Bolt on improved MPG's
JK Super Freak
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,623
Likes: 5
From: Lawrenceville, NJ
Its a riot.
We have a post saying his rpms are 2100, but the pic shows maybe 3 mph?
Low gearing must be very good for mpg too according to the pic and accompanying claim.
If I'm at 2,100 rpm and going ~ 3 mph...I'm in 4 low at least....and getting well UNDER 26 mpg, etc.
How about the rest of you...?
It ALL comes back to the problems with anecdotal data.
Maybe he really is not a scientist, and does not understand how a test should be conducted, and, unfortunately, as everyone jumped on the ridiculousness of the claims...anyone in his situation will be REALLY trying to make some positive finding...to avoid the pain of realization of being a fool, etc...its human nature.
In real life, when scientists DID test these things, they found no benefit.
A 1 mpg claim is meaningless in anecdotal tests, because rounding errors, changes in driving behavior (Even if subconscious) , in actual traffic and weather and fuel used, tire pressure variations with temperature, etc...wipe out the margin of error involved.
If you measure one tank, you are very lucky to be within a 5% plus or minus range in an mpg estimate.
if you got an estimated 20 mpg, the plus minus range is about 2 mpg.
That means that your NUMBERS might show 19 - 21 mpg...and, you are NOT lying, or misleading anyone...its just that's a normal variation for the calculation.
So....if you use the odometer to measure the actual mileage, it has an accuracy range, the gas pump has an accuracy range, the tank's volume and when the station's pump kicks off has a range, and so forth....you MULTIPLY these by each other, as all of them typically combine to spread your NUMBERS out by about 5% up/down....and that's not even accounting for weather, slight variations in traffic, etc. (As simple as making or not making ONE light on the way to / from a destination, its one degree hotter or cooler, more or less humid, barometer rising or falling, letting or not letting someone merge, slow people in the way, etc...)
So - if the MATH says one tank's worth of data can account for a 2 mpg variation, that means a difference, for a controlled traffic loop, with test drivers, and repeatable weather/driving conditions, etc...), would have to be in excess of 2 mpg to even show up as statistically valid.
Now, when scientists do this, they use a fuel gauge and meter system to actually MEASURE the gas, drop by drop, as its used...they do NOT just go to a gas station, fill up, and see how many gallons it took, etc.
When I used to do this regularly, in research, we placed a meter in line in the fuel system, and it gave us the EXACT amount of fuel used by the engine.
If we measured effects on mpg in real world conditions, like a fleet of taxis or police cars, etc...we monitored THOUSANDS of miles of use, so that day to day differences would be compensated for, and the total numbers of gallons used, and the miles driven, could be more accurately assessed.
Statistically, a tank or two is garbage...too small a sample to be meaningful.
So - human nature drives people to justify things...and excitement over an initial success, that is shared, requires continued validation to avoid a loss of face....and even if a person honestly believes what they say...their subconscious can make them come to conclusions that are more comforting, etc.
I do not have hard feelings to those who try and fail, I respect them for it....they are pioneers.
Of course, some pioneers thought they were in India when landing in America, because they had no knowledge of what they were getting into....and reported, in all honesty and with a straight face, that they were in a different continent, etc.
People make honest mistakes, and, sometimes, get skewered for it.
If an honest attempt to crunch the numbers gives 1 mpg...fine, it merely means NOTHING HAPPENED, or he lost a mpg, etc...can't tell...
All we know is the data doesn't support the claim.
Numbers don't lie...but, interpretation of the numbers can produce false conclusions.
If there's a hat with 99 black marbles, and one white marble in it....but I have no way of looking into it....and have to just reach in and take one marble......and I want to know what color the marbles are...
...and I take one marble, and its white...I can say, in all honesty, that I sampled the marble content of the hat, and 100% of the sampling indicated white as the marble color.
OK, its all true...I might even believe it.
Except its wrong..as statistically, one sample is inadequate.
Going the OTHER way, if the one marble sampled was BLACK, I could say that 100% of the data indicated the color was black, and ALSO be "true", but wrong, etc.
There are RANGES of meaningful data, computed based upon the variables in the experiment, essentially, to ensure that you know how many marbles you need to be X % sure your conclusion will be accurate...the more marbles, the higher your percentage of confidence in your conclusion, etc.
