Time for another ecotek argument

[bigmonmulgrew]

Right reading the threads it seems there are a lot of arguments about the ecotek.

Time for some facts if anyone has had their car rolling roaded, emissions tested or anything concrete before and after an ecotek was fitted then can you post the results here.

Having a car pass an emissions test then fitting an ecotek 6 months later and going fo rnext years mot is not a good test by the way theres a year there to thrash your engine.

We want results weeks or even days appart.

Just to clarify I don't want to see a lot of replies saying "ecotek rocks" or "ecotek sucks" I want some figures.

 

[edde]

Since they only "work" on a closed throttle you cannot make any more power on a RR etc so thats that idea out the window.

Since they have been forced to stop falsly advertising by the advertising watchdog I wouldn't exactly trust them. Also since the main car companies havn't got a deal making them I'd suggest they don't work as well as they suggest as manurfacturers want to get better MPG all the time.

 

[BenR]

i want doesnt get as my mother always told me.

Along with 'empty vessels make the most noise'.

I cant see anybody wasting money on RR testing, which will cost more than the device itself. If your interested, throw the pitch at ecotek and see if they will pay for the testing, or rather pay for it if it fails.

 

[benji&eka]

^ have they really been done by the advertising watchdog?

 

[BenR]

exactly.

 

[Taxi Two]

It's the result before / after fitting the device on Mit. Lancer EVO 4.

CO : 0.94 / 0.13
CO2 : 13.9 / 14.2
HC(ppm/vol): 0.167 / 0.079
O2 : 14.2 / 15.1
Temperture : 30oC
NOx : 1.646 / 1.733