So I tried a not-yet-released fuel additive with interesting results...

[SubieRubyRoo]

As title says, I like wasting money on trying various things. So, let's start this off right: I actually paid for this additive, it was not a free trial so that can't be blamed as a way to skew this review. A couple weeks ago, I got the Hot Shot Secret email with a "mystery box" worth of additives. It mentioned a not-yet-released additive, along with some full-size treatments of their current offerings. All for about the cost of one full-size treatment of the available additives. Plus, it came with a free Hot Shot Secret Koozie!! That sealed the deal So anyways, the box came and I opened it to find an 8oz bottle of FR3 friction reducer, a 12oz bottle of their Gasoline Extreme fuel system cleaner (with PEA), the koozie, a small vinyl Hot Shot banner, and a 16oz bottle of "Lubricity Fuel Enhancer". So I flip it over and read, and basically sounds similar to what things like Power Service's items and things like Everyday Diesel Treatment (cl)aim to do: restore lubricity to the fuel that is stripped away as fuels get lower and lower levels of sulfur and other things. Don't take my word for it, I was a solid "C" chemistry student in both high school and college So I ran the bottle of the Gasoline Extreme during a relatively normal tankful with some city driving (maybe 25%) and heavy A/C usage. That tankful ran 375 miles on 12.89 gallons for an average of 29.1 mpg, essentially identical to my personal average with this vehicle that was 29.4mpg since purchased. When filling up after this run, I added the LFE as directed at a rate of 1oz per 10 gallons, with just a little more since I hadn't previously treated it.. 1.5oz total for what is a 16.8 gallon tank. This tankful then proceeded to follow my normal routine... back and forth to work 20.9 miles each way, with some minor city driving making up the balance. This tankful went 365 miles on 11.008 gallons, for an average of 33.2 mpg! This beats my previous best of 32.5mpg which was achieved early spring, with a nearly 100% highway tankful, so this was pretty exciting. Now I know, I know... one tankful doesn't mean jack. And I agree. So before I posted this, I wanted to run at least one more full tank to see what was going on (and more will follow to observe the trend). So, I filled up and set off towards Cincinnati with my son as we were wrapping up his summer break. I took the back highways and roads from here to Cincy, with multiple full-throttle runs to hear my son giggle, and then had various city street adventures and some stop-n-go on the interstates around Cincy thanks to construction. Spent two days there and watched the Reds beat the Angels twice, and then drove back home, covering 405 miles and still showing just over a full quarter tank. Wha....? Normally, EJ253 Subarus are rock-solid in their average usage which equates to basically 100 miles per 1/4 tank of gas, meaning as the low fuel light comes on you are nearing 400 miles traveled (usually 27-29mpg avg). But here I am north of 400 miles and still a full mark left on the gas gauge? What exactly is this LFE? Anyways... I plugged my numbers into Fuelly, and it spits out: 405 miles on 11.651 gallons of gas, for an average of 34.8mpg! On an EJ253/4EAT equipped Impreza! Needless to say, I'm pumped. I've got another tankful treated with LFE in there right now and we'll see if this trend continues. For those naysayers that don't believe, I've got 24 previous fillups logged with an average of 29.4mpg, with a low of 26.3 and a high of 32.5. Since I haven't yet done it, I am going to plug all my fuel logs into JMP 14 and do a control chart to see if these fall within statistical noise or if they are actually out of the expected range. Considering in the previous 24 fillups I had never broken 33mpg even when hypermiling (gentle, smooth acceleration and drafting semis where possible; using cruise everywhere even in town; coasting as much as possible using neutral coming to a stop sign or light; and shutting the car off at any stop longer than about 5-10 seconds) I'm going to say the results will show it above the historical standard deviation. Also, I know it wasn't due to the Gasoline Extreme; I routinely use at least one PEA based cleaner every 5k miles, and the last one was Redline SI-1 at about 4200 miles before the Hot Shot one. Anyways, that's been my experience so far, and if you're interested in trying something new, watch for when it's actually released to the market!

 

[kschachn]

That's really something. Major oil companies should know about this so they can add it to their fuel and advertise an mpg increase.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

kschachn, I knew there would be cynics, and I knew you would be one of them. But since every scientific method requires proof and opinions have none, can you tell me how I would see such a large, uncharacteristic increase when the only change was the fuel additive? And don't go back to your standby that it could be wind, elevation, etc etc etc... my daily trips have two-way identical route averages that should negate weather, elevation, or gravitational pull effects. I'm by no means stating I expect a full 2+ mpg gain to stick around in its entirety.. but with almost 30 total samples my data set is approaching the level of true statistical significance, and in some people's worlds, 20+ samples is enough. I don't even know what the cost of this additive is yet, as it was the unknown in the "mystery box". It may be $59.95 or something crazy... which means that even if it added a solid 0.25 mpg its cost would not offset the gains in efficiency. I'm just sharing my personal, documented experience which even by your admissions elsewhere on this board, outweigh pure opinion.

