# Fuel Saver Pro....yea right!



## felix1point1

Guess this and similar have been around for a few years but this is the first I've seen of it. Brought to my attention via spam... Go figure.... The Fuel Saver Pro http://www.xnue.biz/test.asp . I say bogus... what do you guys think? Anyone ever try one of these gadgets?


----------



## Skivvywaver

I'd say bogus. JC Whitney has has those fuel line clamp ons for years. If they really worked, they would be on just about every car in America.


----------



## bhill

Fuel Saver Pro actually decreased fuel economy in AAA study. Check this link.

http://www.kirotv.com/consumer/2220354/detail.html


----------



## aarhus2004

Have a son, he gave his pocket money to 8 or ten of those gizmos, this in the 80's. Without exception they are very persuasive and expensive time-wasters.


----------



## Tadgerguy

Unfortunately products and claims like the one made by Fuel Saver Pro affects anyone in the industry.
I can't speak for them or others like them however if we put all related products in the same box we might as well all go home and forget about technological advancement.
The only way to validate the potential of any product is through vigorous and accurate testing.
The article from the AAA test is biased at best since the test parameters are not disclosed. I believe that the intent of the test was sincere however without knowing the scope of the test the report does not paint a clear picture.

In short we must continue to keep an open mind regarding technological advancement while at the same time protecting the consumer through robust testing and limiting ridiculous claims.

Comments appreciated.

John
www.tadgergroup.com


----------



## Stoner

> _Originally posted by Tadgerguy:_
> *Unfortunately products and claims like the one made by Fuel Saver Pro affects anyone in the industry.
> I can't speak for them or others like them however if we put all related products in the same box we might as well all go home and forget about technological advancement.
> The only way to validate the potential of any product is through vigorous and accurate testing.
> The article from the AAA test is biased at best since the test parameters are not disclosed. I believe that the intent of the test was sincere however without knowing the scope of the test the report does not paint a clear picture.
> 
> In short we must continue to keep an open mind regarding technological advancement while at the same time protecting the consumer through robust testing and limiting ridiculous claims.
> 
> Comments appreciated.
> 
> John
> www.tadgergroup.com *


As far as the Tadger device goes, I would think an oem fuel injector would far outperform the minimal effect of an in line fuel device when considering turbulence. 
The Tadger site refers to diesel engines.
As diesel injectors are of a high pressure nature, greater than even gasoline versions, I would think any restriction in the fuel delivery would not be a positive for efficiency or performance. Actually, I can't think of any extra restriction in any fuel system being a positive.

from http://www.tadgergroup.com/# ---(scientific explanation)


> As fuel enters the Tadger, the area of fuel is decreased resulting in an increase in the fuel velocity


I've heard of surface area of a liquid, I've heard of volume of a liquid, but what is area of a liquid?

Tadger keeps referring to the benifits of fuel turbulence. I fail to see how their device can improve on the turbulence created by a correctly functioning fuel injector.

from : http://www.tadgergroup.com/independant_testing/Mar_02_Test_Report_from_EC.html

the results in the charts do not appear consistant nor significant by their own description.
(see table 3,4,5)

and the dyno annalysis on a 1981 diesel engine:
http://www.tadgergroup.com/independant_testing/toromont_dyna_analysis.htm

There have been a lot of improvements since 1981 
Perhaps a tune up might have worked just as well? 

Jack


----------



## LibertyHound

As Phineas Taylor Barnum (P.T. Barnum) once said: "There's a sucker born every minute"


----------



## dai

the only fuel saver that works
keep it tuned up and take the lead out of your foot


----------



## Deke40

:up: K&N Air Filter enhances fuel economy and performance which souds like an oxymoron.

I put one on my 94 S-10 with the 4.3V6 and my average went up about 1 to 2 miles to the gallon consistantly.

Put one on my now gone 93 Lumina and saw no difference at all.

Going to put one on my Sable with the 3.0 DOHC and see.


----------



## Stoner

Hi Deke

K&N's are an inexpensive performance add on, but seldom much of a milage improver on a fuelinjected motor. Most new systems can monitor atmospheric pressure, manifold pressure or air mass flow along with air temp in the intake.
The computer pretty much dictates the fuel burn.
I have flashed the chip in my 98 Camero and installed a better fuel map and ignition curve . 
I used a 'Hypertech' upgrade kit that is EPA legal. Dyno tests(in the auto mags) did show about a 20 hp gain and the K&N another 8.
I did see a definite improvement in power and maybe a 2 mpg improvement in town. Interstate driving was the same.
I did the upgrades for my own satisfaction  not economy.
The milage improvement probably won't offset the costs.
But with the Flowmaster exhaust, it's a nice ride 


smilin' Jack


----------



## Tadgerguy

Hi Stoner

Your comments regarding turbulence and fuel injectors are interesting. Creating a Reynolds number above 2000 in the fuel (turbulence) has nothing to do with the fuel injectors. Fuel injectors do not change the fluid dynamics per se.

