Magnetizer Fuel Test Data

Dramatically reducing vehicle pollution
while increasing fuel efficiency

The following pages contain various test reports of Magnetizer installations from around the world.  In most of these test reports the full Magnetizer EPM system was utilized, giving dramatic emissions reductions.  Exhaust emissions are a result of incomplete combustion as shown in the Mechanical handbook by Baumeiste where the stoichiometric chart shows the relationship between emissions and unburned fuel.  As more of the fuel is combusted, the emissions go down and efficiency goes up - fuel savings.  All of the following reports attest to Magnetizer’s major rule in reducing exhaust emissions and increasing efficiency saving the consumer fuel costs.

Magnetizer has been in research and development of magnetic fluid treatment for over 20 years.  Through the years we have refined and defined the techniques and the principles of how to treat fluid with magnets.

When a properly focused magnetic field is applied to a hydrogen-based fuel, the hydrogen is converted from the para (less volatile) to ortho state (more volatile).  This potentiates fuel so that the hydrogen attracts and bonds with more of the oxygen.  (Getting the oxygen to bond with the hydrogen is necessary for complete combustion).  When this happens, we burn more of the fuel and that reduces exhaust emissions and increases the fuels efficiency (Better fuel economy and power).

Magnetizer products are easy to install, and can be fitted to virtually all engines in just a few minutes.  If one was to try to make a comparison between Magnetizer and catalytic converters, it is easy to see the marked benefits of Magnetizer.

Comparison of Magnetizers vs. Catalytic Converters (Gasoline & Light Duty Diesels)

  MAGNETIZER Catalytic converter
Warranty Lifttime None
Installation 5 minutes or less 45 minutes to 1 1/2 hours
Product Life Never wears out 20 to 50,00 miles depending on
the vehicle it is fitted on
Vehicle's Power Gets Improvement  Loses Power
Vehicle's Economy Gets Improvement  Loses economy
Customer will love the benefits
and imporved performance
Poor acceptance due to loss
of economy and performance
and will need to be reolaced
Maintenance None May need cleaning from time to time
Types of Fuel ALL Unleaded only or premature failure results
Patents:   RE: 35689, 5829420, Further Worldwide patents pending 
California Air Resource Board:    CARB#EOD-174-3 
U.S. Military Stock Number:  NSN 2910-01390-0004

Magnetizer Fuel Efficiency/Emission Reduction Tests

All tests performed under Federal EPA Code 40 CFR, Sec. 51.351
These are before & after results with a Magnetizer installed showing reduced emissions.

Emissions = Unburned Fuel / Reduction of Emissions = Fuel Savings

Make/Model HC




% HC Decrease CO




% CO Decrease
Chevy 307, V8 774 580 25% .06 .00 100%
Chevy 400, V8 141 37 73% 1.78 .21 88%
Chevy 2.8L, V6 46 11 76% .31 .00 100%
 Pontiac 6000 227 42 81% .33 .04 89%
Escort 4 Cyl.1 259 54 79% 5.9 .25 96%
Ford Pick-Up V8 158 16 90% .21 .21 57%
Nissan V6 3.0 4x42 130 30 77% 1.7 .00 100%
Chevy V8 12 0 100% .00 .00 ---
Chevy V6, (C)2 72 0 100% .64 .01 98%
Olds 280 V6 (C)2 348 65 81% .04 .01 75%
Lincoln 302 V8 (C)2 13 4 69% .05 .00 100%
Ford 2.3L (F.I.)2 193 20 90% .80 .01 98%
Dodge 318 V8 (C)2 125 15 88% 1.24 .02 98%
Jeep 4.0L V62 18 8 55% .09 .04 55%
Buick 350 V8 (C)2,3 128 95 26% 4.21 4.04 4%
’Pontiac 125 0 100% .04 .00 100%
Chevy Van V8 190 125 65% 1.8 .30 81%
Jeep 38 7 81% .16 .05 68%
Hyundai 4 Cyl.4 18 14 22% 5.69 .02 99%
Suzuki, 4 cyl.a 170 100 41% 1.6 .15 91%
Nissan SXa 70 90 +29% 0.3 0.2 33%
Volkswagen, 4 cyl.a 320 270 15% 6.2 3.6 42%
Mitsubishi, 4 cyl.a 390 330 15% 3.8 2.8 26%
Chevy, 4 cyl.a 320 180 44% 3.6 1.0 72%
Oldsmobile 63 0 100% .06 .00 100%
Corvette 350 CID 383 197 48% 7.85 1.98 74%
Olds 6 Cyl. 60 48 20% .32 .23 31%
Chevy 305 230 163 20% 9.83 8.60 12%
Chevy Luv 1600 cc 3.96 3.20 19.2% 57.3 53.7 6.3%
Fiat 126 Polska N/A N/A 20% N/A N/A 45%
Chevy 350 CID 366 38 90% 2.77 .16 94%
Chevy V6, 2.8L 19 12.5 65% .02 .00 100%
Chevy 350 (C) 79 21 73% .14 .01 93%
BMW 6 Cyl. 64 39 39% .60 .05 90%
Make/Model HC Before HC After % HC Decrease CO Before CO After % CO Decrease
VW Quantum 4 cyl (Fuel Savings of 17%)b N/A N/A N/A 1.5 0.5 66%
Proton 1.5L (Power increase fr/ 58 kw to 59 kw)c 130 100 23% 2.0 1.4 30%
Maruti (India Vehicle) 100 60 40% 2.6 1.6 30%

