Should I install a Fitch Fuel Catalyst?

Bought one yesterday, real cheap, at Summit Racing clearance rack in Reno. Paid $100.
I have read many reviews. It seems that those
who have never installed one categorically deny existence of any benefit- basing their denial on available tests showing little to no difference.
Most of those who have installed a Fitch on the other hand claim to feel a small but perceivable difference (some fuel improvement, smoother idling less ping).
Perhaps there is some small difference but hardly measurable or perhaps they are undergoing some illusion?
I bought the thing not for fuel savings but in hopes to improve fuel quality and reduce possible detonation. The car is a 2013 Forester XT, a turbo with 91 octane fuel recomendation. Highest grade in western US is 91 octane, measured at the refinery or so. By the time fuel reaches the tank it probably less than 91 octane. I am just trying to prevent any possible detonation as these 2.5 turbos over time are prone to ringland damage from detonation.
Anyone here ever had a Fitch fuel catalyst or knows someone who tried it? Any general thoughts perhaps?
Basia
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:37:06 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net"

My brother tried various fuel catalyst products including the FITCH in his F150 several years ago and tested fuel economy, performance, and emissions on all of them. None of them made any measurable difference in economy or emissions, or any quantifiable difference in performance on the 5.4 liter Triton V8. He REALLY wanted to prove they were effective, If he could prove they were effective he could sell and install them and make a good buck.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 5:59:44 PM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Thanks for your reply, not very inspiring but I believe you 100%.
I wonder if its a complete dud or perhaps the Fitch could do something for a less efficient engine or a higher compression engine like a turbo under boost? The 2.5L H4 I think is relatively less efficient than the 5.4 Triton V8 (?).
Also, maybe there could be some long term benefit for example marginally cleaner combustion chambers, fuel injectors, or some benefit to valve cushioning or deposits, over a longer time interval?
Or is this thing completely inert and a total scam?
I would gladly install the Fitch if there were some promise of at least a residual long term benefit.
I have a habit of always adding a few ounces of Marvel Mystery Oil into the fuel of my engines (except for the turbo as Marvel Mystery Oil decreases octane rating- a big no, no, for turbos). In the short term it seems to do absolutely nothing but after 100,000 miles engines are clean and cylinder compressions are at nearly new car levels.
Maybe the Fitch could be of some value over time or should I just return the darn thing, or sell it on ebay etc. and get over it? Hmmm, I bought it for only 100 bucks.
Basia
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 9:32:13 PM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net wrote:

I think I found this product's true calling. It is improving bad fuel.
Here is an excerpt from an article describing its primary use:
Advanced Power Systems advertises the Fitch as a fuel treatment device that reformulates fuel. The way Chris Wright, COO of APS, explains it, the Fitc h doesn't make good fuel better but "reconstitutes" degraded fuel... the mo re degradation has occurred and the more power and mileage is lost. (...)
The Fitch uses a 19-metal heterogeneous metal alloy insert as a catalyst an d APS tells us converts elements in the degraded fuel to alkanes, which are paraffins that contain hydrocarbons. Alkanes combust better than degraded olefins and aromatic compounds, so you gain back some of what is lost. The metallic alloy also reduces microbial action, which are little critters tha t form and grow in the water that may be contained in gasoline and may plug fuel filters.
According to APS, how much benefit you gain from the Fitch is directly prop ortional to the quality of the fuel. This may be why some tests show absolu tely no gain in mpg, performance or any reductions in exhaust emissions, an d others show big gains. APS claims an average gain of 1 to 2.5 mpg, also s aying their product proves more useful and beneficial in the "real world" o f spotty fuel quality.
http://www.4wheelparts.com/parts/performance-parts/fitch-fuel-catalyst-inst allation-lp.aspx
----------
Where I live fuel is fairly good, and the gas station from which I buy is very high volume. This means in all likely-hood I would not see any benefit from this product.
Basia
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 05:20:03 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net"

The only thing the catalyst has a good chance of working for is preventing diesel fuel from growing slime as the whole tank of fuel will eventually go through the catalist as the rail bypasses fuel.
Nobody drives consistently on old gasoline - and I doubt the catalyst is effective at "reformulating" the gasoline anyway. As an antimicrobial, it LIKELY works - but not as a catalyst. It will be providing metal ions to kill the microbes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 21:32:12 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net"

I would say the H6 is MORE efficient than the triton

How? If no change in emissions, it can't be expected to make it cleaner - and there is nothing actually being done to the fuel. It's a hoax -

It gives better gas mileage because your wallet is lighter.

