Jollymark Neutral Newbie July 23, 2009 Share July 23, 2009 I was reading up on this topic a little and pondering over whether to give this Nanoball a try or not.. And I have decided to just give it a shot. I'm currently driving a Grand Vitara which is quite a guzzler.. And my eyes are constantly glued to the Fuel Economy calculator on my meters.. Which can be quite a hazardous habit while driving. So I went down to Silent at Commonwealth to install a pack of these Nanoballs today.. Seems like it does give a small bit of extra surge in power.. May be psychological.. Will be monitoring my 1st full tank of petrol with the Nanoballs installed in my tank. Was getting 8.4km/l from my previous tank. Hopefully this Nanoball works and I guess the money I paid will give me a peace of mind from now on. I'll try to post the Fuel Economy I get from my current tank of petrol (with the Nanoballs) to share with you guys here.. Fingers crossed. ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yc86 Clutched July 24, 2009 Share July 24, 2009 Ak7887 - erm.. it seems your average FC has dropped to about 8.5km/l? which is one down. Maybe coz the balls are taking up space in the fuel tank, but the car's computer thinks it's full tank? so we pump lesser but the car's computer shows better FC and longer range. haha.. =X Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amortifiedpenguin Clutched July 24, 2009 Share July 24, 2009 Ak7887 - erm.. it seems your average FC has dropped to about 8.5km/l? which is one down. Maybe coz the balls are taking up space in the fuel tank, but the car's computer thinks it's full tank? so we pump lesser but the car's computer shows better FC and longer range. haha.. =X some big balls you must have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollymark Neutral Newbie July 28, 2009 Share July 28, 2009 (edited) The FC I got for my 1st tank of petrol with the Nanoballs is 8.9km/l .. Got about an extra 30km out of it.. Engine definitely seems smoother.. Let's see if these Nanoballs can bring about better results with my 2nd tank.. Edited July 28, 2009 by Jollymark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermitage 1st Gear July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 Hey fellas! Many thanks for the reviews and updates especially to bro Ak7887 in the Touran! A colleague of mine is thinnking of installing the Broquet version of these nanoballs, any comments?? What's the difference between Broquet (in-tank unit) & Nanoball, are they essentially the same things? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_b20 6th Gear July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 I was reading up on this topic a little and pondering over whether to give this Nanoball a try or not.. And I have decided to just give it a shot. I'm currently driving a Grand Vitara which is quite a guzzler.. And my eyes are constantly glued to the Fuel Economy calculator on my meters.. Which can be quite a hazardous habit while driving. So I went down to Silent at Commonwealth to install a pack of these Nanoballs today.. Seems like it does give a small bit of extra surge in power.. May be psychological.. Will be monitoring my 1st full tank of petrol with the Nanoballs installed in my tank. Was getting 8.4km/l from my previous tank. Hopefully this Nanoball works and I guess the money I paid will give me a peace of mind from now on. I'll try to post the Fuel Economy I get from my current tank of petrol (with the Nanoballs) to share with you guys here.. Fingers crossed. another 2 posts newbie coming in trying to promote snake oil ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_b20 6th Gear July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 The FC I got for my 1st tank of petrol with the Nanoballs is 8.9km/l .. Got about an extra 30km out of it.. Engine definitely seems smoother.. Let's see if these Nanoballs can bring about better results with my 2nd tank.. your next post by 2nd tank u will get another 30km more by the 10th tank u will have gotten a 300km more mileage with those balls ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amortifiedpenguin Clutched July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 Hey fellas! Many thanks for the reviews and updates especially to bro Ak7887 in the Touran! A colleague of mine is thinnking of installing the Broquet version of these nanoballs, any comments?? What's the difference between Broquet (in-tank unit) & Nanoball, are they essentially the same things? sup bro, for broquet i suggest you get the fuel-line unit. heard that its more effective. friend driving a heavily modded CS3(M) is getting 13-14km/L compared to others with the same mods 11-12km/L. I think it works but i'm a little hesitant to get it because of the price. $400 for the small version $700 for the bigger one. like wtf. my friend got his because it came with his car when he bought the car from a secondhand dealer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amortifiedpenguin Clutched July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 another 2 posts newbie coming in trying to promote snake oil ? no lah, his name not mr lim. so far this thread still quite ok. except our poor VW bro is getting weird results. i wonder what's he been up to lately, maybe go genting again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermitage 1st Gear July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 sup bro, for broquet i suggest you get the fuel-line unit. heard that its more effective. friend driving a heavily modded CS3(M) is getting 13-14km/L compared to others with the same mods 11-12km/L. I think it works but i'm a little hesitant to get it because of the price. $400 for the small version $700 for the bigger one. like wtf. my friend got his because it came with his car when he bought the car from a secondhand dealer. Hey bro, same 'ol same 'ol lah, and you? Guess those fuel-line units are expensive for a reason. There's one for sale on this forum (Top Fueller 60 - the BIG fat one) going 2nd hand (used for 15k mileage or so he claims) at $500, quite good value if he hasn't already sold it. Perhaps you can consider ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris 1st Gear July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 Here's my take on any FC mod. Assumption Mod done immediately after new car collection 20K km travelled annually. 