DJ WATTS

Right ive checked the search function on Scoobynet for some info but can't find any.
What im wanting to know about is this little product called FUEL CAT.

It is suposed to boost the octane level of 95RON to 99 and sounds too good to be true.
I was at the Donnington car show yesturday and they had there large sized 3500cc unit for sale for £50 from £72.

It lasts for 100,000 miles and i almost bought one but something inside me was telling me not to as i feared for fuel supply blockage due to the unit or even worse the product damaging my car.

Anyhow here is the website address with info on them and any thoughts or feedaback from people that have one or used them would be a benefit for all import owners on here.

Cheers.

http://fuelcat.co.uk/faq.html

David Lock

The original fuel catalyst product, Broquet, as used in a thousand or so Impreza Turbos in on sale in Scoobyshop.

Much discussed on this board.

DL.

DJ WATTS

mmmh but i havn't come across or found any posts about them though?

And when some talk about optimax this or BP ultimate that, ron rating etc i have never ever come across this as a solution by a single member on here.

If it was that good then would not these very same people suggest it as a solution for import owners?

So im still undecided as to whether i should buy one or if its a load of old donkey poo.

If they are as good as they say then i have lost saving £22 on one...

Anyone else have some experience then if there are plenty of people using?

Chelspeed

If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.

Do Ferrari fit fuel cats to F1 cars? They don't, ask yourself why not? Do Ford fit fuel cats to WRC cars? They don't, ask yourself why not.

Does fuel cat or others give you before and after rolling road power print outs? For less than £100 they could do this and clear up any question as to whether they work or not. They choose not to do this. Ask yourself why not.

StickyMicky

did prodrive fit fuel cats into the p1 imprezas?

they probably did

search for broquet (or very simmiler spelling)

harvey

iTrader: (48)

Just a con. Testimonials are fine but where are the factual independant test results which would not be a problem if the product was as good a performer as claimed.

StickyMicky

ferrari have no need to up the octane of there fuel?

ford run controled fuel for rallying?

David Lock

Harvey, I thought I had been more than fair to you in the past. You asked for refund which I arranged for you even when you declined to discuss the matter with the guys that supplied the product. There are a string of independent tests on the product and DJ Watts if you let me have your e-mail address I will send you the comments of respected Subaru tuners such as Bob Rawle who is supportive and has tried and tested the product. It is banned in many Championship races by the RAC for example in case it provides an unfair advantage. It is used in many race and rally cars (not FI stuff AFAIK), in bikes and offshore power boaters. David (Broquet distributor).

PS. I know that there are quite a few happy users of Broquet on this board but, quite frankly, if they post about it they just receive abuse from the "snake oil" fraternity that frequent this board. I have been supplying this product for 14 years and it does exactly what it says on the tin.

Bonehead

To prove matters I'm prepared to let Mr Lock install one in my scoob to provide definative test results for the Scoobynet community.......FOC of course!!!

what would scooby do

Take a look at "test results" on that fuel cat site - just a load of flim-flam and no actual test results.. makes you wonder

StickyMicky

hes right, there is no actual results on that page

Nate

iTrader: (2)

I have one fitted on my 1962 Land Rover , when they stopped unleaded , I had one fitted ..... Been no problem on the Landy, BUT ............ Don't know about on a scoob ?

Nate.

harvey

iTrader: (48)

David Lock :Firstly to clear something up,I purchased Broquets at Well Lane Turbo Centre and would have found it embarassing to ask for a refund from them in view of the business we enjoy mutally. As far as I was concerned, the issue of Broquets was finished and from a previous thread I thought the result was quite conclusive when it was revealed that the company manufacturing Broquets had been in trouble with the Advertising Standards Authority on more than one occasion for making unsubstantiated claims.

D.J. Watts asked for views on the `Fuel Cat`. I gave mine relating to the Fuel Cat and at no time made reference to Broquet.

Now I know we live in a Namsy Pamsy New Labour State and we have lots of Thought Police here too but am I not allowed to give my brief view.

