Sorry about the software being buggy. I’m not sure what the problem is. I haven’t had anything like that happen to me with the updates.

Anyway, thank you for posting your updates! I think your data illustrate, even better than the crappy data provided by the manufacturers of ME2, that this stuff is absolutely worthless. Please do post any other results you have. This is great data!

Best,

Ryan

(after less, above) miles/gal than the same car without ME2. (23.01 mpg vs 23.20)

However, the control car, for some reason, averaged far less on the second run (21.84 vs 25.12); thus, in the “compaative protocol” mode, the ME2 guy showed a “gain” of 13%.

I wonder …could the control car have done worse on the second rund because the control vehicle had developed negative milage characteristics?

What might some of those negative characteristics be? - Condensation in the fuel line, traffic difficulties, a fuel filter issue, tire pressure, etc. - But my favorite idea is the driver him(her)self. (Ok, this is whimsical, but it’s really only half whimisical.) (insert before paragraph 7)

Hi - For some reason, the posting process omitted 5 paragraphs from the previous post, starting at paragraph 6:

……..What the test actually shows is that the car using ME2 averaged >lessBut my favorite idea is the driver him(her)self.

My friend Dave, the contractor, has come back from his weekly trip up north, and has given me, what I think, are stunning results:

First, the setup:

Dave is a general contractor, an older, very constant sort of guy. He drives a 2003 Dodge Ram diesel pickup truck, turbo v6 Ram2600. This truck has an onboard computer which constantly calculates the average mileage. On this test, he drove 500 miles round trip, using the additive all the way. Prior to this, he has made the trip many many times (at least 25 trips). His average milage has varied between 19.1 mpg and 19.4 mpg, and pretty much is always 19.3 to 19.4 mpg. He has found that carrying, or not carrying, a load, makes no difference.

Then, the results:

On this trip, he dropped off of the higher 80 mph speeds and kept it at 70-75 mph, hoping he might get better mileage. He was not carrying a load. When he left home, mileage was at 19.4 mpg. According to EYI, he could expect to get something like 22.6 mpg on the trip. By the time he returned home, mileage had dropped to 19.1 mpg. During the entire trip, average mileage never increased.

Well, that pretty much does it for me. At the point of his trip, I had very little hope that ME2 would actually increase mileage, and now, I have about none.

Because of these results, I went and looked at the ATDS test results again, because there was something about those tests that bothered me from the first time I read them…

……..What the test actually shows is that the car using ME2 averaged >lessBut, my favorite idea is the driver him(her)self. …

Anyone who has intensely tried to get better milage thru the way they drive, knows that some runs just work out better than others. Traffic, where you track on the road itself, how careful you are with the gas pedal, one’s own agility and opportunities for saving fuel, always vary somewhat.

Imagine that you are the driver of the control car. On the first run, you are into the test…road conditions are fun, you’re getting along well with your mate, you really try to do your best, and by chance, you’re really just “in the groove that day”.

On the second run, you’ve just had a big argument with your wife/husband, traffic is annoying, the test is very repetitive and you have become bored, and - in sum, you’re just not “into it”. Let’s say you even begin to “mess” with the run, just to have something to keep your interest. What could you do? Bad tracking, particularly on curves, rev up (punch the peddle), use inappropriate gear/transmission position, drag the brakes while accelerating, really there are lots of fun possibilities.

- Meanwhile, the guy/girl in the test vehicle has been on “steady as you go mode”, for both tests.

Thus one could thus imagine a different scenario [for the outcome] entirely. In the stated group of tests, ME2 gained because the control car lost mileage significantly. What if the opposite had occurred? Suppose that the driver of the control car had had a reversal of circumstances, and while “off” for the first run/set, was “into it” for the second run/set. In that case, (-if the milage for the control car had been less for the first set of runs, and better for the second set of runs) the ME2 test car would have shown negative results by 13%! Note: For some reason, the diesel test was revised about 10 months after it was first submitted. The results are presented differently, so that what shows up is the increase in mileage using ME2. - Sorry, I just did not want to spend the time deciphering what they did differently in the diesel test.

* * *

You would think that, before charging some $40/(less than a pint)+ shipping for a fuel additive, you would want to have at least one example of the test car actually improving significantly [in this case, in the 3 run set] on its own (relative to itself), in terms of milage.

More could be said about the actual test results, but let me just repeat: In the test cited, the test car got less milage (.8%) with me2 than it did without it.