 

[kstanf150]

That's interesting reading Gotta be something to it to have two back to back runs with positive gains each time. I suppose another tank without the LFE and another with it would be solid data that proves what your already seeing. Sounds like your on to something worth trying when it hits the market . Thanks for your post and keep us posted in the future 👍

 

[Nitronoise]

What bothers me the most is the drafting semis,,,,,know how dangerous that is????

 

[dave1251]

Fuel mileage is influenced by so many human dependent and environmental factors. If your happy then the testamony is valid to you.

 

[Imp4]

There is no free lunch... There is no free lunch... There is no free lunch...

 

[sloinker]

Maybe it creates enough free oxygen that your fuel mileage increased at the expense of your exhaust valves sort of like adding that extra burst of oxygen on a cutting torch. Probably not, but if you do get the MPG increase with this additive it would be interesting to know some other parameters like average egt's and average timing advance over a course of a tank with tis elixir versus without. Get one of those cool apps on your phone with a dongle and publish them here.

 

[Driz]

Ok but🤨. aJust how much is this magic juice gonna cost? That's the big question right? Is it really going to be worth it or just a trade off.

 

[wensteph]

It goes back 10 plus years, but does anyone here remember DSFM? Similar numbers with its use were documented here. My wife went through a stage of tracking her milage in her Saab 9-3 T2.0. Unsolicited she told me she was getting 3 more miles per gallon (8-10%) ever since "you started putting that pink stuff in my car". I wouldn't be totally skeptical if another product showed a similar result. I'm not saying this one does, or that they all do. DSFM stood for (Terry) Dyson Secret Fuel Mix. In doing some work for several clients he happened on a mixture of two readily available (still) products that returned a measurable increase in milage although fuel system cleaning was the main goal of each of the products. The recipe was available free to his customers, his only requirement was a gentleman's non disclosure agreement not to tell what it was. I'm still honoring that request, but if your google fu is strong enough you can find it.

 

[kschachn]

Here's the thing, and it's not cynical at all. You cannot measure a change in fuel economy and then attribute it to one variable in real-world driving. It is literally impossible, I linked an article here once that detailed how it was impossible, one of the biggest things was that the energy density of gasoline varied by around 4% even at the same gas station. That article showed how you must start with standardized test fuel to even have a hope of determining a comparative value for fuel consumption outside a laboratory. As for that additive, there are standardized ASTM tests that accurately measure fuel consumption and they control all variables except for the one under test. To date I have never, ever seen any additive company publish the results from those tests, have you? Does this one? Will they? Until that is done there is unfortunately no way to conclusively determine if there really is an effect or not. Sorry, you may or may not believe that but it is fact. Measuring something is one thing (and often the easiest thing) but attributing it to one variable is entirely another matter. You may have 24 fill-ups but each one is different, and there's no way you will ever make them the same so you can attribute an observed change to the one isolated variable of the additive.

 

[sloinker]

Originally Posted by kschachn

Here's the thing, and it's not cynical at all. You cannot measure a change in fuel economy and then attribute it to one variable in real-world driving. It is literally impossible, I linked an article here once that detailed how it was impossible, one of the biggest things was that the energy density of gasoline varied by around 4% even at the same gas station. That article showed how you must start with standardized test fuel to even have a hope of determining a comparative value for fuel consumption outside a laboratory. As for that additive, there are standardized ASTM tests that accurately measure fuel consumption and they control all variables except for the one under test. To date I have never, ever seen any additive company publish the results from those tests, have you? Does this one? Will they? Until that is done there is unfortunately no way to conclusively determine if there really is an effect or not. Sorry, you may or may not believe that but it is fact. Measuring something is one thing (and often the easiest thing) but attributing it to one variable is entirely another matter. You may have 24 fill-ups but each one is different, and there's no way you will ever make them the same so you can attribute an observed change to the one isolated variable of the additive.

