The missus and I had a look round the Kit Car show at Stoneleigh on Monday and amongst other things saw the 'Fuel Cat' stuff being demonstrated (special pellets in a gauze tube you drop into yer fuel tank on an 'in-line' alternative).
The idea (for us anyway) would be that we could use 'unleaded', low octane fuel in our (currently) non 'leaded' kitcar without needing to use any of the liquid 'lead replacement' additives.
I wondered if anyone here had any *facts* that could either refute or support the value / function of such devices etc please?
Ok, but do you have proof (out of interest) please Steve?
That's what we were doing when we last put some fuel in .. some time ago now ... ;-)
(runabout rather than sustained high speed stuff)
Well, it went to the MOT station and back last year .. approx 500 yards .. ;-(
Ah, now that could be tricky if the daughter want's to drive and we can get her insured on it at a reasonable price, probably not for a couple of years yet though. We might be getting her some private mild 'off road' time in it (fun and good general handling experience) before she goes on the road etc.
Well, we needed with this 78k 1300 as it's already pretty tired but if I put the 1600 Xflow in I think it had been recently rebuilt (when I was given it) so would have little 'lead memory' etc.
Well FWIW they offered some documents suggesting the likes of the Capri Owners Club and the RAF (+ others) had 'seen' the benefits of it's use?
I'm no scientist (hence my question) however I am aware of other similar 'remedies' that seem to have a good rep (and seemingly good science to back them up, to a non scientist anyway) like the 'Bat Aid' pills (chemically 'naturalizing sulphate or summat)? To me they are potentially just as 'believable' (on paper especially) as how a honeycomb of precious metals or ceramic could 'convert' exhaust gasses etc
People can be persuaded to see benefits where there are none.
Just had a look at 'Bat Aid'. So far all I've found is somebody selling them - nothing detailing how they actually work. Looks like nonsense to me. To a scientist, they don't have any science to back them up.
The basic rule is "you don't get something for nothing". In the case of the exhaust cat, it's sort of finishing off the combustion - reducing the mixture to the lowest energy state, which will release energy - this will drive the reaction. There's also a little bit of fuel burnt there to help it all along - you're getting something for something.
With the fuel pills, there's no obvious mechanism for putting "something" in to get "something" out. Ditto battery tablets. Thus they fail the simple test any consumer should apply.
Even cases where apparently a lot of "something" comes from nothing, eg nuclear fission/fusion can be explained - it takes modern physics to explain it, so may be indistinguishable from magic to many people, but given effort, it is understandable.
The people behind these snake oil products don't make the effort to provide a proper scientific explanation, thus it's safe to assume they're talking nonsense.
These things have been around since unleaded petrol was on offer in the UK and they've been working as well[1] since back then.
Practical Classics tested one way back when using a non-converted A-series. From what I remember (can't be arsed to dig out the issue, was early 90s or something like that) they had to abort the test (which was supposed to run for 6k miles) because valve seat recession was so bad that it lost compression on two cylinders.
This guy seems to know what he's talking about as well:
formatting link
While I'm not saying that they're snake oil, I think they may have been obtained by cold pressing certain slithering animals.
[1] IE, not.
Indeed. I've not read the handout yet to see what all of the parties actually say or how they saw an improvement.
Ok. Well I believe there has been quite a bit of discussion behind what such things do (EDTA specifically). Never done it myself but many have with positive results.
formatting link
Agreed ..
Ok, thanks ..
Ok, and because I also couldn't see an 'obvious' explanation of how it was supposed to work I was skeptical, however there are many processes I don't understand (especially 'chemical') but they obviously do work?
See above (and I'm not suggesting *every* battery pill will work but there it's possible that they could if they were EDTA based?
Understood.
Well there could be a difference between the 'makers' of such things and those who have to repeat a basic sales pitch several hundred times at a show etc. Ok, I'd like to think they would have all the answers (especially given the potential skepticism) but I guess many 'salespersons' don't know the full details of what they are selling ..?
I'm not advocating anything .. just trying to say open minded ..?
FWIW I believe the fuel pill things I saw at the show were not *just* tin (I know Tony says 'Tin based' etc) but a cocktail of several different chemicals (metals) and I don't know in what proportions.
lol
You may well be right, but there are many examples of 'things' that don't seem credible that do actually seem to make a difference.
Like, that 'magnetic therapy' (wearing strong magnets close to yer skin to make you 'healthier'). You could say that on a 'person' any positive feeling could be psychosomatic but how would they work on a horse etc? How many people have you seen wearing copper bracelets who seem convinced they help them .. (etc etc).
Whatabout magnetic water de-scalers ... ?
