Outer Limits 4x4 Board

Posted: **Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:27 pm**

Hey guys and gals...

Has anyone used this product before?? I've heard some good reports about them and wondering if its worthwhile looking into...

http://www.performafuel.com/performa/default.htm

Any help or opinions is appreciated

Nick

Posted: **Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:32 pm**

When you buy that, buy a few hiclones as well, and an electric turbo...

in case that was too subtle - fuel catalysts DON'T work.

Posted: **Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:12 pm**

Errrr, ever done any research into them, or known someone who uses them dude???? I have one fitted to a vehicle of ours, and damn straight does it work! Highway driving would normally see a tank of juice go in about 475-500km's. Road test the other day after a couple of months of having it installed, we achieved about 650km's out of the tank.

Floody

Posted: **Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:21 pm**

Floody_1985 wrote:Errrr, ever done any research into them, or known someone who uses them dude???? I have one fitted to a vehicle of ours, and damn straight does it work! Highway driving would normally see a tank of juice go in about 475-500km's. Road test the other day after a couple of months of having it installed, we achieved about 650km's out of the tank.

Floody

I have done quite a bit of research into them. And some countries (forget which at the moment) have made it illegal for these companies to advertise any fuel saving claims.

It is likely that the improved economy you observed was from the (scientifically proven) placebo effect. You fitted a fuel-saving device which you thought would work, so you unconsciously altered your driving habits to be more economical.

EDIT

This has been discussed to death here before - read the links I posted in this thread:

http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/PHP_Modul ... hp?t=48967

Posted: **Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:26 pm**

Haven't even touched my driving habits one bit. I'm only a young bloke, so don't mind a bit of foot on the accelerator. Sure as hell haven't even thought about this thing being on the car while driving it.

Floody

Posted: **Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:31 pm**

Floody_1985 wrote:Haven't even touched my driving habits one bit. I'm only a young bloke, so don't mind a bit of foot on the accelerator. Sure as hell haven't even thought about this thing being on the car while driving it.

Floody

The whole point about SUBCONSCIOUS is that you don't think about it...

Were your tyres, engine oil, engine, etc, etc all the same before???

There are a huge amount of variables involved.

Posted: **Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:38 pm**

Engine oil was the same, tyre pressures are about the same, in fact, the only thing that has changed is by installing one of these things.

One of the local electricity companies (Country Energy) uses it on some of their vehicles, and apparently they work for them. Another large trucking company I know of uses them as well. Same results.

500km versus 650km's....... I don't care how much you change your driving habits by, that's very very difficult to achieve by just doing that.

Posted: **Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:20 pm**

See also :Fitch

SSDD

Proven that the catalyst does actually work in a chemical sense, but would require the surface area of a football field (~15000 square metres) at room temp to 80 degrees Celsius to actually have any real impact on the average 6 cyl vehicle.

I'll try and dig up the research...............

Only REAL proof would be a double blind test (standard methodology for testing hypotheses). Supplying a mix of "duds" in with the "live" ones, with only an independant third party knowing which is which.

Posted: **Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:14 am**

In 1993 Which magazine in the UK fitted a Broquet catalyst (same principle as other catalysts) to 3 new cars. The results are shown here:

http://www.fuelsaving.info/catalysts.htm

Citroen AX 1.1
Speed (mph) MPG std MPG with Broquet MPG back to std
30 69 70 71
50 54 56 56
70 40 40 41

Rover 620i
Speed (mph) MPG std MPG with Broquet MPG back to std
30 49 52 53
50 41 42 43
70 32 33 33

Mitsubishi Galant 1.8
Speed (mph) MPG std MPG with Broquet MPG back to std
30 55 57 58
50 46 46 47
70 35 35 34

It can be seen that the improvements after fitting the Broquet are extremely small, and in most cases the benefit remains after the device has been removed. Which? believed that this was because the cars were relatively new and still running-in - economy is therefore improving as the engine friction reduces. If the improvement were really due to the Broquet, the economy should have returned to "baseline" after it was removed.

Broquet's response to this was that the tests were "unrepresentative" as they had used "modern petrol-engined cars". But remember that these cars were built in 1993, and so today would be classed as 11 years old - yet nowhere on Broquet's web site does it state that small (or zero) economy gain would be expected on post-1992 vehicles.

Posted: **Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:18 am**

DAMKIA wrote:See also :Fitch

SSDD

Proven that the catalyst does actually work in a chemical sense, but would require the surface area of a football field (~15000 square metres) at room temp to 80 degrees Celsius to actually have any real impact on the average 6 cyl vehicle.

I'll try and dig up the research...............

Only REAL proof would be a double blind test (standard methodology for testing hypotheses). Supplying a mix of "duds" in with the "live" ones, with only an independant third party knowing which is which.

