A family member recently sent me an email encouraging me to try a new fuel additive that claims to boost fuel economy. Because I care about this relative and care about the truth, I spent a few minutes checking out the claims of this company to see if it is really worth my time. Here’s what I wrote back:

I took your claims seriously and did a little sleuthing to see what I could find out about this fuel additive – Ultimate ME2. Here’s what I found:

  1. Ultimate ME2 is registered as a fuel additive with the EPA (see this website). However, all that means is that burning Ultimate ME2 does not release anything toxic in the air (at least, nothing more toxic than the gasoline it is replacing). That does not mean that the fuel additive actually improves fuel economy. (See here for the registration guidelines)
  2. As is typical with our government, they don’t test every new product that comes to market to ensure that what it claims is true. They do test these additives to make sure they aren’t polluting the environment but the EPA does not actually test them to see if they improve fuel economy. That isn’t really the EPA’s job. They do test fuel efficiency in cars, but not fuel efficiency of additives (see this website).
  3. The EPA says you have to rely on the independent testing a company does to verify their claims. Okay, I don’t think that is a very good approach given the propensity of companies to lie, but let’s check it out. I went to the website you mentioned to look into the claims of Ultimate ME2.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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).
  8. 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< .586). There is a difference, yes, but three cases are not sufficient to claim what they are claiming. They would need to repeat this test with these same results probably 50 to 100 more times to convince me that the fuel additive actually works (I don’t have the time to actually do the power calculations).
  9. Additionally, I’m always a little skeptical about these claims because it doesn’t seem to me like they actually include the cost of the additive along with the extra amount of the additive in the fuel economy calculations. Let me explain. If you buy 10 gallons of gas at $2.85 and you get 35 miles/gallon (this is what my car gets), you are paying roughly $0.08 per mile.
  10. Now, add 1 pint of fuel additive. Let’s say it costs $3.50. To accurately calculate the new cost per mile you need to add the $3.50 to the $28.50 to get your new cost: $32.00. You also need to add the 1 pint of additive to the gallons of gas you purchased: 10.25 gallons. Now do the math. Buying and adding the fuel additive translates into $0.09 per mile. You’re paying a penny more per mile, which adds up on a long trip (1000 miles = $10.00). When you did your calculations, did you take this into consideration?
  11. Here’s where it gets really intriguing. In order to warrant using the additive, you would need to get a 13% improvement in fuel economy (that’s the difference between $0.08 and $0.09, 12.5% to be exact). In other words, if you use the additive, and it works, you are paying the exact same amount as if you did not use the additive. To actually save money, you’d need to improve fuel efficiency more than 13%.
  12. Ironically, Ultimate ME2 claims an improvement in efficiency of 13% – which means you’re paying the exact same amount as if you didn’t use it given its cost. I don’t know how much Ultimate ME2 costs per pint, but I just checked on a similar product at auto zone and it is actually $5.99 per pint. In that instance, it would need to improve your fuel economy by close to 20% just to pay for itself. You would need to do better than that to experience any savings.

So, what am I saying? There is no reason to believe any of the claims of EYI, the company that makes Ultimate ME2. They don’t explain how their product works and the little data they do provide (which is of questionable origin) doesn’t actually support their claims. Your better off buying the least expensive gas you can find and making sure you: (1) check your tire pressure, (2) have clean air filters, (3) change your oil regularly, (4) don’t drive fast, (5) and get as much weight out of your vehicle as possible. Fuel additives are a scam, pure and simple. Sorry, but they are.

Update 2008-07-12: Here’s a recent article from the St. Petersburg Times giving the same advice I have given here.

 900 total views,  1 views today

29 Replies to “fuel additives”

  1. Give people a chance. Let people try this product and let them decide for themselves. Ultimate ME2 has a 30 day money back guarantee. Why would China’s largest oil conglomorate, fully endorse this product?

    Will Auto Zone give you your money back when their item doesn’t work? It won’t give you the results that Ultimate ME2 does. The bitter taste of poor quality long remains after the price is forgotton.

