Introducing the gas saving.....

Not open for further replies.
They say their product will last a lifetime but guarantee it for 30 days. Is there a message there?

This device is really a crankcase vent filter. It probably does a good job filtering junk out that would go back into the intake manifold. The gas mileage stuff is a distraction, the same way I think my car drives better after a wash and wax.

Others on this site have built crankcase vent filters from air compressor seperators and the little bowl picks up a lot of gunk, stuff that you would never want back in your engine.
Is it anyone here on the board who have tested it or know of someone who have?
I read the WHOLE article and this can be one of the things that will work. They claim they have sold more than 200 000 units and have never got a single one in return. We'll just have to wait and see if anyone here at BITOG have the guts to test it.
I don't think anyone on here would have the guts to ADMIT they bought one if they did.

I have a PCV catch can and I noticed no difference with MPG after installing it. The car runs the same, but I catch some oily, fuel-smelling crap that stays out of my intake now.
Maybe it only works if you live in Montana. If they have sold 200K units you would think their would be testimonials from people outside the state.

$179 for 4 hoseclamps, 2 hoses, and 1 plastic jar?!?

I Like this one:

"Prior to the installation of a condensator system, the contaminents not collected in the bowl are, (sic) sent out into the atmosphere as pollution..."

Am I missing something or do you connect this thing to the PCV valve? Isn't the purpose of a PCV system to burn the unspent junk instead of releasing it into the atmosphere?

[ March 31, 2006, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Laminar Lou ]
You're not missing anything, Lou. PCV systems in one form or another to burn combustable sump fumes have been required in California at least from the mid-nineteen sixties. Not sure when it became a Federal mandate.
I like the Durango quote. I own a Durango, and with the 4.7 liter engine I can get 20 mpg on the highway by keeping my foot out of it. I don't know about this one.
I have seen them for sale locally, looks like a rip-off to me. They may actually violate federal law, not sure though. I know it is illegal to do unauthorized modifications to emmisions controls.
It this product is that good and been around that long, they have done a good job of keeping it out of the public eye. And, usually, if a product is that good there are others that pop up for sale, too. I don't see a lot of crankcase seperators on the market, do you? With oil additives, for example, you can get all the discredited choices at places like Pep Boys. Getting slamed by the FTC appears to be the best way onto the Pep Boys shelves. And since Pep Boys has service bays in the back of their stores, somehting like a crankcase seperator that's a mason jar with a few feet of hose selling for almost $200 would would be a great product to sell.
These condensers have been extensively tested and do not improve fuel economy. An idea that will improve fuel economy is to have a reed valve on the exhaust sytem that creates a vacuum in the crankcase and sends the crankcase vent gases out the exhaust.I think BMW actually uses this system on at least one car. The problem is getting the crankcase gases through the catalyst without introducung oxygen into the catalyst
There are several posts on this site with similar devices and lots of people believing it.

Believing in better fuel economy? Sorry, it just ain't so. I have personally done dyno tests of these devices on spark ignition engines, and assisted OE companies with their tests on diesels. No measurable change. Right next to my old shop a company got a government grant to test every aftermarket device ( over 2000 of them in the 80's) advertising fuel economy improvements. He did not find any crankcase vapor condensors that worked either.This idea simply does not improved fuel economy in controlled tests. There may be some unknown advantage that only occurs in live use, but it is so small we could never find it.

Did they test "brick under accelerator" ?
My wife used to work at a company that provided group homes for our unfortunate mentally slower population.
They were too cheap to put governors on their vans, so their mechanic fitted a little attachment to the gas on their 15-passenger vans to prevent WOT.
Are you telling me you don't believe those testimonials. They say they can feel the increased power. And one guy was able to recalculate his correct fuel mileage after installing one of these gadgets, when he drove for a while and put in 1.94 gallons of gas. How can you argue that it wasn't a long enough run to average out filling errors at the pump. After all it was almost two gallons.

The part that interests me is not the mileage or feeling good, but the gunk that does not go back into the intake manifold. That stuff can't be very good for the engine, can it?
There may be merit to the idea that the condensers help keep your combustion chamber cleaner. Also, I don't slam testimonials intentionally. Advancements first come from people noticing changes, and then we engineers get involved quantifying those changes. I am old enough to have seen some ideas once ridiculed by engineers later become accepted practice. Rubber timing belts,four valve cylinder heads, pneumatic suspensions, and wide tires all come to mind as things GM engineering declared could never work because their testing showed so many flaws. Other companies have similar problems, and so do I!It just does not appear as though these condensers actually do anything for mileage, even when I try to keep an open mind.
Here is what a catch can can do:

Over the winter time the collection has been less oil like, and more milky colored due to increased water condensation I would think. On my next car I will be installing something like this ASAP, as this one wasn't until 160k or so and I would like to keep that stuff outta the intake manifold the whole time.

There's been plenty of threads here about PCV catch cans.

I kinda wonder about keeping the oil out, as we add FP60, UCL, 2-stroke oil (some people), etc in order to have lubrication for the upper cylinder area. Wouldn't the PCV blowby system provide this?

Edit: yes I have removed the filter stone, as it could have become restrictive to flow.

Originally posted by surfstar:
Here is what a catch can can do:

That's what I run.
They work as well as the aftermarket ones.
But I only paid $15 for mine

On boosted Ford modular engines, these work as well as the expensive aftermarket ones...and most guys run two, one pre side (lots of blow-by under boost on these motors)

Yeah, you gotta remove that little stone/filter thing.
Not open for further replies.