To be fair, I never said I am cool with him coming up with his own charts. What I did do was share his claims with you.
I am not surprised that he came up with his own charts, however, since he is the person collecting the data and promoting his invention.
My issue comes when he uses it to ask for tax money. No way should anyone believe his charts.
Does the following excerpt from the article not address this concern? I'm not arguing with you, but on the surface (at least) this would appear to seem legit.
That is the thing, on the surface it seems like a good claim. Yet it looks like he plugged his car into a dyno and only ran it in a non transient fashion. I dealt with this in an earlier post, and I don't feel like going through it again. Yet it's not the proper way of reporting emissions, and I doubt he ran an actual EPA cycle. He hooked his car up to a "EPA dyno" and got a single reading. You need to actually run the cycle. In non transient situations, aka just running at a single speed, all vehicle pass emissions by a ton. Yet start up and changing of speeds, especially start up, is what really hurts vehicles for emissions.
This makes sense to me. I don't have any sort of problem with wanting him to submit his car/engine for an independent review. By now, at least, I would think that he should be able to build a second engine/car for an independent organization to test and verify.
"Equivalent mpg" is that where he puts the little "e" next to the "MPG"(MPGe)? I thought that might have been his way of saying MPG on ethanol.
It's one of his many tricks. MPGe is what the vehicle would get if he ran regular gasoline (why not just run regular gas? It's not likes it's hard to find). It's a conversion from ethanol since ethanol gets worse gas mileage than regular gas. Yet his other claims, like emissions, are used with ethanol (that can help with emissions). That way he ups his MPG claims while still making his emissions claims, which I have already stated are dubious.
