NV as his testing strip. It's flat and it's about 150 miles in each direction (I think). When I get my new engine installed I'm going to start making the same trips as him for testing purposes.

Anyway, you're right about the testing. If the manufacturer says 4 tanks, we should give it four tanks. Using scangauge as a test is also an amazing benefit for obd2 cars. You can get instant feedback on the benefits of modifications.

Hopefully the SuperMID-M1 will prove to be useful to obd0 and obd1 cars.