Platinum Fuel Saver
 

I have bought and installed one of the Platinum Fuel Savers and had excellent results. My baseline MPG before installation was 16.2 and now it is 19.7. I drive a 2003 Toyota Tundra V8.

What I wanted to know is if anyone else has tried the Platinum Fuel Saver and what their results were?
:D

cowboyjack. Man, a name like that deserves this:
'26 Songs of the Old West' CD. Great old songs.

PM your mailing address and it will be on the way. I'm your neighbor in Colorado.

OK, I'll bite.....What is the "Platinum Fuel Saver"?

The "Platinum Fuel Saver" is a device that adds platinum into the combustion chamber to increase combustion efficiency. It supposed to burn any unburnt fuel, similar to what your cat converter does.

I haven't tried it, but this article has some food for thought;

https://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/f...pvi/index.html

Basically, it says that the Platinum Fuel Saver doesn't do anything.....

is platinum like really expensive?? like a lot more expensive than gas?

I've seen a lot of snake oil over the years. If this is another I don't know but I'd suggest buyer beware.

Silver Bullion 12.93 12.93 12.81 12.87 0.02
Gold Bullion 664.00 664.00 660.00 660.00 3.00
Platinum 1,313.00 1,313.00 1,308.00 1,308.00
Palladium 369.00 369.00 368.00 368.00 0.00

Looks expensive eh?:eek:

Yeah I remember seeing this stuff as a gas additive years and years ago at Walmart - platinum is a great catalist and the only real question is there really platinum in the juice" that they are selling. Getting 19.6mpg is about normal for that truck BTW and 16 is low. My friend has sold his old 12 year old Tundra for a newer one with the smaller V8 and he is still getting about 19mpg and doesn't baby it. He does however tow a lot of stuff and the big cab that seats 5 adults is the main reason for the upgrade.

Platinum Vapor Injection
 

The ultimate in ignorance is displayed by those who reject, out of hand, that which they know nothing about.

Edit by 101MPG:
Ignorance simply is lack of knowledge. Stupidity is using the word ignorant and its variants in place of the word stupidity.

This is your public warning from the moderators - no name calling or trying to call others stupid.
-101MPG

That being said, Google Platinum vapor fuel catalyst.
A catalytic process using the well known, proven properties of platinum to improve the complete burning of fuel.The Platinum Vapor Solution and device to apply the solution invented by a Mensa engineer back in the mid seventies to improve the combustion cycle of Oil fired boilers this worked very well, saving, sometimes over forty percent in heating bills for apartment houses along the Eastern Seaboard. Some other benefits recorded at that time were an attendant reduction of soot and harmful emissions from the exhaust stacks of the boiler fireboxes.. Being the enterprising engineer that he is, the inventor extended his invention to the combustion processes of the internal combustion engine. Yup fellers, when properly applied, works very well. Proper application is well covered and documented by the people holding the patents to this day.

Actually, the ultimate in ignorance is shown by those who accept dubious claims without proof, and throw their money away. Check this link, and note the EPA found no measurable improvement from the Platinum Gassaver.

The problem is, you can google anything and get results. The plain truth of the matter is, it may work, but gasoline is by far cheaper than platinum. I can't see how it can be economical. When I was younger & stupider I fell prey to several of these ploys. I spent money on the "tornado" that is put in your air intake. I bought the fuel line magnets. I bought splitfire spark plugs . I bought numerous additives. None of them increased the mileage, and many of them decreased it. They all successfully did one thing though. Made money for the people selling them. I'm not the only one here with those experiences, so please be kind to those who are skeptical about another "miracle" additive or device.

Oh, and here's what the EPA says about the device:

The full EPA report on the device is available here: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/devices/pb92104413.pdf

Following information comes from this link.

For answers, we sought expert opinion. The federal government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has tested nearly 100 "fuel savers" over the years and found no significant improvement in fuel economy with any additive or device, according to tests posted on its website, www.epa.gov

Consumer Reports (CR), an independent, consumer-oriented testing firm, also evaluated myriad devices. We spoke with David Champion, senior director of CR's Auto Test Center, who said: "you can do more to improve fuel economy by the way you maintain and drive your vehicle then any of these ?gas savers' will ever achieve." Champion singled out the Platinum Gas Saver as typical of marketing hype.

