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.)

the initial "conditioning" is varies greatly. i said i have seen as much as 1800 the original inventor always stated 2000 just to be safe, most vehicles take far less. At 1200 miles if the JP mag jeep was only getting 2 mpg it was not fully conditioned, we always see results greater than that.

Cars do not emit more than 20% of the wasted fuel, that is the job of the catalytic converter. Just because the vehicle only emits 5% from the exhaust doesnt mean the cat did not remove an additional 20%.

Hopefully the admin that control this board will decide to partake in a test and hopefully that will be proof enough for you guys. I mean i could use customer testimonials but honestly those mean absolutely nothing they could be real genuine testimonials or they cuold have been written by a writer there is no way to prove that thats why we never use them.

Also have you had a chance to check out our test focus page? That test is as transparent as one could be. We had about 700 lbs in the car including me and Don also had 750 watt inverter running and were running 75+ and we still averaged over 31 MPG which is higher than the epa test say the car should get under the best of conditions.

Another thing take a look at the video we did during a live radio remote, in the video we reduced hydrocarbons and co2 dramatically in just minutes.

theclencher, yes we used to deal in hydrogen systems. Hydrogen systems do work but are very expensive to do right and require extensive computer programming to work properly. It may serve you to check out the following.

https://hhotek.com/hhofacts.php
https://hhotek.com/blog/green-news/run-car-water-true/

Give it up fool.

Only thing you have that's worthy of more than 2 seconds of consideration are the h- h- hos. :rolleyes:

Why not at least cut him some slack.. Sure, I do not believe it is going to work, but if he is willing to give the site a FREE UNIT to independently test on one of our members cars, then he is obviously willing to stand behind his product. That is much more than I can say about the "Hull Effect" guy, or the fuel additive people that have come on the site. So as long as he actually follows through and sends a unit to test, what until the "test" fails and then flame him and kick him to the curb... lol

Of course im willing to give one to someone from this site in order to validate my system. I give away one and its proven to your guys and alot of you will become lifelong customers and so will your brothers, sisters, mom and dad. Before we started advertising on the radio word of mouth was our number one form of advertising. As long as the person testing maintains the same type of driving habits and is willing to give it a honest run they WILL see results. If they hypermile now and then install my system and drive flat footed then of course its not going to show gains but if they give it an honest run it will work out.

I agree that a test is in order. The only way to truely test is to do a blind test.

The device should be installed on the test car by a neutral third party. The third party checks the device once per week. Some weeks, the device may be activated, other weeks it is non-functional. The driver fills up every week and posts the results, the third party then reveals during which weeks the device was "on". This would reduce the tendency of the driver to subconsciously drive differently when the unit was installed.

Or- someone just needs to sneak this device onto their spouse's car and tell them nothing.

That ford focus test doesn't really validate anything. My dad's car regularly gets 35mpg, by just doing the speed limit on his 30 mile daily commute.

First off, the modern EPA tests do not run in the "ideal" condition of the former EPA tests. They run AC on, High speed, higher acceleration, and all that stuff to simulate more real world driving conditions. The "old" epa ratings were 24-31, but the "new" ratings (With the less than "ideal" conditions) are merely 23 city 30 highway.

The fact that the car got the EPA highway mileage on a steady, long, and very consistent highway trip? (Which is in honesty, better conditions then the modern EPA tests) Wonderful! The car works the way it should.

Your water injection system seems to have helped restore it to original performance.

I really want to see an independant study with more than one vehicle that confirms your 20% claims. Heck, even if the driving conditions for the "previous best highway mpg" of 27, and the trip with 31.9mpg were the same (I highly doubt that, because you really can't get more ideal conditions for mpg than a 1000+ mile road trip), it's still not 20%

Both claims you've shown us (only one from a third party), show less than the "20% average" you claim. Where are the other third party tests (hosted off your site) that show more than 20% gains, to validate the claim of 20% average?



And you still haven't answered my big question:

How does the O2 sensor in a functional vehicle NOT detect the unburnt fuel?

the o2 sensor does detect the unburnt fuel thats its purpose, on some vehicles the system will start showing gains and then the gains will drop because the o2 thinks its too lean and it will add more fuel so at that point you reset the computer so that it will learn the new fuel curve. So far that reset has worked on everything except a couple italians. GM vehicles are the most prone to needing a reset.