Just because it is for sale in Scooby Shop is not necessarily a recommendation. Remember, Pete Croney used to advertise there too.

Does Bob Rawle continue to endorse this product ? If so let us hear from him on here.

Exactly what are you telling us ? That Broquet or Fuel Cat are specifically banned or that there is a general ban in using fuel enhancers. Please refer me to the specific part of the regulation relating to Broquets or Fuel Cat.

It is quite easy to get people to make personal endorsements of a product to assist in marketing but like Chelspeed says it is quite another getting independant test results.
If either of these products was capable I am sure the manufacturers would enjoy fantastic sales without hassle from the Advertising Standards Authority if there were reports from The RAC or Road Research Labority. Let's have some independant testing from recognised profesional organisations and we can enjoy improved power and fuel economy and you can sell more product 'til your heart is content without hassle from guys like me.

David Lock

Harvey, ok ok I am just not going to get into one of these long SN games of back and forth. I wanted you to discuss it with Well Lane as they probably have access to the reports which you keep saying don't exist. OK your comments were about Fuel Cat. OK I think the RAC ban was a general one on fuel enhancers although they did mention some actual names; it was years ago when I read about and just don't have the details now. ASA centres around one test report not complying with European test protocols (a hugely long and boring story). Pete Croney was the guy that everyone on here recommended as a vehicle for independent testing. When they were sold as a group buy through SN (monster deal) I sent free product to the webmaster in addition to commission on sales, for him to try the product and report back. I have heard nothing since. Bob Rawle - that's up to him but I expect he has better things to do than get into this sort of debate. He did buy Broquet recently so I assume he is still happy. I hope I have covered your points.

David

DJ WATTS

Well i didnt want to open a can of worms here and had no idea that this subject was severley devided.

Well F1 cars are fast enough arn't they? And they have no need for enhanced fuel if this product did work anyhow.

So now im left non the wiser but my next question is would this product harm my engine as i am not arsed about the money side so if it don't work then whatever but surley its worth a shot that it may.

And if the thoughts on this are mixed then there is a slight possibility that it may work and to that its worth trying for, worth dying for...

quicksprint

They are well known in the classic car movement as a 'con' and a waste of money.
If they are so good then the manufacturers would fit them as standard.....ask any person who knows chemistry if adding Tin to petrol will up the octane level and protect valves from recession?

They are just another 'get rich quick items' that appeared on the market when leaded fuel (4 star) was banned....FACT

Many test results were published(in all of the leading classic car magazines) and these products were proven to be useless.....FACT

Don't waste your money....buy some NF, at least this is proven to work.



steve

David Lock

Steve,

Perhaps you would be kind enough to refer me to an article where Broquet has been shown to damage an engine. You seem to like FACTS so the FACT is I have been supplying Broquet for older "leaded" engines to run on unleaded for 14 years and have yet to have a report of one of these engines being damaged (valve seat recession) by use of unleaded. Certainly we have had some complaints but only a handful over a decade or more. This is not just a few cars driven by old ladies for a few miles but thousands driven in all conditions and many for 100,000 miles plus. They run well on unleaded because the combustion is more efficient and there is less excess heat when using unleaded which is the prime cause of recession. Broquet was not an invention for the new unleaded market and its origins go back to 1941. DL

PS. I can't speak for fuel cat but we have loads of before and after rolling road and dyno prints outs and very impressive they are too.

quicksprint

Thats strange....i am sure i did not mention any brand names ??..

I have been in the motor trade for 24 years now,we have been approached many times over the years by 'stockists' and 'suppliers' but due to the fact that NO factual evidence has ever been shown we declined to get involved in selling such 'products'.

The results appear to be in the mind (IMHO),a friend of mine has been running with some magic 'pellets' in his tank for 4 years now(i advised against buying them and fitting at the time) he reckons his car has never run so good...better MPG etc.etc.....the fact is that i never fitted them and they are still sitting in my toolbox!!!!!!(BUT he doesn't know that yet).

Like i said earlier...IF they are as good as they say then why havn't the car manufacturers fought over each other to get the sole rights and supply them from new??

