---

The Backgound

During World War 2, the Royal Air Force needed to run Russian-based Hurricane fighter aircraft on low octane fuel. It tended to explode rather than rapidly burning - an effect known as detonation (aka ‘pinking’). The only quick fixes caused overheating and reduced power.  Scientists, and then RAF-engineer, Henry Broquet, are said to have found that tin-based catalysts overcame the fuel problem. A 1989 paper by A T Pearce, (International Tin Research Institute, March 1989), refers.

Broquet eventually moved to South Africa and there marketed a tin-based catalyst called ‘Carbonflo’. He lost the product rights but regained them in 1986.  When unleaded fuel was introduced, Carbonflo was promoted as a way of reducing detonation in engines designed for leaded petrol. There is evidence that this worked but a (UK) Automobile Association report raised doubts (that were strongly disputed by the company).

A Broquet company still exists (in the UK) but the manufacturing details have long been in the public domain. Now innumerable companies world-wide produce generally similar catalytic products – but detonation no longer being an issue with fuel sold in developed countries, the claims have changed.

---

Fooling Others

Catalytic devices come and go. Some resurface decades later, often unchanged except for claims of what they do. I’ve been involved with the motor industry since 1954 and have yet to encounter even one that fully does that touted for it.

Claims typically include:

A few products may improve any one of the above (but not by the amounts claimed). Where there is a positive change, that change will likely be at the expense of the others. It may also be claimed that if the product produces more power (but that power is not exploited) the vehicle will use less fuel. Turbocharging may well do this by utilising energy otherwise lost in the exhaust, but most ‘power enhancers’ work by burning more fuel. Engine chips are an example.

Turbocharging is often claimed to have originated as an add-on product, but the opposite is true. The turbo charger was patented by Alfred Buchi in 1905 and was in common use in ships and diesel locomotives by the early 1920s.

Selling promotion in this general area is commonly via testimonials published as ‘advertorial’, and more-obviously paid for advertising. Testimonials on web forums, including false ones posted by people readily traceable as vendors, are also used.
 
Not all testimonials are false, but it does not follow that genuine ones report what actually happens. It is easy and common to self-delude. Many claim results that exceed those of the vendors. Whilst this does not invariably restrain them, sellers do not need to exaggerate. Their customers do it for them.

Even fleet owner testimonials are suspect. Their managers may have purchasing and administration expertise, but no concept of the methodology and statistics required for evaluation. One such noted that his fleet’s fuel consumption had decreased by 11.23% and that the only (my italics) difference in usage is that ‘they now travel mainly on the motorway’. A follow-up showed the fleet manager had not even verified the subsequent consumption over the original route, nor (without the wonder pills) using the new route.

Fooling Oneself

In 1993, the US Warren Spring testing laboratory (now AEA Technology) sought to establish a vehicle’s base-line consumption (i.e. before changes). For the same vehicle, experienced scientists recorded consumptions from 8.07 to 10.43 litre/100 km whilst attempting to maintain the same driving pattern over the same circuit. That range in baseline exceeds that often claimed as ‘improvements.’

Here’s an example. The 21 km into my home town (Broome) is traffic free. This enables me to drive for all but 400 metres or so on cruise control - at an indicated 80 km/hr. There are only minor changes in load. Yearly consumption remains within 3.5%, but tank to tank variations are 5-7.5%.

There are any number of reasons for the variations.

Fuel expands and contracts about 1.0% per 10 degrees C. Changes in barometric pressure and/or ambient temperature slightly affect drag and engine efficiency.

There can be variations of up to 3% if you refill on a slight slope in one direction, and next time the other. Add another 1% for not filling to exactly the same level (‘click-offs’ vary).

There is also fuel pump metering error. Australian legislation requires new and just repaired pumps to be accurate to plus/minus 0.3% but fuel stations are otherwise responsible for their accuracy. This does not necessarily work  The Queensland Department of Fair Trading’s 2005-2006 Annual Report notes: that “of 1668 pumps tested, 322 failed.” So there is another possible plus/minus 0.3%. Plus a 20% chance of that error being higher.

Incorrect tyre pressures change fuel consumption by 2-3%, as may a change to wide tyres. Tyre pressure also affects the rolling radius. Wear can account for 1.5-2.0%, as may swapping tyres front to rear. All change distance readings accordingly.

Changes in driving patterns add further error. Hard acceleration increases consumption as much as twenty/thirty times over the accelerating distance. Do that many times and you can double the consumption. Cease doing it and consumption may halve.

