A week ago I fitted an ecotec valve to my CUP as my other friend chris has and I had one on my rover turbo and it made a huge difference to consuimpotion and throttle response. I am pleased to say that the intial throttle response is loads better on my CUP and Mid range is noticable stronger! All magazines rated the Ecotec valve highly when lauchned and with vvti I was sceptical, but is definately the best mod so far on me cup! Especially as is only £40!!! It toke me 10mins to fit and I also now get a minimum of an extra 25miles out of a full tank of fuel on computer!!
ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
A week ago I fitted an ecotec valve to my CUP as my other friend chris has and I had one on my rover turbo and it made a huge difference to consuimpotion and throttle response. I am pleased to say that the intial throttle response is loads better on my CUP and Mid range is noticable stronger! All magazines rated the Ecotec valve highly when lauchned and with vvti I was sceptical, but is definately the best mod so far on me cup! Especially as is only £40!!! It toke me 10mins to fit and I also now get a minimum of an extra 25miles out of a full tank of fuel on computer!!
2008 Golf GTI Edition 30
In fact, after a quick google...
heres the direct link to the Advertising Standards Agency report.
http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=37807&from_index=by_code_clause&dates_of_adjudications_id=558:559:560:561http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=37807&from_index=by_code_clause&dates_of_adjudications_id=558:559:560:561
It works on the brake servo vacuum as you look at engine there is a black pipe only 6mm thick that goes from the top right corner of the engine block behing the grey material cover to protect the bulk head to the brake servo! You just cut pipe and use c-clips to attached ecotec valve in! Many explanations can be found on google put in ecotec valve or check out http://freespace.virgin.net/steven.crook-dawkins/tuning%20guide/ecotec.htmhttp://freespace.virgin.net/steven.crook-dawkins/tuning%20guide/ecotec.htm
Well unless my computer on the cup is now lying and I drive the same route to work every day motorway same speed I definately got 25 more mile out me tank!! Have you tried one yourself??? Or do you just beleive what you read? I have had one fitted to 4 cars also rover 200 vi and metro gti and all seemed quicker and definately had better fuel consumption!
Nope, we dont believe what we read hence why we dont believe that it works.
Ive been over the theory a billion times, and delved quite deep.
The person who wrote that article hasnt got a clue about how and ecotek works, if it works.....and all that babble about swirl and better fuel mixing.
When we build high ouput engines we take the swirl OUT of the factory port shapes.
why would so moany independent magazines etc say they noticed a difference if its not their!! I have owned 27 cars and modded every one! I have spent many ££££s on mods and on a NA engine for the money this has made the best gains. Why dont you rolling road it with and with out it fited in same day!!??
Mondeo STTDCI
Why dont you? As in RR it with and without then post up your slips!
Not being funny mate but at the end of the day, did you even read the ASA post? Just in case not...here it is below!
Complaint:Objection, via Kingston Trading Standards department, to a magazine advertisement for a fuel efficiency device. The advertisement was headlined "Transform your performance!" and continued "And … Save money on petrol and Reduce emissions ? Hailed by the motoring press the NEW Ecotek CB-26P is available for ?48.99 inclusive." The advertisement featured testimonials from four different motoring magazines. The complainant challenged the claims:
1. "Transform your performance";
2. "Save money on petrol" and
3. "Reduce emissions".
