₦airaland Forum

GAZZUZZ:
did not watch the whole video, but how did you account for the fuel in the fuel rail before start?

For test 1, there was fuel already in the fuel rail, filter, pump and carburetor. we simply just added the 75cl bottle of standard fuel.

For test 2, we had no fuel in the whole system at start, since test 1 stalled the engine when all the fuel was completely burned.
So we had to re-introduce fuel into the system and prime the carburetor with starting fluid. We allowed the car run on the mixed fuel for 5 minutes before starting the test.

so in both tests, there was fuel in the whole system in addition to the 75cl fuel introduced.

0rex:
I don't see much that the fuel additive did.

Was the engine at optimum temperature even before the first test was carried out?

I'm thinking that perhaps the slight difference in time noticed is even due to engine temperature induced oil viscosity change than the 'magic' additive.

car was driven around and even idled in scorching noon traffic right just before the test started.

EgunMogaji:
So an engine reaches its most efficiency at a certain temperature.

Test 1 and 2 differs because test 1 was performed after the vehicle was driven.

10% is negligible.

A good beginning but this test is not useful outside of a laboratory on a dyno. I don't idle my cars for long periods of time I want to know of increases at that sweet 80mph cruise that I operate in.

Thanks for the comment.

This is my first 'test' and further tests and reviews would definitely improve.

I did not even account for the beetle idling for over 30 minutes on less than a litre of fuel...Fuel economy on a 60 year old technology is amazing.

Conducting the test on a cruise would have brought in different variables...traffic, speed, atmospheric pressure etc...thats why we opted to just idle it under a covered shed.

Thanks

nice comments.

would be addressing them now.

thanks

Explorers:
1970 Mercedes Benz C Class Interior vs 2015 Mercedes Benz C Class Interior.

There was no C class in 1970.

This interior should be the interior of the w114 or w115

Nice thread.

Following

Open to questions

Test has been conducted.

Details were recorded on video and uploaded on YouTube.

DISCLAIMER
We would like to state that we are in no way affiliated to the product distributor and would refrain from mentioning the product name or details to prevent any form of endorsement. We would also state explicitly that results may vary if different conditions like vehicle type,additive and fuel burn process were used.


Full analysis of the test is documented on http://dennautoworld.com/2016/01/23/fuel-boosters-fact-or-myth-the-results-part-2/

SUMMARY

The normal fuel stalled the car in 34 minutes and 14 seconds while the treated fuel stalled the car in 37 minutes and 34 seconds.

A 75cl Plastic Water Bottle was used as the fuel tank while a rubber hose connected this to the fuel line.

The YouTube video is embedded below


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rXs71yptn0

website has been updated with a custom domain.

It is now www.dennautoworld.com

More content too.

thanks

post pictures of the parts you have.

also avail a detailed list.

many thanks

Test has been scheduled to hold tomorrow morning.

Updates will follow shortly.

Many thanks

To ensure data and record integrity, i would also be mirroring the posts here on my blog.

the blog address is www.dennautoworld.com

OUR TEST
We intend to test the claim that the product increases MPG by 10%.

MPG stands for 'Miles Per Gallon' and is a universal way of determining how much fuel your car burns over a certain distance. For example, a 20 MPG means that your car consumes one gallon of fuel to cover a distance of 20 miles. A car with 21 MPG is better at fuel management than a car with 20 MPG.

There are many variables that affect MPG.

Driving style, traffic, weather, engine condition, road structure etc.

In order to get a result as fair as possible, we would be eliminating a whole lot of the variables to get a constant condition-set for the test.

The rest would not involve any driving.

We would idle the warmed up vehicle using a fixed quantity of fuel.

There would be two tests.

Test 1 would involve idling the car by using a fixed quantity of standard fuel. The duration it takes to idle would be measured and recorded.

Test 2 would involve idling the same car by using a mixture of fuel and the treatment. The duration it takes to idle would also be measured and recorded.

The results of both tests would be compared.

We shall modify the fuel input system to run from a bottle instead of from the tank. This would enable us get as accurate a result as possible.

Safety factors would also be taken into cognisance.

The test is going to be as independent as possible with no bias for or against the product.

CLAIM SUMMARY
The product under review claims to do 5 things:

Improve Performance and Horsepower. It claims to do this by burning more of the available BTU in the fuel. This claim cannot be tested by us.