This may be true but if you have a long trend and it moves when a variable is changed then that is statistically significant. What is the variable? Outside temperature, wind, oil life, etc. I drive the same route repeatedly all year. I see a small but measurable change using the exxon diesel over the Loaf and Jug diesel. This change is about 20-30 miles per tank and repeatable. I believe that the exxon diesel has a better cetane rating. There is nothing to say that the free juice that he is adding doesn't account for the statistical change. That being said it is only anecdotal without double blinded/controlled and repeatable testing. Not gonna happen with someones personal vehicle. Mobil One repeatedly says through their advertisements, lately with Kevin Harvick on the television that their synthetic oils are better than non-synthetic and last longer than non-synthetic oils. Their available published specification sheets don't show this ASTM testing you are referencing. Does it mean they are lying?

 

[MNgopher]

So much weight put on on exactly two tanks of fuel using the magic stuff... As mentioned, there are so many other variables to account for that one or two tanks means virtually nothing in the grand scheme of things. I'm basically reading I went on a road trip and I got great fuel mileage... Funny, happens to me regularly when some variable like the wind direction air temp or just traffic consistency changes. And walah, I get a magic new high fuel mileage tank. Often followed by a not so great one (can anyone see where this is going). Fuel pumps do not routinely shut off at the exact same fill on the tank either (there it is...). Even if you pick the same pump at the same station under the exact same temp and atmospheric conditions and fuel temp and consistency...) Show a controlled test of the magic stuff (ie: one that factors out all the other stuff) or some long term testing, and maybe there is something there. Two tanks over 20+ other fills does not make a long term trend...

 

[incognito_2u]

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo

...Don't take my word for it, I was a solid "C" chemistry student in both high school and college

Best line in this whole Thread

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by sloinker

Originally Posted by kschachn

Here's the thing, and it's not cynical at all. You cannot measure a change in fuel economy and then attribute it to one variable in real-world driving. It is literally impossible, I linked an article here once that detailed how it was impossible, one of the biggest things was that the energy density of gasoline varied by around 4% even at the same gas station. That article showed how you must start with standardized test fuel to even have a hope of determining a comparative value for fuel consumption outside a laboratory. As for that additive, there are standardized ASTM tests that accurately measure fuel consumption and they control all variables except for the one under test. To date I have never, ever seen any additive company publish the results from those tests, have you? Does this one? Will they? Until that is done there is unfortunately no way to conclusively determine if there really is an effect or not. Sorry, you may or may not believe that but it is fact. Measuring something is one thing (and often the easiest thing) but attributing it to one variable is entirely another matter. You may have 24 fill-ups but each one is different, and there's no way you will ever make them the same so you can attribute an observed change to the one isolated variable of the additive.

This may be true but if you have a long trend and it moves when a variable is changed then that is statistically significant. What is the variable? Outside temperature, wind, oil life, etc. I drive the same route repeatedly all year. I see a small but measurable change using the exxon diesel over the Loaf and Jug diesel. This change is about 20-30 miles per tank and repeatable. I believe that the exxon diesel has a better cetane rating. There is nothing to say that the free juice that he is adding doesn't account for the statistical change. That being said it is only anecdotal without double blinded/controlled and repeatable testing. Not gonna happen with someones personal vehicle. Mobil One repeatedly says through their advertisements, lately with Kevin Harvick on the television that their synthetic oils are better than non-synthetic and last longer than non-synthetic oils. Their available published specification sheets don't show this ASTM testing you are referencing. Does it mean they are lying?

What is the ASTM testing for longevity of PCMO? That is what I thought your strawman post isn't valid.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by sloinker

This may be true but if you have a long trend and it moves when a variable is changed then that is statistically significant. What is the variable? Outside temperature, wind, oil life, etc. I drive the same route repeatedly all year. I see a small but measurable change using the exxon diesel over the Loaf and Jug diesel. This change is about 20-30 miles per tank and repeatable.

As an aside, that's perfectly plausible. I had the same thing with my Audi when using Esso fuels over Husky fuels. Unfortunately, we still haven't eliminated all variables in that type of test. First, I never compared actual fuel economy from one to the other, just filling up when I absolutely had to and looking at how many kilometres I put on, driving, as you state, same route, same pattern, and so forth. Did the Esso let me overfill my tank more than Husky? Was it the E0 Esso versus the E10 Husky? There still always is that margin of error in real life experience that we cannot readily discount. I probably got better fuel mileage with Esso over Husky. I sure as heck didn't demonstrate it outside the margin of error.