4. The Authority challenged whether the advertised product could be described as "new".
Codes Section: <A onclick="CodesWin(2.2)" href= "http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=37807&from_index=by_code_clause&dates_of_adjudications_id=558:559:560:561#U color=#606420 2.2/U, <A onclick="CodesWin(3.1)" href= "http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=37807&from_index=by_code_clause&dates_of_adjudications_id=558:559:560:561#U color=#606420 3.1/U, <A onclick="CodesWin(7.1)" href= "http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=37807&from_index=by_code_clause&dates_of_adjudications_id=558:559:560:561#U color=#606420 7.1/U, <A onclick="CodesWin(10.1)" href= "http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=37807&from_index=by_code_clause&dates_of_adjudications_id=558:559:560:561#U color=#606420 10.1/U, <A onclick="CodesWin(48.6)" href= "http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=37807&from_index=by_code_clause&dates_of_adjudications_id=558:559:560:561#U color=#606420 48.6/U, <A onclick="CodesWin(49.1)" href= "http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=37807&from_index=by_code_clause&dates_of_adjudications_id=558:559:560:561#U color=#606420 49.1/U, <A onclick="CodesWin(49.2)" href= "http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=37807&from_index=by_code_clause&dates_of_adjudications_id=558:559:560:561#U color=#606420 49.2/U, <A onclick="CodesWin(49.3)" href= "http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=37807&from_index=by_code_clause&dates_of_adjudications_id=558:559:560:561#U color=#606420 49.3/U (Ed 10)
Adjudication:
The advertisers explained that their product was an air-bleed device. They asserted that air-bleed devices were generally acknowledged to change the performance of a car, improve fuel economy and reduce emissions because they introduced more air into the combustion engine. The advertisers stated that the product was most effective on EUR1 and EUR2 cars and the advertisement was targeted at owners of those types of car. The advertisers sent a copy of the products patent certificate, several magazine reviews, a product test report, dated 1993, from a government laboratory (Warren Spring) that stated that using the device reduced emissions, and certificates that stated the results of two more independent tests performed by garages; one of the tests stated that using the device reduced fuel consumption and emissions and the other stated that using the device reduced carbon monoxide emissions. They also sent engineers drawings that showed changes made to the design of the product since its launch. The advertisers said the vast majority of their customers were satisfied with the product.
1. Complaint upheld
The advertisers questioned whether tests to determine improved performance existed. They explained that the device improved performance by collapsing the manifold vacuum so that when the throttle was reapplied, there would be slightly more fuel in the air-fuel mix and improve the throttle response. They said the device created greater turbulence and swirl, which promoted better suspension of fuel molecules. The advertisers said several product reviews carried out by motoring magazines substantiated the claim. They pointed out that many reviews stated that fitting the device resulted in improvements in throttle response, acceleration and smoothness of drive.
The Authority took expert advice. It understood that, if the device was fitted according to the advertisers instructions, the device would allow an air bleed into the intake manifold to occur only when the throttle was closed as the car was slowed by the engine (overrun conditions) and at idle. The Authority further understood that modern cars adjusted the air-fuel mix automatically and would compensate for any changes made to that mixture by the insertion of an air-bleed device. It understood that, even if the evidence had shown that the product was effective on older, carburetted cars, it would not have demonstrated that the same device would be effective on modern cars. It understood that, in most fuel injected cars, if the car was overrunning, the fuel supply to the engine would be cut off. The Authority understood that the device was unlikely to have a great effect on engine performance. The Authority noted, moreover, the patent was filed in 1998. It noted the advertisers had not substantiated that the patented device was identical to the one tested in 1993. It further noted the device had undergone some design changes, but the advertisers did not provide more recent tests to show its efficacy. It concluded that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim and told them to remove it.
2. Complaint upheld
The advertisers said the claims were substantiated by the reports and reviews they had submitted. The Authority noted some of the tests reported an improvement in fuel economy. It took expert advice. The Authority understood that the test, performed in 1993 by the Warren Spring laboratory, seemed to be a draft report and did not have an authorised signature. It also understood that an error in the test process meant that the results of only one car were accurate and that the tests had not been run again, contrary to general practice. The Authority understood that the test cars had very high and variable emissions and that the report stated that further testing would be necessary to establish whether cars with lower emissions to start with would also benefit from using the device. It understood that the fuel consumption was not measured directly but was calculated from the emissions readings. It understood that, in two tests, performed in 1993 and 1998, by a garage, the testing was carried out over a very short distance and the method of measuring the distance was not always accurate. It understood, moreover, that the 1998 tests were performed on cars that had high mileage and that the results could not therefore be assumed to be valid for cars with lower mileage.
