Directory:Fuel Efficiency:Tony's Guide

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 8:52 pm.

  • 2 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.

You are here: PES Network > Main Page > There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1] > Tony's Guide


Tony's Guide to Fuel saving gadgets

Sterling Allan's Preface

April 19, 2005

Tony's blanket debunking of any and all fuel economy or additive claims makes his stance suspect, when so many have claimed to have voluminous documentation to the contrary. His denial of any conspiracy whatsoever shows serious naiveté of history-laden human nature for the powers that be to protect their long-established turf. The "Skeptic's Dictionary" he pushes poo poos just about every "fringe" claim imaginable, from UFO's to acupuncture. Hence, it is hard not to suspect that he is a paid disinformant to be so thoroughly dismissive of so many areas that have such a deep wealth of documentation supporting them.

Leaving the question of his motives and financing aside for a competent investigative probe, I do believe his "" site is worth perusal and serious consideration for several reasons. He obviously has done a lot of homework in these areas and is very familiar with the claims and devices.

# He provides here a wide scope of exposure to the various claims that have been made. Think of it as an exhaustive index of fuel economy claims.

# He also provides an explanation of the various modalities and how they claim to function, which can be educational as well.

# His objections have a "fair" ring to them to those not immersed in the topic, so those who have working technologies can use his site as a guide to common objections that will need to be soundly refuted.

Tony's Links

Tony's Guide to Fuel saving gadgets - Professional of "10 years in the car industry" who has had extensive exposure to a wide berth claims, gives specific itemization of reasons why he thinks most all fuel additive and carburetor enhancement claims do not work as advertised.


Magnets round the fuel line or in the air flow - Debunks Ecoflow, FuelMAX, Prozone, MAXPower, FuelSaverPro.

Air bleed into the inlet manifold - Debunks Ecotek, Khaos, Powerjet USA, etc)

Turbulence increasers - Debunks Ecotek, Tornado Fuel Saver, Powerjet USA, SpiralMax, Turbonator etc

EXAMPLE: Turbonator - The Turbonatorâ„¢ is a non-moving vortex generator that goes inside your air intake hose, right after your air filter. Claims up to 31% mileage enhancement from increased fuel vaporization. Claims 1000s of satisfied users advertised in several major auto magazines. Money-back guarantee.

EXAMPLE: - same product by a different name.

Devices to - Debunks Ecotek, Tornado Fuel Saver, SpiralMax, Acetone as an additive, etc

Electrical modifications - Debunks grounding straps, voltage stabilisers, Z-Stab, etc

Vaporate - Case study debunking Vaporate fuel saving device, a modification to fuel injectors


Catalysts in the fuel line or tank - Debunks Broquet, Fitch Fuel Catalyst, Prozone, Fuelstar, etc

Platinum-based combustion enhancers - Debunks PVI, Gasaver, Ctech3000, etc

Ignition enhancers - Debunks Fuel Saving & Power Push, Fireball Ignition, etc

Oil additives - Debunks Slick 50, Duralube, etc

Engine - Debunks 10k Boost, Powerboost, etc

Things that Do Work

"Following this advice should give 20%+ savings in fuel consumption, which I think is a strong argument against the idea that I am in the pay of oil companies."

driving techniques

Choosing more economical vehicles

Fuel saving at home

Tony's background

Tony's technical qualifications and experience

Misc. Advice

The - observations on testing

Lean burn engines and conspiracy theories - car makers aren't in the pay of "Big Oil"

Advice to Inventors - Directed to inventor who believe they have a miraculous new product.

Tony Recommends

The Skeptic's Dictionary - "an excellent resource for all those who prefer proof to anecdotes"

: [How to ignore the proof that has been provided in the name of saying there is no proof, with the express purpose of debunking legitimate alternatives in order to keep the powers that be in power. -- Sterling]

Tony's Response to Sterling's Preface

April 23, 2005

Obviously I don't agree with Sterling's comments, though I do understand the logic behind them. I would merely ask readers to visit my site (ideally starting with the main index), read all the pages, and make up their own minds. If you have any further comments or questions, there is a mail address on the site, to which I will always respond.

