john banks

Provocative is fine Richard

Let's get this straight. I had the usual Optimax map on Optimax - det free. Added 3 degrees onto full load timing except at 4400-4800 where I added 2 degrees because it is a bit dodgy there. Reset ECU. Drive. Transitional detonation sporadically in the midrange. Fit Broquets. Reset ECU. Drive on same bit of road in same temperatures (only 1/2 hour later). No transitional detonation.

Subjective is fine. Hearing det and having a knocklink light up at 2pm and not at 2.30pm with the same map is less smoke and mirrors. I have continued on the same map since and am still on the same tank of fuel. In all instances ECU knock correction was zero. It was a brief test only using my time and no big budget. It is enough to satisfy me that it works.

Perhaps I could add a bit more timing on top of this, but I'm going to get the fuel map and boost control finished on the 550s and 3 port solenoid before I return to the ignition map, which I will again tweak if possible after the inlet pipe.

[Edited by john banks - 10/19/2002 11:13:39 PM]

raybotha

Thank you for your response .

All in all a very positive thread indeed . Wonder how they came apon this discovery . Think I will check your web site out David , maybe get some history on this . If my car already has it in , Sti7-type UK , then I am keen to try it in my wifes Golf 4 Gti (1.8T) which most definitely objects to the local 93 ron unleaded .

BTW David you wouldn't believe how much Johannesburg has changed in the past 25 odd years . Not all good ...

I think as long as we keep everything in perspective ie. not expect no det at all from low fuel at high boost , but reasonable gains , all will be happy . You can't rubbish incremental increases . As John sais it all adds up .

Ray

SimonH

This is an interesting read. Backs up what the man from Broquet says.

scoobyboy

yes i am absolutly sure it was an sti type uk and the owner got it a bit wrong and put it in a ditch when we got it back it had dented the bottom of the fuel tank as well as taking out the the f/n/s wing and other various parts total cost was about £8000 to put it right. we dropped the tank and while swapping everything over i found a long net containing several roundish pieces of what looked like lead pebbles not quite sure what they were so put them in the new tank as well thought they must do something or else why would they be there. so thats why i am 100% sure that they have them.

[Edited by scoobyboy - 10/20/2002 10:03:28 AM]

Adam M

People are entitled to be sceptical, its always been the case, but I like others am happy to go on the word of people who i respect in terms of their mapping.


This makes no diff in this case as I bought broquets for my wrx about 3 years ago, and while I didnt use them purely for det reduction, I did notice better fuel consumption and smoother throttle response and faster pick up.

they were the first thing I bought for the 22B and gave the same effect. For the sake of £100 I thought why not?

The theere was a big hoo ha about why isnt there any scientific explanation about how they work. The first thing I thought was who cares.

If you have to wait for scientific proof of something, then go for it. The only person who loses out will be you. I dont see that it can do any harm, its just a lump of metal in your fuel tank!

But respected tuners such as bob rawle started to do testing, and he found he could advance the ignition by a couple of degrees with the broquets. He couldnt without, he could with, again good enough for me, even though I had already bought two sets when he announced this.

I learned a lot about this kind of thing during my career. You dont need to know how something works to patent it. I have read thousands of patent specifications which clearly state, we dont know ow this works, but we are patenting it anyway. Even with todays science, many mechanisms are not understood, and this form of alloy catalyst is one of them. Nothing snake oil about not understanding something.


does it work? yes
do we know how? no
does that stop it from working? no
do I care that I dont know how it works? no


solution for me? buy one (twice)

NOS nova

reading this thread makes me ask 2 questions.

1.is it worth £100+

2.if it does work like they say then do a test on it!!!

you already have one willing to do a test(harvey)it would instill more confidence in the product if there was some conclusive evidence to back it up from an independent source that has no financial gain from it.

not convinced at the moment!

NOS

raybotha

Adam echo's my sentiments exactly . Guess I'm just a born believer . Comes down to "moaners and groaners" or "winners and grinners" .