    The EPA designates 6% as being a “substantial” fuel savings. Ultimate ME2 was tested at 13%. Only 1oz is added per 15 gallons. Not a pint.

    Fuel additives have been scams for years, so says a retired mechanical engineer from Minnesota who has tested over 100 devices and additives since 1979; that is, until he formally tested and evaluated Ultimate ME2 for himself. He is now a distributor of the product since he never in over 27 years discovered a product that works. That product is Ultimate ME2.

    I suggest that you contact your family member and buy a bottle to see for yourself.

  2. SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF PHILLIP J. RATTE

    STATE OF MINNESOTA ) phillipratte@msn.com

    ) ss. 1713 Innsbruck, Mpls, MN 55421

    COUNTY OF ANOKA ) Bio http://www.tinyurl.com/2n9bbc

    I, Phillip J. Ratte, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say:

    1. I am of legal age and make this affidavit of my personal knowledge.

    2. I am a retired Mechanical Engineer (BME U of MN 1961) who

    practiced as a Professional Engineer in the State of Minnesota for

    27 years. I have tested over 100 fuel saving devices, magnets,

    and additives since 1979. I appeared as an expert witness on fuel

    saving devices in a criminal trial in Missouri in 1992.

    3. I personally designed and conducted a study to determine the effect

    of ME2, a fuel saving additive, on automotive fuel economy. The

    testing was conducted from March 14 to April 16, 2007. The test

    vehicle was a 1999 Honda Accord that has a 2.2 liter 4 cylinder engine

    with 211,000 miles on the odometer. This vehicle was frequently used

    to test various fuel saving products so there were no carbon deposits

    in the upper cylinders. This makes the results of this testing quite

    conservative as most of the benefit from fuel saving products comes

    from removing carbon deposits from the upper cylinders that increase

    the compression ratio above the ideal compression ratio of the vehicle

    when it was new thus reducing both performance and fuel efficiency.

    4. The results of the study show:

    a. The use of ME2 increased fuel efficiency in this Honda Accord

    by 16.4% from 29.7 to 34.6 mpg at 70 mph.

    b. The use of ME2 increased fuel efficiency in this Honda Accord

    by 21.1% from 33.1 to 40.1 mpg at 60 mph.

    c. The use of ME2 increased fuel efficiency in this Honda Accord

    by 21.8% from 35.0 to 42.6 mpg at 50 mph.

    5. My review of testing done by the California EPA certified lab, ATDS,

    Automotive Testing and Development Services, Inc. on two 2007

    Ford Taurus V6 vehicles with 5,000 miles and the results of my own

    testing of a 1999 Honda Accord provide the basis for my Professional

    Opinion of the fuel saving additive ME2.

    It is my Professional Opinion that ME2 Fuel Additive is an outstanding

    fuel saving product that provides fuel efficiency increases in gasoline

    powered vehicles well in excess of the 6% increasethat the EPA designates

    as a “substantial” fuel saving result. ME2 has outperformed all of the

    over 100 different fuel saving devices, magnets, and additives that I have

    tested since 1979. These results are so important that I have become a

    distributor for EYI, the company that sells ME2.

    Subscribed to and sworn to before me Phillip J. Ratte

    this 28th day of April, 2007 ______________________

    Phillip J. Ratte ME

    Jacob Mark Archambault

    ___________________ 1-31-2012

    Notary Public My commission expires: ____________

    ————————————————————————-

    http://www.eyicom.com/ionfuel

  3. Hi Kevin,

    Thanks for confirming my suspicions – definitely a scam. Scammers love to go with the “let people figure it out for themselves” approach because they realize most don’t have the technical skills and qualifications to analyze the product like I did above. Personal anecdotes are not evidence – that’s not how science advances. In this particular case, the scientific approach is not to ask a bunch of people who “want” the product to work if it works. The scientific approach is to repeatedly test the product under controlled conditions hundreds and thousands of times. If the product holds up under those conditions and its claims have merit, excellent.

