Last post on Jan 22, 2011 at 9:58 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
Fuel System, Performance Mods, Fuel System, Truck, Sedan, SUV
#362 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [steve_]
Oct 30, 2010 (9:23 am)
1. you are the one that wanted to see it on twitter, 2. It's not a pill. I have heard about that pill. Don't know much about it, but that it didn't work. Something about moth balls.
Well let's just explain this product. Yes it will make someone money if you buy it. But since I can't even send you to the site to buy it well then I guess this will end our talk. I was just letting people know about something that I KNOW works! If you want to buy it, buy it, if not don't! Makes no difference to me!! Didn't come here to argue with anyone. Just was trying to help others. So I know not to come back here anymore. Have a great day & God Bless!
#363 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [larsb]
Oct 30, 2010 (11:27 am)
It is naive to use the word "never" with respect to technological innovation. It is also foolish and unrealistic to claim that a gas saving product has never been proven to work. In order to believe that; you would have to bury your head in the sand and deny the validity and worth of the hundreds of gas saving improvements which have been adopted and made standard over the years by major automobile manufacturers. Some of these improvements (which you apparently haven't noticed) are high energy electronic ignition systems; electronic spark advance circuits, detonation sensors with automatic capability of varying the ignition timing adjustment to get the most fuel economy and greatest performance from widely varying fuel octane qualities; copper core spark plugs, iridium electrode spark plugs, multiple electrode spark plugs, extra projected tip spark plugs, wide gap spark plugs, closed loop feedback air/fuel ratio monitoring by oxygen sensors in the exhaust system, lock up torque converters, equal length tuned intake and exhaust systems, anti-reversion mufflers, multi-point fuel injection, fuel pressure regulators which vary the fuel pressure according to engine load, electronically or mechanically variable valve timing, multi-valve cylinder heads, variable length intake manifolds which use multiple throttles that are activated under different speed and load conditions, water heated intake manifolds, exhaust heated intake manifolds, reverse flow cooling systems, overhead camshafts; etc, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
Many, many, many of those proven, accepted improvements began as some backyard inventor's brainchild; were initially sold as a gas saving product, and were eventually bought by the auto manufacturers when they couldn't deny their value. Others were developed in auto manufacturer's research labs. But every single one of them increased gas mileage.
Have you been sleeping for all these years??? During the 1950s, in the good old days when cars were simple and anybody could fix them with a screwdriver and a crescent wrench; the average fuel economy of a 6 cylinder motor was about 20 miles per gallon on the freeway. Today, most 6s get 25 to 32 miles per gallon on the freeway. It is a new day today: Please wake up!!!
#364 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [zaken1]
Oct 30, 2010 (1:20 pm)
"Many, many, many of those proven, accepted improvements began as some backyard inventor's brainchild; were initially sold as a gas saving product, and were eventually bought by the auto manufacturers when they couldn't deny their value. "
Please name some. I can't think of any. The major contributors to fuel economy, compared to, say, 1930, are: Overhead valves; high compression engines; high octane gas; fuel injection; computer engine controls (injection and ignition); exhaust gas sensors hooked into the computer controls. None of these sound like 'backyard inventors' products. Larsb is right that none of the 'gizmos and gadgets' that we read about here and elsewhere have been proven to improve mpgs.
And the starting point of this recent discussion is starting to sound just like one of those.
#365 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [texases]
Oct 30, 2010 (2:05 pm)
So dumb this down for me. I am just a mom of 5 that wanted to spread the word of something I have found. I did not know I couldn't send people to another website ( I am new to the site) This is a new product to the market, but it has been being used by big companies for 20yrs. PAMA is one of the companies. They are the largest mining company out there! Anyways they just releases this product to the public & it's not widespread known. I was lucky enough to hear about it early on. Give it about another year to 6 months & I am sure you will hear about it too. Although you have already heard it here. Would tell you more about it, but the website would explain it more & well I can't tell you that. Maybe you can find me on another board or site!
#366 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [skywatcher1973]
Oct 30, 2010 (2:09 pm)
Perhaps you misunderstood me. Your claims and product sound just like dozens of scams that have made their way across this and other discussion boards. I doubt you are who you say you are, that's the result of all the prior scams being pushed by folks who try to make money by misleading others.
#367 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [skywatcher1973]
Oct 30, 2010 (10:53 pm)
Even if you are who you say you are and not a scammer trying to rip people off, and even if you believe you've found something that improves fuel economy as much as you claim, I can tell you with absolute certainty that what you believe and what you claim is complete fantasy.
The truth of the matter is, if this little pet product of yours is so great then it would have been proven out in lab after lab after lab worldwide and be in common use today (said another way, it would have near universal application). The fact that it isn't is quite simply such a preponderance of evidence that says you're wrong that nothing you say will even remotely pique the interest of anybody schooled in the arts of combustion science.
Do I care that you have your fantasy? No. Do I care if you are trying to mislead folks into buying a product that provides no more efficacy than a bottle of snake oil? You bet'cha.
#368 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [shipo]
Oct 31, 2010 (12:53 am)
Well I am who I say I am. I guess I will live with my family in my fantasy world then. I am on Facebook & I have a few friends now using this product. They have only used it in the big industries until recently. Man I don't really care if you believe me or not. I don't know you & you don't know me. I am done with this. I am not a scammer & well there really isn't no way to prove it to you. Let me ask you this. Have you heard of Lucas Oil? Have you used it? What do you think about it? Man I wish my fantasies were better than just saving on gas!! I would love to have like those awesome dreams that well nevermind. I will keep that one to myself. Thing is you don't have an interest but yet you keep replying, so stop replying & I'll leave it alone to. You believe or don't I have many more people that do!! I have told people where to get it from & let others use mine, so unless they are all lying to me & are in my fantasy too well I believe it works! So again Have a great night & I think I will just leave this forum, or maybe just see where it will take me one da. I would like to see your face when you do hear about the product & know that I was not a spammer/scammer. Tell me what is a scammer? What do they do? The scam that I have heard about is the old envelope scam. Send me 50 dollars & I will send you what you need to make tons of money & when you get it, it has directions to do the same as what he just did to you. So if you say bought the product, tested it & seen if it worked or not then what are you out maybe 20 bucks Man I am an awesome scammer!! I mean the money goes to the company & not me so what did I get???? Wow I really do need to look into another way of scaming people don't I? I would be broke! Have a great night!!
#369 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [skywatcher1973]
by steve_ HOST
Oct 31, 2010 (8:02 am)
Lucas Oil? They make additives and when you add their "oil stabilizer" additive to your engine, you'll foam the oil. Not recommended. See The Story With Additives (Bob is the Oil Guy).
I dunno, is Lucas yet another one of those MLM companies where all that's really being sold is the right to sell other shares to others? Do they also sell "male enhancement" pills like the Amsoil folks do?
If someone invented something that works in their basement workshop, they'll patent it and license it to the majors, they won't try selling it on the Home Shopping Network. Not if they want to be taken seriously.
#370 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [steve_]
Oct 31, 2010 (9:18 am)
I submit that "being taken seriously" has nothing to do with it. They don't sell through the majors because they don't want to get found out that their idea is a sham founded upon junk science.
skywatcher1973, you can post all of the anecdotal evidence you want, only those that know no better (i.e. those with non-scientifically trained minds that want to believe) will pay attention. For the rest of us, we'll wait for the real scientific break throughs to be presented to the market at large before we spend our hard earned money.