No disrespect Mike, but the results are far from proven - it may well have helped way back with dirty fuel in the 40's, but fuel has come a long way since then, so have engines.
It's a well known fact that items such as these make bold and sweeping claims about the benefits, without going into any specific detail about how they actually work, I mean really work, not the bull¤¤¤¤. Some do go into detail though, they claim it alters the fuel on a molecular level, unfortunately this isn't difficult to prove so you'd think they'd have some documented evidence to back it up with, it's all hearsay and conjecture intended to prey on gullible fools looking for easy answers like you and me.
For me it's right up there with the unipole magnet system that removes carbon from the fuel lines - utter bloody nonsense.
I'll counter-argue any claim they make, one because I'm an idiot, and two because I know it's rubbish and us know-it-all idiots are always right.
This is one of the devices I actually believe works. Apart from the DTI tests, I've chatted with a guy on another forum who actually used one and proved dramatic improvements in fuel economy.
Unlike most of the magnets and other gadgets, this one actually runs the fuel through a medium that adds something (I'm not sure what) to the fuel. No doubt whatever's in there slowly dissolves over time, but they reckon it should be good for the lifetime of the car.
So why don't manufacturers fit them as standard?
The answer quite simply is that it increases the NOX output of the engine. Manufacturers are obliged to get NOX down to certain levels and if they fitted these boxes, they probably wouldn't get type approval for the vehicles. At present, I don't think there's a NOX test at MOT for either petrol or diesel (I could be wrong) though I've heard rumours of the introduction of roadside emissions testing that might include a NOX test.
As always there is claim and counter claim. Schmooster have you ACUALLY used the device if so what was your result, reading an article in the CSMA mag the writer states
"I have used Broquet in every car I have owned in the last 15 years and MPG has improved by 8 - 10%". Is he deluding himself or not? If he is then at £80 a pop its an expensive delusion Lets have more answers so we can compare results before dismissing it out of hand, even snake oil has its uses!!
None of the claims are backed up with any evidence, so whilst I haven't used it, the evidence (or lack of) speaks for itself.
I'm not interested in what people 'say' works, people have seen UFOs and ghosts it doesn't prove they exists, no-one has proof of what these catalysts do, merely theories based on very old technology around something that kind of worked 60 years ago.
BP Ultimate fuel works and they'll tell you why it works, they make no secret of the science because it's irrefutible, the science behind this is hogwash.
I'm an electronics engineer working in mass spectrometry, my whole career has been built on research and development in physics and chemistry, I promise you the 'facts' are nonsense.
I can find testimony from people who swear that putting magnets on the fuel lines will remove carbon, it doesn't make it fact no matter how many people swear they've seen improvements - it's bull.
Give me their 'facts' and I'll try to explain why they're rubbish, I don't claim to be an expert, but you don't need to be, it's basic stuff - if fuel companies could reduce the carbon in fuel so easily do you not think they would have invested millions doing it?
I believe that the magnets and airflow valves are snake-oil too, and I dismissed this one as being similar until I read a bit further into it. This here link makes some interesting reading. Plenty of opinion, both for and against, with those against basing their opinion purely on scepticism.
My "if it's too good to be true then it probably is" reasoning is still in place, but my big question is: If it doesn't work (and happy owners are running purely on placebo effect) then why does a report by the DTI find that the fuel savings are genuine? If they're lying about the test or deliberately misrepresenting the results, then surely someone would have pulled them up on it by now.
Out of interest, I've yet to see the slightest improvement in economy from sticking BP Ultimate Diesel in my car instead of the regular stuff. If we're going to be skeptical, then maybe they're just trying to baffle us with science too, and we only believe them because the technology sounds credible and they have a big brand name to back it up with.
Lol, at least they've gone to great lengths to test it though and they don't hide the tests or results, they can't afford to make bold claims that can't be substantiated because they would be sued for misleading the public at the very least, at worst for blatant fabrication which is fraud. BP would lose everything, some small insignificant company no-ones heard of though? Well they can say pretty much what they like as long as it resembles fact and isn't deliberately misleading.
I'm not fobbing this off because I'm sceptical, or not just because I am, it's the reasoning behind it, it's loosely based on fact but is so far out of context and way behind the times it's comical.
Tin pellets in the tank, come on, why not coat the inside with tin when they manufacture them?
If you look at the so-called evidence the tests were carried out on an engine which used a carburettor - when was the last time you seen one of them outside a museum or a lawnmower. I'm sure we can all appreciate engine efficiency has increased somewhat from those times - yeh I remember twiddling the screws and knobs on carbs just to get the things running sweetly - but in all honesty they were very inefficient compared to todays systems. Regarding using BP Ultimate deisel I have found very little increase in MPG but I would admit that starting in cold very improves and the engine seems to run a bit cleaner. If engines used this from new there might be less likelyhood of carbon build up in the engine and over a long period of time this may lead to more efficiency. One thing that must be remembered about diesel is that the Cetane level and sulphur content can vary widely and doesn't seem to be subjected to the same quality controls as petrol. Maybe BP are more stringent with the content of the Ultimate diesel fuel than the everyday stuff and this where they may justify the additional cost.
Fair enough, but we have a reputable authority stating that it does something constructive. I don't think it's fair to dismiss those results purely because they weren't carried out on a fuel injected engine. If it somehow makes fuel burn more efficiently in a carburettor engine without re-tuning, then why is it such a leap of faith to believe that it might just do the same in on an injected one? Whichever way you look at it, you're still atomising fuel into air and then igniting it.
