Fitch findings & report
Submitted: Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 17:04
ThreadID:
28142
Views:
4189
Replies:
18
FollowUps:
36
This Thread has been Archived
F4Phantom
Hi guys. i said i would post my fitch results for all too see. I am happy to discuss any further questions on the fitch. Before i get into it all i would just like to cover myself from anyone's assumptions. I realise there are limits to accurracy in each area of calculating fuel economy, i realise each car has different characteristics. Other than getting 50% profit from any fitch sold from my post i have no interest in the product (just kidding for humorless persons!) I also realise some people will think that the results are rigged purely because it's only one vehicle, i drive differently and all that. All I can say is i agree, and strictly speaking this is true, however i dont give a damn, i have been about as independant as one can be outside a science lab, i have logged my results and here they are.
The way i got these numbers was from doing full
tank after full
tank, connecting and disconecting with each fill. My conclusion is that I am using approx 7% less fuel with the fitch attached. This corresponds to a nightly tv show who also got 7% so i suppose it's about right. the figures are averaged over several months, and tanks. The car in both cases towed a trailer. I inadvertantly towed a tonne with the fitch, and no where near that without. I dont really notice any power benefit or engine running differenly in startup, idleing, noise etc it all seems to drive exacly the same with and without the fitch.
no fitch 10.62
fitch 9.88
difference 0.74
approx % saving 7%
I stand by these figures, i have gone through phases of thinking the fitch works, thinking it does not work but at the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding. I would further like to invite anyone in east
melbourne who would like to dyno my vehicle independantly. i will supply my vehcle and the fitch both fitted and disconnected. if anyone would like to work with me on a dyno test we can then report this test back to this
forum.
Hey Bill S, for your own benefit, how about you leave this thread to everyone else, and not load it up with your opinions, i suppose one comment would be alright and we all know what it will say, but if you follow your record and just keep posting your biased comments, i have a feeling people will continue to give you flack.
Reply By: Member - Bill F (VIC) - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 17:34
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 17:34
Hi to F4
For all else what vehicle. what type of driving. what are the figures in? MPG?
Bill F
AnswerID:
139666
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 22:08
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 22:08
i forgot to mention. navara, 2.5L 4cycl non turbo diesel. 4x4. work out the mpg using an online converter.
FollowupID:
393384
Reply By: garrycol - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 18:46
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 18:46
Unless the test was undertaken in a scientific manner then the results are not relevant. It is anacdotal.
AnswerID:
139677
Follow Up By: Shaker - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 19:11
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 19:11
It's not anecdotal, it's first hand!
He also said take it anyway you like, but that's what he recorded.
FollowupID:
393360
Follow Up By: Diamond (Vic) - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 19:24
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 19:24
how can you say its irelevant really.
unless of course we all drive in the
same manner
same speed
same temprature
same fuel loads
ect ect ect.
the only thing thats counts in a fuel consuption test is what a certain person uses over a certain distance over a certain time a certian amount of fuel..
eg our car has the mrs using it day after day doing basically the same thing same ks ect.
our car uses as far as im concerned around 8.5 lp100.and thats the figure i would use for any fuel test on my car.
now we can all go on about a proper fuel test should be done on a dyno but who the hell does all there driving on a dyno.no one.
FollowupID:
393362
Follow Up By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 21:00
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 21:00
I know what you're saying. F4 wasn't blinded as to whether the Fitch was on or not, and the sample size was one. In scientific terms you'd get laughed out of the lecture theatre and the journals wouldn't even bother sending a reply.
But I think F4 has done a bit of work in all good faith, and his result is interesting.
FollowupID:
393374
Reply By: HJ60-2H - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 18:54
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 18:54
What is a fitch?
AnswerID:
139679
Follow Up By: Member - Blue (VIC) - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 18:59
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 18:59
You know, the long thing in batter... It sits in the box next to ya chits...
FollowupID:
393359
Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 23:09
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 23:09
bleep er Blue. LOL.
FollowupID:
393390
Follow Up By: Shawn - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 08:36
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 08:36
Yeah good onya!
