kiker wires amazing!!!! - Page 4 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-08-2008, 10:50 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
101mpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 736
Country: United States
Marty has been on here long enough for us to know that he actually tests and reports. Marty - we WOULD LOVE to see gaslogs.

Here is my take: 1) could have had bad wires previously - new wires CAN increase mileage. Can you get ahold of another set of standardish to nicer wires to see if they change mileage? A/B/A testing.

2) Gasoline mixture - same or different gas station, winter / summer mix, etc. Can you tell us more about this?

I know Marty seems like one of our more out there members at times to some, but he DOES try to report honestly, and this is commendable. Lots of people think I'm crazy when I get 40+ MPG in my automatic CRX, but I can reproduce it. Can't hit 70 when I do it, either. I am working on a vehicle that will get 100+ - but likely cannot exceed 60 or 65 to do it, but that is okay with me.

Marty - get us more reproducible data. Remember that your driving style may account for 5% or more of your increase in mileage, new wires some - gas blend some - this may be more than one factor.

The truth is that we would all LOVE to be able to put together a vehicle that got AMAZING mileage. Remember that the Toyota Prius has been shown to be able to effectively get 186 MPG (albeit with an exhausted battery). So Marty's claims are not wrong - just not substantiated enough with gaslogs and such to satisfy us all. Marty - keep reporting - we do like hearing about things that help!
__________________

__________________
Looking to trade for an early 1988 Honda CRX HF (Pillar mounted seat belts)
101mpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 04:03 AM   #32
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 139
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to jeep45238
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkjones96 View Post
Response to my email questions I posted above:

From Pat Kiker:



I'm not sure where to begin responding to that...


Good, because they're full of it.
__________________

__________________
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that decision.

jeep45238 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2009, 09:16 AM   #33
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6
Country: United States
I pulled this from their website...

For the impatient, please read only the bold text.

Quote:
How Do Kiker Wires Work?

Assuming the current travels from the coil pack to the spark plug, spark energy supplied from the coil encounters a self-induction winding about six inches from the spark plug. The coil generates a magnetic field that will travel down the wire to accompany the electric field also traveling down the wire toward the spark plug. The self-induction coil enhances the original value of henrys and at the same time spaces out the delivery of milliamps to the plug. The milliamps are what actually fire the mixture rather than voltage. Three energies are distributed within the wire in this fashion. These three energies move at slightly different velocities. The accompanying magnetic field creates three sparks across the gap. This action by the enhanced spark generates a much stronger and more positive initial firing of the fuel. The strong ignition helps to prevent flat combustion and dead spots within the air-fuel pockets of the chamber. The Kiker Wires have been proven to work on all vehicles so far. The gain in mileage is about 2-5 mpg. With some vehicles showing larger gains. Plus gains in power and torque.
Kiker Wires have almost zero resistance! They have the lowest ohms on the market today. Most spark plug wires claim to have the lowest ohms at 30 to 40 ohms per foot. Kiker wires have 0 to 5 ohms per wire, even up to 60 inches long.

The wires also produce a multiple spark in each wire [2-3] per wire. Thus burning fuel more efficiently in each cylinders, cleaner emissions, using less gas, causing the engine to run smoother and more efficiently.
I'm sorry guys, I don't have the patience to do a line-by-line refute of every claim they made. Sorry for the let-down. I started, then decided it wasn't worth it, because they can't even use proper grammar or spelling.
optix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2009, 09:35 AM   #34
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
If they would just stick to real-world stuff they might find some people that might not see right through it. The self-inductance part, fine, the higher energy giving you better combustion, duh. But talking about space time and how voltage isn't what fires the plug, current is and that it makes 3 sparks from one? Please.
__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2009, 09:25 PM   #35
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
Your gas log shows a couple of ridiculous half gallon fills. Since you even bother to do that, I'd wager your "testing" procedures aren't any better or any more valid.
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2009, 04:53 AM   #36
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
The amount of proof required varies from person to person. It can vary from idea to idea, too -- for me, a product for sale that claims to improve fuel economy requires a whole lot more than something DIY or free (like a WAI or driving technique). This is doubly so when testimonials provide difficult to believe numbers, like your 164% (39mpg to 64mpg) result. And, admittedly, if you provided a 5% increase I'd dismiss it as statistically insignificant, placebo that caused your driving to change, or just not enough to be worth money.

To start with, the product would have to be based on an idea that I can understand and believe. I do have to know and believe how and why it works. Oh, and it is standard practice for me to try to figure out what makes everything that I use tick...I generally don't just turn stuff on without having some understanding of the scientific explanation behind it. However, even if I don't fully understand how a microwave oven works, the demonstation is free, done right in front of my eyes, and the results are unarguable.

Fuel-saving commecial products usually have a very difficult burden of proof to convince me. It's not unreasonable, because I don't have money to risk and I don't want to encourage the very large business of selling false hope.

Your gaslog doesn't even contain the data you're claiming. It has a total of 176.25 miles driven on a total of 3.66 gallons, at no time did it dip to 39mpg or raise to 64mpg, and only has extremely short fills that can't be depended on for an accurate measure of fuel usage. One 2-gallon fill and 3 half-gallon fills do not a gaslog make. It's easy enough to get a half gallon pump error.

Perhaps other folks are more easily convinced.
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2009, 05:07 AM   #37
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
Naming yourself after acetone does wonders for credibility as well!
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2009, 10:21 PM   #38
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by acetone marty View Post
I hope this is not too complicated for you to understand so i will try to explain in simple terms.
What? I thought we were just supposed to accept, there is no need to understand.
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 04:26 AM   #39
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
64 is 164% of 39. 64 is 64% larger than 39. I didn't say a 164% improvement, I said a 164% result. Perhaps my math was off slightly and it's 166% of 39 and 66% larger than 39.

If you want to use data to convince people, you have to provide that data. Your gaslog has no credible data, and doesn't even show any of the data you claim (credibly or otherwise).

The ScanGauge is a great tool but it is not accurate. It can't even measure fuel usage; it must calculate it approximately by measuring airflow and O2 sensor readings, and it doesn't get that data in a constant stream but rather in samples every 1 to 3 seconds. I have one, it's great, but it's a supplemental tool for instant feedback and monitoring other sensors, not a primary measurement of accurate results.

Some whitespace would make your posts easier to read.
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 07:07 AM   #40
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
64 is 164% of 39

39mpg to 64mpg results in a 56% increase

39 is 39% less than 64

Pick your number.
__________________

__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tracking Monthly Fuel Expense Taser Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 11-10-2009 12:40 AM
TDI EPA figures off? bates General Fuel Topics 14 09-15-2009 09:04 AM
Little help with Aero on an Aerio Floyd77 Aerodynamics 3 05-31-2008 03:28 PM
Secondary fuel tank WorkingOnWise General Maintenance and Repair 3 05-29-2008 11:51 AM
Results with camera mirrors? 101mpg Aerodynamics 11 02-22-2008 04:03 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.