I don't know why I'm sticking up for it to be honest, as I've no intention of buying one and don't believe the claims 100% myself. But I reckon it's unfair to dismiss this offhand, given that it has shown positive results under credible testing.
Okay, I think I may have fallen for the hype after all :crazy:
I assumed that the DTI report would have to be sensible and unbiased. But a google for similar reports shows the same test being used to support the amazing fuel saving abilities of the good old Ecotek valve :crazy:
The Ecotek definitely falls into the snake oil category as far as I'm concerned, so maybe this one belongs with it after all. Do you perchance have a seat to spare on your side of the fence? :surrender
Hi Horatio - who is the DTI they refer to - just doesn't seem to be clear - it doesn't appear to be the Department of Trade and Industry (UK) as i first thought or maybe that's part of the con. Of course I've got space on my side of the fence just bring your own chair and beer goggles. I'll supply the beer:rofl:
I think it really is The Department of Trade and Industry, but it's looking like they've only commissioned a report from a place known as "The Warren Springs Laboratory." From what I can fathom, this may once have been part of the DTI itself, but appears to be privately owned now. If you log onto the DTI's official website and search for "Warren Springs" it finds a number of links.
It's still coming across as pretty credible if you ask me, and I'd still be buying it if the Ecotek didn't perform so well when tested the same way. Then again, the Broquet literature states that it was tested by Warren Springs Laboratories. The Ecotek one only gives the results of a "DTI Warren Springs Test." I suppose they could have had the same test carried out by a less reputable laboratory, or even done it themselves.
I don't know what to believe at this point, and as I'm not planning on buying one, it's hardly worth my time trying to figure it out. I think I'll just stay happily undecided on the matter and leave it at that
Edit: Here we go - a PDF of the report actually carried out by the Warren Springs Laboratory of the Ecotek valve. It bears the DTI logo, which is consistent with the logo in other documents that can be downloaded from the DTI website. Looks like they've had the proper test done too.
I neve thought my original post would spark off such a heated debate but then that's what its all about is it not? Thanks anyway for all the comments but if anyone out there knows of something that actually works please let us know.
Hi I notice the Ecotek report is dated 1993 and engine design has moved on considerably since then - so the test would need to redone under strict laboratory conditions on more up-to-date engines. One of the main differences on many modern engines is the use of EGR valves which are designed to reduce exhaust emissions and if my memory serves me correctly the old Cavalier didn't have such a thing. Maybe the modern EGR valve is a an adaptation of their invention.
Blimey - a major bone of contention........ OK so several of you think the broquet is Bulldust.... and several are slightly sceptical......
Not entirely sure about the economy issue but my experience of broquet is in my LPG converted Focus... The LPG installer recommended getting a broquet to put in the LPG tank before final installation as it is supposed to have the same effect on LPG that adding REDEX does to a petrol or diesel car. i.e. fuel line + injector cleaning and valve seat lubrication. As you cannot add anything to LPG fuel the only way around this is a Broquet. There is sufficient evidence that broquet works this way as the RAF sent spitfires to Russia during WWII and they would not run on the low octane unleaded fuel available... Broquet catalyst added to tanks and Bingo the Rolls Royce Merlin engines fired up.....
Any way waffle over I only looked at this thread to see if anybody knows whether an 07 plate grand scenic 1.5DCi has any anti siphon devices in fuel filler to prevent me shoving a broquet down the tank.
Please don't try and dissuade me.... consider this an objective test using a modern diesel engine..
So any reason it won't go in via fuel filler...???
back in the mid-late 90's, i was looking into this kind of stuff when everyone was forced to go to unleaded, as my old mk1 festa ran like a dog on it.
as far as i and some friends who were in the classic car circuit know the active addition is LEAD!!!!
so its not advised to stick one of these into a unleaded car with a CATalytic converter on as the lead content will destroy the CAT's Platinium coating and make you fail the emissions tests.
it wont hurt Pre-92 motors (year the CAT was brought in)
but anything after.... your on borrowed time till something very expensive fails the MOT!
Hi Mord.... What makes you say there is LEAD in fuel catalysts..?? To my knowledge they are some exotic TIN alloy.... Have just emailed Broquet and asked them straight out how much lead is in the pellets. Will report back.
I know that quite a few people on here think that these products are just 'Snake Oil' but there is far too much history of successful use for there to be no truth to the effects of these catalysts. I do not want to fit one for economies sake. I want to use one for it's engine cleaning properties... I have had several diesels before and it was a constant ballache (and expense) to keep adding REDEX to fuel. Nobody can claim that stuff doesn't clean your injectors out and lubricate your fuel pump. . . . . !! It is supposed to improve mpg but i never noticed that effect but i did see improvements in engine starting smoothness etc etc... I do around 30,000 miles pa and my driving style could be described as POSITIVE. . . . or Clarksonesque.... I have pushed cars way past the point were diesel pumps and injectors have supposed to have collapsed and required rebuilds but this has never happened and I place all the credit for that on REDEX..... (PS I don't work for them..LOL) As my LPG installer recommended I put a broquet in LPG tank before installation, in my focus, for valve seat lubrication and protection. I began to look into whether broquet could do the same for diesel. They say yes.......
So to all the doubters who cry 'Snake Oil' I say well somebody has to test it and that is going to be ME.
So will it go down the fuel filler pipe or do I have to remove fuel sender and shove it in tank that way..?????