In reference to the free unit:

I am in the process of discussing this with the site administration. If we decide to go ahead with this, we would have a thread where members interested in testing the device would post, and we would choose one of the entrants at random to test it.

Those are wonderful, and in all honestly, when you're dealing with a carburetted, non-emmissioned vehicle, I don't doubt that you can see real mpg results, as there is no active fuel management in place. And once more, the second test was purely with carburetted vehicles with emissions equipment no more intensive than a cat and a smog pump.

I have no doubt that an addon could help with those. What about some tests showing that they work on any fuel injected vehicle? Or much, much more appropriately, tests that show they work on any vehicle with a functional O2 sensor?

I do not think it would be that hard to find conclusive tests that are less than 25 years old, test on cars that actually have computers.

Yes, that is a good point. We would need to know if this is suitable for fuel injected vehicles.

The JP Magazine article is a fuel injected jeep

Regarding the test, just let me know where to ship it. The only thing i ask is that the individual that is doing the testing post at least 4 consecutive fuel receipts (in the same format i did during the Focus testing) before hand so that we can establish a solid baseline for all to see.

Here are a few images of images of fuel injected vehicles everything from a little Nissan Cube to Police car to a Gallardo. Some are our own cars some are not obviously the police car is not ours.


https://hhotek.com/assets/images/levi...e/DSCN1706.JPG
https://hhotek.com/assets/images/install.jpg
https://hhotek.com/assets/images/oak%20grove.JPG
https://hhotek.com/assets/images/oak%...%20%283%29.JPG
https://hhotek.com/assets/images/hhot...mbo%20twin.jpg

Wonderful, it has been hooked up on fuel injected vehicles.


Where's the third party proof it works on fuel injected vehicles?


Edit:
I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but I am HIGHLY skeptical with the fact that no conclusive proof has been made on a fuel injected vehicle. The logic of how your product works does not make sense when you're dealing with O2 sensors.

ESPECIALLY with the fact that every single one of those "in depth scientific proof" tests (in which I can confirm what type of vehicle) has to have been done before 1985. That was the last year that the impala had a 305, plus the Mercedes 280 (in either the se or sl trim) has not been made since 1980.

None of the official tests have been made on any vehicle that could even come close to the level of emissions that is nowadays.



THAT is the biggest problem that I have with ever "conclusive" proof that you have. NONE of it is made on any vehicle with anything close to modern emissions, and so of course it's going to be wasting fuel. But to those of us who have cars made in the last 25 years, well... O2 sensors and computers make sure that there is no unburnt fuel in the exhaust.

Certainly that there is not 20% of the fuel unburnt. That would NEVER pass any form of emissions regulations.

I have posted the link to the JP Magazine article a few times now that test was conducted in 2007 on a modern fuel injected vehicle and our product was put up against about 10 others and mine and fitch were the only ones that proved to work

Ah, I do apologize. I did miss that link.

If it can be confirmed repeatedly that multiple vehicles show that increase, wonderful.

Just... Update your claim. 2 mpg on a single 15mpg car hardly qualifies as an average of 20% more MPG, especially when that is the only FI car that it has been tested on.

This is a quote from their article.
"The Platinum Fuel saver was sent to us with the understanding that often full mileage gains aren't seen until 2000 miles. We started seeing a difference in the first tank, and were only able to leave it in for 1235 miles."

They began to see gains immediately but they did not see the full benefits of the system. The absolute worst case i have ever seen is 1800 miles but i have seen it work as soon as 200 miles as well. We have seen gains as high as 30% thats not typical but it happens we have also seen gains of 17% and if someone only gets 21.2% and wants their money back that is perfectly fine. We have a saying that we use frequently "if you dont like the color of the box send it back and get a refund" our number 1 priority is customer satisfaction and i think our growth shows that.

https://www.fuelly.com/attachments/fo...52c24ee034.gif

The name "HHO Tek" says it all

Have some consistency man!

First you said the EPA tests were invalid because it takes upwards of 1000 miles to see results. Now you have a car that tested, and received immediate results, and ran for over over 1200 miles, and now you're saying it takes up to 2000 miles to see results?

Your reason for it taking "up to 1000 miles" to see results is because:
And to be blunt, do you honestly think a well maintained project vehicle from a car magazine would have such significant carbon deposits that well over 1000 miles of your product couldn't see results? If that be the case, how many miles would it take for a poorly maintained vehicle to start seeing results?


Look, 2mpg increase on a 15mpg vehicle isn't bad! It's not 20%, but it's not bad at all.

20% increase in modern cars just by "better burning fuel" is impossible, as modern emissions do not permit 20% of the fuel to leave unburnt. Wouldn't pass any state, especially not CA.

The only way a car is leaving upwards of 20% of the fuel unburnt is if there is already something wrong.

As I said before. Makes sense, and seems plausible with old cars before there really was anything in the way of emissions regulations, but with modern cars with working O2 sensors, you're not going to see much of anything gained. It just doesn't work that way, and one single vehicle does not proof make. (ESPECIALLY when said proof refutes your sky high claims, and confirms much more reasonable ones.)