Not all it was cracked up to be (Ecotek CB-26P)

Name: fuelsaving

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Ecotek CB-26P
Date:	25/08/05 (940 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Can make car "feel" quicker

Disadvantages: Makes a funny noise; might adversely affect engine or brakes if fitted wrongly

The Ecotek CB-26P is a car add-on with an interesting (if chequered) history.

The device connects to the engine inlet manifold where it allows extra air in under certain conditions. When it first appeared on the market in 1999, the makers claimed that the "swirl" and "turbulence" this produced would greatly improve the efficiency of the burn, giving around 15% fuel economy improvement on most cars (as well as improvements in performance and emissions). They seemed to have some pretty impressive test data (from the DTI's own Warren Spring laboratory) and magazine reviews to back this up.

Many car experts (such as myself) were sceptical right from the beginning. We said that the claims of swirl and turbulence didn't make sense, and that the only effect of the device was to weaken the air/fuel mixture (less fuel per amount of air). The sceptics admitted that this could perhaps help the economy of an old carburettor vehicle, but said it would do nothing on a car with lambda control (anything sold after 1992 in Europe).

The sceptics also pointed out that the Warren Spring tests were carried out on an extremely old car with a carburettor (as well as having other flaws), and that testimonials from magazines and satisfied customers counted for little since fuel economy is incredibly sensitive to driving style, traffic, type of journey, weather, etc - so any changes seen could be due to any of these other factors rather than the device itself.

The arguments rumbled on until 2004, when the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that Ecotek had failed to prove their product worked and so they could no longer advertise it as a fuel economy improving device. Stung by this criticism, Ecotek arranged a series of carefully controlled scientific tests using modern vehicles.

To the total lack of surprise of the sceptics, these tests definitively proved that the CB-26P does NOT significantly improve the economy of modern cars. The average benefit was around 1%, which would be totally unnoticeable in normal use and means the device would take typically 5+ years to pay for itself. Even Ecotek themselves stopped claiming large economy benefits when faced with these results.

So it's useless then? Well, not quite. By allowing extra air into the engine, it can alter the driving "feel" - the way the engine responds when the accelerator pedal is pressed or released. Some people prefer this altered "feel", even if the change to actual objective (measured) performance is very small. Having said that, many people find they can't tell any difference at all in "feel", or indeed actively dislike the change it makes.

Downsides? It can make a noise "like a duck farting", especially if used without the optional filter, and if not carefully "tuned" can cause engine running problems due to excess air entering the engine. Also, it is often fitted into the brake servo vacuum hose, so be VERY careful when fitting it if you want your brakes to keep working properly! Owners of newer vehicles should note that if your car is still under warranty and you have cut a hose to fit the device, you will probably need to buy a replacement hose from the dealer if you decide to remove it later.

So if you want to give it a go, by all means try it out - but be VERY careful when fitting and tuning it. If you like how your car drives with it on, then keep it, otherwise send it back under the 30-day guarantee.

Don't be fooled, though - any fuel economy change you might experience is almost certainly just coincidence rather than any effect of the device. If you read reviews and comments on the device written before 2005 - for example here on dooyoo - you will probably see comments about better fuel economy, but the scientific evidence against it is pretty conclusive.

Background info:

Advertising Standards Authority ruling: http://tinyurl.com/alfk8

My detailed technical analysis: http://www.fuelsaving.info/ecotek.htm

Ecotek's own website: http://www.ecotekplc.com/cb-26p.htm

------------- ------------------------------------------

Footno te - 21.11.05 - response to "techmech"

"techmech" has chosen to attack me and my review through dooyoo, without even bothering to contact me first to discuss it. So I will answer his comments here.

techmech is right that I have an engineering degree from one of the world's most renowed universities, but utterly incorrect that I have even been, or wanted to be, or tried to be, a motoring journalist. Rather, I have worked for around 15 years in all aspects of engine design and development, for many of the biggest names in the industry (BMW, Ford, Audi, Rover,...) To suggest I am "no more than a chip mapper" is not only completely false, it also shows a total lack of appreciation of the astonishing complexity of "mapping" a modern car.

The reason I criticise devices like the CB-26P is set out on www.fuelsaving.info/morals.htm - basically, I don't like to see people mistakenly spend their money on products that make false advertising claims.