I nearly choked on an apple laughing when I read this.
cheers
Shawn
FollowupID:
393406
Follow Up By: HJ60-2H - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 19:22
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 19:22
ah!! so it is a replacement computer (Apple) fitted to control the "choke" then? And gives better economy when startign. Making sense now....
FollowupID:
393495
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 19:44
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 19:44
HJ602H, Mate in answer to your question and this is the one entry I am allowed. Fitch is the product you have fitted into your fuel system which changes the structure of the fuel enabiling it to burn more efficiently,this in turn enables you to go further on every litre you burn.Also it enables you to be putting far less pollutants into your engine oil and to boot enables you to be emitting 50% less pollution into OUR atmosphere
.But as you can derive from the comments here most people are working for the fuel companys and willingly donating to them in monetry gains, as most people who have fitted this product report savings of up to two litres saved every 100klms driven,they are wise they are putting the money back in THEIR pockets.Its like instead of you paying premiums for insurance FiTCH is paying YOU for life not a bad equasion in my book. Hope that explains FITCH to you.
REGARDS BILLS Sorry guys could not resist
FollowupID:
393499
Reply By: Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 19:12
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 19:12
Thanks for that F4 I know you have spent a fair bit of time and effort in putting together as comrahensive test as you could. I do however consider a 7% difference
well within normal variences for inconsistent driving conditions. But heck your the one that put the work in. One thing you have shown is the claims of 20% pluss better economy dont seem to be there.
Despite your findings i remain sceptical but appreciate the post
AnswerID:
139681
Follow Up By: MATT.D(WA) - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 19:27
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 19:27
Davoe,
I agree with you regarding the variances for inconsistent driving but if it averages out over several months then it proves something. you're right though no 20% plus saving(what a suprise). lol
Cheers
Matt
FollowupID:
393363
Reply By: Alloy c/t - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 20:07
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 20:07
7% ---- So if fuel = $1 per lt you have "saved" 7cents ,,How much did the Fitch cost ?????? is it worth the crappolla here and on other forums , and are u sure u did NOT adjust your driving style to suit the claims of a benifit when fitted ,, as other replies have mentioned ,in the REAL world do u now support the Fitch or do you wish it does as claimed .
AnswerID:
139688
Reply By: Boo - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 20:47
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 20:47
Thanks F4Phantom...
Regardless of what others who have not done a flamin thing towards gathering some realistic facts on the subject but are all too eager to run down your findings and intensions, I think the testing that you have put a lot of time and effort into is very valuable and by some of us greatly appreciated. I have been wondering since their release of what sort of real effeciencies they can give and am inclind to put a hell of a lot more trust in something like you have done (and shared) than anything the companies could offer.
Once again, Thanks.
Boo
AnswerID:
139698
Reply By: Markymark - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 20:48
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 20:48
If these figures are irrelevant, then every single fuel consumption posted here on this
forum is too! Rather than shooting down someone who has bothered to add something to this
forum, we should take it onboard and wait to hear from other people who have used one too. And if their figures are different, it doesn't mean the other bloke is lying or trying to sell snake oil. Sure it happens but lets not assume that everyperson who goes against the grain is trying to pull one over us. I could tell you of an item that gave me an extra 40km out of each gas task on my old FJ60 but the Ostriches with their heads in the sand would start running around crapping on that it can't be true before sticking them back in the sand again.
AnswerID:
139700
Follow Up By: Boo - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 21:00
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 21:00
Well said Markymark,
A lot of twits are very eager to run down sombody else, it seems easier for them than paying credit where its due..
And inregards to your gas saving point... I for one would appreciate hearing what you have to say on it as I have no problem listening to some advice from others who may have already "been there and done that" especially if it may save me some hard earned cash.
Boo
FollowupID:
393373
Follow Up By: Markymark - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 21:34
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 21:34
Well get ready for some mud slinging Boo cause I had a HiClone installed. Now I accept that for most users on this
forum they have found these things to be useless, but for me driving my 1984 FJ60 Landcruiser with a 2F petrol motor, it worked. It already had genie extractors and a turbo muffler and no I didn't change my driving one bit. I was happy to go back for a refund if I found it no good but I was happy with the results.
And I couldn't give a toss if it didn't work on the Ostriches Hilux, or Rodeo or Patrol or whatever, cause I bought it for my vehicle not theirs.
