ECOTAZ ECO Fuelsystems Fuel Enhancers - Does it work?

I can see the desire to get rid of the larger bubbles. 250 micron and bigger. They will give issues for vapor lock on a hot day.

But those 2-50 micron bubbles provide lubricity to the fluids as well.

You might get them out at the filter, but unless it's right AT the injectors, as soon as you get any turbulent flow, you are putting them right back into the fluid.

 

Have not any injector issues since I installed the FASS back in 2004 and it did smooth out the idle and gave more throttle response. I have replaced the motor on the FASS when mine went out and I could tell a difference without it. Not so much in fuel mileage as in idle and throttle response, but the guys with fuel tube in the fuel line right before the injector rail might install a FASS and not see a difference because both do the samething when it comes to fuel supply issues under acceleration.

 

KingQ, I think we're just not communicating here, as we are mostly on the same page. But your original post said that one truck was using 20% of the chemical energy, and the other 40% of that energy. I know what you were trying to say, but that isn't a proper representation as it implies a that there is a vast difference in how much of the fuel energy gets turned to useful work by the engine.

As far as all the external improvements, yes they effect MPG. But we're talking about a magic tube, and it's effect on how an engine converts fuel to power. All those other things effect the losses, whereas the tube effects the initial output of the engine (how much force the engine exerts on the piston.)

I'm done beating the horse on this...

 

Dice, the fact that your fuel pressure stabilized most likely indicates that the tube is slightly restricting fuel flow and damping the pressure waves you were seeing before. The fact that it's not an open tube would also effect the waves being reflected from the head. Let me have another nerdgasm here, and explain what you were seeing...

The transfer pump is a positive displacement pump, which means that it's output varies over the course of revolution. On a four-lobe pump you would see four surges in flow as each lobe opened to the output. Now, in the head, pressure drops in the rail as the injectors draw fuel to be injected, plus there is a constant bleed out the back to the return. So when the transfer is in a 'dead' part of it's cycle, the pressure in the rail drops, then surges when the new flow of pressurized fuel leaves the transfer pump. The bounce you were seeing in your gauge was that pressure wave passing and then being reflected from the end of the rail and travelling back to sending unit. The fact the tube is a vastly different diameter really changes how the pressure waves act as they pass through the device. (This is the same principle used to design expansion chambers for two-strokes.) My point here is that if you could place the sending unit between the tube and the rail, you would once again see those surges in pressure.

Also remember, that some pressure drop in the rail under high load is consider by the engineers as they design the fuel system. As long as it doesn't drop to the point that the injector no longer completely fills, it really has minimal effect power production. Is a stable pressure better? Of course, but I don't think the tubes change that on the bottom side. They have no accumulator properties, and any restriction they offer would only serve to lower the spikes by slowing the surge flow from the pump, not raise the dips in pressure.

 

Hammer I agree with you on this explanation, If Dice was correct the fuel filter has a lot more reserve fuel than tha ECO-System. So if his thought were correct why wouldn't the fuel filter take care of the problem?
The ECO-System is a 1 1/2" tube with the inserts creating a 23% restriction on the 1 1/2" tube. However the inlet fuel line coming into the ECO from the filter is 3/8" and the fuel line going from the ECO to the Head of the Engine is also 3/8". Caterpillar, International and Cummins Dealers and many fleet shop Foremen have tested fuel pressure before and after the ECO-System and found no restriction in flow or pressure.

 

My entire theory is based on what my fuel pressure gauge was reading before and after we moved the EcoTaz from one side of it to the other. The fuel filter is also full of filter material not allowing much room for extra capacity that also restricts fuel flow and I know the EcoTaz has screens that is huge difference than filter material.