The fact is that they DO NOT WORK and only benefit the people that sell them.

Tentenths

Mmmm, Mr Rawle must have been imagining things then....

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2725

Trem

iTrader: (3)

But surely there is ****loads of "better" stuff that the manufacturers could use, but they don't. Why do we spend so much money on improving our cars after buying them?

DJ WATTS

I think there are 2 avenues of discussion here. One is Broquets, which i know nothing about and the other is FUEL CAT which i know is suposed to raise the octane level of fuel passing through the product.

At the moment i am running 98.6 ron (optimax) and using FUEL CAT would totally solve my problems without having to shell out for a bottle of octane booster now and again.

My JDM will be configured to run on 100 ron at the moment and i have no way of re-mapping the car to use 98 ron as my ECU has been changed to a japanese prova product of Nurburgring ECU so unless i ditch my ECU and re-map a standard one then there is always the risk of detting something sooner than later.

Im holding onto the day when a fuel supplier will make the move to 100ron and all my problems will be solved. But however in the meantime this FUEL CAT would solve my problem.

Surley there is a way to test this product out and get some results.

Could you not measure the ron rating of petrol before and after the product has been installed to see what ron rating you are actually getting.
This then would be conclusive proof one way or another and if found to work only benefit UK JDM owners on here.

This debate sounds well overdue and maybe someone on here could organise this so we can all stop b*tching and put ALL our minds at rest period?
Could anyone not set this up?

David Lock

This was also posted by Bob Rawle last year.

Quote

=======

"I have used Broquet in both Imprezas that I have owned. I too got curious about what it was claimed to do and invested really to find out. At the time I had Sti 2 Wagon running with Link ecu (later Motec), HKS Hiper, Scoobysport downpipe, HKS induction kit etc. I was really interested in seeing if I could use Broquet to increase fuel quality enough so that I could run more ignition advance. The reduction in Ron rating from 98 to 97 (SUL) had necessitated my retarding my timing by several degrees and I was keen to get it back.
I installed the Broquet with a virtually empty tank for safety reasons, drove to the nearest garage for SUL (round trip of 20 miles or so). Driving back I started to notice differences, idle quality improved, engine ran more smoothly, car felt more willing to pull and more flexible. Over the next few weeks I monitored fuel consumption and did get an improvement, not by the 9% some people have mentioned but I certainly got 5%, bear in mind that this is over my "normal" terrain where I use the performance of the car to the full as well as cruise. I found that I had to reduce the fuel map values in order to maintain my optimum AFR. Timing ... well I tried to advance it up, the engine had a higher compression ratio than a saloon so as soon as I pushed it the big red light went off, it was purely down to charge temperature increase due to the boost I was running (1.4 bar) and the small early intercooler. Then I started to use booster as well and was able to make small increases in timing but the charge temperature of the small intercooler was still the limiting factor. I covered some 35000 miles with Broquet in the tank with that car.
I now own a STi 5 four door running with programmable engine management and other goodies. I installed Broquet two weeks ago.
I had already mapped the ecu with as much advance as I reasonably could and was again interested in whether Broquet would make a difference to this car. Same installation process, drive to the same garage after and got exactly the same improvement in all areas on the way back home, car was very much smoother and really felt willing to go. I had already taken a dyno curve of the "before" and waited a week to get the "after". I did the comparison with exactly the same map in the ecu. I was hoping for a power improvement ... I didn't actually get that, what I did get was a very quiet Knocklink, before fitting I would get a couple of steady lights up above 5800 rpm, now nothing. So no increase in power but I felt the opportunity to raise the anti by increasing timing. Since then I have changed the turbo again and so maybe this is not a fair statement but I have been able to increase timing since then and the car is now producing some 20 odd comparative horsepower more than before (lots more torque though). As I say, I am not sure how much of that is down to the turbo change but what I can say is that I certainly was able to advance it up by 1-2 degrees.
So sorry for the epistle but having spent quite a lot of time and effort in attempting to determine its benefits I though that some of you may find this post of interest.
My conclusion is ... engine runs more smoothly, fuel consumption improves in like for like driving situations, performance may be increased if programmable management is used. In short its a benefit and worth the money IMHO."