Make/Model HC Before HC After %HC Decrease CO Before CO After %CO Decrease Mileage (+)
Chevy Suburban 56.0 6.0 89% .10 .00 100% + 27%
Ford Bronco 69.0 10.0 86% .19 .00 100% + 28.9%
Nissan 43.0 4.0 91% .00 .00 0% +10.3%
Blazer -- -- 36% -- -- 13% + 50.8%
D Truck/V6 Duetz -- -- -- 40 ppm 10 ppm 75% diesel ppm  

((C) = Carburetor                          (F.I.) = Fuel Injection                                 * = Accuracy within +/- .04
a = Guatemalan Report                b = Argentinean Test                               c = Malaysian OEM Test
1 = Boston Gas Company           2 = On file with Magnexx Corporation
3 = Buick has heavy deposits, must go through stabilization period to attain full results.
4 Stabilization period only, final not available

Magnetizer Fuel Energizer Certified Fuel Savings & Horsepower Increase Tests
  • VTEC Laboratories – test – 26% drop in fuel consumption.
  • Preliminary Emissions test by Institute of Aeronautics (Poland) – 40% CO reduction, 20% HC reduction.
  • RV Power Group – Gulf Stream high rise from 5.34 mpg to 8.08 mpg.
  • Bacon Equipment Company – 33% horsepower increase (farm tractor).
  • J.P. Bethlehem, PA – 12.5% faster ¼ mile race time (Corvette).
  • Manner Automotive Tech – 10% horsepower increase (Chevrolet).
  • Penske Racing – 4.8% average horsepower gain (full race engine).
  • Tom McCall, Petrochemical Engineer – de-carbonizing of fuel injection system and engine.
  • Chile EPA – 18% Fuel savings.
  • Chinese test on early prototype Auto Fuel Energizer – 7-10% Fuel savings.
  • Tomei Industrial Furnace, Taiwan – reduction of 11.7% of heavy oil used.
  • Northern California Diagnostic Laboratories reported a 5% increase in horsepower during testing.
  • US Border Patrol Test (8/10/95) – 94 Chevy Suburban 27.0%, 90 Ford Bronco, 29.8%, 91 Nissan 4 x 4, 10.3%, 86 6.9L Diesel, 50.8%.
  • Electrometal Ltd. (7/31/95) – Genset (Motor/Generator) – Saved 25% on Diesel Fuel.
  • Wheels Ltd. (11/04/95) – Two Ambassador’s Vehicles, increased mileage of rental cars by 17.46% and 18.0% respectively.
  • City of Berkeley CA – Fuel Economy change: 95 Ford Crown V8, 14.13%, 95 Ford Crown V8 (2.46%), 90 E-350 Ford Van V8, 7.06%.
Fuel Certified test copies available upon request. (10/22/93).

Certified Tests
Beijing Railroad Locomotive average fuel savings - 4.88-5.91%. 60% reduction smog & elimination of carbon buildup in the Combustion chambers. Elimination of boiler scale.
United States Air Force 80% reduction in smoke, +50% reduction in carbon monoxides, +50% reduction in hydrocarbons.  Petrol vehicles fitted WITH catalytic converters.
US Postal Service, CA Fuel Savings of + 8%, Reduction of Hydrocarbons by + 15%, Reduction of Carbon Monoxide by + 11%.
U.S. Federal Border Patrol +10% increases in fuel savings, +50% reductions in carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
VTEC Fuel savings of 26% under laboratory conditions on equipment calibrated to the United States equivalent of NAMAS.
Sirim/Malaysia Average of 5% Fuel Savings, 40% reduction in carbon monoxide emissions.
City of Berkeley, California Recommendation was made to install on the balance of the fleet and 4 of the waste huller trucks.
Environmental Protection Agency (Latin America) 18.8% reduction in fuel consumption. CVS-75 Standard Motor Industry Test.
EPA/Sri Lanka (Ceylon) Diesel Smoke Opacity Emission Test, 60% reduction in Diesel Emissions
Mercedes Benz Well over 50% reduction in smoke, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide.
Nissan  Tests on 5 vehicles all showed dramatic reductions in hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.
Proton Significant reduction in carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.