Accumulative recording is more accurate than compared kilometres per tank. It aids in establishing a reliable base-line figure against which to assess possible change.
 
No ‘test’ is worth a bowl of cold porridge unless the ‘base-line’ is re-established, i.e. what happens if the test product is subsequently not used?  Often, results remain unchanged.

Why?

Because of the on-road variables, all serious testing is done on chassis dynamometers (‘rolling roads’ that use braked rotating drums to simulate mimic driving conditions and loads). But even these results vary from run to run. They can also be influenced, even unintentionally, by the test driver. Some testing equipment now has the car ‘driven’ by a computer system.

Few, if any, claimed results are of ‘blind tests’ (where the product tested is compared with another identical unchanged sample, but the tester does not know which is which). Blind testing is advisable because even knowing that something is being tested tends to alter the result. Give patients placebos (look-likes that have no effect) and most claim to ‘feel better’. Fit a ‘fuel saver’ and most drivers claim it works (even if it’s disabled!). There is even a correlation between price and positively claimed results: ‘I just paid $375 for that – and I’m no fool!”

Most such products cost only a few dollars to make but are likely to be sold for hugely more to pay for the intense promotion required; and also to increase their perceived value.
 
In essence, it is virtually impossible to replicate fuel on-road consumption to better than plus/minus 5% without sophisticated testing equipment and methodology. Many automobile engineers suggest plus/minus 10% is closer to reality (and I do not question that).

Despite the above, many testimonials claim improvements to two places of decimals. That, for a 100 litre tank, corresponds to the amount held by two teaspoons. 

Emission claims are especially suspect. The only truly meaningful test utilises an ‘emissions drive cycle’ such as the (US) FTP75, or the European ECE+EUDC (also used in Australia).
Service station testers often deployed are intended to detect excesss emissions. They are not neither intended nor suitable for product evaluation.

In all cases, test results are only meaningful if the gains are several times greater that the test’s inherent variability.

Apparent Endorsement

This is a common and exceptionally misleading practice. Some might call it mendacious.

For several years, a well known product was promoted in Australian magazines as ‘CSIRO Tested’. That claim was totally true, but few buyers checked the claim. If they had they would have read that: ‘test results were inconclusive.’

Many vendors claim their product is ‘Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered’. All that means is the product does not worsen pollution. The following is a direct quote from the relevant EPA legislation:

‘The (US) Clean Air Act regulations require that each manufacturer or importer of gasoline, diesel fuel, or a fuel additive have its products registered by EPA prior to its introduction into commerce. . . This allows EPA to identify the likely combustion and evaporative emissions. EPA uses this information to identify products whose emissions may pose an unreasonable risk to public health.
 
Many US-made ‘fuel-savers’ claim also, or alternatively, to be California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved – or to meet CARB standards. Here again, ‘CARB approval’ neither says nor implies anything about gains. As with EPA registration, it indicates  that the product does not make emissions worse.  Here is the actual wording:

‘This Executive Order does not constitute a certification, accreditation, approval, or any other type of endorsement .. . of any claims ... concerning anti-pollution benefits or any alleged benefits’.

(The author has provided the CMCA with copies of the EPA and CARB documentation). 

What Would You Know About It?

Very few journalists have a technical background so uncritical appraisal in most magazines should be regarded as just that. Much is industry advertising spin reproduced unchanged except for the first paragraph (and often not even that). Advertorials too are industry reproduced. It is now close to universal (general interest magazine) practice to insert them as a tacit part of advertising agreements.

Whilst a rare species, engineer/journalists look first at the underlying physics, particularly: ‘is the claim fundamentally sustainable?’  Some are not. We also look at the ‘testing methodology’. In particular, what is the probability that the claimed results could be the result of convenient errors in the testing method? And has the testing been done by a firm accredited in that field?  It’s small field - so a phone call to an old working colleague may be in order.

Anyone competent to meaningfully evaluate ‘fuel saver’ products will be totally aware that a short term ‘test’ that suggests 8% gain, may anywhere from twice that to zero. Experience with these devices over a few days is meaningless. Some engineers, including myself, may refuse to do any but very long term trials (as per my own five year test of an electronic rust retarder).

Further, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of emission gas content without a full driveline cycle measurement. That costs tens of thousands of dollar and requires serious expertise and an accredited testing facility.

A common counter-argument is: ‘I can’t prove this works - but you can’t prove it doesn’t.

