Gas Pods Tank #1 results

[Jus-A-CMax]

Oooops I guess I can't tell what I finished with today....man, I was hoping to make it interactive. Have some fun. Guess thats not going down well here in this thread.....oh well....adios then :flyaway:

[Adair]

Awwwww come on!!! What about the rest of us who want to know? I, for one, enjoy reading the updates!

[Jus-A-CMax]

I'll PM yer. See my update on the private thread. Gotta go to work.

[fbov]

Oooops I guess I can't tell what I finished with today....man, I was hoping to make it interactive.

It's human nature to remember what you want to remember. If you make it interactive, folks will remember the journey, but they may miss your message, the conclusions you reach at the end. That's part of the fun, but...

 

You're testing something that some consider snake oil. It's possible your test results will create a lot of "discussion." If you let things out in real time, those results, however varaible or pathalogical, will be used with the same veracity as your documented conclusions. "Anything you say may be used against you" applies, and I'd hate to see you embroiled in a true controversy because you tried to evaluate a product fairly and honestly, and happened to get results that someone disagrees with strongly.

 

Your call... just pointing out that a body of data can be defended far easier than a body of opinion. Scientists do it all the time in peer review journals.

 

Have fun,

Frank

[susanne]

I vote for keeping the discussion going, and let us enjoy the journey with Jus-A-Cmax, catsailor, mtb9153, ptjones, and any more of our GasPods Test Team client members that choose to post. Nothing said here is going to overcome the naysayers who have called GasPods "snake oil." Their motivation is not proof or truth or fact. I've monitored those posts and not one was made by anyone who has direct experience with GasPods. And, I personally find the stream of consciousness reports interesting and enlightening.  

[Adair]

I vote for keeping the discussion going, and let us enjoy the journey with Jus-A-Cmax, catsailor, mtb9153, ptjones, and any more of our GasPods Test Team client members that choose to post. Nothing said here is going to overcome the naysayers who have called GasPods "snake oil." Their motivation is not proof or truth or fact. I've monitored those posts and not one was made by anyone who has direct experience with GasPods. And, I personally find the stream of consciousness reports interesting and enlightening.  

 

I agree susanne. I'm entertaining the idea of trying the gaspods myself, and any information I can get from others on the forum will help me make that decision. We are entering the cold months here in Michigan and I don't relish the idea of giving up my high mileage tanks.....even for a few months!

 

And thanks for commenting on this thread!

[ScubaDadMiami]

I am going to put off any decision about this until the 2014 model arrives.  I'll see what Ford has done, and then I'll see if the Gas Pods will fit the bill.  If not, I'll see about some other aftermarket kit to up the FE.

[CMax-Traveler]

Ok, I decided to jump in and try out the Gas Pods since I'm going to start doing a lot more highway driving, and my highway mileage is not what i'd like it to be.  I figure there can't be a placebo effect for me, since any placebo effect would already be in effect because of just having a C-Max in the first place and already trying to maximize MPGs.  So far, I have results from two real-life tests:

 

First, right after getting them, I did a 21.5-mile round-trip 65mph highway test using the Eco Cruise, once without, and once with the Gas Pods.  Same day so same conditions, and I started the first test after the full warm up.

Without: 43.5mpg / With: 44.8mpg

So there was an improvement, but not a massive improvement.

 

Then, two weekends in a row, I took the same 250mi round-trip from Boston to NH.  The first was before I had the gas pods, the second was with them installed.  Both were on a fresh tank of gas.  Highway speeds ranged between 65 and 72, and while I don't usually use the cruise on long trips, I also don't have the patience to P&G.

Without: 41.6mpg / With: 44.7mpg

The only differences between the two trips were: I had the headlights on the entire first trip, but the exterior temperature was around 60 on the second trip vs 65 on the first (we used no climate controls on either trip).

 

Based on my experience so far, it seems like there may be an improvement, maybe somewhere around 5%, but it's difficult to tell.  But if the trend holds, it would take about 10,000 highway miles to recoup the investment.

 

I can't tell if there's any difference in my city driving -- I haven't done enough of it lately, and my mileage has suffered a bit due to colder temps.