I’m still going to run the two month check on my earlier milage results, but at this point I feel there is almost no chance of a happy outcome…

Based on my own experience, it looks to me like cars generally cycle thru different milage efficiencies, for whatever reasons….mine, for example has registered in a range from 38.2-23.2/mpg during the period I kept records. Even when I was just driving on a long distance trip, mileage varied by 4-5/mpg.

-Which brings me to some other notions: If sometimes “test cars” get 3+mpg less than other times, then some of the time, people reporting mileage to EYI would have reported negative results. This comes back to the whole testimony thing. If you get 100 replies, and 50 of them are unfavorable, 25 are neutral, and 25 are positive, which ones will you post? That depends on your character.

In sum, I’m not happy.* - Cheers to all, and thanks for listening. L

PS I’m wondering: to test mileage, why not put a new car on rollers, set it at a steady speed, and run it thru n gallons of gas, then n gallons of gas with the additive? Wouldn’t the possible variations in mileage be greatly reduced?

PS2 At this point, I absolutely agree with ryan2 - this one test they did is just laughable in terms of statistically (or otherwise) conclusive results…

*I’m not happy because I spent $113 and about 25 hours and I got nothing conclusive for it. I was happy to be able to post easily on the blog and tell others about what I found out. Thanks Ryan.

Thanks for the update. Yes, please post your mileage and information without the additive. I’m guessing it will be almost identical.

Best,

Ryan

ME2 Milage update:

Well, I’m sorry to say, I still can’t get anything definitive here. At the moment I’m leaning toward “it’s not working”, but I can’t really be sure. One mportant
note: in the previous post, I mentioned the zero result with my boss’s diesel. This should be deleted. About a month after the test, a mechanic told Dave he had set the milage calculator incorrectly.
As we speak, he is having another go… I’ll report as soon as I get that data. -I’m including my recent data below, because I said I would, but there are two problems: 1) I put in a new distributor cap & rotor about a month ago, & my mileage mmediately
went up…2) it just all seems to depend on how much I drive on the ranch. If I have a lot to do here, naturally my mileage goes down.

My next plan is to go the following two months without the additive. I figure, assuming my driving patterns are pretty
much the same, I should be able to notice a difference between the two sets of data.

6/11-8/14 2007

8.5 gals 23.8 mpg
4.443 28.5
9.764 32.54
10.971 26.61
4.947 26.3
15.952 23.19
14.728 27.98

Loosely, I’v averaging 27 mpg,
town, country, and highway, &
it’s costing me a penny a mile to
use the additive. Altogether, it’s
costing me 13.3 cents a mile to
drive, ignoring everything else.
Hopefully, if this figure is significantly more, or less, for the next two months data, it will tell me something about ME2. Cheers to all, L

This is a perfect illustration of a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. You realize you don’t have an argument against me, so you attack me. I’m always open to counter arguments, but you’ve failed to provide this. Ce la vie.

Best,

Ryan

P.S. For any interested readers, I just want to point out that Jack is a reseller of Ultimate ME2. Clearly he has a vested interest in this product seeming legitimate as he is selling it to other people. Can you say “conflict of interest” and “bias”? You can see his reseller site here: http://www.bigpumpsavings.com/

You need help!!! You contradict yourself every other paragraph. If anyone is a conspiracy theorist it is you. You think everyone’s wrong except you. You are “black and white on everything” You seem to be a “know it all” If you indeed have a degree in Socialogy you apparantly
are not using what you learned and appear ti be ANTI-SOCIAL.
Get a life!
This blog is not worth reading because you are TOTALLY closed minded.
And I am in fact going to show thes statements to ATDS and see how much they appreciate you degrading their EPA testing.

Do I really need to go over all of this again? Well, here we go…

No one made claim that the EPA said ME2 improves Fuel economy. Actually the EPA registration was done to validate that ME2 will not harm the engine or atmosphere. However, there were tests performed over a 60 day period by an independent laboratory who’s reputation is unquestionable (see their credentials) Google - Automotive Testing & Development Services to verify the facility. (ATDS) Click on Corporate info and in the first paragraph where it says (see our client list) you’ll see it lists Auto manufacturers that ATDS does testing for and certifies using the EPA SAE protocol. ATDS has multiple facilities in fact one of them is right next door to the EPA in Ann Arbor Michigan where they do testing for the big four. Perhaps ATDS would be interested in seeing your statement that ATDS lies about their test results, that sounds like liable to me.

Point 1: The way the EPA is mentioned on the ME2 website gives the impression that it verified their claims. That is misleading, even if they never claimed that the EPA verified their fuel mileage claims. They never explicitly say that on their website, but it is implied - that’s disingenuous and misleading.
Point 2: I have no evidence to indicate that ATDS is a legitimate company other than their crappy website. What’s more, I illustrated using statistical analysis that their “test” of ME2 is total crap. So, even if they are a legitimate company, which I have no interest in really verifying, their testing is absolute crap!

