Another fuel saver for the critics

[boojak87]

Howdy all. Just thought i'd play with some emotions again and see if anyone's given this fuel saver a go.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI...Track=true&ssPageName=VIP:watchlink:middle:au

Read all the feedback comments, not one negative, all pretty certain that it works and is effective. Just wanted to know if anyone had tested it or in the process of testing it?

Cheers,
Boojakz.

 

[kasem]

alot of BIG words in there!!!
i think a science geek is needed...

 

[shumway]

no what u need is the ebayers book to bull****ery,to work out what it all means,i dont believe itll work

 

[Spaced]

no what u need is the ebayers book to bull****ery,to work out what it all means,i dont believe itll work

but if it does could fix that 38L / 100k problem you have

 

[ephect]

hrmmm

well really, if thing really worked, and its that cheap, and it saves u that much in fuel economy.. why dont u find them on your new cars from the factory today?


EDIT: lmao @ Spaced!

 

[Spaced]

Only one two ways to save on fuel usage, use it less or drive like a granny

 

[quiksilv3r]

Hahaha that explanation cracked me up - he obviously hasn't worked with fuel for very long

ONR - Octane Number Requirement?? Office of Naval Research is all that comes to mind when someone says ONR to me. Maybe he meant RON (Research Octane Number).

8-25% fuel reduction? So he can make my Blown 6 Statesman use 6 to 7.36L/100km highway driving by putting some plastic around a section of fuel line? Awesome.

70% of emissions reduced? Hell I'll throw away my cat now - wont be needing that anymore

From what I can gather from his gibberish in the explanation -he is stating that this piece of plastic will break the bonds between the fuel molecules, which will make them finer and will burn better. He also says that electrons will be released. To me this says that this "device" will be in fact changing the molecular structure of the fuel to something that will be far less stable (not balanced properly) which will leave the smaller "fuel particles" to burn quicker (which would increase detonation and we all know what happens with major pinging) and also a byproduct (the released molecules) that would go who-knows where.

Someone with far more chemistry experience can tell me if what I said wasn't spot on as I have only studied chem very briefly at uni, but that's what I can gather.

It's all crap - same with every other magic super extreme atomising volumiser that people try to flog off for complete suckers out there. There is a reason why large mannufacturers don't bring out cars - even though for $36 there is gains to eb had that their multi-million dollar research cannot improve on.

 

[kopper69]

It does sound like another con. They all sound the same. Same claims, different product. A product that works can be proven easily. Joining big words and numbers to make a sentence does not make theory. As with all the others, some of the claims are just so far fetched its not funny. Still, he is willing to offer a money back guarantee. I am tempted to try it and see for the sake of everyone here. I measure my exact fuel usage each week and have done so for over a year now, recording every week. I might give it a go and if it cant improve my fuel economy, it can go straight back.

 

[hako]

It does sound like another con. They all sound the same. Same claims, different product. I am tempted to try it and see for the sake of everyone here. I measure my exact fuel usage each week and have done so for over a year now, recording every week. I might give it a go and if it cant improve my fuel economy, it can go straight back.

kopper69 - I'm astounded - I thought that you would have read the fine print:

" Buy and try it. If you are not satisfied with it, you can return it to us for a full refund (excluding postage & handling fee)."

That means you pay postage and handling fee .....$8.50 both ways. And possibly you may need to return the unit to the manufacturer in INDIA for a refund.

So initially you pay $36 + $8.50 postage for the unit ....it doesn't work so you return it....you pay return post $8.50. All up you have spent $53 and hope to get $36 back. Thats if they answer your letters.
But it would be a noble gesture.

 

[kopper69]

Yeah I know. But I wouldnt give him positive feedback unless

A) The thing actually worked
B) He gave me the refund if I wasnt happy with it

If not, I will just leave bad feedback, which, Im guessing, he will really want to avoid.

Just one thing though, one his page he lists:

http://s52.photobucket.com/albums/g35/startecfir/?action=view&current=removeprotectivefoam.jpg

Is that saying that you have to remove any rubber insulation from fuel/air lines?

I cant see exactly what this little thing is trying to do, how is it applying IR light without power? Actually I might email him now.

Postage and handling isnt too bad. What some ebay sellers do is make postage $50, and sell the item for $0.99. Some people dont take note of the postage, and think they are getting a bargan, some people say, well I would pay $50 for this item anyway. The thing being ofcourse, if you want to return the item, the seller will refund you for the item only, not postage, so you get $0.99 back. Ebay has tried to counteract that by adding a new rating system, where you can give the seller a rating on fairness of P&H charges.