Why don't I test it myself? Because there would be NO POINT - it is completely impossible for any normal individual to assess whether a car fuel "saving" device really does save fuel or not, since fuel consumption naturally varies so much from day to day (weather, traffic, driving style, type of journey, etc, etc). I have a regular commute and always try and keep the same driving style, but I still get at least 10% variation in MPG each time I fill up. Any measurements I could make on the CB-26P would be completely meaningless due to this "random noise".

Crucially, exactly the same applies to measurements made by "techmech" and others, and ALSO MOTORING JOURNALISTS. The Advertising Standards Authority carefully considered testimonials from "satisfied customers" like techmech, and also the "pages and pages of motoring magazine reviews", in their investigation in 2004. The ASA's conclusion was that NONE of this counted as solid evidence, which is why Ecotek were (and still are) effectively banned from making these claims in their adverts. (The Sunday Times, which techmech mentions, was specifically slated by the ASA for making false claims about the CB-26P.)

Rather, the ASA (and I) say that any company selling a "fuel saving device" must have proper scientific evidence to back it up. The Prodrive tests techmech refers to PROVED conclusively that the fuel economy benefit was just ONE PER CENT - so small that it would be completely unnoticeable, and that the device would almost certainly never pay for itself. Reports of much bigger gains are either random coincidence, or the "placebo effect" (changed driving style). That's not "theory and conjecture", that's absolutely solid scientific evidence. (If anyone is guilty of "theory and conjecture" then it's Ecotek, with their completely unsubstantiated claims of swirl and turbulence...)

So I'm not in the least bit "miffed". Ecotek used to claim their device gave a 15% fuel economy benefit, I said it couldn't, they did the scientific tests, I was proved to be right, and now they don't make these claims any more. Job done. But there are still a few people who either have not heard of this recent test data, or don't understand this significance, which is why I wrote this review.

In terms of emissions, what you measure on the MoT test is a very crude measure that completely ignores one of the three main toxic pollutants. So the ASA says that, to claim "reduced emissions", you need to show it under scientific test conditions - and once again, the Prodrive tests on the Ecotek CB-26P demonstrated only small improvements, with some emissions actually increasing when the device was fitted.

What about performance? Certainly there can be an effect on performance "feel"; I've never disputed that, and for some people this is worth the purchase price. But the change in absolute, objectively measured performance is very small - about 3%, according to the Milbrook tests, which again would be imperceptible to most drivers.

"techmech" also claims I can't figure out how it works. Not so; the change in performance feel is fully explained on my website ( www.fuelsaving.info/ecotek.htm ), and indeed Ecotek even used this explanation themselves in their own marketing material. The changes in economy, emissions and objective performance are so small that test-to-test variation can explain these quite easily. There's no need for an explanation of how it gives miraculously improved fuel economy, because it doesn't!

"It seems a shame that someone can anonymously post a series of damning reviews on this site with impunity" - hardly, given that my contact details are clearly given on my website, and anyone who objects to my comments can easily contact me to point out errors or request changes. Indeed, Ecotek themselves have contacted me frequently, and I have been happy to make some changes to the wording in the interests of fairness. I can't think of a single example of a substantive factual change made as a result of pressure they put on me, though, since in every case my arguments have proven to be correct.

It would be nice if "techmech" were as willing for his OWN contact details to be given here, but perhaps he prefers to make libellous allegations ("failed motoring journalist") anonymously.

There are certainly plenty of people who do like the CB-26P - particularly the "younger sports oriented motorists" referred to by one reviewer here. If Ecotek have found a market among people who value it for its sound, look and performance "feel" then good luck to them; I am simply very satisfied that it is no longer sold as a miracle economy improving device.

Finally, it's worth noting that this device has received about two reviews a year on dooyoo, then it suddently gets three very positive reviews in the space of two days, including at least one from somebody who makes money by selling and fitting it. A conspiracy theorist would wonder if this is a deliberate campaign by a group of people (or even the same person with three aliases!) to promote the device.

Anyone with questions or queries about this review is welcome to visit my site, www.fuelsaving.info , for a fuller explanation and details of how to contact me.

Summary: May make your car feel quicker, but that's about all

Processing/Quality:
Reliability:
Features:
Spaciousness: