# More miles to the gallon?



## ned (Dec 12, 2006)

Hi,
We went to the Shepton Mallet Show over the weekend and had a really good time. However, whilst we were walking around the stalls we came across these two guys selling an electromagnetic fuel conditioning unit which looked liked a simple box of electronics which connected directedly to vehicles battery. They said that the system would increase the mileage, give it more torque and improve the acceleration. The company was called Sunpulse. Anyone got any experiance of them and the gizmo it all sounds a bit too good for my liking, but if people have tried it and it works I might give them the benifit of the doubt.

Keep em waxed............ Ned


----------



## 100127 (Jul 20, 2006)

Have a look at this

Sunpulse


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

Hi Ned

We discussed this in detail after a previous show where they were exhibiting (may even have been last September at Shepton :wink: )

There was a lot of technical input, which showed it was a load of codswallop  

Gerald


----------



## b16duv (Feb 14, 2006)

Hi all,

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but a report from BTAC looking at fuel saving devices for commercial vehicles found no evidence to support claims of improved fuel consumption.

I am sure that the device supplied by Sunpulse was not tested during this research, however the report was fairly negative about the efficacy of all such devices.

The benefit that is gained is due to what's known as the 'Hawthorn Effect'.

This can equate to around a six percent saving and is basically due to the subconscious alteration of driving style - You've just spent lots of money on a 'device' and so you pay particular attention to fuel consumption - and usually slow down slightly as a result. You may also check tyre pressures and adjust to correct settings (this makes significant difference), or remove unnecessary weight or items that cause drag - roofracks etc.

My Punto toad fuel consumption increases from 50 mpg to 44 mpg when the roof rack and ski bars are fitted for example.

Finally, the report reckoned that onboard mpg displays in the dash could be as much as 10% optimistic.

I have a paper copy of the report somewhere, but not electronic, but it may be available on the web. E&OE

David


----------



## Bikerbabewing (Feb 22, 2007)

I fitted an Ecoflow Motoflow M1 to my 1998 Freelander 5 door 2.0 Diesel
car 4 yrs ago. I still get on average 40 miles more per tank, and the emissions are very low.
If you wish to know more please PM me.


----------



## CliveMott (Mar 10, 2008)

A lighter right foot is one way to save some cash and improve MPG. 

Not using the brakes is another - but this may be somewhat of a disadvantage on the odd occasion.

Removing all the unnecessary clutter from the van and travelling with empty tanks is another but its more than a tad inconvenient.

The term "codswallop" already used probably accurately describes the claims for various magic magnets and other electronic wizardry on offer.

At a recent show I challenged the Sunpulse salesperson to prove how it works and the improvements claimed. Every answer was anecdotal. Not one before and after controlled test had been done.

Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## TR5 (Jun 6, 2007)

"UP TO 


25% MORE 


MILES PER GALLON"

From Sunpulse's website - I don't think so!!


----------



## devonidiot (Mar 10, 2006)

I've read that ensuring the windows of your vehicle are closed can save 5% on fuel costs. Using your gearbox correctly can save 4-7%. A light foot on the accelerator can save upto 7%. Coasting downhill can save 4%. Slowing down normally and only using the brakes when necessary can save 4%.

My best fuel saving tip is leave the vehicle with the ignition switched off in the driveway. :roll:


----------



## chapter (May 1, 2005)

i use this and on the last three trips to n/devon i have used less diesel and it seems to do what is says on the can 
chapter


----------



## Rislar (Aug 16, 2008)

What a crock, these things never work!! the best way is to keep tyre pressure correct and service the van regulary.


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

Bikerbabewing said:


> I fitted an Ecoflow Motoflow M1 to my 1998 Freelander 5 door 2.0 Diesel
> car 4 yrs ago. I still get on average 40 miles more per tank, and the emissions are very low.
> If you wish to know more please PM me.


I think that you are living proof that the 'Hawthorn Effect' is real and it will last as long as you need it to. Clipping a couple of magnets around your fuel line will not give you an increase of 4 MPG. But if it makes you feel better then it is not all bad.


----------



## mikeyv (May 23, 2007)

Fuel economy has always been a big selling point on any vehicle, even more so in todays climate.
So, if strapping a couple of magnets round a fuel pipe really worked, do we not think the manufacterers would fit them at a cost of a few quid??


----------



## ActiveCampers (Jun 17, 2005)

mikeyv said:


> Fuel economy has always been a big selling point on any vehicle, even more so in todays climate.
> So, if strapping a couple of magnets round a fuel pipe really worked, do we not think the manufacterers would fit them at a cost of a few quid??


Absolutely.

