Have searched back for info on Broquet. I all there was something about it being used in P1's but now not sure.

Anyone know about its use ?

Sorry to drag up what might be an old thread so kill it if it's innapropriate.

Simon

The concensus appears to be YES from past posts...

I still use Octane boost in mine thou.

Call me Mr Cynical if you like but has anyone actually got any hard evidence that Broquet works?? I can't see how adding a piece of metal to your petrol tank is going to raise the octane of the fuel.

By hard evidence I don't mean the testiment of Joe Bloggs who said it makes his car faster, smoother and gives better fuel economy.

Joey

I'm with you on this. Broquet contacted us a couple of years ago and asked if we wanted to be a distributor.

I told them that if they could produce test data from an independant source, say a Uni or MIRA, which backed up their claims, then we would sell a 1000 Broquets a year.

I'm still waiting!!

If this product worked, it would be OE equipment on every new car and the company owner would buy and sell Bill Gates for fun.

Surely a test isn't difficult to setup.
2 identical containers
Fill both with the same, previously octane tested fuel.
Put a Broquet in one container.
Leave for a determined period.
Octane test both containers of fuel.

The fact it hasn't already been done could suggest the test would prove 'inconclusive'?

On the other hand, I'm no mechanic http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/smile.gif, maybe its not as simple as that

Aaaah, but David, like all magic it won't work in laboratory conditions http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/smile.gif

In all seriousness, wasn't there some big threads about this in the past concluding that the Broquet did appear to do something?

Although I must agree with Pete C's approach: I prefer a slight bit of proof...

Hi Folks,

For a couple of test reports please see:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by David Lock:
<B>

No experience myself, but Which magazine did a comprehensive test of Broquet, FuelCat and various other "catalyst" / magnetic devices back in '96. Their test was primarily to see if fuel consumption improved by the claimed amounts, and also if emissions were lowered. The test methods were quite rigorous and identical for each device, using the same vehicle on a rolling road.

The end result was that NONE of the devices tested made any difference in emissions or MPG outside of the allowable accuracy range for the test.

Say what you will, I found my Sti engine runs way smoother with the Broquets in, and i think, is very slightly more economical.

Kind of "false" Octane!

I highly reccommend them.

Russ
(no connection at all - just a happy customer http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/smile.gif)

David

Thanks for your offer. I actually have two Broquet units, but have never fitted them.

As I do not have the equipment/conditions required to produce accurate, meaningful test data, I would prefer to see copies of the original test data from the links you refer to.

Please don't think that I am doubting you, but the reports shown in your reply are written by you, for the purposes of promoting your company's product.

And that has always been the problem with this product. No independant scientific data, but plenty of references to independant tests and their incredible findings.

Please post a link to the original test reports and/or let us have a test reference so that we may write to the testing bodies and obtain copies.

I would love to read a test along the lines of... engine run on dyno for nn hours,.. power and emmissions stable at xx, yy,.. Broquets introduced into fuel supply,.. power rose to x1x1 and stabilised at x2x2 n1 hours later,.. emissions fell to y1y1 and stabilised at y2y2 n1 hours later.

You have a golden oppurtunity to show the Subaru community that your product is as good as you claim.

There, you see.
I told you I knew Jack sh1t http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/biggrin.gif

Me again,

Interesting that the only guy on this thread who has actually USED the product is happy with Broquet.

Brickboy, The WHICH tests were on new engines which had not run in. In fact they noticed economy gains after using Broquet but concluded that these didn't count as the engines were not in a stable condition because they were still running in (there is a factor here called Octane Requirement Increase). We said to them that if the engines weren't stable then they should have aborted the test. They didn't look at emission changes because the cars had 'cats fitted. We had suggested to them years before that they fit them to staff cars and look for changes over a period of time but this was ignored.

Pete (and for Matt to note please),

The reports on Broquet including Casella and the DTI which are summarised (truthfully) on my site and declared as such, are inches thick. There is no link I can give you to the test houses but if you agree Pete, I will arrange for you to have the whole printed shooting match and you can look through the actual reports and tell this board if they are genuine or not and make any comment you wish. These are not "incredible findings" as you put it but rather solid test data from reputable laboratories demonstrating an improvement in combustion after Broquet is added.
Finally does the fact that IM tested the product extensively and then purchased enough for a 1000 Scoobs cut any ice?
I hope you all see this as a positive contribution to the debate?? David - now with 2 more grey hairs!