The Platinum Gas Saver ($248 for two) is marketed by the National Fuelsaver Corp. and its ads claim up to 22 percent gains in economy. National Fuelsaver says that the product adds microscopic amounts on platinum to the air and fuel going to the engine, making the vehicle burn fuel more efficiently.

National Fuelsaver says the device may take up to 1,800 miles before it is fully effective, and you may have to advance engine timing or install new oxygen sensors for the system to work properly. According to CR, these actions alone may improve economy without purchasing any additional equipment.

In tests, Consumer Reports saw no improvement in economy after 500 miles of testing. They even replaced all four oxygen sensors in one of the test vehicles to the tune of $748, even though the vehicle was new and did not need sensor replacement. "Magnets, atomizers, vortex generators - none of them work, said Champion.

Research>
 

When taken to task about their(Federal Trade Commission) suit that Platinum Gas Saver was ineffective, here is the quote from Presiding Judge when awarding National Fuel Savers full court costs and handing down his ruling.

Federal Judge Walter J. Skinner, In his own words
"As the Associate Judicial Officer found, The Platinum Fuelsaver device is an effective fuel saving device and purchasers will in fact be receiving what they bargained for. "
Addressing the EPA testing is a much more complicated matter.

1. The EPA didn't allow sufficient mileage for the test vehicles to condition to the use of platinum.
2. The vehicles were final tested on a dyno which does not allow for road resonance through the front wheels to be figured into the equation. This is a clearly stated condition of the inventor in the patent application. Road resonance figures in to the efficient operation of the device to provide proper atomization of minute amounts of platinum to be picked up in the vacuum stream going to the intake manifold. Without that particular dynamic involved, tests are inconclusive and all derived data invalid. Period.
The amount of platinum involved in this process is minute and depends on road resonance to release it into the vacuum stream to the intake manifold. over 500,000 people have purchased this device and continue to purchase refill vials of platinum solution to replenish the supply. I can tell you it works, they can tell you it works. Bottom line you have to try one for yourself. If it works you keep it. If not you send it back and they refund your money. For every 60 dollar vial of solution I purchase,I net a savings of 700 dollars in fuel.
This company also sells an on board continuous oil refining system which eliminates oil changes to a minimum of 100,000 miles and ongoing continuous oil testing has proven this unit to a total of over a million miles without an oil change. Oil still tests out to within 2 to 4 percent of new. My first experience with this oil refiner in its early stages was in 1971 through 1989 running on a 223 cu. inch Ford 6 cylinder engine. The engine ran over 750,000 miles without an oil change, when torn down to replace a head gasket, the mains and inserts were checked and remained within factory operational specs. It doesn't get any better than that. As a result of my over forty years of experience with this technology I support it wholeheartedly and without reservation. Buy one try one, then write about your experience. What do you have to loose? Not your money thats for sure. Additionally, you credibility to cite personal experience is vindicated. Just make sure it is installed according to manufacturer's directions.

Donkey Show.

Donkey Show????????????
 

please clarify, objectify and state cogent reasoned comment.

Fetch
 

Dear Fetch,
Please clarify and objectify from your implied station of elevated wisdom, as "Donkey Show" does not compute in this 61 year old's humble vernacular experience. Please provide a reasoned researched position on whether platinum catalyst assisted combustion in an internal combustion engine works, or not, based on either, in depth personal experience, or a properly crafted study conducted within the design parameters of the equipment involved. Such criteria would then insure that you are not entering a battle of wits only half prepared.

Two guys with a total of 6 posts between them come up touting a gas saver with questionable claims. My B.S. meter pegs.

You seem to like to use terms like "ignorance" to attack legitimate skepticism concerning claims that have been tested and refuted.

"If you don't like the message just kill the messenger", a simple form of propaganda, that may work on some folks, but to most of us it just becomes one of the hundreds of thousands of miracle fuel economy solutions.

But of course when scientific testing reveals no increase in efficiency, you must resort to justifying their lack of positive data with the essential component of success.

"Road resonance"

LOL, maybe if I intentionally imbalanced my tires, the increased "road resonance" would make my mileage improve.

