EcoTaz Test by Dice

Know a guy that changes bearings out every 200K because he swears he sees 5/10 fuel improvement with the better tolerances. And microblue claims reports within this range.

 

If that were true then the money you would save in fuel by replacing the bearings would be lost by replacing the bearings again.

 

He does work himself and cost is around $500 (i think). It pays for cost but I don't know if he sees that kind of drop-off that soon. I do know that making the change at say 500K can make a difference.

But the point on this is, just changing the bearings gives improvement, then how much of the improvement is because of blue and new bearings?

I am planning on changing my bearings out this summer and will do it with treated bearings. The extra cost is not that much if it does nothing. If it works it pays for itself in a month. With the gamble.

 

http://www.etieco.com/install-peterbilt-fuel-savings.htm

it gives results but isnt a dyno report .it was ran on highway and then read off the ecm with cat technician. it seems the without was consistent the with was about 4 tenths greater between two runs. couldnt find one that was an actual dyno run

some of the reports , like one by a assistant professor at univ of tulsa is from 1991 .

 

Thanks for the link, skateboardman.

That paper from Tulsa is one of many issues I have with this product. That paper implies that the product is cracking the diesel fuel down to lighter fractions. Yet in the first thread on this thing M818 took them task for claiming they were cracking with no external energy input (See here), and got an immediate response of (Well... almost immediate. He got a couple snake oil responses first) "We're sorry, that was a typo," and Ben back-pedaled away from the claim, only to try and say the same exact thing in the next sentence. Here For those of you who don't know, fuel is made up of molecules that are carbon chains. So here we have someone profusely apologizing for claiming to crack molecules by saying that they only claim to crack "chains of molecules." What?!? That is akin to saying "I didn't say I was going to pee on you, I said I was going to urinate upon your brow." Bill Clinton style semantics. Why?

And besides that, let's say there claim is correct, they are cracking the fuel. Do you realize that means you are now burning something much closer to gasoline than diesel fuel? I hope everyone understands, that is NOT a good thing.

That last issue is one that gets lost in the hype. Engines have very good combustion efficiency nowadays. That means they convert almost all of the fuel to heat. There is some room for gain, but not a tremendous amount, and many of those will come with mechanical changes to the engine that effect the timing of the combustion event. The gross inefficiencies in internal combustion engines are related to heat, too much of it is wasted out the exhaust and radiator. Less than 40% of the heat produced by burning fuel is used to propel the vehicle, whereas around 90% of the heat potential of the fuel is extracted by combustion. There's just not enough loss on the combustion side to justify the claims that these kind of products make as to increased mpg. If you found a way to convert fuel @100%, that is only a 10% gain, and over half of that is wasted on rejected heat; meaning the absolute, best case scenario, your gain is little more than 4%.

And this is for those who will accuse me of carrying Dice's water.

 

Your pretty good and amaze me with your brilliance. You know as well as I do that if fuel burnt that well their would be very little paticulate if any out of the exhaust. If that were true why all the EGR's and Rejens with DPF Filters? You keep trying to get me to tell you exactly how our product works and I am sure there are a few more that want the RECIPE in full. You keep assuming that the product does not work but never stepped forward to try it for free yourself. You and a few others love to come on here and discredit the product by proof of your educated opinions. You try to make the Volunteers that got units for free and the ones that purchased the units to believe that they are NOT feeling the performance increase by the seat of their pants, That their trucks are not running smoother, and the extra cash they are saving over the last six months in the bank, as extra profit, is Money the Fairy Godmother just dropped back in their pockets!
Our product cannot reduce Particulate without burning the fuel more complete, you cannot burn fuel more complete without making a hotter burn, Heat transfers to power, Thus causing your engine to us less fuel to do the same job. You should know that introducing a fuel with more volatility is going to increase the performance of any engine.
When businessmen out in the oilfields, drilling for oil call to use ECO's on their drilling rigs to reduce their fuel costs, that has a lot to be said.
You can keep arguing and over exagerating your science knowledge but as smart as you are I am truly surprized you have not figured it out yet.
The truly smart ones here are the ones that have put quite a bit of money in their pockets the last 6 months.
6 months of driving is roughly 50,000 mile for an O/O?
at 4/10 mpg increase on a truck that averages 6 mpg = .067 increase in fuel economy. At $3.90 a gallon times .067 = .26 cents per gallon saved.
In 50,000 miles divided by 6 miles that = 8,333 gallons of fuel used.
8,333 gallonstimes.26 cents savings = $2166.58 saved.
Over the last 6 months on a NO RISK product about 30 of the members of this forum have put this amount and some more that this back in their pockets. For an outlay of $439.00 you get $4333.16 annual savings.
At NO RISK.
Now You tell me who the Geniuses on this forum are!
That is on the low end reported by most of the volunteers

 

Any body that has read a report from the ECM knows that you can compare before and after idle times, and average speeds to make sure you are testing apples to apples.