Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Has anyone looked into these before ?

I saw 2 mentioned on Today Tonight a little while ago...

www.fuelstar.com.au and www.fitchcatalyst.com.au

Both claim to treat petrol so that it burns cleaner and more consistent so you experience an increase in fuel economy, more power, and less emmissions (maybe its possible to toss the CAT out ?)

Two applications...an inline one that you hook up like a petrol filter by breaking the fuel line and clamping both sides to it...

the other is by dropping a few pieces of metal into your tank...

I'm not sure if these things are only talk, but they sound great...

I guess I'd be happier if NRMA, autospeed, etc reviewed them and tested them...

at the moment they only have international organisations reviews, etc...

I was thinking of buying one for the bike or a small hatchback to test it out on - before I killed my R33s engine with it...

I am also interested if anyone thinks they can help organise to get them to give us one for free to thoroughly test the product more than their 90 days return guarantee allows...

I am also a little pessimistic about the inline version as it looks like it'll restrict our fuel flow...else we'd have to buy their truck version which is close to a grand...

Anyway, has anyone tried these, read about these or know the science behind them ????

I would love to get one if it works - before my next tune...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/13807-fuel-saving-devices/
Share on other sites

They are a crock. Put then in the same basket as Hiclone and the Turbo exhaust tip vortex generator. Do a google search. I saw a few tests done by independent researchers that concluded they done nothing to improve power octane or economy. Zoom eve tested on ages ago and came to the same conclusion.

Funny this comes up - I actually got an email at work the other day from Fuelstar that listed the proper methods for testing the device. I reckon its basically impossible perform a test they wont dispute.

They also mention that

"7.Experience has shown that Fuelstar must be involved in the conduct of tests and be able to observe the trialling"

Our company actually did some independant testing, they never actually released the raw data to us pleb engineers but in their wisdom sent it to Fuelstar for interpretation. I tried to dig it up a while ago but all traces of the job seem to have disappeared...

I guess if someone tells you that driving without shoes will save you a dollar in fuel economy, you'll drive a certain way to make that statement true...

There probably is a working version out there but they probably got gunned down by the Petrol Guild or something...

DennisRB30

Yes I think they are a crock. I am willing to keep an open mind however if they can be proven to work by someone reputable.

I have a real problem with the way the device is marketed. They rely very heavily on testimonials which I generally disregard as BS. Also they quote all these comprehensive studies that prove the product works. If you scratch the surface a bit you find a lot of these so called studies arnt very comprehensive at all.

Two examples. The report by Dr Jim Sprott the combustion expert and the testing by the CEE. The study by Jim Sprott is only a generalised desktop study that has been massaged to be relevant to Fuelstar. They claim that the CEE tests proved the product over "hundreds of hours". In reality it was something like five 20min tests.

I could go on for ages but I stop now.

The other thing is that they are riduculously expensive for what they are.

The cannisters look like they are machined from stainless. My impression is that they are largely trying to justify the cost of the thing by the expensive 'packaging' that its is in.

Most of the worlds great inventions such as fuel saving devices get shot down by the govt. or the large companies of the world as there is a potential for them losing money. Thats my little conspiracy theory.

If this really worked it would not be for sale to the public, me thinks. I have heard someone one these forums swear by using one of these though.

If you fit a foxtail to your radio antenna, and a pair of fluffy dice to your rear view mirror, and fit the award winning Warpspeed Exhaust Tip, it will reduce fuel consumption by up to 23.67%.

This has been proven under strict laboratary conditions, carried out by the nunns at the sacred octane convent.

However, you never see these things around these days, because the CIA and the oil companies have a covert plot to eliminate all foxtails and fluffy dice.

There have been numerous attempts to kidnap Warpspeed to learn the scientific secrets of the exclusive and world renowned Warpspeed Exhaust Tip.

If you PM me, I can supply you with a genuine immitation plastic foxtail, fluffy dice, and included FREE the world acclaimed Warpspeed Exhaust Tip.

Just include your credit card number, and I can supply these for $899.00, but hurry stocks are fast running out.

Don't you know where fuel comes from? Oil refineries are a thing of the past. Instead of oil fields they have fields of V8’s running with all the possible advertised fuel saving devices. The fuel lines are connected to large storage tanks that fill up rapidly…

Seriously, if all of these dodgy devices really worked as the manufactures claimed, your fuel level would increase if you used them all at once. The problem with these fuel saving devices is you will need a larger tank to avoid it overflowing.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...