Or I could just request that the state of Virginia make their roads crappier to increase the resonance to help my mileage.

"The ultimate in ignorance"

By your own definition, you should carefully follow my advice. Drive your car off a cliff, turn the engine off before you reach the point of becoming airborne.

Your mileage will be infinite. It doesn't get any better than that ;).

If you don't do it you are a moron !!!!!!!!!!!!!

BBBBEEEEELLLLLIIIIEEEEVVVVEEEE me!

regards
Gary

Popeee: I take it that in the 2 hours between your posts, you looked up the meaning of the term "donkey show."

My thoughts were exactly what Sentra SE-R posted. It seems that when a new member (especially two new members) posts about a miracle fuel saver, it turns out that they are selling them. And most members of this site are not easily fooled.

The reason why you will not find a lot of hard evidence AGAINST such a device is that they are not tested by the government for validity of their claims. The EPA will test certain devices, and they found no measurable difference in the platinum device. Road resonance my foot. The drums on a dyno are turning, so there will be vibration and resonance from the tires (albeit less since the drums have less surface than a paved road). The engine vibrations will make just as much vibration as the road resonance, especially since the tires are dampened by the suspension.

Others are achieving 20 mpg in Tundra 4.7s with no mods. That's nothing special. No testing has proven the device works. It points towards the opposite. Why would I be an idiot to disbelieve their claims?

As far as the personal attack, I will let you know that I have 2 degrees, I'm working on my 3rd (masters), and I have a bit of mechanical experience. Even better, I have common sense.

this is fun and a good read.

I needed a good laugh on second monday.

another funny point is, why do some people assume that age automatically grants you respect? (BTW this is the internet, I can be any age I want to be). in that same sense, there are several things that don't automatically grant respect. Age, education, patents, time on this site, time in the industry. there are some things that do EARN respect.

-actual experimentation and not empty claims
-being able to admit that you could be wrong (trust me, crow taste bad to everyone)
-the ability to have a civil conversation with someone with differing views.
-actually participating in the forum in which you are trying to convince of your claims (gas logs are wonderful tools)

there may be more but it is getting late. I am an educated man (though not as educated as some) and though I am not a retired man, nor am I a teen that knows nothing about life either. my uncle is actually a master mechanic (though that doesn't entitle me to anything either). I have learned that idiots come in all ages and education levels...and so do geniuses. one of the most intellegent people I know (especially when it comes to cars) is 30 years old and has tore down and rebuilt more cars than I will ever own in my lifetime. ironically, I met him in college when we were both 18 years old. his knowledge base has grown since then but his overall view of things has not. sometimes age truly has nothing to do with it.

happy second monday everyone.

*edit*
on the issue of respect, there are several people on this site that have earned my respect (though it may not mean much) because of what they have achieved and their conversations with myself and others. a few have posted on this thread already. I remember when I was a noob and knew very little about driving for efficiency. it was an interesting road to lead me to where I am today and it didn't happen by someone convincing me of a product that I must buy to believe (and if it didn't perform as promised, I would have to deal with their returns department). respect is a funny thing, you have to give a little before you receive a little usually. not a lot, just a little. once someone disrespects a person, it is a hard climb back to that trust where the little respect is given again.

hopefully this won't be third monday

I stand with what I said by personal experience, testing done independently by people actually using the device in fleet applications. School Districts, Law Enforcement fleets, NYC Taxi, Metropolitan waste disposal fleets, Municipal Transit buses, Approval under European testing standards, which are more ridged than here, for the device to be used by auto manufactures in place of catalytic converters. I can tell you it works, thousands of satisfied users can tell you it works, bottom line, you have to try it to know if it works. To stand by on the sidelines and and denigrate a product or technology out of hand is indeed a display of ignorance. History bears this out with most successful devices, light bulbs, telephones, horseless carriages, airplanes, computers and the list goes on..... All said in their day,by many scientists and prominent persons of varying degrees of intelligence, to be inventions of little practical use. HHO is another fuel alternative which will prove itself out as a useful fuel in and of itself. Not quite practical today but tomorrow for sure. If I were to take as fact prominent physicists, ASE engineers, Popular Mechanics and a few more knowledgeable folks I would never have put one together and used it, proving to my own satisfaction that it works but not without knowledgeable tinkering. Again prove it for your self........ or not. Then write about it. Insofar as calling me a liar for my life's experience and defending your position of ignorance. There is nothing wrong or disgraceful about ignorance, except in embracing it to maintain a position of comfort when offered an alternative to either prove or disprove a belief through your own effort. When these folks put their money where their mouth is, I took them up on the challenge, it works for me. I continue to use their products based on utility and savings. I have driven over a million accident free miles as a professional trucker, hauling all manner of commodities to the four corners of this country. These products will often make the difference between profit and loss in their utility. Things like no oil change costs, reduced pollution, and better mpg.

