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!

Good, because they're full of it.

I pulled this from their website...

For the impatient, please read only the bold text.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Naming yourself after acetone does wonders for credibility as well! :thumbup:

What? I thought we were just supposed to accept, there is no need to understand. :rolleyes:

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.

64 is 164% of 39

39mpg to 64mpg results in a 56% increase

39 is 39% less than 64

Pick your number.