Have now filled tanks 3 times since fitting FITCH

Submitted: Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 20:32
ThreadID: 31421 Views:6150 Replies:20 FollowUps:38
This Thread has been Archived
G'day all,
I know you've all been waiting with baited breath for my update on the fuel usage I've recorded since fitting the Fitch Fuel Catalyst.
For the 38,000klm driven immediately prior to fitting Fitch, I had averaged 17.2L/100klm.
Post Fitch:
1st tank= 16.52L/100klm
2nd tank= 16.27L/100klm
3rd tank= 15.81L/100klm

Make of this what you will; I'm not here trying to push the product, just reporting what I'm finding thus far.

Cheers

Roachie
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - John (Vic) - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 20:42

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 20:42
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.
VKS737 - Mobile 6352 (Selcall 6352)

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message
Classifieds: Water Tank 55 Litre

AnswerID: 158617

Follow Up By: Rob from Cairns Offroad Training & Tours - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:01

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:01
During the second world war they used fuel catalists in aircraft as the fuel quality was so poor. I leave my car as standard as posible apart from suspension and necessary accessories. I wouldn't bother with a Fitch but that is an interesting fact about the war planes. Cheers Rob
0
FollowupID: 413123

Follow Up By: kesh - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 08:58

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 08:58
Here is a site with an interesting point of view.
www.fuelsaving.info/magnets.htm
I have no real opinion, one way or the other, but a friend has one on a 2003 mod. Falcon ute and believes it does as the manufacturer claims. He also wears one of those magnetic belts.
kesh
0
FollowupID: 413160

Reply By: Brew69(SA) - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 21:18

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 21:18
C'mon all u negative trolls..........where are ya????????
AnswerID: 158629

Reply By: Member - Allan M (ACT) - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 21:25

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 21:25
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.

Regards

Allan

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 158631

Follow Up By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 21:58

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 21:58
G'day Allan,
Yes, it's the 300 model, in-line.
The Patrol does seem to start a bit quicker (ie: less cranking needed), but that could be just my imagination. It doesn't blow as much black smoke as before when I bury the Blunnie into the right pedal either.
Cheers
Roachie
0
FollowupID: 413121

Reply By: Footloose - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 21:27

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 21:27
Did other variables remain the same ? Tyre pressure, weight, number of passengers, slabs consumed etc ?
AnswerID: 158632

Follow Up By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:01

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:01
That's the problem with all this debate Footy.....the variables are just that........variable. I keep my tyre pressures the same whenever I'm on the bitumen (ie unfortunately that is about 95% of the time, just like most of the rest of the people on this site I'd expect). Sometimes I have family on board, sometimes not. All the tanks of fuel I use include a bit of everything, cos we go camping VERY often, so towing is a regular occurence etc etc.
0
FollowupID: 413122

Reply By: Mad Dog (Australia) - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 21:40

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 21:40
Roachie, can you go and drive exactly the same 38,000k again, weight, weather conditions etc and report back :)
AnswerID: 158635

Follow Up By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:02

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:02
No worries, I'll head of tomorrow morning....only trouble is I can't guarantee what head/tail winds I might encounter or what the ambient temperature might be etc etc...hahahah
0
FollowupID: 413125

Reply By: Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:01

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:01
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
AnswerID: 158638

Follow Up By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:10

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:10
G'day Davoe,
Gotta agree with ya mate, the 17.2L/100klm included a trip across the Simpson Desert with C/T behind, but out of 38,000klm that was only about 500klm or so.
I do most of my driving on bitumen. I tow a trailer very often and more or less regularly (like every 2nd weekend or so on club trips etc).
I do have a heavier than normal rig (as has been the topic of discussion before...hahaha) @ around 3tonne. I also have the roof rack on 100% of the time and I am only too well aware of the detrimental effect that has on economy. Steel b/bar and 9000lb winch, heavy steel rear bar with twin spare wheel swing-aways, long range tank, drawer system with recovery gear and permanently mounted fridge etc.
I'm not trying to justify this gizmo, just reporting what I see, as it affects MY vehicle. I have nothing to gain by falsifying figures.
As stated above there are sooooooooo many variables, it is very difficult to really work out whether what's actually happening.
Cheers mate
Roachie
0
FollowupID: 413129