I can assure readers that I am not any kind of paid disinformant, merely someone with great experience in the field who has investigated the ideas mentioned using sophisticated test equipment and found them to be of little or no benefit. You will have to take my word for that, but the vast sums of money spent by the car industry on developing more economical vehicles (most notably hybrids from Japan and diesels from Europe) is a matter of public record. This expenditure, leading to cars that are typically 20%+ more economical than "conventional" alternatives, is a serious challenge to those who believe the industry always rejects, or even actively supresses, such technologies.

It is also unfair to say that I debunk all fuel economy claims, when you consider the pages on my site suggesting quite genuine ways to save on fuel usage - through different driving habits, or the choice of a more economical vehicle. This would be curious behaviour for somebody in the pay of the oil industry.

My take on "history-laden human nature" is that naive or crooked people have always extracted money from the gullible by faking or misrepresenting the proof that their product works. The very many medical "cures" sold in previous centuries, which we now know to be useless or downright dangerous, are examples of what I mean. I am not suggesting for a moment that Sterling is naive or crooked, but his financial interest in promoting "alternative" energy ideas should perhaps be considered when interpreting his comments. My motive for setting up this site is, and always has been, simply to protect consumers.

Many have claimed to have "voluminous documentation" to support astrology, telepathy, "crystal energy", alien abductions, and a whole host of other "unconventional" ideas. That does not make them true. It is a provable fact that none of the technologies I debunk has ever demonstrated worthwhile benefits under scientifically controlled conditions that is to say, when all conditions are fixed except for the presence or absence of the device, with sufficient test points to give statistically significant data. Most have never been tested in this way the few that have been have shown zero or tiny benefits.

I would be happy to advise "genuine" inventors on the commercial possibilities (or otherwise) of their inventions, and ways to convince potential industrial buyers - despite Sterling's skepticism, I would genuinely like to see a breakthrough of the sort that has been so often promised but always failed to appear.

Sterling's Response

April 23, 2005


I am not financially benefiting from sales of any alternative energy devices or health remedies, nor have I been since I began my involvement. I do plan to add some devices to our store, but they will be bona-fide devices with a proven record. So your argument that my "objectivity" is clouded by self-interest is moot. I live about as meagerly as possible without my family going hungry. This is a labor of love.

As for your pages about how to improve economy through driving habits and choosing more economical vehicles, I did not see those (didn't read your entire page, nor even your entire main index) and I have added them to your above index here. I do not see these as being of the same genre as "additives" or "alterations" to make existing vehicles more economical, though they are germane to the topic of increasing fuel efficiency. I created a section on driving habits prior to coming across your site, proving my objective agreement with that principle.

As for your take on "history-laden human nature", I will agree with you that there are indeed factions of "naive or crooked people [who] have always extracted money from the gullible by faking or misrepresenting the proof that their product works." I am with you in wanting to see solid proof for claims made. That is one of the primary reasons we set up this PESWiki site -- to serve as a repository of information pertaining to alternative energy, including claims for or against various technologies.

However, at best it is naive of you to see snake-oil salesmen on one hand, but on the other hand to ignore the reality of some extremely crooked politicians, not to mention the shadow government behind the scenes that owns and manipulate entire countries to promote their own selfish goals. That is what I refer to in saying "conspiracy." The crimes of the con-men of which you speak are child's play compared to the massive crimes on humanity that are foisted on us by these mega criminals in position of tremendous power that you say do not exist. When the George Bush family receives billions of dollars from the Saudis (documented by Michael Moore), you know that we are not operating with an even playing field.

Tony's Response

April 24, 2005

Agreed, your financial interest in the matter is small (albeit non-zero), unlike most of the people I criticise on my site.

