A Look At the Platinum Gasaver

By Mark Roadarmel

 


I just love the internet. With a little time and ingenuity, a person can
discover so much. Part of the trick, of course, is evaluating the
reliability of the sources you find and then applying a little common sense.
As to the benefits alleged by the manufacturer of the Gasaver, here is what I
turned up.


First, the PVI Gasaver commercial website is long on advertisement but short
on facts that I could readily verify from any third party source. The site
does not post or refer you to the actual studies which it claims were
performed by a U.S. government agency. One quasi-technical evaluation (but
in fact a simple testimonial) mentioned was performed on a 1973 Chevy V-8. I
believe the technology has changed a bit since then and it seems to me that
one should be careful in interpolating what, if any, impact the Gasaver would
have on modern engines from this "test".

Second, in order to comply with fleet mileage requirements, car manufactuers
have gone to extreme steps to shave off just a few ounces of weight from
their vehicles in their efforts to improve fuel consumption. It seems safe
to assume that the manufacturers have employed a chemist or two from time to
time to look at improving the gasoline that goes into the engine. If an
additive exists that generates the increase in mileage that PVI claims for
the Gasaver, doesn’t it seem likely that the auto industry would have long
since implemented the technology (and made the discoverer of this elixir very
wealthy)?

Third, to my knowledge, the EPA is the agency responsible for evaluating
fuel-saving additives, not the various agencies referenced by PVI on its
website. Granted, some of the material referenced by PVI is 15-20 years old
so perhaps agency names and responsibilities have changed over time and I
didn’t check this out.

Fourth, the following excerpt is copied directly from an article put out by
the Federal Trade Commission in 1992 at this website:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/autos/gasave.htm
Note that a device
called the "Platinum Gasaver" is included in the list of tested devices
although I can’t confirm whether this is the same device now being sold by
PVI.

Article begins:

Fast Facts
After evaluating and testing more than 100 alleged gas-saving devices, the
EPA has found only a few that improve mileage and none that do so
significantly.

"Gas-Saving" Advertising Claims
No government agency endorses gas-saving products for cars. The most that can
be claimed in advertising is that the EPA has reached certain conclusions
about possible gas savings by testing the product or by evaluating the
manufacturer’s own test data. If the seller claims that its product has been
evaluated by the EPA, ask to see the test results. Or better yet, get a copy
from the EPA.

EPA Evaluation Efforts – Devices Tested by EPA
Vapor Bleed Devices. Similar to the Air Bleed devices, except that induced
air is bubbled through a container of water/anti-freeze mixture, which
usually is located in the engine compartment. (The EPA has evaluated: Frantz
Vapor Injection System; Turbo Vapor Injection System; SCATPAC Vacuum Vapor
Induction System: Econo-Mist Vacuum Vapor Injection System; Mark II Vapor
Injection System; Platinum Gasaver, V-70 Vapor Injector; Hydro-Vac:
POWERFUeL.)

Article ends.

The article indicates that none of the devices listed in the above paragraph
were found to improve gas mileage.

Fifth, the EPA apparently has evaluated the Gasaver on two occasions – once
in May 1981 and again in July 1991. The reports are not available anywhere
on line that I could find but they can be purchased from Northernlights.com
for a nominal amount if anyone is interested. (If anyone wants to know how
to get the articles, let me know.) However, common sense suggests that if
the results were favorable to the Gasaver, that PVI would have included the
reports rather prominently on their website.

Conclusion? I have found, purchased and used a number of products that I
would otherwise have never known about except for the internet. However, I
think I will pass on the Gasaver until more explicit and verifiable data is
provided.

Comments ()