gas mpg will up 27 on 350 engine.. - The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network

lost_66 · 04-27-2004, 01:35 PM

here link info about improve gas mpg on 350 engine..

http://www.fuelconcepts.com/

my 76 chevy pickup 350 engine with carb it had 14 mpg now
it 22 mpg!!!

crackajacka · 04-27-2004, 01:47 PM

does it work really good?

Low87on20s · 04-27-2004, 01:49 PM

I have heard of this product before. I have never used it, seen it, or read about it before today.

I soooo want to raise the

flag.

lost_66 · 04-27-2004, 01:50 PM

yes it really work.... it been 2 month now.. i had no problem
and gas still good..

Slonaker · 04-27-2004, 01:50 PM

I don't believe a single word I read on that page.

Slonaker

Low87on20s · 04-27-2004, 02:01 PM

I like this one....

QUOTE:

Why Do I Need 4' Of Hose?
Answer: Through rigorous testing we have found that if the vapor out hose is less than 4' it will start cutting into the mileage that the Fuel Atomizer will give

END QUOTE:

By that logic, why not extend the hose to 5' and get better gas mileage!!

bpmcgee · 04-27-2004, 03:29 PM

LOL. Did you see how the fuel economy on carbs was supposed to be improved? You don't push the pedal as hard!

All it will do on carbs (if it does anything, which I doubt) is make it run too rich.

Also, on fuel injection it says that the O2 sensor is going to adjust to make the engine run leaner. But HOW?

I think you'd be better off using the 4' of hose to blow smoke up your a$$.

Brian

gldevall · 04-27-2004, 03:49 PM

60 day money back guarantee, less shipping and handling. Sounds like they are making money just by keeping the $10 for shipping and handling. Who cares if it works.

Destructo · 04-27-2004, 04:25 PM

Actually there is some good tech behind that, whether it works or not I don't know. But it is true that the better the fuel is atomized the more efficient the burn will be and thus producing more power and more efficiency. So it is very possible that their system does work, i'm not sure that it works as well as they claim but I imagine that it does work.

Russell · 04-27-2004, 04:27 PM

I agree with Destructo -- Their science is based on a valid concept, but just how well it works I'm not too sure of...

RepoMan · 04-27-2004, 04:36 PM

This crap comes around whenever fuel prices go up. Why would the major auto manufacturers not use this if it worked? Its deception clear and simple. I'd rather run one of those electric superchargers they sell on ebay.

Grim Reaper · 04-27-2004, 05:05 PM

Most vehicls built from the mid 70's already have something just about Identical on it and not once has the manufacture of any car in the world claimed it helps MPG.It's called a Evap system. Look at a Evap system...it nearly identical......What a load of kimshi.

1969 GMC · 04-27-2004, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RepoMan
This crap comes around whenever fuel prices go up. Why would the major auto manufacturers not use this if it worked? Its deception clear and simple. I'd rather run one of those electric superchargers they sell on ebay.

I agree...autmakers WANT to increase the overall gas mileage of their lineup. Then again, they only want to do that so they can make more money for themselves, not because it "helps the environment."

**swervin ervin** · 04-27-2004, 06:55 PM

On Carbureted Systems

On carbureted vehicles this is done by not having to push down on the accelerator as much because of the enhanced horsepower resulting from the added vapor. This is why it feels like a constant tail wind pushing the vehicle.

That's got to be the biggest bunch of horse sh!t I've seen in a long time.

rocktriviagod · 04-27-2004, 07:26 PM

I'm generally kind of skeptical of these 'too good to be true' claims. I'm thinking this is one of them.....
We've all heard claims of 200 mpg carbs. And I'll bet the technology is really out there.
When I was growning up, our local 'inventor' had a VW bug convertable. He had a five gallon gas tank in the back seat with a vacuum clenaner hose leading from the gas can to the top of the carb. He drove all day on a cup of gas. As a matter of fact, if the 5 galloin can got shook too much, the engine would flood because the vapor was too rich.... Of course, a back fire through the can would have caused an explosion that would have leveled that VW !!
I wish the oil companys didn't have such a strong hold on the world's energy needs. Ethenol is the way to go....... We have farm land that the government is paying farmers 'not to use'. We could use that land to raise grains to produce alcohol to run my truck. and yours too.
OK I'll et off of my soap box.