FollowupID:
393378
Reply By: Member - Luxoluk - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 20:54
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 20:54
F4Phantom
Thanks for the post
AnswerID:
139702
Reply By: Alloy c/t - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 21:26
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 21:26
You wont get a reply from Bill S [mr fitch ] ,had a cardial infraction upon reading your post and is now in an intensive care unit of the mental hospic,,, all he can say is "yes, yes , yes ,"
AnswerID:
139710
Follow Up By: Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 21:48
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 21:48
Ummmmm perhaps you better check the first reply to this post.................
FollowupID:
393380
Follow Up By: Wombat - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 12:25
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 12:25
Different Bill, Davoe!
FollowupID:
393431
Reply By: F4Phantom - Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 22:27
Wednesday, Nov 16, 2005 at 22:27
i actually studied sciences myself and agree with the guys saying my evidence is worthless. the funny thing is that because i am saving a bit of money and my range is slightly better, i dont particually care, i arent even trying to convince people to buy one to make me feel better. So if you want to be highly sceptical as i always am especially when it involves aliens, go right ahead, i would be too. The fact i cannot escape tho is, the fitch gives me more km per tank. in fact the heaviest load i have pulled long distance with the fitch connected (meaning the worst economy i have ever recorded with the fitch) gave me a better result than the best non fitch result ever recorded, no matter how valid your opinion, you cannot escape that fact (subject to you actually believing my claim). The figures were close tho, only about 3% saving, but still it speaks my language. Now bill - about those commissions.
AnswerID:
139723
Follow Up By: Brew69(SA) - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:40
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:40
Sold me mate...........So to the average Jo who spends $50 a week on fuel plus additional trips the $3000-$3500 i spend will save me between $210 and $245 a year.(thats a slab or 2) Better in my pocket and like you say the extra range is the other good point. And if it doesn't work i get my money back. Win Win situation IMO
FollowupID:
393404
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:28
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:28
i wouldnt have an issue with people buying a fitch, but there was that guy with a new patrol, he said it didnt make a difference, another guy on here has a diesel hilux and recons it saves around 10%. Perhaps it works better on more worn engines.
mine has done 250k. the warranty is 90 days so you would want to measure the difference as soon as you got a fitch so if it does not work on your vehicle you can get your money back.
FollowupID:
393424
Follow Up By: OLDMAGPIE - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 21:11
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 21:11
im sorry i dont understand this, when pulling a load you get 3% difference between fitch & non fitch but when you dont pull a load you get less ? so if you pull a camper trailer around for a year, say your savings are going to be closer to 3% mark . if you done your figures over 7 months & compared them at the end of the seven months total your average is 7% over several months doesnt that mean your only saving 1% a month? which would mean the 3% is greater economy when towing a load ?
FollowupID:
393532
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 00:38
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 00:38
hi old magpie, i thought i better say something here cause it looks like i didnt explain something properly. I actually dont quite follow you but becuase it's a percentage saving it does not really matter about the time period, it's just the longer you keep a record for the more accurate it is. the 3% was just off the top of my head. i dont have my log book in front but the difference between the worst fuel consumption with fitch is something like 10.11L/100km, the best ever without the fitch is something like 10.62L. so there is a saving even in the worst possible secario. I suppose the point i was making is that you would assume that those figures would definatly cross over or meet at some point, but they didnt, that was quite a
point of interest to me when i noticed it. hope this clears it up.
FollowupID:
393570
Reply By: Member - Oldplodder (QLD) - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:07
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:07
Thanks F4.
Good post. Also a little bit of a doubter, but your figures are worth noting, even if not 'scientific'. But then how many thories are there that we take as fact.
THEORY of evolution
THEORY of relativity
Still theories because they have not been 100% observed as being factual yet.
Oops, shoudln't have mentioned theory of relativity, my son studying quantum mechanics tells me there are some holes in Einstien's work :-).
Now we can add the theory of the fitch?
AnswerID:
139749
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:46
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:46
i thought relitivity was still certain today. ah
well. you may care to know that the theory of fitch is breaking down long carbon chains into smaller more volitile ones increasing creatane rating. the creatane is like the octane value in petrol. they say its a catylitic converter.
