[felix1point1]

Guess this and similar have been around for a few years but this is the first I've seen of it. Brought to my attention via spam... Go figure.... The Fuel Saver Pro http://www.xnue.biz/test.asp . I say bogus... what do you guys think? Anyone ever try one of these gadgets?

[Skivvywaver]

I'd say bogus. JC Whitney has has those fuel line clamp ons for years. If they really worked, they would be on just about every car in America.

[bhill]

Fuel Saver Pro actually decreased fuel economy in AAA study. Check this link.


http://www.kirotv.com/consumer/2220354/detail.html

[aarhus2004]

Have a son, he gave his pocket money to 8 or ten of those gizmos, this in the 80's. Without exception they are very persuasive and expensive time-wasters.

[Tadgerguy]

Unfortunately products and claims like the one made by Fuel Saver Pro affects anyone in the industry.
I can't speak for them or others like them however if we put all related products in the same box we might as well all go home and forget about technological advancement.
The only way to validate the potential of any product is through vigorous and accurate testing.
The article from the AAA test is biased at best since the test parameters are not disclosed. I believe that the intent of the test was sincere however without knowing the scope of the test the report does not paint a clear picture.

In short we must continue to keep an open mind regarding technological advancement while at the same time protecting the consumer through robust testing and limiting ridiculous claims.

Comments appreciated.

John
www.tadgergroup.com

[Stoner]

Originally posted by Tadgerguy:
Unfortunately products and claims like the one made by Fuel Saver Pro affects anyone in the industry.
I can't speak for them or others like them however if we put all related products in the same box we might as well all go home and forget about technological advancement.
The only way to validate the potential of any product is through vigorous and accurate testing.
The article from the AAA test is biased at best since the test parameters are not disclosed. I believe that the intent of the test was sincere however without knowing the scope of the test the report does not paint a clear picture.

In short we must continue to keep an open mind regarding technological advancement while at the same time protecting the consumer through robust testing and limiting ridiculous claims.

Comments appreciated.

John
www.tadgergroup.com

As far as the Tadger device goes, I would think an oem fuel injector would far outperform the minimal effect of an in line fuel device when considering turbulence.
The Tadger site refers to diesel engines.
As diesel injectors are of a high pressure nature, greater than even gasoline versions, I would think any restriction in the fuel delivery would not be a positive for efficiency or performance. Actually, I can't think of any extra restriction in any fuel system being a positive.


from http://www.tadgergroup.com/# ---(scientific explanation)

As fuel enters the Tadger, the area of fuel is decreased resulting in an increase in the fuel velocity

I've heard of surface area of a liquid, I've heard of volume of a liquid, but what is area of a liquid?

Tadger keeps referring to the benifits of fuel turbulence. I fail to see how their device can improve on the turbulence created by a correctly functioning fuel injector.

from : http://www.tadgergroup.com/independa...t_from_EC.html

the results in the charts do not appear consistant nor significant by their own description.
(see table 3,4,5)

and the dyno annalysis on a 1981 diesel engine:
http://www.tadgergroup.com/independa...a_analysis.htm

There have been a lot of improvements since 1981
Perhaps a tune up might have worked just as well?


Jack

[LibertyHound]

As Phineas Taylor Barnum (P.T. Barnum) once said: "There's a sucker born every minute"

[dai]

the only fuel saver that works
keep it tuned up and take the lead out of your foot

[Deke40]

K&N Air Filter enhances fuel economy and performance which souds like an oxymoron.

I put one on my 94 S-10 with the 4.3V6 and my average went up about 1 to 2 miles to the gallon consistantly.

Put one on my now gone 93 Lumina and saw no difference at all.

Going to put one on my Sable with the 3.0 DOHC and see.

[Stoner]

Hi Deke

K&N's are an inexpensive performance add on, but seldom much of a milage improver on a fuelinjected motor. Most new systems can monitor atmospheric pressure, manifold pressure or air mass flow along with air temp in the intake.
The computer pretty much dictates the fuel burn.
I have flashed the chip in my 98 Camero and installed a better fuel map and ignition curve .
I used a 'Hypertech' upgrade kit that is EPA legal. Dyno tests(in the auto mags) did show about a 20 hp gain and the K&N another 8.
I did see a definite improvement in power and maybe a 2 mpg improvement in town. Interstate driving was the same.
I did the upgrades for my own satisfaction not economy.
The milage improvement probably won't offset the costs.
But with the Flowmaster exhaust, it's a nice ride


smilin' Jack

[Tadgerguy]

Hi Stoner

Your comments regarding turbulence and fuel injectors are interesting. Creating a Reynolds number above 2000 in the fuel (turbulence) has nothing to do with the fuel injectors. Fuel injectors do not change the fluid dynamics per se.

There is no loss in pressure when fuel passes through the Tadger. For a better scientific explanation, considering the one posted on the Tadger site needs to be rewritten, read articles on "the continuity equation" and "the Bernoulli Principle"

The only proof is to complete your own dyno emission tests yourself. We have completed hundreds and they all can't be wrong.

