FFI (Cont'd.)

[wserra]

They are doing this. But I can´t say when its done, due to the fact that no one of the previous tests has come on the date they told it would be ready. But when it comes, I´ll let you know.

As my grandmother would have said, "Ay, sin vergüenza".

It was posted here on Quatloos that the Millbrook test would be complete in January 2007. The board died in February, so I can't link to it. But you yourself posted here that it would be ready in March of last year - almost a year ago. Your fellow FFI-er artessa posted here on March 18, 2007 - almost a year ago - that the Competition Bureau (Canada) was "about to carry out official testing". Similar story with TUV.

Results? Nothing.

Now, the Competition Bureau results would be public, so I assume that the reports of their impending testing were simply false. But Millbrook - well, suffice it to say that no business other than defense contractors can succeed when they deliver a year behind schedule. Only two conclusions possible: (1) you guys are, as usual, full of it; or (2) the testing was done, and you don't like the results.

Do you run into people who actually believe this nonsense? Can they walk and chew gum at the same time?

[artessa]

Having my own experiences as a background I make the conclusion that
FFi will not make public any possible test results done to the EPA specifications because it will probably not serve the former purpose focusing only on the fuel saving property of MPG.

I will explain my conclusion: I have by now offered the pill to hundreds of car owners and I have explained to them that before any possible product purchase it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the product actually works in THERE car(if the person do not insist otherwise). They have to follow my guidelines to this trial and if the result shows 5% saving or less I consider it worthless as the error margin will be in that range. During all these tests a certain pattern has become evident to me regarding different engine types, fuel and driving habits. Some of these parameters combined will actually show very small fuel saving thus not being suitable for the pill.
Tough still I have not had any experience with a car that has got an increased consumption (more than 5% increase) witch actually would be expected if there actually were NO effect of the pill.
I suppose that there are others than me that have came to this conclusion and to me it becomes logical that FFi have started to FOCUS MORE on the ecological aspects of the results from the pill because that is something that is common for all , non malfunctioning cars. All cars DO show a decrease in especially CO and NOx. So it looks to me that they are trying to present this aspect of the pill as a more attractive parameter than only the fuelsaving thing. It might just be another turnover to a more modern attitude; well I do not know it is just speculation from my side.

Why the pill has got such a big spread in result success is to me not fully understood and if Tony just for a moment just ASSUMED that the pill would work then maybe he could present a theory to this.

So, with this experience and a clear pattern to what cars are best suitable for the pill, how do you proceed?
I do not expect it possible to tell EPA to perform a test on a particular car because it has showed best results in our matter. They would probably pick a car among there preference witch would probably not be among the best suitable ones. So this leaves FFi more or less incapable of presenting an EPA test even tough it in theory would be possible. I do not doubt that it would be possible but as I have just stated, specific engines with specific fuel and driven under specific circumstances and of course that is not good for a official EPA approval.

[fuelsaving]

Well, artessa, I'm glad you adopt such a rigorous approach to marketing - many (most?) sellers of the pill promote it as working on every vehicle, including those powered by diesel or LPG, and insist that if you don't see a benefit, you are using it wrongly...

The EPA test actually requires three cars to be tested, not just one, and as I understand they can be chosen by FFI themselves as long as they are "representative of the US fleet", or words to that effect. So FFI would have to be extremely unlucky to get three cars which were all "unsuitable".

In terms of the "ecological" effect (CO, NOx, etc) you also need tests of the same rigour as the EPA economy test. The typical results quoted up to now - ie measured at idle as per the annual inspection test - are just far too variable, and subject to confounding factors, to prove anything.

[PonziKiller]

No one cares about the ADAC test, I guess Tony knows why.
To get a fair result the product should be used as the manufactorer says, 3 - 6 full tanks (1800 - 3600 kms).
The ADAC test was done over just 800 kms. Ie. the ADAC test is just b.s.

/TheBest

ADAC is an reputable organisation. They have a "bad" habbit to crack down falsery. That's the reason why most people in europe trust them. Ask who trust FFI. And why...

[PonziKiller]

Do you run into people who actually believe this nonsense? Can they walk and chew gum at the same time?

You are way too polite Wserra.

[artessa]

One thing is for sure; the best combination of car, engine, and fuel type is certainly not representative for the US fleet. Therefore it is much more likely that any “approved” test must come from other countries apart from the USA and to find a “reputable” one that has got the approval of American authorities is highly unlikely.

If Tony could have the possibility to watch the video available on the ffi homepage where Jerry Lang talks to an audience for 30 minutes it could really become interesting to analyze some of his statement.

