| than most with your "dyno runs" but the simple truth is I have never read about any such dyno testing reported here, on any product, fuel, software or hardware, that could produce valid conclusions. For your sample size to achieve sufficient power (shooting from the hip, I did not do the power calculations) you would need somewhere in the neighborhood of a minimum of 20 plus cars doing a series of at least 5-6 runs on each fuel being tested under identical conditions. Ideally that would be under controlled conditions, indoors. Also, in a perfect world (last time I checked we have not achieved purrfekshun yet) you would design a study like this with identical cars, set up identically, and not different cars. No one said this was easy. Finally, and probably most importantly, the series of dyno runs should be double-blinded and randomized such that the people putting the fuel in the cars and the people doing the dyno runs do not know which specific fuel is being used. Otherwise, bias is always inherent and most of the time these "tests" become a series of self-fulfilling expectations. This bias effect cannot be underestimated. So while I applaud your efforts, your conclusions are still about the same as mine on fuel additives in general, which is why I said, and I am quoting myself from my first post, "I can't say how that translates into an overall benefit or improvement." Knowing what we don't know is usually harder than knowing what we do know in cases like these. I am not singling you out but making the point that most dyno reports, including in the so called car magazines and especially when used as advertising for hawking a new product, do not prove a thing. On a street level, your info would be entertaining. If you tried to publish your findings it in a reputable, peer reviewed, scientific journal, which I am not saying was anyone's goal but in fact should be the standard, you efforts and data would not make it past the first paragraph of review. The reason I know this is that I used to be that guy, for multiple scientific and medical journals who decided (not alone, there was usually a panel of five guys, majority vote) which articles got published and which did not. Side note, even the studies that made it past this peer review process and got published, the majority of them were bullshit. Basically, over time, I have come to the conclusion that everything I know is wrong, jaja. If I were going to shoot from the hip again based on your additional info, I would say try adding some Chevron Techron in the bottle to your Shell 93, jajajaja. We have some Shell "nitro" 94 octane here with ethanol that my Z seems to tolerate fairly well. I personally do not use Chevron fuel but I like the Techron stuff in the bottle. Finally, your comment about my idle was specious and a hasty generalization, but thanks for the input. Ostee Out, Keep On Keepin' On,"Stanky." You may certainly have the last word on this topic if you wish. I am done. Please take note of the Einstein quote in my signature which I believe to be the true obstacle when trying to prove things "scientifically."
 "Straight-line acceleration is probably the first aspect of
automotive performance that any intelligent driver gets bored with."
Peter Gregg "We owe a lot to the dragsters.
They always break something,
figure out a way to beef up the part
and then the benefit trickles
down."
Robo "Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that
counts can be counted."
Einstein
|
