EPS fuel saver

[Putter]

You can go to www.ep-systems.co.uk

 

Not sure why this EPS unit in this web site is blue in colour. I saw it in Singapore is red in colour.

Edited September 6, 2005 by Superb

[Fluffy]

considering the flow rate of fuel and the power of the little magnet, not to mentione the lack of any substantial proof.......... sigh...... first it was SuperFuelMax, then Calski Ion Accelerator, then MagFuel, then RMI Fuel Magnet, then......... sigh.....

 

 

 

 

Super FuelMAX Marketers Settle FTC Charges

 

Fuel Savings, Environmental Claims Were Unsubstantiated; Testing Claims Were False

 

The marketers of the Super FuelMAX automotive fuel-line magnet, advertised as providing dramatic fuel-saving and emissions-reducing benefits, have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that their claims were unsubstantiated. The settlement would bar the Gadget Universe catalog and its CEO from misrepresenting the actual benefits or efficacy of any supposedly fuel-saving or emissions-reducing products for motor vehicles. It would also prohibit misrepresentations about testimonials, endorsements, tests, or research.

 

This case is the latest in a series of FTC law enforcement initiatives targeting unsubstantiated fuel economy and engine performance claims. The FTC previously halted allegedly deceptive advertising by the marketers of Dura Lube, Motor Up, Prolong, Valvoline, Slick 50, and STP engine treatments. Earlier this year, the agency sued Speedway Motorsports, Inc. and its Oil-Chem Research Corp. subsidiary to halt false and misleading advertising for zMax auto additives, including claims that zMax increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10 percent.

 

According to the FTC complaint, Esrim Ve Sheva Holding Corp., doing business as Gadget Universe, and its CEO, Alexander Elnekaveh, advertised and sold Super FuelMAX through catalog sales and on their Internet site. Advertising for the device claimed, "Here's one the big oil companies don't want you to know about," "SAVE UP TO 27% ON GAS," and "The Super FuelMAX . . . clamps onto my fuel line, and two powerful neodymium conductors use the scientific principal of magnetic resonance to give me better fuel burn. A certified EPA laboratory reports an amazing 27% in increased mileage and 42% reduction in harmful pollutants." Graphics in the ads showed unruly fuel molecules lining up in straight columns and

 

rows after passing through the Super FuelMAX. The FTC alleged that the ads misrepresented that Super FuelMAX:

 

causes fuel molecules to line up in straight columns and rows;

improves fuel burn through magnetic resonance;

reduces fuel consumption;

reduces fuel consumption by 27 percent or up to 27 percent;

reduces harmful emissions or pollutants; and

reduces harmful emissions or pollutants by 42 percent or up to 40 percent.

The FTC alleges that the respondents did not possess or rely on reasonable substantiation for the claims.

 

The complaint also alleges that the respondents falsely represented that tests performed at a certified EPA laboratory prove that Super FuelMAX:

 

increases mileage by 27 percent; and

reduces harmful pollutants by 42 percent.

Finally, the FTC charged that ads for Super FuelMAX featuring a testimonial from Alexander Elnekaveh endorsing the product did not reflect Elnekaveh's actual experience with the product or the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use the product. Therefore, the FTC complaint said, the representations concerning the testimonial were false or misleading.

 

The proposed settlement would bar the respondents from making unsubstantiated claims in connection with any fuel-saving or emission-reducing product for use in a motor vehicle. Specifically, the settlement bars unsubstantiated claims:

 

about the effect of such products on fuel molecules, or the products' ability to improve fuel burn;

that the product reduces fuel consumption or reduces fuel consumption by a specific amount;

that the product reduces emissions or pollutants or reduces them by a specific amount; and

about the benefits, performance or efficacy of such products.

The evidence required to substantiate such claims must be competent and reliable scientific evidence, when appropriate. The settlement would bar the respondents from misrepresenting that user testimonials or endorsements of the product reflect the actual and current opinions, findings, beliefs, or experiences of the user. It also bars representations that any user testimonial represents the typical or ordinary experience consumers can expect unless the respondents possess and rely on competent and reliable scientific substantiation. Without scientific substantiation for a typicality claim, the respondents must disclose what the generally expected results would be, or disclose that consumers should not expect similar results. The settlement also prohibits misrepresentations about the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test, study, or research. Finally, the settlement contains certain record-keeping provisions to allow the FTC to monitor respondents' compliance with its provisions..

 

The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement and place it on the public record was 5-0. A summary of the proposed consent agreement will be published in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until December 8, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20580.

[Bskumar]

Hi Superb,

 

Do you have a pict of eps installed in your fuel line?

 

[Putter]

Hi BSKUMAR,

I did not install EPS. 1 of the member did install it and found ~10% saving on his FC when he drove to Malaysia. He said his FC barely hit 450km for a tank in the past and now can hit 500km.

[Fluffy]

Dear BSKUMAR,

 

before you spend your hard earned $$ into this, perhaps you would like to read this thread

 

http://www.mycarforum.com/forum/Aftermarke..._Oils_P768210-6

[Kahlid]

Hi - I did have an unit installed, the savings is there but really insignificant.

[Bskumar]

I had installed a similar one in my previous car and did have a 1 - 2km improvement in singapore roads.

[Kanr]

So where di u get it and hws long u hv monitor till nw,cheers???

[Bskumar]

I have monitor for 54000km and about 1+year.

[Kanr]

Really amazing men!!!Please provide more details for our info,cheers!!

[Fortress]

Thanks...great info.....it sounds like the Skoda's club decal on the windscreen....it adds 5 HP onto my car(quote from an source, I cannot remember,......one of our club guys) ....

[Fluffy]

Hi - I did have an unit installed, the savings is there but really insignificant.

 

so did I, though not EPS, i had fuel max on a previous car.... then on my current one, i had 2 pcs of Fuel Energizer, and a complete Fuel Magetizer set- with fuel magnet, coolent magnet and air intake magnet.....and when i took all of them off, fuel consumption still the same.......

 

anyway, i realise when i want to monitor the FC, i also drive different...... cos pschologically, you don't wanna prove you just wasted $$ when you could have just properly inflated your tires to get the savings........

[Fluffy]

my SEAT club decal adds 5bhp too....... going to get some decals for the doors, such as Brembo, Apexi, etc.... each one i think adds 10bhp !! maybe paste the magnet on my doors, i get more power + better FC also......whoa !

[Fortress]

isn't that great...without spending money...

[Osiris]

Read the forums rules no advertising.