EcoTaz Test by Dice

Um, no. The flaw in reasoning is yours, mine a math error.

I did make the mistake of compounding %'s, but my point is still valid. To go from 90% combustion efficiency to 100% is an 11% gain, and that is a the theoretical maximum. What you try to claim is that this increase results in an increase of thermal efficiency. That is determined by engine design, and effecting it requires structural changes. I don't know why you bring all those other factors that effect vehicle economy into a discussion about engine efficiency, as they have no bearing here; and I didn't make any assumptions that the other losses would change.

The biggest change that will effect engine efficiency is how it is operated. Truck diesel engines average around 37% efficient, with peaks around 44%, and operating as often as possible at that peak offers the only realistic increase in engine efficiency.

 

ECOTAZ is my handle here on the forum. ECO-System is the Name of the product. ECO Stands for Emission Control Optimizer.

As I have said before You can argue all the tests, argue the Science but NOBODY can argue the extra profit left in the pockets of those using it. That is why they don't care about everyone elses opinion.
It is your business and if you don't care about extra profit - well - drive on!

 

I'm really not getting the aggressiveness. to each his own. no one is forcing anyone else to buy, try or believe. My burger joint is better than your burger joint! I have proof & facts ask my customers. No you don't I have the better burger, ask My customers. No your customers are biased. they have flawed taste bud's. on & on. if something is not what is is said to be, fine. if it is, fine. what do I know? nothing. does this or that work on gaining m.p.g. a lot works for me. going slower works for me. had many say, it does not matter if they drive 63 m.p.h. or 69 m.p.h. they get the same m.p.g. are they telling the truth? I DON'T KNOW. I will not call anyone a liar. I just know what I think I know, that I think works for me. back to civility. please. but if not. o.k. with me also. no one forcing me to read anything . peace.

 

I think not.




The discussion was not limited to engine efficiency.
Not even by you.
It was how engine efficiency affects fuel mileage I believe.
You are the one who stated that "Less than 40% of the heat produced by burning fuel is used to propel the vehicle".
Where are the losses in propelling a vehicle?
The losses are not solely contained in the engine efficiency.
All those factors I mentioned and a number more are factors that absorb energy that could otherwise be used to propel the truck.
You then went on to say " 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%."
This is where it all goes pear shaped.
When you say "your gain is little more than 4%'.
Is this 4% you talking about fuel mileage gain?
I assume you are because you were talking about propelling the truck.
Fuel mileage is simply distance the truck is propelled divided by fuel used.
If you were simply talking about engine efficiency then why mention propelling the truck.
When talking about propelling a truck you can't divorce any calculations from the other factors that play a roll.
If you do you get BS conclusions.
If simply talking about engine efficiency then an 10% increase in efficiency would be just that 10%.
Not 4%.
You are taking the 10% increase in engine efficiency and multiplying it by the the 40% energy conversion rate in propelling the truck.
Therefore you have moved away from pure engine efficiency and have to factor the other losses (Wind resistance , friction , noise etc) when propelling the truck.
If you don't you will get BS conclusions.
Like 4% instead of 25%.
I stand by my conclusion that if you start with 40% of fuel being used for propelling the truck and 60% for losses.
You then bring this up to 50% fuel used for propelling the truck and 50% for losses.
You get a 25% increase in fuel mileage.
You see you said a 10% increase in the 90% efficiency the engine has in burning the fuel.
Not a 10% increase in the 40% efficiency of propelling the truck.
You are adding apples and pares.

 

I guess it is easier to prove a point when you lie.

When you started this I was thinking you are acting like a middle school girl. You are willing to spend thousands of dollars on testing something, get suspect results and sing the praises of what you tried. When others, like me, provide our results with similar anecdotal results you make us sound like fools.

Fine.

Now we all can see you will lie to try and make others think you are right. About the only thing that I believe from you now is that you have spent a lot of money to improve your fuel economy. But if you will lie about something that you can get caught at in a pathetic attempt the “be right” then why would any of us believe any of the fuel figures we can’t verify.

This is me being quoted by Dice to support his editorial that my numbers are off because I slowed down from 67 to 62.

And here is my post WITHOUT the edit.

 

I would love to take some of these guys trucks out and actually put a load on it and run it like it normally would. Have to bet their great fuel mileage isn't so great...LOL

 

People can argue all they want as long as they want.
This may change perceptions but not facts.
Dice prides him self on the facts he provides in his other threads.
I have to say some of my favorite threads.
He deserves the compliments he gets there.
IMO he has however dropped the ball here by stooping to a non scientific approach by stating an opinion as fact.
Dice could be correct and based on his experience it could be considered a fair assumption , but even a fair assumption is not a fact.
I too am skeptical but think it fair to assign some weight to the independent testimonials.
A scientific test is what is required.
I know some may consider it a wast of time and that is entirely their prerogative.

Ecotaz , would it not be beneficial to your company to get a respected university to conduct a test?
Lets see the naysayers argue with facts.

 

king q, hold your breath and wait on that.

 

Odometer is not always accurate either tho... my ECM is usually 10 miles off for every 600 miles I drive. My ODO is off 12 miles for every 600 I drive, my GPS is only off 2 miles for every 600 i drive and google maps is always dead on.

Just my experience with my WS. My old FLD was pointless in even having a ECM or ODO becuase both were so far off it was pointless (went from 11R22.5 to LP 22.5's)