Follow Up By: Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 00:02

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 00:02
Hmm I reckon i am going to have to see what sort of economy my 80 gets. I do very little bitumen driving in it and have never used a full tank with just bitumen driving. I think it gets around 14 - 16lper hundred which is a bit higher than some claim to get out of their 80s. 3 tonne isnt actually that heavy as i discovered 80 series have a lump of lead stuck in them somewhere. mine weighs a tick under 3 tonne lightly loaded (no fridge one person etc) Astonishingly it actually weighs more than my old 75 series campervan which had an entire house on the back complete with 9kg gas bottle 3 way fridge oven, stove sink double bed and the list went on
0
FollowupID: 413137

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 22:38

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 22:38
So what ya saying roachie, is that the driving your doing now is not really the same from the figures you had previously in the 38,000klms... towing occasionally, up hill sometimes, downhill sometimes.
0
FollowupID: 413312

Reply By: Member - Pezza (QLD) - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:32

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:32
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
AnswerID: 158644

Follow Up By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:43

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:43
G'day Pezza,
I recall placing a follow-up post a bit later where I corrected myself. I had recorded average figures of 15.63 fairly consistently since the very beginning of ownership. But the 17.2 figure relates specifically to the most recent 38,000klm "block" of records I've kept and extracted from my log book. The vehicle has now done a total of about 183,000klm all up. As stated elsewhere, the accessory list has been steadily growing; therfore so has the weight. This would help account for the worsening economy I would expect.
However, for the past 38,000klm there have been no major new, heavy or wind-resistence type accessories fitted. The BIG factor which may or may not have an effect on fuel economy in more recent times is the fittment of the bigger turbo and increased boost. I have no idea whether this has had any effect on economy.
To me the whole bloody thing is about as scientific as trying to juggle jelly!!!! hahahaha
As I said, make of it what you will.
Cheers
Roachie
0
FollowupID: 413134

Follow Up By: Eric from Cape York Connections - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 06:44

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 06:44
To me the whole bloody thing is about as scientific as trying to juggle jelly!!!! hahahaha

That's one of the best lines iv herd in a long time its about half 5 in the morning and I'm sitting at my desk p-ssing myself laughing.

Thanks
All the best
Eric
0
FollowupID: 413154

Follow Up By: Brew69(SA) - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 10:04

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 10:04
Here it is Bill.funny thing is Pezza the correction is in the same post that you got the other info from lol
Member - Roachie (SA) replied to the question

CORRECTION.....CORRECTION.....CORRECTION......

I said in the original post that I'd been keeping accurate records of my fuel usage and had averaged 15.63 litres per hundred klicks since new. It appears I may have made an error.

Having just fitted the said Fitch in the last hour or so, I decided I'd better bring my log book inside the house and re-introduce it to the calculator. Now I need to make an admission here....I'm not much good with figures!!!! hahaha

Now the error (more like an oversight on time elapsed since I last did my calculations really).............. Up until tonight the last time I'd done any calculations in my book was on 20/3/2004......I've got a note in my log book that refers to Post Number 11,471 which will probably refer to Synforce Oil change. At that time, I'd done 117,004 klicks using 18,284.89 (ie: 15.63 l/100) litres of diesel. This compared almost identically with the previous average I'd recorded on 6/4/2003 when I'd done 88,964 klicks using 13,628.93 litres (ie: 15.31 l/100).

So it was that at the beginning of this post I quoted the last-calculated average usage.

However, for reasons unknown (although it could have something to do with additional 1.1 tonne of gear I have managed to cram onto the old girl), my average over the past 15 months (including a trip across the Simpson, but that wasn't very far in the big scheme of things), has blown out to 17.20 l/100. I have travelled 38,894 klm since 26/10/2004 and used 6,691.01 litres to give me this most recent figure.

Now, as mentioned above by F4Phantom, tyre choice could have something to do with this as I have been running MT/Rs which are a bit more aggressive than the Cooper STs and could have contributed to the increased fuel usage.

Interestingly, since fitting the new Schwitzer/Denco turbo, I have done 5,096 klm using 836.37 litres (ie: 16.41 l/100).

Make of this what you will of course, but I thought I'd better set the record straight for the "start point" for the Fitch Fuel "test".

Cheers

Roachie
0
FollowupID: 413169

Reply By: fnqcairns - Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:53

Saturday, Mar 04, 2006 at 22:53
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
AnswerID: 158648

Reply By: F4Phantom - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 01:58

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 01:58
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.
AnswerID: 158655

Follow Up By: Kiwi Kia - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 07:38

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 07:38
If someone on this forum says that the sky is falling I am not going to go outside to check it out ! Snake oil yesterday is still snake oil today !