There is no loss in pressure when fuel passes through the Tadger. For a better scientific explanation, considering the one posted on the Tadger site needs to be rewritten, read articles on "the continuity equation" and "the Bernoulli Principle"

The only proof is to complete your own dyno emission tests yourself. We have completed hundreds and they all can't be wrong.

John


----------



## Stoner

> _Originally posted by Tadgerguy:_
> *Hi Stoner
> 
> Your comments regarding turbulence and fuel injectors are interesting. Creating a Reynolds number above 2000 in the fuel (turbulence) has nothing to do with the fuel injectors. Fuel injectors do not change the fluid dynamics per se.
> 
> There is no loss in pressure when fuel passes through the Tadger. For a better scientific explanation, considering the one posted on the Tadger site needs to be rewritten, read articles on "the continuity equation" and "the Bernoulli Principle"
> 
> The only proof is to complete your own dyno emission tests yourself. We have completed hundreds and they all can't be wrong.
> 
> John *


Hi John,

excerpt from: http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/jag/vw/engine/fi/injpump.html


> On the forward pressure stroke fuel is pressurized (to over 120 bar). At this time the Plunger barrel is connected to a particular delivery valve through the channel in the center of the plunger, and a port in the side. When pressure builds up to the delivery valve opening pressure, the valve will open and deliver high pressure fuel to the injector.


 120 bar equals about 1700 psi. That's the pressure between the injection pump and injector at the time the injector blows off. I have included(below) a cutaway showing the guts of a Bosch diesel injector pump. I see at least two instances in the pathway(venturi effects) the fuel takes that might induce exactly the same result that you claim for your product.










Further, I find it difficult to believe that an impediment in the flow of the fuel stream is able to chemically change the nature of that fuel without the aid of a catalyst. A chemical analysis of the fuel might be interesting. Before it enters the pump, after it exits the pump, after it exits theTadger device and again after it exits the injector. The tests could be done with and without the Tadger device to see if there is a difference in the chemistry of the fuel as it goes thru the delivery system.

However, I saw nothing at your site at on that topic. Nor did I see more than one dyno test, and that was on a 1981 Ford Diesel Motor. Please give a link incase I missed it.

I did see again the emission tests. I notice the tests were baselined in the winter months(December) and the product testing done in perhaps warmer weather(March). Did air temperature and density have any effect on the results? The only way to know is to run all the tests under the same conditions.

(excuse me if I appear cynical of your claim, but I have seen a lifetime of similar 'milage'/'performance' enhancers, but none that I remember being of any value.) (However, I have seen a lot of duct tape used at the drag strip,  )

and now to "the continuity equation" and the" Bernoulli Principle" >>>

Interesting concepts here :

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1988/6/88.06.04.x.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/21_180.html

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node68.html

If the claim is made that a chemical change occurs thru a pressure differential (venture effect), I would think the pressure differential created by a high pressure pump against a blowoff valve(injector) would more significant than any 'necking' of the fuel line or an obstruction of a similar nature. I have circled two areas of the Bosch pump where turbulance would occur under very high pressures. Still, the greatest turbulance and pressure differential, I would think, occurs at the injector at the time of 'blow off'.
I would think with the rapid escape of fuel out the valve body, the injector could be viewed as a powerful venturi.

Jack


----------



## Tadgerguy

Stoner,

Thanks for your input.

The idea of testing the chemical analysis of the fuel before and after the Tadger sounds interesting. Unfortunately our customers do not care about any independent tests. They are only interested tests performed on their fleet regardless of the historical data we present. That explains the number of client result studies that we have completed.

With our real life experiences in mind, our goal has been to design and execute the most accurate and cost effective on-road testing protocol within our control and that meets our customers needs.

If you are interested in completing dyno tests for your own interests, I would consider sending you a sample gas Tadger for the test. We have local Government emission test facilities that we also use to complete testing on personal vehicles. Maybe you have similar state facilities available to you.

John


----------



## Stoner

Hi John,

Thanks for the offer on the gas kit..
However, the state of Ohio no longer tests emissions on 1996 or newer vehicles with OBD2. All those tests are done by scaning the onboard computer of autos.
I am out of the auto repair business and have sold all my diagnostic equipment.

On the gas kit, I'm curious what kind of results you expect with the formulated fuels and those that are are already O2 enhanced with alcohol?