    So, my question for Kevin and other people like him is: Where is the scientific evidence? Show me the peer-reviewed journal publication illustrating ME2 works. Show me any evidence other than anecdotes and cheap affidavits from conspiracy theorists.

    I took a look at the website provided above for this guy Phillip J. Ratte. First off, of course, is the fact that it is a super cheap website: !C9!0C!E2D6A6842596/SmogBuster/PHILRATTEENERGY/ But, oh well, that isn’t an indication of dishonesty. But what really confirmed my suspicions were the links at the bottom of Mr. Ratte’s next page (see here: . If you scroll to the bottom you’ll see that whoever set these pages up is a devoted conspiracy theorist. He links to Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories and current 9/11 conspiracy theories. It would be a logical fallacy to claim that all of Mr. Ratte’s opinions are worthless because he also happens to believe some things that are wholly without merit. But it also makes me very, very skeptical. What’s more, I have no way of confirming Mr. Ratte’s credentials and I have no reason to believe he is an expert on fuel additives. His degree is in mechanical engineering, not chemical engineering. Why would I even consider him an expert? Finally, an affidavit is just a sworn testimony – that doesn’t make it truth. I could go file an affidavit today that I was abducted by aliens or visited by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and post that on my website too. That doesn’t make it true, it just means that I’m going to stick to my story at the risk of being convicted of perjury (lying under oath).

    Again, Kevin, if you’d like to convince me there is merit to the claims of ME2, show me a peer-reviewed publication in a first-rate scientific journal. Or, better yet, take some of the millions of dollars you are making off of innocent victims of your Multi-Level Marketing scheme and hire some independent chemical engineers at a university to put your claims to the test with me as an independent consultant. I’m sure I could find some people with the actual credentials to test your products.

    Finally, Kevin pointed out one last thing that I have to discuss: only using 1 ounce per fill-up to get the mileage savings. That’s great, Kevin, except ME2 costs, get this, over $36.00 per pint according to this website: http://www.myextremeresearch.com/popups/Price_Comparison.htm
    That’s over $3.00 per ounce (which is the number I used in my original calculations)! I totally underestimated how big of a scam this is. You pay a whopping $221.70 for 6 12 oz bottles (if you buy the bottles individually they are $44.95 a piece). Allegedly each ounce treats 15 gallons of gasoline, which puts the cost to treat each gallon of gas at $0.20. If you use ME2, you’re paying an additional 20 cents per gallon of gas (a 6% increase in the cost of gas).

    If, in fact, you get a 13% increase in fuel efficiency with just 1 ounce of ME2, that might make it worth the money. To break even at $3.00 per gallon you’d need at least a 6% increase in fuel efficiency (to offset the cost). So, an increase of 13% in your fuel efficiency means you’d actually be saving about $0.20 per gallon of gas. You can think of it this way:
    -If one gallon of untreated gas gives you 30 miles (30 miles per gallon) at a cost of $3.00 per gallon, it costs you $0.10 per mile.
    -If one gallon of treated gas gives you a 13% improvement in efficiency, that means 33.9 miles per gallon. The cost goes up to $3.20 per gallon calculating in the cost of the ME2, then it costs you $0.094 per mile, a savings of 6/10ths of a penny per gallon. So, if Kevin is right and the claims of ME2 are accurate, at $3.00 per gallon, ME2 could theoretically save you a tiny amount of money. In essence, though, you’re still about breaking even.

    BUT!!!! I have yet to see any good evidence that ME2 works!!!! The science isn’t there (their explanation is bullshit – you can’t shrink the molecules of gasoline and have it remain gasoline). There is also no data from a reputable source confirming their claims. Remember, you’d have to see at least a 13% improvement in fuel efficiency just to break even. Until I see real data (not anecdotes, not affidavits, and not terrible test results that I can show don’t support their claims) I am thoroughly convinced ME2 is a scam.

    And if you don’t believe me still, just take a look at the other products this multi-level marketing company sells: . This company is in the scam business!!!!!

  4. So, um, Kevin, what’s your beef with me? Your best argument is that I’m a hypocrite for trying to save people money by not buying a fuel additive that has absolutely no proof that it works but recommending a local restaurant? You’re comparisons make absolutely no sense. I’m not even sure how to respond to your comment. It’s absolutely absurd.

