Mistakes in the Mythbusters' episode on fuel economy devices
Filed under: Emerging Technologies, Hydrogen, Vegetable Oil, AutoblogGreen Exclusive
Mythbusters, a popular TV show on the Discovery Channel, tried to bust the myth that there are devices out there that can dramatically improve your fuel economy. I think Mythbusters made a lot of mistakes in the episode with claims about hydrogen, used vegetable oil and EPA testing. I also think they did bad experiments and should have done more research.
Lets start with hydrogen: As you can see in the above video, after making a car turn over by hosing hydrogen into the carburetor, Adam proclaims "I guess you could, if you had a lot of hydrogen, run your engine completely without any other modification." The experiment they did is interesting but there is no reason to make the claim that a car can run unmodified on hydrogen. Who would consider the installation of a hydrogen fuel tank on a car un-modified anyway? They could have mentioned hydrogen combustion engines and fact that there is serious research on using hydrogen in gas cars.
Now, about the used vegetable oil. Adam got used vegetable oil from a restaurant, filtered it and ran a diesel car on it. They claim just 10 percent less fuel economy and Adam said "we did not make any modifications to this car. That means anybody who had a diesel car could just pure this stuff into the gas tank and it would run fine." Again, like the hydrogen experiment, interesting but it's not that simple. You can use vegetable oil in a diesel engine and it does work but there is a small industry of people that do conversions to diesel engines to make sure there are no long term damage to your car when running on VegOil. Why not mention them? Also, mileage really depends on the type of oil you use but I doubt a 10 percent reduction in fuel economy is accurate for everyone.
Go below the fold for more mistakes.
[Source: MythBusters]
EPA testing. Adam and Jamie said the EPA tested over 100 devices and at best they only showed 6 percent improvement in fuel economy. I did a quick web search, found an EPA page with testing data of devices that promise to improve fuel economy and the first one I looked at "ACDS Automotive Cylinder Deactivation System (2)" said it showed fuel economy improvements of up to 20 percent. Why was this device not mentioned on Mythbusters? I am not defending these devices - most of them are crap - but why didn't the Mythbusters at least start with the ones that showed an improvement from the EPA testing?
Testing. If they did real tests instead of picking devices with crazy promises they would have found most don't work but some do improve fuel efficiency by small amounts even if they don't make sense economically or are not worth the hassle. The Mythbusters tested acetone added to gas, for example, and found no improvement but there are fuel additives that improve fuel economy because they are basically fuel, just not good ones. The myths you hear about these devices are not unfounded because the devices basically work and I really don't think it would have been that hard for Adam and Jamie to find one that worked. Maybe they thought busting the myth on the economics of using these technologies or retrofitting older cars with modern technology would have been boring?
The Mythbusters claims also went too far. The myth included the claim that the automakers and oil companies worked together to keep these devices from the market. They really did not get into this but the auto makers and oil companies did work together to kill the street car, for example, many years ago. There are serious claims brought up in the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" that would make anyone wonder why GM took the EV1 off the market. I don't think there is a conspiracy between oil and car companies because I don't they they need to work together; they have common interests. The car companies have reasons to keep electric cars off the market, for example, other than helping the oil companies keep the price of gas up. The lucrative repair market for gas cars compared to electric cars is a good reason for the automakers not to make electric cars.
Besides their claims, their methods were also very questionable as well. Before making the claim that you can run your engine on hydrogen un-modified, the Mythbusters did not completely drain the engine of gasoline and got a false result with a hydrogen hydrolysis device. They did nothing to make sure this did not happen again or find a way to measure the amount of gas in the engine. After trying to hose hydrogen into the carburetor again, there is a small, accidental explosion. Someone is going to get seriously hurt on this show because they do not consider safety much. The point of the show almost seems to be, "Hey, let's do unsafe stuff."
I understand the show is just entertainment and not scientific research but there is an aura of science and they need to stop making grandiose claims and do some research. I give them credit for considering the myth but they got the myth of the fuel efficiency devices so wrong ... which only confirms the myth they Mythbusters were paid off by the oil companies. Just kidding :D I think their most major mistake is taht they did experiments and presented information that supported their ideas before they started the experiments. That's not science. In fact, that's the opposite of science.
Paris Preview: Honda Insight concept to be new global hybrid
BREAKING: Is this the production Chevy Volt in Transformers 2?