FollowupID:
393426
Reply By: D-Jack - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:21
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:21
Thanks for that F4, can you now please do research on Hiclones and adding acetone to fuel, maybe all together!!!!?????
Seriously, good on you for doing what you did. Worthless - no, not like the posts from the little*%*W^$ who wouldn't know valuable information if it heated to 1000 degrees centigrade and flew up their coit.
Big D
AnswerID:
139752
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:36
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:36
yeah i actually met the hyclone guy in the additional tent added onto the motor show. he said he had a rover engine with 12 hyclones 6 in the intake and 6 in the exhaust. he recons he gets 30 mpg or something. nearly everyone here thinks as much of hyclones of any other fuel saver. the thing i cant see working it the air filter would stop the swirl of the hyclone. anyway $160 for a little bit of pressed tin i could make myself, i dunno.
FollowupID:
393425
Reply By: F4Phantom - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:53
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:53
and another thing, bill s did not sell it to me, the
melbourne rep is an ex university lecturer in chemistry. i buzzed the
melbourne guy pretty good and he was able to explain in much clearer detail from his chemical view what the thing does. still a few holes to plug in the explanation but sounded alright to me. i know more on the theory of how the fitch works than i have said here but its not worth posting unless someone particually wants to know. you will be glad to know the
melbourne guy is not a very good salesman, but he does have an understanding of the product
AnswerID:
139764
Reply By: MATT.D(WA) - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 12:53
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 12:53
F4Phantom,
How much did it cost to have the fitch installed?
Cheers
Matt
AnswerID:
139774
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 19:04
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 19:04
costs $385. i installed myself, dead easy. takes 10 mins.
FollowupID:
393489
Reply By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 20:06
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005 at 20:06
HI f4 phantom. Check around you with owners of 05 gxl td auto cruisers, check their consumption and see if it matches mine just completed 748klms with towing a trailer loaded with concrete blocks for two hundred kilometres on a dirt road and the rest hiway and sub urban klms. I filled with fuel and I might add that I fill so thay fuel is present in the filler tube covering both tank fillers and have allways followed this practice.
Distance covered 748klms
Fuel used 80.6ltrs
This equates to 9.28 klms per litre.
If you want to do litres per 100 you have the figures feed back your information. And thanks for confirming a change please note that fitch say savings of between 5%and15% with people coming back with greater savings its all to their credit.
Regards BILLS
AnswerID:
139832
Follow Up By: Member - Oldplodder (QLD) - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:44
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:44
Thanks Bill,
Must have been a good downhil run :-)).
Not doubting your figures, but I don't know how you drive.
Witht he same empty car I can get 18l/100k or 8.5 l/100k on the same run I do over 235km!
FollowupID:
393608
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 13:02
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 13:02
HI OLD PLODDER. Believe me when I say there are plenty of hills between
WOLLONGONG and GUNDAGIA relativly flat after that though,and I wasnot really driving because I was running cruise control and running at 110klph between goulburn and tocumwall and I might add it changed down a gear on three hills only. So driving on cruise control is really only steering,and I am a careful steady driver when driving.
Regards BILLS
FollowupID:
393621
Reply By: Austravel - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:27
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:27
Ok, now you have me interested. Hope Bill reads this.
I work in an organisation that has a dual end chassis dyno one end with a petrol motor and the other with a diesel motor attached. Fully instrumented and infinitly load variable. I'm willing to do some unofficial tests on the units. Removes all human driving variables. Have not read the Finch site but am lead to believe from postings here that this might have already been done, but the offer is there.
If I do it they are unofficial results, nothing to do with the organisation I work for. I'll just do some basic load/fuel runs and post the results only. However Bill will need to supply 2 units that will be non returnable.
What do ya reckon Bill.
AnswerID:
139919
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:08
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:08
do it bill, this is your moment to shine!!
Hey Austravel, this is a very good offer for Bill to prove himself, may i suggest you make a brand new post just for your offer, it will be very appealing to nearly everyone here and I am sure Bill will go for it.
FollowupID:
393615
Follow Up By: Austravel - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:56
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:56
Might just see if he's interested before I start another post.