Marvel Mystery Oil does what it says it does - it cleans the combustion chambers and frees up sticky rings. It doesn''t pretend to change the laws of physics or thermodynamics. It is just a solvent/lubricant (and is good at both jobs)

I wouldn't waste the time or effort to install it. See if you can find another sucker - even if you have to sell it for $50 it will save you $50 in aggravation.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 8:44:34 AM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I apologize, writing "more efficient" I actually had cleanliness in mind. A turbo 2.5L H4 is less than half the displacement of the 5.4 Triton but burns something like 75% as much fuel per mile travelled as the Triton V8. It is bound to be a dirtier engine, and inthat way less efficient, ...meaning generating nearly as much byproducts of combustion but depositing them over a much smaller engine.
But this is besides the point as Fitch would not do anything here anyway.
Fitch at best can only inhibit fuel efficiency loss due to bad fuel. To what degree, as you noted is also a BIG unknown.
They should have refrained from marketing it as decreasing fuel consumption, or emissions, or octane requirements. It fights fuel economy losses that result from degraded fuel. In absolute terms, will not make a car more fuel efficient. Can only prevent some loss of efficiency, only a portion of what is due to fuel degradation.
So these claims are very misleading, similar to some toothpastes adverts claiming to make teeth stronger. Toothpaste can only prevent some teeth deterioration certainly not make teeth any stronger than what they are.

You are right. I thought maybe there exists a small un-measurable positive effect on emmissions that would be cumulative and show itself over time. Emission test do have an error term and a positive effect could exist but be undetectable on individual tests- in other words hide in the test error value.
And perhaps there is some positive effect over time but relating only to increase in emissions due to bad fuel, ...deposits, gums that form as a result of bad fuel.
This is overall a marginal issue if one uses good gas. It is also far easier and cheaper to occasionally pour a bottle of some Gumout Fuel System Cleaner or similar cleaner. Fitch still carries a risk of uncertainty as to its effectiveness in this area. How much of that fuel deterioraton is it fighting? 1%, 10%, 15% ?? Fitch claims 5-15% fuel savings. This is a virtual impossibility, unless someone runs his vehicle on really crap gasoline all the time. Who does that?

Well, we just don't know that for sure, 100%.

:)

If I were living in some area were fuel was questionalble the decision would be much easier. I think your advice is reasonable.
Basia
ps. @ dsi1, i don't have detonation problems per se, but these engines have frequent hidden incidents of detonation. Broken rings and burnt exaust valves are nr.1 causes of death for the turbos. I was thinking of Fitch more as a preventive device.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 01:14:50 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net"

You are wrong. The Subaru meets PZEV requirements - it burns cleaner than the Ford.. You obviously do not understand emissions. It also produces more HP per lb of fuel burned.

Again, you are no expert. Some of the new toothpastes CAN strengthen damaged enamel

If they are that small, they are basically undetectible, so for all intents and purposes they do not exist.

And I have seen no documented independently produced results that support even THAT claim

Only about 99.9999 - I'll give them the benefit of the .00001 doubt.

With 91 or better octain fuel, driven in anything near a sane manner, with no modifications, I believe the incidents of detonation damage are EXTREMELY rare. When thwe "boy racers" fool with the boost, or run low on "party money" and put in regular or mid grade fuel, or drive REAL hard on REAL hot days, damage will occur. The fitch isn't going to prevent damage under those conditions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 12:53:21 PM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I don't think so.

No, not the 2.5L turbo engine.
PZEV Subarus are equipped with special catalytic converters, bigger better than the regular non-turbo car. Turbos are a whole different story. They are not nearly PZEV in any way.

