Jason Vath wrote:
No need to jump right in and buy anything but, at least learn about it. It's worth at least that.
Peter VanDerWal wrote:If this actually worked, then the automakers would already build it in. They have a big incentive to make engines that burn less fuel so they can meet federally mandated fuel economy. They spend millions of dollars every year researching ways to do this. Getting better fuel economy is why they are building so many hybrids now, hybrids cost a LOT more to build than non-hybrid vehicles.
Unless you are one of those people that think there is some big conspiracy by the automakers to avoid building cheaper, more profitable, vehicles. Because, you know, everybody knows how much the automakers hate making bigger profits.
wayne fajkus wrote:Its not 100% about fuel economy. Emmissions has an effect also. Heck, lets throw in a warranty...
wayne fajkus wrote:
If it allowed a more complete burn, wouldnt the computer just add more gas to keep it rich? The more the tech succeeds, the more the computer fights to correct it. It seems that a tuner is in order to make it work. If a tuner is used, it nullifies the need since its doing the same thing. Making a leaner fuel mixture. So now your gain would not be the difference between stock and the gadget(tech), but the difference between a tuner and the gadget(tech)
julian Gerona wrote:... I see no torus in your publish diagram but rather turbulence.
Mark Tudor wrote: I'd also say that car companies will jump on any simple ways to improve performance or efficiency in vehicles, there's been a hard push for years to improve as a selling point. .