Field Test

Various Field Tests from the US and around the world.

Penske Racing 4.8% increase in horsepower on some of the most finely tuned and engineered vehicles in the world.
Ford/Volkswagen In excess of 50% reduction in carbon monoxide emissions
Quality Automotive Report shows long-term positive effects of Magnetizer EPM Systems
United States Department of the Air Force
Air Force Material Command
Management & Equipment Evaluation Program (MEEP)

Background:  Three vehicles, two petrol and one diesel, at Hurlburt Field, Florida, were removed from service, exhaust gas emissions were tested for pollutants, and MONO-POLE (single pole) magnetic units were fitted.  The vehicles were allowed to run for 10 minutes, then gas emissions were tested again.  Dramatic improvements in harmful emissions were noted.  To ensure continuity in testing, the same mechanic performed all emission tests using the Bear 2000 series diagnostic analyzer, EPA approved and calibrated equipment.  All tests were carried out with engines at operating temperature.
   (a)    Three vehicles were selected for testing over a six month
            period   in order to fully assess the effect of MAGNETIZING.
            Two vehicles were petrol, one diesel bus.
   (b)    The same mechanic conducted all emission tests for all 
            prior to the installation of the system.
   (c)    The system was installed to the fuel lines on all vehicles using 
            only plastic cable ties.  A large “cooling system” magnetic unit 
            was fitted to the vehicle’s cooling system. 
           No lines, fuel or water,  were cut or disturbed.
   (d)    An emission test was conducted after the units had been 
            fitted, having allowed the vehicles to run for 10 minutes.  A 
            notable change in emission out put, up or down, confirmed 
            correct installation.

    (a)   The system reduced harmful emissions from the petrol 
            engines  almost immediately after installation and continued to 
            maintain the reduction throughout the six month period (see 
            charts A & B).
    (b)   The diesel engine showed an immediate reduction of visible 
            smoke. Prior to the installation, the 1985 bus was a very 
            heavy smoker, putting out clouds of thick black smoke
           After installation, the smoke could BARELY BE SEEN 
           WITH THE NAKED EYE (see Chart C).

Disadvantages:              NONE NOTED

Safety:                              NO SAFETY HAZARDS ENCOUNTERED

      (a)   Tangible savings:  With such reductions in emission output, 
            clearly better combustion is being realized.  With correct 
            carburetion/fuel pump adjustment, this increased efficiency 
            can easily be converted into substantial FUEL SAVINGS.
       (b)  Intangible savings:  Less pollution in the atmosphere

Project Results:
       (a)  Conclusions:  The MAGNETIZER fuel treatment system 
              demonstrated the ability to reduce harmful emissions in both 
              petrol and diesel engines.

        (b)  Recommendations:  We are RECOMMENDING the 
               MAGNETIZER fuel system be APPROVED for AIR FORCE 
               USE.  Further recommend that a NATIONAL stock number 
               be assigned.
(As a result of testing, a stock number was assigned, and this product is now available for military use)

(Latin America)

Magnetizer CVS-75 Test Summary

Location: Comision De Des Contaminacion De La Cividad
De Santiago De Chile (Chilean EPA)
Date: January 6, 1992  
Vehicle: 1600 cc 1990 Chevy Luv  
Test Identification: Gasoline:  93 Octane
Constant Volume Sampling (CVS)
Cycle FTP-75, Stabilized Phase
Results: Average fuel efficiency {KM/Liter} without MAGNETIZER 8.50
  Average fuel efficiency WITH MAGNETIZER 10.10
1.1              Vehicle Identification.  Make:  Chevrolet
  Model: LUV 1600
  Year:  1990
  Type: Pick-Up, simple cabin
  Weight: 1410 Kg
  Tag: D1-2492
1.2              Test Identification. Fuel: Gasoline, 93 Octane, Leaded
  Method:  CVS (Constant Volume Sampling)
  Cycle:  FTP-75, Stabilized phase
              Measurement units. Carbon moxoxide:   [g/km]
  Carbon dioxide:  [g/km]
  Nitroxide:  [g/km]
  Hydrocarbons   [g/km]
  Fuel consumption: [Liter]
  Traveled distance:   [Km]
  Fuel efficiency: [km/l]
  Ambient temperature:  [°C]
  Ambient pressure:  [mmHs]
  Ambient relative humidity: [%]
  Duration of test:   [min]
1.3              Type of analyzing instruments used.  
Carbon monoxide: Infrared non-dispersive
Carbon dioxide: Infrared non-dispersive
Nitroxide Chemioluminscent
Hydrocarbons: Detection through flame ionization


Units of Measurement  Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
Fuel Consumption [L]  0.64 0.60 0.60
Fuel Density [g/l]  738.00 738.00 738.00
Distance for test [km] 6.20 6.20 6.20
Time for test  14.70 14.70 14.70
Ambient Temp [°C] 30.00 31.00 32.00
Barometric Pres [mmHg] 721.00 719.00 719.00
Relative Humidity [%] 35.00 25.00 23.50
 Calculated Values       
Carbon Monoxide [g/km] 52.50 52.70 55.90
Carbon Dioxide [g/km] 356.80 369.40 373.40
Hydrocarbons [g/km] 3.40  3.00 3.20
Nitroxides [g/km] 1.20 0.90 1.40
Fuel Efficiency [km/l] 9.70 10.30 10.30
Units of Measurement Base Line
Without Magnetizer
Base Line
With Magnetizer
Carbon Monoxide [g/km] 57.4  53.7
Carbon Dioxide {g/km]  366.7 366.5
Hydrocarbons [g/km]  4 3.2
Nitroxides [g/km] 0.6 1.2
Fuel Efficiency [km/l] 8.5 10.1
Conclusion: Test averages show that MAGNETIZER reduced fuel consumption by 18.8%
Comments: The determined indexes of emissions correspond to the ones obtained with the cycle test FTP-75 in the stabilized phase (II), tests between 505 and 1371 seconds.  In this test (velocity v/s time), the vehicle travels on rollers which simulate the rotational power and inertia of the vehicle.

 The measuring process used is the one established by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, USA).

Emissions Testing by Mercedes Benz - Argentina S.A.

Dated: November 10th, 1993
Location:  Buenos Aires
Representative:  Dr. Marcelo Breitman
Vehicle:  Diesel Engine Bus
  CO @ 600 rpm CO @ 2800 rpm HC @ 600 rpm HC @ 2800 rpm

0.09 0.14 30.00 46.00

0.04 0.06 12.00 16.00
I’m pleased to inform you that MERCEDES BENZ has performed the above test on a diesel engine bus equipped with sets of DFE-6 plus TCE (Magnetizer diesel fuel energizer, truck coolant energizer).  Even though it was a perfectly tuned engine, the results were very good, as you can see.

 A reduction in the consumption was not tested, but stoichimetrically, there must be a substantial reduction in consumption.

Guatemalan Magnetizer Report - Nissan (Dicorsa Plant)

Date April 13, 1991
Location: Dicorsa (Nissan)
 Emission Analyzer:  Sun EPA 75


BFR = Before fitting Magnetizer

Vehicle  Idle CO Idle HC CO @ 2500 rpm HC @ 2500 rpm
Suzuki Swift 1991, 1298 cc BFR  3.00 295.00 1.60 170.00

Suzuki Swift 1991, 1298cc AFT 
1.60 170.00 0.15 100.00
Nissan 200 SX Turbo BFR  0.3 210 0.3 70
Nissan 200 SX Turbo AFT  0.2 165 0.2 90
Mitsubishi L300 1400cc BFR   6.2 390 4.2 180
Mitsubishi L300 1400cc AFT 3.6 330 1.8 90
Chevrolet LUV 1800 BFR 1.1 240 3.6 320
 Chevrolet LUV 1800 AFT  0.8 250 1 180
Volkswagen 1600cc BFR 3.8 320 7 320
Volkswagen 1600cc AFT 2.8 270 6.8 250


ATF:  After fitting Magnetizer

  OEM Malaysian Saga Automobile Factory - Emission Tests

location:                           Vehicle Testing Laboratory – SIRIM, 
Date:                          June 1993
Vehicle:                           Proton 1.5S Megavalve
Engine:                          4 Cylinder, carbureted, gasoline powered
Miles:                          New vehicle
  Hydrocarbons Carbon Monoxide Power [Kw]
130 2 2 58 Kw
100 1.4 1.4 59 Kw