I don't know about the regular car maybe it does, but likely not the 2.5l turbo. In fact the 2.5L turbo has been known to be a very fast oil dirtying engine, requiring very frequent oil changes and notorious for fouling inline turbo oil supply lines. Subaru requires severe service oil change intervals on the turbo, every 3 months or 3750 miles. Some even go so far as to recommend removing inline oil filters to the turbo as these mesh filters foul rather quickly and starve the turbo of oil.

It is irrelevant as you seem to be talking about a different engine, a non-turbo powerplant. I was talking about my engine which is a turbo that goes around 20-22 miles on a gallon of premium fuel in mixed but primarily highway driving. Around 75 percent highway.
The 5.4L V8 Triton engines use on average approximately 17-18 miles per gallon in similar circumstances (that is what people say on the net).

At 200 hp and above the turbo in my 2.5L Subaru is working hard, in fact it is in heavy boost constantly, and probably burns far more fuel than the 5.4L Triton V8 does while leisurely generating the same power at a relaxed pace of 1500 or so rpms.
The overall efficiency of the turbo comes from smaller displacement and savings of fuel at idle or in very low rpms when it is out of boost and produces little horsepower.
This is all besides the point as we were discussing the Fitch catalyst which is not going to be more helpful for a less efficient engine. It could be relatively more helpful only for an engine using a lesser quality fuel thn another engine.

You are no dentist, and your logic seems to be also lacking.
Toothpaste can "strenghten" teeth only to the extent that not using it would result in greater decay, greater deterioration.

A small benefit perhaps undetectable by a relatively imprecise measuring device, or imperceptible by feel, may still result in a worthwhile difference over a longer period of time, say 100,000 miles. That was my logic. I even gave an example of MMO oil in fuel, which produces no measurable difference in one tank of fuel, but results in a noticeably cleaner engine over a very long period, say 100,000 miles.

Naturally you would not, simply because there were no long term tests of the Fitch. I am not saying here that if there were they would prove Fitch's worth.

The benefit of doubt should be a bit larger, not much but not as infinitesimal as you suggest.
There were some tests showing Fitch producing a very small positive impact reducing levels of junk in old fuel, ...when aged fuel was recirculated through a Fitch catalyst for 32 hours (!) there were some very minor improvements.
Warning: A long read! www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?ADA429975
Certainly way too small differences to recommend the Fitch. For all practical reasons it appears to be worthless, 99.9%
Basically a scam, just North Americans fucking other N.Americans.
I have a habit of generally not buying American products for the above stated reason, but the darn thing was on sale and I just flew from Melbourne the previos night, a long nearly 15 hour flight to LAX, then an additional 1.5 hour to Reno, and I obviously lapsed.

Probably this is the cause, but piston rings get dirty over time and accumulated dirt in this area also contributes.
Basia
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:21:34 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net"

It depends how you drive. A turbo engine can be driven conservatively, on low boost and not in max-power enrichment mode. It doesn't take 200HP to drive a Subaru Outback at 65MPH down the highway, and when putting out 65 or 70hp at cruise the engine IS efficient, and does not have high octain requirements.
The FACT is most Turbo Subarus have the hell driven out of them (Particularly WRX) because they are so damned much fun to drive agressively

Depends on how you drive them. Drive them like most guys drive their WRX and it will give you, mabee, 11MPG.

The 1997 Triton produced 235HP at 4250RPM, the 3 valve in 2010 put out 310HP at 5000 RPM The 2 valve produced 335 ft lbs of torque at 3000 RPM - which translates to 191HP.
From 99-2000 they put out 350 ft lb at 2500RPM - which converts to 166 HP. At highway speeds they generally run under 1800RPM - which IF it was producing it's maximum torque (and it most definitely is NOT) it would be producing only 119HP - that would be pedal to the metal up a hill in top gear

. You can run a turbo engine at fairly high RPM and low throttle opening, producing very little boost. The EJ255 engine produces 210HP at 5600 RPM with .8atm boost and 8:1 cr - which makes the 2.5 liter engine breath as much air as a 4.75 liter engine. at the same RPM - The EJ257 is the WRX engine and it cranks out 280 HP at 5600 RPM.with 1atm boost and 8.2:1CR That engine is a barely legal thinly disguized race engine.

quality 4 gas analyzer, properly calibrated, is quite accurate, and even more consistent. The readings are VERY repeatable. The 4 gas analyzer showed NO improvement in engine emissions - pre converter, with the Fitch or any of the other devices he tested. Some actually made the emissions significantly worse - particularly HC and NOX.. These were the "calayst injector" type bubbler units.. He tested the fuel magnets, the intank catalysts, the inline catalysts and the bubblers.

