Any one else tried this ?
Found this web site www.broquet.co.uk bought one for my pickup as it offers a money back guarantee. Helped to pass the emission test, and seems to run smoother. So far fuel consumption has gone down, getting extra 25-30 miles per tank over the normal about 6-7% extra. Done about 100,000 miles in my van split 50-50 with the broquet. I don’t have access to rolling road to test power gain etc. Any one fancy a go at testing it ?
They used these on the Impreza P1, basically becuase they just used the STi 6 ECU which was meant for Jap 100 RON fuel, and we only had 97 in the UK at the time.
Not a believer myself!
I assume Subaru tested it before adding it to the car, if it did not work why use it ? With the � millions they spend developing cars/engines I can’t see them wasting money on adding unnecessary costs.
I read through many of the posts here and most people are prepared to spend quite a lot of money for small gains in power. Yet for about �200 you could get an increase with a money back guarantee. Seems a good deal as there is nothing to lose.
Just my thoughts on this.
You name isn�t David Lock per chance is it?
David
Not me !
I know David Lock as I bought 2 units off him for my Mitsubishi Pickups, they worked well. I did over 250k miles in them roughly split 50 - 50 with and with out Broquet, certainly improved my fuel consumption and the engines did run smoother. But with the Lotus it is difficult to tell either way as I have only done 5200 miles in 4 years ! So it is not really run in yet.
gkq aka Graham Quick.
yes this isnt suspicious at all not one bit
Fuel “catalysts”
Devices of this type include: Broquet, Fitch Fuel Catalyst, Prozone,
Fuelstar, Fuelcat
A vast array of usually tin-based products, either dropped in the tank or
fitted in the fuel line, claim to improve the fuel quality and so improve
power and economy.
The first point to note is that tin is not generally regarded as an
efficient catalyst for hydrocarbons. The “catalytic cracking” systems in
oil refineries often cited by makers of these devices in fact use Zeolites,
composed mostly of aluminium and silicon. The catalytic converters in
vehicle exhausts use platinum, rhodium and palladium. Tin is not a
significant component in either of these catalysts.
A second general point is that claims to have improved Russian fuel in the
Second World War do not mean that the device will do anything to modern
fuel. Refinery technology has moved on enormously in the past sixty years;
modern petrol and diesel fuel is a carefully-engineered product almost
ideally matched to the requirements of the engines it is used in.
Thirdly, the makers of these “catalytic” devices state with confidence that
they change the properties of the fuel in some way, for example converting
long-chain molecules to short-chain ones. Such changes could easily be
detected using a technique such as mass spectroscopy. It therefore seems
strange that the makers do not generally have any such measurements to show
that the device actually works in the way they claim.
The claims for these “fuel catalysts” are wide-ranging and varied, but I
will try and debunk some of the more common ones here.
A frequent claim is that it allows use of unleaded petrol in “leaded”
engines, because the tin coats the valve seats and so prevents wear. This
may perhaps be true, but the quantity seems far too low. These devices
often quote a 200 000 mile life. In that time a car would use leaded fuel
containing around five kilograms of lead. These devices do not weigh even a
tenth of that, so you have to wonder if there is enough there to protect
the engine. Also beware of testimonials along the lines of “I ran my
leaded-only car on unleaded for five years with (insert name of device)
fitted and there was no damage”. Firstly, some engines had hardened seats
anyway and only needed the lead to prevent knock. Secondly, a gently-driven
car is unlikely to suffer significant valve seat wear on unleaded,
especially if it has already built up many years` coating. (This is not a
recommendation to put unleaded in your cherished classic, though!)
Another similar claim is that the device increases the octane rating of the
fuel and so prevents knock, again allowing use of unleaded in “leaded”
vehicles. This might perhaps be possible, but you would have to wonder why
refineries have invested billions of pounds in Zeolite technology instead,
if tin is so effective. Once more testimonials of many years trouble-free running should be treated with suspicion. Many engines designed for 97RON leaded wouldnt knock on 95RON unleaded anyway, due to their design. Others
might knock under some conditions but since “classic” cars tend to be
driven fairly gently it would never be a problem.
There is also some anecdotal evidence that these devices do not provide as
much protection against valve-seat recession as the makers would claim.
