Ecotek CB26P

 

I

’m naturally highly suspicious of any product that claims to provide you with lots of wonderful benefits and yet is inexpensive.  This is especially the case when it is with regard to a wonder-product for a car - such as the Ecotek CB26P.  More so when the product declares it can improve performance and reduce fuel consumption.  It sounds like a snake-oil product.  And so here I am writing about the Ecotek CB26P, which is a simple device that plugs in to an air line and agitates the air such that, as Ecotek claim, it ensures the petrol is burnt more efficiently.

It is a simple idea and it makes sense: if you increase your engine’s efficiency through a more complete burn, you will use less fuel.

When I checked out the website, Ecotek had a large number of glowing reviews for the product.  Most from consumers who have bought the device.  Reading a few of the more scientific-sounding tests, many seem to show some benefit somewhere down the line but most resulted in the highly subjective “it just felt better” opinion.  Indeed, there are so many reports that it seems like an exercise in disguising a snake oil product.

The website has changed a little since back then and now they are concentrating on the performance advantages.  I’ll cover this later.

Still, armed with the above preconceptions and opinions I had Kermit fitted with the Ecotek CB26P unit.

When I first put the Ecotek valve on Kermit I didn’t pay for the device, the idea being that it would, hopefully, stop me from wanting to think that suddenly Kermit’s average fuel consumption returns are significantly higher.

Claims

Ecotek’s manufacturer originally claimed reduced emissions and fuel consumption, but cunningly they don’t detail how much one can expect to see.  This is left to the reviews.  The reason given for this is because every car design is different - so they do not wish to give claims that may not be reached.  Okay, everybody make a note of this.

Some people report no difference in fuel consumption, most emission tests are reasonably conclusive in that with the device the emissions are lower.  All things being equal, lower emission test results should translate into lower fuel consumption.

These days, Ecotek claim that there’s a performance improvement rather than a performance improvement.

What I Believed Would Happen (Before Fitting)

I’ve read the opinions of the device and my suspicion is that the “vortex” side of the device is the snake oil aspect.  Sure, vortexes are used in car and engine intake designs but you cannot simply bolt in a leak and expect it to produce good results in a huge number of engine designs.  I don’t buy the “vortex” argument since surely any induction system will need redesigning to achieve this – Ecotek even state this on their site! – but the Ecotek valve is set up to regulate how much additional air you let into the intake to lean the mixture.

However, the unit should make a small difference to the fuel:air mixture by leaning it out, but the flaw in this argument is that the ECU will spot this and immediately counter it.

On those cars with a fuel computer, the accuracy of the device can be knocked when using the Ecotek.  This is because the Ecotek effectively leaks air into the engine, which distorts the figures.  The ECU detects a change in normal operating parameters and adjusts the fueling.  If the mixture is too lean according to its onboard engine mapping, it will reduce the petrol being squirted into the engine.  In isolation this may result in lower fuel consumption, but if there’s less petrol being squirted into the engine it won’t be burning quite as much and therefore will be producing less power.

Fitting

The Ecotek is simple to fit, even for somebody who’s not especially keen on getting their hands dirty and is typically too scared to fiddle with oily bits (at least, on Kermit, heh).

You need to slice open your vacuum line from the brake servo, insert the device, secure it using jubilee clips, then you need to tune it.

This article isn’t the place to detail how the unit is tuned, but essentially when the Ecotek is first fitted, it’s disabled.  You need to adjust (or tune) the device to suit your car, which involves fiddling around with the valve setting on the unit, then locking it when you’re happy with the set up.

In Use

I’m pleased to report that when driving along, the Ecotek device does improve the engine’s pickup.  It’s most noticeable when booting the accelerator after a period of driving “on the overrun” driving.  The donk is immediately keener when stepping back on the power.

However, once past the initial moment, acceleration is no different.  This is at odds with the tests and various claims made on the Ecotek website.

Fuel Consumption

One must remember that there are a huge number of variables to be taken into account when measuring fuel consumption on the road, some of them are discussed here /link/.  Driver changeable variables include how hard the car is driven, what kind of road, what grade of fuel and similar.  Other variables include the weather, quality of fuel and tyre pressures.

Therefore, measuring any difference between Kermit’s pre-Ecotek and post-Ecotek is rather more than a couple of tanks of petrol.  I can only report on the trend, rather than quoting specific increases.  I must also take into account that our use of Kermit has changed.  There’s no fair way for me to demonstrate the difference.

