Fitch fuel saving device

Submitted: Thursday, Jun 30, 2005 at 20:11
ThreadID: 24333 Views:2508 Replies:12 FollowUps:8
This Thread has been Archived
I know some of you guys will give me a hammering for this, but I just got one of these. The LPG thing got me intersted but costs $3.3k. This cost $385. I dont know if it will work, i am cerainly not to do a Kluger post over it, but I dont mind giving it a fair chance and I will report back here any results positive or negative. Some people may be interested in knowing about this thing from a neutral perspective. (i suppose in a way i have left neutral teritory by buying a fitch!)
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - iMusty (VIC) - Thursday, Jun 30, 2005 at 20:41

Thursday, Jun 30, 2005 at 20:41
One can only try these things for themselves for sure.

That way you'll KNOW. FOR SURE.

Keep us posted.

But keep to ths facts.
AnswerID: 118308

Reply By: Member - Jim M (NSW) - Thursday, Jun 30, 2005 at 21:21

Thursday, Jun 30, 2005 at 21:21
how ya going ? got try it hay. like they say ya gotta be in it to win it .
AnswerID: 118312

Reply By: Member - Phil [Sunshine Coast] - Thursday, Jun 30, 2005 at 21:31

Thursday, Jun 30, 2005 at 21:31
Not too sure what a 'fitch' gismo was, I did a google. I went to 'Tonys' web page, veeerrry informative,a really good read!!It,s hard to know if any of them really work..Good luck.
AnswerID: 118313

Reply By: F4Phantom - Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 00:03

Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 00:03
there is another fuel device called fuel star
AnswerID: 118339

Reply By: Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) - Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:31

Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:31
no problems here if you give it a good go and report your findings. Big diference between that and some of the crap we get on here personally i think fuel saving is right up there with weight lass without exercise, free sex just phone 1900 fxxx me and the garanteed exercise equipment just use it for 30sec a day. In other words it preys on what people want most.but hey prove me wrong....................
AnswerID: 118346

Reply By: GeoffMc - Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 09:08

Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 09:08
Two old sayings come to mind ……..

“There’s one born every minute”
“A fool and his money are easily parted”.
AnswerID: 118365

Follow Up By: Member - Pezza (QLD) - Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 20:12

Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 20:12
Bit harsh, don't you think GeoffMc?

You have obviously tried one of these things yourself and are willing to inform the rest of us of the test results leading you to the conclusion that prompted the above comments?

FollowupID: 373642

Follow Up By: GeoffMc - Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 20:27

Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 20:27
Didn't think it too harsh at all Pezza .... just common sense and an unwillingnes to waste almost $400.00 on some "snake oil".

BTW ...... just love your outlook on life!
FollowupID: 373644

Follow Up By: Member - Jimbo (VIC) - Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 16:06

Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 16:06
I'm with Pezza.

Bag the product at your will Geoff, but calling F4 a fool is both rude and unnecessary.

FollowupID: 373708

Reply By: Patroleum - Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 20:31

Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 20:31
F4 Phantom,

Thanks for your honesty and please report your result as to fuel econ improvement. I'm a sceptic but listen to all angles,particularly people who actually have paid for a product. Look forward to your report.

All the best

AnswerID: 118472

Follow Up By: GaryInOz (Vic) - Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 23:30

Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 23:30
Ppl that have paid big money for a product that doesn't perform up to standards will rarely if ever admit their mistake...........simple human nature

Add it to the Hiclone, Brock polarizer and the rest.

As said manny, many times before, if it was that easy/cheap to improve fuel economy, the car manufacturers would be producing their own versions.

Please continue being a sceptic........

Science is not based on proving theories right, but being unable to prove them wrong
FollowupID: 373669

Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 21:22

Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 21:22
I agree with you GaryInOz, how many people on this forum tell you how crap their current car is, no, all you will hear is how everyone should own the model they own. BTW, I am not out to impress anyone with my buying this product and will put it in the bin if it does not work - after i offer it to anyone here. I am not the defender of this product, I hope i can be bias-less when it comes to evalation. Time will tell.
FollowupID: 373736

Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 23:06

Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 23:06
i dont recon $385 is big money, $3300 for the LPG thing is what I would start to class as big money, for me i recon this is a cheap test. Why dont you look at it as a test for both of us, i fork out - you benefit.
FollowupID: 373744

Reply By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 20:32

Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 20:32
F4Phantom---YOU WILL be pleasently SURPRISED AS was I
AnswerID: 118473

Reply By: GaryInOz (Vic) - Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 23:39

Friday, Jul 01, 2005 at 23:39
Only wasy to really tell is to have a double-blind test, where not only the recipients, but also the testers do not know who has one installed. Manufacturer supplies 100 "mystery" (50 duds, 50 real units) versions to a group of testers who randomly allocate the units to a group of ppl (believing they have recieved a real unit). Results go to the testers who provide the results back to the manufacturer for independant correllation and verification.

Only then will I believe...............
AnswerID: 118504

Follow Up By: Member - Collyn R (WA) - Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 09:58

Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 09:58
During my time as a research engineer with General Motors we came across a few a such devices that could marginally improve either fuel economy, or power output but in every case the gain in one was obtained at the expense of a loss in the other.