If you do please let me know.

[TheBest]

No one cares about the ADAC test, I guess Tony knows why.
To get a fair result the product should be used as the manufactorer says, 3 - 6 full tanks (1800 - 3600 kms).
The ADAC test was done over just 800 kms. Ie. the ADAC test is just b.s.

/TheBest

ADAC is an reputable organisation. They have a "bad" habbit to crack down falsery. That's the reason why most people in europe trust them. Ask who trust FFI. And why...

How can ADAC be a "reputable" org., and not follow the manufacturers guidelines when testing a product?

/TheBest

[fuelsaving]

One thing is for sure; the best combination of car, engine, and fuel type is certainly not representative for the US fleet. Therefore it is much more likely that any “approved” test must come from other countries apart from the USA and to find a “reputable” one that has got the approval of American authorities is highly unlikely.

Well, that's an interesting admission. FFI is fundamentally a US company, and so far as I know there are more reps in the US than any other country. Yet according to an FFI supporter, the product is unsuited to the vehicles and fuels most commonly found in the US!

If Tony could have the possibility to watch the video available on the ffi homepage where Jerry Lang talks to an audience for 30 minutes it could really become interesting to analyze some of his statement.

I already have - much of the critique on my web page ( http://www.fuelsaving.info/ffi.htm ) is based on this.

[artessa]

Well Tony, I do not think you have seen this video to witch I refer to when I ask you if you had seen it. This conclusion I make because you don’t analyze at all some of the content that to me was new and worth a deeper analyze to completely understand it.

To be able to se this video you must have access to a distributor FFi page.

Please tell me when you have seen it so that I can pinpoint a couple of interesting statements.

When I referred to that the BEST car, engine and fuel combination is not a very common American combination I did not intend to say that it does not work with the average American car it is just so outstanding much better results. I’m sorry if I got someone to understand that I intended to say that it is “unsuitable”. So If I would have to make a choice for car to be tested I’ll pick this type.

THOSE results would be very attractive but then on the other hand it would not serve the purpose because normal people would become disappointed when not obtaining these results themselves.

Even if you discard the effects of pollutant reduction witch are pretty much proven, there will still be a benefit from engine conserving properties. Claiming that the use of the product should be unsuitable only based on assumptions without having any what so ever own experience is a very high stake gambling from your side Tony. I would in your situation adapt a little bit more humble attitude, just in case I was to be proven wrong. But of course, the odds that your cards won’t hold are pretty low so I suppose you may permit yourself on an “all in” on this hand.

[fuelsaving]

Well Tony, I do not think you have seen this video to witch I refer to when I ask you if you had seen it. This conclusion I make because you don’t analyze at all some of the content that to me was new and worth a deeper analyze to completely understand it. To be able to see this video you must have access to a distributor FFi page.

I did see something on YouTube that I thought was the video in question. Can you send me a link (by PM if preferred)?

When I referred to that the BEST car, engine and fuel combination is not a very common American combination I did not intend to say that it does not work with the average American car it is just so outstanding much better results. I’m sorry if I got someone to understand that I intended to say that it is “unsuitable”.

You actually said "it is much more likely that any “approved” test must come from other countries apart from the USA and to find a “reputable” one that has got the approval of American authorities is highly unlikely." (my emphasis). Hard to interpret that as anything other than: results for typical Americal cars will probably be so poor that the test will be classed as a "fail".

For me, personally, results on European cars would be fine, as long as all the other requirements of the EPA guidelines were met (A-B-A, repeat tests, three fairly new vehicles, etc).

Even if you discard the effects of pollutant reduction witch are pretty much proven, there will still be a benefit from engine conserving properties.

Is the proof for this any better than the "proof" of economy improvement?

Claiming that the use of the product should be unsuitable only based on assumptions without having any what so ever own experience is a very high stake gambling from your side Tony. I would in your situation adapt a little bit more humble attitude, just in case I was to be proven wrong. But of course, the odds that your cards won’t hold are pretty low so I suppose you may permit yourself on an “all in” on this hand.

If sufficiently good proof appears, I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong. But based on previous experience, I don't see that happening any time soon.

[artessa]

Sorry, it is impossible to view the mentioned video if you are not loged in to a representative´s web page.
But most sertanly you must know some one that is into FFi ,or?

[wserra]

All the elements of melodrama here, folks. Will Jerry answer Tony? What will he say?

Let's split off the last few posts into a new thread, so we have the room to find out.