The manufacturers spend millions on improving efficiency by a few percentage points - even changing bodywork to reduce drag! If a £100 "gadget" could do it - they would have bought the company and installed it by default.

So if anyone has bought one, I am sorry, its all in the head.

Oil additives - thats a maybe though - as the viscoscity of oil can make a major difference in internal engine friction and performance. However I'd never suggest putting anything in that isn't "default" - as though it may improve MPG I'd argue I don't know how it does it. Thining the oil? If so - does this have any detrimental affect on the long term engine performance? Same argument in tha tthe oil companies would have snapped it up if they could warrent a long term saving.

In truth, the wifes Puma does maybe 300 miles before red (her driving it - not me). After a fresh filter and oil it goes to 320-330!! This drops after a couple of 1000 miles back to 300.......


----------



## AberdeenAngus (Jul 26, 2008)

The additives don't work either. It's all snake oil.


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

C7Ken was chatting about this, probably, system, which he also saw at the show.

Apparently, the company offered him the opportunity to attach the stuff to his m/h and try it at the end of the show.

Something like, drive it 100 yards with it on, then another with it turned off, and you WILL notice the difference.

I suggested to Ken that it would be more persuasive if the performance aspect, ( which is what we were dicussing ) wa demonstrated on a couple of dynos.

The company told Ken they wished someone would put it on a dyno and test it, as all the evidence was anecdotal. I cant understand why the company hasnt invested two or three hundred quid in dyno testing themselves.

Or, maybe I can.


----------



## jhelm (Feb 9, 2008)

I believe a can of fuel injector cleaner in the fuel tank every 6 months or so might have some affect. Oil additives would only thin the oil which would increase wear on the engine, not a good idea.


----------



## tonyt (May 25, 2005)

CliveMott said:


> A lighter right foot is one way to save some cash and improve MPG.


I think there's a technical term for this pratice, something like "feather footing". The theory is that whatever speed you're doing you can ease off the pedal just a tad yet remain pretty much at the same speed. If you have the right instrumentation and see your revs dropping then you're improving your mpg.

Also, as mentioned before, the other obvious one is to slow down and it needn't be by much to achieve big savings. The difference, on my vehicle, between the revs at 60mph and 55mph is quite dramatic and can be felt in the pocket - it's just remembering to do it..


----------



## Bikerbabewing (Feb 22, 2007)

So if I am suffering from the 'Hawthorn effect' Buttons, that means 400.000 other people are!!!!! because that's how many Ecoflow Motoflows that have been sold since they were produced approx 12 yrs ago!!!
Some, may I say, by very lge Haulage contractors.
There is also documented proof that they work!!


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Forgetting about the documented proof - as you haven't given a reference to it I doubt that it exists.

The Hawthorne effect affects everybody and that means 99.9% 

Basically its nothing to do with vehicles its to do with human nature. The effect was first noticed in production lines when throughput went higher when the workforce were consulted about aspects of their workplace.


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

Bikerbabewing said:


> So if I am suffering from the 'Hawthorn effect' Buttons, that means 400.000 other people are!!!!! because that's how many Ecoflow Motoflows that have been sold since they were produced approx 12 yrs ago!!!
> Some, may I say, by very lge Haulage contractors.
> There is also documented proof that they work!!


Hi Bikerbabewing 
I'm sure as was said earlier, if they really did work then every vehicle would have one from new. I did carry out some testing a few years ago using much larger magnets on industrial gas boilers, the outcome was really not worth the effort. But if it is working for 400000 of you then it cant be all bad.


----------



## oldenstar (Nov 9, 2006)

Returning home from the Shepton show I decided to refill ready for the next trip.
Carefully looking for the cheapest Torbay garage I pulled on to a conveniently spare diesel pump, and commenced usual wallet emptying procedure.
Only when halfway through did I look at the pump (Shell, by the way) only to discover that I had managed the uniquely Oldenstar save money procedure of paying 6p per litre more for Shell's sooper dooper SPECIAL diesel.  

Less than gruntled I began my Victor Meldrew impression with the cashier (crafty trick, small signs etc etc) but she politely said to please try the stuff first, because I would notice a big difference, and get more miles per tank. At this, the guy directly behind me in the queue jumped in, said he thought it was great stuff, and got loads more miles per tank-now wouldn't use anything else he said.

So-is this possible? Have Shell found a diesel which gives more mileage?
I remain very sceptical but wonder if there are any supporters here?
Paul


----------



## Rislar (Aug 16, 2008)

oldenstar said:


> Returning home from the Shepton show I decided to refill ready for the next trip.
> Carefully looking for the cheapest Torbay garage I pulled on to a conveniently spare diesel pump, and commenced usual wallet emptying procedure.
> Only when halfway through did I look at the pump (Shell, by the way) only to discover that I had managed the uniquely Oldenstar save money procedure of paying 6p per litre more for Shell's sooper dooper SPECIAL diesel.
> 
> ...


