Have you seen increased mpg using MMO?

[fdcg27]

Anyone who wanted to validate the fuel savings attributed to MMO could do so by running their own study in which one would drive for an entire year using MMO, which for me would now be around 17K, and an entire year without using it.
If my use of the car is consistent in both years, which it would be, I could then determine whether MMO in the fuel had any real effect since over the course of a year's use, all of the variables would wash out.
The 2 mpg improvement the OP cites would be about 6% for me, which is huge and seems unlikely, but until someone actually tries this with careful logging of fuel used we have only speculation.

 

[Oro_O]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Anyone who wanted to validate the fuel savings attributed to MMO could do so by running their own study in which one would drive for an entire year using MMO, which for me would now be around 17K, and an entire year without using it.


Exactly. It is easy to actually TEST the theory instead of ignorantly opposing those who have done so. A year is perhaps an excessive period, but it gets at the fact it's easy to do this vs. listening to keyboard commandos who like to rant. It's called "the scientific process" and it works.

 

[gfh77665]

Originally Posted By: Or
You have to marvel at all the "flat-earthers" who can look at carefully documented evidence and then say, "Nothing to see here, doesn't work, it's in your head and you made it up."

The willingness to stay ignorant instead of accept or at least investigate evidence is always amusing. And very often harmful.


You have to marvel at all the condescending ones who use terms like "flat-earthers" to insult those who don't mindlessly jump on the bandwagon of snake oil "benefits".

 

[Panzerman]

What threw me onto MM oil was I kept seeing it on the shelves of shops of reputable engine builders and mechanics and spoke to many car restorers and owners of garages and they all claimed Marvel Mystery oil was the bomb. They all loved it and spoke highly of it.
I see some love for Lucas among garages too but nothing like MMO.

 

[fdcg27]

I specified a year because this exposes the car to all of the seasonal variations in both weather and fuel.
Also, it simply isn't possible that all of the fuel bought in one year would have higher caloric content than all of the fuel bought in another.
This would be a really definitive test of MMO's fuel economy benefits.
I know which way I'd bet, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I specified a year because this exposes the car to all of the seasonal variations in both weather and fuel.
Also, it simply isn't possible that all of the fuel bought in one year would have higher caloric content than all of the fuel bought in another.
This would be a really definitive test of MMO's fuel economy benefits.
I know which way I'd bet, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

No, it wouldn't be a definitive test of MMO for fuel economy benefits. There are a myriad of other variables in everyday driving besides the energy content of the gasoline and nearly none of which you control. A controlled test in a laboratory where the only variable is the additive is the only way to test for fuel economy benefits. You just can't do it in real-world driving.

There really isn't much of anything you can test in the real world and get statistically valid results, that's why it isn't done.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Or
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Anyone who wanted to validate the fuel savings attributed to MMO could do so by running their own study in which one would drive for an entire year using MMO, which for me would now be around 17K, and an entire year without using it.

Exactly. It is easy to actually TEST the theory instead of ignorantly opposing those who have done so. A year is perhaps an excessive period, but it gets at the fact it's easy to do this vs. listening to keyboard commandos who like to rant. It's called "the scientific process" and it works.

This is really something. The one who accuses people of being flat earthers (implying an ignorance of science or of the scientific process) is in fact the one who is apparently most ignorant of that process in this discussion.

No, the only place you can test for a fuel economy change due to an additive is in a laboratory, running a standardized test that is designed to measure for only the variable under test. No way, no how, not going to happen that such a thing can be tested by an individual in real-world driving.

 

[fdcg27]

I would contend that all of these variables would wash out over the course of an entire year.
You would obviously not agree.

 

[andyd]

I tried it for several tanks back when I was commuting 160 miles round trip. Butt dino was confirmed, sort of, by my wife. She noticed her '86 528e had more zip. I had filled the tank and added 6 oz for 15 gallons of E10 and didn't say anything. But dealing with dosing a tank of fuel every fill up is a pain. Also, MPG was down by a bit. I logged MPG during "test". The engine Seemed to run better though. Whatever, I just like the smell. I do dose my OPE with MMO every time I fill one up. I have had fewer carb troubles. And they seem to start easier and run smoother.

 

[Rolla07]

Originally Posted By: andyd
I tried it for several tanks back when I was commuting 160 miles round trip. Butt dino was confirmed, sort of, by my wife. She noticed her '86 528e had more zip. I had filled the tank and added 6 oz for 15 gallons of E10 and didn't say anything. But dealing with dosing a tank of fuel every fill up is a pain. Also, MPG was down by a bit. I logged MPG during "test". The engine Seemed to run better though. Whatever, I just like the smell. I do dose my OPE with MMO every time I fill one up. I have had fewer carb troubles. And they seem to start easier and run smoother.