I would guess that some who has just paid a three figure sum for a metal pellet (pellets) is bound to say it works! Probably to save being laughed at for wasting his/her money!?

I too have my doubts! But I am willing to be PROVED wrong?

Check your P1 hasnt got broquet already as I read that it was one of the things Prodrive did to them for running on UK fuel to prevent detonation. There was a post covering it a while ago when the P1s first came out. Can anyone back me up??
Greg http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/biggrin.gif

Whilst reading this month's edition of Practical Classics magazine, there was a letter sent in complaining about the fact that the Magazine was running adverts from a number of companies who had claimed to produce octance boosting products, but could not prove it. One of the names mentioned was Broquet. I have not seen the original posts on this, so am not going to add fuel (octane boosted or not http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/wink.gif) to the fire!

However, I have read Practical Classics for some time, and they have been steadfast in their pursuit of ensuring that all products tested actually prove they work. They did have a big test done with a laboratory (can't remember who, but someone who can give official recognition - I think it was a Government lab). Practical Classics take on octane boosters was due to the fact that 4 Star was about to be replaced with Lead Free 4 Star and many Classic cars would need to have hardened Valve Seats put in at some cost (In the region of between £200 - £400). Many owners were obviously not happy at having to spend £400 on valve seats, when they may only use the car for 2000 miles per year...thus the testing debate.

I will try and dig out some old copies of PC, I am sure they had a list of manufacturers that were tested and proved to work.

Having said all that though, having neither used or tested any of the products I remain impartial until proved otherwise. http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/wink.gif

Jim http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/biggrin.gif

Jim,
I think you are referring to the tests on lead replacement additives done by MIRA instituted by the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs under the supervision of Dr Matthew Vincent. Broquet was not involved BTW. The tests were claimed to be "independent" but what is little known is that Dr Vincent is an employee of Associated Octel who are based in Milton Keynes and one of the leading producers of fuel additives. As it happens Associated Octel's own product actually failed the test based on the original test regime but the test rules were then "adjusted" and the product was approved. The tests were on an engine which was never actually put into production and whilst the test was looking for valve seat recession on one of the products the valve seats actually appeared to grow - something that the testers could not explain. Having said that the tests did provide an indication of which products did offer protection although some household names failed and there reamin big questions about the validity of the tests. David.

Personally, I don't think ANY product ever works the same in the real world as it does in a laboratory - mainly as it's a bugger to get the car in thru the door.

I bought the Broquet because a LOT of people were reporting good things about it - inc a number of Subaru owners.

The car feels smoother, particulalrly at higher revs - so if that is the ONLY benfit then I'm happy!

Incidentally, I also treat the fuel with Broquet in a very highly tuned 2 stroke Rotax 670cc engine (125bhp) This engine runs at 8000rpm for about a ten minute race and the formula i run this engine in has a number of similar engines and most drivers this year have suffered burned pistons (some have had numerous problems)

I haven't lost a single piston this year! And i'd hardly say my engine-tuning abiliyties were up to much.

So there it is, maybe my own "tests" are real-world, practical ones, rather than lab tests, but then you don't drive the car in a lab do you?

Russ

David,

You are absolutely correct. I knew it was for lead replacement, I was not so sure if this applied for Octane Boosting. But I am positive that Broquet was quoted (albeit perhaps wrongly) in last months edition of the magazine.

As I said, I am not casting aspertions, as I have neither used the products or seen any results. I just thought it may be of interest.

Jim http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/biggrin.gif

Edited and Added: David, I would like to pass on your comments to the Editor of Practical Classics Magazine, John Pearson, because if what you are saying is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve) then I am sure he would want to know. Given they are endorsing products through their magazine.

If you mind, please let me know.

[This message has been edited by Cheeky Jim (edited 14 March 2001).]