(Like, "I'm, 98% sure the data is correct...or 60% sure, or 99.97% sure," etc...)
I hope that helps to give some realistic perspective here.
We have a post saying his rpms are 2100, but the pic shows maybe 3 mph?
Low gearing must be very good for mpg too according to the pic and accompanying claim.
If I'm at 2,100 rpm and going ~ 3 mph...I'm in 4 low at least....and getting well UNDER 26 mpg, etc.
How about the rest of you...?
It ALL comes back to the problems with anecdotal data.
Maybe he really is not a scientist, and does not understand how a test should be conducted, and, unfortunately, as everyone jumped on the ridiculousness of the claims...anyone in his situation will be REALLY trying to make some positive finding...to avoid the pain of realization of being a fool, etc...its human nature.
In real life, when scientists DID test these things, they found no benefit.
A 1 mpg claim is meaningless in anecdotal tests, because rounding errors, changes in driving behavior (Even if subconscious) , in actual traffic and weather and fuel used, tire pressure variations with temperature, etc...wipe out the margin of error involved.
If you measure one tank, you are very lucky to be within a 5% plus or minus range in an mpg estimate.
if you got an estimated 20 mpg, the plus minus range is about 2 mpg.
That means that your NUMBERS might show 19 - 21 mpg...and, you are NOT lying, or misleading anyone...its just that's a normal variation for the calculation.
So....if you use the odometer to measure the actual mileage, it has an accuracy range, the gas pump has an accuracy range, the tank's volume and when the station's pump kicks off has a range, and so forth....you MULTIPLY these by each other, as all of them typically combine to spread your NUMBERS out by about 5% up/down....and that's not even accounting for weather, slight variations in traffic, etc. (As simple as making or not making ONE light on the way to / from a destination, its one degree hotter or cooler, more or less humid, barometer rising or falling, letting or not letting someone merge, slow people in the way, etc...)
So - if the MATH says one tank's worth of data can account for a 2 mpg variation, that means a difference, for a controlled traffic loop, with test drivers, and repeatable weather/driving conditions, etc...), would have to be in excess of 2 mpg to even show up as statistically valid.
Now, when scientists do this, they use a fuel gauge and meter system to actually MEASURE the gas, drop by drop, as its used...they do NOT just go to a gas station, fill up, and see how many gallons it took, etc.
When I used to do this regularly, in research, we placed a meter in line in the fuel system, and it gave us the EXACT amount of fuel used by the engine.
If we measured effects on mpg in real world conditions, like a fleet of taxis or police cars, etc...we monitored THOUSANDS of miles of use, so that day to day differences would be compensated for, and the total numbers of gallons used, and the miles driven, could be more accurately assessed.
Statistically, a tank or two is garbage...too small a sample to be meaningful.
So - human nature drives people to justify things...and excitement over an initial success, that is shared, requires continued validation to avoid a loss of face....and even if a person honestly believes what they say...their subconscious can make them come to conclusions that are more comforting, etc.
I do not have hard feelings to those who try and fail, I respect them for it....they are pioneers.
Of course, some pioneers thought they were in India when landing in America, because they had no knowledge of what they were getting into....and reported, in all honesty and with a straight face, that they were in a different continent, etc.
People make honest mistakes, and, sometimes, get skewered for it.
If an honest attempt to crunch the numbers gives 1 mpg...fine, it merely means NOTHING HAPPENED, or he lost a mpg, etc...can't tell...
All we know is the data doesn't support the claim.
Numbers don't lie...but, interpretation of the numbers can produce false conclusions.
If there's a hat with 99 black marbles, and one white marble in it....but I have no way of looking into it....and have to just reach in and take one marble......and I want to know what color the marbles are...
...and I take one marble, and its white...I can say, in all honesty, that I sampled the marble content of the hat, and 100% of the sampling indicated white as the marble color.
OK, its all true...I might even believe it.
Except its wrong..as statistically, one sample is inadequate.
Going the OTHER way, if the one marble sampled was BLACK, I could say that 100% of the data indicated the color was black, and ALSO be "true", but wrong, etc.