This post (mine) has no scientific relervance , just pure personal conjecture and I'm enjoying it and the other posts here too .

Carry on fellows . "Sorry , whats that ? someone still pinging ? ..." LOL

Ray

Hoppy

David, thanks for your email. It kind of supports the view that maybe this stuff works, it certainly does no harm, but no major motor manufacturer is going to fit something and claim benefits without being able to explain them. Makes them look a bit dumb. That is a legitimate commercial stance.

Adam, fair comments.

John, you sure it didn't pi55 with rain in that intervening 30 mins

Okay, having slept on it (and I nearly bought Broquet on the last ScoobyShop deal) I'm up for some. For me, the most convincing reasons are Bob R and John B say it works and gives measurable benefits. Nobody knows how, but it works. I think that is about as factual as it's going to get.

We're all pushing our engines pretty hard and usually looking to push them even harder, at considerable expense. £100 for Broquet could turn out to be very cheap insurance. Worst case senario? You've just wasted the equivalent of three tanks of petrol - I do that all the time!

Thanks for your input, guys

Richard

PS David, I'm amazed at your polite patience! Makes a nice change YHM

NOS nova

well....ok.....i have 3 nylon looking ***** in a sock that i am selling for £50 a pop and after putting them in your tank you will get an extra 2 bhp from.

anyone interested ? ? ?

not sure how they work, they just do!!!

i have no independent evidence at all but they work, honest!

are you convinced??????

David Lock

I am trying very hard to keep out of this debate but.....

For pity's sake every Broquet unit we send out has a full synopsis of test reports and trials that have been undertaken on Broquet included in the information pack which we send out. No it isn't a perfect list by any means but it's a pretty good start. The list ranges from independent internationally renowned laboratory trials to magazine reports.

And please just hold back and see it from our position for a moment. Yes easy to say "do a test" but what should be the focal point of the test? Increasing octane/reducing det'? Protecting valve seats in older petrol engines? Increasing power and torque? Acting as a decarbonising agent? Reducing smoke in diesels? Perhaps examining a role as a metals deactivating agent? Changing flame front characteristics? Reducing combustion operating temperatures? Improving mpg? Changing exhaust emission characteristics? Benefits in LPG conversion situations? etc etc.
I am NOT trying to be clever but there is a very wide application for the product but even so most of the above applications have been examined in a mixture of ways. If I am trying to persuade a county council, for example, that Broquet will reduce their fuel bill by up to 11% in oil fired boiler systems (which it will, btw) then do we invest in a test for Broquet's performance in fuel oil systems (which we have) or show them a report on reducing detonation in performance sports car engines? It's just not as easy as some of you guys make it sound.
The essence of the testing programme for Broquet over the years has been to demonstrate that use of Broquet changes the emission characteristics on petrol and diesel engines. This is because if it can be demonstrated that there is a signicant reduction in the biproducts of incomplete combustion - essentially CO and THC in petrol engines and smoke in diesels - then if the result of adding Broquet is a statistically significant reduction in these emissions then this can only mean that the result of adding Broquet is to make the combustion process more efficient. This has been shown to be the case and is supported by reams of anecdotal evidence in this respect; note I use the word "supported" and not "proven". This then leads on to a host of other questions such as the how and why. And please don't think that we take a cavalier approach to testing which is an ongoing process but time consuming and expensive. I also need to record our thanks to people like Bob Rawle and John Banks who have paid to buy the product and then undertaken to test it using their professional skills and report back - sometimes to an aggresive audience that they certainly don't deserve. David

EvilBevel

Et Tu John

I think being sceptical is good, but...

>>2.if it does work like they say then do a test on it!!!

I think John & Bob did just that. They played around with ignition advance, and saw a difference. That may not be "scientific proof", but it does count quite a bit in my eyes.

Enough to have convinced me to give it a whirl to be honest ...

I'm not a "believer" at all, and I don't think it's wrong to wonder about the "how", but 2°s of extra advance is 2°s of extra advance.

