Ask the Car People.SM


Gas Saving Gizmos & Gadgets - READ ONLY

391 messages,  Last post on Jan 22, 2011 at 9:58 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum.

What is this discussion about? Fuel System, Performance Mods, Fuel System, Truck, Sedan, SUV

Messages Page 40 of 40

#382 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [texases] by Stever@Edmunds HOST

Nov 22, 2010 (3:07 pm)

Replying to: texases (Nov 22, 2010 12:24 pm)
The EPA tests some gizmos. The last one tested, Super Fuelmax, turned out like all the rest. They said:
 
"The EPA concludes the following from the testing conducted on these two vehicles: the Super FUELMAX device has no effect on fuel economy or exhaust emissions."
 
You can find the laundry list here.

#383 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [steve_] by skywatcher1973

Nov 22, 2010 (8:29 pm)

Replying to: Stever@Edmunds (Nov 22, 2010 3:07 pm)
This is not called Super Fuelmax. I can't send the info out to anyone in here as it is in a format that only goes through e-mails. I can say if anyone is up to trying the product to put all thoughts aside I would be willing to send it to you, not sure how to do it at all, but it's a thought. I am tired of going back & forth on this & knowing that it works. What other way can I tell you that it works? I mean really! To add to what I had happen to my car, I let my daughter in law use it too in her Jeep & do you know what? It is running better & no repairs, no upgrades, nothing!! She had the same thing going on with her car as I did with mine & now it isn't doing it. My son don't know how to fix cars & they don't have the extra money to go to get it repaired. If this is turned down I will just delete my account & go on about my business. No matter who sells the product, no matter who makes it, no matter what you say, if it works it works & I will continue to use it.
I did read in my searches that this company is partnered with EPA Smartway Transportation Partnership not sure what this part of the EPA does, but this company is partnered with them.

#384 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [skywatcher1973] by skywatcher1973

Nov 22, 2010 (8:36 pm)

Replying to: skywatcher1973 (Nov 22, 2010 8:29 pm)
Can you tell me what this means? From the EPA 40 cfr 79.21

#385 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [skywatcher1973] by Stever@Edmunds HOST

Nov 22, 2010 (8:41 pm)

Replying to: skywatcher1973 (Nov 22, 2010 8:36 pm)
It's just a regulation for fuel additives. Registration of an additive doesn't constitute endorsement by any agency of the United States.

#386 of 391 Re: Oh, a good one !!! [larsb] by texases

Dec 10, 2010 (7:38 pm)

Replying to: larsb (Feb 18, 2010 10:12 am)
Consumer Reports just tested a gizmo that looks identical to the 'current regulating' HS one. Guess what? They found it was WORTHLESS! Big surprise!
 
As for our previous poster, I did a little looking around, turns out she's pushing this stuff all over the net. So she's not a 'satisfied customer', she's one of the scammers. The gas treatment is nothing special, the maker doesn't ive make the crazy claims, they leave it up to the 'satisfied customers' to do that...

#387 of 391 Re: Oh, a good one !!! [texases] by zaken1

Dec 11, 2010 (12:55 am)

Replying to: texases (Dec 10, 2010 7:38 pm)
Texases; Thank you for the breath of fresh air. I've been hoping that someone would be able to cut through all the hype about that issue. And yet, according to the 'fact' that this scam device is being regularly sold by such established institutions as Hammacher Schlemmer and Heartland America; we also have a classic example of why sales figures have ZERO correlation to objective reality.

#390 of 391 Re: Just thought I would reply [skywatcher1973] by shipo

Jan 21, 2011 (11:24 am)

*** Warning - Warning - Warning ***
 
The troll called skywatcher1973 is back. Avoid using the products of this scammer at all cost; it's only purpose in life is to separate you from your hard earned cash.

#391 of 391 Re: Oh, a good one !!! [zaken1] by Kirstie@Edmunds HOST

Jan 22, 2011 (9:58 am)

Replying to: zaken1 (Dec 11, 2010 12:55 am)
we also have a classic example of why sales figures have ZERO correlation to objective reality.
 
Late to the show... just saw this and all I can say is "AMEN."
 
I've got someone trying to sell me on their program, citing the number of members, stating that "X number of people CAN'T be wrong."
 
Well, in any scenario, this is statistically an impossibility, and the reverse is true - X number of people must be wrong.
 
Let's say, for example (purely fictional numbers), that 20 million people look at the Toyota Camry. Of those, 5 million buy the Camry. Can Toyota say that because they have high sales numbers that "5 million people can't be wrong?" If volume is the major indicator of product quality, then surely the 5 million people ARE wrong, because 15 million people chose something else.
 
I've heard this fallacious argument used a number of times in an attempt to "peer pressure" others, and always want to ask, if X million people CAN'T be wrong, please explain how X million people following Hitler was right. (extreme, but it does show that number of advocates does not relate to being "right.")

Messages Page 40 of 40

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement