EFS Combust

In reply to Tom Suddard:

most fuel we buy today is 10% ethanol. so adding an additional ounce or two to 15 gallons can't realistically make that much difference. The alcohol is there to disperse the active ingredients evenly throughout the fuel tank.

In reply to JohnyHachi6:

you have hit on some accurate points and some not so accurate. The product does not increase the BTU value of the fuel. It does contain compounds that actually slow the combustion process and reduce the combustion temperatures by 7- 9%, plus the fuel burn is more even. The cooler charge and more uniform burn allow the ECU to lean the mixture and advance the timing, and that's how the additional power is generated.

wbjones wrote:

iceracer wrote: Gee, maybe we need 15% ethanol after all. I'm still trying to understand how a change in fuel affects the trip/mpg meter.

their claim is that most engines don't do a complete burn … i.e. there is gas that exits through the exhaust valves as un-burnt vapor … if that is actually what happens, then there should be more power … whether or not that translates into more mpg … shrug….

That's true- roughly 0.2 to 0.5% of the exhaust is unburnt/partially burnt HC's.

But unless this somehow changes the physics of combustion near a wall, that's not going to change- most of the unburt HC's come from the flame quench area.

Changing that is some special physics.

m6fan wrote: In reply to JohnyHachi6: you have hit on some accurate points and some not so accurate. The product does not increase the BTU value of the fuel. It does contain compounds that actually slow the combustion process and reduce the combustion temperatures by 7- 9%, plus the fuel burn is more even. The cooler charge and more uniform burn allow the ECU to lean the mixture and advance the timing, and that's how the additional power is generated.

The problem behind that claim is that slower burning fuel acually takes some rather important top of the PV diagram away, lowering the potential pressure/torque as well as basic combustion efficiency.

that, and the actual amount of fuel that can be additionally burnt is pretty small (as I just posted).

In reply to HiTempguy:

This product does not add any significant oxygen to the fuel. 1 ounce per 10 to 15 gallons, there simply is not enough additive to make a difference.

In reply to Jeffman:

So far I have read 20 theories on how this product actually works. Most believe it is just an octane booster or oxygenate, Not so. So far, your scientist friend is the closest!! A version of the product works great with diesel engines, and an octane booster won't help in that environment.

In reply to alfadriver: I hear what you say and a slower burn seems counter intuitive. It is more of a "less erratic" burn, and as the inventor explained to me, the less erratic, more even burn, generates more BMEP(brake mean effective pressure).

In reply to m6fan:

Heck of a chemical. But I'll wait to see the dyno data, including in cylinder pressure before I buy that idea. You even pointed out that it's a small addition to the tank of fuel.

It's a 15oz container, and lets put that into a small 10 gallon tank.

Lets assume that 100% of that is the special ingredient. There are 128oz in a gallon, so 10 gallons of fuel is 1280oz, of which 15oz is 1.2% of the mixture.

And that's generous- as the web page has 2oz mixing with 15 gallons of fuel. When you do the math, that's all of 0.1% of the mixture.

So the suggestion is that 0.1% of the fuel will even out combustion. (For reference, pretty much all engines have more than that in unburt fuel in the exhaust, most of which is burning physics reason of flame quench)

hm.

I'd have to check the spec on pump fuel, but I don't think the Ethanol in it is even close to that even from pump to pump. I don't even think the additives in the fuel are that close.

In reply to alfadriver:when efs combust sent the first batch of samples of our product to SCCA's lab for analysis, the first batch of samples all failed because the baseline fuel contained almost 12% ethanol. What they found out later is federal law(and Scca) regulations permit non more than 10% ethanol. Howevet , upon further investigation federal law is 10% +/- a margin if error. The petroleum refiners have been exploiting this "margin of error" because ethanol is currently less expensive than gasoline they are making a couple of pennies each gallon.

In reply to m6fan:

Federal law allows more than 10% Ethanol. It's the label requirement that's the important part. Once it gets above 15%, the customer must be told that it's not E10. What's even more interesting is that the gas one buys varies a lot around the country, all by design.

But that just points out more that a chemical that ends up being 0.1% of a mixture when other major components have a large margin of deviation would even be noticed.

And that's ignoring the part that the secret sauce is a percentage of that.

In reply to alfadriver:when efs combust sent the first batch of samples to the SCCA for approval, all the samples failed because the baseline fuels contained almost 12% ethanol. Federal law only permits 10% but they allow a margin of error. The refiners are adding additional ethanol because its less expensive than gas. In a super competitive market the extra ethanol makes them more money. It ruins our power tools and older cars but it makes them money.

is there an echo in here?

I can echo my reply, but don't see a point in it.

Regardless of how your company sees federal law, the point of the magic of a chemical in such tiny amounts relative to the changes in fuel properties (whether by error or intentional) still stands.

The fact that no one really knows how that stuff works is preventing me from trying it in any of my vehicles.

As to the ethanol thing, there is a particular brand of gas station that I refuse to use around here; I get substantially lower fuel economy when I fill up there. The only explanation I can think of is that they run ~14% ethanol as opposed to 10% in order to make a few more pennies per gallon.

In reply to alfadriver:my error, posting from a phone

So nobody has any dyno proof . . . .

Cretinx wrote: So nobody has any dyno proof . . . .