David, can you confirm (or deny) that the P1 has a Broquet pellet installed from new by Subaru UK?

David

I am more than willing to read the test reports and report back to this BBS and the SIDC in general.

My address is

Scoobysport
Unit 28 Nobel Square
Burnt Mills Industrial Estate
Basildon
Essex
SS13 1LP

I will return the data once i have read it.

Russ, Thanks.

Jim, I will e-mail you privately about Practical Classics - it's a long story and I'm not going to put in on the board.

PaulMc, A colleague was involved in the supply of Broquet units for 1000 imported Imprezas. We have never been officially told what these were for but I am 99% certain they went into the P1s. Anyone with a P1 could probably check with IM or Prodrive.

Pete, Thanks for message. I will arrange for full info pack with reports etc to be sent to you.

I almost feel I am making progress ?

David

David,

Do the Casella and DTI reports on Broquet meet the current European Union Directives for this type of test??

The reason I ask is that in June 1998 there was an Advertising Standards Association Adjudication made against D Lock & Associates due to some of the claims made about Broquet in a magazine Advertisment.

This adjudication is available from

Joey,
Obviously I am familiar with above which is quite old now. The Casella and DTI tests were comissioned long before the European Test Regimes which ASA mention. The argument we have is that it is invalid to retrospectively dismiss the results of an internationally respected laboratory on the basis of not complying with the "latest" test regimes currently in vogue. If you took this approach to its logical conclusion then any test from a lab before these European regulations came into force would be deemed invalid. In fact the ASA's "expert" did not even look at the Casella test or any of the other tests and reports which we submitted. Furthermore the ASA decision contradicted most of what they had previously agreed to some years ago. To bring you up to date we met ASA a couple of weeks ago to try and resolve this impasse. One problem is that they will not respond to our questions - I kid you not. If you e-mail me an address I can send you the full picture. DL

[This message has been edited by David Lock (edited 14 March 2001).]

David,

I fully appreciate there are two sides to every story so I guess there will never really be a 100% correct decision either way.

My company does a lot of work for Shell (We wrote the program which allows them to compare all lab results given for their lubricants) so I know just how much testing goes into their products. Each of their Lubricants are tested by a wide range of independent labs in many countries. The babs themselves are also tested as they are all sent a specific sample with known results (By shell that is!) and told to test it. Labs which don't return accurate enough results are never used again.

Gulp

Well, having started all this I thank you all for the information.

Ummm.

On a practical note I ran my previous car (STi2 Wagon) with Broquet for getting on for 35,000 miles, I put them in when the product was first brought to light on this bbs and, at the time, I was hoping that it would enable me to further advance timing on the car.

I reported back after some few thousand miles and re-iterate here that Broquet does make the engine run more smoothly and also fuel economy improved (by a small amount) but it did not allow me to change my timing and I still suffered det if I tried to advance it too far. It obviously had a benificial effect on "normal" running and was impressive in that respect. I ended up running with Millers as well ... timing went up by nearly 3 degrees.

Having said that I will definately be putting it the latest car (STi 5) as the smoother running is worth the cost on its own.

And yes I do think (afaik) that Broquet may have been fitted to the P1's as it was to the UK 22B's.

Fuel catalysts
 

This thread was a long time ago but if it is still of interest I can provide comprehensive up-to-date information, as follows:

