GFB Turbocharger Blow Off Valve (DV+) for Ranger vs Turbosmart?

[COblue]

Really? You expect us to believe that comparing a 226 mile before average and a 8.9 mile and a 26.7 mile after averages shows a REAL improvement in mpg. Those aren't averages those are snap shots at best.

Do you only show up in mpg threads? ?

Sponsored

 

[LowKeyTremor]

Really? You expect us to believe that comparing a 226 mile before average and a 8.9 mile and a 26.7 mile after averages shows a REAL improvement in mpg. Those aren't averages those are snap shots at best.

??
Big blue, did you ASSUME something?

Perhaps that those were intended to be comparisons?
​

I hate to tell you but they were not. It would be just as misleading as it is ridiculous(if they were supposed to be comparisons)!

So you think I’m trying to say that the 226 mile example is before BOV and the other two readings are after adding a BOV. That much is clear, because otherwise your statement wouldn’t make much sense

1st:
10 miles of consistency is useful information; especially because it was not a comparison, but instead an example.

Now, if it were a comparison, I would have stated it. I’m an honest person, and I have no skin in the game, nor do I try to impress because I don’t know you and to be blunt, I don’t give a shit if someone buys a blow off valve, or a blower for leaves and bolts that on!

You know what assuming does right? I flat out said I would get some readings from the BOV and nowhere did I say these were before and after figures/comparisons.

To be honest, it didn’t even cross my mind that someone would think that because it’s absolutely nonsensical as a method, that it’s absolutely absurd. I apologize for this response, but it felt obnoxious as it was such common sense, and you are trying to call me out based on very incorrect pretenses. I think it might be due to my background with rigorous statistics and other chemical engineering courses, and your comments were for someone who would have no business being anywhere near stats or STEM!

Now if you really wanted to call me out, you could have used the law of large numbers against me. That’s the rule on validity that states you need >99 samples and the samples are representative of the population. That’s not a flex, that’s just a rule I remember from even high school. No I don’t have a snapshot but I do have 100+ examples… But I think people would be irritated if I actually had 100 pictures and included.

A quick drill down:

For starters, I need to make this part clear:
226 miles is not a snapshot.
That was the only pic on my phone with mixed driving. In addition, I liked it because I had been driving like a bat out of hell! Those numbers were achieved driving like a maniac with the following mix:
• 60% city driving in sport mode mashing on
the pedal with auto start/stop disabled as
always for me… Those stoplights absolutely
weigh dothe figures
• 40% on the highway going anywhere from
55 to 90 miles an hour.

So if you look at all of my posts, nowhere will you see me stating that I was achieving 30 MPG’s or anything like that, and certainly not with mixed driving!

The pair of 10 mile examples/snaps/samplesare snapshots, which are long enough to show you what I achieve at particular speeds, with particular conditions. The only thing you can’t see is the headwind.

I realize you were trying to call me out, but it didn’t quite work because it was based off of an incorrect assumption. Not everyone is a jerk from Reddit! But, since there are so many people out there trying to mislead or look extra special, I guess it’s probably my fault for not spelling it out with details.

Anyways, no harsh feelings. But be careful jumping the gun or assuming. You might have wanted to phrase that as a question, and not as a gotcha or call out because you kind of failed!!

And each his own but for me, if I had that feeling that you had, I would have phrased it in a question and not a gotcha! That way I wouldn’t look like a jerk, because I’m not and I’ll bet you aren’t!

Does that cover it?

 

[LowKeyTremor]

Do you only show up in mpg threads? ?

I love this! Certainly a pessimist/skeptic! Unfortunately quite misled.

OK so I guess my response is about right. I was a little irritated as you’ll see below… I mean no hard feelings obviously but I’m not from Reddit, where everyone’s a jerk off and tries to one-up everyone or call others out.

 

[Dereku]

??
Big blue, did you ASSUME something?

Perhaps that those were intended to be comparisons?
​

I hate to tell you but they were not. It would be just as misleading as it is ridiculous(if they were supposed to be comparisons)!