 

Thanks Rollin Coal, but Dice and his Posse will chase you everyday till you slip up on a post. Then they run with it to discredit you. I thank you and Big Bad Bill, Ricky Bobbie, Gerardo 1961, The Real Brickman, HaulHand, and others that have posted their reults and continue to use the ECO-System.
In Fact of over 15 units that were sent out for testing, and all the units that have been purchased in the beginning with the drivers that gave it a fair shake, None have been returned. Not even the many that purchased units have returned their units for a refund.
I get several e-mails and pm's from the members that tell me the unit is not going to be returned not even if we double the cost back to them!
They are only tired of their posts being taken out of context and twisted around. Lets face it if it did not work we would have had many return the units back for the refunds or the testers would have posted the negative results.
Now I can tell you that I will get Dices returned. Let me correct that, Our Distributor will get the return due to the reason Dice did not order from me Because from the very beggining I asked him about the ECM report. He would have nothing to do with that. Now after he has posted his negative statements he claims that NOW i am requesting the ECM, only cause he has no positive results. Dice you know this is not true! We talked about the ECM report and doing a test with the new computer from BSI. You then went on a negative rant on the forum. Then you went and ordered from the dealer instead of me.
Now Lets look at the Numbers and I won't use all the ones that have purchased. Just the testers.
There were 14 units sent out.
All positive results.
All with normal driving Trucks.
All who told me when we offerd the test units that they could give a fair test because they keep good records and know their trucks.
We tested to see if it worked in the Real World since many Lab tests do not always play out the same in the Real world.
Tests were on Real Truck, Real Drive Times, Loads, and Speeds.
after days, weeks, and months of testing - all were positive.
Dice comes in and wants in on the Action.
Now pm's his posse and starts to harrass all the guys that say they work because it does not work on:
His super Modified truck with all types of add ons and getting over 9 mpg
all while never driving over 57 mph.
Oscar the KW another driver that was very negative from the beginning, orders one and says it does not work for him either.
Now we have 14 that worked great! on normal truck
1 - did not work on the Super Modified Highly transformed and friction free Dice Truck. (that never runs over 57mph)
1 - did not work on Oscar the KW.
So on this thread we have a 86% positive rating.
Not bad! now we also have,
MNDriver, Hammer166, The Big Diesel, Windsmith, and Skateboardman
5 more drivers with NEGATIVE post to add to Dices side of the board.
Only problem is --- None of them have tried these units. Have No experience with them. So the score is 14 to 2.
SHC worked at first now there is to many variables so he can't say either way. If he sends the unit back we will toss it in Dice's column. If he keeps the ECO-Unit there must be a reason. It is his choice.



We will post pictures of fleets that are installing units since they have seen positive results on their tests. One company has over 300 trucks. Installed on 7 without driver knowledge. Test has been running for 6 months. Over 7% savings on ISX Cummins engines on the seven trucks compared to the other trucks without it.
On each truck if they use 400 gallons at $4.00 a gallon that is $1600.00
That is $112.00 a week in savings 0r $448.00 a month
The ECO #5 is $438.00 cost. ROI in less than a month.
If it does not perform for you? Send it back for full refund within 90 Days.
No One Looses nothing.

However for those who it does work for *** $448.00 @ 12 months = $5,376.00 in your pocket.

This is not Rocket Science! And if You believe the over rated Placebo sugar pill effect. That I can change your driving habits forever by installing the ECO #5 well I guess that is still worth $5,376.00 in Your Pocket.
Guess what your wife could buy at Wal Mart for that much money?????


Now get ready guys cause Dice and His Posse is gonna come riding hard again.

 

lol, this gets better all the time

 

That's right, and they've got the oil companies behind them! As much fuel as your product is saving, they're practically going out of business!

 

I don't HAVE to try it. I ran the numbers using YOUR OWN test results! The product DOES NOT WORK, based on YOUR tests! Your test numbers don't show any significant, consistent and repeatable fuel economy gains beyond the noise floor. And you've NEVER DYNO TESTED ON A DIESEL ENGINE! You could easily do this for less than $5000.00. So why haven't you? I think I know why.


Response please?