Pro Boost is produced near where i live, we can get this if need be.

NF is much better on a driving / feeling point of view.

and is much more cost effective.

Which we can get too

dingy@happyland.co.uk

 

I don't think proboost has quite the mark up as the NF race formula and it certain feels better than,

Millers, Silkolene, and STP, to me anyway....

We can Get Millers and Silkolene.

But recommed the NF Race Formula.

THis is


equivlant ish to the millers.

 

Steve you da man when it comes to posting LOL

 

Say i wanted to buy a bunch of NF or proboost from you guys... How much? Any kind of bulk deal?

-Nathan

 

Yeah, and where is your banner ad. you blaggers ?

Cheers

Ian

 

Banners Done



Sent to SDB

 

Damn, foiled again, if it wasn't for those pesky kids........



Ian

 

Its not often we post these days, but after all the testing we have done, there is not a single octane booster on the market that comes even close to NF.

We have dyno charts of the Rigoli Car [worlds fastest] which showcases the awesome gains, the improved driveability, the reduced chance of detonation and the list goes on. I would bet by last cent, it would eat Millers and Silkolene for breakfast.

BPM fully endorse this and you will see some splash pahes on the worlds fastest WRX showcasing mainley 2 stckeickers ...BPM and NF

All the best

 

Its not often we post these days, but after all the testing we have done, there is not a single octane booster on the market that comes even close to NF.

We have dyno charts of the Rigoli Car [worlds fastest] which showcases the awesome gains, the improved driveability, the reduced chance of detonation and the list goes on. I would bet by last cent, it would eat Millers and Silkolene for breakfast.

BPM fully endorse this and you will see some splash pahes on the worlds fastest WRX showcasing mainley 2 stckeickers ...BPM and NF

All the best

 

So good you have to post twice huh?

 

HARJ/Dingy

Please keep us informed about the availability of this stuff,
(ps H you have mail)

Andy

 

Wow,
I get a new page!!

Andy

 

Trouser,

First off, claiming that a product gives a "provable" 4bhp, and then stating you don't even know the RR used, is somewhat daft. Let alone the fact that RR's are incapable of being that accurate, from one run to another.

I believe you guys specialise in rally car prep', tell me, just what mod's would you have to do to a car, to drop the peak torque by the amount you claim a "fuel additive" can ???

I'm not refuting the benefits of octane boosters, I use them, but your claims, regardless of any print out, are totally unrealistic. I'm not referring to the bhp claim.

Unless of course, Pete Croney, or any of his numerous Pro-Boost customers can substantiate
similar results. I know I can't.

Lastly, listening to the various suppliers arguing about who's product is best, when all of you are relying on hearsay, or advertising blurb, is hardly going to instill confidence in your potential customers. Apart from those who tend to believe anything some people tell them......

Mark

 

did this thread suddenly get a bit tetchy?

anyway - I partly agree with the above.

the main point of octane boost is to boost the octane rating (no **** sherlock)

octane rating - i.e. RON = Research Octane Number....is fairly easy to measure with an octane measuring rig - think these are basically variable compression engines.

so has anyone actually done the testing?

Nick

[This message has been edited by NDT (edited 24 May 2001).]

 

Pete,

You don't need a RR to see a drop in turbo spool up.

So just how did the Pro-Boost improve your spool up.

There may well be some differences between the various MY's, but with the claimed results on one car, one would still expect to see an improvement on another, even a couple of hundred rev's would nice.

As for a tuner being worried, should these claims be founded, ask Bob R, if the colour would be draining from his face.......or if he'd be jumping up, and down with excitement !!!!!!

Trouser:

Your posts are full of contradictions. First you claim the results are provable, then they are not. Now it's based one ONE customers findings, when similar results should be found by many.

Why anyone would want to purchase a product, to QUALIFY YOUR CLAIMS, is beyond me.

I would suggest, that if a supplier made these claims on any other type of public forum, they would be subject to the TRADE DISCRIPTIONS ACT......

It's about time the suppliers on this bbs acted a little more responsibly.

