Hey HaveBlue-

How much was this system? I'm interested.

Thanks

 

Head here.

They say that they don't sell directly, and imply that the inventor had his facilities burned down... dunno about that. Anyway, to buy one, you have to join their club ($156) and you get an atomizer as a membership gift.

You may be able to find a dealer in your area - click on "Installation", jam in your zip code, and you may get an installer in your area. I'd bet that an installer maty also sell them.

 

Um...nevermind. Ive already spent too many words on this subject.

DEFINITALLY NOT BUYING IT. This whole thing smells of scam.

 

Hey Jay,

It sounds the same to me in that paragraph, but it's hard not to agree with Haveblue's results. We'll see what happens! Here's the results with my first tank of gas:

I have the current modifications:

1) Helix Power Tower
2) FIPK
3) Big Yakima Roof Rack (this has reduced it about 1-1.5 mpg)

245 miles driven, 14.117 gallons used = 17.35 mpg

This driving consisted of lost of slow spead (<45 mph) and lots of mountain driving (2-5.5K elevation). Let's see what happens on the next three tanks of gas.

Chris

 

As much as I would like to side for HaveBlue and his result, this just really seems fishy... well... whoever gets this product, hope ya didn't plunk down $156 bucks for nothing....

Just keep in mind that it'll take roughly 16,000 miles before you make up the $156.... (to break even)...

gl, my $'s going to better mod's!

 

Now I consider myself an educated person.

But....Help me understand how $156 equals Free!?!?!?!?! :pat: :pat: :pat:

I was a sucker who bought the Tornado......yes, it is still in the intake tube on my Runner. I saw the difference it made in a friends 1/4 mile times in his Firebird at the local drag strip.....I bought one.....does it work?........I really don't know. With the way the fuel is changed from winter to summer formulations and with Tennessee being a non-regulated state (we get all of your excess winter gas in the early summer), I don't know what mileage or performance improvements/degradations are caused by fuel or my upgrade. Tire pressure, tire brand, tire age, outside air temp (air density oil viscosity), spark plug age, etc all can affect things as well. HaveBlue's capturing and tracking data does speak volumes....I didn't do this with the Tornado...the only data I have is the subjective measurement of my butt and the thoughts in my head. I am very skeptical now when it comes to these types of things. I'm also very skeptical when some one's shop burns down TWICE and spends time in jail!!! It bothers me that there is cash being collected for an item (in the guise of a "free gift")....if the shop was indeed burned, was it by an irrate ex-customer?? Twice!? And when legal advice is to give the item as "free"....this tells me that they don't want to be stuck with the accountability of meeting the expectations of customers....if you get something for "free" there is no implied requirement by the "givor" to deliver on expectations to the "givee". My hats off to both ravencr & Have Blue for stepping up and performing the necessary R&D for this product on our Toyotas.....Good Luck and I look forward to you guys proving my skepticism wrong. I'll be the first to congratulate you for success..............

David

 

Haveblue's data is enticing. It is hard to argue with improving one's gas mileage.

I am still testing the spiralmax on my intake and exhaust. One more week ought to give me enough data. Right now I've got a spike of a 7% mileage increase in typical SoCal freeway driving.

It may be a case of self-fullfilling prophesy, but it does appear to have a little more accelleration punch.

As to why the concpiracy theorists believe that the gas companies are twisting the arms of the manufacturer's I believe there are two reasons:

First, in general, owners don't want to do more maintenance on their cars. To have to dump and handle that sludge as often as required would be a tough sell. Most family car owners and little old ladies would complain to no end about this.

Second, this additional sludge would require more dumping and/or treatment. Environmental laws make this extroidinairily difficult in both legal and political terms from a corporate perspective.

The net result is that by the time one were to put all the costs in place; you end up with a system that costs more money in the US that the cost of the gas it saves.

Simple logic, no conspiracy.

As individuals we don't carry the overhead that the vehicle manufacturers do. So our economic calculation is simpler and we also have a bent towards taking care of our vehicles to a much higher level.

That's the simple reason why it makes sense for us to look seriously at this improvement and not for a Toyota.

 

Want to know the best fuel saver that really does work hands down?