But so far, we have the following:

 

Before Ecotek

With Ecotek

After Ecotek

Average

 38·6

42·5

 46·7

Minimum Return

 25·7

30·7

 39·3

Maximum Return

 49·6

49·9

 57·8

Did it improve matters?  With the above figures it’s impossible to tell.  Our use of the kid changed.  Going into the detail (and I keep detailed logs of Kermy’s fuel consumption) it made no material difference.  It’s impossible to tell when I added and subsequently removed the device from the chart the data produces.

Performance

I’ve touched on the change in throttle response, but there are a few other differences in how the Ka behaves when wearing the Ecotek CB26P valve.

First off, the “forward motion” high idle speed of the Endura-E is slightly higher than normal.  Before using the Ecotek valve, when driving forward above 3 mph the idle speed was raised by the ECU to 1,000 rpm (with a normal idle speed of 850 rpm when below this speed).  With the Ecotek valve, this varies between 1,200 rpm and 1,500 rpm.  This increase in idle speed is a normal characteristic of many modern cars.

This is quite possibly related to the significant reduction in engine braking.  When in the “overrun,” the Calculated Load figure and Manifold Vacuum figures are both showing that the engine is effectively idling, and the Fuel Trim meter shows that the engine is running lean.  Where possible, I’ve lifted off the accelerator pedal some distance before I would in the past.  Furthermore, the engine is behaving as though there is a slow-acting throttle damper now built in to the system.  This is almost certainly tied in to the reduced engine braking.

On the drag strip there was no difference.  As expected, since at full throttle the device doesn’t do anything.  How can it show an improvement in performance if it deactivates at full throttle?

Kermit’s “Supercruise”

One of the observations made with my engine efficiency graph calculations is that the engine’s relative calculated efficiency is greater at 2,500 rpm than at 1,700 rpm.  In some respects, the throttle required to maintain the lower cruising speed is higher than that required at the higher speed!

Optimum efficiency is where we have a low to moderate (under approximately seventy percent) calculated load and throttle value (under approximately thirty five percent).

So how does the above relate to “supercruising?”  Here’s how - at middling to higher engine speeds (3,000 to 4,000 rpm), Kermit’s ECU is showing that he’s approximately ten percent more efficient.  For the same Calculated Load, whereas before he’d be showing a Throttle of thirty seven percent, now this is down to around thirty four percent.

However the data polled from the ECU simply shows that it is aware of a vacuum leak and has compensated for it.  The amount of fuel entering the engine is still the same, but the throttle is letting less air in because it is compensating for the leak elsewhere in the system.

Under full throttle the Ecotek valve doesn’t allow any additional air to be ingested into the engine so there’s no difference in engine output.

Emissions

As dictated by the MOT exhaust gas test, Kermit’s emissions with the Ecotek valve in place were not significantly different to with the Ecotek valve not in place.  After removing the unit, the emission levels dropped!

Conclusions

If you read the Ecotek website, you’d be buying one straight away.

I don’t believe the hype.  There are too many inconsistencies.  On the one hand, Ecotek state:

(Q) Does the device work on cars with a Turbo?

(A) Yes - Turbo charged cars work using a pump to increase manifold pressure which forces the fuel air mixture into the combustion chamber.  This extra pressure shuts off the CB-26P device and accordingly it is inoperative whilst the engine is under boost.  However it will be effective at all other times as with normally aspirated cars.  With many Turbo cars, non-Turbo performance can be a bit sluggish - many find that the improved response from the Ecotek considerably improves the driveability of their cars.

Source: http://www.ecotekplc.com/faqs.htm#Does%20the%20device%20work

But elsewhere one individual, with a turbocharged car, reports:

 “This car which was quite quick anyway, felt completely different.  It seems to have more air to breath, the note of the engine sounds very different.  Before I put this tiny thing on my car, it seemed that my engine always struggled for air, suffocating at high revs and basically running out of steam before I thought it should do.  This has lead me to only one conclusion, The Ecotek CB-26P Really does do what it says on the Box, Along with dropping my emission's, it has improve to overall running of my engine through the whole rev range, more power on tap, more air for the engine to breath, and the bonus:  More miles for my pound.”

Source: http://www.ecotekplc.com/more_cars_17.htm#vti

Many of the feedback just doesn’t add up.  You cannot compare fuel consumption trends in just a few hundred miles.

For the performance comparison, I remain unconvinced.  The Fiesta is supposed to be much quicker with the device on, but on the drag strip, Kermy was no quicker than before.