Mark.

 

Tetchy, PAH....

Given that the statements were being made, to "blatantly sell lots of product", we are entitled to a bit more than the type of statements being offered.

Take a look at the Dyno sit, and tell me how many cars are getting anywhere near the type of figures that have been quoted: and don't think that just because some owners haven't bothered to mention the use of octane booster, it wasn't being used !!!!

Pro-Boost is not a new product, I bought some from Pete about 18 months/2 yrs ago. I'm curious to know why no other user has ever mentioned gains of this magnitude before.

Anyway, if the results are accurate, and "purely" down to the Pro-Boost, they would be easy to replicate, and I'm sure there would be an endless supply of volanteers, just queing up to have their max torque drop to 1500rpm......

Mark.

 

Some links worth checking out. Seems to me that most bottled mixes are a waste after reading the info on these two pages -

 

The links posted by Rsawdnut raise a question that I have about octane boosters. Toluene has a pretty high RON at 114, but to get a decent octane raise you need to add literally a gallon of the stuff to your tank.

So how does adding 500ml or less (i.e. less than one-ninth of a gallon) of octane booster (which, in the case of ProBoost seems to be toluene and MTBE) to a full tank raise octane more than a few fractions of a RON number?

I don't mean this negatively, it's a genuine question ...

 

The graph that Dingy put up was the result of tests of those boosters using a knock engine.

This is one of the few tests I've ever seen where individual products were tested back to back this way. Including Toluene.

I agree with what Mark said. If Proboost moved the peak torque to 1500rpm, why has no-one else ever mentioned it?

Everyone whos fitted a catless downpipe, says their car pulls like a train - the torque only comes in around 500rpm lower.

If you had peak torque at 1500rpm, it would almost be like have launch control! Or a diesel

We are getting NF independantly tested over here. The results will be posted as soon as they are ready. In light of this, I will get a bottle of Millers and Proboost to compare.

 

Just to clear something up.

Rich is perpetuating the fallacy that 98RON is still available- IT'S NOT.

Some petrol stations have'nt changed their stickers. Esso or BP or whoever are not about to start producing small batches at normal (ish) prices at higher than approved octane levels . There is some variation but it's usually down not up.

That's all folks

 

I have sat back on this a bit, because I am not a chemist

I do think that Trousers needs far more than one rolling road result to claim what he is, but you can't knock the lad for trying And at least he is being blatant about his motives.

What has surprised me is that none of the links above talk about manganese, which I know is used in Millers.

Mark, my own results are bound to be different, as the 01 ECU is very different in its approach to engine management. Initial investigation would have the colour draining out of a seasoned mapper

Craig, I look forward to seeing your results.

 

Hi Mark (and others!!)

sorry, i thought i had mentioned on a previous posting that it was Well Lane Turbo Centre that had carried out these figures.

Of course downpipes add a huge low down increase in torque and bhp, but don't forget the state of tune in the car remains constant in both cases. the ONLY variable is the quality of the fuel... as the tests were within a very short period of time, atmospheric conditions cannot really be factored in. (ie, relative humidity etc.)

As Pete and I have both said before, neither of us pretend to be chemists. I can only comment on information presented to me in a scientifically factual format and my own and customers experiences with this product.

No one rolling road session provides totally conclusisve proof of anything, but as a responsible tuner I am only trying to provide you with some real life useable information with which to make a purchasing decision. If you are in any way sceptical of my claims, please keep your money firmly in your pocket. If however, based upon the empirical evidence presented to you, you feel that there may be a performance benefit, give me a call and i will be delighted to sell you some.

Have a good bank holiday, guys

Cheers

Paul, TSL

 

Hi Mark

i'm sorry if you feel misled or confused about what i have written in previous postings. Having had a customer go to the trouble of trying to get hard evidence on this product, i felt it appropraiate to offer this information to potential purchasers.