So you think I’m trying to say that the 226 mile example is before BOV and the other two readings are after adding a BOV. That much is clear, because otherwise your statement wouldn’t make much sense

1st:
10 miles of consistency is useful information; especially because it was not a comparison, but instead an example.

Now, if it were a comparison, I would have stated it. I’m an honest person, and I have no skin in the game, nor do I try to impress because I don’t know you and to be blunt, I don’t give a shit if someone buys a blow off valve, or a blower for leaves and bolts that on!

You know what assuming does right? I flat out said I would get some readings from the BOV and nowhere did I say these were before and after figures/comparisons.

To be honest, it didn’t even cross my mind that someone would think that because it’s absolutely nonsensical as a method, that it’s absolutely absurd. I apologize for this response, but it felt obnoxious as it was such common sense, and you are trying to call me out based on very incorrect pretenses. I think it might be due to my background with rigorous statistics and other chemical engineering courses, and your comments were for someone who would have no business being anywhere near stats or STEM!

Now if you really wanted to call me out, you could have used the law of large numbers against me. That’s the rule on validity that states you need >99 samples and the samples are representative of the population. That’s not a flex, that’s just a rule I remember from even high school. No I don’t have a snapshot but I do have 100+ examples… But I think people would be irritated if I actually had 100 pictures and included.

A quick drill down:

For starters, I need to make this part clear:
226 miles is not a snapshot.
That was the only pic on my phone with mixed driving. In addition, I liked it because I had been driving like a bat out of hell! Those numbers were achieved driving like a maniac with the following mix:
• 60% city driving in sport mode mashing on
the pedal with auto start/stop disabled as
always for me… Those stoplights absolutely
weigh dothe figures
• 40% on the highway going anywhere from
55 to 90 miles an hour.

So if you look at all of my posts, nowhere will you see me stating that I was achieving 30 MPG’s or anything like that, and certainly not with mixed driving!

The pair of 10 mile examples/snaps/samplesare snapshots, which are long enough to show you what I achieve at particular speeds, with particular conditions. The only thing you can’t see is the headwind.

I realize you were trying to call me out, but it didn’t quite work because it was based off of an incorrect assumption. Not everyone is a jerk from Reddit! But, since there are so many people out there trying to mislead or look extra special, I guess it’s probably my fault for not spelling it out with details.

Anyways, no harsh feelings. But be careful jumping the gun or assuming. You might have wanted to phrase that as a question, and not as a gotcha or call out because you kind of failed!!

And each his own but for me, if I had that feeling that you had, I would have phrased it in a question and not a gotcha! That way I wouldn’t look like a jerk, because I’m not and I’ll bet you aren’t!

Does that cover it?

As a fellow math aficionado, I respect this post. Congratulations sir, you won the internet battle of today.

 

[Rp930]

Those dumb Ford engineers left 3 mpg on the table. Sure. I believe you.

 

[Big Blue]

Do you only show up in mpg threads? ?

No! I do not only show up in MPG threads. As anyone who has been on this forum for a while can attest. I just do not post much in the threads on performance and off-road threads as that is not of interest to me.

This was NOT an MPG thread, it was an blow-off valve thread until the OP turned it into a MPG discussion by posting three pictures of his mileage with virtually no explanation of what he was trying to show immediately after he posted about how the valve increased his mileage.

I was merely trying to point out that those three examples, which appear to be consecutive are not long enough to prove anything.

 

[Big Blue]

I love this! Certainly a pessimist/skeptic! Unfortunately quite misled.

OK so I guess my response is about right. I was a little irritated as you’ll see below… I mean no hard feelings obviously but I’m not from Reddit, where everyone’s a jerk off and tries to one-up everyone or call others out.

OK, nobody was calling anyone out. And yes I did make an assumption. And I do know what assuming means.

Next time when you post explain what you are intending with your post, so people don't need to make assumptions.

I do find the name calling, as vague as it was, upsetting and uncalled for.

If you have followed any of the legitimate mpg threads you will understand that low mileage averages are notoriously non-accurate. Especially using the built-in computer. Mainly because it uses a previous average as a starting point, so low mileage averages do not get time to correct for changes. Sort of your "law of large numbers" thing. So yes, a 10 mile average on the trucks computer is really just a snapshot, only slightly better than looking at the instantaneous mileage numbers. Only by looking at the average accross multiple tank fulls will you see what YOUR true milage is, or any changes to it.

I hope that your little rant helped calm you down and I thank you for allowing me to explain my side. The problem with the internet is personal discussions become public arguments.

 

[My12SecRanger]

I have had both pieces on my truck, and I like the sound of the turbosmart better with the larger turbo installed

 

[awd.nv]

Ok, so since MPG was a point of interest as well as throttle response and some of the claims on the marketing pages (thought the adult version was just for reliability).

The ROI if I spent $250 on the BOV (chatgpt did the math).

MPG Gain	Annual Fuel Savings	ROI
+1 MPG	~$237.50	-5%
+2 MPG	~$449.50	+80%
+3 MPG	~$630.00	+152%

I am still skeptical but it does not cost much so will be interesting.

 

[Rp930]

Ok, so since MPG was a point of interest as well as throttle response and some of the claims on the marketing pages (thought the adult version was just for reliability).

The ROI if I spent $250 on the BOV (chatgpt did the math).

MPG Gain	Annual Fuel Savings	ROI
+1 MPG	~$237.50	-5%
+2 MPG	~$449.50	+80%
+3 MPG	~$630.00	+152%

I am still skeptical but it does not cost much so will be interesting.

I think I have a spare Turbonator I’d be willing to part with.

 

[Big Blue]

Ok, so since MPG was a point of interest as well as throttle response and some of the claims on the marketing pages (thought the adult version was just for reliability).

The ROI if I spent $250 on the BOV (chatgpt did the math).

MPG Gain	Annual Fuel Savings	ROI
+1 MPG	~$237.50	-5%
+2 MPG	~$449.50	+80%
+3 MPG	~$630.00	+152%

I am still skeptical but it does not cost much so will be interesting.

Interesting numbers! Another column to add would be PAYBACK TERM in years. What are the numbers behind these calculation?

Current annual average MPG ?
Annual miles driven ?
Annual average price per gallon ?

Need these numbers to see how it applies to individual situations. Everyone will be different. By the way 3 mpg is a huge increase in mileage. That's 15.7% based on 19 mpg.

 

[LowKeyTremor]

OK, nobody was calling anyone out. And yes I did make an assumption. And I do know what assuming means.

Next time when you post explain what you are intending with your post, so people don't need to make assumptions.

I do find the name calling, as vague as it was, upsetting and uncalled for.

If you have followed any of the legitimate mpg threads you will understand that low mileage averages are notoriously non-accurate. Especially using the built-in computer. Mainly because it uses a previous average as a starting point, so low mileage averages do not get time to correct for changes. Sort of your "law of large numbers" thing. So yes, a 10 mile average on the trucks computer is really just a snapshot, only slightly better than looking at the instantaneous mileage numbers. Only by looking at the average accross multiple tank fulls will you see what YOUR true milage is, or any changes to it.

I hope that your little rant helped calm you down and I thank you for allowing me to explain my side. The problem with the internet is personal discussions become public arguments.

OK, nobody was calling anyone out. And yes I did make an assumption. And I do know what assuming means.

Next time when you post explain what you are intending with your post, so people don't need to make assumptions.

I do find the name calling, as vague as it was, upsetting and uncalled for.

If you have followed any of the legitimate mpg threads you will understand that low mileage averages are notoriously non-accurate. Especially using the built-in computer. Mainly because it uses a previous average as a starting point, so low mileage averages do not get time to correct for changes. Sort of your "law of large numbers" thing. So yes, a 10 mile average on the trucks computer is really just a snapshot, only slightly better than looking at the instantaneous mileage numbers. Only by looking at the average accross multiple tank fulls will you see what YOUR true milage is, or any changes to it.

