2026 test10 productsMyths & Experiments
Which Fuel Saving Devices Brand Wins?
We compared 10 fuel saving devices options head to head. Reduced speed plus increased tire pressure came out on top. See the measured results, the runner-up, the budget pick, and a link to the full test video.
Winner
Reduced speed plus increased tire pressure
Check price on Amazon
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
Runner-up
Cold air intake plus MBRP high flow exhaust plus SUPERCHIPS FLASHPAQ tuner combined
Check price on Amazon
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
The measured results
Every number below is read straight from the test. Scroll sideways to see all measurements. Products are listed in the order they finished.
| Product | Mpg | Method | 0to 60 | Airflow Bench | Mpg With Intake And Exhaust Only | Mpg With Tuner Added | Mpg With Tire And Speed Change | 0to 60 Improvement | Overall Improvement | Claim | Generator Runtime | Carbon Inspection | Mpg Computer | Mpg Actual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Reduced speed plus increased tire pressure no product purchased, driving technique | 26.23 mpg actual refuel calculation, computer showed 28.5 mpg; 12.5 percent better than any of the previous attempts | tire pressure raised to 50 PSI (near max for the tires) and speed reduced from 70 mph to 63 mph | 7.52 seconds, the slowest time yet because the traction control held the vehicle back | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 2Cold Air Intake plus MBRP High-Flow Exhaust plus SUPERCHIPS FLASHPAQ Tuner combined install, tested togetherexhaust $448, tuner $461, cold air intake price not stated | not tested | not tested | not tested | new MBRP exhaust measured 101 CFM on a 750 CFM blower versus 74 CFM for the stock exhaust it replaced | 17.74 mpg, about 3/4 of 1 mile per gallon better than the factory setup | 18.78 mpg, almost 2 miles per gallon over the factory setup | 20.39 mpg at 60 mph with high tire pressure | fastest time of the whole first-vehicle test series at 8.01 seconds, versus an 8.32 second factory baseline | 22.39 percent fuel efficiency improvement averaged across the first four round trips at 70 mph before the intake, exhaust, and tune; 12.73 percent improvement specifically at 70 mph with intake, exhaust, and tune installed | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 3Obdiicats$31 | 16.7 mpg over the 77 mile test loop | not tested | 8.32 seconds | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 4nitroOBD2$8 | 16.45 mpg, a little worse than the Obdiicats' 16.7 mpg | not tested | 8.5 seconds, slower than the 8.32 second baseline, meaning it lost horsepower and torque rather than gaining it | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 35 percent more power and 25 percent more torque | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 52G Fuel Saver$20 | 16.39 mpg, worse than the previous two gadgets | not tested | 8.76 seconds, the worst 0 to 60 time in that test series | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | five years of testing have shown improvement of fuel economy by 8 percent in SUVs | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 6Ferox fuel treatment tablets$35 for 10 tablets, or $3.50 each | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | high performance treatment that improves engine performance and combustion efficiency, extends oil life, and removes engine deposits | 22 minutes 16 seconds on a fuel injected generator, versus 22 minutes 48 seconds on straight gasoline, close to 30 seconds less run time | spark plug and combustion chamber looked pretty much the same before and after other than the spark plug turning orange | not tested | not tested |
| 7Turbonator dual propeller intake device$16 | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | dual propeller mechanism boosts horsepower and significantly improves fuel mileage | about 22 minutes plus a 23 second penalty added for setup time, performed about the same as the Ferox | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 8ecoOBD2around $10 | 22.38 mpg over 77 miles on a 2020 Chevrolet Suburban 5.3L, described as pretty impressive for such a large SUV | not tested | 7.39 seconds | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | save 15 percent on fuel; plug and drive OBD2 economy chip tuning box; requires about 150 miles or 200 km to learn driving habits | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 9NeoSocket Fuel Shark Neoaround $20 | 23.36 mpg over 77 miles, less than 1 mile per gallon different from the ecoOBD2 | not tested | just under 7 seconds | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | up to 30 percent fuel savings, cleaner emissions, more horsepower, longer battery life | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 10No device baseline 2020 Chevrolet Suburban, second vehicle | not tested | not tested | 7.41 seconds | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | not tested | 24.66 mpg on the instrument cluster | 21.9 mpg from the actual refuel calculation, worse than the Fuel Shark's 23.36 mpg |
How it was tested
- 77 mile round trip fuel economy at 70 mph with consistent refueling procedure
- 0 to 60 mph acceleration test
- exhaust airflow bench test at 750 CFM
- fuel injected generator runtime test until out of fuel
- spark plug and combustion chamber carbon inspection with borescope
- tire pressure increase to 50 PSI plus reduced highway speed
“The only three things that seem to work are the cold air intake, the high flow exhaust system, as well as the programmer. Better than that. Just slow down a little bit. That really saves the most fuel.”
More Myths & Experiments
Myths & Experiments2021
Which Diesel Fuel Alternative Brand Wins?
5 products tested
See the resultsMyths & Experiments2020
Which Turpentine As Engine Fuel Additive Brand Wins?
2 products tested
See the resultsMyths & ExperimentsMyth
Emergency Gasoline Substitutes: The Test Results
1 products tested
See the results