[fbov]

... Nothing said here is going to overcome the naysayers who have called GasPods "snake oil." Their motivation is not proof or truth or fact. ...

The first thing a snake oil salesman does is attack the naysayers... and it's not an attack on a result or a test procedure, mind you, but on the person themself. If the data is unassailable, attack the reputation, or in this case, motivation.

 

...And, I personally find the stream of consciousness reports interesting and enlightening.

The next is to encourage bad data, "qualitative reports" which have no scientific value, over actual quantitative, repeatable, valid data, that may prove or disprove a product's benefits.

 

I'm trying not to point fingers at people but rather at behaviors that scream "I've got something to hide!" These behaviors are fairly generic; a great example of the first is the NFL's response to the early data on brain injuries in football players. Of course, no one here is talking life or death, or billions of dollars, but human nature remains consistent...

 

It's the difference between science and most other human endeavors, science can only be done in the open. Granted, proprietary research will not be generally published, and may not even be patented (e.g. Kodak's color film technology), but it's developed in an environment where all results are repeatable by others skilled in the art. If you lie, or even release erroneous results, it can end careers.  Remember cold fusion?

 

That said, science also requires an open mind, an ability to admit possibilities that we can't personally fathom, while retaining a healthy skepticism about what's actually true. I have yet to express any opinion regarding the performance of Gas Pods, and should I form one, it would disqualify me as a test subject. I can understand the naysayer argument, but I also know aerodynamics is a very complex subject where simplistic views are frequenctly false. An even stronger affect is "confirmation bias." We humans favor the results we expect; anyone who's purchased something has a strong positive bias toward their purchase... Think how you feel when you buy a new car.

 

The bottom line is that science requires courage;  y'all up to it?

 

HAve fun,

Frank, who will now leave this thread alone, to evolve as it's respondents see fit.

 

PS  Traveler, what's your baseline data tell you about MPG variability? The first step in any experiement is understanding the experimental equipment, it's responses and it's error characterisics (error in the sense of noise as opposed to incorrect action). I didn't say it was easy...

Edited October 17, 2013 by fbov

[susanne]

..

 

fbov - The fun of posting a stream of consciousness and gathering a body of field data are not mutually exclusive. In fact, encouraging test team members to communicate enhances transparency.

 

And, it was the procedure of the naysayers I criticized. They have no information or experience. 

[Jus-A-CMax]

CMax-Traveller - I am seeing same thing. Stellar but not galactic. I have been averaged, surprised and stellar-ed. One definite myth I think is busted is that the back end does still continue to "suck" dirt. I have mine setup 1" from the rear. Susanne, can you comment on the positioning as I have no feedback from ptjones, Mike or  catsailor on the optimal placement of these Pods and does 1/2" (say I move it) make a diff?

Edited October 18, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[fotomoto]

Personally, it would have to be more than a 10% increase to overcome the, ahem, "unusual" looks they add and I'm being polite.  If they work, that level of improvement is probably possible on vehicles where styling trumps aerodynamics.  For those that don't know, even the cover under the CMax's engine bay, the one that needs to be removed for an oil change, has a NACA duct built in.   Yes, this car has THAT level of attention to detail given to aerodynamics.   

[catsailor]

Tough crowd we have here, I paid a big premium to buy a C Max over a 38/40 MPG car, figured I needed to drive 100,000 miles to break even at $4/gallon gas. I also installed solar panels on my home with the knowledge that it would take 6-7 years to return the payback on my investment after all the rebates were applied. The point is not every decision I make is about a 1-2 month payback and I like to think I take a LONG view on what investments I make.

Gas Pods fall into that category. If they help improve my mileage (which I believe they will and have done) then I am happy with my purchase. PTJones was hyping gill covers and I was a skeptic until Ford validated his theories, he was onto something. Ford will be changing the rear spoiler on the 2014 C Max, tells me they know something could be made better. Do Gas Pods make this better? Soon enough I will find out, I know that I have been heavy afoot lately since I have been late for my appointments so driving faster but still posting +46 mpg's. I am very optimistic and don't think the Pods are a placebo at all.

