OK, all fair enough. (And obviously I retract the "naive" remark ;-) )
But in any case, I wouldn't expect the thing to work on a new engine, with optimised fuel and air delivery.
Tell me, though, why it shouldn't improve performance, emissions and economy on a 15 year old engine with a worn out carb, that's running too rich, and has run out of adjustment?
I don't need to.
Because the manufacturer is unable to provide objective proof that they work.
The fact that you're unable to grasp the concept of proof interests me not one bit. Until the manufacturer can prove that it works, it doesn't. It's that simple and that principle is enshrined in EU consumer legislation.
It could. At idle only. But So would screwing in the mixture screw, or drilling a 2mm hole in the inlet manifold. A VERY expensive alternative! And it doesn't cure the fault....
>
Steve, how do you explain all the testimonials on the web site? We're talking about Car Mechanics and the Sunday Times here.
Do you *really* think all of these people are deluded?
Believe me, I'm as cynical as the next guy, but the sheer amount of positive reviews it receives is getting difficult to ignore.
Or it is just that you made your mind up years ago, and refuse to change it, whatever the evidence?
FFS, if an engine is that bolloxed it needs fixing, not an aftermarket bag of s**te adding to it.
Yes. You could also add in the CSMA who have endorsed the Ecotek in their magazine. I saw the article in the Sunday Times, it was commented on in uk.rec.cars.misc at the time mostly on the lines of "oh no, here we go again". The article was not an evaluation of the device it was uncritical promotion, it looks as if the Sunday Times received a press release from Ecotek and published it verbatim.
No its not difficult to ignore, it's very easy to ignore because it's worthless shit. Exactly the same testimonails were written about the Broquet "fuel catalyst" and every other bit of crap sold by someone with light fingers and no conscience.
Testimonials are not evidence. Never have been, never will be. As Burgerman has said, the tests are simple to do on a rolling road dynamometer, and yet the manufacturer has no objective evidence on the website.
Since the flow at full manifold depression is about almost f*ck all, as you open the throttle even SLIGHTLY it can have bugger all real effect any more since the VAST majority of the air now comes past the trhottle plate...
Only in extreme circumstances and if your carb happens to be rich at idle.... Just loosen the mounting flange bolts a bit. Same effect...
Personallly I would fix the carb......
No problem. I'll argue with anyone ;-)
It's bollocks
They're bollocks
They're bollocks
It's bollocks.
Hmmm... depends - I believe 1-off fuel injector cleaners can work. I tried something call Injector Magic years ago, and it cured a cold start problem overnight.
Yep. 100% with you so far.
Well that's inexcusable.
But with this Ecotek thing I'm not talking about the makers claims, I'm talking about independant people who tried it. You say you tried it and it didn't work. Fine - I believe you. But does that mean it will never work under any circumstances?
You say it didn't work (so do plenty of people on their forum actually) but plenty of people say they get good results with it.
As far as I'm concerned there's no reason for anyone to believe one side or the other.
Me?
I don't believe it works worth a damn ;-)
You didn't look very far.
If I ever handed in data of that quality at university I would have been laughed out of the lab. The variance in results is huge and they only use a few runs to find the average. The conditions aren't controlled and a lot of important information hasn't been given. Things like atmospheric pressure, temperature (air and engine), humidity etc.
My favourite part was the 0-50 times:
WITH CB-26P WITHOUT CB-26P DIFFERENCE
1st RUN 15.60 sec 15.76 sec + 0.16 sec 2nd RUN 14.72 sec 16.08 sec + 1.36 sec 3rd RUN 15.28 sec 14.75 sec - 0.53 sec 4th RUN 14.67 sec 15.66 sec + 0.99 sec Average 15.07 sec 15.56 sec + 0.50 sec"With basic stopwatch timed runs and with the CB-26P valve fitted the above results indicate there is an acceleration/performance advantage in having the device fitted."
How many of you can time to 1/100th of a second with a stopwatch? Anyway, the "without" runs vary by 1.33 seconds so the error in their test method was huge. The 0-60 results are absolutely hilarious! (if you like that kind of thing)
Shaun
Warren Springs are already discredited for giving false "good" results on a number of these snake oil devices on this newsgroup!
Anyway lets look at their only real as against claims/testimonials
And I quote... (The bit to note here is "ON THE ROAD" meaning no controlled conditions meaning a completely invalid test!