When designing an engine one seeks to achieve a balance between power and economy that suits the majority of users.

It is readily possible to alter that balance (as after-market engine computer chips show). But to improve both parameters is usually possible by some quite major advance in technology - of which an excellent example is turbocharging for diesel engines.

I am always wary of users' reported results of fuel economy as that is extraordinarily difficult to measure accurately. Magazine tests in this area can be absurd unless very costly and specialised testing gear is used. It is not uncommon for magazine testers to work on the basis of how much fuel is needed to refill a tank - and then report consumption to three decimal places (implying an accuracy of less than a teaspoon full of fuel in a big tank!).

Likewise standing start acceleration data - again often given to two decimal places, yet it is not unknown for the distance over which it is measured to be paced out by the 'measurer'. Probable accuracy plus/minus 5% at very best.
Collyn Rivers
FollowupID: 373684

Reply By: Robert K (VIC) - Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 20:53

Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 20:53
The comments by GaryInOz(Vic) and Collyn R (WA) have raised good points.
Formy due diligence on the Fitch fuel catalyst I found that unlike, possibly most of all the other claimed fuel savers out in the market place the Fitch solution seems to have some unique factors about the catalyst product including who made it and the R+D that has been done. This is some of what I found.
1.In AUG 1995 EPA of the USA issued what was then the first and probably since the only certification certificate to a US manufacturer of pre-combustion fuel catalysts. The certificate supplied to Advanced Power Systems International included the following statement "As a result of this certification an automotive dealer may not deny warranty coverage for a vehicle based on the presence of the Fitch Fuel Catalyst." This EPA approval came after a lot of EPA specified investigative research was done by over 20 independent EPA nominated testing facilities and laboratories.
2. After extensive engine dyno testing on a 7.3Litre Mercruiser 270HP diesel MARINE CORPORATION OF AMERICA issued a letter dated 23March 1994 by its then President that included the following " You can see that the Fitch had significant results, Horsepower increased by 2HP, Fuel Flow decreased by 1.7GPH (10% 19.1 -> 17.4), Firing pressure increased by 29psi, Exhaust Temp decreased by 5 DegF. In summary, it is our conclusion that more complete combustion occured inside the chamber".
3. Here we have power increases and improvements in economy together, how come? Possibly the answer to this may lie with those that make up the management of APSI and their method of approaching how to improve the quality of fuel for better energy extraction during combustion process in existing engines. Included among the highly qualified team are Dr A Berlin-contributing developer of the exhaust catalytic convertor and W.Haboush -40 years fuel systems designer with Ford & GM. It would appear that they did their developing work to create a polymetal non-leaching catalyst by using the benefits of scientific equipment like gas chromatograhy, mass spectrometric detection to discover which mix of metals would raise the octane or cetane levels of fuel in such a way so as to provide cost effective outcomes for all kinds of fuel being used in mechanically sound engines.
4. Would not it seem logical that as ASPI was directed by" one of the Top 100 private sector Transportation Professionals of the 20th century" to follow a careful systematic approach to properly research and develop an engine efficiency enhancer, which is practical, safe and effective for use with existing engines?
AnswerID: 118581

Reply By: pprass - Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 22:12

Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 22:12
I have had a Fitch fuel device in two Patrols. A 4.5 petrol and now a 4.2 diesel. In the petrol I thought I was getting better economy, but could not substantiate it. Ended up just "feeling" that I was ahead. However with the diesel I have just been able to perform a pretty good check. Two identical Patrols went across the Simpson. One slightly heavier than the other. The lighter Patrol used 108 litres of diesel from Mt Dare to Birdsville, while the heavier one used 110 litres. To me it means that the fuel catalyst is not performing as it is claimed. If I was to go back to the distributor with this story, he would probably tell me that it needs an extra canister in the fuel tank. Well that is something I would only do if he gave me one on trial. Hope this helps.
AnswerID: 118586

Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 22:55

Saturday, Jul 02, 2005 at 22:55
So you have bought two of these now? glad to hear someone else has given em a go. Something must have been right to do that. I have just come back from a short 4x4 camp. I think the car may actually be using more fuel at this point, but so far two strange things have happened. 1. the car starts a bit wired, it used to really chug heaps to get it going first thing, now it sounds like it has 2 starter motors, the engine wants to start much faster. 2. the diesel clang which old clunkers like mine have, is softer sounding and at very high rpm it does not blow smoke, kind of a free-er revin sound. Anyway, hard to substantiate so irrelivant, but the starting time can be measured in seconds taken to start because its the same every morining so maybe more relavent. I have not had the fitch long enough to make any fuel savings. Have you noticed either of these 2 effect with your device. BTW i have the in line model, not the drop in tank model.
FollowupID: 373743

Reply By: pprass - Sunday, Jul 03, 2005 at 21:36

Sunday, Jul 03, 2005 at 21:36
I have only bought the one - transferred over from the petrol to the diesel.
I have noticed that sometimes the engine keeps chugging just slightly after I turn the ignition switch off - but doesn't happen all the time. (I have a brand new vehicle by the way).
I don't have the capsules either, but the distributer has already suggested that I needed a boost by adding one or two into the tank!! As I said before, I would love to do that if he gave me "one or two to try"
AnswerID: 118686

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)