[Jus-A-CMax]

Personally, it would have to be more than a 10% increase to overcome the, ahem, "unusual" looks they add and I'm being polite.  If they work, that level of improvement is probably possible on vehicles where styling trumps aerodynamics.  For those that don't know, even the cover under the CMax's engine bay, the one that needs to be removed for an oil change, has a NACA duct built in.   Yes, this car has THAT level of attention to detail given to aerodynamics.   

 

foto...they don't look that bad. I was admiring them as I was walking back to Maxine tonight after the gym. I have the black ones, they fit the trim. Ok, what is this NACA...please explain...not all of us are engineers here.

 

 

@catsailor.  Any chance for photos, how far back are your Pods? Yep, its a tough crowd but I think Frank was jus telling us to be cautious...none of us, at least not me, are scientists and I don't he or anyone wants this thread to turn into the other Gas Pods threads on the other websites. Neither Adair nor I will tolerate any crap like what was thrown around there. At the end of the day, its whether you think and prove to yourself it will work or not.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[fotomoto]

foto...they don't look that bad. I was admiring them as I was walking back to Maxine tonight after the gym. I have the black ones, they fit the trim. Ok, what is this NACA...please explain...not all of us are engineers here.

 

 

It's been around for quite some time and once you see the description you'll say "oh yeah, I've seen those."   Ford's most famous examples have been on mustangs.  I even had them on one of my Honda motorcycle fairings.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_duct

[catsailor]

mine are an inch back of the spoiler end as you know the spoiler has a curve to its so the pods lie just before the bend of the curve. Will try and post later today. Catsailor the eternal optimist, engineer and physicist too :)

[C-MaxSea]

Frank is right.  rigorous testing procedures, controlled environment, baseline data variability, confirmation bias, minimum sample size .................................. it's all real; and it is beyond our resources to measure anything less than say 10,9,8,7,6,5 % differences on our car's performance.

 

Nevertheless, and most importantly, to quote our friend "Have fun" - Go for it, it might be worth a shot!

 

Let's see, where did I leave my dyno/windtunnel, it was here somewhere yesterday, I'd swear?

 

Perhaps someone can hook up with a shop and do some 'blind testing'.  Have the shop install and remove the pods about 20 times, and run your test loops without knowing what is on top.  Or, find a driver without bias, and have them ecocruise ten loops, with & without  ................. we need better baselines, and larger sample sizes at a bare minimum................ Just my wacky thoughts.

 

I think they probably work, but will I ever know for sure? This car, this specific mod, almost certainly not.  So, give me some more of that wacky, best effort, data so I can make my own less wacky guess about pods .  (Wish I lived next to Matt, and could have him make me some Lexan wheel covers too - seriously!)

 

Not even worth two cents,

 

Nick

Edited October 18, 2013 by C-MaxSea

[susanne]

Frank is right.  rigorous testing procedures, controlled environment, baseline data variability, confirmation bias, minimum sample size .................................. it's all real; and it is beyond our resources to measure anything les than say 5 % on our car's performance.

 

Nevertheless, and most importantly, to quote our friend "Have fun" - Go for it, it might be worth a shot!

 

Let's see, where did I leave my dyno/windtunnel, it was here somewhere yesterday, I'd swear?

 

Perhaps someone can hook up with a shop and do some 'blind' testing.  Have the shop install and remove the pods about 20 times, and run your test loops without knowing what is on top.  Or, find a driver without bias, and have them ecocruise ten loops, with & without  ................. we need better baselines, and larger sample sizes at a bare minimum................ Just wacky thoughts.

 

I think they probably work, but will I ever know for sure? This car, this specific mod, almost certainly not.  So, give me some more of that wacky data so I can make my own wacky wild-as__ guess.  (Wish I lived next to Matt, and could have him make me some Lexan wheel covers too - seriously!)

 

Not even worth two cents,

 

Nick

 

Frank and Nick - I do appreciate your position, as well as your understanding that my reason for supporting the stream of consciousness is that there is nothing wrong... indeed, put one hand on your head and state the following: "If it isn't fun, don't do it. If you have to do it, make it fun." Now turn around 3 times and..... There is nothing wrong with having fun along the way.

 

Like all other test team members, with whose data everyone commenting here will be cumulated and tallied, they already have a good long term baseline mileage for their cars. They will continue to log with their GasPods installed for a long enough period of driving to overcome the placebo effect.