As i said before, it would be foolhardy and illegal to any retailer to claim that this product is a cure all for every vehicle. I only have one dyno graph to show, for one UK car. That Mark, is irrefutable scientific fact. One can hopefully, safely assume that a similair effect can be gained from other mechanically similair cars. We have certainly found this to be the case on both our UK and Jap spec demonstration cars.

Provable means provable, Mark. I will have the page up by the weekend, please check it out. As i have said before, i am trying desperately to respond to all the faxed requests in the meantime.

"The Trades Description Act purtains to retailers and commercial bodies who deliberately set out to mislead or confuse either potential or existing customers by misrepresentation or misdescription of their goods or services". I do not believe that this has happened here, Mark

As a consumer it is your choice... if you feel the claims are exaggerated, then buy a different additive. If we see you at the next track day, please come and have a go in our car and tell me what your view is.

Cheers

Paul, TSL

 

Um ... I must say I slightly agree with Mark here

I'm pretty sure octane boosters "work", and I'm in the process of ordering the NF stuff, but a claim that max torque would be available at 2.500 rpm less than normal just because of octane booster is nearing the absurd. Frankly, I first thought I completely misread...

At 1.500 rpm the turbo is probably trying to remember what exactly it is supposed to be doing (and yes, I do know that Saab is a bit more advanced in this domain)

If you would have said: at 500 rpm lower, I would - sucker for these things that I am - have believed it in an instance.

There is enough confusion as it is, and I don't think this is doing the scoobynet community any good - especially since the information is coming from well respected companies.

Theo [have been wrong before, but can't imagine being *that* wrong on this one]

 

Fat Boy,

Sorry about the 98RON thing. Not deliberate, simply read it off the pump. Didn't know any better, Humble pie well and truly scoffed.

Surely they're breaking the law if they do that, trade descriptions and all.

Rich

 

Trouser,

One dyno plot is not what I'd call irrefutable scientific proof!

The only "irrefutableness" from that, is that there is some info on that page.

To be honest, one dyno plot means diddly.

Can you not explain even slightly, how it reduces peak torque by some 2500 rpm?

I honestly can't see how this is provable by one rr graph.

Does that mean Nessie is real because of one photo?

 

Trouser,

I'm with most others here, sounds very unlikely (to put in mildly) that some octane booster could lower the point of max torque to 1500rpm. The turbo is only just spooling at this point.

I would say get a standard car back on the rollers, run it without and then run it with the octane booster and get some more runs in.

Cheers

Ian

 

Trouser,

I am not confused, and I doubt you are trying to mislead us. None the less, I think you'll find, that if any company makes claims about a product, that are found to be totally inaccurate, the Trading Standards will rectify the situation. Enough of that though......

So far, the only provable, irrefutable, fact you have offered, is that ONE customer has had his car dyno'd, and you have a graph.

The results, are neither fact, or scientific, and they are DEFINATELY not irrefutable. Not according to the majority of people replying to your posts !!!!!

If the results can be consistantly repeated, by a sample of cars, under test conditions, then they would be scientific, and irrefutable.

As for your car, are you claiming the same results ???? does it too peak at 1500rpm ?? because that is what you are claiming the product will do.

Are you prepared to REFUND the money to any customer who DOESN'T get the results you are claiming ??? After all, you are trying to sell the product based on these claims, so I guess you're prepared to stand by them.

Mark.

 

Mark

You've misread my post. I'm not claiming anything other than a bit of extra grunt, using this stuff, on an 01.

The "draining colour" comment refers to the stock 01 ECU running at 9degs of det on full boost. Its this that makes full use of the octane used and why rodrive are saying SUL is worth 15bhp on an 01 PPPe

 

Pete,

I'm sorry you misunderstood my post. I was not questioning your comments. I was wondering if you had ever had, seen, or heard of similar results to those of TSL, given that you've been both using, and selling the product for the best part of 2yrs ?

As for the "colour draining" comments, this as not an attack, or defending a position.

I'm just thinking, that if the results are so good by just adding octane booster, just think what a good remap would do......and that respected mappers, such as Bob Rawle, would be rubbing their hands together.

Mark.