When I first got the Rover 218SD I thought that the reason I was seeing double the mpg figures I used to see with the 2L Sierra was because the car was new to me (180K miles), I wasn't used to driving a diesel (or FWD car) so was taking it easy. A few years later and I know I'm driving it quite hard and still seeing similar good mpg so it's just a function of the beast.
The trick is to remain openminded without letting your brain fall out :-) Given they're cheaper than hardened inserts it's difficult to imagine why Ford wouldn't fit them if they worked. Plus the utter lack of any mechanism to explain how they work.
Well, with hindsight I guess you are right but in 1763 (or whenever they designed the XFlow engine) petrol was nearly 98% lead so there wasn't an issue?
Well the same applies to women but they seem to? ;-)
Of course these litigious days it seems no one wants to stick their head above the parapet and 'promise' anything, in case some numpty uses 'X' in an inappropriate situation and damages something (or better, themselves ).
NOw now, mentioning companies that sell the essentially the same thing is nasty, somebody might be fooled into thinking that all fuel catalyst companies claiming 60 year old unverifiable reports from the "RAF" where shysters.
Been done to death in classic car mags. Classic car mag journos have even had valve seat recessing when using pour in the tank fuel additives such as the Redex one.
It's only £100 to get the head properly converted to unleaded. You'd make that back in under a year from the additives you'll not need to buy.
Capri Owners Club endorsement isn't worth a piss. John runs it purely for financial gain nowadays and doing it to "Keep the dream alive" has taken a back burner.
You may well be right but as no one has explained to me (scientifically) why such *can't* possibly work as yet I'll remain open minded. ;-)
I wonder if some of the skepticism these things attract (even before people may know the full facts etc) is down to it not being 'trendy' to do so. Like driving a Skoda or wearing Tesco's jeans etc (in spite of both being very serviceable etc)?
Like at the kit car show we spotted a gadget that was on the Dragons Den, an adjustable padded rest system that allowed you to work over a car whist allowing this 'gadget' to take some of the weight (so it doesn't take you 5 mins to straighten up after working on yer car etc). (If you are interested it was called Bak-Jak (.co.uk) no connection to me etc).
I showed the leaflet to my Mechanic mate who 'poo pooed' the idea, saying that if yer back muscles weren't good enough to do that without effort you should be doing something else (he does have some strange ideas sometimes).
Maybe if you are doing said all the time and / or are fit and young then you don't need such a thing but if you only get to dangle over the bonnet now and again or aren't very fit then it could be a back saver? [1]
But I wonder how many people wouldn't *be seen* using one (no matter how much it might make the job easier / quicker) etc?
I bet the same folk would be happy to use such, once they had seen 'everyone else' using them? (assuming it helped them etc).
I didn't think my mate hanging nearly upside down in the engine bay of a Fiat X19 looked that comfortable? ;-)
All the best ..
T i m
[1] The missus tried it briefly at the show (a long term back sufferer and she co-built the kit car with me 17 years ago) and said it was very comfortable. Being 'fold away' it could even be stored under the bed if you didn't have any room in the garage .. ;-)
Ah. Ok. So, if this is really a trick or snake oil why are they allowed to continue marketing it (especially if they put any un substantiated claims on paper)?
Ah, sorry, not read any for a long time now. I bought KIT-Car mag yesterday and it wasn't as interesting as I remember it (less you race Westfields or build Cobra's that is). ;-(
Ah.
Ok, and it was something I was considering as / when I revamped the Ranger anyway.
Not at the current 5 (five) miles / year rate I shouldn't think Conor! ;-)
But (joking aside) if we do start using it more regularly then you are right and it would be a better solution than playing with additives etc.
Nothing to do with being trendy. Some of us do have scientific backgrounds, and understand how these things should work and don't.
Open minded is good normally. But you're reading sales literature. They'll write anything to part you from your money.
What they won't do is describe how the thing actually works, because it doesn't. They'll use words such as "catalyst" in the hope that you'll say "ah, yes, science, that'll work then".
In the case of your lumps of metal in the fuel, it won't work because there won't be any change to the fuel. To change a molecule requires an initial input of energy - eg air + methane don't spontaneously combust, they need a spark. A catalyst will lower that initial requirement, but won't completely remove it. It also requires an energy change - either provided by external sources (heat, etc), or by the products being lower in energy than the ingredients. Now you're not providing energy to the tank, so the former is out, and there isn't any significant energy on offer from hydrocarbons such as are in petrol without oxidising them, so the latter is out too.
(Cracking oil is a catalytic process - but the conditions in there are substantially more severe than in your fuel tank. It costs the petrochemical companies money running these crackers in the conditions they do - do you think they'd not jump at the chance to use a couple of plates of metal to do the same without all that tedious building of pressure vessels, etc?)
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.