Increase Fuel Mileage. It claims to reduce fuel consumption and increase MPG by at least 10%.
This implies that by using this product, you can extend the duration of fuel burn with the same fuel quantity. This is the claim we would be testing.

Reduces harmful emissions and pollutants. It claims to reduce carbon residue by 59% to 90%.
This is a huge claim and unfortunately cannot be tested by our team. We would have loved to be able to test this claim and we can still do that in future with available equipment.

Prolongs engine life and reduces wear.
The product claims to lubricate the engine and thereby reduces wear.
This claim is huge. Except the product lubricates only the fuel system components, it cannot lubricate the whole engine. We cannot test this too at the moment.

Prolongs the life of stored fuel. It claims to allow the storage of fuel perpetually. This implies that it prevents fuel from going bad ( yes, petrol goes bad after long storage).
We could test this claim by storing a bottle mixed with this product for one year, however, it still remains a huge claim that needs to be investigated.

GAZZUZZ:
was it to improve mileage? If it was I'm sure it failed. Was it to clean injectors? If it was I'm interested.

The product under review claims to do many things (more on that shortly)

However, due to the limit of out testing abilities (our nuclear fission laboratory and nano particle accelerator centers have not yet been opened ), we would just test the mileage claims

billy187:
pictures! pictures!!

We would get more than pictures....

peterjero:
What's the result sir, and please don't use the beetle for the test lol. I'm keenly waiting......

The beetle is the best to use for the test based on the following:

The beetle does not have a knock sensor to retard anything due to a lower octane level (assumed) of the control.

The beetle has only one fuel line going to the carburetor. There is no return line. This implies that fuel input into the vehicle is simpler and can be monitored accurately.

mayor2013:
No. Do your test @ your own detriment

Detriment? Why the bad blood?

mayor2013:
Am keen on this result. But just have it at the back of your mind that you might be causing more harm than good in what sense if you ask? Whatever dirt you have in your fuel tank is driven down to your noozles thereby blocking them. A misfire is the end result. If you need to cleaning up your noozles come to multi auto lab where we use more advanced technology called the fuel injection tester with ultrasonic cleaner. It works better and its much contemporary, here are its features

Leak test
Spray pattern test
Reverse flushing
Ultrasonic cleaning
And many more, your noozles would never remain the same

Are you indirectly advertising your service?

This would be just to test the veracity of the product and state the results.

It would be independent and unbiased test.

Steps to prevent any harm would be taken in as realistic ways as possible.

Many thanks

Hello All

Due to a thread that was opened recently on car talk as regards a particular fuel treatment product that was introduced, I have decided to conduct an independent test on the efficacy of the said product.

After detailed discussions with the product seller, i agreed to test the fuel treatment product and present the details.

EDIT:
Part 1: http://dennautoworld.com/2016/01/21/fuel-boosters-fact-or-myth-a-test-part-1/

Part 2: http://dennautoworld.com/2016/01/23/fuel-boosters-fact-or-myth-the-results-part-2/

mejai:
a cold bottle of star for u!

Make it two and I will buy you correct nkwobi

EgunMogaji:
Just wanted to add that I actually bought the 1959 from the original owner.

Do you still own it?

It would have made your write up fully complete if you had included the pictures of the exact car at the stand and not internet downloaded copies.

Good write up...

Exponental:
I think it is a replacement for the Peugeot 504.

nice analogy...

Whizpeter:
I think mine would be a Range Rover 2020 model... #DreamBig

Inferiority complex.

This is not an E39 M.

M had manual transmission and though sharing same chassis and body with the stock M, it was evidently different....steering wheels etc

I like this copy though... It looks clean.

sultaan:
Burning oil smoking are related but I am sure there would be a CEL.

Most Montero with the 3.5l engine do not get serviced properly because the intake manifold covers the spark plugs and costs double for tuneup so most were never serviced oil leaks from valve cover too gets ignored for the same reason.

Online searches on this particular problem point to one thing....the valve stem seals.

The seals seem to harden and must be replaced at 100,000 miles generally.

Bad spark plugs should not cause engine smoking.

If I own the vehicle presently, I would be doing a complete valve job.

ENDTIMEISNEAR:
Masquerade Soldiers moving inside Sambisa Forest

Naija military no get swag

So you have never heard of camouflage?