Community Forums

Lindsay Richards · 02-23-2014, 10:56 AM

A devise that can help you be more aware of you driving procedures in called the ScanGuage. It comes in gas or diesel and hooks to your engine light test port. It has about 25 gauges and logs that will constantly remind you how you are driving. I find it very helpful, Correct driving can add at least 20% to your milage if you are a careless driver now.

cannon man · 02-23-2014, 03:27 PM

Fuel Saver Device - Diesel & Gasoline Engines

94-Newmar · 02-23-2014, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannon man

Fuel Saver Device - Diesel & Gasoline Engines

hahahahaa Ok, this one is even more hokey than the one I posted about above. If you believe their air density BS, then have a look at how they misspelled "Cummins" - it's NOT Cummings!!

Snake oil, smoke and mirrors. But hey, some idiot is buying this BS to keep places like that in business...

Fred1609 · 02-23-2014, 03:47 PM

Again I don't believe in the fuel saving devices out there.....If there were such a thing we would have heard folks hollering about how great they are and they would outshine everything on the stock exchange.....The only thing that I think has changed from the 70s is that this hucksters now claim that it will save you 13 percent rather than the claims of 100 mph that used to be made back in the 70s....anybody remember that breather thing that replaced your air filter? and the vortex of air would push into your carb adding incredible gas mileage.....Its all the same thing....its just a quieter message with less outlandish claims.....but like that fuel saver device add says....."your results may vary"...yeah no kidding....I'd be more honest selling you a sail to mount on the roof of your rig.....and yet we know that folks get sucked into these things all the time....

GaryKD · 02-23-2014, 05:33 PM

Thanks cannon man,
I was excited when I saw the link. However, my excitement turned to disappointment when I went to the web site. This has to be the dumbest web site on the planet. However, I digress.

Unlike other members, without more information about the product I can make no comment. Since 1978 I have tried several fuel saving products. Some of them work, some do not work. Some of them work very well. For the soap box posters, I provide one example.

In the late 70s or earlier 80s I was reading the latest issue of Motorhome Magazine. The guy who wrote the technical column mentioned he had tested a fuel saving device. The test found no value in the device. When returning it to the company they were surprised that the test coach had not received an increase in fuel economy. The author was asked where the device was when the "before" mileage was driven. The answer was in a basement compartment. Was the basement compartment near the fuel tank? The answer was yes. The company spokesperson mentioned the device didn't actually need to be installed in the fuel line, but just near it. Whoa, this perked up my ears. The test was done again. This time the coach did have a fuel mileage increase. The increase was enough for me to purchase the device. At that time I had a Winnebago Brave, 26' long, with a Dodge 440 gas engine. The coach was purchased new. I had kept meticulous mileage records. I had also installed a 25 gallon auxiliary fuel tank up front to compliment the 50 gallon tank in the back of the coach.

The device was a solid piece of aluminum, about a foot long, with a hole drilled through the middle. The ends of the hole were threaded so fittings that matched my fuel line could be installed. To ensure as valid of a test as possible could be done, I installed the device on the fuel line for the auxiliary fuel tank. Back in those days one needed to manually switch tanks with a switch on the dash.

I ran the coach this way for over a year. The test confirmed a significant mileage increase when using the auxiliary tank fuel than when using the main tank fuel. Before the nay sayers jump all over this as best I remember I was getting an average of 6.8 to 7.8 MPG without the device and over 9 MPG with the device. After the test I installed the device so fuel from both tanks would pass through it and the mileage remained at over 9 MPG.
My criteria for gas saving devices is they:
1. must be passive
2. must not change engine or emission specs
3. must be able to DIY the install
4. must be able to remove the device
Moved this device to another coach and it did nothing to improve the fuel economy.

I have had several fuel saving devices. Some work and some do not work. Some work on one coach and not on another coach. For me, fuel saving devices are like Quantum Mechanics (for you physics majors). It is spooky.

Times have changed. From the mechanical engines of the 70s to the electronically controlled engines we have today. Would this change the performance of the fuel saving devices? I do not know. What I do know is I am using a fuel saving product (posted several times on iRV2) in my current coach. The first use of the product surpassed the manufactures claims. I have about 5 years with this product and the savings remain the same as the first day of use. My coach was getting 6.7 to 7.2 MPG without the product. The coach now gets 7.5 to 8.5 MPG with the product.

My point of this is for those who post from the pulpit (or soap box) may want to consider not be so closed minded.

To Lindsay Richards, I do have a ScanGauge installed in the coach (and in the toad too).

BFlinn181 · 02-23-2014, 05:57 PM

I think that if you believe any of this technology hasn't been tried and rejected by the major engine manufacturers, you are dreaming. They spend millions in research to shave a fraction of a percentage in MPG efficiency. palehorse89 is correct, the only fuel savings comes from a lighter foot on the loud pedal. If you believe in these claims of secret technology to improve MPG without causing higher emissions or engine harm, well, I know a Nigerian Prince that wants help in sneaking millions out of his country.....

94-Newmar · 02-23-2014, 05:57 PM

GaryKD, with all due respect, as you are a highly respected member of IRV2, however, this discussion of fuel savings products actually working is nothing but drivel. Threaded aluminum tubes that simply need to be near the fuel line? Heh. If there was ever any questions about the worthiness of any of these products then one must follow the money.

If any of these devices honestly worked to any degree then don't you think the automakers themselves would install or implement the technology to increase their MPG advertisements? These companies spend billions of dollars in research and development to stay with the ever changing and increasing EPA fuel mileage requirements - in fact it's one of their largest expenses in designing a new engine.