The ford focus test, the car got terrible mileage before and i assure you with me driving the way i drive was the absolute farthest from ideal conditions you could possibly ever get, on a number of occasions i was running over 90 (the focus got a little hairy over 100) if you calculate the time you will see that some very high speeds had to be held, i mean we averaged 57 MPH over 17 hours, try to do that and see what kind of average running speed you have to maintain.

This sounds like a decent idea. I was trying to figure out how we'd deal with that issue if we did play along.

this is very simple you find someone on here that drives the same route everyday for 100 miles or so and for 1 week they do exactly what i did with the focus take a picture of the odometer before fillup and after and scan fuel receipts. then install the system run for 1000 miles and then do the exact same thing for 1 week. This will give us a fairly good time line to judge driving habits from and fuel usage. If they drive an average speed of 45 before and an average of 80 after then we know they intended to blow the test. but as long as the everything averages out fairly then the second test will show good results.

There may be another way to do this but i do not know of it right now.

I think we should just go with JP Magazine's rigorous and scientifically proven valid testing. That several variables were changed during the course of the "test" shouldn't matter any... :rolleyes:

Poly Ether Amine additives from Gumout, Redline, and other companies clean the combustion chamber in about the same amount of miles reducing emissions and improving gas mileage. It's a lot cheaper than the Platinum refills and available at any auto store. An engine already cleaned with PEA should not require a break in period.

Debunked
 

I am new to this site and am a bit apprehensive about posting since I just joined, but I read this thread twice, just to make sure I got the jest of what was going on.

I'm afraid the poster who claims to own the company has issued his own indictment, using his own word no less.

I hope you guys thoroughly read the EPA's test protocol regarding this product.

If you didn't, here are a few highlights:

3 vehicles were tested using a strict testing protocol.

All were driven 2,000 miles both before and after installation of the product in an attempt to test the product's effectiveness.

The vehicle with the least mileage had only 5,320 miles on the odometer at the beginning of the test.

The vehicle with the most mileage had only 13,423 miles on the odometer at the beginning of the test.

The poster who claims to be the owner of the company said:

"...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 EPA tested this product using 3 very low mile vehicles for 2,000 miles, twice the distance that the company owner claims is needed to see "full results."

The EPA concluded that the Platinum fuel saver did not significantly change emissions or fuel economy. This is the 2nd time they've tested this tonic. It just doesn't work.

I think the only issue the company owner has is that the EPA actually used objective data and well established test procedures.

I apologize for the intrusion, but I'm flabbergasted that this product is actually still being debated.

Cheers,
Landog

We are aware that the EPA has tested the device twice, and Consumer Reports tested it once with no result, however, the only reason we're still allowing discussion on it is because we have been offered one free of charge for testing & evaluation. The site administration has yet to decide if we're going to take them up on it, and if so, which member's vehicle will be the guinnea pig.

Well, really, we don't disallow discussion of such devices; we merely try to determine when a post or thread is more about free advertising than it is about a free exchange of information, and we stop those.

Anyone still interested
 

It seems to be awhile since anyone has chimed in on this product. I just recently 07/28/10 installed one and I will know for sure the validity of the product. I have owned over six cars in the last 3 years and still have 3 of the same to this day. I have installed this on my daily commuter, a 1999 Saturn SL2 that has 199,967 miles on it. I tell you this because I have put 85,000 miles in this car over the lat 28 months. I have a palm pilot with a car maintenance program that I have run since 1999. I tell you this because I have logs and receipts to support the logs from everything and anything I do to my cars. I know when I have bought wiper blades, rotated tires and most of all I have a complete list of every gas fill up and the mpg between fill ups. I know exactly what my mpg usually is and I will know if this product is valid or BS. I will reply to my findings in the near future. My average MPG for my SL2 is 31-32.5 for mainly highway and approx 28.5 if I drive city and highway. I will let you all know what I get and than at least I will know if this works and it will be up to all who read this to determine if it is real or if I am a crackpot who has nothing better to do with my time. As far as government agencies, take a look at ingredients that are allowed in food, and how they use our tax dollars, so pardon me if I am not accepting what comes out of their mouths.

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

The EPA will test certain controls, and found no appreciable difference in the platinum disk. Camino resonance of my feet. The battery in a Dyno is running, there will be vibration and resonance of the bridge (though less from drums have less surface of a paved road). Engine vibration is vibration resonance of the road, especially because the tires are damped by the suspension.