PENSKE Dyno Testing - Race Car Engine - February 17, 1989

Without Magnetizer  
Torque – Ft/Lbs Horsepower
320 534
327 560
331 599
336 640
358 656
318 666
Average                    328.3 609.2
With Magnetizer  
Torque – Ft/Lbs. Horsepower
334 541
330 656
332 600
337 642
332 664
321 672
Average:                  331                                        614

Through the use of the MAGNETIZER Fuel Energizer, the Dyno-tested Penske race car engine developed an average of 4.8% Horsepower gain.  It should be noted that the Penske Engine represents the highest state of the art design in combustion engineering technology.  Consequently, it was amazing that the attachment of a MAGNETIZER unit could provide a meaningful increase in power.

Fuel Efficiency Tests of the Magnetizer Fuel Energizer

1.0           Test Description
The described test was conducted inside a large facility under controlled conditions.  The exhaust gasses were vented outside the building.  All the parameters of the test were kept constant throughout the program.

1.1          Test Set Up
A Kohler generator was connected to an external graduated fuel tank that was kept at approximately the same height as the carburetor of the generator.  A calibrated flow meter was inserted between the fuel tank and the generator.  A load bank consisting of lights and heater was attached to the generator.  The generator was placed on a small table approximately 30 inches above the floor.

1.2           The Generator

An electric portable Kohler generator with the following specifications was used for this project:

Model 3.5 mm65
S/N 260058
KVA 3.5
3600 RP
Watts 3500

The load bank consisted of five 300 watt light bulbs and a 900 watt heater which was approximately at 70% load.  Each load source had an electrical plug at the end of the wire which was plugged into the generator.

The generator had two receptacles rated at 120 Volt, 15 Amp maximum.  Each receptacle had a load bank plugged into it.

No adjustments were made to the generator prior to the start of the test program.

1.3             Flowmeter

A separate line was run from the remote fuel tank directly to the carburetor with a flowmeter and a 12 inch steel line that ran in between to make the attachment of the MAGNETIZER unit.  The fuel pump was by-passed.  The flowmeter was manufactured by Brooks Instruments with the following specifications:

S/N   99223
Tube Number  R-215-A
Metering viscosity 0.640 cS
Date of Calibration 6.28.90
Flow Range   0.011 to 1.025 (liq) gal/hrs

The gasoline used was CITGO unleaded 87 octane.

1.4           Exhaust Gas Analyzer

The exhaust gas from the generator was analyzed for oxygen and carbon monoxide.  A stainless steel tube was inserted in the exhaust pipe of the generator.  The gas analysis was through a system that had a pump to draw the gasses and a cold trap/drierite system to remove the water.

Gasses were continually drawn through the system with continuous display readings.  The following gas analysis equipment was used:

Servomex Oxygen Analyzer Model 540A
Horiba Carbon Monoxide Analyzer Model PIR-2000

2.0           Results

The generator was operated for three days before the described test results were obtained.  This was done in an effort to “break-in” the engine and work out any problems that could result prior to testing.  Readings were taken as required when the MAGNETIZER was installed and then removed.  The generator was run continuously.  The results are for two sets of runs.
Time of Reading Flow Range Peak Flow Amps Volts  O2 CO W-W/O
14.45 65-70 70 21 117.5 12.9 12 W
15.56 100-110 110 21.2 117.6 14.1 7 W/O
16.08 65-70 70 21.4 117.5 14.1 5 W
16.48 95-100 100 21.2 117.5 14.1 6.5 W/O

 W-W/O     W - indicates with magnet installed                   W/O - indicates without magnet installed

Each time the MAGNETIZER was removed or added, it was necessary to re-adjust the carburetor.

Based on the above information, the MAGNETIZER device for this test reduced the fuel consumption by approximately 26%.


At MAGNETIZER, we are quite pleased with the V-TEC Laboratories test resulting in a 26% drop in fuel consumption achieved through the use of our Fuel Energizer.

What is truly amazing is the reduction in gasoline consumption while the electrical output of the gasoline driven generator remained almost perfectly constant.  The wattage, a product of amps time volts, varied from the average of 2491 watts by less than one percent.  It should be noted that maximum wattage occurred when the generator was equipped with a MAGNETIZER.  During this run, the carbon monoxide was at its lowest level.  This is to be expected since carbon monoxide is oxidized to carbon dioxide.  With any internal combustion engine, maximum output will occur when carbon monoxide is minimized and carbon dioxide is maximized which is in accordance with stoichiometric principles.

