Gimmic or Truth?

A General Discussion forum for cars and other topics, and a great place to introduce yourself if you are new to NICO!
User avatar
p00t
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 2:42 pm

Post

http://www.gg7j.org/

Is the theory behind this correct?

From reading the site, it looks like it uses the engines vibrations to create higher frequency vibrations which are directed at the fuel line. This high frequency vibration helps break up long hydrocarbon chains and help the fuel burn more completely.

I then went to see how much it was, expecting it to be a $10 POS, its 90 bucks! No way they can sell a non-functioning product for that much.

Then I thought about how they always mentioned low octane fuel and older cars in the FAQ. Could decent results only come from low quality fuel? For example, I almost always use mobil gas because its among the best out there detergent and quality-wise. Would hydrocarbon "clumping" only be present in low quality fuel, which would make this product useless for me?

Ive got money to waste on other things at the moment, im just very curious.


Russ3Z
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:32 pm
Car: 300ZX

Post

Its merely another gimmick that does nothing, much like that Tornado air swirler or whatever.If clamping 2 neodymium magnets around the fuel line could actually increase gas mileage, every automaker would have done it by now.

Don't waste your time or money on this one.

MrFox
Posts: 323
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:37 pm

Post

Their testing also makes no sense. 450 & 870 RPM? Nor did they state if they did the comparasions under controlled conditions. I'm guessing cold engine for the first test, vs hot engine for the second test is how they got the data they wanted.

cosmo
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 1:21 pm

Post

I heard about Top Fuel having something like this. It was in Super Street not that long ago, and was claiming like 5hp and better gas mileage.

So maybe it's not a gimmick?

Q45tech
Moderator
Posts: 14296
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl

Post

"No way they can sell a non-functioning product for that much"

What about pharmaceuticals/drugs? Most [many] of them do very little.15% better than a placebo is good enough to get FDA approval!

Easy to get 10-20% fuel improvement, you just cannot meet emission standards while doing it!

Eswift
Posts: 1194
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:48 pm
Car: should be obvious enough

Post

instead of paying 90 dollars, send a letter your local oil tycoon and tell him to throw those long chains in the diesel batch and improve our inferior diesel fuel.

Then, wait another decade until the US has passenger car diesel engines as good as Europe has today, and you will save more than 5% on your gas mileage forever after.

Q45tech
Moderator
Posts: 14296
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl

Post

Pretty much all gasoline [except oxygenated and ethanolized] has the same BTU [+-2%] and it takes the same mount to generate a HP.

The problem with ODB engines is that the system is designed to keep cruise at 14.7 AF [the optimum for cats]..........no matter what you do the system will correct itself.........to provide no excess oxygen in the exhaust prior to the first cat.

Other than designing new O2 sensors, which have a leaner transition point or jeeping the software to accept a leaner cruise, you are stuck with flowing x amount of fuel for y rpm cruise.

The OBD software has a +-20% trim [at cruise] so, if you could fool the ecu you could improve the mileage by 20% if the cats didn't melt or you didn't burn the exhaust valves.

Unfortunately the premium grade motor octane available will knock at much leaner than 6-7% [say 15.7 A/F].

With the CAFE monetary penalties the manufacturers pay, if they could improve mileage by JUST 1 mpg they would gladly spend $250 on changes to each V8 car.

Oxygenated fuels make matters worse as they fool the O2 sensors into to enriching the mixture....that coupled with lower BTU ends up cost you 5% in poorer fuel economy.

http://www.swri.edu/3pubs/IRD1999/08910 ... 003/o2.htm

User avatar
nomuken
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat May 03, 2003 5:12 pm

Post

"This amazing, revolutionary device..." read no more :D - Gimmic

Nathan
Posts: 5629
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:43 am

Post

What about the alcohol in the fuel to pass emissions idea? It seems like a good theory to me but I've heard it wasn't true.


Return to “General Chat”