    If you come up with a reasonable point you’d like to make, feel free to let me know.

  5. Hypocrite. You don’t take a suggestion from a family member and then turn around and recommend readers going to a restaurant – Mama’s Hot Pot (8372 Reading Road). Do you have any “evidence” to support your claim that the food is good? Do you have video to prove that the chef comes out and talks to you? As the site suggests, all answers are pointless (including yours), this site is pointless, and you haven’t seen the ball since the kickoff.

  6. Hi Dan,

    Now this is a comment I can get behind. You are actually testing the product to see if it works. Do, please, keep me posted on your results. I’m fascinated to know how the numbers turn out. Once you’ve had 50 or so fillups, we can actually run the statistics and see how it turns out. It still won’t be a perfect test (we’d need an identical control vehicle), but it will be better than nothing. To help me when we do the calculations, make sure you record the exact number of gallons you put in, your exact mileage, and the cost of the gas. With that data on 50 or so fillups, we should be able to estimate how well it works. You should also try 5 to 10 fillups without the additive and record those numbers so we can make a baseline comparison. Then we may have a pretty good sense of whether this product actually does what it claims.

    Thank you for posting, Dan, and for being willing to actually put the product to the test. I look forward to hearing from you again.

    Best,

    Ryan

  7. I’m a none believer and I got a bottle. It is a 14 oz bottle, You use 1 oz per 15 gallons, hard to add. The bottle cost $45, $3.22 per 15 gallons. So you 13% holds true if gas stays at $3 per gallon. My first test were positive, 17% on the first tank- 22% on the second, 14% on the third. I’m currently on my 4th tank. The number of variables is uncontrollable for me. Driving conditions, air conditioning, fuel quality, cars engine conditions. So my next step is to share the bottle I have to see if it works in other cars. The claims that I like are the reduced emitions, I live in GA where we have emissions testing done on our cars. It will be interesting if the emmission test show a reduction. I’m going to get it tested, $25, to see if the claims hold true. I know my sampling is to low to be significant but I’m on the path. I’m testing the product before going in to the bussiness. I’m looking at the selling side of the product. I do not understard the MLM part. But if it is a good product then it will spread. The number you have are the right one and I agree that it needs a larger sample size. Thanks for the input. You part on the company, Everyone is bias you just need to find there pocketbook.

  8. Kevin,

    This is a far more reasonable comment than your previous one. Let me analyze it for you so you can see how this works. If I assume your numbers are accurate, here’s what you have:
    -no additive – at 25mpg at $3.19 per gallon, it costs you $0.127/mile
    -with additive – at 28.3mpg at $3.19 per gallon, it costs you $0.121/mile
    -with additive – at 31.85mpg at $3.19 per gallon, it costs you $0.108/mile

    If your numbers are accurate and you really are getting a 27% improvement over your baseline (from 25mpg to 31.85mpg) then you are saving money. If, however, you are really only getting a 13% improvement over your baseline (25mpg to 28.3mpg) then you are not saving any money. If you’d like to continue keeping track and reporting your findings, that’s great. I welcome that. But please don’t fudge the numbers – that would be dishonest.

    And, again, I find comments like this far more helpful than name calling.

    Best,

    Ryan

  9. Ryan,

    If my comment was absurd, so be it. But listen; my first tank yielded an increase from a baseline of 25MPG to 28.3MPG. That was back in March. I’m on my tenth tank now with the product. At last fillup sir, my MPG calculation was 31.85MPG. At the current pump price of $3.19, that is an approximate 23% increase in fuel economy. This in on a 91 Pontiac Sunbird, with close to 200,000 miles on it. This car used to sputter, but it now has smooth acceleration. There is a noticeable increase in power, but I choose to lighten up on the pedal instead for the improved MPG.