A properly running engine with proper crankcase ventilation and adequate oil changes does NOT get dirty rings. I have personally torn down engines with half a million km on them that had NO ring deposits - and virtually no deposits at all.
I have also torn down engines with less than 100000kn on them that were severely contaminated with carbonaceous deposits -"a crankcase full of diamonds" as my apprentice put it.
A WRX STI driven in hot climate by a heavy-footed kid, without frequent oil changes is a different story - as is/was a Chrysler 2.7 running conventional oil on an extended drain schedule....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/3/17 7:37 PM, snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Well of course they do. If they didn't they'd feel like chumps for flushing a C-note down the toilet;-)
Cognitive dissonance must be reduced at all costs!
--
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time or money
making it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/4/2017 9:36 AM, Wade Garrett wrote:

If the mileage boosting claims of many devices were true, manufacturers would have evaluated them for use in their vehicles unless the high cost did not make it worth it. It is money down the drain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/3/2017 1:37 PM, snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net wrote:

If you do have knocking and the gizmo stops it, it's worth the hundred bucks. That's the only way you'll be able to know it's working. Otherwise, you won't. You get to be the guinea pig. I don't know anything about this product. Good luck! :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:17:43 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:

If you're concerned about knock/advance - the ignition advance and knock events can be monitored - either with a laptop running romraider and tactrix cable, or 'possibly' with an ELM327 BT device and a smartphone using some app like Torque.
In many locales, you can locate retailers of higher-than-typical octane fuel. Just contact dome 'tuner' shops. Or, investigate using xylene or toluene to boost your octane.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:42:35 -0700 (PDT), 1 Lucky Texan

If you are getting detonation you are either driving it very hard or you have it carbonned up, or you have had it improperly "tuned"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 12:29:55 PM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I am not sure whether you are aware of it but you seem to automatically put blame on people, or at least blame me, Basia:
-"drives it very hard" -"has it carbonned up" -"improperly tuned"
The fact is, to minimize fuel consumption these cars are tuned from the factory to run lean, ...and do run very lean under boost, which makes them suceptible to knock/detonation.
I live in a mountainous locale, Reno NV, and very frequently drive up steep and long inclines, read: stay in boost for unusually long periods of time, ...so my circumstances naturally make for a somewhat concerned owner.
I guess you would still want or LOVE to blame me, write something like: "drives over hills and mountains."
Do you?
Basia
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:10:11 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net"

Have you tried downshifting for the hills? Detonation is a much more serious issue at low engine RPM. At higher RPM the octane sensitivity of the engine decreases. When you lug the engine (hard to tell with a turbo) it is a lot harder on the engine. Let the baby breathe and spin, and keep the boost down and you shouldn't get detonation. Put your foot in in top gear on hills and you will kill it. That is abuse. The stock pistons are cast eutectic pistons - not forged. You don't HAVE to use all the power the engine can pruduce. If inan outback, you are hauling a lot of weight.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 7:11:44 PM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

It is an automatic.

Didn't know that.
Guess I'll be trying the Sports-mode then. The Forester XT Auto has an automatic mode where the tranny keeps the car in gear a bit longer than normal, simulating a sporty ride. Could be very helpful in light of what you just said above.

Basia
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 01:17:31 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net"

Exactly what year,model and engine do you have?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 9:44:40 AM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

It's a 2013 Forester XT auto with the 2.5L engine. EJ 255 I believe. A detuned normal WRX engine, basically, with a somewhat smaller intercooler.
The tune seems to be for mid-rpm range performance. The turbo boost comes relatively early and strong but quickly runs out of steam, wherby in the WRX it keeps increasing boost more progressively and into much higher rpms.
Basia
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.