 

[sloinker]

Originally Posted by dave1251

Originally Posted by sloinker

Originally Posted by kschachn

Here's the thing, and it's not cynical at all. You cannot measure a change in fuel economy and then attribute it to one variable in real-world driving. It is literally impossible, I linked an article here once that detailed how it was impossible, one of the biggest things was that the energy density of gasoline varied by around 4% even at the same gas station. That article showed how you must start with standardized test fuel to even have a hope of determining a comparative value for fuel consumption outside a laboratory. As for that additive, there are standardized ASTM tests that accurately measure fuel consumption and they control all variables except for the one under test. To date I have never, ever seen any additive company publish the results from those tests, have you? Does this one? Will they? Until that is done there is unfortunately no way to conclusively determine if there really is an effect or not. Sorry, you may or may not believe that but it is fact. Measuring something is one thing (and often the easiest thing) but attributing it to one variable is entirely another matter. You may have 24 fill-ups but each one is different, and there's no way you will ever make them the same so you can attribute an observed change to the one isolated variable of the additive.

This may be true but if you have a long trend and it moves when a variable is changed then that is statistically significant. What is the variable? Outside temperature, wind, oil life, etc. I drive the same route repeatedly all year. I see a small but measurable change using the exxon diesel over the Loaf and Jug diesel. This change is about 20-30 miles per tank and repeatable. I believe that the exxon diesel has a better cetane rating. There is nothing to say that the free juice that he is adding doesn't account for the statistical change. That being said it is only anecdotal without double blinded/controlled and repeatable testing. Not gonna happen with someones personal vehicle. Mobil One repeatedly says through their advertisements, lately with Kevin Harvick on the television that their synthetic oils are better than non-synthetic and last longer than non-synthetic oils. Their available published specification sheets don't show this ASTM testing you are referencing. Does it mean they are lying?

What is the ASTM testing for longevity of PCMO? That is what I thought your strawman post isn't valid.

I'm not the one who cited the ASTM testing as proof of concept. I perpetuated it. AFAIK all these companies have done the testing, whatever protocol that may be, and will only supply the results under subpoena.

 

[Garak]

As another aside, such testing is standardised, by definition, so other interested and competent parties (including the competition) can carry them out, without having to bother or compel those who first tested the product in development.

 

[Rolla07]

So 3.8mpg better in your usual drive you would say? 29.4mpg to 33.2mpg? And you say 32.5 hwy best previously to 34.8mpg currently? So 3.8mpg better in city and 2.3mpg better on the hwy? (Loosely calculated) 11 gallons= 41.3 miles more per tank? (Mainly city) So thats just over a gallon of gas saved? A gallon of gas costs you? 3-4$? Lets say the gas costs you 6$ (1.5 gallons saved) I still assume that the 2 additives you added costed more. Regardless, if the additive really does work that well its neat but, its still easier and cheaper to just keep doing what you been doing. Obviously as others have mentionned, this excludes all other possible variables. Im happy to hear your findings, hope I didnt come across as a skeptic! Keep us posted!

 

[Rolla07]

Originally Posted by sloinker

Originally Posted by kschachn

Here's the thing, and it's not cynical at all. You cannot measure a change in fuel economy and then attribute it to one variable in real-world driving. It is literally impossible, I linked an article here once that detailed how it was impossible, one of the biggest things was that the energy density of gasoline varied by around 4% even at the same gas station. That article showed how you must start with standardized test fuel to even have a hope of determining a comparative value for fuel consumption outside a laboratory. As for that additive, there are standardized ASTM tests that accurately measure fuel consumption and they control all variables except for the one under test. To date I have never, ever seen any additive company publish the results from those tests, have you? Does this one? Will they? Until that is done there is unfortunately no way to conclusively determine if there really is an effect or not. Sorry, you may or may not believe that but it is fact. Measuring something is one thing (and often the easiest thing) but attributing it to one variable is entirely another matter. You may have 24 fill-ups but each one is different, and there's no way you will ever make them the same so you can attribute an observed change to the one isolated variable of the additive.

This may be true but if you have a long trend and it moves when a variable is changed then that is statistically significant. What is the variable? Outside temperature, wind, oil life, etc. I drive the same route repeatedly all year. I see a small but measurable change using the exxon diesel over the Loaf and Jug diesel. This change is about 20-30 miles per tank and repeatable. I believe that the exxon diesel has a better cetane rating. There is nothing to say that the free juice that he is adding doesn't account for the statistical change. That being said it is only anecdotal without double blinded/controlled and repeatable testing. Not gonna happen with someones personal vehicle. Mobil One repeatedly says through their advertisements, lately with Kevin Harvick on the television that their synthetic oils are better than non-synthetic and last longer than non-synthetic oils. Their available published specification sheets don't show this ASTM testing you are referencing. Does it mean they are lying?

"For those naysayers that don't believe, I've got 24 previous fillups logged with an average of 29.4mpg, with a low of 26.3 and a high of 32.5." This variance alone shows that tanks of gas can have alot of difference even without an additive.