Your OPE is 2 stroke? That could explain it.

 

[Rolla07]

Petrolleum distillates and mineral spirits designed after the first world war...yep..its snake oil!

 

[Oro_O]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Or
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Anyone who wanted to validate the fuel savings attributed to MMO could do so by running their own study in which one would drive for an entire year using MMO, which for me would now be around 17K, and an entire year without using it.

Exactly. It is easy to actually TEST the theory instead of ignorantly opposing those who have done so. A year is perhaps an excessive period, but it gets at the fact it's easy to do this vs. listening to keyboard commandos who like to rant. It's called "the scientific process" and it works.

This is really something. The one who accuses people of being flat earthers (implying an ignorance of science or of the scientific process) is in fact the one who is apparently most ignorant of that process in this discussion.

No, the only place you can test for a fuel economy change due to an additive is in a laboratory, running a standardized test that is designed to measure for only the variable under test. No way, no how, not going to happen that such a thing can be tested by an individual in real-world driving.


Wow - discard all empirical evidence because it does not fit your pre-disposed paradigm, regardless of testing validity.

 

[kschachn]

Lol. Now I'm not only ignorant and a flat-earther, but I'm "retarded" for wanting valid science. Nice.

 

[Broo]

I did notice an improvement in MPGs using MMO in my carbureted car.

Not a bit of difference in my fuel injected cars over a few weeks' use. However, the carb'ed car was quite old (obviously) and dirty, confirmed by the carbon black spark plugs tips. The choke had a tendency to stick which made it run way too rich.

After fixing the choke, changing plugs and running MMO at every fill-up, the engine gradually became smoother and more responsive. Probably closer to what it's supposed to be. From what I read, this engine carbons up easily due to its carburetor design. It also uses a mechanical fuel pump, something that can benefit from extra lubrication. MMO is a cheap insurance keeping everything cleaner and lubed up.

I'd say it doesn't IMPROVE mpgs, but rather brings it closer to what your engine should deliver when new/clean.

I use it in the oldest car and the small engines I have. My other vehicles don't need it.

 

[SuperSalad]

Originally Posted By: Or
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Or
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Anyone who wanted to validate the fuel savings attributed to MMO could do so by running their own study in which one would drive for an entire year using MMO, which for me would now be around 17K, and an entire year without using it.

Exactly. It is easy to actually TEST the theory instead of ignorantly opposing those who have done so. A year is perhaps an excessive period, but it gets at the fact it's easy to do this vs. listening to keyboard commandos who like to rant. It's called "the scientific process" and it works.

This is really something. The one who accuses people of being flat earthers (implying an ignorance of science or of the scientific process) is in fact the one who is apparently most ignorant of that process in this discussion.

No, the only place you can test for a fuel economy change due to an additive is in a laboratory, running a standardized test that is designed to measure for only the variable under test. No way, no how, not going to happen that such a thing can be tested by an individual in real-world driving.


Wow - discard all empirical evidence because it does not fit your pre-disposed paradigm, regardless of testing validity.

How retarded. (pardon the non-PC categorization).

Jesus, how ignorant.

The value of empirical data is only as high as the quality of the methods for collecting it.

Automobile fuel efficiency has at least several dozen variables and the method you are suggesting as valid form of data collection controls for none of them. That data would be inconclusive at best.

If you choose to ignore that fact and decide that the data is good enough for you to conclude whatever you are comfortable with, that's fine, have at it. However, stating that others are "ignorant and retarded" conspiracy theorists for stating that the data is inconclusive is just plain silly.

 

[mightymousetech]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I specified a year because this exposes the car to all of the seasonal variations in both weather and fuel.
Also, it simply isn't possible that all of the fuel bought in one year would have higher caloric content than all of the fuel bought in another.
This would be a really definitive test of MMO's fuel economy benefits.
I know which way I'd bet, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.


That is not a scientific test at all. What if you drove an extra couple of days in cold weather compared to the previous year, or did a couple extra weekend trips. The car will also be a year older, could have a seized brake pad that ruins the mileage, maybe the wind patterns changed. Maybe even the fuel you always use changed formulations.
There are WAY too many variables that are not accounted for. The only way to know for sure is laboratory testing.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I specified a year because this exposes the car to all of the seasonal variations in both weather and fuel.
Also, it simply isn't possible that all of the fuel bought in one year would have higher caloric content than all of the fuel bought in another.
This would be a really definitive test of MMO's fuel economy benefits.
I know which way I'd bet, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.