0
FollowupID: 413156

Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 09:01

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 09:01
F4Phantom and Roachy,What can I say but THANK YOU for saying the truth as I do.

Regards BILLS
0
FollowupID: 413161

Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:12

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:12
I just knew it was going to be to much for Bil S to leave this post alone.
VKS737 - Mobile 6352 (Selcall 6352)

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message
Classifieds: Water Tank 55 Litre

0
FollowupID: 413176

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 22:39

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 22:39
1l/100 is nothing to start masturbating over for a $300 investment. that isnt 30% is it? My maths are bad.
0
FollowupID: 413314

Follow Up By: GaryInOz (Vic) - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 23:37

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 23:37
Bill S

We all know that you are only an installer of these units. What I would like to know is your boss aware of how much disrepute you give to his products by your antics on this forum?

Feel like a bit of travel??? How about meeting new people??? Enjoy a change of scenery from time to time??? Getting the drift yet??????
0
FollowupID: 413326

Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 10:17

Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 10:17
GaryinOZ,For your information I toured this wonderful country of ours for thirty years on 6to8 week spells each year.First with a 60srs and offroad CUB,then later a 80srs and Kimberly met some loverly people and sighted some superb scenery.Now if driving mainly OFF road from Cape york bleep ular to perth darwin adelaid Tasmania everwhere in between and beyond is not a change of scenery I dont know what is.
And further for your information yes I am an installer but also A BOSS and I will never put something as good as this in disrepute,nothing ventured NOTHING gained

Also I shall try very hard not to take the bait,that is presented.by the illinformed . Once again knowing what this acheives it is very hard to read the dismal fuel figures posted here and not try to HELP those in need but I most certainly shall try to contain my knowledge to my self. But in this world if you have the ability to help others in their quest for betterment in life why not????REmember FITCH sells this product "once" you use it for "life" Hope this gives you a better understanding.

Regards BILLS
0
FollowupID: 413363

Follow Up By: GaryInOz (Vic) - Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 10:53

Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 10:53
Put it on a dyno and prove beyond all doubt, that is all most of us want to see. No "testimonials", just solid, unbiased proof. You can get someone else to do the dyno runs for you as independant observers (using same vehicle before/after installation, of course), and do the same thing with a series of vehicles (to exclude one-offs). Also noting down the tyre pressures, atmospheric pressure, temperature, and any other thing that may influence the outcome, in esscence using the scientific priciple of only manipulating one variable at a time ( ie. Fitch on/Fitch off).

Independant, verified PROOF, is all we are asking...It shouldn't be up to us to supply that.

Wouldn't it be worth the money for you to do it and clear your name and your company's name with the rest of this forum??? At the moment you are getting ZERO sales from here, partly through skepticism of the product, and partly through your behavior on this forum (you've already been "moderated" once in this thread). This would be a win-win proposition for you and your business, if you've got nothing to hide...
0
FollowupID: 413369

Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 11:24

Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 11:24
GaryinOZ, All underway buddy wait and see.

Regards BILLS
0
FollowupID: 413376

Follow Up By: Member - Ian W (NSW) - Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 14:40

Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 14:40
Do I recall previous declarations of dyno & independant tests being underway or about to be commenced or is it just a figment of my imagination?

Remember! When you go into the Fitch Site Legal Discliamer and read the fine print, paragraph six from memory, you will find that the only guarantee that Fitch give is that they give no guarantee.

Ian
0
FollowupID: 413399

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 22:57

Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 22:57
"Also I shall try very hard not to take the bait,that is presented.by the illinformed ."

