EFS Combust

Hey Tom, do you know anyone that has an engine directly connected to a dyno that you could test this stuff on? Like maybe a university or something?

No, we're looking into options there. I'm reaching out to chemists now that might be able to help us understand how this works–anyone want to volunteer?

It's got electrolites & mutilates your cars thirst for gas?

Tom Suddard wrote: No, we're looking into options there. I'm reaching out to chemists now that might be able to help us understand how this works–anyone want to volunteer?

Sorry, my background is in electrical engineering.

A university with an automotive engineering program should have an engine dyno, right? Maybe they'd let you borrow it for an afternoon in exchange for some free publicity?

Well done etifosi!

Isnt this the thought process behind idiocracy? Engines crave it. It works.

Brawndo! The thirst mutilator...

Sky_Render wrote: Hey Tom, do you know anyone that has an engine directly connected to a dyno that you could test this stuff on? Like maybe a university or something?

Don't all the tech schools have one? But I thought most engine building classes have a 350 chevy that has been rebuilt and dyno tested more times and in more different ways than a "that's what she said" joke.

Hey all you tuner shops and guys who own $150k Dyno's in your shop the FDA guy thinks we are all a bunch of idiots and we don't conduct testing like the FDA does. Well I'm calling this guy out!! You bring your FDA iron to a track near me and I'll tune and dyno the same car. What I will show you is that our so called tests mean something and that your full of FDA BS!!! Oh and I guess for my additional added horsepower I get to use EFS COMBUST and you can't. So let's see if you can compete on the same palying field!! MR FDA I wait for your track location here on the east coast so I can kick your butt.

Wyotech, right across the interstate from you, has an engine dyno or 10 if I remember correctly from my tour there.

racerx77 wrote: Hey all you tuner shops and guys who own $150k Dyno's in your shop the FDA guy thinks we are all a bunch of idiots and we don't conduct testing like the FDA does. Well I'm calling this guy out!! You bring your FDA iron to a track near me and I'll tune and dyno the same car. What I will show you is that our so called tests mean something and that your full of FDA BS!!! Oh and I guess for my additional added horsepower I get to use EFS COMBUST and you can't. So let's see if you can compete on the same palying field!! MR FDA I wait for your track location here on the east coast so I can kick your butt.

What just happened here?

that's a first post … he's now on the watch list

I'm a skeptic. Over the years there have been many "mouse milk" additives. The manufacturer sells thousands of units, makes lots of money until the public discovers, either they don't work as advertised or are not cost effective.

In reply to iceracer: You should be a skeptic, the majority shareholder in the company was the biggest skeptic. He tried some in his Porsche cayman race car and he knew something was different when he ran out of revs on the back straight in 4th gear. He told me that never happened before. Shortly after that he put up a lot of dough for a majority stake.

In reply to m6fan: You can see his car on the efs combust website

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.

And if the fuel is burning differently, it ought to generate verifiable measurements with a cylinder pressure probe. For example:

In reply to alfadriver: I hear what you say and a slower burn seems counter intuitive. It is more of a "less erratic" burn,

If this were true, it should manifest itself as a smoother, less wiggly trace from the pressure probe, no?

and as the inventor explained to me, the less erratic, more even burn, generates more BMEP(brake mean effective pressure).

That claim could be verified by measuring the area under the curve when you plot the cylinder pressure vs crank angle. More BMEP ought to show up pretty clearly when you're measuring the pressure directly.

Tom Suddard wrote: 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.

1. In cylinder pressure probes.

2. Use new, or freshly cleaned, injectors and a clean fuel filter.

3. Use a tunable ECU with lambda and knock correction disabled. This would rule out oxygenation and anti-knock theories.

Even a simple A - B - A test would help as well. You could then compare HP on a dyno with 87 - 93 -87 octane pump gas and see if there is also an increase in horsepower there.

MadScientistMatt wrote: 1. In cylinder pressure probes. 2. Use new, or freshly cleaned, injectors and a clean fuel filter. 3. Use a tunable ECU with lambda and knock correction disabled. This would rule out oxygenation and anti-knock theories.

I missed a lot of this- thanks to vacation.

But this is what I want, based on the claims. The claims are very specific in how it works, and being that specific, it can also be easily tested with the right hardware. Not cheap, sure.

Especially based on the amounts that are being added. For such a tiny amount to be such a catalyst for improvement- I'd have to see it to belive it.

BTW, Tom- where do you guys have the raw data for the tests you ran? I'd like to look at it...

I'm bringing this back from the dead, interested in seeing if we've learned anything more about this product in the intervening years.

We tested it on a few different cars on a few different chassis dynos, and every time we made slightly more power because we could run slightly more timing without preignition.

I think it's a simple octane booster, and IIRC the MSDS supported that theory.