First off, EYI is a publicly traded company and your comments about MLM being a marketing scam, what planet do you live on. We need to run out and tell Avon, Hebal Life, Pharmanex, Nu Skin, Amway, Sprint and a whole host of other companies who use direct marketing as a way to do business that they are a scam! I’m sure their shareholders would love to know this. As far as rags to riches story, the owner has never been poor and any calims about rags to richs could certainly apply to distributors who have went from nothing to earning Millions of dollars, because this indeed happens a great deal in MLM. In fact you might want to tell Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki that the are involved in promoting scams.

I don’t buy Avon, Herbal Life, Pharmanex, Nu Skin, or Amway because they are MLMs. Each of those companies sells crappy products. Herbal Life, Pharmanex, and Nu Skin all sell completely unverified junk. Herbs are worthless and not scientifically shown to do anything more than cost money. Avon’s and Amway’s products are over-priced. I don’t buy from these companies because they are: (1) MLMs; (2) over-priced; (3) they sell crappy products. Wow, the perfect combination for an MLM. MLMs generally sell crappy products and engage in questionable sales and recruitment practices. I don’t trust them. That is my right.

Yes, large corporations are pyramids of power and affluence, but they are different from MLMs in several key ways. The most important one is that they don’t recruit people just to encourage them to recruit more people so they can make more money. Sure, more employees generally means more income, but the income is spread throughout the pyramid. In an MLM, the person at the very top is the only one making a butt load of money. The people at the very bottom basically make almost nothing, even less than minimum wage. It’s the “hope” of making lots of money that MLMs sell, not success. You can quote Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki all you want (I’ve actually read books by both of them). Have you ever stopped to think of why they are writing books instead of spending their time building their MLM networks? Because they make millions writing books telling people to do things they don’t do. As far as I know, neither Donald Trump nor Robert Kiyosaki have ever participated in MLMs - they know they are scams. They make their money on real estate, investing, and writing books for suckers who buy them without realizing that you are putting money in their pocket via the book and not because you are learning how to make money from the book.

Me2 will not hurt the oil companies, in fact it may help. Me2 ’s big concern is the environment, fuel efficiency is a byproduct, albeit a good one.

There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that it is good for the environment. They have no evidence to indicate this. All they have is a certification from the EPA to indicate that their magic formula doesn’t introduce more toxins into the environment than does gasoline. That’s not saying much at all. For all we know it could be rubbing alcohol or high octane gasoline. They don’t reveal their super secret formula precisely because if they did people would realize it is a scam. It could be water for all you know…

Since you do not have experience in marketing you need to understand that many products will set on shelves because there is a story that needs to be told about certain products, so many products are not suitable for retail sales.

Wrong on two counts! I participated in two MLMs as a teenager. My Dad falls for these things all the time and roped me into two of them. I bought a bunch of materials for a couple thousand dollars and didn’t see a penny in profits. Sure, some people make money. But lots loose money. I’ve had at least 5 people try to recruit me into MLMs. They are absolutely ridiculous. Second, I have a PhD in sociology. Many people in marketing come from the exact field of study I’m trained in. I know a lot about marketing, but I don’t use my training to try to sell people stuff, especially stuff that has no evidence to support its claims.

Your on that slippery slope again. Do you really think that ATDS would sign their name to a false test? What do they have to gain. This is not even their main business. They do the tests for a very steep fee. How many Scheming companies do you think would spend $150,000 to have their product fail a test.

I’m not on a slippery slope at all. Show me some independent evidence (e.g., peer-reviewed journal article, newspaper publication, etc.) indicating that ATDS is a legitimate company. I could put up on my website that I have sold widgets to IBM, Google, AT&T, Cisco, and Microsoft. Does that mean I actually have? You can put anything on a website. There is no reason to believe something on a website unless you can verify it independently. There is not a single reference to ATDS in an independent news source as near as I can tell. There are some other websites that mention the company, and they may be a legitimate company. But that still doesn’t address the issue I raised - their testing is absolute crap. Statistically speaking, you’d need at least 50 independent tests to determine if the difference was statistically significant. They did 3! They may be a legitimate company; really, they may be. But that doesn’t change that their testing is crap.