Turning away from “leaded” engines, these devices also claim a “better”
burn in some way on all engines. The same comments apply here as to magnet
systems:
A common claim is that it makes the fuel burn faster. Full details of the
effect of burn rate on fuel consumption can be found on the turbulence
page, but basically:
- Faster burning does not, even in theory, improve fuel economy
significantly on modern engines (the burn rate is pretty close to optimum
anyway) - If the fuel really does burn faster, the ignition must be retarded to
suit
Another claim is that the fuel in some way burns “better” or “more
completely”. But only about one or two percent of the injected fuel escapes
unburnt from the engine (because it was trapped in the head gasket crevice,
for example). The other 99% is totally broken down into smaller molecules,
and then combined with oxygen to form water, carbon dioxide and carbon
monoxide. Essentially all the chemical energy in the fuel is released as
heat. How can the burning be any “better” than this?
The mechanism by which catalytic devices often claim to work is by
converting long-chain fuel molecules to short-chain ones. It is of course
true that petrol and diesel consist of many different molecules, ranging
from large ones such as octane (C8H18) to small ones such as butane
(C4H10). Longer molecules can in theory be broken down into shorter ones,
though this process normally requires heat and pressure, as well as the
presence of a catalyst. But even if the fuel “saving” device does break the
molecules down, this does not imply improved fuel consumption or emissions.
Firstly, the precise blend of components of modern petrol (and indeed
diesel) is quite carefully “tuned” to match the requirements of the engine.
This even involves selling different petrol in summer and winter to
compensate for differing temperatures! The proportion of the fuel that
evaporates at different temperatures (the “boiling curve”) is determined by
the blend of high boiling point (long-chain) components and low boiling
point (short-chain) components. If the proportions are altered, then the
boiling characteristics of the fuel will change. The likely effects are
either poor cold starting or poor hot starting, with increased emissions in
each case.
Secondly, short-chain molecules do not generally produce significantly more
energy when burnt. The calorific values of most hydrocarbon fuels are
around 44 - 46 MJ/kg, with smaller molecules producing only slightly more
energy than larger ones. Claims that smaller molecules burn “better”, “more
completely”, or “more energetically” are not supported by experimental data
(consider, for example, the fuel economy of LPG vehicles).
Some such products also claim a cleaning effect.
Especially surprising is the fact that many makers of fuel “catalysts”
claim their products are equally suited to petrol and diesel engines.
Petrol and diesel are quite different; the combustion processes in petrol
and diesel engines are quite different; and the qualities that make a
“good” petrol are not the same (indeed in some cases are exactly opposite
to) the qualities that make a “good” diesel. Even if we assume that a
catalyst to produce “better” petrol could be devised, and also a catalyst
to produce “better” diesel, for these to be one and the same thing seems
highly implausible to me.
Interestingly, certain makers of both catalyst and magnet-based fuel
“saving” devices claim that they were used by the RAF during World War 2.
Amazing that the British armed forces should have found not one, but two,
miraculous fuel-saving devices; even more amazing that they have apparently
now “lost” both of them. (Since getting fuel to the front line is a major
logistical problem, the armed forces are more interested in fuel
consumption than you might think.) A sceptic might wonder how much truth
there is in either claim.
Just to point out a few obvious mistakes:
“A frequent claim is that it allows use of unleaded petrol in “leaded”
engines, because the tin [ part of the catalysis in Broquet ] coats the valve seats and so prevents wear.”
I can’t find anything that says this is happens, also see below.
" These devices often quote a 200 000 mile life. In that time a car would use leaded fuel
containing around five kilograms of lead. These devices do not weigh even a
tenth of that, so you have to wonder if there is enough there to protect
the engine. "
Definition of catalyst = Catalysis is the process by which the rate of a chemical reaction (or biological process) is increased by means of the addition of a species known as a catalyst to the reaction. What makes a catalyst different from a chemical reagent is that whilst it participates in the reaction, is not consumed in the reaction. That is, the catalyst may undergo several chemical transformations during the reaction, but at the conclusion of the reaction, the catalyst is regenerated unchanged. As a catalyst is regenerated in a reaction, often only a very small amount is needed to increase the rate of the reaction.
“This might perhaps be possible, but you would have to wonder why
refineries have invested billions of pounds in Zeolite technology instead,
if tin is so effective.”
