Has anyone seen (or tried) this?

[AMink]

Once again, sounds too good to be true! Check it out.

 

[rbattelle]

Run your engine on the blowby? Sure, it's possible... but 34% better mileage on a 7. 3 Powerstroke? Right, maybe if the engine were built with no oil ring thereby permitting a blowby rate of 1 qt/min!



I liked this quote atop their gasoline table:

Results in efficiency and mileage increase will vary depending upon driving habits and a well tuned engine and maintained vehicle.

A well-tuned engine won't blow oil past the rings. :-laf



Holy cow, they're charging $195? I love it. I could spend hours dissecting the ridiculousness of it all.



Ryan

 

[OKish]

Once again, sounds too good to be true! Check it out.

hmm, i dont see this working in the intake as it is pressurized almost most of the time.

 

[DogDiesel]

BullCrap Meter is Pegged

Mileage Beginning Mlg w/New

Vehicle Increase Mileage Condensator®

1998 GM 6. 2 Diesel 32% 14 18. 6

2000 Cummins N14 Turbo 21% 5. 5 6. 69

1995 Detroit Diesel Series 60 31% 4. 79 6. 28

1995 Detroit Diesel Series 60 21% 5. 6 6. 79

2002 Ford 7. 3 Liter Diesel 34% 17. 5 23. 5



I cringed with this data chart. BullCrap.



1. I'd love to see a 1998 GM with a 6. 2L, a 6. 5L for that year.

2. A 6. 2L should already get 18. 6 MPG, even a 6. 5L could do that with road gears.



3. 23. 5 is a stretch for any 7. 3L PowerStroke. Was Ford still putting 7. 3L in trucks in 2002?



4. I cringe because most of the big trucks should already be getting the mileage listed as the improvement, and since there is no specifics, such a truck model and gearing, weight, the numbers are meaningless. Factor in the 1998 6. 2L engine, and the facts smell acrid, with amonia and compost embodiment; BullCrap.



My opinion. The real crime here is I spent time on this topic I could have spent in the gymn or walking. Need to work on priorities.



Wayne

 

[Dieselnut59]

Definately sounds like a bunch of horse squeeze to me! I would not want ANYTHING flowing through my intake (certainly not my turbo, intercooler, hoses, etc!) There would be no way to do it without venting the blowby mess into the air stream ahead of the turbo because after the turbo is pressurized and would pressurize the inside of the crankcase, which would sure blow a lot of seals!

Have you ever seen a crankcase ventilation system which vents back into the intake? It "goos" up everything it passes through! It gets worse the closer it gets to the valves.

No thanks on this hype!

 

[Rebel Ram]

Sounds allot like a PCV valve! :-laf But like DN59 said, You would have to put this upstream of the turbo. No thanks.

 

[Flinty]

'02 was the last year ford had the 7. 3. They finally put together a truck that was even HALF decent then threw it all away. As for sucking greasy, oily air into my turbo, no thank you.

 

[AMink]

upstream of the turbo

That's the way I understood it to. With the care needed to not overoil filters so you don't mist the turbo, I don't like the idea of goo in there either! This is the kind of thing that Diesel Power or someone else needs to try first... for many thousands of miles!

 

[Nate]

How about this:



... "and engines 2006 and older have until 2010 to comply with the closed crankcase mandate. "

 

[WDixon27]

looks to me like at best it's a new thing to point at and explain under your hood to other people and at worst could help a run away happen

 

[WDaniels]

I agree with everyone else. If I just got the minimum milage increase(that'll be 23%) that would be just over a 5 miles per gallon increase. I would love to get 27+ miles per gallon. The only thing that is guarantied with this contraption is to separate you from your money.

WD

 

[Cummins Pilot]

CbuOUllshGHit

 

[mhenon]

Our VW Jetta TDI comes stock with this very system. Crankcase vents out the valve cover right into the intake (between the filter and turbo).

Most of us rip the damn thing out as it makes a mess in the intank manifold. I just vent the crankcase overboard now (did the same with the Dodge) with a piece of hose and no more gunk in the intank.

Mileage didn't change by the way. . so the ad is pure BS.

Mike

 

[mhenon]

I shouldn't have said "same system". It's VW version of venting the crankcase fumes back to the engine to be burned off.

Bottom line... no mileage gains.

Mike

 

[JR2]

'02 was the last year ford had the 7. 3. They finally put together a truck that was even HALF decent then threw it all away. As for sucking greasy, oily air into my turbo, no thank you.

Ford put the 7. 3 in trucks up to 2003. The 2003. 5 trucks went to the 6. 0. I know this because I have an 03 Excursion with the 7. 3.





As for the system in question... ... not going to work. you would have to drive a long way to recover the $$ even if it worked.

 

[AMink]

I poked around a little on the internet. There is more than one brand of basically the same thing out there. They all claim WOOHOO mileage gains. If it's on the internet, it must be true! Right? Right! :-laf

 

[mhenon]

That's right! You can believe everything on the internet or nightly news. Throw politicians in there too... they would never lie.

Mike