At the moment guess who this person actually is?
0
FollowupID: 413512

Follow Up By: Member - Davoe (Widgiemooltha) - Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 00:18

Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 00:18
"But in this world if you have the ability to help others in their quest for betterment in life why not????"
Ahhh classic sales pitch. First heard it when I was invited to a pyramid selling Scheme seminar
In varios forms it is also used on all those infomercials you see. i actually find the Infomercials interesting. Not because i want to buy there crap but The way they reach out and try and get into the Phsycke of the weak, Gullable and vulnerable to make the sale fascinates me
in a way you Bill S fascinate me too as you work off the same principles it goes like this
1) show good results - it gets people interested
2) describe how easy it is - everyone wants the easy way out
3) Keep detailing how much better peoples life would be - Everyone wants a better life
4) Testimonials - I notice one of your testimonials is from someone i know, I( will be getting an unpaid testimonial from him next time I see him)
5) keep bringing it up - Hell even Georg W knows if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth (We invaded Iraq for the WMDs)
All classic sales pitch for snake oil
0
FollowupID: 413526

Reply By: Rock Crawler - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 03:00

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 03:00
I get a variance of 60 kms per tank full every time I fill up lol
AnswerID: 158657

Follow Up By: Eric from Cape York Connections - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 06:47

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 06:47
Same with the 60 when I drive it I get about and extra 80-100 k out of the tank to when the wife drives it.

All the best
Eric
0
FollowupID: 413155

Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:15

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:15
Agreed Eric, I'm the same, The head, tail or side wind always makes a difference when you are as aerodynamic as a brick.

Hence why I reckon that this type of thing needs a year of comparable driving conditions to gain a real understanding as to whether the thing works or not.
VKS737 - Mobile 6352 (Selcall 6352)

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message
Classifieds: Water Tank 55 Litre

0
FollowupID: 413177

Follow Up By: Rock Crawler - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:27

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:27
simple , put a vehicle on a Dyno . Run 1ltr fuel with no finch , then fit a finch and run for another ltr .

Not rocket science
0
FollowupID: 413180

Follow Up By: Ron173 - Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 11:03

Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 11:03
Rock crawler,

that has to be the most sensible simple thing to do. Not sure how much it would cost though. you'd think fitch might have some data on it

Ron
0
FollowupID: 413373

Reply By: Member - greg S (QLD) - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 09:40

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 09:40
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
AnswerID: 158673

Reply By: arthurking83 - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:00

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 11:00
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!!!
AnswerID: 158682

Follow Up By: arthurking83 - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 15:52

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 15:52
HEY!!!??? :(((

Who made the word F1TCH in my posts a clickable link?

Wasn't me!!!
0
FollowupID: 413208

Follow Up By: GaryInOz (Vic) - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 17:59

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 17:59
Unfortunately a paid up sponsor/advertiser, both outside the borders of this forum and inside....
0
FollowupID: 413235

Reply By: Willem - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 12:43

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 12:43
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)
AnswerID: 158693

Reply By: Member - Collyn R (WA) - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 13:45

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 13:45
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
AnswerID: 158698

Follow Up By: kesh - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 14:44

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 14:44
Collyn. Far be it for me to challenge the veracity of your comments, but surely if a dozen or more vehicles had their elapsed time compared over a standing start "400m" which was plus or minus that distance the difference fraction is irrelevant. It is the compared elapsed time which counts.
Compare this to a hill climb, the fastest up there gets the prize, even if that vehicle took the longest distance to get there.
Power, which propels the vehicle, can only come from the combustion of fuel at an optimum fuel/air ratio. If one can improve the volumetric efficiency of a given engine then a greater amount of fuel can be burned hence creating more power. The optimum fuel/air ratio is a constant. (not rpm)
I do find it interesting to note that in the '50s/60s. a single cylinder 500cc. racing motorcycle engine developed around 110bhp./litre. (on petrol) Today, 40yrs. later, the V8 supercar engines do not develop much, if any, more per litre engine capacity (in both instances turning at similar rpm.) There is only a certain amount of bang in a litre of fuel which ever way you burn it.
Very pleased to see you still about.
kesh

0
FollowupID: 413200

Follow Up By: arthurking83 - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 15:45

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 15:45
Quote: kesh
"...I do find it interesting to note that in the '50s/60s. a single cylinder 500cc. racing motorcycle engine developed around 110bhp./litre. (on petrol) Today, 40yrs. later, the V8 supercar engines do not develop much, if any, more....."

It may be irrelevant, but you are comparing chalk and cheese here....yeah?

It may be better to compare with the peak developments in motorcycle technology when referring to 500cc motorcycle engines!!

an example would be the 500cc (two stroke) GP bikes of a couple of years back that put out 200+HP (400bhp/Lt).

OK bad example!!...... how about a 500cc supermono racer?
They can produce 160bhp/lt.......

