A quick Internet search will show you thousands of gadgets and additives that claim to improve your car’s fuel economy. Most of the time, the scam behind the gadget is pretty obvious. But this isn’t always the case – especially those with a lot of scientific jargon included on their sales pages to “prove” to you that they are legitimate.

A lot of fuel savings extras and gadgets are useless, but some really do work – though not always as advertised.

So how do you know which of these are good and which aren’t?

Debunking Fuel-Saving Gadgets In 3 Steps

There are some easy, no-nonsense ways to debunk the false fuel savings claims made by the majority of these fuel-saving gadgets and additives. Of course, the old maxim of “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is” applies.

Step 1: A 10-15% Improvement? Really?

Nearly all fuel savers claim a 10-15% fuel savings. This is purely marketing. Even some of the most drastic of changes to your car for improved fuel savings only add up to 6-8%, so giving 10% is pushing the limits of credibility and 15% is entering the realm of total drive train changes (going to a hybrid, say).

So why the 10-15%? Marketing. Ten is an “official” sounding number. It’s nice and round and not too big or too small. Fifteen is ten plus half again, so it retains this psychological power. It’s also very easy to calculate. A potential customer sees 10% improvement and immediately can figure that their car that gets 25mpg will see a 2.5mpg improvement.

This marketing spin is why these numbers are the most commonly claimed improvements for most technology peddlers. So if you see a 10-15% improvement (or savings) claim, that’s a good sign the tech is bogus.

Step 2: Improved Performance and Fuel Savings?

This is another claim made with almost every fuel saving extra out there. There are two inherent problems with this claim. First, most of the time “performance” is measured through user feedback. “My car feels quicker now” or “It just has more power.” These are hardly scientific assessments. Other common tests include 0-60mph tests and flat roller “punch it” tests.

The 0-60mph test is fun, sure, but is highly dependent on the driver, surrounding conditions, and so forth. Even car manufacturers know this and base their 0-60 claims on mathematical estimates based on the vehicle’s expected performance, not on actual race track trials. The same person in the same car can do a 0-60 speed run ten times and have ten different results each time.

The “punch it” test is often done on a dynamo. The car is positioned so that the drive tires are on a set of rollers so the car remains stationary, but the vehicle accelerates as if it were moving (wheels turning). This test has little bearing on the real world. Dynamos are usually used to test emissions, torque, etc. They are not a way to test a before and after on most vehicle performance measures. There are two reasons for this: 1 – the car is not moving, so no air resistance (drag) is included and vehicle weight and the physics of movement are not present; 2 – the driver “punching” the pedal is not real life, no one leaves the stop light by jamming the pedal to the floor unless he or she is in a movie, squealing the tires for effect.

The second inherent problem with the performance and savings claim is that the two are almost always mutually exclusive. In order to get more performance out of the same car, you have to sacrifice something. So in order to get better speed or acceleration from a vehicle, you’ll need to give up another aspect of the vehicle: weight, fuel consumption, handling, aerodynamics, etc.

To gain a 10% improvement in performance, without losing fuel savings, using aerodynamics, for instance, would require that you take a full-sized pickup truck and improve it’s air flow to that of a four door sedan. Pretty drastic. You cannot improve fuel consumption (efficiency) and performance with any minor modification to anything under your car’s hood and show any significant result. If it could be done, car makers would already have done it because the market demands more efficient vehicles that don’t lack in performance.

Step 3: Look At the Tests Performed

This is the more complicated of the three steps, but is often easily answered because those making all of these claims for their gadgets probably don’t supply any real evidence for them. Testimonials from “satisfied customers” are not scientific tests. Neither of they proof of anything, really, except that some people tried the product (likely for free) and it seemed to be good to them. Along the same vein, a few decades ago, many people used to think cocaine could be added to just about any product and many would “feel better” after trying them, but that doesn’t mean it was necessarily good for them.

Now think about this little fact: any driver on any given day can see a gain or loss of 10% in their vehicle’s fuel economy based purely on environmental factors: the air’s humidity that day, the route driven, the weather, changes in passenger count or payload, and more. This is why most realistic tests should spread the comparisons over several months. Three months of driving without the new gadget, three months with it. Most do not do this – they’ll go with a couple of weeks, maybe. Why? Time is everything when it comes to marketing products.

To scientifically test a product over 6 months often requires a year to accomplish. Why? Because the environment from March-May is different than the environment from May-July. So for the tests to be accurate, they should be done from March-May for both the before and after trials.

Most of the time, though, no scientific tests and results will be offered by the gadget seller. They’ll allude to their existence and quote from them extensively, but not offer the actual test for your perusal. That’s because the tests, if they do exist, are probably contradictory or inconclusive. Believe it or not, this is the truth in almost every scientific endeavor – test results are often inconclusive or contradictory and require the scientists involved to reconsider their methods or change their hypothesis.

Fuel Saving Technologies That Really Do Work

So what kind of fuel savings technologies actually do work? There are a lot of them, but you probably won’t find them being sold online for $49.95 in an exclusive offer. Most of them are simple things that every person can do and that don’t likely cost much money to perform.

Things like choosing the right tires, keeping them inflated, etc. Some small changes to your lifestyle and driving habits will also improve fuel economy. The gadget you see advertised to pour into your fuel tank to replace your air filter (or whatever)? Probably not much help.

No related posts.