  10. Thanks,

    Actually it was 23%. These are accurate numbers, sir; no fudge here. I have kept stats on the mileage on this car since last year, months before I even heard about Ultimate ME2. The 13% was a conservative rating by the lab out in Riverside, CA that tested it last year; they didn’t want to go too far out on a limb. But they were astounded none the less. Diesel rated even better at a consertive 16% improvement.

    But even more important than the fuel savings are the reductions in tail pipe emissions. Simular EPA tests proved that the product reduced carbon monoxide emissions by up to 33%. I haven’t seen seen “An Inconvenient Truth” yet (Al Gore’s documentary), but I have been told that the movie states the number one contributor to the global problems are tail pipe emissions.

    The news media and the AAA warn the public to stay away from fuel additives, because none of them have ever really worked. As a result a cynical attitude exists with most folks for this category. I drive 50 miles a day so I have been looking for a real product that DOES work. The product is as clear as water and only contains liquid carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. An added plus; it works in cold weather, too.

    Visit the site again sir, and watch the short video from the Phillipines on what Ultimate ME2 is doing over there to clean the air.

    http://www.eyicom.com/ionfuel

    Ryan, what type of vehicle do you drive? Is your driving mostly in the city?

  11. Hi Kevin,

    Sorry I took so long to answer you this time; I wanted to make sure I looked a little further into some of the things you said. First, in your first paragraph above it sounds like you are quoting from the website and not your personal experience. Which is it?

    Second, I’ve scoured Ultimate ME2’s website looking for actual information on how this “magic formula” works. From what I can gather, it claims the formula is made up of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Great! No problem with that. Where the problem enters in is in the claims made as to what their product does. First, they claim that it makes the fuel particles smaller. That’s just bullshit. If you understand basic chemistry you know that is bullshit because the energy in fuel is stored in the bonds between the atoms. To make a molecule smaller, you break the bonds. Breaking the bonds releases the energy. Burning fuel is breaking the bonds. If Ultimate ME2 made the particles smaller, it would actually waste some of the energy stored in fuel. So, that claim is bullshit.

    In your post you claim that the product is clear as water (so what?) and is made up of liquid carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. There is, of course, a serious misunderstanding of chemistry implied in that statement as well. If you mean to imply that Ultimate ME2 is made up of pure carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen in their liquid forms, you are patently wrong. Pure carbon, at room temperature, is a solid (graphite pencils, diamonds, etc. – all pure carbon). And both oxygen and hydrogen at room temperature are gases. So, maybe it is carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, but not in their pure form (otherwise you’d have a bottle filled with black powder and gases).

    Additionally, Ultimate ME2 claims they have some Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act approval. I can’t even find a Section 511 of that act. Frankly, I think they are making this up. I did find where they got their data on the emissions of a car (here: . But another of their claims doesn’t seem accurate. They claim cars produce 56% of the total toxins that enter the atmosphere (which is so vague that they can probably get away with this), but according to this site automobiles only produce 40% of the total greenhouse gas pollution (at least in the state of California). In short, until they can provide me a link with their alleged 511 report “proving” Ultimate ME2 reduces emissions on the epa.gov website, I won’t believe this claim.

    As for the videos, those aren’t evidence. I watched all of their videos. They are using fears of global warming to prey on innocent people with their main video. And the video of the truck in the Philippines could be doctored so easily that there is no way to know if it is really doing anything. Who knows how that shot was filmed?

    In short, Kevin, you may be getting positive results with Ultimate ME2. Without actually observing you, I can’t disprove you. But the claims they make as to how the product works and that it has been “proven” to reduce emissions is, at this point at least, completely unsubstantiated. Show me the evidence!

    As for your last question, I drive a 1998 Honda Civic HX. And, yes, my driving is mostly in the city. When I bought it, it was one of the most fuel efficient cars on the market (44mpg highway, 36mpg city). It’s been a great car.

    Best,

    Ryan

  12. Yes, the 13% and 16% numbers were from the web site. The 23% number is my actual experience based upon my last fill up and calculation.

    I am not a chemist, I just know that the product has worked for me and the growing number of customers.

