Ethos anyone? this **** seems legit

A General Discussion forum for cars and other topics, and a great place to introduce yourself if you are new to NICO!
User avatar
SketchyRollin564
Posts: 3907
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 4:06 pm
Car: SR hatchback in the werks

Post

http://www.mygassaver.net/index.htm

its a long *** read but its interesting enough to read the whole thing

**** seems legit too

how does that compare to seafoam (even though its different)

anyone used it?


User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

It seems legit?

What part seems legit?

The cheesy cheap default-template website design? The fact that they go on for 17 years about what they claim the product will do without ever discussing how it works or even what it is? Or the fact that they describe the fuel delivery/ignition process COMPLETELY wrong? I can assure you, your fuel injectors are NOT injecting fuel vapor into anything. It's ATOMIZED. It is NOT vapor. There may be fuel vapor in your gas tank but it's not beneficial and certainly not desirable anywhere past the tank.Or is it the part where they have octane ratings completely backward? LOWER octane fuel has a HIGHER energy content, NOT the other way around! Premium gas isn't "more effective." It's simply better suited to high-compression engines.

That link contains phenomenal amounts of BS, and I'm only 1/5 of the way down the page.

User avatar
ADDirishboy
Posts: 13079
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:08 am
Car: 2008 Nissan Titan Pro4x
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Contact:

Post


User avatar
Red coupe
Posts: 12216
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:51 pm
Car: 92 Nissan 240sx Coupe

Post

MinisterofDOOM wrote:It seems legit?

What part seems legit?

The cheesy cheap default-template website design? The fact that they go on for 17 years about what they claim the product will do without ever discussing how it works or even what it is? Or the fact that they describe the fuel delivery/ignition process COMPLETELY wrong? I can assure you, your fuel injectors are NOT injecting fuel vapor into anything. It's ATOMIZED. It is NOT vapor. There may be fuel vapor in your gas tank but it's not beneficial and certainly not desirable anywhere past the tank.Or is it the part where they have octane ratings completely backward? LOWER octane fuel has a HIGHER energy content, NOT the other way around! Premium gas isn't "more effective." It's simply better suited to high-compression engines.

That link contains phenomenal amounts of BS, and I'm only 1/5 of the way down the page.
Meh, saying vapor isn't too far off of atomized...Care to discribe the difference? Gasoline is more then a single atom, and when its vaporized its in a gas form where single molecule's are floating around...

Your right about the rest of it though. I've had to much to drink to be interested in reading it but I'm definitely not leaping for the credit card.

If nothing else fall back on the good old logic of if this is so effective, why is it some obscure product on the internet?

If there was really something out there giving a dramatic increase in fuel efficiency wouldn't it be a little more popular? At least you wouldn't have to dig too hard for information on it that isn't from its manufacturer.

It also claims less emissions...As a rule of thumb I am completely unwilling to believe anything can create a decent gain in fuel economy with out also increasing emmisions or effecting reliability. With the pressure on manufacturers if it works they would use it unless it will pollute more or decrease reliability.

"The fuel companies" may fight off additives that would give greater milage, but each of the individual company adds its own additives anyways...If one of them could offer gas that would give you greater mileage they could destroy their competitors and they would do so.

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

Red coupe wrote:Meh, saying vapor isn't too far off of atomized...Care to discribe the difference? Gasoline is more then a single atom, and when its vaporized its in a gas form where single molecule's are floating around...
Gasoline vapor is a gas. Atomized gasoline is not a gas.

To average people it reads the same. But if you're trying to describe a scientific process, you're best using the right words in the right places. I'd expect someone trying to convince a skeptical audience to be as accurate as possible.

User avatar
Red coupe
Posts: 12216
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:51 pm
Car: 92 Nissan 240sx Coupe

Post

MinisterofDOOM wrote:
Gasoline vapor is a gas. Atomized gasoline is not a gas.

To average people it reads the same. But if you're trying to describe a scientific process, you're best using the right words in the right places. I'd expect someone trying to convince a skeptical audience to be as accurate as possible.
ehhh, companies that go too far into focusing on big sciency words are likely full of **** too. Most people wont understand so its usually just an attempt to sound like they must be right, they know bigger words then me... :D

Oh well, bottom line:

No magic potions


Return to “General Chat”