No one made claim that the EPA said ME2 improves Fuel economy. Actually the EPA registration was done to validate that ME2 will not harm the engine or atmosphere. However, there were tests performed over a 60 day period by an independent laboratory who’s reputation is unquestionable (see their credentials) Google - Automotive Testing & Development Services to verify the facility. (ATDS) Click on Corporate info and in the first paragraph where it says (see our client list) you’ll see it lists Auto manufacturers that ATDS does testing for and certifies using the EPA SAE protocol. ATDS has multiple facilities in fact one of them is right next door to the EPA in Ann Arbor Michigan where they do testing for the big four. Perhaps ATDS would be interested in seeing your statement that ATDS lies about their test results, that sounds like liable to me.
The website itself reeks of a multi-level marketing scam. The biography of the company founder reads like a rags-to-riches dime store novella, not to mention he has so many initials behind his name that I’m led to believe they really do stand for B*llShit (or BS). The claims they make about their additive are highly suspicious. #1 let’s addess the statement of an MLM scam.

First off, EYI is a publicly traded company and your comments about MLM being a marketing scam, what planet do you live on. We need to run out and tell Avon, Hebal Life, Pharmanex, Nu Skin, Amway, Sprint and a whole host of other companies who use direct marketing as a way to do business that they are a scam! I’m sure their shareholders would love to know this. As far as rags to riches story, the owner has never been poor and any calims about rags to richs could certainly apply to distributors who have went from nothing to earning Millions of dollars, because this indeed happens a great deal in MLM. In fact you might want to tell Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki that the are involved in promoting scams.

See their latest book below:

“Why We Want You to be Rich”

by Robert Kiyosaki and Donald Trump

The two business moguls explain why they recommend Network Marketing in their new book.

Some powerful excerpts from Chapter 27..

Why Network Marketing?

Donald Trump’s response.

‘Marketing is a powerful tool, and network marketing can increase that power. Remove the advertising agency from a product or service, and it’s up to you to do the marketing.”

“Network Marketing has proven itself to be a viable and rewarding source of income.There have been some remarkable examples of success, and those successes have been earned through diligence, enthusiasm and the right product combined with timing.

Robert Kiyosaki’s response.

“When I first heard about network marketing, I was against it. But after opening my mind, I began to see advantages that few other business opportunities offer.”

“Where can you find a business that will invest time in your education, your personal development and assist you in building your own business (and get you into the B-Quadrant)..The answer is Network Marketing.”

Isn’t Network Marketing a Pyramid Scheme?

Robert Kiyosaki’s response:

I am often asked if network marketing is a pyramid scheme. My reply is that corporations are pyramid schemes. A corporation has only one person at the top, generally the CEO, and everyone else below. A true network marketing business is the exact opposite of a traditional business model. The network marketing business is designed to bring you to the top, not keep you at the bottom. A true network marketing business does not succeed unless it brings people to the top.”

Add to that the fact that if a company really discovered a way to make fuel burn more efficiently every oil company in the world would be after their product (either to corner the market on it or to squelch it so they can keep up their profits). Given the amount of money, research, and time the big players invest in this area, do you really think a small organization like EYIwould have a leg up on the big guys? I doubt it.

Me2 will not hurt the oil companies, in fact it may help. Me2 ’s big concern is the environment, fuel efficiency is a byproduct, albeit a good one.

Finally, if their product is so amazing, why sell it using a multi-level marketing scheme (MLM)? Why not turn to retail or wholesale distribution?

Since you do not have experience in marketing you need to understand that many products will set on shelves because there is a story that needs to be told about certain products, so many products are not suitable for retail sales.

All of these things made me question the claims of the company. So I examined their “independent” testing data myself. I’m guessing they just made up the numbers to make this seem convincing, though I don’t know that for sure. Even if they did, they don’t know anything about statistics as the numbers don’t support their argument. Here’s the link to their “independent” test results. And here’s a link to the company they claim performed their tests (this is a really pathetic website - I wonder if they put it up themselves).

Your on that slippery slope again. Do you really think that ATDS would sign their name to a false test? What do they have to gain. This is not even their main business. They do the tests for a very steep fee. How many Scheming companies do you think would spend $150,000 to have their product fail a test.

If you look at the bottom of the .pdf file they actually have a table showing the results of their three tests. I took those results and threw them into my statistical analysis software. You see, they seem to indicate an improvement in fuel economy between the two cars, with the one using Ultimate ME2 having better fuel economy than the one that didn’t. The problem is, these results could be due to random chance fluctuations in driving conditions, that particular batch of gasoline, how the driver maneuvered the car, etc. So, I ran a simple t-test on the results and, not surprisingly, the difference between the control and experimental cars is not significantly different (mean difference=1.168, p