FollowupID:
393620
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 13:15
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 13:15
HI Austravel, Yes mate I will gladly supply units to test but I want them back after testing or you pay when you derive as I allready know.Let me know what the motors are so that I may supply the correct units. This is an excellant situation to put this to rest. Obviously others need to know what I know about this product.
Regards BILLS
FollowupID:
393622
Follow Up By: Austravel - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 13:38
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 13:38
Hi Bill,
Sorry but the offer is we get to keep the units regardless of the outcome. As I'm sure your aware based on the time we would spend testing and the cost of the equipment etc I wouldn't be prepared to do it unless we were given the units to keep for any possible future projects. I'm guessing it would cost you a couple of hundred at cost for the units, pretty good value for the potential gain you could get from the people following these threads.
Let me know what you decide.
Regards
FollowupID:
393626
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 14:34
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 14:34
WELL at least give me a clue as to the sizes of these engines so that I may evaluate the equasion as to its merrits,also a clue as to your
technical ability in carrying out such tests. For direct contact you can find me on our webbsite which is advertised on this
forum RH side.
BILLS
FollowupID:
393636
Follow Up By: Austravel - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 15:07
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 15:07
Will do.
FollowupID:
393650
Follow Up By: Austravel - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 15:51
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 15:51
Ok Bill I'm buggered if I can find your email address, can you please put it up here.
FollowupID:
393665
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 16:31
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 16:31
billfitch@1earth.net and thanks for the opertunity.
BILL
FollowupID:
393672
Reply By: Member - David 0- Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:36
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:36
Can you please post all of the results for each trip or tank
eg
xk xl no fitch
xk x l no fitch
xk xl no fitch
x k x litres fitch
xk xl fitch
xk xl fitch
etc
AnswerID:
139941
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 14:22
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 14:22
HI David O, If your question is drected to BILLS I cant give you these figures as I fitted my catalyst to the vehicle on pick up from TOYOTA, because I did not want to run on the fuel supplied as to my results thru checking my pump on my 80srs showed.as the diesel
shop said cleaner than clean after 500.000klms.
At least I know I will never change injectors or pump in the life of my new TOYOTA whilst ever I have this fitted.
BILLS
FollowupID:
393630
Follow Up By: Member - David 0- Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 14:43
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 14:43
My question is directed at F4. I would like to know the number of trials conducted, and the individual fuel consumption per trial, not just an average.
FollowupID:
393643
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 21:14
Friday, Nov 18, 2005 at 21:14
hey dave shoot me an email if you like and i will give you some info. i have to type it all out, it wont take too long but i dont have it in the computer yet. cdw@hotmail.com
FollowupID:
393697
Reply By: prado_95 - Monday, Nov 21, 2005 at 23:36
Monday, Nov 21, 2005 at 23:36
Dont know if all the knockers have tried them, but my brother paid for his unit in the fuel savings over a 4 week period. Thats the unit & fuel line adaptors (for a $900 unit).
Engine: Cummins N14+ (425HP) + RTLO-16913
Load: typically 38T - 42T
Terrain: Adel - Bris - Melb - Adel (or and reverse)
Reduction in fuel consumption is just over 10% - no change in driving style (owner driver)
A typical 4wd would be using a unit about half the cost, and would get a bit better than twice the fuel economy on petrol ( or about 3 times on diesel).
If you dont spend any money on fuel, then dont complain about
fuel prices. If you spend quite a bit on fuel, then something like this can save you fuel expenses over 6 months (depending on your annual km usage).
There's a calculator on the site. The F200 seems to be close for most 4wd petrol engines.
DaveO
AnswerID:
140356
Follow Up By: robak (QLD) - Tuesday, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:36
Tuesday, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:36
DaveO
I'm glad I'm not in your brothers shoes. If he spends $9000 in fuel over four weeks, then these high petrol prices must be really getting to him.
Anything to help with reducing fuel use is a bonus.
Cheers
R.
FollowupID:
394039
Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Tuesday, Nov 22, 2005 at 11:07
Tuesday, Nov 22, 2005 at 11:07
PRADO 95;;; THANK YOU__THANK YOU
BILLS
FollowupID:
394041