* I am an accredited automotive engineer who is now retired but during my working life I specialised in fuel system development for performance, economy, and emission control at the Ford Motor Company UK Research and Engineering Centre in Dunton, Essex
* In the late 1980s I was engaged as an independent consultant by one of several UK fuel catalyst manufacturers at the time (not Broquet) to oversee controlled tests at UK universities and other institutions using industry accredited test equipment. Without exception, I recorded improvements that were often very substantial in exhaust emissions and specific fuel consumption
* I subsequently left the mainstream motor industry to become Technical Director of the company concerned which, by 1990, was supplying large UK fleets including police forces, ambulance services and utility companies
* Impressive results were being reported in case after case, so it seemed to myself and others that we had a very bright and prosperous future ahead of us
* But fuel catalysts in the UK, including ours, were then subjected to utterly devastating adverse publicity by reputable and trusted authorities that wield enormous power over UK public opinion
* The damage caused to fuel catalysts in the UK was so catastrophic that they have been more or less 'killed off' in this country ever since, with just the odd exception such as the year 2,000 example on this thread involving the UK Subaru importer
* A colleague and I researched the adverse publicity and discovered verifiable proof that tests it was based on had been variously falsified and / or clearly rigged, and it had been so totally biased misleading it could only have been issued with the intention of suppressing the technology in the UK, which it did
* As a result of the suppression of fuel catalysts in the UK, and the many injustices that have resulted from it, we have been attempting to bring the true facts into the public domain. This is both in respect of the evidence that fuel catalysts are beneficial, as well as the dishonesty of the famous UK authorities that have suppressed the products in this country
* In 2007 I abandoned commercial involvement with fuel catalysts. However I have since seen that fuel catalyst products similar to those I was involved with (and which have been suppressed the UK) are increasingly used in applications from large industrial plant applications in the Far East, to shipping fleets in the Pacific, to trains in India, to United States armed forces, and innumerable others
In summary, thanks to my experiences with fuel catalysts I have comprehensive evidence to show:-
a) that the products always were, and still remain, beneficial to people and environment
b) that in the UK they have been deliberately and dishonestly suppressed resulting in:
* UK motorists losing out on the benefits that fuel catalysts give, amounting to colossal sums of money since the misinformation against them began over thirty years ago
* A simple solution to cutting toxic emissions in the UK, and hence improving UK public health, having been ruthlessly crushed.

For these reasons and others my colleague and I wish to make the case known, and to this end we have produced a website www.fuelcatalystfacts.org to summarise the facts.

This thread was a long time ago but if it is still of interest I can provide up-to-date information, as follows:
* I am an accredited automotive engineer who is now retired but during my working life I specialised in fuel system development for performance, economy, and emission control at the Ford Motor Company UK Research and Engineering Centre in Dunton, Essex
* In the late 1980s I was engaged as an independent consultant by one of several UK fuel catalyst manufacturers at the time (not Broquet) to oversee controlled tests at UK universities and other institutions using industry accredited test equipment. Without exception, I recorded improvements that were often very substantial in exhaust emissions and specific fuel consumption
* I subsequently left the mainstream motor industry to become Technical Director of the company concerned which, by 1990, was supplying large UK fleets including police forces, ambulance services and utility companies
* Impressive results were being reported in case after case, so it seemed to myself and others that we had a very bright and prosperous future ahead of us
* But fuel catalysts in the UK, including ours, were then subjected to utterly devastating adverse publicity by reputable and trusted authorities that wield enormous power over UK public opinion
* The damage caused to fuel catalysts in the UK was so catastrophic that they have been more or less 'killed off' in this country ever since, with just the odd exception such as the year 2,000 example on this thread involving the UK Subaru importer
* A colleague and I researched the adverse publicity and discovered verifiable proof that tests it was based on had been variously falsified and / or clearly rigged, and it had been so totally biased misleading it could only have been issued with the intention of suppressing the technology in the UK, which it did
* As a result of the suppression of fuel catalysts in the UK, and the many injustices that have resulted from it, we have been attempting to bring the true facts into the public domain. This is both in respect of the evidence that fuel catalysts are beneficial, as well as the dishonesty of the famous UK authorities that have suppressed the products in this country
* In 2007 I abandoned commercial involvement with fuel catalysts. However I have since seen that fuel catalyst products similar to those I was involved with (and which have been suppressed the UK) are increasingly used in applications from large industrial plant applications in the Far East, to shipping fleets in the Pacific, to trains in India, to United States armed forces, and innumerable others
In summary, thanks to my experiences with fuel catalysts I have comprehensive evidence to show:-
a) that the products always were, and still remain, beneficial to people and environment
b) that in the UK they have been deliberately and dishonestly suppressed resulting in:
* UK motorists losing out on the benefits that fuel catalysts give, amounting to colossal sums of money since the misinformation against them began over thirty years ago
* A simple solution to cutting toxic emissions in the UK, and hence improving UK public health, having been ruthlessly crushed.