I hope that your little rant helped calm you down and I thank you for allowing me to explain my side. The problem with the internet is personal discussions become public arguments.

Hi,

I should ask you the same question (although mine wasn’t a rant, it was pointing out your message and breaking it down to show that it was completely uncalled for in a cheap shot… Even worse, it was fully incorrect).

So, did your “ little rant” make you feel better now? I noticed that for this post, you decided to go to with the passive aggressive strategy. You’re very transparent in my opinion.

It’s unfortunate, because you’re choosing a sorry not sorry approach. You absolutely called me out. This is the last I’m going to address of this, so there’s and end.

First of all, I wasn’t being vague w/ name-calling. So there’s nothing uncalled for on that. Maybe I’m just the first one to tell you directly that you’re out of line!

You were acting like a jerk. quite honestly, you still are throwing in BS remarks. So don’t get it confused; im trying to thinly veil anything! I operate very differently than you.

I hope that your little rant helped calm you down…
- Big Blue​

? You know that is classic passive aggressive, and then the remaining of that sentence is complete BS. That ‘thank you’ is just so you can essentially say sorry not sorry.

I also see that clearly condescending tone. I’ve been working with cars before I got my license. I don’t need the type of advice you give. It’s not done for the right reason. It’s very self-serving. Like I said, this is all really transparent, and you still refuse to fully back down.

You say it’s unfortunate that it becomes public… you must not really believe that, otherwise you would take your advice.

So why did you message this publicly and not directly message me?

One might consider that to be hypocritical. Another way to put it would be “rules for thee but not for me”. That is all too common with people these days. It’s getting old…

If I need to explain further:
Why didn’t the 5+ people who were actively going back-and-forth and having a nice civil discussion - keyword being civil - not have an issue?

You are very abrasive and I’m sorry that I’m the one to tell you. I don’t wanna be in that position!! But - Don’t punish the messenger!

It should be further obvious by the post stating that you must just come on in only during MPG conversations. That wasn’t a compliment. It was pointing out the absurdity with you just jumping on in there, and yes, calling me out!.

On that town, I love the other passive aggressive part…
“ if you had followed any LEGITIMATE mpg threads…”

It’s all so transparent. Seriously , are you for real? Sending a message as if you are trying to tone it down, while doing exactly the opposite. I’m sorry, but I just don’t take that kind of gimmick and I don’t find it amusing. It’s meant to take people down and it’s low.

So either drop it, or just stop posting when it comes to me. If you have anything else to say to me, avoid hypocrisy and send me a direct message. You know, like you said, it’s unfortunate that it becomes a public thing.

I’ve been doing this stuff for over 25 years. I started before I got my license with my Mustang. Don’t act like I don’t know what I’m talking about or that I’m naïve, and MPG‘s are not a difficult concept.

Either way, that’s the end of this for me. I refuse to indulge because in my experience, it will be never ending! Oh and by the way, I have been cool as a cucumber the entire time. I just read what is written, see what the real meaning is, and then reply accordingly. It doesn’t affect my day! Life is too short to let it affect me!

Back to the pleasant discussions and learning from each other. Helping each other and benefiting from one another.

You take care. I say that with all sincerity. You and I might end up getting along just awesome actually. I don’t carry grudges, just because you never know just how much you might have in common with someone!

Sincerely,
Kyle

 

[LowKeyTremor]

Those dumb Ford engineers left 3 mpg on the table. Sure. I believe you.

One acronym gives you the answer - CARB! Well they would absolutely be forced to leave three MPG on the table because there’s certain things they can’t do in which we can.

So yeah absolutely! I’m sure they did everything they could but they aren’t putting on oversized inner coolers, high flow exhaust, high flow air filters, and all kinds of stuff that freaking CARB won’t allow.

I don’t think anyone believes they left anything on the table… Instead they had to put everything together with one hand tied behind their back due to the environmentalists!

Certainly you agree with that, don’t you?

 

[LowKeyTremor]

As a fellow math aficionado, I respect this post. Congratulations sir, you won the internet battle of today.

thank you, my good man!

I hate Internet and forum arguments. But I really hate rude people who call you out and aren’t even right. I don’t argue back I just pick what they say apart and hopefully they aren’t too stubborn and can see the problem in what they wrote!

I’m gonna stay positive here and hope all of the aggressive behavior ends because I was enjoying a lot of conversations and hearing a lot of great things until a dark cloud came.

I’m here to get along and learn… Also enjoy being around others who have the same hobby.

All this other BS needs to quit

 

[awd.nv]

Interesting numbers! Another column to add would be PAYBACK TERM in years. What are the numbers behind these calculation?

Current annual average MPG ?
Annual miles driven ?
Annual average price per gallon ?

Need these numbers to see how it applies to individual situations. Everyone will be different. By the way 3 mpg is a huge increase in mileage. That's 15.7% based on 19 mpg.

Here is the math it used, I did not check it but I know there have been times I have seen chatgpt be wrong when I asked it computer related things I knew for certain.

It did make me realize how small gains in MPG add up. I usually don't care but was just something I thought of to justify the BOV.

With fuel at $4.05 a gallon, usually gassing up once a week in an 18 gallon tank, a product that cost $250, what is the ROI if it saves me 1mpg? What about 2 or 3?

ChatGPT said:
Let’s break this down to calculate the Return on Investment (ROI) for each MPG increase (1, 2, or 3 MPG) in terms of money saved per year and compare it to the $250 cost of the product.
? Assumptions:

• Fuel price: $4.05/gallon
• Tank size: 18 gallons
• You fill up once per week, so 18 gallons/week
• That's 936 gallons/year (18 × 52 weeks)

Now we’ll calculate how many more miles per year you get with each MPG increase, then how much money that saves in fuel cost.
Step 1: Let’s say your baseline MPG is X, then:

• With 1 MPG increase, new MPG = X+1
• You drive X × 936 miles/year (since 936 gallons/year × X miles/gallon)

With 1 extra MPG, you go (X+1) × new gallons/year = same miles, so:
Let’s directly compute the savings instead:
? Fuel savings with +1 MPG:
Using a generic formula for MPG improvement:
Annual savings = (Miles driven per year) × (1 / old MPG - 1 / new MPG) × Fuel price
We don't know the base MPG, but we can estimate annual miles driven:
Assuming your tank gets you X MPG, then:

• Miles/year = MPG × 936 gallons

Let’s just pick a few sample base MPGs: 15, 18, and 20 MPG to see how the savings scale.
? ROI Calculations
At 15 MPG base, gallons/year = 936
1 MPG gain (to 16 MPG):

• Miles/year = 15 × 936 = 14,040 miles
• Savings = 14,040 × (1/15 - 1/16) × $4.05
  = 14,040 × (0.0667 - 0.0625) × $4.05
  = 14,040 × 0.00417 × $4.05 ≈ $237.50/year

ROI = ($237.50 - $250) / $250 = -5% (nearly breakeven)
2 MPG gain (to 17 MPG):
= 14,040 × (1/15 - 1/17) × $4.05
= 14,040 × (0.0667 - 0.0588) × $4.05 ≈ $449.50/year
ROI = ($449.50 - $250) / $250 ≈ +79.8%
3 MPG gain (to 18 MPG):
= 14,040 × (1/15 - 1/18) × $4.05
= 14,040 × (0.0667 - 0.0556) × $4.05 ≈ $630/year
ROI ≈ +152%
Let me know your actual MPG, and I can plug it in for an exact estimate. But generally:
? Summary ROI (assuming 15 MPG base):

MPG Gain	Annual Fuel Savings	ROI
+1 MPG	~$237.50	-5%
+2 MPG	~$449.50	+80%
+3 MPG	~$630.00	+152%

Want me to build a little chart or calculator you can use with different fuel prices or MPG?

Sponsored