Recently in an issue of Silicon Chip magazine they were explaining the workings of some of the latest (very high end!!) euro cars and their use of 50:1 fuel mix ratios, in their quest to improve emissions and fuel economy....something along the lines of wide open throttle body, and super high air:fuel ratios uses less fuel????
(can't remember the exact figures etc...but it opens the eyes a bit!!)
0
FollowupID: 413205

Follow Up By: Member - Collyn R (WA) - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 19:49

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 19:49
Kesh
I should have made it clearer what was happening.

The magazine chappies were not comparing various cars over the same distance. What they were doing was doing road tests on individual cars - and measuring the quarter mile sprint over a different paced-out distance and often in a different area each time!

Re the 100 bhp/litre - this was regularly being achieved in the early 1930s. The Riley engine in particular could be developed to produce this.
Collyn rivers
0
FollowupID: 413258

Follow Up By: kesh - Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 08:04

Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 08:04
The trick of these forums is that when a person attempts to reply to or even commence a thread then due to an oversight somewhere or just plain inability to get the message across mis understanding occurrs.
This is certainly a problem I have, if it were a one on one or even a group (typical campfire) coversation matters would be much easier.
So the point I was trying to make is perhaps better stated as "horsepower is the rate of doing work". Therefore if you burn a litre of fuel over a certain time period a certain amount of HP will be generated to do work. (a variable here will be thermal/mechanical efficiency)
My analogy was intended to show that, by comparing engines of similar piston displacement/rpm. The fact that the current crop of high performance engines develop such bhp/l. figures is permissible rpm. (multi, small cap. cylinders)vol. efficiency. mechanical efficiency etc. Air fuel ratio stays the same (~12:1 by wt.)
With apology where applicable, misunderstanding a reply, comments made etc. are quite a factor in some of the quite negative attitudes displayed in forums.
Not wanting to hijack, so will let the Fitch do its work!
kesh

0
FollowupID: 413339

Reply By: Michael ( Moss Vale NSW) - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 17:24

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 17:24
Thats great Roachie,, you should be able to break even in the year 2525!!
Patrol 4.2TDi 2003

Retired 2016 and now Out and About!

There's time to rest when you're dead,
Get out and do something instead!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 158733

Reply By: Axle - Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 19:44

Sunday, Mar 05, 2006 at 19:44
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
AnswerID: 158759

Reply By: Pajman Pete (SA) - Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 08:14

Monday, Mar 06, 2006 at 08:14
And Happy Birthday Roachie!
Any mug can be uncomfortable out bush

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 158830

Reply By: Member - Andrew W (SA) - Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:13

Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:13
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.
AnswerID: 159058

Reply By: ImEasy - Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:47

Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:47
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.
AnswerID: 159074

Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:50

Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:50
Yep!!! Power lines will get ya everytime.
VKS737 - Mobile 6352 (Selcall 6352)

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message
Classifieds: Water Tank 55 Litre

0
FollowupID: 413571

Follow Up By: Redback - Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 13:03

Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 13:03
You got way too much time on ya hands brother, but i like it, seems feasilbe too me, good to see others thinking outside the square.

Was only talking about this on the phone just a while ago.

Gives Yachts good economy.

Baz.
0
FollowupID: 413573

Follow Up By: ImEasy - Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 13:08

Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 13:08
Economy drastically drops if the Yacht is being towed, whilst still in the water.
0
FollowupID: 413574

Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 13:38

Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 13:38
Is your yacht fitted with a winged keel?
If so does this make a difference to economy?
Maybe we should ask Bill S for his views on fitting Flatches to yachts?
VKS737 - Mobile 6352 (Selcall 6352)

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message
Classifieds: Water Tank 55 Litre

0
FollowupID: 413585

Follow Up By: Redback - Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 13:47

Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 13:47
Aspecially with a bum snorkle, and if the keel is draging on the bottom.

I'm bringing extra gaffer tape with me on my next trip ;-))))
0
FollowupID: 413589

Follow Up By: ImEasy - Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 14:12

Tuesday, Mar 07, 2006 at 14:12
As if id be towing it with the keel still attached, that would be as silly as fitting a Hiclone to my Lawn Mower, mind you, I wouldnt mind trying that, actually im gunna firmly fit a funny Fitch to my wipper shhhnipper, and I will post results after I lovingly lop luscious loose and limp weeds, for a year........gawd I need to go HOME
0
FollowupID: 413600

Reply By: tex1972 - Sunday, Mar 12, 2006 at 22:38

Sunday, Mar 12, 2006 at 22:38
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 "
AnswerID: 160149

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)