Unquote

============

Regarding the question of benefits and going back into the "leaded/unleaded" scene. So I sell Broquet to a motorist with a leaded only Granada, for example, engine. Cost £75 and I tell him he can now run safely on unleaded and I will provide a guarantee to this effect. His garage says he is crazy and unleaded will, over time, wreck his valve seats and his engine will also run badly unless he adjusts the timing to drop from 97/98 to 95 RON. 10 years later he has covered 100,000 miles alll on unleaded and saved at least 26p per gallon because unleaded is cheaper. That's a saving of £1040 in fuel costs at current prices assuming 25 mpg. We would expect his economy to improve as well so that's about another £1000 saved. All this for £75 and with a guarantee that things won't go wrong. So could he have run all this time on unleaded without Broquet. Probably for up to 10,000 milews or so and his engine would have run poorly all this time and economy would have worsened. Or have I misunderstood the dangers of 95 RON unleaded in older engines and have we all be conned by the Govt introducing LRP because these older engines cannot take unleaded for extended periods. So I make say £20 profit and he saves two grand which doesn't quite square with statements above?

DL

David Lock

This may be of interest. Our latest Newsletter which touches upon some of the points raised such as use in Race Circuit cars and dyno tests. Please note we use the Newsletter as a marketing tool aimed primarily at our overseas markets. I hope the link works as I am not too clever at these things.

http://www.broquet.com/newsletter.htm

harvey

iTrader: (48)

1) I usually agree with what Bob Rawle has to say and I have a very high regard for his opinion. Both quotes attributed to him refer to his experience over at least three years ago, maybe longer. I am sure he will accept his trial was not conducted under scientific test conditions to get a conclusive results, more like he reported his observations. I am also sure he did not realise the signifigance that would be placed upon his observations at that time.
2) My belief that Broquets = snake oil are based on my own very careful obsevations and mapping of my car and running over thousands of miles (mapping on many occassions by Bob Rawle with Broquets both in and out of the tank) when Bob has made no observation as to whether Broquets were or were not in the tank, also running the car with and without Broquets without mapping changes.
3) It would not be difficult to devise a practical test programme to prove conclusively whether either or both of these products worked. It would reqire back to back testing but the actual programme would need to be carefully devised and agreed in advance. I would be happy to put time effort and my own fuel into such a test programme, in part defraying the manufacturers cost of test programme.
4) It would be possible for a fuel laboritry to test the RON of a fuel sample and this is quite routine. I do not know about Fuel Cat but nowhere does Broquet claim to raise the Octane number.
5) I would have thought that if the manufacturer of one of these products had a genuine belief in their product they would agree and fund a test programme with an independent body like the RAC or AA who would act as observers. Alternatively they would commission someone like the Road Research Laboritoties to conduct the tests.

THIS WOULD DEMONSTRABLY PROVE THE PRODUCT OR OTHERWISE AND PUT AN END ONCE AND FOR ALL TO THESE PERIODIC DEBATES AND THE RELIANCE ON ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE.

On a number of occassions David Lock has been given the opportunity, above and on previous threads, to publish factual independent evidence. As this has not happened you can draw your own conclusions.
Why would any manufacturer with a wonder product that would pay for itself in weeks if the claims were true not have independent test data and why would it not be an O/E fitment to Fords, Vauxhalls etc where small improvements in fuel consumption are major achievements.

Hard factual independent test results and the product will sell itself. Reliance on anecdotal evidence ? Well why? Why be the subject of a complaint to the ASA if advertising claims can be backed up by hard test results.

