Have now filled tanks 3 times since fitting FITCH

Thats an average of 16.2 L/100 Klm's saving of 1 litre per 100 Klm's over previous average.

Of course the average will change based on longer off road trips in low range which you would not have done so much of as yet.

It really needs a long evaluation over say a year in my view to gain a real perspective.
Interesting none the less.

C'mon all u negative trolls..........where are ya????????

Roachie,

Which model of the Fitch have you fittled? From the Fitch web site I expect you fitted the F300 In-Line.

Besides the initial results showing a slight improvement in economy, have you noticed any other changes as suggested on the Fitch web site
link text ?

I look forward to reading your comments in the future.

Did other variables remain the same ? Tyre pressure, weight, number of passengers, slabs consumed etc ?

Roachie, can you go and drive exactly the same 38,000k again, weight, weather conditions etc and report back :)

What sort of driving? the 17.2 you quote sounds very high for highway work I meausured economy once and it came back around that but that was 100% off bitumen work with around 200km of beach work. The Readings using fitch sound about right certainly nothing to write home about

G'day Roachie,

Hate to be a spoilsport mate but I thought 17.2 sounded a bit higher than what you normally say, ( I take notice as I have the same vehicle )then I remembered a post you put up when you first decided to fit the 'coke can' and I quote,

"I have kept accurate records of my fuel usage since I bought my patrol in 2000 and I know that my average fuel consumption is 15.63 l/100klm. I've done checks on various "blocks" of kilometers over say a 12 month period and it hardly ever varies (except when I've been doing a lot of low-range or slow sand driving etc). "

I recall you giving this same figure to a few people when the 'fuel economy' subject comes up.
Just wondering where the 17.2 suddenly came from ?
Please explain?

Avagoodn
Pezza

Interesting, years ago I fitted a fitch like? device in line to counter some pinging in an engine, it worked. The unit I fitted was told to me to be of the same design developed and fitted to spitfire aircraft because of octane problems. It was believed to have worked back then also.
From memory it was called a fuel cataliser? something like that anyway.

cheers fnq

Some of you skeptics I dunno, it's more than fair to be skeptical based on the crap sales people spin, but when people buy the thing and says it works freak cant you just be a little less skeptical and accept peoples honest opinions. I have also fitted this device, some people have supported me and believd me, however I still get people saying stuff like snake oil and other crap. I dont give a damn wether people buy one of these or not, I dont care if the company goes under, the fact is they work on my and at leat 2 other cars on this forum, and I consider they work well. If you dont believe it buy one from bill s, and prove they dont work. I am guessing it will be hard to do if your honest.

BTW Roachie I also noticed the starting engine thing, mine has done a lot of k's and starts first turn over, kind of like a petrol car, when it never used too. Hard to quantify I know but makes me feel all good inside about my $385.

I get a variance of 60 kms per tank full every time I fill up lol

Roachie,
Have you changed anything on your truck, such as different oil in the engine, air filter element etc since you fitted this device. Have you changed your driving habits, ie instead of driving at 100-110kph do you now sit on 90-95kph.
Just a couple of questions??

Greg S

Hi Roachie,
If you want to make the test as scientific as possible (for a bloke that's as good with figures as yourself!!), then you would need to remove the fitch, and re-test the consumption figures 'fitch-less'!!!

If this is not easy to do bypass, or remove then I could understand, but!!! Not having seen a fitch, I'm assuming it looks like an inline fuel filter, and assume it's kinda easy to remove!!

I also have my doubts at to the claims of the fitch, and some time ago, I began to use a product called FPC (Fuel Performance Catalyst, or something). You added xml's to the tank of fuel and it was supposed to decrease fuel consumption and increase power....etc, etc....

I found I went from 16mpg to 18mpg while I was using the (Rover V8) car at the time, BUT!!! when that car went and another (Rover V8) car came along I never got any benefit from using the FPC additive!!

I tend to travel around 100-120K klms a year in my vehicles, and I tried to test as thoroughly as possible, BUT!!
When I stopped using the FPC in my original Rover V8, I definitley went back down to 16mpg on a highway run!(needless to say I kept using FPC, until I couldn't get a positive result from my next vehicle!)

Haven't used it for 15 years or so now!!!

Interesting stuff

On a good day I get 16/100 with my 4.2 diesel donkey naturally aspirated Datsun towing a trailer.(admittedly not as heavy as your monster)

So with the extra $10,000 you have paid for the Turbo, the Hiclone, the Fitch and the rubber bands to hold it all together you save .2/100 and that is without a trailer....LOL

Funny how all the blokes with the BIG money and the BIG trucks all worry about a little bit of fuel saving here or there.....LOL(again)

It is extraordinarily difficult to measure fuel consumption to much better than plus/minus 5% without costly laboratory equipment. Also seemingly trivial differences in many areas may alter it a fair bit.

In the UK, General Motors ran about half a dozen cars picked at random from the production line and checked to ensure they totally met specs. These were then driven around the same 200-300 km route by the same team of drivers attempting maintain the same speed, for a year or more.