 

We'll have both impressions and raw data to look at, but with the CMAX its going to take some time, since CMAX drivers participating already get such phenomenal mileage!

.

Edited October 18, 2013 by susanne

[C-MaxSea]

Sorry you missed my point Susanne - ""Have fun" - Go for it, it might be worth a shot!"  I'm not dousing the fire of test & report, I'm pouring fuel on it. Just continue to be careful all about our assertions, and pay serious attention to wind, weather, SOC, bias, ..................

 

I have not followed this closely, but I have not seen any testing based baseline data.  Sorry, but a sample of one (42.6 vs 43.9 (whatever it was)), is statistically meaningless, albeit fun and reportable.

 

Always having fun,

 

Nick

Edited October 18, 2013 by C-MaxSea

[Phil1336]

Its the same kind of silliness that concerns some Folks that the minimal battery drain that (DRL`s) Daytime Running Lights (might) have on their Fuel Economy.  "If" it caused a reduction from say, 43.9 to 42.6 mpg and it resulted in having on oncoming Vehicle seeing you better in certain conditions, it would`nt be worth the fractional difference?

[C-MaxSea]

..... I'd suggest using the magnetic ones to perform some highway tests (round trips at 65, 70, and 75) with and without the pods on the same day; a day that doesn't see a huge variation in temps.   Also, make sure the car is completely warm (20 miles) beforehand.  Even better, use a passenger to install the pods and not tell the driver thus eliminating that variable.  

 

Ditto above, & neutralize the SOC, EV mode................ somehow, rinse & repeat...............................with & with-out runs as immediate & controlled as possible - nothing new here.

 

I believe it is: 'Weak test', large sample; 'Strong test', smaller sample.  (I suspect we are in the 'weak test' category)

 

Sorry, never mind, I just remembered that this is a '1st tank' thread, my apologies to the OP.  Hopefully another thread will come for more methodical 'test' based results.  Nick

Edited October 18, 2013 by C-MaxSea

[fbov]

Good points, Sea... lots of "weak test/large sample" in my plans. I've no good place for the a strong test!

 

I've documented my planned (and weak) experiments here. You'll note that GasPods are on the list, just lower than some other stuff. For environmental reasons, most everything will have to wait until Spring... Rochester winters are not for this type of testing!

 

Just for grins, let me show you what happens when you present results prematurely.

 

This is my baseline data for the 35-45 speed limit route, with the first few points after PCM update. The baseline data shows the expected MPG-temperature relationship others have reported. The post-update data (in blue) is nearly opposite, calling for increased MPG as the temperatures drop. What gives?

 

Those who read this forum extensively, and/or have the update, know that part of the update is a reset of the many adaptive systems in the drivetrain, such as EV+. Several folks have reported improved mileage after a few days of driving with the update. It leads me to expect a 2-variable effect, both time and temperature affecting mileage for a while.

 

And that's what you actually see in my data, a time effect that happened to correlate with temperature, and so the test yeilds a contrary result... if one were to stop here. That's what happens with informal reports - there's more going on than the reporter is aware - so an honest observer has to discount all such data as potentially flawed.

 

HAve fun,

Frank, who would like to find a really long piece of asphault with a hill at one end... just like Soapbox Derby!

[Jus-A-CMax]

♫ ♫ Whistle..♪.♫..Whistle..♪. ♫..whistle..♪..♫

Edited October 23, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[C-MaxSea]

♫ ♫ Whistle..♪.♫..Whistle..♪. ♫..whistle..♪..♫

 

Excellent !!!  Great to hear!

[ptjones]

I still think the GasPods are worth around 1mpg or so as well as wheel covers that I'm currently testing.  I'm currently averaging 52MPG with mostly HWY (45-80mph).

Trying to keep as simple and easy to install, I machined a cap to go behind the wheel and glued it in place with silicon rubber. I used 3/16" Lexan and machined a nylon spacer to go between the cover and the cap. I used 1/4"x20 screw and washer to secure it. Added plastic 1/4"x20 screw near the outside of cover to keep the cover from spinning when applying the brakes.

Paul

Edited October 23, 2013 by ptjones