Spy Shot: Production interior of Chevy Volt (maybe)
Pics aplenty: 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid
Paris Preview: Chevy Cruze official pics released
Honda to debut Prius-fighter concept this Thursday
New Ford EcoBoost 3.5L V6 engine smiles for the camera
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-07-2007 @ 8:49PM
GreyFlcn said...
I look at it this way.
Discovery ran a "Future Cars" episode where it claimed an Air Car could achieve perpetual motion...
PopScience is often wrong.
Reply
12-07-2007 @ 10:03PM
Leszek Pawlowicz said...
Regarding the ACDS device, a quick review of the EPA report indicates:
1. It increased the carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide emissions so that the device was in violation of the Clean Air Act, and that any mechanic who installed the device would be breaking the law;
2. The cars had poor driveability, poor acceleration, and degraded braking capabilities.
3. Ut's a hydraulically-activated device from 1981, and is thus incompatible with modern electronically-controlled engines.
So it breaks the law, offers only marginal improvements, degrades the car's performance, and can't be installed on modern cars. I think those are pretty good reasons for ignoring this device.
Reply
12-07-2007 @ 10:16PM
RhapsodyInGlue said...
This may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If you had read the report on ACDS you would have found that it increases CO and Nox to the point that it was deemed illegal tampering. Further, as might be expected in that situation, it would appear that this product is no longer for sale. Perhaps the Mythbusters actually did research and concluded that of legal devices that are actually sold the best results were only a 6% improvement.
In fact, at http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/gasoline_saving.html you can find a summary (and list) of the devices evaluated by the EPA. To summarize their conclusions, there are three categories of devices...
1) Those that don't increase MPG.
2) Those which show an MPG improvement but increase emissions to the point it's illegal tampering.
3) Those that show a small increase in MPG but may or may not be enough to pay for themselves.
There were precisely 6 products in the last category. These included 3 that reduced power to specific auto accessories such as the air conditioner. Two that were "driving habit modifiers" such as sending a shock through your right leg when you press it down too hard (ok, I made that part up). Lastly, one aftermarket spoiler that undoubtedly was for some specific make of car that had poor aerodynamics.
Reply
12-08-2007 @ 12:47AM
Ernie said...
Oh my god.
You obviously haven't actually watched this episode on TV. It's no wonder people are going around debunking Mythbusters' shows left and right. People think that the videos posted to YouTube are the entire story.
NO!
About 30 seconds, maybe a *minute* after this segment, they tried running the car longer. And guess what happened?
If you're actually familiar with the problems of running hydrogen in a plain-old gasoline engine, you already know the answer. The engine started to pre-ignite. In other words, it was backfiring right through the carburetor, because hydrogen burns at a lower temperature than gasoline, and as a result the improperly-timed engine would experience ignition well before the compression stroke was done. The experiment naturally came to an end, and Jamie said with much chagrin "Well, I guess that doesn't work".
But hey, if you can *shorten* the video by a few seconds and post it to YouTube, you can prove that hydrogen can run a standard gas engine without modification, and then put on your tinfoil hat, because it's conspiracy theory time! Because this is a *great* way to wind up the net kooks!
Reply
12-08-2007 @ 7:22AM
Lascelles Linton said...
For everyone that mentioned the EPA device sucks; yes, it pollutes and has major problems BUT it's EPA tested and showed an improvement larger than 6 percent in MPG. MythBuster did not say EPA tests that passed emissions laws, etc. They said: EPA tested. That's all and that's basically my point. I mentioned the cost of retrofitting old cars should have been talked about but I did not mention devices that fail emissions tests. That's a type of device that improves fuel efficiency so these devices are not a myth. It should have been talked about. Isn't that what the show is about? Anyway, I think they saw it but did not mention it because it not support their thesis. The truth is that's how many of these devices get their reputation. Tell people MythBusters! You might say, I think it's fair to not mention illegal things because it's obvious the person cannot use it long term. Well, they could have mentioned you can fail emissions with waste vegetable oil. Also, they owe the government some tax on that waste oil because they used it as a fuel. So, technically, they told people to commit a crime at the end of the show. They need to re-visit this myth!
Reply
12-08-2007 @ 11:56AM
Leszek Pawlowicz said...
Yes, you're right, of course - in a twenty-minute segment (after commercials), Mythbusters should have mentioned a 25-year old device that was illegal, and is no longer available, because it increased fuel efficiency by 3 to 20%.