you talk of matching wits and positions of ignorance. interestingly enough, you expect us to go by your words alone and reject the words of people that have tested this product (the EPA) and have said the opposite of you.

I would burn $5 to prove you wrong, I would burn $20 to prove you wrong, but you are talking about $60 for the refill. I would assume that the device itself would be much more than the refill cost. also, you have already once stated that someone that has tested this product and not gotten results must have tested it wrong so if I did take you up on it and test this product without any positive results, I feel that you would take the same position with me (or anyone else that tried)

extrordinary claimes require extrordinary evidence. a $60 investment to achieve $700 in savings. that's over 1000% profit. those numbers require some sort of evidence to back them up.

I think, in the end, it is funny that you continue to post pretty much the same responses to people. they are ignorant of the truth (that only you seem to know) and they are biased by their ignorance to keep the truth hidden to make themselves feel better.

ironically, you are selling the products talked about....which side has the bias again????

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I like that.

I've had that statement used on me several times and have had to rethink my position on a few subjects in the past.

Here's A Thought!!!!!!!!!!!!


Saturns(s-series) Are Not Supposed To Use Platinum Plugs, Any Serious Saturn Owner Knows This, And The Stock Plugs Are Copper (autozone Will Try To Sell You Platinum's Anyhow), Some Vehicles Allow Platinum Plugs Though....

So Considering This Is All Going Into The Same Combustion Chamber, I Wouldn't Use This Product In A Car That Doesn't Allow Thee Use of Dealer Certified Platinum Plugs If I Were You, Actually I Wouldnt Use It At All, especially since my Alumaseal nightmare(clogged heater core).. But Hey Whatever Floats Your Boat

btw fuel saving magnets dont work either

I think that you need to show us that it works. Although gaslog entries can be forged, a good start would to be to enter your vehicles in the garage on this site, and enter all of your fuel purchases. Let us see your "real world" results.

The EPA has evaluated this device twice. Once in 1981, and then 10 years later in 1991. Consumer reports has evaluated the device, and has also found no increase in economy.

You speak of "road resonance" being required. I don't see how this is possible, since air is bubbled up through the solution, this should certainly supply all the agitation required (if any). How about people with smooth riding, well running vehicles? I make a point to keep my vehicles in top running condition, and to ride as smooth as possible. Because my vehicles run smooth & quiet, and ride extremely well, am I to assume if I were to try this device that it would not work for me?

Also, I might add, that being a moderator on this site I can tell you that we get people joining this site almost daily talking about some "miracle" device. You're not the first one to come with these types of claims, and nothing to back it up but your word (and I'm sure you won't be the last). Around here respect is earned. Show us that it works. Show us that its economical. Show us results from a reputable independent laboratory that shows it works. Don't call our membership ignorant or disrespectful just because they want more proof than just your word.

Which municipalities and/or fleets? I cannot imagine a fleet manager or budget committee approving the use of unproven devices in their vehicles, especially not knowing the long-term ramifications.

Sorry, but I have a skeptic's mind.

One last thought:
Jay2TheRescue, BEEF, R.I.D.E., and theholycow are 4 of the most knowledgable, well-respected members of this site. They have a history of being fair and cutting through the B.S. This thread seems to fall into that category.

Its good that you mention fleet managers. Back when I was younger I used to volunteer at my local rescue squad. I had filled many administrative offices in the squad over the years including serving as the squad's fleet officer (2nd Lt.), and sitting on the Board of Directors. As the fleet officer I was in charge of the stocking and maintenance of a fleet of 8 vehicles, ranging from an S-10 Blazer to an International DT 4700. If I were to install these devices on the trucks I would have had to have data to justify the cost, and prove that the device was not damaging the vehicle in the process. People's lives depended on those vehicles.