BTW, are your products EPA certified in the US?


Jack


----------



## Tadgerguy

Stoner,

That's unfortunate about not having your diagnostic equipment any more.

The expected reductions for gas, based on testing by Jan-Cen Racing/Snap On and Novamann International labs are:

Hydrocarbons (ppm) - 40% average
Carbon Monoxide (%) - 40% average
NOx (ppm) - 10% average

Jan-Cen tested using a chassis dyno on a 1985 GM 350 while Novamann tested on 17 various autos ranging from 1984 - 1994. As far as testing is concerned I believe that any results we have generated to date show a reduction trend only. The results obtained are as unique as the engines that produced the results.

My concern regarding the testing process around our product is that there is no single standard test procedure within the industry. When we completed our testing at Environment Canada we used a chassis dyno and a UDDS cycle. There are six to eight various tests for the chassis dyno and the same number for an engine dyno. Our customers look at our historical test data and still want to test themselves. We could run 16 different dyno tests but it still would not sell a product That is why we have developed our own test methods for our customers.

As far as testing with the EPA is concerned it would be just throwing more good money after bad. They do not endorse any product, they only publicize the results. This will not help sell to private companies. We know this from experience.

Thanks again for your interest and input.

John


----------



## Stoner

Hi John,

The EPA issue is quite relevant here in the US. Quite so in California.
Aftermarket manufacturers of auto performance items are required to have their products certified if that product is intended for use on Federal,State or local highways.
An inspection that catches non certified modifications is grounds for failure of an emissions test, meaning no license plates till corrected.
You might reconsider the EPA certification for the US consumer. I think it's very relevant to the auto enthusiast that is knowledgeable of the emission laws in the US.



> That's unfortunate about not having your diagnostic equipment any more.


Yes, that is one of the disadvantages of being retired 
hmmmmm........maybe that's a good thing?



> Hydrocarbons (ppm) - 40% average
> Carbon Monoxide (%) - 40% average
> NOx (ppm) - 10% average


I'm in my skeptical mode again.
I've enclosed three Ohio EPA emission tests from 2002 .This year, the testing was changed for OBD2 cars, and now the onboard computer is scanned for trouble codes. These are my vehicles and there are no modifications of any type.

1996 Monte Carlo Z34:

As you can see the limit for HC was 74 ppm and the test was 5.9
A 40% improvement would make that read 2.4

CO is already 0% No way you can improve that.

NOx isn't tested by Ohio

CO2 is 14.3% but there is no fail spec in Ohio.

*Note the 'Tampering' on the form. There is an inspection and the hood is raised.*

_____________

The 1996 Geo Tracker is similar.
HC 3.4ppm, CO is again 0%, CO2 is 15.24%

I believe (professional opinion) that each vehicle runs as efficient as the onboard computer allows. As the O2 sensors read the exhaust in and out of the cat. converters, there is little room for 40% improvement in any gas test unless there is either a malfunction or inefficiency in the engine and emission systems.

Now, for an older light duty pick up truck that has the older OBD
system. This test is from 2003. There are 193,000 miles on it. There has been no emission repair or mechanical repair of the engine.

HC is 7.6 ppm
CO is .09%
and CO2 is 15.24%

This vehicle has only one O2 sensor, and it's in the exhaust stream before the cat.
This vehicle may be tricked into performing better  But not much 
But I think a fresh oil change and a tune up would be the greatest factor.

BTW, a fresh oil change always shows a significant improvement in emissions over 'old' oil. My Sun gas analyzer 
picked up on that. It has been recommended by many articles, for older autos that are borderline in passing.

John, unless I'm racing(actually,I quit the track a while ago) I look to the EPA certification of modifications . Then I know that the product has passed ridged testing and has a decent chance of performing as advertised.

As far as your own testing, I would put most of your efforts on relatively new autos. New preferably. I've seen 10 year old cars, that pass emission testing, vary considerably from tests that are even only hours apart. Old cars become unreliable for identical results as the worn mechanical and emission equipment often becomes inconsistent in function. As the mileage piles up, eventually some device in the system fails altogether and that dang check engine light comes on 

Your product, EPA certified, on a new car would impress me if there was a 40% improvement in emissions.

I'll put the copies of my EPA results in following posts.
I really don't think your gas kit would improve their performance.


----------



## Stoner

The Monte Carlo:


----------



## Stoner

The Geo Tracker:


----------



## Stoner

Ford Ranger:


----------



## Tadgerguy

Jack,


I have to agree with you regarding newer vehicles.

We have tested numerous 2001, 2002 & 2003 vehicles under our provincial testing program. I find that the CO results are typically less than 0.1 Although we show improvements, the current CO levels are typically non-existent.