Move somewhere flat...

 

Very good points gonserarch! As soon as I get done testing my mileage, I'll be getting one to see what the differences are. Not only that, I'm all for keeping all that nasty stuff out of my engine.

Chris

 

I had to revive this thread because my curiosities have not been settled...

Does anyone else have any experienced opinions about the fuel atomizer? This one really does intrigue me. Someone in their marketing dept. is really earning their pay because I am really thinking about buying one. Alan's results are pretty hard to argue with.

 

I agree Noel! I'm buying one as soon as I can get the money up. I'm testing my gas mileage right now for a baseline. I'll keep everyone posted on my results.

Chris

 

While I was looking at some of our Forum's links, I found this

http://www.yotarepair.com/Sludge_Zone.html

There might be something here that even Toyota now admits.

David

 

Good stuff! I've got to read it all, but from what I've seen so far, I'm definitely buying one.

Chris

 

Humm.... "HaveBlue". This name rings a bell...
AH HA.... It's the project codename used for the development of the Lockheed F-117 Stealth Fighter/Bomber....I smell a conspiracy!



I'm just clowning, and have nothing useful to contribute here...

 

@#$%...they're on to me! If anyone asks, I was never here!

 

Haveblue,

I've read all the links that you provided, and I'm impressed to see that Toyota stepped up to the plate on this one. I'm also glad that they haven't seen any problems with our engines, too. But, with all that being said, I don't see any reason why removing as much of it we can is going to hurt anything. All I can see is a benefit. I'm hoping to have the Fuel Atomizer soon, and anyone else that wants one, please keep us posted with your results.

Chris

 

Here's my second set of MPG numbers:

208.7 miles driven
14.504 gallons used

14.38 MPG

Not near as good as the last time, but I was on the throttle a lot more this time. Till the next time!

Chris

 

Here's some links I've found through researching this fuel atomization thing out:

http://web.umr.edu/~combust/GBWabstract.html

http://web.umr.edu/~combust/KRKabstract.html Click the link at the bottom, and you'll see the guys presentation.

http://web.umr.edu/~combust/MREabstract.html Another link at the bottom

I haven't read them through, but they look good so far.

Chris

 

Haveblue and Ravencr -

Gadget emailed me about a year ago with design elements for his fuel line heat exchanger. he reported a 20% increase in fuel mileage with the unit that basically consisted of a copper tube core heated with engine coolant, surrounded by coils of copper tubing contaning diverted fuel. the whole thing was wrapped in insulation, and he did mention having to relocate the FPR to prevent excessive bleed.

although he was initially looking for perfomance gains, all he saw was MPG gains. as he explained it to me, atomization of fuel is nothing new, and some car companies have even experimented with it. he drew up the analogy of kindling VS a big log of firewood . . . more surface area for the reaction to take place.

anyhow, i am still curious as to how the Wyoming setup works. i am planning to build a heat exchanger of my own . . . my faith in Gadget's reports shows no limits . . . but if the "Atomizer" would add to those properties, i'm all for it.

as far as WHY something as simple as fuel-heating is not included in standard engine construction is not the point . . . conspiracy theories aside, it's all conjecture. what matter is that no less than 2 well respected members (of other boards as well) have provided evidence that atomization of fuel is beneficial.

i plan on trying it out as well.

creed

 

I'm going to buy one today, because I talked with Wyoming instruments yesterday, and they have a 60 day money back guarantee. I figure I have nothing to lose at this point, so I'm going to try it out. I also talked with Tim (duffdog) about his setup, because I'm thinking about running the same setup he is. He said, which partially backs up this thread that the reason he chose the 370cc injectors from RC Engineering is that he was told that this would be the best injector for the most HP. They said that the RC injectors do a much better job to atomizing the fuel, which causes it to burn better in the combustion chamber. Which, backs up this whole thread. The question at this point isn't if increased atomization is good or bad. We know it's good. But what we don't have confirmed from multiple sources is whether the Fuel Atomizer fro Wyoming Instruments will indeed increase this atomization. That's the question, and I'm willing to check out, do the adjustments, and get hopefully I lot more MPG.

Chris