There are RANGES of meaningful data, computed based upon the variables in the experiment, essentially, to ensure that you know how many marbles you need to be X % sure your conclusion will be accurate...the more marbles, the higher your percentage of confidence in your conclusion, etc.
(Like, "I'm, 98% sure the data is correct...or 60% sure, or 99.97% sure," etc...)
I hope that helps to give some realistic perspective here.
Last edited by TEEJ; Aug 27, 2008 at 06:06 AM.
JK Super Freak
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
From: Denver
With an 18 gal. tank and driving 100+ miles per day, the OP should be able to fill up and re-calculate his mileage every 2-3 days. However, as I said in my original post on this thread, I would like to see repeated results of 4-5 mpg increase from several Jeepers.
I would gladly purchase a unit if my mileage would go from 20 to 25 mpg. In fact, since there are 12,000 (or so) registered users here, maybe the manufacturer would be willing to donate one or two units to long-standing members to test and evaluate to show the whole group how wonderful the product is.
I would gladly purchase a unit if my mileage would go from 20 to 25 mpg. In fact, since there are 12,000 (or so) registered users here, maybe the manufacturer would be willing to donate one or two units to long-standing members to test and evaluate to show the whole group how wonderful the product is.
JK Junkie
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 0
From: Lakewood, OH
Here's an interesting dyno test from Fitch's site.
http://www.fitchfuelcatalyst.com/doc...98Corvette.pdf
The numbers that they present don't match the dyno chart they include. While the dyno has numbers for peak horsepower and torque, they represent about a 1.25% gain. They ran at least 6 pulls to achieve those numbers and overstated the performance gains by over 300%. Now that is snake oil.
One thing about the Fitch Fuel Catalyst is that it has had success in the canned gas motor sports. The snowmobilers, dirt bikers and even the lawn and tractor uses. Uses where fuel is often stale having sat in a fuel can for 3 or 6 months. Home or industrial heating oil as well. When some marketing guy got the idea to make it an MPG tool, they took the shine of what their product actually does and degraded their brand.
That's not at all the same as a filling station that gets fresh gas on a more regular basis and for vehicles that put in fresh fuel once a week or more.
I've been to the Mallett shop that conducted this dyno and despite not in the business of vehicles I desire, they have a first class operation. Most of all, I have seen several Mallett vehicles and to date not a single one of them had a Fitch fuel catalyst visible in the mix. Might be interesting to get their take on how their dyno tests ran as clearly the results as they are presented by Fitch are less than honest.
http://www.mallettcars.com/
http://www.fitchfuelcatalyst.com/doc...98Corvette.pdf
The numbers that they present don't match the dyno chart they include. While the dyno has numbers for peak horsepower and torque, they represent about a 1.25% gain. They ran at least 6 pulls to achieve those numbers and overstated the performance gains by over 300%. Now that is snake oil.
One thing about the Fitch Fuel Catalyst is that it has had success in the canned gas motor sports. The snowmobilers, dirt bikers and even the lawn and tractor uses. Uses where fuel is often stale having sat in a fuel can for 3 or 6 months. Home or industrial heating oil as well. When some marketing guy got the idea to make it an MPG tool, they took the shine of what their product actually does and degraded their brand.
That's not at all the same as a filling station that gets fresh gas on a more regular basis and for vehicles that put in fresh fuel once a week or more.
I've been to the Mallett shop that conducted this dyno and despite not in the business of vehicles I desire, they have a first class operation. Most of all, I have seen several Mallett vehicles and to date not a single one of them had a Fitch fuel catalyst visible in the mix. Might be interesting to get their take on how their dyno tests ran as clearly the results as they are presented by Fitch are less than honest.
http://www.mallettcars.com/
JK Enthusiast
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
From: Central Wisconsin
There are RANGES of meaningful data, computed based upon the variables in the experiment, essentially, to ensure that you know how many marbles you need to be X % sure your conclusion will be accurate...the more marbles, the higher your percentage of confidence in your conclusion, etc.
(Like, "I'm, 98% sure the data is correct...or 60% sure, or 99.97% sure," etc...)
I hope that helps to give some realistic perspective here.