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

On 10/4/2010 i purchased a Platinum Fuel Saver and hooked it up to my 2005regular cab 2 wheel drive Dodge w/5.7 Hemi. They claimed that you will see the most improvement on fuel mileage after you have put between 1000 to 1800 miles on your vehicle after hooking up the device. When i had approx. 700 miles of use i made the same road trip 3 weekends in a row which was exactly 106 miles.I filled up at the same gas station and drove the same exact distance each tripp. The first trip i used a little more than 1/4 tank. The second trip i used a little less than 1/4 tank and the third trip my gas needle barely moved off the full mark. I now have over 6000 miles with the Platinum Fuel Saver installed and before using it i was lucky to get 300 miles out of a full tank (hwy) and would get approx. 230 to 260 mpg around town sometimes towing a trailer and sometime not. I now hit 300 miles per tank around town everytime and the last hwy tripp was the third 106 mile trip that i mentioned above and i got 402 miles to a tank of gas and that was with only approx. 1336 miles of use since the device was installed. I truely believe that my hwy mileage would be closer to 150 more mile per tank but i just hav'nt been on a road trip since to confirm this..So im getting approx. 40 to 50 more miles per tank around town and over 100 more miles per tank (hwy). My truck runs a little cooler and definitely accelerates better. I will continue to use this product as the results i have recieved and the results that two other people that i personally installed one for has proven that this product does work.

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

How many gallons of gas were used for each trip?

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

How many gallons of gas were used for each trip? What was the average speed for each trip? What were the weather conditons?

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

I noticed that posters with just a few posts in total are touting the claim of this product.

I would be interested in if someone on this board takes the offer of a free trial to get real world data.

Although if someone was selling shamwow...... :)

https://theshoppingvine.com/wp-conten...06/shamwow.jpg

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

remember if there was an easy fix to get great mileage, they would be selling the thing at wal-mart (ironically, you can get the sham-wow at wally world RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!)

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

I'll be the guinea pig if they want someone to give it a try at their expense, then if it truly does what they say I've got a yard full of cars that I'll consider putting it on. If it doesn't work no one will waste their money!!! I can't say whether it works or not, but I've tried other gas savers that didn't work. I tried one of the fuel vaporizers several years back only because at the time they offered your money back within X number of days if you weren't satisfied. I worked with it making adjustments almost until my money back time was nearly up with no benefit (actully lost mileage on some adjustments) and the company is no longer offering money back if not satisfied.

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

If there was an easy fix to get great mileage, carmakers would already be putting it on at the factory.

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

Most if any of the improvement in performance is gained by the water injection properties.

True water injection was used in the old Messerschmitt aircrafts as a performance blast.

PowerFoam was out a few years back and it was installed the same way and actually works kinda nice. I found it was more of an improvement in the way the motor runs.

https://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_...th/z/water.jpg

This is a basic view I found online. You add a few drops of dish soap and it creates a water soap foam from bubbling in the bottle. You draw off the top of the container and make it draw air from the air-stone. The soap makes bubbles and also makes the gasoline and the water play nice together.
Water expands .. steam. It has a boost .. and anti-knock properties that work nicely on small 4 / 6 cylinder motors that hold a high compression ratio.
I always adjust it till the idle falters, then back it up just a tad. Worked great on the Ford 2.3 Motors.

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

An old towel dries my truck better but for the rest, the ShamWow! works.

Clyde the Ride is the same as cowboyjack999's Tundra 'cept a few years newer.
Post the info on where to get the nonsense Platinum stuff and if it works, you'll know soon because I drive between 150 and 350 miles a day.
Because of the number of miles, a one-mile per gallon improvement means measurable money in my pocket.

I did go through 100,000 miles with Pulstar spark plugs. There was a performance improvement; smoothness and power but no change in MPG. No point getting another set if the MPG is the same.

The newer the vehicle, the harder it is to keep the computer from making the vehicle run the way it was designed to run.

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

HAHAHAHA!!! Where's the free trial?! Also, most of HiBSTek's website and links no longer work... HAHAHAHAH!!!

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

My dear children,

If you get platiun vapor into your engine cylinders... you will get a more complete burn..period !

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

why has this thread not been locked yet?

we have made fun of this product, debunked this product, asked for a free sample of this product (and received none) and yet the posters in favor of this product seem to come back time and time again spouting the same things and have nothing to back up their claims.

sorry, (/rant)

Re: Platinum Fuel Saver
 

Its even funnier. The guy that posted before you reported his own post! Of course he was banned. I agree, this thread does nothing but attract spammers & shillers though.