If fuel economy were the only factor, you could increase it in all cars today by re-programming the car's computer to make the combustion chamber run a little hotter. But manufacturers can't do that because it would increase the NOx emissions to illegal levels.
Notice also that only *five* fuel-saving devices have been tested in the past 10 years, one of which was submitted by the FTC for testing instead of the manufacturer. Only one of those (PetroMoly) had a statistically significant effect on fuel economy, and even that was only 3%. And that's compared to standard motor oil; compared to modern synthetics, that difference would likely disappear, since modern fuel-conserving oils improve fuel economy by at least 2.7% relative to standard motor oils.
You've twisted yourself into knots to try and "prove" that your original argument was right. You would have improved your credibility a lot more if you had just said, "Yeah, I got that one wrong - sorry".
Reply
12-08-2007 @ 2:57PM
Lascelles Linton said...
Leszek Pawlowicz,
"Yes, you're right, of course - in a twenty-minute segment (after
commercials), Mythbusters should have mentioned a 25-year old device
that was illegal, and is no longer available, because it increased
fuel efficiency by 3 to 20%."
So Mythbusters have never looked at a 26 year old myth? I don't see your point.
"If fuel economy were the only factor, you could increase it in all
cars today by re-programming the car's computer to make the
combustion chamber run a little hotter. But manufacturers can't do
that because it would increase the NOx emissions to illegal levels."
...and that's one of the reasons the myth of fuel economy saving devices have basis in popular culture and is not a myth. Isn't that the point of the show?
"Notice also that only *five* fuel-saving devices have been tested in the past 10 years, one of which was submitted by the FTC for testing instead of the manufacturer."
Mythbusters have done shows about myths from bow and arrows to guns where I see them consider the material for the time. Why is it suddenly wrong to do it for cars?
" that difference would likely disappear, since
modern fuel-conserving oils improve fuel economy by at least 2.7%
relative to standard motor oils.
You've twisted yourself into knots to try and "prove" that your
original argument was right. You would have improved your credibility
a lot more if you had just said, "Yeah, I got that one wrong - sorry"."
You admit a fuel saving device existed and in the the next sentence say I am wrong to say Mythbusters was wrong not to mention even it when they probably saw it? Again, I don't think "it was a long ago" or "didn't have enough time to get to it" are good reasons.
The simple fact is, as I said, there are and were devices that improve fuel economy significantly. They don't make sense to use for a variety of reasons, most importantly cost. Mythbusters had to have known this and decided to pretend like the modern car was the perfectly engineering for high MPG and they could not improve it one bit. I am sorry but that's wrong.
If they had a list of known working devices, they should have started with that. Simply testing a hand full of device with OUTRAGEOUS claims does not prove anything. In fact, the best way to end a show after testing devices that actually work and see if they could pay themselves back, would have been to look at 100 MPG cars from industry and a variety of groups.
These cars exist, the technology exist, they just cost too much to make. The car companies don't kill people, they buy battery companies. So the myth is basically true, the car companies does have a 100 MPG car BUT they won't sell it because it's either 2 feet across or it costs $100,000.
I don't understand why they could not have mentioned this. IT IS THE BASIS FOR THE MYTH. They avoided the cars, technologies, groups, etc. I am not avoiding or twisting anything. They did! They should re-visit the myth.
Reply
12-08-2007 @ 3:07PM
RhapsodyInGlue said...
The reason that I jumped on the efficiency device issue is because the notion that there are some simple ways to significantly increase MPG is being unfair to the auto companies. Blaming them for being a financial mess is fine, blaming them for being too slow in getting quality up to Japanese levels is fine, blaming them for lobbying against tougher environmental laws is fine... but the notion that for some unspecified reason they are not utilizing available, affordable technology to reduce fuel consumption is wrong. Even the current rather weak CAFE standards give car companies a big incentive to tweak every last bit of MPG they can in each car. For every MPG they shave somewhere, that allows them to sell an ever bigger more monstrous (and more profitable) SUV to someone.
So common sense would tell one, as well as results of the EPA testing, that in general fuel efficiency enhancing devices are either going to be technologies that are too expensive to be cost effective or do something like regulate the top speed or decrease acceleration. The latter could indeed dramatically increase fuel efficiency, but no one would buy them because no one would pay for a high performance car only to hobble it.
It's not impossible that some really smart person might come up with a simple after market device that betters what the car companies thought of... it's just highly unlikely, and if it's been done they haven't sent it in for testing for some strange reason and haven't done a good job of marketing it.