In using a gasoline driven generator, the electrical load can be matched to the output very closely, as indicated above.  Vehicular testing with friction and mechanical transmission difficulties could not have generated such precise results.

The MAGNETIZER unit was mounted on a 12” length of steel tubing.  It is possible that the slight improvement in fuel economy in the fourth run after the MAGNETIZER was due to residual magnetism.  However, the variation between MAGNETIZER equipped runs and non-MAGNETIZER runs were so large as to make the results of residual magnetization inconsequential.  Future runs should be conducted utilizing a non-ferrous gas line.  Since the lines of magnetic force penetrate these materials easier, the results will be higher than the 26% results that we have already achieved.

Results were conducted on test equipment calibrated to the National Institute for Standards testing requirement, formerly The National Bureau of Standards.

AUTOLATINA Testing - Ford/Volkswagen Partnership
Dated:  October 13, 1993
Location: Argentina S.A
Representative: Dr. Marcelo Breitman
Reported by: Mr. Alfredo Martone, General Manager of Manufacture
Vehicle: Volkswagen Quantum

Comments: Mr. Martone also confirms that the consumption of gasoline dropped by 17%.


Manufacturer  PROTON
Vehicle Type  Sedan
Trade Name ISWARA 1.3S
Model & Chassis No C21ASN – D075504
Registration No.  WFU 3714
Drive Wheel  Front
Engine Model  4G13P
Engine No.  PI 2000
Engine Type Four cylinders in line, SOHC
Capacity 1298 c.c
Fuel Supply System Carburetor
Ignition System Electronic
Mileage  77600 km
Test Unit: Magnetizer Auto EPM

•     Fuel Consumption decreased by 3.29%.

•     Exhaust Emissions at idling Carbon Monoxide (CO) decreased by 10.4% and Hydrocarbon 
      (HC) decreased by 4.3%.
•     Exhaust Emissions at 90 km/h Carbon Monoxide (CO) decreased by 29.2% and Hydrocarbon 
      (HC) decreased by 22.4%.
•     Power output increased by 6.6%.

Original full text report on file
Manufacturer  PROTON
Vehicle Type  Sedan
Trade Name  PERDANA 2.0i
Model & Chassis No. E5S & PLIESARRTB 013775
Registration No.  WFU 6242
Drive Wheel Front
Engine Model  4G63P
Engine No. DT 5079
Engine Type Four cylinders in line, SOHC
Capacity  1997 c.c
Fuel Supply System Injection
Ignition System Electronic
Mileage  64443 km
Test Unit: Magnetizer Auto EPM


•   Fuel Consumption decreased by 6.62%.

•   Exhaust Emissions at idling Carbon Monoxide (CO) decreased by 14.3% and Hydrocarbon 
    (HC) decreased by 16.6%.

•   Exhaust Emissions at 90 km/h Carbon Monoxide (CO) decreased by 22.7% and Hydrocarbon 
    (HC) decreased by 22.6%.

Original full text report on file
TEST DATE: 5/20/99  
Manufacturer  KIA MOTOR
Vehicle Type  Four Wheeler
Trade Name  KIA SPORTAGE 2.0
Model & Chassis No. KNE JA5535 T5 - 414656
Registration No.  WES 4065
Drive Wheel  4x4
Engine No.  
Engine Type  Four cylinders in line, DOHC 15 Valve
Capacity 1998 c.c
Fuel Supply System Injection
Ignition System   
 Mileage  23766 km
Test Unit: Magnetizer Auto EPM


•   Fuel Consumption decreased by 6.11%.

•   Exhaust Emissions at idling Carbon Monoxide (CO) decreased by 100% and Hydrocarbon 
    (HC) decreased by 67%.

•   Exhaust Emissions at 90 km/h Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Hydrocarbon (HC) remain the 

•   Power output increased by 2.3%.