JK Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: York Pa
Thank you Mark Dorian and jpop, i have been trying to tell these guys the same thing now for weeks. i am glad i am not the only Jeep guy with some common sense. AS for 26 MPG..... I filled up wed morning and drove 133.0 miles to Rausch Creek offroad park. topped off at the gas station just before the park. it only took 5 YES 5.1 gallons to top off....now do the math people. AND NO i do NOt have one of these bolt on snake oil gadgets!! so if this thing can improve MPG from 17-26 then it should imp
rove 26- about 35 or 40 MPG ....I think DC would be all over this thing not to mention ALL of the BIG 3 American Car Companies.....since the f-150 was out sold buy Honda for the first time in almost 2 decades. so we tried to warn all of you. so if you need to find out the hard way go ahead and spend your money.
07 JK Unlimited
33x11.5x16
JKS Quicker Disconnects
Warrior Products Tube Doors
Mopar Off Road Rear Bumper
Oil Pan Tranny Skid Plate by SkidRow
Custom Front Winch Bumper by RoundStar OffRoad
Skyjacker Adjustable Rear Track Bar
Skyjacker Brake Line Extenders
Rock Krawler Adjustable Front Lower Control Arms
And Plenty of "CHARACTER" From rocks and Trees
rove 26- about 35 or 40 MPG ....I think DC would be all over this thing not to mention ALL of the BIG 3 American Car Companies.....since the f-150 was out sold buy Honda for the first time in almost 2 decades. so we tried to warn all of you. so if you need to find out the hard way go ahead and spend your money. 07 JK Unlimited
33x11.5x16
JKS Quicker Disconnects
Warrior Products Tube Doors
Mopar Off Road Rear Bumper
Oil Pan Tranny Skid Plate by SkidRow
Custom Front Winch Bumper by RoundStar OffRoad
Skyjacker Adjustable Rear Track Bar
Skyjacker Brake Line Extenders
Rock Krawler Adjustable Front Lower Control Arms
And Plenty of "CHARACTER" From rocks and Trees
JK Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
From: U.S.S.A
I have heard and watched posts and researched this Fitch Fuel Catalyst for almost a year. Number 1 $196 is not the correct price for this unit. It averages $169 to $229 depending on the model you need for your application.
JPmagazine did a review about a year ago (which sparked my interest) and claimed their project RED TJ gained about 2-3 mpg. They also debunked several myths such as the TB spacers and things like that. I have the issue somewhere at home and I need to find it so I can post more. But otherwise go to jpmagazine.com to find the articles. You can also go to fitchfuelcatalyst.com for even MORE magazines that have endorsed the product.
Things I find funny about it. There are chemists that say it won't work...but there are chemists that say it will. Jpmagazine used to have an article for the FFC in their back pages with over advertisers. As of late I have been unable to find another advertisement for them in JPmag.
However, 4wd.com has begun selling the FFC. As does Summitracing.com and jcwhitney.com All fairly reputable auto parts websites.
JPmagazine did a review about a year ago (which sparked my interest) and claimed their project RED TJ gained about 2-3 mpg. They also debunked several myths such as the TB spacers and things like that. I have the issue somewhere at home and I need to find it so I can post more. But otherwise go to jpmagazine.com to find the articles. You can also go to fitchfuelcatalyst.com for even MORE magazines that have endorsed the product.
Things I find funny about it. There are chemists that say it won't work...but there are chemists that say it will. Jpmagazine used to have an article for the FFC in their back pages with over advertisers. As of late I have been unable to find another advertisement for them in JPmag.
However, 4wd.com has begun selling the FFC. As does Summitracing.com and jcwhitney.com All fairly reputable auto parts websites.
JK Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 322
Likes: 1
From: South Florida
JPmagazine did a review about a year ago (which sparked my interest) and claimed their project RED TJ gained about 2-3 mpg. They also debunked several myths such as the TB spacers and things like that. I have the issue somewhere at home and I need to find it so I can post more. But otherwise go to jpmagazine.com to find the articles. You can also go to fitchfuelcatalyst.com for even MORE magazines that have endorsed the product.
jpmagazine.com/techarticles/engine/154_0707_save_gas_cheat_the_gas_nazis/fuel_economizers.html
jpmagazine.com/techarticles/154_0607_jeep_mileage_test/index.html
JK Super Freak
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,769
Likes: 0
From: Coastal Bend