Evidence-Based Assessment of Commercial Fuel Additives Using OBD-Derived Fuel Economy Under Real-World High-Altitude Driving Conditions

This exploratory study assessed the vehicle- and route-dependent response of five multipoint injection passenger vehicles to two commercial fuel additives marketed as octane-related gasoline additives under real-world high-altitude driving conditions in Quito, Ecuador. The tests were conducted on one urban route and one rural/peripheral route using base gasoline with a nominal octane index of RON 85, RON 85 gasoline with Additive A, and RON 85 gasoline with Additive B. Fuel economy and CO2-related indicators were obtained through the OBD-II port using the Torque Pro application; therefore, the reported values were interpreted as electronic control unit-based estimates rather than direct gravimetric fuel consumption or laboratory emissions measurements. The revised analysis used OBD-derived trip-average fuel economy as the primary response variable. The mixed-effects model showed a significant effect of route on fuel economy (p < 0.001) and a significant fuel condition × route interaction (p = 0.0089), while the main effect of fuel condition was not statistically significant (p = 0.0699). Additive B increased the mean OBD-derived trip-average fuel economy on the urban route from 11.56 to 12.60 km·L−1, but reduced it on the rural route from 13.46 to 12.65 km·L−1. At the vehicle level, the previously extreme Vehicle 3 response was revised to a more plausible increase from 11.03 to 13.64 km·L−1 (+23.68%) when trip-average fuel economy was used. Since the actual RON/MON values and physicochemical properties of the final fuel blends were not experimentally measured, the observed responses cannot be attributed exclusively to octane number enhancement. Overall, the findings indicate that commercial additive performance was vehicle- and route-dependent rather than universally beneficial. This field-based assessment supports evidence-informed decision-making for sustainable mobility and aligns with SDG 16 and SDG 17 through transparent technical evaluation and academic collaboration.