*zzChevy* · 04-27-2004, 11:22 PM

>>That's got to be the biggest bunch of horse sh!t I've seen in a long time.

My thoughts exactly!

Blue Beard · 04-27-2004, 11:34 PM

Never seen one on a vehicle, machinist friend of mine said he helped a guy design something like it and it did work.....

jimfulco · 04-28-2004, 03:37 AM

Looks like the same old BS to me.

DrMaserati · 04-28-2004, 04:29 AM

Nothing but snake oil. There are still people who think strapping cow magnets to the fuel line works. Why not do both, and get about 400 mpg? I'll believe all that when I can sit on the beach in Denver.

jared stewart · 04-28-2004, 09:34 AM

I agree that it probably doesn't work (at all or not as good as they say it does) but just about every product that comes out makes claims that can only be met under certain conditions that almost never happen in daily life.

I disagree with the statement that if the technology was there that the big auto companies would have it on their vehicles. You have to think they get their pockets padded by the big oil companies like just about every auto related company does. Like was previously mentioned with the use of ethanol, hydrogen and hybrid technology, the need for gas could easily be cut in half if not more in a relatively small amount of time.

Just my 1/2 cents worth.

oldraven · 04-28-2004, 11:27 AM

'84 GMC 350 EFI 15 28 86%

86% increase? Come on. If this DID work, these guys would be worth millions, and wouldn't be selling these units on a ****ty little website for $175, or whatever it is.

NeCrOmAnCeR · 04-28-2004, 01:29 PM

Did anybody notice that the title of this thread sounds like it was written by the same person who wrote the webpage??
Just an observation!!

**Captkaos** · 04-28-2004, 01:53 PM

In a interview a number of years back a GM engineer was asked if they could make a more feul efficient vehicle.

His answer which I will never for get was something like this:

yes, but you could calculate the zero to sixty mph times with a sundial, and no one in the US would purchase such a vehicle.

75-K5 · 04-28-2004, 02:06 PM

I wish I had enough money laying around to buy it just to find out for myself. Let's use some board funds, buy one, find a guinea pig, and do our own tests.

apstguy · 04-29-2004, 12:59 AM

Hmmm.... he had the same exact post on another htread... do I smell someone trying to sell something here?

04-27-2004, 01:35 PM	#1
lost_66 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Pillager,MN Posts: 181	gas mpg will up 27 on 350 engine.. here link info about improve gas mpg on 350 engine.. http://www.fuelconcepts.com/ my 76 chevy pickup 350 engine with carb it had 14 mpg now it 22 mpg!!!

04-27-2004, 01:47 PM	#2
crackajacka Stylin Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Tuttle, OK Posts: 620	does it work really good? __________________ Ive been traveling for some time, with my fishin pole and my bottle of shyne. Most Girls like finished products and just dont understand what a good addiction does for you http://www.paulwall.us/

04-27-2004, 01:49 PM	#3
Low87on20s Live from Atlanta Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 511	I have heard of this product before. I have never used it, seen it, or read about it before today. I soooo want to raise the flag. __________________ Paul

04-27-2004, 01:50 PM	#5
Slonaker Insert Witty Text Here Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 3,415	I don't believe a single word I read on that page. Slonaker __________________ '86 Chevy C10 (Sold 04/19/13 ) Stock '01 Silverado

04-27-2004, 02:01 PM	#6
Low87on20s Live from Atlanta Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 511	I like this one.... QUOTE: Why Do I Need 4' Of Hose? Answer: Through rigorous testing we have found that if the vapor out hose is less than 4' it will start cutting into the mileage that the Fuel Atomizer will give END QUOTE: By that logic, why not extend the hose to 5' and get better gas mileage!! __________________ Paul

04-27-2004, 03:29 PM	#7
bpmcgee Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Northern Illinois Posts: 2,181	LOL. Did you see how the fuel economy on carbs was supposed to be improved? You don't push the pedal as hard! All it will do on carbs (if it does anything, which I doubt) is make it run too rich. Also, on fuel injection it says that the O2 sensor is going to adjust to make the engine run leaner. But HOW? I think you'd be better off using the 4' of hose to blow smoke up your a$$. Brian