The FTC has statements along with several individual States protection agencies websites warning people of this type of scam. None of these products work.. none of them. I suggest any fuel mileage increase you're seeing is perhaps in paying closer attention to how you drive. I call this the placebo effect.

wa8yxm · 02-23-2014, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94-Newmar

hahahahaa Ok, this one is even more hokey than the one I posted about above. If you believe their air density BS, then have a look at how they misspelled "Cummins" - it's NOT Cummings!!

Snake oil, smoke and mirrors. But hey, some idiot is buying this BS to keep places like that in business...

No no, not air density, FUEL density "More fuel molecules means faster and more complete burning of fuel" (not an exact quote.

MORE fuel per bang = More MPG.. I do not think so. If it was that simple the programmers who set up the ECC would have programmed it that way at the factory. Sounds to me like this turkey would do the exact opposite of what it claims to do.

So.. I fully agree with the snake oil statement.

Something to consider... This is in two parts: The government has mandated improved fuel economy, thus the engineers and programmers are doing everything they can to eek out every erg of energy they can out of the fuel we buy, contaminated though said fuel may be. (Most gasoline sold here today is contaminated with alcohol 10%)

IF it were THAT EASY, Detroit would be factory installing.

HOWEVER, that said.. Some minor improvements are sometimes possible.. There are two systems which I recommend, Banks and Ultra Power. and even that is recommended with caution.. The banks system will very likely never save you enough to cover its cost.. The UP might. but that's iffy.

jamesrxx951 · 02-23-2014, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wa8yxm

No no, not air density, FUEL density "More fuel molecules means faster and more complete burning of fuel" (not an exact quote.

MORE fuel per bang = More MPG.. I do not think so. If it was that simple the programmers who set up the ECC would have programmed it that way at the factory. Sounds to me like this turkey would do the exact opposite of what it claims to do.

So.. I fully agree with the snake oil statement.

Something to consider... This is in two parts: The government has mandated improved fuel economy, thus the engineers and programmers are doing everything they can to eek out every erg of energy they can out of the fuel we buy, contaminated though said fuel may be. (Most gasoline sold here today is contaminated with alcohol 10%)

IF it were THAT EASY, Detroit would be factory installing.

HOWEVER, that said.. Some minor improvements are sometimes possible.. There are two systems which I recommend, Banks and Ultra Power. and even that is recommended with caution.. The banks system will very likely never save you enough to cover its cost.. The UP might. but that's iffy.

Agreed, the newer diesel injectors atomize the fuel into smaller parts for better combustion and more complete burning. They also can inject multiple fuel burst within a single combustion cycle and this has proven to help with engine noise, emissions, and better use of the fuel. I also found it funny that they claimed to make the fuel more dense and it increased MPG.

GaryKD · 02-24-2014, 07:31 AM

Hi 94-Newmar,
We can agree to disagree.

If you have personal experience with fuel saving devices, that would be good to share. Whenever reading posts, it is always best to take with a grain of salt, the members who have no experience but post from general knowledge and hearsay.

I am a retired engineer. While not scientific quality, the tests I run are the very best one can do. As to your "suggestion" that I drive differently, that will not work with me. On all the fuel saving devices, I have purchased, the tests were run for many months and sometime for over a year. My first coach was in 1978. The components of my coach driving have not changed since that time.

Tests conducted by the government and testing laboratories are in sterile conditions, perfectly manufactured parts and under a set of criteria the public is not allowed to see. As to those basing their posts on manufacturers determined squeeze out every MPG possible, ha. I worked for a very large multi-national company. Let me assure everyone, there are politics you would not believe behind the scenes thwarting many engineering advancements. For those who believe any government agency, without question, the Nigerian Prince mentioned in a previous post is a good candidate for your money.

Because of my personal experience, over many years and with quite a few fuel saving devices, I stand by my post. I especially stand by the last sentence of the post.

"My point of this is for those who post from the pulpit (or soap box) may want to consider not be so closed minded."

I suggest the "drivel" in this thread comes from members without personal experience, no personal testing, believing government agencies and manufacturers without question and being part of the mob posting from their view from the pulpit.

gap23 · 02-24-2014, 07:53 AM

I have tried magnets back in the 80’s and had no effect I added a K&N air filter last year to no effect. I no longer try to save fuel, just dollars. I have a bi/fuel F150, The price of Natural Gas “CNG” changes depending on where in the country you are. The lowest price I have had in the last two years was $.78 per gallon equivalent in OK. The highest I paid was $2.99 In CA. In riverside CA it’s only $1.48 if you are interested, you can search CNG prices near you. This is not propane. I have been very happy with it and it is also better for the environment. And will make my F150 last longer. If interested check it out.

jackfish · 02-24-2014, 09:13 AM

I like that on the order page they expect you to give them your credit card information without divulging the cost of the thing!

**TonyDi** · 02-24-2014, 09:25 AM

This is not the first, nor will it be the last "fuel saving device" you will see. If this worked it would be headline news. Not an ad in the back of a magazine. I had a friend years ago that responded to an ad for a bug killer. Guaranteed to kill any bug. He sent in his $5 and they sent him a brick. Caveat Emptor!!

Fred1609 · 02-24-2014, 09:45 AM

We came home one day and found a rectangular unit plugged into one of our wall sockets. I asked my 87 year old father inlaw, who lives with us, what this was. He replied that he bought it and it was going to save money on energy. This man was an aeronautical engineer. I didn't respond but months later I remarked that our energy bill hadn't changed. The "thing" was quietly removed. I would have loved to have ripped that thing apart to look at it. The point is if anyone had a device that saved energy they would still be using it....there's a lot of folks out there that say "I remembers this device a few years ago".....or "I heard about this thing in New Mexico"......If anything out there even saved 10 percent it would make the front page of every scientific journal in North America....ok I'm exaggerating but you get the point. There is no golden BB....BUT if one is invented it will be on everyones lips not just late night cable TV ads.