As for Mythbusters. I believe they are professional special effects guys from Hollywood. The purpose of the show is to entertain and give a venue for them to show off their skills of safely doing things that are exciting and look dangerous. I really doubt they created the show to be on a crusade for truth and justice. They simply like tinkering, building and blowing up stuff. If AutoblogGreen wants a serious journalistic investigation of fuel efficiency devices, it might just have to get serious about investigating it.
Reply
12-10-2007 @ 8:32AM
Phred said...
Your out-of context examples and mostly erroneous conclusions aside, can you please run your writing by an editor before posting? At the very least, try spell-checking it.
Reply
12-10-2007 @ 6:08PM
Josh_Ryan said...
This was a horribly edited article that was also very unprofessional. Did you ever take journalism in school?
The reason they might not have mentioned the device that increased fuel mileage by up to 20% might have been that it is ILLEGAL to sell and/or use. Why would they mention something like that? They mentioned the legitimate devices and that's all they needed to do.
The show is for entertainment... None of the presenters are actual scientists and none of their work is supposed to be taken seriously.
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 1:34AM
Some Guy said...
The funny thing here is the skeptics are over simplifying there own efforts in proving this post wrong. Sure the person who posted only showed a few seconds of the MythBusters episode. Did the vehicle start and run on Hydrogen? Yes. Not well but it did start and run. Now just how much more time and effort did you nay sayers put into your research? He said she said is all I'm reading. Probable not much more than the segment shown. I know many individuals running modern hydrogen producing units that have both increase mpg and cleaned up the emissions while increasing the performance of the motor. Running a ratio of 80 to 85% Hydrogen to gas/diesel mixture in a vehicle is how it is done. The fossil fuel maintains the temperature during combustion and allows the Hydrogen to stay in a gas state before leaving the exhaust. I laugh at those skeptics who honestly and truthfully believe that the vehicles are preforming at the best of there capability.
Keep paying more than you should to power your vehicles. I'm 100% sure the Oil companies will appreciate it, after all they are the ones who want you to stay hooked! So does it pay to be a skeptic?
Reply
4-29-2008 @ 4:37PM
Ryan said...
1. This was an episode to improve fuel economy on cars, not exclusive products for different model cars. This covers you believing they should have covered electric engines, hydrogen engines, air powered cars, hell anything that isnt a standard petrol engine.
2. They were making a JOKE about how gas companies were working together with carmakers. It is making fun of practically the people who where tin foil hats. Also I know that my gas engine, where I can maintain it myself, I would have to replace the all the batteries in an electric car after a certain amount of time, which is extremely expensive
3. ACDS was an exclusive feature on cars, several years back. To disable cylinders properly, you must have a proper crankshaft and many other parts. Pretty much it would be wise to just by a new engine for that. It was used for trucks, so that you would have a 4,6, or 8 cylinder engine when you chose.
4. Yes it was innacurate for them to have gas in the engine, but do realize they showed it to use, where as they could have easily not have. They also tested the hydrogen tank after it was not running from trying the electric powered hydrogen producing device. This should mean there was no gas in, and the fact the gas caught on fire means there was likely a back fire. This also means that it is not sure the effects of hydrogen on a car, just the fact the car can substain a controlled ignition with hydrogen. Veg Oil also could be run, and anyone that needs to save that much money on gas would not care that much about damage to the car as I'm sure they would save the money in gas easily to buy one of equal, crappy value.
Finally, just so you understand this, they were testing A. Devices that could be added to engines, B. Devices within the price range of someone who cares about gas prices, and C. Were not interested in promoting all the other(many) alternative engines, systems, or anything of that nature since it was not a device that could be added on to that car you have.
Reply
8-17-2008 @ 1:09AM
RC said...
"If they did real tests instead of picking devices with crazy promises"
It's called Mythbusters. What do you want them to do? Test whether proper tire pressure affects fuel mileage? The point is to test myths and urban legends.
"there is a small industry of people that do conversions to diesel engines to make sure there are no long term damage to your car when running on VegOil. Why not mention them?"
As for the bit on vegetable oil, Mythbusters was the first I heard of using waste oil to run a diesel. I personally decided not to use it in my truck, knowing that you can't just strain out starch, salt and cleaners, but I have since begun home brewing biodiesel (a fuel the quality of which can be verified before use). I never would have gone online to check it out had it not been for them. Thanks Adam and Jamie for cutting my fuel bill by 900 dollars a month!
Reply