04-27-2004, 03:49 PM	#8
gldevall Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Walker, LA Posts: 2,925	60 day money back guarantee, less shipping and handling. Sounds like they are making money just by keeping the $10 for shipping and handling. Who cares if it works. __________________ Gary -1986 SWB: lowered 4/6, SOLD!!! -Best 1/4 mile: 14.51 @ 91.01 MPH -2001 Pewter Tahoe, billet grill, Corsa Sport Cat-back, K&N FIPK SOLD!!! -2004 Z-71 Extended cab with a flowmaster, BDS 6.5", 3" BL, 35x12.5x18 Trail Grapplers on Pro-Comp 18x9 wheels

04-27-2004, 04:25 PM	#9
Destructo Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Lewisville, NC Posts: 1,836	Actually there is some good tech behind that, whether it works or not I don't know. But it is true that the better the fuel is atomized the more efficient the burn will be and thus producing more power and more efficiency. So it is very possible that their system does work, i'm not sure that it works as well as they claim but I imagine that it does work. __________________ 1985 Scottsdale Shortbed 4x4 Stout 350 with some "upgrades"-700r4-33x12.5" Mud Tires, Warn 8274-50 winch. 2005 Chevrolet Colorado Regular Cab 2wd 4-banger, 5 speed, Street Pack with 3.73 axle.

04-27-2004, 04:27 PM	#10
Russell Professional Grade Join Date: May 2003 Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta Posts: 7,915	I agree with Destructo -- Their science is based on a valid concept, but just how well it works I'm not too sure of... __________________ 1995 Chevrolet 2 Door Tahoe (6.6L LBZ Duramax / ZF6 / NP241 with 1 ton solid axle swap)

04-27-2004, 04:36 PM	#11
RepoMan Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10	This crap comes around whenever fuel prices go up. Why would the major auto manufacturers not use this if it worked? Its deception clear and simple. I'd rather run one of those electric superchargers they sell on ebay.

04-27-2004, 05:05 PM	#12
Grim Reaper Registered User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,704	Most vehicls built from the mid 70's already have something just about Identical on it and not once has the manufacture of any car in the world claimed it helps MPG.It's called a Evap system. Look at a Evap system...it nearly identical......What a load of kimshi. __________________ Grim-Reaper 70 Pontiac LeMans Sport Convertible, worlds longest resto in progress Looking for 71-72 2wd Blazer or Jimmy Project

04-27-2004, 06:55 PM	#14
swervin ervin You get what you pay for Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Cherryville, NC Posts: 4,798	On Carbureted Systems On carbureted vehicles this is done by not having to push down on the accelerator as much because of the enhanced horsepower resulting from the added vapor. This is why it feels like a constant tail wind pushing the vehicle. That's got to be the biggest bunch of horse sh!t I've seen in a long time. __________________ Mike 1985 Chevy C-10

04-27-2004, 07:26 PM	#15
rocktriviagod Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Holmen, WI Posts: 50	I'm generally kind of skeptical of these 'too good to be true' claims. I'm thinking this is one of them..... We've all heard claims of 200 mpg carbs. And I'll bet the technology is really out there. When I was growning up, our local 'inventor' had a VW bug convertable. He had a five gallon gas tank in the back seat with a vacuum clenaner hose leading from the gas can to the top of the carb. He drove all day on a cup of gas. As a matter of fact, if the 5 galloin can got shook too much, the engine would flood because the vapor was too rich.... Of course, a back fire through the can would have caused an explosion that would have leveled that VW !! I wish the oil companys didn't have such a strong hold on the world's energy needs. Ethenol is the way to go....... We have farm land that the government is paying farmers 'not to use'. We could use that land to raise grains to produce alcohol to run my truck. and yours too. OK I'll et off of my soap box. __________________ Currently in and around my garage: 1978 Chevy Stepside (Elvis) 1993 Chev S10 ext cab (LittleTruck) 1998 Chev Astro Van (Wife's Hauler) 2001 Honda 1500 Valkyrie Interstate (dad's toy) 2003 Honda 1800 Gold Wing (mom's toy)

04-27-2004, 11:22 PM	#16
zzChevy BANNED Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 105	>>That's got to be the biggest bunch of horse sh!t I've seen in a long time. My thoughts exactly!