Sure the principle of a catalyst works, but these devices don't work because:

(1) they usually use a zinc compound which is a poor catalyst (industrial catalysts are usually zeolite, palladium, platinum, etc...)
(2) as you said they are too small, both in terms of surface area and residence time
(3) catalysts usually require fairly high operating temperatures and pressures

The mechanism by which catalytic devices often claim to work is by converting long-chain fuel molecules to short-chain ones. It is of course true that petrol and diesel consist of many different molecules, ranging from large ones such as octane (C8H18) to small ones such as butane (C4H10). Longer molecules can in theory be broken down into shorter ones, though this process normally requires heat and pressure, as well as the presence of a catalyst. But even if the fuel "saving" device does break the molecules down, this does not imply improved fuel consumption or emissions.

Firstly, the precise blend of components of modern petrol (and indeed diesel) is quite carefully "tuned" to match the requirements of the engine. This even involves selling different petrol in summer and winter to compensate for differing temperatures! The proportion of the fuel that evaporates at different temperatures (the "boiling curve") is determined by the blend of high boiling point (long-chain) components and low boiling point (short-chain) components. If the proportions are altered, then the boiling characteristics of the fuel will change. The likely effects are either poor cold starting or poor hot starting, with increased emissions in each case.

Secondly, short-chain molecules do not generally produce significantly more energy when burnt. The calorific values of most hydrocarbon fuels are around 44 - 46 MJ/kg, with smaller molecules producing only slightly more energy than larger ones. Claims that smaller molecules burn "better", "more completely", or "more energetically" are not supported by experimental data (consider, for example, the fuel economy of LPG vehicles).

Posted: **Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:29 am**

Floody_1985 wrote:Engine oil was the same, tyre pressures are about the same, in fact, the only thing that has changed is by installing one of these things.

One of the local electricity companies (Country Energy) uses it on some of their vehicles, and apparently they work for them. Another large trucking company I know of uses them as well. Same results.

500km versus 650km's....... I don't care how much you change your driving habits by, that's very very difficult to achieve by just doing that.

There were differences - time of year (temperature) between measurements, driving conditions and speeds/type of driving, when the vehicle was last serviced, etc, etc, etc. A few of these factors combined could easily account for the difference. And your measurement cannot be considered accurate by any stretch of the imagination - a rough fuel consumption estimate from before fitting, and the results from one single tank afterwards. Regardless of your results, a sample size of one still doesn't prove anything. And neither does a mate of a mate who uses them and supposedly has good results. No reliable independant testing has shown that these devices work (see the results of scientific testing above and below).

Here is a link to reports on real indpendant tests of fuel saving devices conducted by the US EPA.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/reports.htm

Posted: **Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:02 am**

A web site that gives me reports of which the majority are in the early 80's and late 70's, doesn't seem to mean much to me given the increase in engine technology since then,

.

And mate, given we have owned that particular car for 4 years now, we have never, ever, driven for 650km's on one tank of fuel.

Stop being so critical and buy it and see if results are really there. It's got a 12 month money back guarantee, so what's to loose??

?

Posted: **Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:18 pm**

It comes down to even if the savings are in your head.. it works for you!

You outlay money to buy it, and if you are convinced you are saving money who cares even if you do drive the vehicle more economically because it is fitted.. you are still saving fuel.

I might have to do some tests of my own.. 12 month money back

Posted: **Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:21 pm**

I would be also nice to dyno the vehicle.. install one and re-dyno it a few minutes later so there are no variables. Then you could see if the increased power and torque statements are correct.

Posted: **Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:48 pm**

Floody_1985 wrote:A web site that gives me reports of which the majority are in the early 80's and late 70's, doesn't seem to mean much to me given the increase in engine technology since then, .

And mate, given we have owned that particular car for 4 years now, we have never, ever, driven for 650km's on one tank of fuel.

Stop being so critical and buy it and see if results are really there. It's got a 12 month money back guarantee, so what's to loose?? ?

The first results I posted were from a study in 1993. That recent enough. Do you really think these devices have changed at all during that time???

I might just buy one and do some independant testing, to prove that they don't work. It would be possible to run some fuel through it, and then analyse a sample of the fuel before and after treatment using HPLC - to see if any catalytic cracking occurred. If the molecular composition and relative proportions of each compound is the same before and after running through the fuel catalyst, then it can't be doing anything. Has anyone bought one and taken it back? Do you get all your money back?

There are a number of points to consider:

(1) No industrial catalytic cracking technology I am familiar with uses magnets to assist in the cracking like the device in question does.

(2) The device is not really a true catalytic cracking device, since it is claimed that the "microscopic particles of zinc" end up in the fuel, which also somehow aids the combustion process.

(3) If these devices worked so well, why don't car manufacturers fit them? They would only add about $5-10 to the cost of a car if they were mass-produced in large quantities. Especially since car manufacturers are falling over themselves to produce cars which are more fuel efficient.

Outer Limits 4x4 Board

Performafuel Catalyst

Performafuel Catalyst