May 04, 2006

Look, I realize that it's hard--

--to fill up an hour and a half of a local news broadcast, but I think it might be better to at least do a LITTLE journalistic groundwork.

Last night our local FOX affiliate had yet another segment designed to play upon the gas price hysteria with an interview of some woman in Washington state who has a miracle product--a pill you drop in your tank that "changes the molecular structure" of gasoline and you can then get a 25% increase in your fuel mileage. The woman was driving around in an Explorer, I believe, and noted that although she was not a chemical engineer, her experience with her own gas mileage proved that the additive worked just fine.

In the interest of journalistic integrity, the reporter also interviewed some dude from AAA who said it might not work, or might void the warranty. Then they gave the woman's web address at the end of the segment.

Void the warranty?! WELL, DUH! THAT'S WHAT THE CAR COMPANIES WANT YOU TO BELIEVE!!

::sigh::

Okay, here's the deal. It's nothing but a scam, pure and simple. I'm not going to give the website, because these jokers don't need any business, but the whole operation is set up as a multilevel marketing scheme. The website given belongs to one of the "sponsors," i.e., sales person, but the content is provided by a company that is well-known amongst those people who frequent bulletin boards trying to beat the automaker/oil company/EPA/FTC/Trilateral Commission conspiracy.

The company's website offers a wildly unintelligble explanation of how the pills work ("The gas pills have the property of modifying the fuel’s molecular structure and liberating the energy contained within"), along with detailed instructions about how many pills must be put in the tank each time. And lots of testimonials. Lots and lots. Including those from people who have achieved financial independence by selling the pills to other people.

But, here's the deal--testimonials (about fuel mileage, at least) aren't the same thing as instrumented testing in a laboratory. The idea of laboratory testing is NOT to keep everything all secret and hush-hush, but to eliminate variables that can effect the results. Such things as engine temperature, ambient temperature, load, atmospheric pressure, humidity, gasoline quality--all have something to do with how efficiently the engine operates, and unless you can say for certain those things are being accounted for, that 4 mpg increase you see might just be that you're trying to drive more efficiently, or a host of other factors. That's why EPA mileage ratings are lab derived using standardized criteria--and it's why the tag "YMMV" had become part of the lexicon--although testing can be made better, there is still no way to look in a crystal ball and determine what your exact mileage will be. But you CAN do lab testing and say if one change or another actually has some effect.

The EPA has tested hundreds of things that purport to boost mileage, and found that very few actually work. Of course, this doesn't stop people from making claims, but from a purely economic standpoint, you are MUCH better off doing the simple things everyone has always talked about: make sure your tires are properly inflated and your alignment is accurate, make sure you aren't carrying around any extra weight, and drive slower. You will increase your mileage for free. I guarantee it.

A more thorough discussion of this product (as well as a bunch of other fuel saving tips and topics by a U.K.-based automotive engineer) can be found here. (Be sure to read the conspiracy theory page--it's a corker.)

And if you're a local television station, and you want to maintain a shred of journalistic integrity, DON'T throw your incredulity out the window and run stories like this and then have the absolute unmitigated gall to promote your investigative reporter/ombudsman/scam finder segments and blabber about how you're out to protect people from scams.

Posted by Terry Oglesby at May 4, 2006 11:40 AM
Comments

May I offer some testimonial to the tried & true methods? At suggestions of yours in the last week or two, I resolved to lower my speed. The results?

180 miles on a half a tank of gas.

Granted I drive a Civic, and I only do about 35 miles a day RT, but the car's only climbed over 60 MPH maybe twice since I filled the tank a week or two ago. It's killing me driving in the right lane and not zipping around people, but if I can make a tank of gas stretch a month? I can live with it.

Posted by: Skinnydan at May 4, 2006 12:29 PM

It is hard--I know how much I like to drive so that I pass more people than pass me, but as you say, when you need to, it makes it worthwhile. At least until gas goes back down again.

One of the things people might not know is that drag (wind resistance) increases with the square of the velocity--twice the speed equals four times the resistance. That's one why I can (theoretically) drive the Volvo up to 100 mph with only 120 HP, but a much smaller and slicker Bugatti Veyron requires 1000HP to get to 250.

Posted by: Terry Oglesby at May 4, 2006 12:40 PM

You should pay a visit to the street where I live. Although the speed limit is 25, the average speed seems to be 60. The increase in gas prices has slowed down approximately one driver out of 500,000.

Posted by: megabeth at May 4, 2006 02:43 PM

Well, there is a reason for that--although the absolute price is high, the price as adjusted for inflation isn't nearly so steep. Further, the effect of prices on the economy (and upon driver behavior) isn't quite as strong as in the past due to general increases in overall energy efficiency. Energy costs is a smaller proportion of economy than in years past.

Posted by: Terry Oglesby at May 4, 2006 03:22 PM

You hit a homer there Terry. Just making sure all the tires in the US were properly inflated would save tremendious amounts of gas for the nation. Heck just keeping your car in the highest gear you can while you drive will save real dollars you can spend. Ah well, most folks want like Teddy K, NIMBY to building the one very safe eco friendly powerplant we need too. That plant of course is a standardized Nuke. Heck if the Navy can do it I'm sure the power companies can too.

Posted by: Tony von Krag at May 4, 2006 06:19 PM

The only drawback to multiple small nuke plants is security--it's easier to secure one great big plant than several smaller ones. But the design and safety of the Navy nuke program is worth emulating.

Posted by: Terry Oglesby at May 5, 2006 08:14 AM