Ive not tried the Diesel version yet but in my S2000 i get 60 mile's more per tank using V-power , got to be worth a punt


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

oldenstar said:


> So-is this possible? Have Shell found a diesel which gives more mileage?


It does indeed give a little more mileage. However, to my experience not enough to compensate for the higher price.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## FROGGY (Apr 12, 2006)

*THE SUNPULSE FUEL SAVER*

Hi,

I have just fitted a Sunpulse device to my Nissan Terano automatic. I went for an exhaust test before and after but there was no difference. However, I did feel that there was a lot more torque and the car seemed to change gear less often on hills and while accelerating. I noticed that it would pull away in top gear =overdrive down to 1000-rpm and I found while driving on the M1 my speed was over the 70 while my peddle foot seemed to be in the 65 position. I was disappointed with the emission test but am determined to find a dyno as suggested and will then report any gain in power. 
It does feel like a smoother more powerful engine though.
Watch this space. If this device proves to get more power, never mind the fuel saving, I'm going to start selling them! More power must = a fuel saving if you slack off on the peddle and get the same speed?

UPDATE 12/02/09 I have tested the Sunpulse now for a few thousand miles and can report that in that time, by filling my tank to overflowing, setting the trip then after using at least half a tank each time I have been able to get some readings. With the Sunpulse disconnected I drove in a normal way on motorways and around town and could not get more than 22.5 mpg out of the 2.7-litre Nissan Terano. I then reconnected the Sunpulse and did over 6 separate runs, each time using over half a tank full. The worst I got was 25.3 mpg and the very best I got was 27.2 mpg.
I have a roof rack and my tyres were quite used and I carry a range of heavy stuff in the back. I disconnected the device and my mpg retruned to 22 mpg! I have now decided to keep the device connected and don't care what the other say it is saving me money. I was lucky enough to get one of these devices from a mate who had the wrong type of car so it was not new. Thanks Sunpulse.

Froggy



Froggy


----------



## CliveMott (Mar 10, 2008)

THIS SAYS IT ALL


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

TR5 said:


> "UP TO
> 25% MORE
> MILES PER GALLON"
> From Sunpulse's website - I don't think so!!


I'm sure that's totally accurate.

There is no way you will get over 25% improvement.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

hilldweller said:


> TR5 said:
> 
> 
> > "UP TO
> ...


Quite correct Hilly. 

0.01% improvement can be accurately described as "Up to 25%", and quite truthfully too!! 8O :roll:


----------



## happytraveller (Nov 29, 2007)

I bought one of these Sunpulse devices at the Pickering Show. I was very sceptical but as I was given a 28 day money back guarantee if I wasn't happy with it I thought I'd give it a try. I normally get about 28mpg and the most I've ever had is 30.3mpg. I've worked these figures out myself from fill up to fill up and not relied on the trip reading which is normally 2-3mpg overstated. After fitting the device I got 34.85mpg on a 123 mile journey over varying road conditions, driving as I would normally do. I was very pleasantly surprised.


----------



## b16duv (Feb 14, 2006)

Pssssssssssssssssssst, anyway want to buy some HBOS shares?


----------



## StAubyns (Jun 4, 2006)

I have an 08 Renault Clio 1.5 diesel and driving normally I get 61 - 62 MPG on the tripmeter.

Yesterday I left home for a meeting 60 miles away, majority motorway, with plenty of time.

I drove with the MPG trip showing, dropped the speed to 65 instead of 70+, "feather footed" and ended up at my destination with 72 MPG on the tripmeter.

But not an easy driving style!


----------



## 101405 (Oct 15, 2006)

As they all say its mostly bull! the two things that matter most are Correct tyre pressures and the airflow over the vehicle the latter one you have no control over. Hence different mpg for same base vehicle .get your Tyres right . and mpg will Improve!


----------



## 110587 (Mar 14, 2008)

*Sunpluse*

8O

I cant believe people are so gullible, Its like the junk mail people receiving, they convince themselves they are going to win. The Automotive industry invests million of pounds in research.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

StAubyns said:


> I have an 08 Renault Clio 1.5 diesel and driving normally I get 61 - 62 MPG on the tripmeter.
> 
> Yesterday I left home for a meeting 60 miles away, majority motorway, with plenty of time.
> 
> ...


A classic example of the Hawthorn Effect mentioned earlier Geoff.