John

[Stoner]

Originally posted by Tadgerguy:
Hi Stoner

Your comments regarding turbulence and fuel injectors are interesting. Creating a Reynolds number above 2000 in the fuel (turbulence) has nothing to do with the fuel injectors. Fuel injectors do not change the fluid dynamics per se.

There is no loss in pressure when fuel passes through the Tadger. For a better scientific explanation, considering the one posted on the Tadger site needs to be rewritten, read articles on "the continuity equation" and "the Bernoulli Principle"

The only proof is to complete your own dyno emission tests yourself. We have completed hundreds and they all can't be wrong.

John

Hi John,


excerpt from: http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/jag/vw...i/injpump.html

On the forward pressure stroke fuel is pressurized (to over 120 bar). At this time the Plunger barrel is connected to a particular delivery valve through the channel in the center of the plunger, and a port in the side. When pressure builds up to the delivery valve opening pressure, the valve will open and deliver high pressure fuel to the injector.

120 bar equals about 1700 psi. That's the pressure between the injection pump and injector at the time the injector blows off. I have included(below) a cutaway showing the guts of a Bosch diesel injector pump. I see at least two instances in the pathway(venturi effects) the fuel takes that might induce exactly the same result that you claim for your product.



Further, I find it difficult to believe that an impediment in the flow of the fuel stream is able to chemically change the nature of that fuel without the aid of a catalyst. A chemical analysis of the fuel might be interesting. Before it enters the pump, after it exits the pump, after it exits theTadger device and again after it exits the injector. The tests could be done with and without the Tadger device to see if there is a difference in the chemistry of the fuel as it goes thru the delivery system.

However, I saw nothing at your site at on that topic. Nor did I see more than one dyno test, and that was on a 1981 Ford Diesel Motor. Please give a link incase I missed it.

I did see again the emission tests. I notice the tests were baselined in the winter months(December) and the product testing done in perhaps warmer weather(March). Did air temperature and density have any effect on the results? The only way to know is to run all the tests under the same conditions.


(excuse me if I appear cynical of your claim, but I have seen a lifetime of similar 'milage'/'performance' enhancers, but none that I remember being of any value.) (However, I have seen a lot of duct tape used at the drag strip, )

and now to "the continuity equation" and the" Bernoulli Principle" >>>

Interesting concepts here :

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum...8.06.04.x.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/21_180.html

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node68.html




If the claim is made that a chemical change occurs thru a pressure differential (venture effect), I would think the pressure differential created by a high pressure pump against a blowoff valve(injector) would more significant than any 'necking' of the fuel line or an obstruction of a similar nature. I have circled two areas of the Bosch pump where turbulance would occur under very high pressures. Still, the greatest turbulance and pressure differential, I would think, occurs at the injector at the time of 'blow off'.
I would think with the rapid escape of fuel out the valve body, the injector could be viewed as a powerful venturi.


Jack

[Tadgerguy]

Stoner,

Thanks for your input.

The idea of testing the chemical analysis of the fuel before and after the Tadger sounds interesting. Unfortunately our customers do not care about any independent tests. They are only interested tests performed on their fleet regardless of the historical data we present. That explains the number of client result studies that we have completed.

With our real life experiences in mind, our goal has been to design and execute the most accurate and cost effective on-road testing protocol within our control and that meets our customers needs.

If you are interested in completing dyno tests for your own interests, I would consider sending you a sample gas Tadger for the test. We have local Government emission test facilities that we also use to complete testing on personal vehicles. Maybe you have similar state facilities available to you.

John

[Stoner]

Hi John,

Thanks for the offer on the gas kit..
However, the state of Ohio no longer tests emissions on 1996 or newer vehicles with OBD2. All those tests are done by scaning the onboard computer of autos.
I am out of the auto repair business and have sold all my diagnostic equipment.

On the gas kit, I'm curious what kind of results you expect with the formulated fuels and those that are are already O2 enhanced with alcohol?

BTW, are your products EPA certified in the US?


Jack

[Tadgerguy]

Stoner,

That's unfortunate about not having your diagnostic equipment any more.

The expected reductions for gas, based on testing by Jan-Cen Racing/Snap On and Novamann International labs are:

Hydrocarbons (ppm) - 40% average
Carbon Monoxide (%) - 40% average
NOx (ppm) - 10% average

Jan-Cen tested using a chassis dyno on a 1985 GM 350 while Novamann tested on 17 various autos ranging from 1984 - 1994. As far as testing is concerned I believe that any results we have generated to date show a reduction trend only. The results obtained are as unique as the engines that produced the results.

My concern regarding the testing process around our product is that there is no single standard test procedure within the industry. When we completed our testing at Environment Canada we used a chassis dyno and a UDDS cycle. There are six to eight various tests for the chassis dyno and the same number for an engine dyno. Our customers look at our historical test data and still want to test themselves. We could run 16 different dyno tests but it still would not sell a product That is why we have developed our own test methods for our customers.

As far as testing with the EPA is concerned it would be just throwing more good money after bad. They do not endorse any product, they only publicize the results. This will not help sell to private companies. We know this from experience.

Thanks again for your interest and input.

John