A lot of knowledge on this board has come from wondering, "is that really true ?" Probably the fact we can walk upright comes from that . But I'm also willing to accept that we can't possibly understand everything under the sun.

And to be honest, both Bob & John would have more to lose by stating this then they could possibly gain, if you think about it.

I know our time is limited, but it would be a nice idea to see the "experiment" on the Impreza is repeated a few times. (map to limit of det, fit Broquet, measure det again).

Would I be correct in assuming that this is even easier to do on a WRX than on the old model ? Cars constantly self adjusting ignition advance & all.

Also, David: would I be right in assuming that using Broquet with 98 RON fuel would see "less" benefit performance wise than using it with 97 RON ? Yes, I know John talked about Optimax, but I'm still very sceptical (here I go again ) about the fuel differences between the UK and "the mainland"... based on the same ignition map comparisons BTW.

I'm gonna order it, and see if it makes a difference on my car. I'm not interested in MPG to be honest, but I would be interested in either extra protection or torque gains.

In fact, I can feel another EcuTek mapping session coming on

Now there are about 7000 reasons why a car runs better/worse one moment to the other, but I'll try to give my feedback as honest as is possible.

raybotha

NOS , 12.3 quarter mile , nice going .

NOS nova

all this community is interested in is....

1, Protecting their engine from det

2, Adding extra bhp

If they were bothered about emissions they wouldn't remove the cats would they?

If you can prove this actually works then there would be a lot of performance enthusiats interested in the product.

Raybotha- thanks mate



[Edited by NOS nova - 10/20/2002 3:04:58 PM]

EvilBevel

Don't take that too seriously David. This is after all the internet, despite all the "let's be nice to each other" threads.

I think it's more important to see people like Adam, Bob, John give it an honest try, report favorably about it, and in the long run that will be more important to you (and possibly to us) than a few rough comments.

I used to think it was snake oil too, but wasn't very vocal about it... (it's not like fuel combustion is my area of expertise ) but now I'm seriously reconsidering. What more can you ask for YHM BTW.

David Lock

Thanks Theo - you also have mail.

Regarding extra benefits when using with 97 rather than 98 I don't know. I think John Banks made a valid point, IIRC, as I don't have thread in front of me that with an engine designed for 100 octane then "the more the merrier" as it were. I saw a report this morning on another board where a guy found improvements when using Broquet with Optimax and when he tried 95 he found (in his subjective opinion) it ran as well as it had done previously when he ran it on Optimax without Broquet - if you follow that rather convoluted English! Your best bet is to experiment and make your own judgment.

I smiled at your comments about aggression on the Internet but thanks for your reaassurance anyway. I simply don't like it. I am of the old school and I won't change my views on that so I'll guess I'll have to put up with it. As Tony Hancock once said "Courtesy costs nothing, young man".
David (old fashioned old codger)

NOS nova

david lock-you say you have full synopsis of test reports and trials that have been undertaken on Broquet included in the information pack

would you mind posting them up for us all to look at?

thanks in advance

NOS

David Lock

NOS. Yes I would mind. I think this would be abusing the use of Scoobynet. If you had an e-mail in your profile I would send you a list off line. In the meantime you could have a look at our site which will link to a couple of the main ones, DTI Warren Springs and Casella International although these are nothing to do with det' or sports engines. If you want to read about what Broquet can achieve in sports engines then have a look at the link to press coverage on our Singapore site at www.broquet.co.sg. DL

Adam M

I happen to know that there is a guy over on the skyline register who is somewhat of a fuel expert and has access to the necessary equipment to test these things properly.

regardless of what he tries to test, as a fan of engiens and cars, he will be in a position to research what we are interested in.

the thread is here on the skyline register and the guys name as you may guess is mycroft.

I am wondering if david lock might consider donating a broquet or releasing the information he requires so that he may study the effects in a controlled environment. He is the most qualified I guy I know of to give an opinion, and also the man to speak to if you dont understand octane boosters.