The unfortunate truth is that any fuel saving technology (whether it be "conventional", or "alternative" in the manner of most ideas discussed on PESWiki) is far more cost-effectively applied at the manufacturing stage rather than in the aftermarket. This is especially true since any significant change to the engine would almost certainly demand alterations in fuelling or ignition, which are trivially easy as part of the design process but exceptionally difficult once the car has been built. Hence my focus on choosing more economical vehicles in the first place, rather than taking an uneconomical vehicle and attempting to alter it, and my advice to inventors to get test data that industry would understand and believe.

Working in Europe, where

consumers demand economical vehicles,

Governments encourage this through punitive taxation and regularly beat maufacturers over the head for their lack of progress, and

car companies invest billions of dollars in fuel-efficient technologies,

the idea of a worldwide conspiracy to block fuel saving ideas seems absurd. Those who believe the "shadowy figures controlling industry in the background" will attack or even murder anyone claiming to make vehicles 20% more economical must explain why the European and Japanese industry is allowed to develop extremely economical cars (diesels and hybrids) and then sell these in very large numbers all over the world. Why aren't all the Prius dealerships in the US being mysteriously burned down?

What is however unquestionably true is that the political and legislative environment in the US does not generally encourage consumers to choose more economical vehicles indeed, there appears active incentive to buy an SUV or truck rather than a car. The reasons for this are partly historical, but I would agree that the well-known links between the Bush administration and oil companies (both in the US and abroad) must have something to do with this. I would be just as pleased as you to see this situation change, and US consumers take full advantage of the fuel-saving technologies common in Europe and Japan - so benefitting the environment, consumers, the US economy, and even (arguably) world peace and stability. But I'm an engineer, not a politician.

Sterling's Reply

April 24, 2005

Tony, when I talk about conspiracy, I'm not just including oil. That is but one of the arms of this giant beast, one of the means by which they exert bully power and maintain control, but not the only one.

Example of Supression

I personally know an individual extremely well, Welton Myers, who had a first-hand encounter with suppression. He had modified the carburetor system of his car and was giving regular seminars on how to increase mileage. Two well dress military-looking gentlemen attended one time, and asked very intelligent questions. They invited him to dinner afterward. One of them excused himself to go to the restroom. He took longer than normal.

As Welton was driving away, his car exploded and caught on fire. He later discovered that the pressure release valve had been clamped down, something that had to be done intentionally by a human being, and that this had been the cause of the explosion. A day or so later, as the car was sitting on blocks in front of his house, a truck with trailer pulled up, and the person told Welton's wife he was there to haul off the car per Welton's instructions. She said she did not know of any such instructions. They proceeded anyway. Welton gave no such instructions. They've not seen the car since.

He still has the plans for that modification, but has not pursued it because its level of danger. I know him extremely well, and while he does tend to exaggerate, I have never known him to outright lie. His system was a high-pressure chamber that pre-heated the fuel from the exhaust system of the car, resulting in more complete combustion of the fuel.

Possible alternative explanation

Tony, April 29 2005

Well, this is of course a second-hand story, and we don't how much exaggeration / mis-remembering may be involved. But let's assume it's true - there is also an alternative explanation, which has nothing to do with supression and everything to do with car companies wanting to make as much profit as possible.

Suppose a car maker heard of a potentially very useful invention (such as a very economical engine) but the inventor either refused to talk to them, or demanded a large payment. Seeing the chance to make tens of millions of dollars, a sufficiently ruthless company might perhaps decide to simply copy the idea without properly compensating the inventor, and so would steal the prototype vehicle to investigate it. If the idea turned out to be genuinely useful, then it (or some part of it) would be quietly added to production cars - if not, it would be filed in the "nice idea but..." pile. I could - just - believe that some car makers would be ruthless enough to steal and copy an idea that would make them a fortune, but I can't believe they would be stupid enough to simply supress it.



E-Mail: []

Related Sites

Image:FTC cropped.jpg

EPA on Fuel Saving Devices - Lists products by category. Most do not perform as claimed. Some are illegal. Some provide modest improvement.


See Talk:Directory:Fuel Efficiency:Tony's Guide

See also

Directory:Fuel Efficiency

- Directory

- Main Page

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[2]