Article:eeFuel Gradually Boosts Mileage in 2007 BMW 335i

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:19 pm.

  • 3 errors has been found on this page. Administrator will correct this soon.
  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.
Image:EeFuelFowlerTest300x300 byKevn.jpg

: 'Ryan Fowler reports an improvement in his mileage on the same stretch of road since he started using the eeFuel additive, beginning with a jump of 5.7%, followed by 8.6%, then 14.0%, and then 17.9% in subsequent test runs, as measured by onboard mileage instrumentation provided with the vehicle.'


Directory:H2Oil's Nanotech Fuel -- eeFuel and eeLube (4ourfuture) co-inventor, Richard Hicks, says that best results from the additive are achieved after it has been run in an engine for a few tanks, to give time for the combustion surfaces to clean up, so the additive can coat those surfaces to more effectively serve as a catalyst. The environmentally benign, liquid catalyst, which has been in use in Asia and Europe for more than a decade, is said to increase mileage in gasoline and diesel engines by between 10 and 20 percent.


by There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1]

for Pure Energy Systems News

Originally reported on July 26, 2008

Updated on Aug. 9, 2008


I have been using eeFuel since June 27, 2008, and my results have been very positive. It looks like I am now seeing a 12.5-17.9% boost in fuel economy. Apparently, eeFuel is living up to its promise of improving gas mileage over time.

Experimental Setup

[[Image:Eagle Mountain a-b jp60.jpg|left|frame|Source: Google Maps

Ryan took the leftmost route.]]

I conducted my tests with a 2007 BMW 335i twin turbo coupe, which had about 11,000 miles at the beginning of the testing on 6/27/08. By the end of the testing a month later, it had almost 13,000 miles on it. This car has a trip computer with a fuel mpg estimator, which I have been using for the tests.

The tests I ran always begin at the intersection of Eagle Landing and Eagle Mountain Blvd in Eagle Mountain, UT and finish at the intersection of Ranches Pkwy and Highway 73, also in Eagle Mountain, which is a distance of 8.66 miles. I chose this route because it is mostly unencumbered, having highway speed limits between 45 (short stretch) and 65 mph, with low traffic that would otherwise cause me to slow down or speed up at random moments, since doing so would hurt the reliability of the test data. This route has some slight inclines and declines but is mostly flat, although there is a little more in the way of uphill portions as opposed to downhill portions on the route. There is one stop signs about halfway through the route. There are no traffic lights except at the very end of the trip, meaning there won't be any variation in fuel mileage as may be caused by a green light on one trip and a red light on the next.

To keep acceleration as uniform as possible, I only accelerated by using my cruise control, except I couldn't use cruise control below 20mph, so as necessary I manually accelerated the car at a moderate pace until I reached 20mph. I always traveled 5 mph above the speed limit when traveling this route.

Test data are as follows:

TESTS ON JUNE 27, 2008

Outside temp = 85° F, A/C set on auto at 72° F, clear weather

Trip without eeFuel

1st run = 26.4 mpg (Fuel tank was almost empty for this run)

Trips with eeFuel (Fuel tank was full to slightly more than 3/4 full for these runs)

1st run = 27.6 mpg (4.5% mpg increase)

2nd run = 28 mpg (6.1% mpg increase)

3rd run = 28.3 mpg (7.2% mpg increase)

4th run = 29.7 mpg (12.5% mpg increase)

5th run = 28.6 mpg (8.3% mpg increase)

Daily average = 5.7% mpg increase


(this is my 4th tank using eeFuel)

Outside temp = 89° F, A/C set on auto at 72° F, clear weather

(Fuel tank was 2/3 to slightly over half full for these runs)

1st run = 29.4 mpg (11.4% mpg increase)

2nd run = 28.3 mpg (7.2% mpg increase)

3rd run = 28.3 mpg (7.2% mpg increase)

Daily average = 8.6% mpg increase

TESTS ON JULY 26, 2008

(this is my 6th tank of eeFuel)

Outside weather = 77-84° F, A/C set on auto at 72° F, overcast but otherwise clear weather (no rain during tests)

(Fuel tank was 1/3 to half full for these runs)

1st run = 30.1 mpg @ 84° F outside (14.0% mpg increase)

2nd run = 29.7 mpg @ 80° F outside (12.5% mpg increase)

3rd run = 30.5 mpg @ 77° F outside (15.5% mpg increase)

Daily average = 14.0% mpg increase


(this is my 8th tank of eeFuel)

Outside weather = 80-84° F, A/C set on auto at 72° F, clear/overcast withbut occasional drizzle

(Fuel tank was nearly [7/8] full for these runs)

1st run = 30.9 mpg @ 83° F outside (17.5% mpg increase)

2nd run = 30.9 mpg @ 82° F outside (17.5% mpg increase)

3rd run = 31.5 mpg @ 81° F outside (18.6% mpg increase)

Daily average = 17.9% mpg increase


The above test data seems to indicate that the more you use eeFuel, the better it works [up to a certain point where it will plateau].

Although there is a lot of scientific test data backing up the efficacy of eeFuel, some people have tested eeFuel in a non-scientific manner and have not seen any significant fuel economy improvement. From what I've seen, I believe this was for the following reasons:

1) According to H2OIL Inc., heavy diesel vehicles need to use eeFuel for 5-10 weeks before seeing noticeable improvement. Apparently this is due to the heavy engine deposits eeFuel has to clean out before significant mpg improvements are seen. Therefore running a fleet of heavy trucks for 1 week with eeFuel (as was done with one test) is not a reliable way to measure fuel mpg improvement.

2) One test I saw was using vehicles that were already using chemical fuel mpg boosters. This more or less makes these tests results completely unreliable as there was no control element (i.e. a 'normal' vehicle without any additives in its fuel). How do we know to what extent these pre-existing fuel additives were already affecting mpg or otherwise corrupting the test data?

3) Other tests were done without a mpg gauge or trip computer. Instead, the person filled up their gas tank and measured how many miles he went before he had to fill up the tank again. I believe this is unreliable since there may be a difference in a tank's level when it is filled up sometimes it is filled up when it has 1 gallon in it, sometimes it has 2 gallons left, etc. Also, it doesn't appear that these tests were done on the exact same route each time, which further skews test result data.

4) Still other tests were done in different climates from one test to another. It is a well documented fact that fuel mpg suffers in cooler temperatures. For tests to be reliable, they should be done in similar heat conditions (unless knows how to calculate and zero out the effects of cold weather on mpg, of course.)

From my controlled test, which uses the same car, the same route, in similar climate conditions, with a trip computer and a control element (the 1st run without using eeFuel), I am seeing significant improvement. I'll probably do one or two more tests to further gauge the long-term effects of using this product.

If I'd known I'd be doing so many tests I would have done 3 dry runs before adding eeFuel. Oh well. Considering most runs on any given day were within about 1 mpg of each other, I still think the test is good, although not quite as accurate as it could have been [with more "before" data points].

# # #

Related Reports

Image:Sierra Pacific Industries truck 95x95.jpg

EeFuel additive gets flatline results on heavy-duty rigs test - A fleet in California that has multiple trucks taking the same route every day hauling lumber out and wood chips back, ran three of their trucks for a week using the eeFuel additive, but saw no improvement in mileage. (PESN July 19, 2008)


Ryan Fowler

Salt Lake City, Utah