For whatever reason (new gadget for example) one is *temporarily *much more conscious and aware of the clog on the pedal, and it's almost a foregone conclusion that mpg will improve.

The real test, _which is very rarely done or admitted to_, comes months later when the novelty has worn off and driving style reverts back to "auto-pilot" mode.

In any case it can only be valid by looking back on data *routinely *collected during a time when the new gadget had been forgotten about - otherwise the Hawthorn Effect sub-consciously kicks in again.

With any "snake oil" gizmo, there will be no discernable difference when conditions return to normal - and therefore become more akin to a genuine and proper scientific test.

Sorry if I have upset Happytraveller and others  , whose comments I'm quite sure were entirely sincere, but that's the reality of the situation. Plus any test would have to extend over many hundreds of miles (if not thousands) to be statistically significant - even if all other conditions were stable.

This is why dynamometers are used for such tests - they have no emotions to get in the way.


----------



## b16duv (Feb 14, 2006)

OK, I'm officially bored now. The following is from the Freight Best Practice guide to Fuel Saving Devices (www.freightbestpractice.org.uk)
page 4 section 3.2

"* No scientific evidence is available to support
claims that magnetic or electromagnetic
devices clamped to air and fuel pipes have
any influence on the properties of the
combustion mixture"

"Catalysts and Magnets - The Science Bit!
In correctly maintained engines working under
normal operating conditions, combustion
efficiency is close to 100% (in terms of the
mass of fuel burned). Manufacturers take
great care to optimise the ignition timing of
petrol engines to suit the burning speed of
pump fuel. So, faster-burning fuel mixtures
would lead to a deterioration in engine
performance unless the ignition timing was
changed. Under normal engine operating
conditions with optimised ignition, a change in
burn time gives little or no improvement in
power/efficiency
Without retarded ignition timing, faster
burning can result in a higher combustion
temperature (with increased NOx emissions)
and a higher unburned gas temperature
ahead of the flame. This will increase the
tendency to auto-ignite (knocking). This is
exactly opposite to advertised claims that
these products simultaneously increase
burning speed and reduce knock tendency
Diesel engine manufacturers also go to great
lengths to optimise fuel injection and airflow
characteristics to achieve optimum ignition
delay and main burn characteristics for fuel of
standard cetane rating. So any changes in
the evaporation, mixing and ignition delay
properties of fuel by fuel-saving products are
more likely to result in a move away from
optimum performance, unless the engine is
recalibrated
There is no evidence that even quite strong
magnetic fields can cause ionisation in gases
or significantly influence combustion.
Suppliers have produced little or no evidence
that these types of fuel-saving device actually
work"

There are further sections on other fuel saving devices and techniques, and ways to measure fuel saving techniques.

"Of 106 devices listed by the US Government's
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) only five
indicated a statistically significant improvement in fuel
economy without an increase in exhaust emissions.
None of the five devices modify the engine or the fuel.
All focus on modifying driver habits or controlling
air-conditioning systems (see
www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/autos/gasave.htm)."

Can we please stop kidding ourselves on that these things work?

David*


----------



## b16duv (Feb 14, 2006)

Sorry, I forgot this bit: -

"Choice of test method is more likely to be constrained
by available time, money and other resources rather
than any difficulty in identifying the best technical
approach. One key consideration is the degree of
accuracy and repeatability required in the test.
If a particular fuel saving device claims to change fuel
consumption by 15-25%, then a test with an accuracy
or repeatability confidence level of around ± 4% is good
enough to establish if this size of change is achievable,
but if the test needs to measure savings of 3-5% these
confidence levels must be better than ±1%.
The obvious way of testing a fuel saving device is to fit
it to a vehicle in service and then compare fuel
consumption before and after. However, tests of this
kind have to be very carefully managed and controlled.
In general, laboratory and special off-road vehicle tests
are more likely to produce accurate and repeatable
results than in-service tests. Any improvements
obtained under test conditions still need to be related to
the actual potential for improvement on a given vehicle
working on specific duty patterns."

Again, from the Freight Best Practice website. This service is provided by the Department for Transport for the benefit of the road freight transport industry and the research is conducted by Faber Maunsell on their behalf.
See http://www.fabermaunsell.com/

David


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

*Re: THE SUNPULSE FUEL SAVER*



FROGGY said:


> but am determined to find a dyno as suggested and will then report any gain in power. Froggy


I don't think so. Unless, and it's obvious you have not, done a dyno run immediately before fitting the gadget - must be same dyno, same temperatures and same tyres to be accurate.

You could test then remove the gadget and test again. Or the other way round.