And by that, an engine dyno using a spec fuel with and without the additives, and shows the claims via pressure traces. Calibrated and run to SAE specs.

Not just any old chassis dyno.

In reply to Cretinx: I am not sure what you mean by "nobody has Dyno Proof". There are multiple dyno tests out there on this product. The EFS combust website show the results of several independent race shops putting cars on the dyno and making more power with the additive and the dyno tests that GRM performed at Superchips showed similar horsepower and torque gains.

In reply to m6fan:

Here's the thing- there are claims on why it works. All you need to do is prove it in a more scientific way.

Not knowing each dyno's ability to have repeatability, all of those tests could have been easily within it's normal error. 17hp seems like a lot for the Vette, but that's less than 5%, and not knowing the varibality of the car or dyno, or IF the base fuel is actually the same, well... hard to tell.

There are plenty of places in the US that would test that on an engine with pressure transducers. Especially when claims come down to core physics.

Go for it.

In reply to alfadriver:

I think you have to look at it from a different angle. The combustion of the additive in not causing the change in the combustion chamber. The additive is modifying the fuel and how the fuel burns in the combustion chamber. At the molecular level, sometimes the introduction of a very small amount of a chemical to a compound will significantly alter its characteristics. Don't you remember those science demonstrations back in school when the teacher would have a liquid in a clear glass beaker and he would add one drop of something to it and the liquid would then harden almost immediately to a solid like glass?

In reply to alfadriver:

One dyno test is suspect, two or three, can be explained. After multiple test by dozens of race shops and tuners the results become reality. These guys who operate dynos everyday, they know how to minimize variables because their jobs depend on it. Engine builders need to have accurate, reliable data. The Combust guys have never shied away from an independent dynamometer test on their product. I doubt you can say that about any other additive products on the market. There will always be skeptics , but if there is a less expensive way to add up 5% HP and torque to an engine, then I am unaware of what that would be.

m6fan wrote: In reply to alfadriver: I think you have to look at it from a different angle. The combustion of the additive in not causing the change in the combustion chamber. The additive is modifying the fuel and how the fuel burns in the combustion chamber. At the molecular level, sometimes the introduction of a very small amount of a chemical to a compound will significantly alter its characteristics. Don't you remember those science demonstrations back in school when the teacher would have a liquid in a clear glass beaker and he would add one drop of something to it and the liquid would then harden almost immediately to a solid like glass?

Unfortunately, this response gives me much less confidence...

If it works what would be the reason not to test on a high-end dyno while also watching cylinder pressures? I mean, at the end of the day it would just make EFS Combust more scientifically sound, right?

In reply to rcutclif:

The product has been dyno tested many times, you want to perform another type of test. By all means, go ahead.

m6fan wrote: One dyno test is suspect, two or three, can be explained. After multiple test by dozens of race shops and tuners the results become reality.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Running a flawed test multiple times does not make the results of those tests valid or even interesting.

m6fan wrote: In reply to rcutclif: The product has been dyno tested many times, you want to perform another type of test. By all means, go ahead.

I work for a medical device manufacturer. If we tested our products the way EFS Combust has been tested, the FDA would laugh us out of their offices. Or arrest us for unfathomable recklessness. Probably the latter.

Unfortunately, there's no FDA for fuel additives, so these so-called tests don't have to be rigorous, or even make sense. The right way to test this product it to make sure that it is the only variable in the test. You can't do that with a full drivetrain on a chassis dyno in an open garage bay. You gotta do something like alfadriver suggests.

As earlier posters point out, it's incredibly, almost completely unlikely that EFS Combust has any chance of doing what it claims. It's incredible claims like these that need extra-thorough proof before they can be accepted. These anecdotes don't provide that proof.

(begin rant)

I'm ashamed that GRM is giving credence to the EFS Combust claims and to their flawed testing methodology by repeating both of them in the magazine and online. I wandered into this thread because the latest update on the 2-series project car really pissed me off. Those are not tests and those are not results.

GRM is doing a disservice to readers who do not understand how to run a scientific test. This is not Scientific American, it's not reasonable to assume that readers will see the joke in these write-ups and move on. A magazine that should be helping the motorsports enthusiast is instead harming them by presenting incredibly flawed test results as "evidence" instead of using the more appropriate term, "dung".

I expected more from the genuinely good people at GRM.

(end rant)

Why'd the latest 2 Series update piss you off? It was merely a "Hey, we did a thing." The whole point is that we left all the good stuff out–like the air/fuel ratios, the experimental setup, and the before horsepower. We did the same with the Focus SVT update.

Why? I'll be honest–we want you to buy the magazine and read the full story. If we gave everything away online, nobody would buy the magazine.

We've tested EFS on the dyno on three separate occasions, and it seems to work. We control variables well, do dozens of pulls, and try different vehicles. We've also encouraged discussion on our forum, with links to the patent and the MSDS readily available in this thread.

Please let me know what we should do differently. We welcome a better test idea, but back-to-back dyno runs within minutes of each other after the car has done 10 runs seem like a pretty good test to me.

And, full disclosure: I went into the first test desperate to prove that EFS doesn't work. I grew up loving science, and took a project on the way dissolved solutions affect the way electricity moves through water to the statewide science fair back before I was old enough to play with cars.

I couldn't show anything except that EFS seems to add horsepower on the dyno. Please, test it yourself and prove me wrong.