    I mearly mentioned the “clear as water” as it is not the “gas pill” or powder that had a brief popularity last year. I’m not in the business of clogging fuel pumps and filters.

    I will see if I can obtain the evidence you are looking for and get back to you.

  13. Hi – I bought two bottles of me2, and I gave one to my
    contractor friend, who drives a Dodge Ram diesel pickup.
    He tried the stuff both ways on a trip to Cameron Park, Ca
    where he is building a house. The truck is one year old, and
    has a device which continually calculates actual miilage. In the
    process of doing the test he used about 3 oz of me2, one/each
    15 gallons of fuel. He gets 12.8 mpg normally. Although he
    added me2 for the entire trip, some 400 miles, the digital
    readout continually remained at 12.8. Personally I found this
    to be very discouraging.

    Initially very enthusiastic, I am at present pretty weary of
    the whole business – at this point the chance of this stuff
    actually working looks pretty dim…I used it on a 2500 mile
    trip to Albuquerque and back, but I couldn’t get a clear result.

    I did find that I was getting 4 miles less to the gallon when I
    filled up out in the middle of the desert at one of those “high
    price in the middle of nowhere stations (Chevron)”. The possibility of funny business there interupted my testing process.

    Reading thru the responses, I realized something about the 30 day guarantee: To get an accurate reading you would pretty much need to travel the same route and buy gas at the same station, doing maybe 5 tanks with and 5 tanks without…a process I am somewhat glumly pursuing. It’s pretty clear to me
    that it’s impossible to do that in 30 days…

    I must say, when I saw the clear bottle, I thought of the old
    time “elixir” salesmen you sometimes see in the movies.

    I used a funnel and a turkey baster with ml and oz fraction
    gradations, to put in the exact amt/15 gallons, because the stuff is so expensive.. Here are my readings for the trip:

    I started at 28.1 mpg., with no additive, doing a check on a 59 mile run. Then, wth fill-ups varying from 4 to 12 gallons: 31.6, 28.6, 33.4, 32.95, 29.34, 38.11, 28.2, 28.05, 24, and 27.6.
    -As you can see, there is more of a puzzle here than anything else. There are two threads I am pursuing: one is that, for some reason I get better mileage when I fill up at the half tank mark, the other is that I need to buy my gas only at Costco, where I can be sure there is nothing funny going on with the readouts….Then of course, driving around town or especially driving around the ranch, has a major effect on the mileage…It occurs to me that I may never get a clear answer. My plan is to just continue adding the stuff until I run out, keep a record, and then see how things look on a similar batch of no additive stats…it’s going to take months to do this.

    What convinced me this product was ok, were the recorded phone calls. What was strange was the man who was initiating
    the calls’ rather odd way of talking..I wondered if he was possibly on some kind of medication. What was really off the chart was the strange way they were selling the product…-If I find any substantial results one way or the other that I have confidence in, I’ll post. Cheers, L

  14. Hi Lambert,

    Thanks for the post. It sounds like you have a good mix of open-mindedness and skepticism. This is exactly the approach people should take when trying out a new product – test it, see if it works, then report the results. The only real problem I see with this approach is that the makers of ME2 will basically want everyone to try it for themselves instead of trusting the findings of others who have realized it doesn’t work. But, since I don’t have anyone else reporting their findings consistently, you can be the starting case.

    Based on what you’ve found so far, it looks to me like you are seeing no real difference from the product and the variations could very well be chance/random fluctuations. If you can put your findings into a spreadsheet and send them to me once you’ve done a number of tests without the ME2 I’d gladly run some statistical analyses on them to see if there is a real difference (and it is not just due to chance). All I really need is three columns: miles per gallon; date; and whether it included the ME2 or not. With those three things, I think we could make a pretty good argument for whether or not this stuff actually works. If you wouldn’t mind doing that, I would be very appreciative.

    Best,

    Ryan

    P.S. I’ve run into that same problem with the “middle of nowhere” stations. I got gas in North Dakota once that nearly killed my car.

