Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey guys, just wondering if anyone saw this advertisement in last weeks herald sun, or 2 weeks ago about a device which gives better fuel consumption. it was in the section where the cars are sold. from memory, i think it cost $60, not sure, i've got a pretty bad memory, but it was fairly cheap. i had a quick glimpse at it and then wen i remembered about it again the paper had already gone for paper recycling day.

did anyone else see it? what sorta thing could do that for so cheap?

im damn curious, coz if it does work, i know that i'd pay $60 for it.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/4066-petrol-saving-device/
Share on other sites

Yeah I have one on my car, Peter Brock made it, it's called the Polariser and the fuel passes over rare earth rocks and minerals and other crud and polarises the fuel resulting in less fuel used.

Bahahahaahahha!!

If you engine is in perfect tune, reducing the amount of fuel entering without reducing the amount of air entering will destroy your engine by leaning it out.

Think about it, if it reduced consumption and improved emissions as they claim, why would the manufacturer not use these devices? Only a braindead twit would buy one of these devices for any car produced after the 80's....

Originally posted by BiteMe

This test was done on Current affairs and they showed that it increased performance and reduced emmissions. It is meant to excite the fuel atoms so they burn better. It does not restrict the amount of fuel that passes as well,

Bullsh...t................

I saw that same test.

There were actually two tests.

One was a fuel addative which didn't really work that well then there was the inline fuel filter type one which apparently did work well on the dyno and reduce emmissions by doing something to the fuel atoms.

It was extremly expensive not $60 somthing like a few hundred dollars I thought.

Its not bullshit, but the improvements were very minimal.

hence not worth laying out the money.

If you want to save money run std boost be light on the foot and run Std. Unleaded.

Well Us 32 owners can with the 8.5:1CR, I'm pretty sure you R33 owners can't but as they are prone to pinging anyhow.

I've tested my car on Std. Unleaded with 17deg timing, std ecu, full exhaust & std boost and there is no pinging.

BUT.. With the Std Exhaust it would ping a little higher in the rev's.

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

    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...