The Authority understood that, because not enough repeated testing was carried out in the government laboratory report, the garage tests or the tests run by motoring magazines, the data from those tests was insufficient to prove that there was a statistically significant improvement in fuel economy if the advertisers product was used. It considered, moreover, that the advertisers had not shown that the product currently sold was identical to the device tested or that it could work on newer cars. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had not substantiated the claim and told them to remove it.
3. Complaint upheld
The advertisers said the claim was substantiated by the reports and reviews they had submitted. The Authority noted one of the garage tests reported a reduction in carbon monoxide emissions and the Warren Spring report reported reduced emissions of several components of car exhaust. The Authority noted the Warren Spring report stated that further testing would be necessary to establish whether cars with lower emissions to start with would also benefit from using the device. The Authority took expert advice. It understood that the methodology of the tests and product reviews meant that the results were not statistically significant. It considered, moreover, that the advertisers had not shown that the product currently sold was identical to the device tested or that it could work on newer cars. The Authority concluded that the evidence did not substantiate the claim and told the advertisers to remove it.
4. Not upheld
The advertisers said the design of the product had last been modified just under a year before the advertisement was published. They sent dated engineers drawings of the changes. Because modifications were made to the product less than a year before the advertisement appeared, the Authority considered that the advertisers had justified the claim.
The Authority advised the advertisers to consult the CAP Copy Advice team for help with preparing future advertisements.
yes staight away but as a consumer that uses the product and has noticed a difference I would still recomend them! If you dont wont to use one then fair enough and I do and will continue to do so! Im not trying to argue just expressing my personal opinion! It is like someone saying a certain brand of car is crap or no goood without drving it!! Yuo havent used one yet say they dont work!
Mondeo STTDCI
It was Patented so they cant fit it? Surely if it was SO great, Renault would give Ecotek a call and say this conversation would happen:
Mr Renault: Hi, I love your Ecoteks, I need 1million of them for my new Clio range so everyone will have great fuel economy etc etc etc
Mr Ecotek: I assume u want a discount
Mr Renault: Yeah well pay a £20 per unit
Mr Ecotek: Ok.
Do you see? Im sure if they were wonderful every major can manufacturer would have a deal with the company.
mags are full of sh*t!!!!!!
max power - no need to say anything
Evo - ill let BenR comment on them!!!!!
Ecotec??????
How much do you think Renault (or Merc, BMW, Ford, Lambo, Audi, VW etc etc) spend/spent developing their cars??????
do F1 cars use ecotecs????
do Touring cars???
do German DTM cars????
so you see a patern here???
did you waste £60 (or however much it costs) on a plastic valve???
i put one on mine as it was free cus my dad didnt want it and guess wat? i believed it made a difference.. like u do.. cus u want it to. then one day i decided to remove it to see wat difference would go back to. and ah ha! sod all! if anything my cars quicker revving now and still eats as much fuel as b4.
Well, I have one on my Cup and it works. I get an average of 43.5mpg on motorways and A-roads, and 35-38 round town. It has also improved performance.
I had one on my 1.2 before - and it worked brilliantly on that. Here it is fitted to that:
1.
2.
A colleague at work has one on his 2.5l Vectra and initially there was a very slight difference. So he removed it. Then he removed his K&N. Fuel consumption went up. Then he refitted the Ecotek and now his consumption figures are excellent.
Many people on here dispute the value of this little device. Few that dispute it s worth, actually have one. Its not worth arguing about. I know it works. You know it works. Just leave it at that.
Not sure about your claim about it working on a Rover Turbo tho. Ecotek themselves say that it is not worth fitting to a turbo as it will only be of value until the Turbo kicks in. My friend has one of these Daihatsu Copens with a 660cc turbo charged engine. As the turbo kicks in at around 3,500revs... Ecotek told him not to bother fitting it.
I initially believed they worked but one day i took it off my current car and there was absolutely no difference to fuel consumption. If anything, the car actually performs better now! My unit was on a 1.6 and a 1.8 - my dad also had one on his 1.2 van and agrees with me - a waste of time!
Not getting at you but its common sense really....do you really beleive that a cheap tiny valve can make that much difference considering the massive amounts of air and fuel thats being pumped through normally? No way....
Similar threads