That is not a scientific test at all. What if you drove an extra couple of days in cold weather compared to the previous year, or did a couple extra weekend trips. The car will also be a year older, could have a seized brake pad that ruins the mileage, maybe the wind patterns changed. Maybe even the fuel you always use changed formulations.
There are WAY too many variables that are not accounted for. The only way to know for sure is laboratory testing.


Maybe the sky is falling?
First, over an entire year with all four seasons and a decent number of miles, the variables you cite would make no appreciable difference.
Heck, if you follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then my observed fuel economy of the E350 versus the Accord id only anecdotal, never having been measured in a lab test. That the Accord uses about half as much fuel over any give number of miles is no more than anecdote, right?
Second, if we were talking about a very small change, say 1% or less, I'd completely agree with you.
In this case, the OP is talking about a change of 6-7%. A difference of that magnitude could be reliably verified in actual use.
This would be around 2 mpg for my '12 Accord and I already have nearly 75K of documented fuel consumption data for it.
Were I to undertake this experiment, which I don't intend, I'd be confident of the validity of any results.
Maybe I should try Lucas over a year of use just to see what happens?
A little experimentation is a good thing that we don't see here so much anymore.
We used to.

 

[kschachn]

At the risk of angering the one who labels me an ignorant, flat-earth retard here is my opinion. I am not a statistician nor do I claim to be one.

I would guess, and this is only a guess, that the longer the test runs the less statistical correlation there would be. This gives more time for random environmental variables to make an impact, such as barometric pressure, temperature and traffic patterns. The longer you go the more potential there is for your mood and health to change, or perhaps demands on you to get to work faster because there is some project. Another variable that is common here is road construction. The specific roads I take every day to work may be under construction this year but not next. When real-world fuel economy is tested (in the real world) it is always run on the same day and on a closed track (in both directions) using standardized test fuel. Running the test on different days with different drivers will induce errors.

In a previous life when I worked as a Research Technologist for a large company, my job was to come up with tests for materials that would yield statistically valid results which then I had to present to my superiors for review. We had two mathematicians on our staff and their job was to evaluate proposed research for statistical validity. I can tell you this, it was often surprising how large or how small a sample size was required to get valid data. One thing was certain however, it was not something that could be guessed.

Back in college when I ran the test for fuel economy it was an ASTM design single-cylinder engine with a known mass of standard fuel, and everything was compensated for in terms of charge temperature and density. In real-world driving you have none of that, and add into the mixture the attitude and emotional state of the experimenter (you) and it is obvious that there is a lot going on that can't be eliminated out. People like to think that there's a lot of variables cancelling out in real world testing but that is not true. In fact just the opposite is true. Environmental cycles are't actually annualized, what little I've seen is that they cycle on a far longer time scale. In this scenario by then you've moved, took a new job, and are driving on a different road where E10 is now the fuel of choice whereas it wasn't before. Add to it the fact that your car now has 30,000 more miles on it and one of your fuel injectors is leaking just the tiniest bit. All that adds to error and is why I would say that the longer the test runs, the more error will be present.

This whole discussion is just silly on so many levels. It is not rocket science to measure fuel economy and it doesn't take anywhere near two years to do so. If someone (such as the MMO Company) wished to show that their product actually benefits fuel economy then that can be conclusively determined and it doesn't cost a lot of money to do so. Then they can publish those results in their literature and on their website for everyone to see, avoiding long Bitog threads and accusations of folks being ignorant retards. That is how it is really done in the real world.

 

[jhellwig]

The only way to test it would be to put an engine on a dyno running at a constant power output in a controlled atmosphere and have a dosing pump adding the additive switching it on and off during the same run. Only then will you be able to see a benefit or detriment to any claim of effectiveness.

I am not knocking mmo or any additive but this would be a fairly simple thing to do to prove these claims but I am guessing there is a reason these studies don't exist.

I can't get hard numbers on the difference of grades of fuel in my work truck and I drive a lot. There is no way I could get down to seeing a 2% difference.

 

[panthermike]

It's really hard to quantify in real world driving. I've had the idea to drive a route with and without mmo/lucas, 2-3 times for each And see what happens. I would also make sure the transmission shifted at the same RPM from stops and fill up at the same gas station. I know a good route near me with very few stops and little traffic.

Not perfect but likely as good as you could do for real world testing. I saw an increase in mpg in my old Mazda 6 using Lucas and tracking with fuelly but admittedly there are many variables there.