Fuel saving device
- Thread starter salesrep
- Start date
- Status
"The FuelEX Units create a power source between two neodymium super magnets (the most powerful permanent magnets available). This magnetic field is powerful enough to crack open the hydrocarbon clusters in any fuel, dispersing the molecules and allowing them to react more readily with oxygen."
Hydrocarbons are not magnetic. I don't see any reason they would form "clusters" either. Even if both those things were true, once they were past the magnet they would just cluster together again. Three strikes.
"As fuel travels along the fuel line, it passes through the powerful magnetic field created by the FuelEX unit. The hydrocarbon molecules in the fuel then become positively charged, making them repel each other."
You can't charge anything by running it through a magnet. Magnetization and ionization are totally unrelated. Four strikes. Back to the dugout, kid.
Hydrocarbons are not magnetic. I don't see any reason they would form "clusters" either. Even if both those things were true, once they were past the magnet they would just cluster together again. Three strikes.
"As fuel travels along the fuel line, it passes through the powerful magnetic field created by the FuelEX unit. The hydrocarbon molecules in the fuel then become positively charged, making them repel each other."
Interesting that magnets on the fuel line can cause your air filter to get dirty. Looks like same ol ____ that only separates you from your money.
I heard a podcast from Popular Mechanics (or was it Cnet - can't remember) that said that their fuel efficiency went DOWN considerably after they attached a similar device. They best they could figure is that it was messing up the FI circuitry (from the strong magnetic field) and kept the truck in warmup mode all the time.
To my knowledge, GM was testing out magnets, called Magnetizer, a few years ago. They found that is was working, especially in regards to reduce pollution. They finally ended up not going any further with it, because they had to pay for them.
I don't know if this is true, but I have seen a test performed by DNV(Det Norske Veritas), that concludes that Magnetizer is working.
I don't know if this is true, but I have seen a test performed by DNV(Det Norske Veritas), that concludes that Magnetizer is working.
Is there any valid test data available. One guy on their web site claims a 12% increase in mileage, yiikes. If this were true I would expect something like this to be in production cars.
Second what Lonnie's comments (hi Lonnie!)
With EPA on their backs and major govts pounding on the increase in fuel economy/CAFE on vehicles, if these so-called "fuel savers" indeed provide scientifically-proven, track record-proven fuel economy improvements on all fossil fuel burning IC engines, I bet ya not only EPA but virtually all major automobile manufacturers would have immediately jump right into it, start buying out these "fuel savers" company (to create bigger oligopolys) and start using them in their production vehicles...
IMHO these are just one of those gimmicky things that is similar to all those so-called "tornado fins for air intakes", "capacity banks" for EFI cars and also those so-called "moth balls in the gas tank" kinda deal, which carries little merit/track record to begin with.
My 2c's worth. I find my fit gives excellent fuel economy w/o any of these gimmicks (and I'm conscious of my acceleration pattern/driving pattern to conserve fuel)
Q.
With EPA on their backs and major govts pounding on the increase in fuel economy/CAFE on vehicles, if these so-called "fuel savers" indeed provide scientifically-proven, track record-proven fuel economy improvements on all fossil fuel burning IC engines, I bet ya not only EPA but virtually all major automobile manufacturers would have immediately jump right into it, start buying out these "fuel savers" company (to create bigger oligopolys) and start using them in their production vehicles...
IMHO these are just one of those gimmicky things that is similar to all those so-called "tornado fins for air intakes", "capacity banks" for EFI cars and also those so-called "moth balls in the gas tank" kinda deal, which carries little merit/track record to begin with.
My 2c's worth. I find my fit gives excellent fuel economy w/o any of these gimmicks (and I'm conscious of my acceleration pattern/driving pattern to conserve fuel)
Q.
Hello again, Quest. You're 2cents hits it right on the button. If you don't buy into Q's statement you have to accept that some guy in a garage somewhere found something everyone in the industry missed. I can tell you that out in the garage after a few beers you come up with a lot of ideas.
Doubtfull.
Not a device, but 2-Cycle oil at 500:1 in my gas has seemed to gain me some mpg...far in excess of the product cost.
Not a device, but 2-Cycle oil at 500:1 in my gas has seemed to gain me some mpg...far in excess of the product cost.
Someone mentioned before, modern fuel pumps are full of high strength rare earth magnets, in their motors, which are cooled by gasoline. So, you already have magnets in the fuel lines.
JP magazine (a jeep mag) this month has a full test of all these gas mileage gimmicks - even that old tornado one that goes in your intake. Results - ALL WERE GIMMICKS none worked. Hey, if it worked the auto makers would use it to help meet the CAFE requirements already.
- Status
Similar threads
