Jump to content
SAU Community

petrol saving device

_turtle_

By _turtle_,
in General Automotive Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

_turtle_ Proficient

_turtle_

Posted
Posted

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
Bozz Proficient

Bozz

Posted
Posted

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....

Bozz Proficient

Bozz

Posted
Posted
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................

Cubes Grand Master

Cubes

Posted
Posted

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • sinn3r
      R34 Skyline climate control unit transistor

      By sinn3r · Posted

      Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • Kinkstaah
      Blue slip

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • GTSBoy
      Best place to order Authetic R32 Parts in Japan

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • GTSBoy
      Ethanol Content Sensor - Always at 11%?

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • GTSBoy
      Blue slip

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...