04-27-2004, 11:34 PM	#17
Blue Beard Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Washington State Posts: 8,831	Never seen one on a vehicle, machinist friend of mine said he helped a guy design something like it and it did work..... __________________ 1970 Chev CST 2003 Harley Fatboy 1975 Chevrolet Step Van 1956 Chev Bel Air 1977 Blazer 2WD For Sale $3000.00 1978 Blazer 2WD For Sale $7000.00 1978 Silverado 2005 Monte Carlo



Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

04-28-2004, 03:37 AM	#18
jimfulco Registered User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Shreveport LA Posts: 3,170	Looks like the same old BS to me.

04-28-2004, 04:29 AM	#19
DrMaserati Village Curmudgeon Join Date: May 2003 Location: Salem, OR Posts: 75	Nothing but snake oil. There are still people who think strapping cow magnets to the fuel line works. Why not do both, and get about 400 mpg? I'll believe all that when I can sit on the beach in Denver. __________________ 78 Chevy K30 duallie, 454, TH400 78 IH Scout II, 4X4, 345, 727TF 76 IH Scout II, 4X4, 345, 727TF 65 IH 1200C pickup, 4X4, 345, 4 spd 48 IH KB-8-F, RD-450, 5 spd, 35,000 GVW (a REAL truck) "Life is too short to drink cheap beer." Harry S. Truman

04-28-2004, 09:34 AM	#20
jared stewart Silverado Stew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Ewing, MO Posts: 184	I agree that it probably doesn't work (at all or not as good as they say it does) but just about every product that comes out makes claims that can only be met under certain conditions that almost never happen in daily life. I disagree with the statement that if the technology was there that the big auto companies would have it on their vehicles. You have to think they get their pockets padded by the big oil companies like just about every auto related company does. Like was previously mentioned with the use of ethanol, hydrogen and hybrid technology, the need for gas could easily be cut in half if not more in a relatively small amount of time. Just my 1/2 cents worth. __________________ - 1997 3/4 Ton Ext. Cab LB 4x4 6.5L Diesel - 1979 3/4 Ton Longbed 4x4 "Farm Truck" - 1984 1/2 Ton w/ '99 Vortec 350/700R4 2x4 FOR SALE

04-28-2004, 11:27 AM	#21
oldraven Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Antigonish, Nova Scotia Posts: 869	'84 GMC 350 EFI 15 28 86% 86% increase? Come on. If this DID work, these guys would be worth millions, and wouldn't be selling these units on a ****ty little website for $175, or whatever it is. __________________ '86 C10 regular cab, 383 on propane www.cardomain.com/id/doasa '87 TurboCoupe 2.3Turbo intercooled 5-spd www.cardomain.com/id/oldraven '93 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0L

04-28-2004, 01:29 PM	#22
NeCrOmAnCeR Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hodgenville, Ky Posts: 735	Did anybody notice that the title of this thread sounds like it was written by the same person who wrote the webpage?? Just an observation!!

04-28-2004, 01:53 PM	#23
Captkaos www.73-87chevytrucks.com Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 6,935	In a interview a number of years back a GM engineer was asked if they could make a more feul efficient vehicle. His answer which I will never for get was something like this: yes, but you could calculate the zero to sixty mph times with a sundial, and no one in the US would purchase such a vehicle. __________________ Chris Lucas 1973 Chevy C-10 1978 GMC Jimmy (2WD) - SOLD 1987 R10 twin turbo LS 1991 R3500 SRW CrewCab 1985 K5 diesel swapped project 1989 K5 2WD conversion w/ Vette susp Project Captkaos Customs 73-87chevytrucks.com

04-28-2004, 02:06 PM	#24
75-K5 Bucket of Bolts Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Anderson, Indiana Posts: 455	I wish I had enough money laying around to buy it just to find out for myself. Let's use some board funds, buy one, find a guinea pig, and do our own tests. __________________ This is the project that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend....

04-29-2004, 12:59 AM	#25
apstguy LED King Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,087	Hmmm.... he had the same exact post on another htread... do I smell someone trying to sell something here? __________________ Tyler 1985 C10 305 w/ Bowtie OD TH700R4 3.42 LSD 202,000 miles 2006 Ford Focus ZX3 5-speed Stick 2016 Chevy Spark EV Gone: 2002.5 VW GTI 24v VR6 Gone: 2008 VW R32

Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.