nom

Ah, but how much of that was the Ramair filter, Pete?

That's the problem with these things - with any test - you have actually got two changes there, rather than one - and then there's the addition of the variables of the RR: was the 'first' run actually 4th in a 'set' with hot intercooler; the next one (with the two changes) is listed as having had cold water poured over the intercooler. Also (just being facitious here ) 'none' is listed as modifications, but 284bhp seems high, even for the the engine in question, so... was it also fully decatted, but with a 'pea-shooter' on the back, in which case obviously the BB is getting in the way of the flow & the replacement is going to make a difference.

Not trying to say anything about your (ex, now, I suppose) silencer, which is, as should be, held in the highest of regard, just that it's always difficult to prove these things - what were the exact conditions of the test? Then I can choose whether to believe them or not.
You've just 'proved' an increase with just a backbox change. I have, I believe - if the general content of this thread is anything to go by - just disproved that.

Yet more nails on more heads, I think

David Lock

Smashing - can we switch this thread to backboxes now as I need to recuperate

Adam M

edited because nom made my point anyway.


think the cold water is relevant there pete, also think the fact that both backboxes yielded a similar gain, suggests that perhaps the standard exhaust might have been blocked by a family of mice?


surely there are planty of people on here who have done a dfferent day before and after back box mod rolling road run?


I dont doubt your back box though, I had two!

[Edited by Adam M - 10/24/2002 2:10:16 PM]

Pete Croney

Nom, water was put onto the IC in order to make the subsequent runs comparable with the benchmark run. Each run causes the IC to get very hot, whereas it is almost cold on every first run. This was a very cold day.

Adam, it may be best to ask Mervyn how much he would expect the filter to have contributed. I doubt it was more than a few bhp.

The fact of the matter is that it is repeatable independant testing.

David says that there are 100,000 cars using Broquets. How many more much be sold before there is sufficient money in the tea pot to pay for an irrefutable test?

Adam, Mycroft has not contacted me yet.

RT

John,
FWIW - when a super long thread comes up like this, I scroll down each page and look for names like yours, Mutant Matt's, Bob Rawle's and Pete Croney's. All these opnions are read carefully. I second Mutant Matt's comment: that the board generally does value your contributions.

Cheers.

john banks

I'm just sulking because I am having a hell$hit time in my new job and my car is broken

nom

Pete, continuing in the same vane... You are claiming exactly the same things as David is.
Yup, that's the stuff

Why should we believe one and not the other? No reason. Same sort of claims. Same sort of problems with the claims. You're just lucky that yours makes a fantastic noise

p.s. - you can see from the info on 'results' page that the ramair filter apparently made around 5 bhp - I'd have thought rather more than it could unless the old filter was a load of toilet paper rammed into the airbox, but that's just my opinion but the main objection still stands as to the exact conditions of the test/state of the car, which aren't recorded, and therefore I could twist the results in any direction that I felt like.

David Lock

Pete, I am sure you make some valid points re the papers which were sent to you. What we had hoped at the time is that you would have raised any questions and comments with us so that we could, for example, have tried to put you in touch directly with some of the parties involved. May be you were right and they were wrong or vice versa. However one of the testers (Fiat) you were unhappy about is a Chartered Engineer, a retired lecturer in thermodynamics and an expert in this complex field - virtually his life's work; he does know his stuff so I would be surprised if he did what he did without a valid reason. But it would have been helpful if he had been given the chance to explain his reasoning before being shot down in flames. Anyhow I am sure that is enough on the subject. He said hoping...

Pete Croney

LOL at Nom

Yes, I see exactly where you are coming from, but my point was I had the faith in my product to have someone independant test it in front of a crowd of interested people.

The potential market for Broquet, with irrefutable test results, is in the millions. Not pounds, but customer numbers. The potential return from this product if it were proven to work is tens of millions and that's in the UK alone.

Adam M

must admit, I think pete is right here.

With so many sold, and a product which must have an enormous markup there must surely have been moew than enough money to answer this all.

Or is it easier to rely on those who arent sceptical to buy these things no questions asked?

Bob Rawle

Yes but I also remember a back to back test involving one of Petes back boxes where the recipient gained 2 bhp .... car run on rollers, taken across the road and box fitted then staraight back and on the rollers again. His wife was initially not impressed until she remembered that she had been promised an equivelant "spend", that was at the very first rolling road day I attended at PE.

Not a pop at Pete but just to show how test results can vary unless its really done scientifically ... ASA are obviously biased against catalysts ... thats not suprising though, bit like a judge who doesn't like "certain" offences and always hands out a heavy sentence whilst another treats them totally differently.

I used some fairly specific tests of my own and also my own "subjective" judgement ... Harvey you know how accurate that can be ... what's your compression again ?

cheers

bob

David Lock

Two late (for me anyway!) night comments.

1) The manufacturers, Messrs Broquet International Ltd, have spent many thousands of pounds on testing Broquet over many years. The testing money pot is not limitless. We all want more testing to be done. Two separate uni's were asked to provide the definitive answer and the budget figure for a comprehensive test was, in each case, in excess of £1m. Out of our league I'm afraid and even then there was no guarantee that we would have all the answers.

2) Re the ASA, years ago I got on quite well with a member of their team who said to me on the phone, off the record, "the problem you have David is that we simply don't believe that "these things" work". Probably more telling than their "official" stance. These "things" being the myriad of similar copy products without an iota of supporting evidence. Hardly the correct attitude of an independent level-playing-field organisation. Tarred with the same brush is what he meant. DL.

[Edited by David Lock - 10/25/2002 12:14:42 AM]

harvey

iTrader: (48)

Bob (or John for that matter) If you tell me you could add advance when you started using Broquettes and this happened with two separate cars then I believ you. You are convinced it was down to the Broquettes and it may have been but could it have been something else. I would be happy to have the worth of Broquettes proven but that is not happening even though, if it is a genuine article it is in the very best interests of the people selling the things.
In any case adding advance to an engine was not a selling point when I bought mine (At considerably less than the group buy special price. See my second post on this thread)
The benefits on the box have not materialised as far as I can tell and 7-12% fuel saving are in excess of those in the claim referred to by the ASA.Remember my purchase was earlier this year a considerable time after the ASA report referred to which upheld the complaint on lesser claims.
If a vendor is not able to substantiate claims and then tries to explain away the ASA decisions, not one but several,when Broquette have been given the opportunity to produce their evidence, then you would have to be very naive to believe the claims on the side of this box.
I wonder what the ASA will make of the current advertising in view of their previous findings.
For me it is snake oil but I would be happy for proof to the contrary. However in the absence of such proof I expect a full refund. Fair?
From the information we have you can demonstrate the improvements to my car stage by stage and you have the equipment and knowledge to do this properly and demonstrably. It takes a clever man to sit in the passenger seat and accurately determine compression ratio and I am impressed but if BRoquettes are such a great thing why do they not get you and A.N. Other to conduct trials within agreed parameters to add substance to their claims. Afterall your endorsement in the Scooby world is very powerful and if it came from properly designed and agreed tests then this debate would not need to take place again.

Had I been aware of the ASA findings I would not