Well.......
 

I am also willing to put my money where my mouth is in offering a skeptics trial package. Inquire at the site as I feel this forum is for an honest expression of experience.
The testing for these products is validated time and time again throughout their marketing history. Many skeptics converted and many remain, usually without taking steps to personally validate. Buy one try one, doesn't meet your criteria, get your money back. Do you, can you, will you, would you do the same in your business? We can we do we will, In the nearly 100,000 sold individuallylast year we had requests for 3 refunds. we did that. Fleet and corporate sales for that same time period have zero requests for return/refund.

Director of Bureau for Transportation:

Ing. Stanislav Hanzl

UVMV: LABORATORY FOR MOTOR VEHICLES
Car Emission Testing
Protocol No.: 525.042/93 Car No. 2.
Vehicle Type: SKODA Forman 135 L with catalytic Platinum Gassava
Body No. N 0472246 Odometer Reading: 50,873 Ka
Engine No. 1473351 Tires: Barum 165/70 R 13
Manufacturer: Skoda, ML. Boleslav Carburetor: Jikov 28-30 LEKR Type: S 781.135
Measuring Equipment:

Tests were done on the Schenck 364/GS 56 Cylindrical dynamometer with additional balance wheels
The Beckman 864 & 865 infrared analyzers measured CO and C02
The Beckman 951 chemiluminescence analyzer measured NOx.
The Fid Scott 116 analyzer measured hydrocarbons.
The CVS Scott 302 (with System PDP) measured the amount of diluting air in the gas collection equipment
Test Type I - Driving Test EHK:

Base line testing done at 50,873 kilometer reading. Platinum Gasaver installed immediately after this Base Line measurement,

Final Test done after 9,6O9 kilometers (to-confirm that each vial of Platinum Gasaver concentrate would last the l0,000 kilometers guaranteed by the manufacturer). Odometer reading 60,482
CONCLUSION:

To meet the ERK-83-B Regulation for pollution controls the maximum permitted pollutants per test are: 45 grams CO, 6 grams NOx, and 15 grams HC & NOx combined,

(With 19.1 grams of CO, 5.2 grams of NOx, and 10.23 grams of HC and NOx combined, it is obvious that the tested vehicle's results were far below the maximum values emitted. CO was reduced by 67%,NOx by 22%, and HC by 54%.)

This protocol is for your technical information only.

Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC 29 June 1993

Ing. LADISLAV KROBL9 CSc Ing. Ivan Dvoracek

Director: Engine Department Director: Emission Testing

I didn't realize that the refill only lasted for 10,000km (6213.711 miles)

with some quick calculations:

6213.711 miles
35 MPG
=177.5346 Gallons
x $2.75 per gallon
$488.22015

that is roughly how much it costs me to go the 10,000 km that the refill lasts. the refill is $60 (according to this thread)

$488.22015
- $60 (cost of refill)
= $428.22015 (the cost just to break even)
/ $2.75 per gallon
= 155.7164181818... (number of gallons it should take to go that far)

6213.711 (10,000 km)
/ 155.7164181818 (number from above)
= 39.904019... (mileage just to break even on refill)

39.90419
-35
=4.90419

so in order to break even on your product's refill, I have to increase my mileage almost 5mpg on average. I really can't see that happening. also, that doesn't take into account the cost of having it professionally installed (as per your own admission) and if I were to give it a nonbiased assesment, I would have to consider the actual start up cost $248 for a pair (why would you sell them as a pair?) which increases the start up cost from $60 to $124 assuming it comes with the first charge of platinum.

it was also stated that it takes quite some time before the product actually "kicks in" which also needs to be taken into account.

my mileage would have to increase by 10-15% just to break even on your product (the percentage goes down as the product is used and the startup is absorbed) so it claims 20% increase (which has yet to be proven) and honestly my time itself it worth more than the 5% that I would gain if the product works as advertized.

also, you state things from prague and figures are in km instead of miles, where do you live? there are thing that you can get away with elsewhere in the world that will not fly in the US.

as far as your gracious offer for me to try it for free, I respectfully decline. if you are wondering why, I will simply quote myself on this one.


