"Scientific Tests"

Donnie's PowerPlus MPG Fuel-Saving Test Vehicle

Copyright 2007 Donnie McKinney

Revised 8/28/07

I established my "scientific" test procedures because it is so difficult for anyone to know what fuel savings they are getting under "normal driving" conditions. Like most people, I didn't really know what my baseline mpg even was. For instance, when I saw 21.60 mpg with BioPerformance in 2005 I was ecstatic, because I "thought" my baseline for highway driving was about 17-18 mpg. That was obviously an incorrect assumption.

The data on this page reflects
the results for one car under specific conditions and at one speed. The results won't directly relate to "normal driving" conditions, even on my test car. The relative gas savings for different products, however, should be a clear indicator of the relative savings on gas you might experience in your own car.

You can use the gas savings calculator to see how much money you might save on gas, simply by plugging in your actual mpg, gas cost and mileage driven.
Savings Calculator

Test Summary
(scroll down for complete test data & description of test procedures)

Test #1
Test #2
Test #3
Avg. % incr.
20.60 mpg
21.60 mpg
21.20 mpg
New Baseline
20.51 mpg
PowerPlus MPG
24.98 mpg
25.38 mpg
24.50 mpg
Ultimate ME2
21.98 mpg
22.70 mpg
21.23 mpg
21.18 mpg
New Baseline
21.12 mpg

    * Using the lowest of all baseline mpg

New baselines were established in January & in March (prior to testing a new product), after burning several tanks of gas with no additive, because there is a possibility that winter gas, weather & other variables will influence gas mileage. Keep in mind that this car has already been "cleaned out" by 20,000 miles of driving with gas-saving additives. That means your own baseline prior to using any additive might be somewhat lower in respect to mine, and the increase in gas savings might be higher in your car. Besides, 79 mph isn't likely the best speed for saving gas. At any rate, the following results are pure product influence on saving gas under controlled conditions.

"Scientific tests" on PowerPlus MPG

It was so refreshing to see gas savings on the FIRST tank of gas. There was no waiting for 3-4 tankfuls to see results. There's no inconsistency. There is simply a straight-forward improvement in gas mileage and power. Save gas. That's what it's all about.

1/22/07, 6:10 pm, 34 degrees (no additive - to establish baseline)

103.4 miles / 5.046 gallons / 20.49 mpg

1/23/07, 9:33 am, 30 degrees (First time PowerPlus MPG was put in car)

103.4 miles / 4.139 gallons / 24.98 mpg

1/24/07, 11:35 am, 32 degrees
103.4 miles / 4.074 gallons / 25.38 mpg

1/25/07, 9:07 am, 30 degrees

103.8 miles* / 4.236 / 24.50 mpg

That's a straight-forward 4-5 mpg increase, or 21.65% increase, with no influence from "cleaning" the engine.

"Scientific tests" on Extreme ME2

Someone being recruited into EYI sent me some of its Extreme ME2 to see what kind of results I would get under my "controlled" conditions. (He subsequently joined PowerPlus MPG). Here are the results:

2/2/07, 4:47 pm, 28 degrees

103.4 miles / 4.704 gallons / 21.98 mpg

2/3/07, 3:00 pm, 32 degrees

103.4 miles / 4.554 gallons / 22.70 mpg

At a cost of $.20/gallon for the product, it appears that the 7.7% & 10.7% increases would result in a net loss using Extreme ME2. I don't know how shipping costs would affect the cost, but it takes sixteen (16) times as much ME2 as it does PowerPlus MPG to treat the same quantity of gas.

"Scientific Test" on FFI MPG-Caps

An FFI distributor sent me some MPG-CAPS to see how I liked them. Here are the results:

2/15/07, 1:47 pm, 26 degrees

103.8 miles* / 4.889 gallons / 21.23 mpg

2/15/07, 3:25 pm, 24 degrees

103.4 miles / 4.881 gallons / 21.18 mpg

My results of 3.29% & 3.5% increases in mpg don't show much improvement, even though the mpg were within a .02% deviation. FFI works differently from the other products and puts a coating on the combustion chamber components that promotes better burning of the fuel, so it's possible that mileage would improve with extended use. In order to give MPG-CAPS as valid a test as possible, without devoting my life to it, I drove the car 64 miles in three days after adding the product, and by the end of the test I had driven over 270 miles, without seeing a significant improvment in performance.

* .4 mileage difference, because I had to pull off enroute and recycle some coffee.

BioPerformance Notes:

After finally seeing the famed Wallace Environmental Testing Labs report on the FTP and FWHET tests on BioPerformance, it appears my results were pretty close.

BioPerformance only shows one vehicle on their website, a 1995 Ford Expedition. The calculations on the report appear to be in error, and no percentages are shown for the test after 200 miles, probably because the report shows a decrease in mpg and an increase in pollutants.

Although there was a decrease in mpg after 200 miles, tests show a 5.88% increase after 1,200 miles, on presumably the best vehicle tested since it's the only one shown. After 1,600 miles the increase was 8.24% (10.843% on the report, but it is apparently incorrect).


For those who like to know the details, the following are the specific procedures used in my "scientific" tests.

Test Car: 1996 Mustang GT Convertible, 4.6L V-8, 128,000 miles.

Test Course: The exact same route on a 52-mile stetch of interstate highway betwen Paducah KY & Nashville TN, between Exit 4 & Exit 56, was driven in each test at the same speed, controlled by cruise control with me just "guiding" the car, to eliminate human influence and other variables.

Test Procedures: Fill up at the gas pump #6 at the same Shell service station each time. Fill the tank to the brim by letting the nozzle cut off at least five times to insure consistency. Enter at Exit 4, set the cruise control on 79 mph, guide the car to Exit 56, turn around and guide it back. The only human influence was was steering the car & watching for State Troupers. I didn't check the air pressure or perform any other maintenance before or during the testing. This is the exact same test I used figure out how to use EcoEnergizer, when no one was getting results with it.

Test Speed:   Although 79 mph isn't the best gas-economy speed, I set the cruise on that speed because the Mustang is not a car I normally drive on trips, and 79 mph is the only speed at which I have documented data with three other additives. I drove it on a 389.4-mile round-trip to the St. Louis airport January 19-22, 2006, with the cruise set on 79 mph for the entire trip. The two fill-ups on that trip, using BioPerformance, showed the following results on two tanks of gas - 292 mi./14.16 gal./20.6 mpg & 97.4 mi./4.526 gal./21.6 mpg.

Interesting note: By chance, the Kentucky State Police picked this stretch of Interstate to set speed traps on two of the days I was doing my tests, driving up & down the highway at 79 mph. On one day, I counted nine State Trooper cars & one County Sheriff, two in motion and eight that had cars pulled over with lights flashing. That took a bit of the boredom out of two of my test runs on this course lol

This information is provided by an independent distributor, and PowerPlus MPG is not responsible for any of the content.