Zeolite is an absorption treatment, not a catalyst, as I use it in my work to absorb nitrogen based compounds, such as ammonia and Nitrate. So, no it is not a replacement for tin as they do different jobs.
The US Navy have just signed a deal with Finch : www.thegreendirectory.com.au/environmental_ news_and_articles/news/31072006FitchFuelCatalyst.html
So with out doubt they did not test it and it is just for fun, who cares about the money and extra work to install a product that does not work ! [ note hint of sarcasm ]
And it was not written by the manufacturer.
There have been many times when people have been wrong, the classic bumble bee can’t fly one, physics says no, nature says yes. ( Not a good example but I like it )
Frank Whittle, every one said the jet engine would not work, bugger there it goes, the most important engine yet made.
I notice there are a number of posts here saying " I bought this, tried it and it worked", and quite a number of you paid thousands for items that do not fit ( even though it was built for the car ) and you still say it is OK. Then complain when the manufactures don’t refund for the poor workmanship, the work required to fit it, or the faulty goods, very strange.
Perhaps they are all manufactures stooges, Quick call the skeptic police !
And for the skeptics I’m not David Lock, I do know him for obvious reasons, but I live 12,000 miles away in New Zealand. If you don’t believe me you can always phone David and myself at the same time to prove it ( Please note I’m 11 hours a head so no late phone calls please ) ( my number: 0064 21 0584023 ) Get David’s from his web page.
And last but not least have you tried it ?
No ? perhaps you should.
Graham
So not a sales plug then?
You have basically come on asking about a product, when you know Mr lock quite well, and know the science of the product quite well. I bet we could even get them from you if we wanted
No don’t sell them. Anyone who recommends or says it or in fact anything, works is basically offering a sales plug, I asked about wet weather tyres a few weeks ago and someone suggested Yokohama’s A039 so a sales plug, he could work for Yokohama.
I wanted to know if anyone has got figures ( as there are a number of with and with out charts posted on the forum ) as I can only say what I have ‘felt’ and run in two pick up’s, not exactly, hi tec engines, where as many of you race cars and use rolling roads to find the best performance, I don’t.
As to the working of Broquet/Finch I have no idea, but I know zeolite as I use it in my work, and I know what a catalysis is.
I do own a Garden Centre and Cafe, so if anyone comes to Tauriko, New Zealand drop in for a free coffee just mention this forum !
( Now that is a sales plug )
Graham
Fair play
hole. dig. deeper!
Ban.
In these days of environmental concern, why don’t ALL manufacturers include this in their cars if it increases power and fuel economy so much?
I put some of these BALLS in my Golf gti a long time ago and it made absolutely no difference surprisingly enough!
For the same reason you can buy a 10 litre V8 dodge viper or a 6 ltr Aston, in fact almost any car that can’t do 40mpg+, people and companies don’t really care, what every they say.
What about a small fibre glass bodied 2 seater that has tires that last 3000-4000 miles and cost �150 each, my off road tires lasted 60,000 miles and only cost �54.00 each.
Also most people buy cars on badge or extras not economy or long lasting tires.
Here in New zealand with a 100kpm speed limit popular cars are:
V8 pickups and big V6 saloon cars.
Why do people need big engines or more horse power ? To show off, I have to say I love driving my Exige over here as every one looks at it, although in the UK they are hardly given a second look.
I even saw a W8 VW Passat here last week, why bother when a diesel would be a much better buy? To show off.
Why did I buy an Exige when a Smart would have been a more practical and better financial buy, because I liked it and I wanted it. I didn’t ask B & C ( advertising plug ) what the fuel consumption was and I didn’t ask if the car was ‘green’. I didn’t even ask about safety features, airbags who cares !
To be honest I was only thinking of my self, the only options I had were totally self indulgent air con, and a radio, hardly green or caring. Yet I have solar on my house to heat the water ( another advertising plug ) and it makes me feel ‘greener’
Did any of you think of the green credentials, when you started to increase performance ( and fuel usage ) ?
Like my self, didn’t even cross your mind did it ?
No offense meant to anyone but you can see what I mean.
We live a world were everyone is different, which is a good thing, and we all have different priorities. So green is very much a back seat driver in deciding what car to buy.
Graham
Nope never thought about any green issues with anything I do, I’m sure that is bad but I do make an effor to recycle everything I can.
Thinking about it now I must have a personal carbon footprint normally reserved for small countries