----------



## b16duv (Feb 14, 2006)

Just found this on the Advertising Standards Authority (http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/) website

Make of it what you will...............

"ASA Adjudications 
Sunpulse.co.uk
71 Tolmers Road
Cuffley
Hertfordshire
EN6 4JJ

Number of complaints: 1
Date:	27 February 2008
Media:	Leaflet
Sector:	Motoring

Ad 
A leaflet for a fuel economiser device stated "SAVE MONEY ON FUEL. UP TO 25% MORE MILES PER GALLON. REDUCE YOUR CO EMISSIONS. YOUR CAR WILL RUN CLEANER, LESS HARMFUL GASSES. ENGINE PERFORMANCE ENHANCER. UP'S [sic] YOUR HP AND TORQUE, MAKES YOUR CAR DRIVE BETTER, AND MORE RESPONSIVE. EASY-FIT ON BATTERY, 2 MINUTES". The reverse side of the leaflet stated "DON'T WASTE MONEY ON FUEL. FUEL ECONOMISER & PERFORMANCE ENHANCER. Sunpulse is a new electronic Pulse product developed in Japan. All the engines of today are electronic [sic] controlled. Sunpulse enhances the running of your engine electronically. Sunpulse is a [sic]electronic chipping product that will improve the ignition and combustion conditions. It will increase the explosive force in your cylinders. Sunpulse will save you fuel, make your car run smoother, increase your HP and Torque, reduce your CO Emission, and maintain your battery. Will work on all engines petrol, diesel, and twin fuel. As long as it has a ECU. (Injected) ... CE APPROVED ... E13 MARK".

Issue 
One complainant challenged whether the following claims could be substantiated:

1. "up to 25% more miles per gallon";

2. "reduce your CO Emissions"; and

3. "engine performance enhancer".
The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1

Response 
1., 2. & 3. Sunpulse.co.uk (Sunpulse) submitted test results for the Sunpulse units. They said those results could be checked on the manufacturer's website. Sunpulse also submitted a copy of the same manufacturer's brochure for a fuel-saving device, which they argued included all the test results and patents for the device.

Assessment 
1., 2. & 3. Upheld
The ASA noted the documentation submitted by Sunpulse in support of the claims made in the ad. We also noted that that documentation consisted of a series of graphs and certificates. We considered that it was unclear from those graphs and certificates which particular product, and which specific attributes of the product, were being tested. We noted that the same test results sent to us by the advertiser appeared in the manufacturer's brochure, which was mainly written in Chinese. We considered that none of that documentation demonstrated that the tests had been carried out by an independent laboratory and neither did they show the conditions and methods under which the product had been tested. We did not consider that the graphs or certificates provided by Sunpulse represented in full the results of those tests, which we considered should include a thorough write-up and formal statistical analysis. Because we considered that the claims "up to 25% more miles per gallon", "reduce your CO Emissions" and "engine performance enhancer", made in the ad, had not been substantiated by the documents sent to us by Sunpulse, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action 
We told Sunpulse not to repeat the ad in its current form. We asked Sunpulse to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team when preparing future adverts for the Sunpulse product."

I'm going to give up now!

David


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

b16duv said:


> I'm going to give up now!
> David


Me too David . . .

. . . except to repeat a previous point.

Treat with suspicion ANY claim which offers an improvement of "*Up to* 25%" - or whatever.

An improvement of 0.01% is obviously covered by the claim, and may well be precisely what you will get - - - if that!!!

The claim is not illegal, nor even misleading, and 0.01% is such a miniscule amount as to be statistically impossible to verify or disprove.

Who knows if this figure is precisely what the purveyors of the snake oil are alluding to? They could cheerfully admit to it if the mire hit the fan, with no danger of legal action against them?

With such a vague claim as that they are virtually mireproof!!


----------



## AberdeenAngus (Jul 26, 2008)

A fool and his money are soon parted....PT Barnum


----------



## ned (Dec 12, 2006)

*fuel saving*

Hi Ned talking!

Thanks for all the feedback. It's quite obvious that MHF have a whole wealth of knowledge which only needs a small screwdriver to uptap. A bit like Pandoras Box really. My original query was only to find out if anyone knew anything about the product from Sunpulse and as I walked away from the spiel of the salesman at the show and my gut instinct was to completely ignore it, I thought by raising the issue here, I might help one or two other memebers who might fall into the trap!!!!!!!

Again thanks a lot for your input but I really think that we should put this thread to bed.

That is until someone asks the same question again :roll: :roll:

Keep em waxed................Ned


----------



## CliveMott (Mar 10, 2008)

AND they were at the NEC. Why has nobody prosecuted them yet?
C.


----------