  15. Hi Ryan2. Right, it should be approximately 2 months. Look for
    a post around the 12th of August. Cheers, L

  16. Just like to start by saying to Lambert. I also had the same problem. When I researched this I was told that you should reset your computer every time you fuel up. Once I did this my MGP went from 17.8 to 23.4 and has pretty much stayed there. That’s after 2 months and 2 bottles of the ME2 product.

    Now for Ryan. I agree with you that a larger group needs to be used to fully get an idea if this product really works and how well. So, how can you tell people not to use it? What’s with your statement about “one of those MLM schemes”? I peronally have done really well in the home based business…MLM. I also know many people that have done as well or better then me. The only thing I would say is that you need to really look into the company. There are some bad ones out there. You should research…similiar to what you have done. But to just say all MLM are schemes is a little close minded.

    I look forward to seeing what others have to say.

    Good luck with everything.

  17. After posting the last message I did more research….like Ryan and I suggest. I found some figures that might interest you Ryan. Let me know what you think…please?

    WHOLESALE BOTTLE COST
    $36.95 (plus shipping, handling and tax
    based on 7%)
    14 oz. = $3.10 per oz.
    $3.10 per oz. = 15 gallon treatment
    15 gallons = 20.7 cents per gallon to treat
    gas = 13% increase
    fuel at $3.00 per gallon…
    $3.00 x 13% = 39 cents savings
    diesel = 16 % increase…
    $3.00 x 16% = 48 cents savings

    Doesn’t this show you that even though it will be costing you more then the gas price to use the product but your saving is greater then the added expense?? It costs you 20.7 cents more but saves you 39 cents. That equals a 18.3 cents per gallon savings….if my math is correct. Yes, maybe in your calculations it doesn’t work that way because you use 2.85/gallon instead of 3.00/gallon. Where I live the price of gas is actually closer to 4.00/gallon. That means I have a bigger savings then the above illustration.

    If they wanted to go sell it retail….you would have to pay substantially more then what they are asking for now. Do you really understand how retail works and how a MLM works?

    You also suggest buying the least expensive gas you can find. That’s great, are you a mechanic? Did you know that if you don’t use what the manual of your vehicle recommends you could possible damage parts of your engine?

    I can see you are an educated person and do your research into topics. However, it also appears that you ….what’s that saying……”know a little about a lot”. Just as this site you created is only your opinions….these are only my opinions.

  18. Hi Ron,

    Personally, I’m not a fan of MLMs. That is my opinion. I’m sure some people do really well with them – that is, after all, the idea – to make money off other people. And some people do that really well. I have found, however, in my experience with MLMs, that they generally sell products that are either: (1) over-priced, or (2) not good enough quality to sell in stores. You’re probably right that not all MLMs are bad, but I have yet to find one that is good in the sense that it sells a good product and treats the employees well.

    As for your calculations, I reworked them to make them more accurate. Here’s what I found:

    $36.95 + 7% ($2.58) = $39.53 per 14 oz. bottle
    14 oz. = $2.82 per oz.
    $2.82 per oz. = 15 gallon treatment
    15 gallons = 18.8 cents per gallon to treat

    Now, using the numbers from your previous post, here’s what you’d actually be able to claim. First, the numbers from your first post indicate you actually saw a 31% increase in fuel efficiency (the difference between 17.8 and 23.4 is 31% of 17.8). I don’t really believe you saw those results, but I’m not going to call you a liar. Instead, how about trying this: Do two fill ups without ME2 and record your MPG. Then do two with it and record your MPG, repeat. Then repost the numbers and we’ll see how you really do.