Original full text report on file

EPA Test/ SRI LANKA (Ceylon)

Magnetizer Diesel Smoke Opacity Emission Test conducted at 
United Motor Car, Sri Lanka (Ceylon)

(Importer of Mitsubishi Motor Cars)

Magnetizer Diesel Smoke Opacity Emission Test
(Conducted by Sri Lanka(Ceylon) EPA)

Vehicle One

     Date:            May 17, 1999

     Model:          Isuzu Pick Up Truck 
                         (Owned by Managing Director of Department of Transportation, Sri Lanka (Ceylon))

Lucas Hartridge Free Acceleration Test EEC72/306

Before Magnetizer EES:            30.1 HSU (opacity) Average

After Magnetizer EES:                11.8 HSU (opacity) Average

Diesel Emission Reduction: 60.7%

Vehicle Two

Date:                May 17, 1999

Model:              Toyota Pick Up Truck
   (Owned by Director of Sri Lankan (Ceylon) EPA)

Lucas Hartridge Free Acceleration Test EEC72/306

Before Magnetizer EES:           56.4 HSU (Opacity) Average

After Magnetizer EES:              21.7 HSU (Opacity) Average

Diesel Emission Reduction:     61.2%

Nepal Magnetizer – Emissions Testing

Date:                                            April/May 1999

Magnetizer                                   Intercraft Pvt., Ltd.
Representative:                           Kathmandu, Nepal

Test Equipment:                          Nepal – EPA – Protocol

Presented Technical Men:         Commissioner Motor Traffic – Nepal

Emission Testing of Petrol Vehicles

Vehicle No. Vehicle Type Before Magnetizer After 1000 Miles % Reduction
NA.A.CHA1851 Toyota Car 6.25 630 0.01 80 99.85% 87.30%
BA.A.CHA5152 Mazda Car 5.50 1070 0.13 1290 97.85% (+) 20.5%
BA.A.YAN.7684 Maruti Car 6.49 240 0.12 320 98.15% (+) 33.3%
BA.A.YAN.3708 Maruti Car 10.28 500 0.43 110 95.82% 78%
BA.A.YAN.9158 Maruti Van 8.32 450 0.52 20 93.75% 95.55%
BA.A.YAN.3042 Maruti Car 5.21 360 0.92 0.12 14.29% 91.60%
BA.A.JHA.3965 Maruti Car 0.14 240 0.12 280 14.29% (+) 16.6%
Average Reduction of CO:                 83.12%                 Average Reduction of HC:  38.97%

Emission Testing of Diesel Vehicles

Vehicle No. Vehicle Type Before Magnetizer
After 100 Miles
% Reduction
BA.A.GYAN.1931 Mitsubishi Jeep 98.40% 11.50% 88.31%
BA.A.CHA.7998 Land Cruiser Jeep 98.00% 23.30% 76.22%
BA.A.YAN.4399 Toyota Car 100% 37.80% 62.20%
BA.A.JHA.5128 Nissan Jeep 98.50% 39.40% 60.00%
SA.A.JHA.62  Land Cruiser Jeep 92.00% 38.90% 57.72%
BA.A.YAN.8931 Toyota Jeep  81.00% 47.90% 40.86%
 BA.A.JHA.4273  Mitsubishi Jeep 98.10% 56.30% 42.61%
Average Reduction of HSU (Smoke):  61.13%

When Magnetizers are installed, there is a stabilization period that the engine goes through (cleaning) which can and often does raise the emissions as it goes through this cleaning process.  This cleaning process removes existing carbon and varnish that has been deposited in the fuel and combustion chamber over time.  When the Magnetizers are installed, this build-up starts to dissolve and some goes out the tail pipe while some of the deposits end up in the oil.  This contaminates the oil at a faster rate than normal and requires that the oil be changed to see the maximum benefit.  Had these vehicles followed Magnetizer’s proper testing protocol the results in emissions reductions would have been more in line with Magnetizers expectations

TEST DATE:  3-12-97

ORGANIZATION:  Locomotive and Car Research Institute, China Academy of 
                                  Railway Science

MODEL:  Tung Fong 4, Serial # 2502  Locomotive

FUEL:  Diesel

During the test period, from June 1996 to March 1997, the average savings were 4.88%, with the peak speed at 120 km/hr.  In the month of April 1997 the peak speed rose to 160 km/hr with average fuel savings of 5.91%.  The highest recorded savings with the Magnetizer was 9.11% in December 1996.

As related in the bar diagram, it took approximately 3 months (or 90 days) to see a meaningful reduction in fuel usage.  Also, at the first maintenance inspection after Magnetizer units were utilized, it was found that the diesel injectors had less carbon and the residue that remained was soft.

The conversion of hard carbon deposits into a softer form is to be expected, since chemical producers of carbon block use magnetized fuel to produce a finer, softer form of carbon.

The conversion of hard carbon deposits to soft carbon residue is helpful in increasing useful engine life.


Agency – CREA – PA  BRAZIL   (EPA Testing)

Testing Engineers:  Heleno Teixeria, Mechanical Engineer CREA – 3538-D
Vehicle: Omnibus Scania 1511 (Standard Diesel Passenger Bus)
Vehicle Registration: Transporte Boa  Esperance
Magnetizer Systems:  Commercial Diesel  Bus System
Test Date: May 1 through June 7,2003
Test Period:  24 Days
Test Length: 6,700 Km

          Without Magnetizer 2.874 Km/L
          With Magnetizer 3.452 Km/L
          Fuel Savings  20.11%

Substantial reduction in diesel exhaust was noted but no data or opacity was provided.

Original full test in file



323 6.839 KM 2.939 L 2.326
6.397 KM 2.517 L 2.541
407 5.778 KM  2.433 L 2.374
    AUTONOMIA 9.36%

323 6.015 KM 2.520 L 2.386
325 6.223 KM 2.634 L 2.363
6.027 KM 2.381 L 2.531
    AUTONOMIA 9.35%

     •   O ônibus 407 após o segundo teste,  fez 9,36% a mais de economia em relação aos 
          ônibus       323-325, sem magnetizer.
     •   No primeiro teste  o ônibus 325 com Sistema Magnetizer instalado fez 10% a mais de 
         economia em relação ao ônibus 407, o contrário que aconteceu no segundo teste.
     •   A conclusão dos 2 (dois) teste mostra que o Sistema Magnetizer instalado nos dois 
         diferentes ônibus por 28 dias para teste, fez  cada um 10% de economia. A prova é clara 
         que o  Sistema Magnetizer age conforme as declarações dos fabricantes, alem da 
         economia reduz a emissão dos poluentes  e fumaça preta do diesel. 

1983 FORD F-100 – 158,000 MILES



Neither engine nor radiator has had any repairs prior to this tear down due to a broken piston skirt.  Engine inspected by Performance Machine Shop, Austin, Texas.  Tear down and assembly done by Quality Automotive, Geronimo, Texas.  Inspection and photos by master mechanic, Paul Harborth (210-379-0581).

PHOTO #1: Water jacket inspection after removal of water pump.  Normally an engine with this many miles looks like a cavern full of stalactites from pitting and scale.  Water jacket requires no acidizing.

PHOTO #2: Face of valves showing no carbon build-up.  Original head gasket still in place.  Notice clean water jacket and spark plug holes.

PHOTO #3: Top view of piston in the block.  No carbon build-up.  A perfect valve seating indentation is still clearly visible in the recess of the piston.  No build-up in the water jacket holes.  Notice the original Ford inspection stamp still  on the engine block.

PHOTO #4: After removal of the piston, cylinder walls still perfect due to no grit from carbon allowed to get into the oil.

All parties concerned in the evaluation of this engine found it difficult to believe this engine, with this many miles, was still in this good of condition.  This engine was still in perfect working order and never used any oil between routine changes.  This tear down was due entirely to a broken piston skirt.

California Emissions Test
 Tested 2001
HC reduced 84%
Nitrous Oxide reduced 72%
Carbon Monoxide reduced 83% 

One of the greatest prices we pay for transportation is not the cost of fuel (which continues to rise), but the cost to our health (which continues to deteriorate) as a result of smog. The smog and chemical pollution which inundates our atmosphere is making many people ill. It is a matter of scientific record that the number of children developing asthma is on the increase. Empirical tests have shown that all over the world, city-dwellers are prone to pernicious respiratory ailments. The smog is caused by transportation, building and industry emissions. Since emissions are unburned fuel, logically, if the fuel could be burned more completely, there would not only be less smog, but greater fuel economy.

Magnetizer created a break-through solution as long ago as 1986 when it developed the monopole EPM  Engine Performance Maximizer.

The Magnetizer Engine Performance Maximizer has been called "one of the finest innovations in engine maintenance."

EPMs are currently being used and recognized by many authorities such as the US Air Force, State, Federal and International Governments. Municipalities such as the California's Berkeley Police and the Berkeley Sanitation Department also employ these systems to create cleaner air and save a great deal of fuel and money.

As indicated by a recent California Emissions Test (shown in the graph above), the Hydrocarbons were reduced by 84%, the Carbon Monoxide was reduced by 83%, and the Nitrous Oxide was reduced by 72%! Once Magnetizer's EPM (Engine Performance Maximizer) stabilizes between 200-500 miles, the emissions almost completely disappear.

Magnetizer also manufactures fuel systems for homes and industry that save money and enable dirty smokestacks to burn clean.

Back to Top

Axess1 Group, LLC & Content Copyright © 2009-2010. Magnetizers®. All rights reserved.