Fuel consumption would vary by at least 5% - and seemingly at random - at that was with very precise measuring equipment. I was at one time involved with the testing methodology.

Very-long term consumption data is more reliable but even then I'm very wary of uncontrolled (or even ususpected) variables and other forms of experimental error.

Bear in mind that tyre wear can account for over 3% odometer error. Changing to tyres with a different rolling radius can account for 3-5% odometer error. A worn smaller tyre may thus show anything up to 8% difference from a new and larger one.

Example (using Cooper data): A 245 x 75 x R16 turns 675 times/km - a 285 X 75 X R16 turns ony 628 times. That's an odometer difference around 7%. There will also be differences in rolling resistance that affect consumption. Further, unless the driver corrects for the speedo error as well he/she may drive slower or faster - again affecting consumption.

I have, with only one exception, come across any add-on device that, across a range of vehicles, may possibly improve both performance and economy. But even then - one or the other - but not both.

That rare exception is a device that, by introducing turbulence may, with a few and usually old carburetted vehicles that have seriously poor inlet manifolding, assist individual cylinders get a more even charge.

An anecdote. In later years (when I running some of Kerry Packers magazines) I noted that the motoring magazine was quoting standing start quarter km acceleration data to three decimal places (eg: 16.675 seconds). As this implied at least that accuracy in the associated parameters I was intrigued about how they knew the 400 m distance within a tiny fraction of a metre.

"We just pace it out each time Col" - the 'tester' told me!

Readers waged vicious disputes over data like that!
Collyn Rivers

Thats great Roachie,, you should be able to break even in the year 2525!!

Hi Roachie.

Mate, nothing ventured nothing gained!, and with fuel prices on the upward trend all the time, you never know. Oh!, by the way have the rig parked against a 3mtr besser block wall at night now.

Cheers Axle

And Happy Birthday Roachie!

The link to Snitch caused me to take a look ... here's what it said:

"The system works by actually re-refining the fuel immediately prior to combustion. This is accomplished through a complex chemical reaction, which breaks the long chain hydrocarbons converting them to smaller, higher energy, and more combustible constituents, which burn more efficiently."

So, if that is the way it works, I'll be a monkey's uncle.

Sorry, I was trying to be polite. If that's the way it works it should be possible to:

1. compare the Cetane rating before and after
2. compare the energy of burning the stuff before and after (God knows what "burn more efficiently" actually means).

This is clearly false and misleading advertising. "Re-refining" shows an absolute lack of knowledge of what is involved in refining Petro-distillates. Breaking long chain hydrocarbons is not accomplished just by the presence of a catalyst - it needs a catalyst to start a chemical reaction.

Amazingly it has been used on Methanol. Now I really am rolling around the the floor laughing. Just what re-refining of methanol does the Snitch accomplish.

For the sake of the integrity of his site, David should force his advertisers to only use clearly demonstrable and verifiable claims in their advertising.

Ciao for now
Andrew.

Bugger the FITCH,

What ive got is a SPINAKER, mounted on my full length roofrack. Heading home across Hay Plain a while back, I detected some great tail winds, so I sent my Son out the window to climb up the ladder onto to the roofrack to unroll the spinaker, I know what your going to say, but forget it, I did make him put on a hat and sunscreen, anyway, I easily managed around 140 km/h steady, towing a Yacht, and getting 5.83L/100klm.

I Love My Lada Niva..........

P.S If you are going to go down the path I went, and set up your own SPINAKER, please be AWARE of powerlines.

just a note on the warplanes bit
"The story of the Broquet Fuel Catalyst began in 1941 when British Hurricane fighters, given to the Russians to help in the war effort, ran into problems with poor quality Russian fuel. In fact the first sortie, by 134 Squadron on the 11th September 1941, nearly ended in disaster as the Merlin engines kept cutting out as the fuel started "waxing". Russian chemists working alongside British Merlin engine specialists developed a solid metallic fuel catalyst which stabilised the fuel and improved its combustion characteristics.

The catalytically treated fuel produced a cleaner and more efficient combustion enabling the Rolls Royce Merlin engines to operate satisfactorily. Whilst this significant achievement appears to have gone largely unnoticed, RAF maintenance records for the period do, indeed, confirm that a solid fuel catalyst was used in British aircraft in an overseas theatre of war. Use of the "Broquet" Catalyst was noted by The Daily Telegraph (6/12/93) as a means of overcoming fuel problems encountered by the RAF in 1941 on the Russian front.

Henry Broquet, one of the British technicians working alongside the Russians, brought the secrets of this discovery back to the West on his return from the front.

After the war Broquet continued with research on a tin-based solid fuel catalyst and commenced manufacture of a catalyst which was used to prevent the build-up of carbon and other deposits in combustion chambers and was used primarily in the marine industry fitted to the fuel lines of large diesel engines.

In 1963 Henry Broquet demonstrated to the world's press that use of his catalyst meant that a marine engine could be stripped, cleaned and serviced "