1666.7km/month, mod cost $400 Fuel Price $1.65/L, stock FC 10km/l, ceteris paribus 166.67L needed per month or $275 for fuel "Savings" If the mod can really yield 5% improvement to 10.5km/l 158.73L needed or $261.90 A savings of $13.10. ROI needed is 30.55 months (let's just round to 30) Reality If you change car in another 6 months after ROI, you saved a total of $78.57 after recovering the $400. Savings spread Over the 36months, you saved $2.18/month If you change car at 59th months b4 the 5 yrs barrier spread over 59 mths, you saved $6.44/month Drive till COE expired 120 mths. over 120 mths, you saved $19.98/mth Given that most people will change car in 3-5 yrs the savings isn't significant. If your car already have good FC say 12km/l, the savings diminishes with the same 5% FC improvement ROI is 36.65 months, 120mths savings of $16.65/mth If you clock less mileage ~ 1300km/month, stock FC at 10km/l,, ROI is 39mths. Conclusion My take is know how long/how much you are going to drive the car, calculate the possible savings. Is it worth gambling $400 for something that is not independently tested or certified for very little savings? If the vendor show evidence by showing fuel pump receipt and odometer, Bear in mind that FC measured by using ODO and L of fuel pump is at best a estimate of FC not accurate. This also can be used by the vendor to show "improvement." Take for e.g. I cover 400km before I pump petrol. For a 40L tank, first click pump probably be 36L of fuel, I can squeeze another 4L in. Prior mod 400/40 = 10km/l ((pump very full); after mod 400/36 = 11.1km/l (pump till first click) A whooping 11% "improvement" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smhomie Clutched July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 Here's my take on any FC mod. Assumption Mod done immediately after new car collection 20K km travelled annually. 1666.7km/month, mod cost $400 Fuel Price $1.65/L, stock FC 10km/l, ceteris paribus 166.67L needed per month or $275 for fuel "Savings" If the mod can really yield 5% improvement to 10.5km/l 158.73L needed or $261.90 A savings of $13.10. ROI needed is 30.55 months (let's just round to 30) Reality If you change car in another 6 months after ROI, you saved a total of $78.57 after recovering the $400. Savings spread Over the 36months, you saved $2.18/month If you change car at 59th months b4 the 5 yrs barrier spread over 59 mths, you saved $6.44/month Drive till COE expired 120 mths. over 120 mths, you saved $19.98/mth Given that most people will change car in 3-5 yrs the savings isn't significant. If your car already have good FC say 12km/l, the savings diminishes with the same 5% FC improvement ROI is 36.65 months, 120mths savings of $16.65/mth If you clock less mileage ~ 1300km/month, stock FC at 10km/l,, ROI is 39mths. Conclusion My take is know how long/how much you are going to drive the car, calculate the possible savings. Is it worth gambling $400 for something that is not independently tested or certified for very little savings? If the vendor show evidence by showing fuel pump receipt and odometer, Bear in mind that FC measured by using ODO and L of fuel pump is at best a estimate of FC not accurate. This also can be used by the vendor to show "improvement." Take for e.g. I cover 400km before I pump petrol. For a 40L tank, first click pump probably be 36L of fuel, I can squeeze another 4L in. Prior mod 400/40 = 10km/l ((pump very full); after mod 400/36 = 11.1km/l (pump till first click) A whooping 11% "improvement" You are right in your observation and calculation for mods How I wish more folks were like you..... rational and sensible Then no need to explain so much liao..... Just as how an automotive engineer explains that even a stock car can have variations of -/+ 10% in fuel consumption depending on variables. So a modification product must show greater numbers less variation in order to qualify as a justifiable purchase. Of course we know this is not possible to furnish, hence hype marketing by product vendors to 'puff' up its function properties [sweatdrop] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amortifiedpenguin Clutched July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 Hey bro, same 'ol same 'ol lah, and you? Guess those fuel-line units are expensive for a reason. There's one for sale on this forum (Top Fueller 60 - the BIG fat one) going 2nd hand (used for 15k mileage or so he claims) at $500, quite good value if he hasn't already sold it. Perhaps you can consider ! $500 leh. i can pay my car's monthly installment + petrol with that. anyway it was just sold. that top-fueller 60 is OVERKILL man. im looking at like 30. 30 is meant for <1.5L cars, 40 for >1.5L. 60 FOR WHAT? lorry ah? looks like the fuel filter on a 3ton. lol. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amortifiedpenguin Clutched July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 thanks osiris. i love the ROI part. makes it not that worth it and that is IF it really improves a FULL 5%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglittlebean 3rd Gear July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 You are right in your observation and calculation for mods How I wish more folks were like you..... rational and sensible Then no need to explain so much liao..... Just as how an automotive engineer explains that even a stock car can have variations of -/+ 10% in fuel consumption depending on variables. So a modification product must show greater numbers less variation in order to qualify as a justifiable purchase. Of course we know this is not possible to furnish, hence hype marketing by product vendors to 'puff' up its function properties [sweatdrop] IMHO, I think sometimes, products like the nanoball act as placebo, and subconsciously we amend our driving patterns when we install them. Even scientists understand the power of placebo, and infact, when they conduct blind tests on new medical drugs, unless the drug has a certain percentage improvement over the placebo, they would not accept the drug as working and FDA will not approve it. For me, when I used 98Ron petrol, for some reason, I always achieved better fuel economy compared to 95Ron. The difference is as much as 10-15%. Placebo? Perhaps. But as long as I achieve a better FC, I will just keep using 98 petrol. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermitage 1st Gear July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 $500 leh. i can pay my car's monthly installment + petrol with that. anyway it was just sold. that top-fueller 60 is OVERKILL man. im looking at like 30. 30 is meant for <1.5L cars, 40 for >1.5L. 60 FOR WHAT? lorry ah? looks like the fuel filter on a 3ton. lol. Haha! You're right there bro! Actually for what ah the 60? Looks a bit like a nitrous tank as well, so maybe it's for bluffing yout friends that you're NOS-ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smhomie Clutched July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 (edited) IMHO, I think sometimes, products like the nanoball act as placebo, and subconsciously we amend our driving patterns when we install them. Even scientists understand the power of placebo, and infact, when they conduct blind tests on new medical drugs, unless the drug has a certain percentage improvement over the placebo, they would not accept the drug as working and FDA will not approve it. For me, when I used 98Ron petrol, for some reason, I always achieved better fuel economy compared to 95Ron. The difference is as much as 10-15%. Placebo? Perhaps. But as long as I achieve a better FC, I will just keep using 98 petrol. You are partially right as well in the placebo effect. It is sometimes in our minds that we 'feel' something is working RON98 burns slower because of the covalent bond in its carbon chains, hence your ignition timing is able to advance more producing better power output (ie. inline with embedded fuel program as per manufacturer intent, spark plug fires before piston reaches Top Dead Center). This actually gives better FC, depending on engine design vs power to weight ratio. Some cars that do not stick to recommended fuel ratings actually perform worse off because of work required to move mass load and ignition timing is retarded (ie. sparks maybe firing at TDC or slightly after TDC). It maybe dependent on engine knock sensor and how sensitive it is + o2 sensors feeding back the oxygen content to ecu. There is more joules (energy) in higher octane fuel. Eg. JDM engine gets optimized performance running RON100 based on their cooler ambient temps + less humidity in Japan. Singapore would presumably get lesser power as compared. Only redeeming feature we have is sea level elevation. Japan is high altitude, hence it is balanced off. However, when we buy JDM cars and use in Singapore, we can only use RON98 or Vpower in our best efforts to minimize any performance differences. Hope this short para explains a little. Edited July 29, 2009 by Smhomie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermitage 1st Gear July 29, 2009 Share July 29, 2009 You are partially right as well in the placebo effect. It is sometimes in our minds that we 'feel' something is working RON98 burns slower because of the covalent bond in its carbon chains, hence your ignition timing is able to advance more producing better power output (ie. inline with embedded fuel program as per manufacturer intent, spark plug fires before piston reaches Top Dead Center). This actually gives better FC, depending on engine design vs power to weight ratio. Some cars that do not stick to recommended fuel ratings actually perform worse off because of work required to move mass load and ignition timing is retarded (ie. sparks maybe firing at TDC or slightly after TDC). It maybe dependent on engine knock sensor and how sensitive it is + o2 sensors feeding back the oxygen content to ecu. There is more joules (energy) in higher octane fuel. Eg. JDM engine gets optimized performance running RON100 based on their cooler ambient temps + less humidity in Japan. Singapore would presumably get lesser power as compared. Only redeeming feature we have is sea level elevation. Japan is high altitude, hence it is balanced off. However, when we buy JDM cars and use in Singapore, we can only use RON98 or Vpower in our best efforts to minimize any performance differences. Hope this short para explains a little. Thanks for explaining man! But mostly I catch no ball! But interesting anyway, what if the person in mention installs a piggyback ECU and goes for tuning? Will that solve the problem and restore optimum performance? ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In NowRelated Discussions
Related Discussions
Blackstone Nanoball
Blackstone Nanoball