David Lock

Harvey,

This is my final post on this subject. If you looked at our Newsletter you will see the range of applications for Broquet. Everyone involved in a particular application wants a test relevant to that application and screams at us "why haven't you done this or that?" And there are limits. Of course I would like to have more but it is a dynamic situation. So we have an involvement in Subaru Imprezas and the product is given positive support by chaps like Bob Rawle, John Banks and many others but still this isn't good enough for you and so you start questioning their tests. I honestly doubt whether you have actually researched what tests have been done let alone look into the fascinating history of the product. I honestly believe that there is nothing I could say, do or show you that would change your mind. That's just the way it is and I have other things to do and I am sure you do as well.

However I'll give you an example of one early test that was done by what was one of Europe's leading exhaust emission laboratories. The point of the test was simply to demonstrate if Broquet improved combustion. The following is the executive summary. There it is in black and white.




DTI Warren Spring Test Report - Executive Summary

"This is a report for Broquet International Ltd who requested Warren Spring Laboratory, Vehicle Emissions Group, to carry out a series of tests to determine the effect, if any, of fitting one of their fuel catalyst devices to a standard petrol driven vehicle as a means of reducing tailpipe emissions. The vehicle used was a normally aspirated Subaru of 1.8l engine capacity. This vehicle is used every day by the Vehicle Emissions Group and has a well documented emissions history.

The tests were carried out firstly without the device fitted to establish the base-line levels and then, after fitting the device according to the sponsors instruction, tested at 100 miles, 1000 miles, 1500 miles and 2100 miles without being removed.

The main tests were steady state runs carried out on a chassis dynamometer set to correspond with the relevant test vehicle parameters. An E.C.E. approved constant volume sampler (CVS) was used for sampling and the analyses were carried out in the on-line mode.

Changes in the levels of exhaust pollutants were observed at the first steady state test and were amplified as the mileage increased. The final results showed an average (reduction of) 41.3% of carbon monoxide, 31.4% of total hydrocarbons and a variable increase in the oxides of nitrogen.

There was an improvement in fuel consumption of between 1.7 and 5.2%.

In addition a standard emission test as used for regulation purposes was carried out on completion of the exercise and compared with a series of baseline tests carried out before the exercise started. This type of test simulates road conditions incorporating accelerations and decelerations in controlled laboratory conditions. This type of test showed more variability in the results than the steady state data as would be expected and greater improvements in fuel economy (6.99% and 10.85%).

These results were consistent with an improvement in combustion as a consequence of fitting the Broquet device."

David Lock

harvey

iTrader: (48)

Well on the face of it this report proves that Broquets are a good product. I have never heard of DTI Warren Spring but if you would like to send me a proper copy of the report I will be very pleased to read it and I would be most happy to become one of your converts.

Bob Rawle

Gents, I only post about facts that I have checked normally and this was no exception, David, the Wagon era was mid/late 1999, the second car was my STi5, that was in early 2000. that has had pellets in the tank ever since however its long past the point where I would consider it could take any advantage since I run with Optimax and NF all the time and it has an uprated engine so nothing to benchmark that against. I would still state the same though if the work had been done the same way today under the same circumstances. I have no interest in promoting anything, merely reported the facts that related to my personal experience at the time.

As to commenting on its use in any other car it becomes an irrelevence for me when I map as all I am interested in is the right timing, fuel and boost to maximise the cars potential safely. I don't worry aboiut its compression ratio, what timing values are or anything else empirical ... its down to how it goes and how it feels. Harvey your car has always run on the limit and beyond so what could be benchmarked in respect to this ... nothing from my perspective.

I am not going to participate in this discussion, I have only posted to clarify the timing of my own original posts and mechanism by which I might or might not judge a car ie "does it feel good, does it go well" when mapping. I don't get hung up on numbers whatever they are.

When asked I give the same view I have always given and that is that Broquet "did something" for my two cars in that it altered the way the combustion took place enough to make me change my maps to accomodate it. I, as I do, did this in a very controled way at the time.

So nothing more from me on this, whether a product works or doesn't is quite often down to individual view and experience and our cars are mostly very different example to example ... now who thinks Optimax is snake oil ... we've had a few threads on that subject ... lol.

cheers

bob

David Lock

I'm breaking my "final post" comment just to say thanks Bob for your comments and I appreciate your clarification. David