-------------------
The most comprehensive independent analysis is the DTI Warren Springs test conducted in real on the road conditions. DTI Warren Springs Laboratory Results - Emissions in grams/kilometre
CAR REG E368 BBM CO2 CO THC NOX NO F/C DEVICE FITTED
Middle of table cut for briefness, and they do their own summary...
Mean Without 227.0 37.132 2.957 1.840 0.816 12.500 NO Mean With 179.4 26.769 2.816 1.452 0.677 9.771 YES
% Difference - 21.00% - 27.91% - 4.76% - 21.10% - 17.08% - 21.83%
Ist check out the C02 result. This is the bulk of the exhaust gas. The more efficiently your engine runs the HIGHER this should be! Its the result of correct combustion. Theirs "FELL" ... (Because they dont know what they are really looking at... And CO2 is percieved to be a bad thing...
Their table shows it lower!!!! Made up crap (massaged)or what. And the WRONG way... They dont even understand the chemistry and shot themselves in the foot.
CO falls as you weaken the mixture, but it still falls further when its TOO WEAK for correct combustion too. Drilling a hole in the inlet manifold would do this too. If you go too far the idle gets lumpy, but STILL the CO falls... (Hence the C02 result being lower due to worse combustion? Which would give higher hydrocarbon output...)
The unburned hydrocarbons output also falls as you weaken the mixture only if your car starts off rich... as it does here? Its just a hole in the inlet manifold! With a bulshit C02 figure.
These figures do not add up/make sense... Put simply, ALL the output gasses cannot fall. If it combusts better as claimed, then the C02 will rise, as its a correct combustion product?.
AND the last bit is a proof of a lack of controlled conditions ANYWAY! Rendering any result a total waste of time... Its impossible to have same conditions, driving temps/pressures/speeds etc if you do it twice out of the dyno test cell....
I quote again...
-------------The test drives consisted of a congested traffic route within the local town of Hitchin with a 30 mph speed limit, and several sets of traffic lights and six roundabouts to negotiate. The average speed of these drives is in the region of 20 kph. and includes several periods at idle.
Burgerman wrote: >
OK, OK, OK. Let's concede there's not a shred of evidence that the damned things work. Conversely, there's not a shred of evidence that they don't. This is not a court of law. There's no concept of "innocent until proven guilty". There's an "unproven" state.
In your opinion (and mine as it happens) they don't work, but that's
*opinion* not fact.The difference is I don't go asserting my *opinion* as fact.
Case closed.
Not quite. Since they make all the claims, and go to the trouble of testing and advertising and actually making the things, and reproducing other peoples "testimonials" you would think that a simple independent test in a controlled condition, that could prove their claim was the obvious thing to do wouldnt you?
Since they do not do this (and its not expensive!) then a court would conclude that the weight of evidence (although not proof) was against them.
Evolution is not proven beyond doubt, but the sheer weight of evidence that all adds up is overwhelming. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
And guess where we find the most fools? In churches! And all of these people believe in something that has NO proof, or even any evidence of, that would not (testimonials??) be thrown out of court! Yes most of the world are gulible idiots, and can be brainwashed so easily...
Burger if you got a problem with it, and you seem so hung up on it, why dont you go tell them in the forums, I'm sure they would like to hear your views
Ron
I have no problem with it. Its just a waste of time I am not hung up. It just makes me more and more amazed that people are so gulible. Their prob, not mine. ... The pubs open, or rather it was... O bugger...
So what?
I don't give damn what you or anyone else thinks about my sexuality. Are you particularly hung up about yours? I tend to find that the final noise to be heard from anyone who raises the subject of someone elses sexuality out of context is the sound of the closet door banging.
ROFL!!!!!
The Dervboy
They don't say it will only work on a f*cked engine - and it's at the least extremely deceptive and probably illegal to do so. Even more so to goad people on their boards who fit it to their brand new Seat Ibiza and then loudly exclaim it's made a "huge difference".
Gareth
I was bored at work and sent off for the test results - as I mentioned in an earlier reply they are *VERY* interesting and convinced me the device is total bollocks. The test was, as mentioned, a "real life" town drive by two different cars in only three or four runs at the same time.
The tests were performed by the same guy that positively validated the "Ecoflow" magnetic fuel device, which incidentally was rubbished by the Ecotek guys on their forum.
Also, the correlation of reviews by magazines/papers that Ecotek advertise in, and magazine/papers that don't would probably tell you something.
Gareth
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.