*******edit******

if my math is incorrect on this one, someone please let me know. I had a long night last night and the best I can figure, it is right but my level of coherency is pretty low right now.

Wow. A 16-year-old test consisting of a single (is it really carburetor-equipped?!?) vehicle not available in the U.S. I find this unconvincing.

In statistics, I learned that it takes 387 samples to create an accurate survey or study. Since there are not 387 TYPES of vehicles, I would understand having 10% of that. No vehicles have been sold in the U.S. with a carburetor since 1994, and only 2 were available in 1993. Testing should be conducted using modern U.S.-market vehicles with fuel injection.

That Skoda is a vehicle built to 1993 emissions standards. Furthermore, the vehicle is built to European emissions standards.

Someone could put a sock in the tailpipe of a carbureted vehicle and clean up the emissions somewhat.

Make sure its a wet sock!

Not a good comparison...all these devices and technologies had many different people working on them, competing to bring them to fruition, and to develop and improve them. 20 years after each one of the aforementioned items first appeared on the scene, they were mainstream products, produced by multiple competing manufacturers. This does not appear to be the case with your fuel saver catalyst. Why not? If it worked, there would be many different versions of this on the market, and we could purchase it at WalMart.

Glad you asked! Never heard of it!

Platinum Fuel Saver
 

While looking up the platinum fuel saver on Google I found this post, and decided to clarify a few things. I actually own HHO Tek which is the worldwide distributor for the platinum fuel saver. There were a number of very good questions regarding the validity of our system.
I can easily tell you all day long that it does in fact work but short of your guys seeing it for yourself you will never truly believe because there is so much junk out there. So I will simply present you with some articles that have been written about the system.

The following article was done by JP magazine without us even knowing it, I just stumbled across it one day on the internet.
https://hhotek.com/jpmag.php

This is a link to my blog and it has numerous articles on it granted they are biased because I chose them to use but they do show that it does in fact do what we say.
https://hhotek.com/blog/


This is a test that we conducted and it is very transparent and detailed, there is enough data there that you can calculate the number anyway you choose and still get the same results. I even took pictures of the odometer and scanned fuel receipts.
https://hhotek.com/focus.php

We have made some changes to the company that has allowed us to lower the price of the system from $239 to $199 which makes it far more affordable. One $199 system is good for 30,000 miles, it includes 5 refills that are good for 6,000 miles each. The average customer will save anywhere from $600-$1800 per system depending on their current fuel mileage.

PS. I noticed the Water 4 Gas banner on the top of this forum. I would like to reference an article i wrote a long time ago. https://www.iceevo.com/canyourunyourcaronwater.php

If you wish to contact me directly with any questions feel free to do so

Trevorhunter@hhotek.com

That wouldn't be this device, would it?

https://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/devices/pb92104413.pdf

And we've tried to remove the water 4 gas banner, but it keeps showing up on the templates again after we remove it... I haven't had the time required to sift through all the code on the site to find out why it keeps coming back.

Yes they are referring to the same device. However the tests were done immediately after the system was installed and it can take up to 1000 miles to start seeing the full results. The system causes all the excess carbon to be burned and until that carbon is burned off the system does not provide any fuel savings. Consumer reports did the same exact test and found the exact same results. It was a test setup for failure. There are numerous other tests that have been done, even a federal investigation conducted to the point that the product was not sold for over a year. After that court case was over the inventor of the system was issued a check for $27,000 to cover legal expenses. and the residing judge said the following "The Platinum Fuel Saver device is an effective fuel saving device and purchasers will in fact be receiving what they bargained for. " This result came from a test on 2 separate fleets that both had more than 10 vehicles each, i don't remember the exact number. but the average showed a 28.8% average increase. These tests were independent and approved for use in a federal court case.

The bottom line is the system does in fact work, since we took over we have sold well over 100,000 units and have had 6 refunds in the past 6 months. For a product that doesn't work that is very good ratio. The reality is it does work thats why cabs, buses, trains, ships, even lawn mowers are using it all over the world. We are also recommended by a couple fleet analysis companies for use in their customers fleets.

The fact is im not asking you guys to believe me, i saying put it to the test! We offer a 90 day money back guarantee. HHO Tek has been around for almost 4 years now and for a company that sells a product that supposedly doesn't work i would assume that there should be someone out there that has something negative to say about us, but there isn't we have tons of happy customers that repeatedly come back and refer family members to us.


The following link goes to a page that explains the science.
https://hhotek.com/thesciencebehindplatinum.php


PS I did not initiate this thread and it is quite old as i stated before i stumbled across while doing some seo work on my site. I am not attempting to spam this forum in any way. My product is the topic and i have simply came here to shed some light on what we do and how.

PSS regarding the W4G banner check line 55-56, thats where your problem is.
<a href="https://riskassets.water4gas.hop.clickbank.net/" target="_blank" title="Double Your Mileage"><img border="0" src="https://www.gassavers.org/images/custom/ads/banner1.gif"></a></div>

Hehe.


Wow.


Show us the results of an independent study, hosted on a site non-affiliated with you.

And if the tests were done improperly and a court determined so and refunded the costs, where is the report that says so?

And yes, you can see real results from any number of placebo "fuel savers" merely because they induce a more fuel effecient driving style.

None of the science of what you're doing works. That is some incredibly deceptive and logical fallacy filled "testing" you did in regards to the "unburnt fuel" in the epa tests.


And seriously, why would you have to run 1000 miles before you see any effect on fuel efficiency?

What is with that idiotic mindset? Are you honestly saying it takes over 1000 miles for the O2 sensor to detect that there is too much fuel being injected into the cylinders? Or are you trying to say that it takes over 1000 miles for the fuel injectors to respond to the O2 sensors detection of the excess of necessary fuel? Or does it take over 1000 miles to heat up your catalyst to the point at which it will do its job?

It can't be anything but those 3. There is absolutely NO OTHER WAY that a car can adjust the input of fuel from the injectors. You would have to re-write the computer code to have any other effect. The O2 sensor detects excess fuel, and the injectors respond by injecting less. Near instantaneous. Why on earth would it take over 1000 miles to see any effect at all?


Bottom line is, I call bull, and you can't get me to spend money on snake oil.






Edit/P.S.
Send me one for free, and I'll test it happily. I put on over 1000 miles a month, so you'd hear from me swiftly.

So if you're so confident, and are selling so much, you can surely afford to take a 00.0001% loss.

I'll happily tell these guys here your crap works, if you have the confidence to send it to a skeptic (and a skeptic who already drives in a fuel efficient manner, so there isn't placebo going to occur.)

the reason it takes a little while to start working is because the platinum removes the carbon buildup from the motor. So if you have a brand new motor no wait, if you have a93 chevy pickup with 200,000 miles you might have a little carbon buildup so you will have to wait. Why? Because the platinum will be used for removing the carbon, until the carbon is gone it will not be helping fuel mileage.

here are 2 documents that show an independent test
https://hhotek.com/pdf/concord%20schools.pdf
https://hhotek.com/pdf/second%20test.pdf

and here is a page on my site that has a ton of letters, documents and such
https://hhotek.com/proof.php

Regarding a free unit, i have made that offer to jay2therescue in a private message. He is a moderator of this board therefore he is the one who would get a freebie.

"Show us the results of an independent study, hosted on a site non-affiliated with you."
https://hhotek.com/jpmag.php (link to original non affiliated site is at the bottom of page)
heres another
https://www.jpmagazine.com/techarticl...onomizers.html

Another little tidbit for you: The platinum fuel saver also will more than double oil change intervals, we have numerous consecutive tests running right now. The tests are so far showing that at around 5000-6000 we have 40% of oil life left and the really interesting thing is at 9000 and even 11,000 (we have 1 test vehicle, ford focus at 11,000 now another a chevy 1500 at 9,000 those are the highest mileage test vehicles right now) the oil is still testing at 40% left. The reason for this is the system reduces the amount of contaminants that enter the oil. Fuel and carbon are the number one oil killer, antifreeze and others still exist and we cant help those but removing the unburnt fuel and carbon from the oil is extending the life of the oil dramatically.
For our fleet accounts we provide 1 free oil sample analysis with each platinum fuel saver they buy so they can verify this.