Without dismissing Hamlet’s "There are more things on heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy," there are limits to human credulity. It is for example, logically and physically impossible to disprove the claim that: “Moses has teamed up with Elvis Presley and a secret division of McDonald’s to run an orgone-powered pie cart 178.897 light years to the right of Epsilon Minor”. But you’d need to be a considerable fruit cake to postulate it. Let alone believe it.

But naiive buyers can and do accept technical claims that are equally improbable. That many cannot distinguish fact from fiction is behind by strong dislike of advertorial.

If a product does not perform as claimed, vendors are likely to fall back on:

In mid-2007, I approached one of the globally known ‘fuel saver’ vendors to install a unit in my Nissan Patrol for a minimum three-year trial – on the basis that I reported exactly what I found. The offer was initially accepted but the supplier has failed to follow it up.

Inherent Limitations

A common claim is that the process/product speeds or enhances fuel burning and/or the engine’s overall efficiency. Just what the vendor means by the former is often unclear. It may be just be true of an old engine in poor condition but, excepting only for a minute or two whilst cold, and at some times under full load, a correctly set-up modern engine completely burns over 98% of the fuel that passes through it.

Thus if only 2% is not fully burned, any claim to decrease fuel consumption by more than 2% by virtue of combustion is not sustainable. That 2% is the only energy source available to support the claim. But utilising all of it implies an improbable zero emissions. One per cent gain may be possible, but it would be very hard to identify. But some vendors claim 10-25%.

Further, some vendors have claimed hydrocarbon emissions reduced from ‘10 parts per million - down to five parts per million.’ But current exhaust analysers are only accurate to five parts in a million. The claim is thus impossible to prove or disprove with existing testing equipment.

Do Any Work At All?

There is minor objective evidence that some ‘fuel saving’ products may benefit engines of the 1970-1980 era, particularly regarding emission reduction. The data in such evidence however rarely supports the associated promotional claims.

Some vendors exploit this by testing such vehicles. They directly or tacitly extrapolate the results to later generation cars. Some even include a picture of a later model car – leaving it to potential buyers to assume, or otherwise, a non-existent relevance and correlation.

But a few are more honest.  Ecotek CB26P (not a catalytic product) was repeatedly claimed to slash fuel usage and emissions on older cars. The company’s own website (www.ecotekplc.com/test_results_2.htm), shows such results. But it now also includes independent scientific tests of recently-made cars, showing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions falling by a little over 1%. But that small amount may well be within the area of experimental error, in which case no change, or even the opposite result, could equally be true.

Many vendor test reports on websites and advertorials relate to previous generation vehicles. Fitch’s current website www.fitchcatalyst.com.au (9 April 2008) features a test undertaken by Vipac* in February 2002, on a very old series 80 Toyota Landcruiser with 300,000 km on its clock. This showed an average reduction in emissions of 13.6% and in fuel usage of 11%.

But Vipac’s official report includes the following comment: ‘The two tests were driven by Mr Bill Sheather, (Fitch Fuel Catalyst Australia Pty Ltd)...’  The Vipac engineer who conducted the test confirmed that means exactly what it says – i.e, the test vehicle was driven by Mr Sheather, not by Vipac staff. This is a long way from ‘blind testing’.

Tests by Vipac, in late 2007, of a 1993 Toyota High Ace with 331,624 km on its clock, and of a 2007 Ford Falcon, found no meaningful gains in emissions or fuel consumption.

Copies of the full report (No.30V-07-0285-TRP-300305-0 dated 12 November 2007), and of the 2002 report, are in the possession of the author and the CMCA. As of 10 April 2008 at least, the favourable 2002 test was posted on the www.fitch.com website, but not the less favourable test of 2007.

Vipac Engineers and Scientists Pty Ltd, is an Approved Research Organisation (ARO.0125). DOT.4009. It is a member of the Australian National Testing Association (NATA). The National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) is Australia's national laboratory accreditation authority. NATA accreditation recognises and promotes facilities competent in specific types of testing, measurement, inspection and calibration.

Owners of some older vehicles may gain from such devices. It is more probable however (and strongly indicated by subsequent tests), that the cleaner and improved fuels now sold in Australia, and improvements in fuel and engine technology that these fuels allow, render add-on products redundant. In other words, and in Australia at least, the problems the products are claimed to fix no longer exist.

Behind the Claims

Claims that the technology partially overcame the octane shortcomings of Russian fuel in some WWII aircraft have long since been irrelevant. Today’s fuels match engine requirements.