We test for NOx here and our typical reductions vary from 5-10% That was also evident in our Environment Canada chassis dyno tests for diesel which showed an average 4.5% reduction in NOx

HC tests on newer vehicles also show reductions in the 30-40% range.

We do not test for CO2 in Canada.

Currently we do not market the product in the US however we will be entering the US market in late 2004. In your opinion if you could only complete one test with a gas product for the EPA which test protocol would you use?

Thanks again.

John


----------



## Stoner

Hi John,



> Currently we do not market the product in the US however we will be entering the US market in late 2004. In your opinion if you could only complete one test with a gas product for the EPA which test protocol would you use?


I can only suggest contacting the EPA for certification information.
As I have never been in the business of manufacturing emission related auto parts, I have had no experience dealing with EPA from the certification end.
You might try to contact one of the US manufacturers and ask for pointers on streamlining your efforts. Edlebrock is a large company that makes a wide range of certified products. You could try inquiring at a company like that to see what the easiest approach is in regards to dealing with the EPA beaurocracy.
What I have read over the last few years, I get the impression that the testing processes have been relaxed lately.

Jack


----------



## felix1point1

I must say I'm glad I revisited thist thread. Your opinions, links and descusions have been educational to say the least. I don't know a lot about cars but as with everything else "if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is".

Now heres a real question for you. As long as I got the attention of half the motorheads on this site, anyone interested in helping me troubleshoot my '88 (To)yota corolla?


----------



## Stoner

Hi felix1point1 

I used to be in the auto repair business.
Been out of it for a decade, kinda rusty at it now 
Go ahead and post your problem.
If the mods think it appropriate somewhere else in the forum, 
so be it.

Somebody here should have some ideas that help.


Jack


----------



## fuelsaver

This amazing, revolutionary device Increases Gas Mileage 27%+ by helping fuel burn better using three patented processes from General Motors. Increases Horsepower By up to 20%. Just snap this amazing Fuel saving device over your fuel supply line and it will begin working immediately!

Fuel Saver Pro can also help you pass the MOT. Check out the amazing results (ZERO emissions) from a recent MOT (28/06/04). as we have very stringent emission test in the united kingdom & the car is a 2000 model (GMC) Vauxhall Vectra 2.0i 
so the device actually works as this test was done at the main dealer you can buy this online if you want & prob if you fit it to the right fuel line on your vehicle at the right place you will notice a great inprovement as i did in millage it increased my millage to 60-70 mile per gallon of petrol i put in & i use shell optimax thats super unleaded to anyone outside of the uk to buy it please visit http://www.fuelsaverpro.co.uk or http://www.fuelsaverpro.com


----------



## turbo3000d

It is an old disign that turbo3000d has stopped using because it has old technoligy.there is already three generations of new units past the old one tadger is passing off as new tech. and for twice to three time the amount the real unit sells for


----------



## Super-D-38

... Nah, just skip the hype. To improve (?) the mileage in my 78 Power Wagon, I'm just gonna go with a blower.. Instant 100+ HP.. And it sounds way cool.  

It already gets 5 - 6 MPG... Couldn't hurt. :up: 

Now I just need to wait for the $5,000 - 7,000 to do the job.


----------



## Stoner

I see the 'too good to be true' thread is up and running again 

I missed fuelsaver's post last March.....now how did that happen?.. 

Wow...that: LINK
sure looks official.  Grocery tape?

Ohio quit testing tailpipe emissions on OBD2 cars and trucks and is supposedly going to end EPA testing altogether. Good riddance.

Super-D-38.......sounds cool, if you do it, post pictures 
Think I'll put my money in a new motorcycle. The Yamaha MT01 is supposed to be offered in the US as a 2006 model......I'll have to check it out


----------



## Super-D-38

OK, had a pic of the truck as is, but it's gone when the system died.. 
It may be in my ghost image, but now I need to find a way into it.. The PC has changed so I doubt it will load, so... I guess I may need to take more.


----------



## turbo3000d

IF YOU PURCHASED A TADGER UNIT AND HOMELAND SECURITY FINDS IT ON YOUR VEHICLE THEY CAN IMPOUND YOUR VEHICLE AND OR REMOVE THE UNIT. 
IF YOU WANT THE REAL DEAL FOR LESS THAN $200.00 us you know where to go WWW.T_________.COM

JUST BEWARE OF FRAUDULENT CLAIMS BEFORE YOU BUY.


----------



## Stoner

"JUST BEWARE OF FRAUDULENT CLAIMS BEFORE YOU BUY."

Indeed _


----------



## turbo3000d

your a loser


----------