David Lock

Thanks Adam, Food for thought. I did look at the link but something is a litle odd with the reference to use of Broquet and pool petrol. The modern Broquet (as we know it now) was not returned to the UK market until the mid-eighties and Henry Broquet himself was overseas working as marine engieer in South Africa after the war so ther are some wires crossed somewhere. David

Adam M

those were only ther opinions of one of the older engineers at teh oil company mycroft works at.

woudl you be willing to supply a unit so that he can conduct the kind of tests he thinks we as performance car enthusiats would be interested to see?

Please reply on that thread.

NOS nova

Looks like the perfect opportunity to prove your product works, if I were the vendor I would jump at the chance to prove all my doubters wrong!!!

Pete Croney

Adam

On the last mega thread about this, I did read all of the tests and post my conclusions. Search does not go that far back.

I did also propose a test that would prove the effectiveness, or not, once and for all. Basically its two tanks, one with Broquet treated fuel one without, and a T feed that can be switched.

I have two Broquets, which I bought about 4 years ago and never used. Mycroft can use them if he's up for doing the testing. Get him to send me his address.

Adam M

pete,

that great.

which address should I forward to him?

Floyd

iTrader: (9)

"Bl00dy Broquet, had to have it removed as it really knackered my engine"....


......is a post that I've not seen yet, thankfully

I'm almost convinced enough to buy some myself I used to get this cr4p magazine called CSMA and it looked like a brochure for Broquet, which rather put me off it. I do like the sound of a bit more fit and forget, safety margin.

If it's supposed to improve performance, would I have to tell the insurance people?

F

pww

Broquet
I am a Broquet distributor and until recently a scooby owner for 3 years my97 2 years rb5 prodrive 1 year 100% of the time with Broquet in the tank.I have supplied over 50,000 to garages in the uk over 12 years.I supplied a number to scoobynet members as user name RB including Bob Rawle. I have yet to hear from a dissatisfied customer.Using is the proof.
ps David Lock is a great ambassador for this product and a gentleman as anyone who has talked to him will know.

NOS nova

so can you tell us how it works then???

pww

Henry Broquet and the Russian chemists that developed it i believe would be the only ones that could answer that question, i have theories.Unfortunately the equipment needed to to investigate the combustion process is extremely very hard to come by the few universities/establishments who have built equipment that perhaps
could unlock the secrets of Broquet are booked up years in advance mainly to engine manufacturers and oil companies and command a very high price for the use of.One University Professor in the UK told me i quote:We are surrounded by internal combustion engines but know very little about the combustion process:
So i can not tell you how it works,but i can say i have satisfied customers with fishing boats, jet skis,power boats,motorcycles,tractor units,lawn mowers, cars petrol/diesel/gas,generators and so on.
I am not trying to sell Broquet on the net but being a scooby owner for three years using Broquet all the time i believe it deserves some positive plugs.

Adam M

as I said before, you dont have to know how it works to appreciate if it does.

I doubt that Henry Broquet knew how it works otherwise it would have been in his interest to publish it.

Mycroft does have access to the equipment you are talking about, as he works for one of the major oil companies in their fuel division (I think).

Pete Croney

Adam

Get Mycroft to mail me with his address and I will send the Broquets over to him.

SimonH

Floyd - civil serpent eh? I asked about this on an aviation bulletin board and somebody there mentioned the CSMA and their love of the Broquet

Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons someone else posted the following there:

"Following my engineering degree, I worked for seven years in automotive fuels research at BP Sunbury, three years at the British Internal Combustion Engine Research Institute and (as a consultant) five years at AEA Harwell, where we had a chassis dynamometer and conducted emissions work.

Take it from me: every one of the fuel octane enhancing/economy improvement/emission reduction catalysts I was ever involved in testing - and there were many of them - UTTERLY FAILED TO WORK.

I have lost count of the number of mad inventors, charlatans and downright conmen who have sat at my desk, shaking their heads and insisting that all our carefully calibrated equipment could only be wrong. (The other ploy was to refuse to pay for our independent tests when they didn't match their deluded expectations.)

Caveat emptor!"

Hmmmmm. Pprune