The claim that fuel burning is speeded up is also irrelevant: engines are optimised for the characteristics of the fuel they burn. Many characteristics of petrol are quite different from those of diesel: yet the identical catalytic products are almost always touted as a panacea for both types of fuel.

Further, were the product to speed burning in a petrol engine, the ignition timing would need retarding accordingly. As far I know, no catalytic product maker advises to do so.

Another claim for catalytic fuel converters is they change (high boiling point) long-chain fuel molecules into (low boiling point) short-chain fuel molecules. There is no evidence that this increases power or reduces consumption. It does not alter the calorific value of the fuel (44-46 megajoules per kilogram) nor reduces emissions. Further, changing the molecular structure in the manner claimed is likely to degrade hot starting.

Whilst outside the scope of this article, the Hi Clone product (claimed to increase air turbulence) may assist air flow in a few older engines (such as early petrol Toyota Coaster, and Land Rovers that have inefficient intake manifolds). It may shift the peak of the torque curve, possibly enabling a higher gear to be used uphill. But it’s hard to accept that increasing air turbulence adds to that subsequently introduced by an exhaust-driven turbine spinning at tens of thousands of revolutions per minute. Nor is increased air turbulence necessarily beneficial: each engine has its optimum level.

---

Multiple Vendor Marketing

Products such as these are often sold via ‘multiple vendors’ who work the markets, field days, exhibitions, rallies etc.  These vendors are not necessarily cynical: some are convinced of the perceived virtues of the gizmo they are selling. However, none is likely to have the technical knowledge, let alone the facilities, to evaluate them.

Basic technicalities become misunderstood. Bob’s Towing Services’ “We’re getting about 25 kilometres more per tank”, morphs into “25 per cent more km per tank”.

Many multi-vendor products are aimed at the technically naiive. They are not advertised or mentioned (except critically) in engineering publications. Nor are they shown at engineering exhibitions. Sellers seek out technically non-knowledgable, or non-discriminatory, buyers.

---

Advertorial

Some advertising and advertorial may challenge basic laws of physics, for example, the now withdrawn claim that by using a certain tracking product, one solar module could do the work of three. Not all such promotion is deliberately deceptive, but buyers can be fooled just the same.

In the above example, the solar claim was not made by the German manufacturer. When I questioned the claim with the actual makers, they were as surprised as I was. They agreed the claim was (to put it mildly) unsupportable, and arranged for the advertising to be withdrawn there and then. Nor had the local seller intended to deceive. The company had seemingly misinterpreted the manufacturer’s underlying data.

---

Money Back Guarantees

Vendors may offer to refund money to dissatisfied customers. This is known to influence marginal buyers. But because of the placebo effect; and that some of these products take time and money to fit and remove, few buyers ask for their money back. Vendors know this.

---

The Vehicle Industry Viewpoint

Following political as well as consumer pressure, the motor industry spends huge sums to reduce fuel consumption and emissions, adding greatly to the cost of each car.

Fuel producers too spend a lot of money to ensure products provide optimum performance and economy and to meet rigid and increasingly stringent emission requirements.
 
Does anyone reader in their right mind seriously believe that even one of the products claimed to achieve comparable or better results at a fraction of the cost would not be snapped up by the automobile and fuel industries?  Many would kill to obtain the rights. Developments of less merit win the industry-equivalent of Nobel prizes.

It is also professionally insulting. Do buyers seriously believe that development engineers, and applied scientists are too stupid to investigate?  Were even a per cent or two of the claimed results actually achieved, their career would be assured.

---

* Disclosure: Whilst there is now no connection between myself and Vipac, as founder and editor of Electronics Today International, I (via the magazine) was the first client of Vipac’s founder (Michael Smith) when he worked for Louis A Challis & Associates in 1972. Following, Vipac’s formation in 1973 I used Vipac’s testing facilities extensively.

Brief Biography

Collyn Rivers, W8054 was previously a research engineer with General Motors. He switched careers in 1970 to found the eventually global magazine Electronics Today International. Collyn also founded many other publications in various areas of technology. He was the technical editor of The Bulletin in the 1980s. He is the author of several books in the RV field, some of which are available directly from the CMCA.

Copyright of the text in this article rests with Collyn Rivers. The copyright in the presentation of this article rests with the CMCA.

More details, including full test reports that are referred to, many associated references, and links to further material is on Collyn's own website: www.caravanandmotorhomebooks.com