HAI Experiment

[GasSavers_NovaResource]

Originally Posted by BEEF

his test is total BS?

I don't see you doing any testing. it is easy to discredit someone elses efforts. where are yours? he is at least doing something.

the whole "not good enough" thing is easy to say when you have done nothing. if you don't agree with his results, do one yourself. disprove him the scientific way, not just by saying it's BS.

it is nice to see our newer members contributing so much

More good reading:
http://www.nextautos.com/auto-shows/...inject-engine/

Mazda has announced its new lineup of direct-injection engines, called the DISI (direct injection spark ignition). The announcement of the performance enhancing, fuel conscious engines comes only weeks after Ford?s EcoBoost announcement.

The I-4 DISI engine seeks to achieve a 15-20 percent improvement in performance and a 20 percent increase in fuel economy over Mazda?s 2.0L engines.

According to the press release, the DISI engine will reduce energy loss and improve thermal efficiency with a variety of technological engineering. This includes cooling the air intake temperature and reshaping the combustion chamber.

Mazda also noted that they are looking to produce direct-injection diesel turbo engine technology that can improve the fuel economy and emissions by 10 percent as well.

http://www.passagemaker-digital.com/.../200903/?pg=81

Related to air filter performance is the temparature of the air being consumed by the engine. Warm air is thinner or less dense than cool air, and thinner air burns less efficiently. Therefore, it is desirable to keep the air inlet temperature to a minimum.

[Philip1]

OK what are you doing to improve your milage? OH RIGHT NOTHIING you are barely beating EPA ratings. You obviously have no intention of trying anything and you want us to join you. The truth of the matter is IF automakers gave two damns about milage I would be getting 50mpg out of the car with no mods. so get off your high horse and do something rather than just nay saying everyone here or go away in general. I am tired of arguing with a person who has no intention to try anything so I will not continue arguing with a troll.

[dkjones96]

Novaresource's information correlates with what I saw in my gaslog.

However, I will run with the snorkel installed again for a few tanks then remove it again to see if it was just a fluke.

[GasSavers_maximilian]

There is possibly some more info we can use. Do you have any data for multiple identical runs with the same hardware configuration (either with or without WAI, doesn't matter), phillip1? I'm not asking you to run out and drive more, but if you do have any data like that we could maybe get a feel for what the natural variability is between one run and the next.

Realistically, that won't be especially definitive either, since you'd need quite a few runs to be statistically significant. But it's better than nothing. While I do admit such high improvements do feel a little "too good to be true", my uncertainty formula parameter estimates take it into account.

[dkjones96]

If we still had our dyno here I'd be happy to run these tests but we don't.

While people here don't seem to agree with me on this for some reason, I think OBD2 is the BEST way to get actual numbers on fuel usage. The computer is injecting a metered amount of fuel into the engine and unless you have leaky or clogged injectors it should be WAY more accurate than tank filling. If you do have leaky or clogged injectors it would still be more precise to use the computer. It might think it's needing to inject 10% more fuel than necessary but it'll always assume 10% until the problem is fixed.

The pumps, I don't know about the pumps but I imagine they aren't very accurate or precise which is fine with me as that isn't what they were really intended to be. It's just a safety cutoff, not a tool for measurement.

[GasSavers_NovaResource]

Post deleted due to inappropriate content

[GasSavers_NovaResource]

Originally Posted by dkjones96

Novaresource's information correlates with what I saw in my gaslog.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by dkjones96

The pumps, I don't know about the pumps but I imagine they aren't very accurate or precise which is fine with me as that isn't what they were really intended to be. It's just a safety cutoff, not a tool for measurement.

That's my main problem with philips test.

[GasSavers_maximilian]

Originally Posted by dkjones96

It's just a safety cutoff, not a tool for measurement.

I'm with you there. It's the people reporting consistently raised averages over time that I wonder about.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by maximilian

While I do admit such high improvements do feel a little "too good to be true", my uncertainty formula parameter estimates take it into account.

Keep in mind that 10mpg difference between 32mpg and 42mpg isn't really that huge a difference. If he went from 9mpg to 12mpg, it wouldn't sound as big but it would be just as large of a difference.

MPG (or any Distance Per Volume) is an inherently difficult scale to use sometimes. A 10mpg improvement might save someone $50/week when starting with low MPG, or $5/week when starting with high MPG. Ok, I can't find any of my old posts on it, so I have to do it again...

Scenario: 200 miles per week, $2 per gallon
10mpg: 20 gal, $40
12mpg: 16.6 gal, $33
15mpg: 13.3 gal, $26 -- a 3mpg improvement produces the same dollar result as the previous 2mpg improvement
20mpg: 10 gal, $20 -- the 5mpg improvement between 10 and 15 produced a $14 savings, but the 5mpg improvement between 15 and 20 produced a measly $6 savings
30mpg: 6.6 gal, $13 -- the 10mpg improvement between 10 and 20 produced a $20 savings, but the 10mpg improvement between 20 and 30 produced only $7 savings
40mpg: 5 gal, $10 -- Another 10mpg saves only an additional $3
50mpg: 4 gal, $8 -- Only an additional $2
60mpg: 3.3 gal, $6.66 -- only an additional $1.34

So, jumping from 30mpg to 40mpg only saves 1.6 gallons over the course of 200 miles, vs. jumping from 10mpg to 20mpg which saves 10 gallons.

It's times like these where l/100km makes more sense, due to the direct linear comparison. IMO, ml/km would make more sense to me, no need to talk about 100s of anything.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by dkjones96

While people here don't seem to agree with me on this for some reason, I think OBD2 is the BEST way to get actual numbers on fuel usage. The computer is injecting a metered amount of fuel into the engine and unless you have leaky or clogged injectors it should be WAY more accurate than tank filling.

That would make sense if OBD2 reported fuel rate or fuel injector duty cycle or something like that, but it does not.