    As for your calculations, what you really need to calculate to get a good comparison measure is the cents per mile. Here are the numbers:

    17.8 mpg = each gallon costs $3.00 without additive (267 miles per fill up); without additive, that’s 16.85 cents per mile ($50.55 for 300 miles)

    23.4 mpg = each gallon costs $3.188 with additive (351 miles per fill up); with additive, that’s 13.62 cents per mile ($40.86 for 300 miles)

    20.114 would be the mpg at a 13% increase in fuel efficiency (301.71 miles per fill up); at a 13% increase in efficiency, it would cost 15.84 cents per mile (47.52 for 300 miles)

    The verdict. If you really saw a 31% increase in fuel efficiency, you would be save a substantial amount of money using Ultimate ME2. At 13%, there is a slight savings, but not nearly what it is at 31% (less than half). But I don’t believe you are seeing those numbers. Do as I suggested and alternate using it with fill ups – do 2 with and 2 without and record the mpg. Then see what you get. Natural variation due to random variables (e.g., payload in your vehicle, weather, driving conditions, traffic, etc.) are going to make the mpg fluctuate. If you don’t take that into consideration, your numbers aren’t going to be valid.

    As for whether or not I understand retail, of course I do. Retailers mark up a product to make themselves money. Wholesalers do the same thing, they just don’t mark it up as high because they tend to sell in bulk or sale to retailers (e.g., MLMs). Also, keep in mind that the line between the two is shrinking – Sam’s Club calls itself a wholesaler, but is technically both a wholesaler and a retailer. Either way, big deal… I still don’t think ME2 is worth $40 per 14 oz. container.

    As per buying the least expensive gas, you are assuming I meant buying the least expensive gas regardless of the octane rating for your vehicle. That’s not what I meant. Obviously it is not a good idea to use gas that has a lower octane rating than is recommended for your vehicle. But it is typically just luxury vehicles that require a higher octane rating. Most vehicles on the road today in the U.S. are fine with the lowest octane rating (usually an 87), which means you can buy the cheapest gas and it absolutely is not a problem for your engine. Those who buy luxury cars can afford to pay the premium for premium gasoline.

    There is one other issue, however, that you have not addressed: the company that produces this product has not given a convincing explanation for how the product works. I’ve pored over the website and have had several people comment here trying to explain it. Truth be told, none of the explanations given have made any sense at all. Granted, I don’t have to know the details of how every product I use works. But this is quite different when you are comparing a TV to a fuel additive. With a TV, I turn it on and it works. It does what it claims to do – allow me to watch TV. A fuel additive is more akin to an herbal supplement – how do I know it is working? I don’t, unless I experience ill effects. Otherwise, any “effects” from the supplement could very well be due to the placebo effect – a psychological effect that leads one to believe that it is working when in fact it may not do anything at all. The same is true of ME2 – there is no scientific explanation for how it works, and people are keen to find any positive fluctuation in mpg as evidence of it working. But when mpg go down, they dismiss that contradictory evidence, which is why I want you to try alternating fill ups with ME2 and without. You’ll get natural fluctuations, and if you get into a pattern of using it then not, this should balance out the random fluctuations. (This is also why I don’t use herbal supplements – there is no science behind them explaining their effects; ergo, waste of time and money.)

    Finally, there is no reason to insult me. Yes, I have an education. I believe education is a good thing. Why are you trying to attack that? I’m trying to help people. I am thoroughly unconvinced by the claims of ME2 for 2 reasons: (1) there is no scientifically valid explanation for how it works; (2) I have not seen anyone do a scientific analysis of the miles per gallon claims of the company. This seems like an absolute scam to me – you are paying $40 to $45 per bottle of some mystery fluid that claims to work miracles. Sounds an awful lot like snake oil to me… If someone would buy me a bottle, I’d happily try it out myself, but I can’t bring myself to pay that much for something that does not explain how it works.

  19. Hi Jack,

    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.

  20. Ultimate ME2 is registered as a fuel additive with the EPA (see this website). However, all that means is that burning Ultimate ME2 does not release anything toxic in the air (at least, nothing more toxic than the gasoline it is replacing). That does not mean that the fuel additive actually improves fuel economy. (See here for the registration guidelines)

    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

  21. Hi Jack,

    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:

  22. Kevin,

    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.

  23. Hi, especially ryan2,

    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

  24. Hi Lambert,

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

    Best,

    Ryan

  25. Not Good News

    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.

  26. Omission correction

    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.

  27. Hm, I can’t get these paragraphs to post. I’ll trying typing them in word for word:

    (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)

  28. Hi Lambert,

    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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *