Diesel fuel additives - any recommendations?

Submitted: Wednesday, Apr 26, 2006 at 21:24
ThreadID: 33279 Views:11553 Replies:7 FollowUps:27
This Thread has been Archived
G'day all,

Does anyone have any recommendations on diesel fuel additives? I'd prefer tales of personal usage rather than "advertinfo".

I'm primarily looking for MPG improver (cetane index improver etc) and then an injector cleaner and fuel conditioner.

I've had a look at Moreys and I seem to recall some of you recommending that one. Any others?

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: bradz - Wednesday, Apr 26, 2006 at 22:25

Wednesday, Apr 26, 2006 at 22:25
Try chemtech diesel power, ive found that all chemtech products work really good.
Ive been using it in a 2.4 diesel hilux for about 4 years, found that engine oil stays a lot cleaner for a lot longer, but I do drive around like a bit of a nana, not too much right foot, (oil contamination) and all the rest of it. I figure its not expensive so why not give it a shot. Moreys also a good product. Not sure but think lucas also make one.

AnswerID: 169210

Reply By: crewser - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 07:41

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 07:41
Ive used moreys in my diesel 100s and noticed a huge difference in power,It seemed to have more torque. I think you need to run it all the time as power is back to normal now im not using it.
AnswerID: 169251

Reply By: pauljohnston - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:15

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:15
I have used chemtech, moreys, and acetone. Can't say I've noticed a dramatic improvement with any of them. I've tried monitering my fuel usage but it varies a bit from tank to tank depending on how much city/freeway driving we do so it was hard to fairly say what difference the additive may have made. I spoke to the guys at chemtech, they tell me that diesel power has no effect on cetane rating, it can only improve efficiency by cleaning injectors etc. I tend to use this one still because it is the cheapest and will get water out of the fuel.

AnswerID: 169261

Reply By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 10:24

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 10:24
No offence - but you wont find an additive that gives better economy. They are all placebos.

Unhappy with the Chev? Dude said 25,000 starts to loosen up!
AnswerID: 169285

Follow Up By: Member - Bruce H (WA) - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 16:36

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 16:36
Strooth Truckster, at 8km/ltr thats about 3000 ltrs. at $1.50/ltr. Expensive nyt out just to loosen up a little.

Chev's rule???

Bruce H.
FollowupID: 424648

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 16:44

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 16:44
yea, I thought similar as to the length of time to loosen up.. I remember my VT190 Cummins was similar, but that maybe V8 Diesels in general...
FollowupID: 424651

Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 17:11

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 17:11
FUEL Additives, HA HA HA,None required if you use the right product gain power gain econamy put money back in your pocket. I will say again, nothing ventured nothing gained, keep your head in the sand, you will learn a lot. But above all keep smiling and have happy days ahead. Up to 100klms further each tank of fuel. Talking from reports from users.

Regards guess who ?? outa the blue
FollowupID: 424660

Follow Up By: Member - Tim - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 17:22

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 17:22
Ah, Bill my man, you really need to read this site www.fuelsaving.info/debunk.htm that Mr Fawlty posted just yesterday. It will tell you exactly the type of tests that you need to run and publicise to prove to all of us that you are not just a ball of hot air.

Bilbo you also need to read it if you are thinking of fuel additives for economy.
FollowupID: 424664

Follow Up By: Aston - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 18:20

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 18:20
Thank You Tim,

I have been manufacturing parts & testing & tuning for carburettors for the past 25 years and its nice to hear someone that has their head screwed on.

gadgets like the one that Bill's the man is pushing is usless!!

I only hope that people have enough sense to evaluate the facts.

Please everybody just think before you throw your money away

Cheers Aston
FollowupID: 424671

Follow Up By: Member - John R (NSW) - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 18:45

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 18:45
100klms= 100,000 Litre Metres?

Where do I sign up!

There was this old chook flogging a similar device today at the Supershow. Lots of colourful diagrams and graphs on display, but the graphs had no intelligible/hard data on the x and y axes. They just didn't make sense....Just an upward pointing graph.

I interpolated and put "foolishness" on one axis and "rate of wallet emptiness" on the other, and it all suddenly made sense!

When I asked "what and how", I got the old patent/secret spiel..

Oh well...Head back in the sand :-)
FollowupID: 424677

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 20:54

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 20:54
Please guys, settle down,,,,,,,,,

Consider - I'm an ex- diesel mechanic, I'm a retired senior operations guy from 35 years in oil refineries and oil production. I'm sceptical at best about all claims of fuel improvers. But I do know that ALL fuel in any country in the Western World is made to a standard and that standard is below the optimum.

What I'm looking for is,,,,,,,,,has anyone had any experience with fuel addiatives that they feel were beneficial? Has anyone found anythingt that takes fuel to the optimum?

Yes - I am happy with the Chev. No, I'm not interested in Fitch - after 35 years making petrol I'm fully aware of what "noble metals" will and will not do and at what temperatures and pressures they will and won't do it.

Just good old fashioned personal stories will suffice.

FollowupID: 424696

Follow Up By: Member - Pezza (QLD) - Saturday, Apr 29, 2006 at 00:48

Saturday, Apr 29, 2006 at 00:48
"I'm a retired senior operations guy from 35 years in oil refineries and oil production."

If that's the case then why are you asking us these silly questions, should'nt you know better than any of us what works and what doesn't ?

FollowupID: 424959

Follow Up By: Bilbo - Saturday, Apr 29, 2006 at 06:15

Saturday, Apr 29, 2006 at 06:15

Fair point. But consider, I know how standard fuel is made and to what specs its made, I know how bad it is, but I know nothing about after market improvements to that same fuel. It's different industry altogether.

All I'm looking for is for people that have used an additive and the results they've had.

Thanks for your comments,

FollowupID: 424966

Reply By: DesC - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 17:52

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 17:52
I use John Deere summer fuel conditioner and it seemed at the start to increase hp fractionally. I still use it in my 75, GU and RA. The only real reason that i use it for is that it may help with keeping seals conditioned in the fuel pump when getting dodgey fuel in remote places.
AnswerID: 169348

Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 18:47

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 18:47
To Those who want to believe a report that appears to come from the 1940era.
Wake up AUSTRALIA this is 2006. This bloke MR fawltey wants to move into the 2006 era,as his explanations are well outdated and mostly untrue. believe it or not your choice. IF a MR david williams reports to me that his 98VT commadore has moved from doing 6.93 kilometers per litre to9.53 and up to 13.10 after fitting a F200 to his vehicle well mr fawltey you ask him how he acheived this??? May be it is just in his mind but be assured his pocket knows.
If you all want to believe people like mr fawlty go ahead and continue to waste your money on these outrageous fuel prices if you do not want to travell up to 100 klms further on each tank of fuel so be it.I am just a simple mechanic who found out just what FITCH does and thus promotes it to save my fellow man and woman money.What the problem here is there are people who push their point without knowledge of what they speak about,at least I know what I say and can back it up .
Keep on wasting your money see if I care.

Spoken with honesty BILLS

FollowupID: 424680

Follow Up By: Member - John R (NSW) - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 20:52

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 20:52
LIES, LIES and more LIES.

You state that this guy gets over 37MPG in a VT Commodore? BULL bleep . I have an 1100cc motorcycle which has a state of the art engine (not a 70's technology Buick like the Commondore), weighs about 250kg and gets 40-45MPG. Your customer is misleading you.
Your statement that the report "appears" to be from the 1940's is also rubbish. The web pages were set up in 2003! Give us forumites some credit for intelligence. Unlike your unfounded claims, this gentleman bases his data on research and fact.

Here is an example from the "Fuel Catalysts" page:

Devices of this type include: Broquet, Fiitch Fuel Catalyst, Prozone, Fuelstar, Fuelcat, Enviromax Plus

A vast array of usually tin-based products, either dropped in the tank or fitted in the fuel line, claim to improve the fuel quality and so improve power and economy.

The first point to note is that tin is not generally regarded as an efficient catalyst for hydrocarbons. The "catalytic cracking" systems in oil refineries often cited by makers of these devices in fact use Zeolites, composed mostly of aluminium and silicon. The catalytic converters in vehicle exhausts use platinum, rhodium and palladium. Tin is not a significant component in either of these catalysts.

A second general point is that claims to have improved Russian fuel in the Second World War do not mean that the device will do anything to modern fuel. Refinery technology has moved on enormously in the past sixty years; modern petrol and diesel fuel is a carefully-engineered product almost ideally matched to the requirements of the engines it is used in.

Thirdly, the makers of these "catalytic" devices state with confidence that they change the properties of the fuel in some way, for example converting long-chain molecules to short-chain ones. Such changes could easily be detected using a technique such as mass spectroscopy. It therefore seems strange that the makers do not generally have any such measurements to show that the device actually works in the way they claim.

The claims for these "fuel catalysts" are wide-ranging and varied, but I will try and debunk some of the more common ones here.

A frequent claim is that it allows use of unleaded petrol in "leaded" engines, because the tin coats the valve seats and so prevents wear. This may perhaps be true, but the quantity seems far too low. These devices often quote a 200 000 mile life. In that time a car would use leaded fuel containing around five kilograms of lead. These devices do not weigh even a tenth of that, so you have to wonder if there is enough there to protect the engine. Also beware of testimonials along the lines of "I ran my leaded-only car on unleaded for five years with (insert name of device) fitted and there was no damage". Firstly, some engines had hardened seats anyway and only needed the lead to prevent knock. Secondly, a gently-driven car is unlikely to suffer significant valve seat wear on unleaded, especially if it has already built up many years' coating. (This is not a recommendation to put unleaded in your cherished classic, though!)

Another similar claim is that the device increases the octane rating of the fuel and so prevents knock, again allowing use of unleaded in "leaded" vehicles. This might perhaps be possible, but you would have to wonder why refineries have invested billions of pounds in Zeolite technology instead, if tin is so effective. Once more testimonials of many years' trouble-free running should be treated with suspicion. Many engines designed for 97RON leaded wouldn't knock on 95RON unleaded anyway, due to their design. Others might knock under some conditions but since "classic" cars tend to be driven fairly gently it would never be a problem.

There is also some anecdotal evidence that these devices do not provide as much protection against valve-seat recession as the makers would claim.

Turning away from "leaded" engines, these devices also claim a "better" burn in some way on all engines. The same comments apply here as to magnet systems:

A common claim is that it makes the fuel burn faster. Full details of the effect of burn rate on fuel consumption can be found on the turbulence page, but basically:

Faster burning does not, even in theory, improve fuel economy significantly on modern engines (the burn rate is pretty close to optimum anyway)
If the fuel really does burn faster, the ignition must be retarded to suit
Another claim is that the fuel in some way burns "better" or "more completely". But only about one or two percent of the injected fuel escapes unburnt from the engine (because it was trapped in the head gasket crevice, for example). The other 99% is totally broken down into smaller molecules, and then combined with oxygen to form water, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Essentially all the chemical energy in the fuel is released as heat. How can the burning be any "better" than this?

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).

Some such products also claim a cleaning effect.

Especially surprising is the fact that most makers of fuel "catalysts" claim their products are equally suited to petrol and diesel engines. Petrol and diesel are quite different; the combustion processes in petrol and diesel engines are quite different; and the qualities that make a "good" petrol are not the same (indeed in some cases are exactly opposite to) the qualities that make a "good" diesel. Even if we assume that a catalyst to produce "better" petrol could be devised, and also a catalyst to produce "better" diesel, for these to be one and the same thing seems highly implausible to me.

Some commentators claim that the various catalysts work very well in theory, but the evil oil companies specifically add products to their fuel to "disable" them. Even if true (which would be easy enough to prove by carrying out scientific tests on the product using an alternative fuel), you have to ask why these catalytic products are not simply sold in other countries where the fuel blend is different.

In terms of specific products, the Broquet device was tested in 1994 by the UK consumer group Which?. They ran three different cars at three different test speeds on a rolling road - as standard, with the Broquet fitted, and with it removed again. (This is not quite as satisfactory as "proper" cycle-based rolling road tests, but far better than uncontrolled on-road measurements.) The results were as follows:

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.

I would like to post the whole Which? article here, but cannot as it is copyright.

(Note to US readers: these are imperial gallons, so the MPG is about 20% better than US MPG.)

Interestingly, certain makers of both catalyst and magnet-based fuel "saving" devices claim that they were used by the RAF during World War 2. Amazing that the British armed forces should have found not one, but two, miraculous fuel-saving devices; even more amazing that they have apparently now "lost" both of them. (Since getting fuel to the front line is a major logistical problem, the armed forces are more interested in fuel consumption than you might think.) A sceptic might wonder how much truth there is in either claim.

Make of this what you will, folks.
FollowupID: 424695

Reply By: Alloy c/t - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 20:27

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 20:27
One for our BillS ,,,Bill you claim to be an honest man trying to make an honest living by helping all of us forum users /members /visitors /ect ,, use your fuel saving device known as "Fitch" , Now if you are as honest as you proclaim you will either jump at my proposal or forever shut the -uck up ,, Send me 1 of your beloved devices to try for a 3mth period , To play fair with no bull ,,, I will deposit the cost of the Fitch into Davids + Michells EO bank account to keep in trust for the 3mths trial ,,now being an honest man you must agree that that is a totaly fair proposal ,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and BillS really really think about your refusal reply ,,
AnswerID: 169378

Follow Up By: Peter - Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 20:44

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 at 20:44
Seems like a fair enough challenge. IF Bill is convinced the Fitch works why wouldn't he accept this offer? The product gets canned at every opportunity so here is the chance to let us all know if it does in fact work. If Bill doesn't take up this offer I will consider the product achieves absolutely nothing and would be a total waste of money
FollowupID: 424694

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 00:17

Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 00:17
Others have tried logic with this twonk, and it just wont work. he wants money for his wares.
But I hear his mum is testing one right now and will have a report for us all sooon
FollowupID: 424732

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 00:18

Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 00:18
PS. you will need more than 3 mths to get real world figures out of it. 12 mths would give you a real idea.

PS. I also hear his dog is going to write a review.
FollowupID: 424733

Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 18:53

Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 18:53
NO problem, Get in touch with your vehicle identification and I shall supply the correct unit for you,Give me your email address and we can organise same,If you cant find out in three months what it is diong for you take all the time you like,as over 2,000 recipients just cannot be wrong,they ALL say it works as I do.
Let me know where you are situated and I will organise fitting for you at no cost also.
I will record these fuel figures sent by a recipient recently.98VT V6 com.
Five tanks recorded before fitting ( average 6.056 kilometers per litre) now after fitting best five after fitting (average 11.822 kilometers per litre) and on his list he has recorded sixteen tanks after fitting the lowest is 5.28 k/l the highest is 14.22k/l
By his records the last tank before fitting was 5,8 the first tank after fitting recorded 9.53. his name is David Williams he lives at Kiama NSW I do not have his p/h n/o but can get it. Food for thought guys and gals. Fuel figures are only valid if you know what the vehicle is doing before fitting.I did not fit one of my agents did.

Regards BILLS
FollowupID: 424863

Follow Up By: Alloy c/t - Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 20:30

Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 20:30
Well there you go , the sky must be falling,, BillS ,you can email me at akkd1@ bigpond.com ,,,,,, the time has come to play for real , september 92 built Toyota Landcruiser GXL 4.2lt turbo diesel automatic 360,000 klm , average fuel use in last 20,000klm = 7.98klm per lt ,, avg weekly use of stop start city driving = 6.42 klm per lt ,,,, average h/way run over 100klm in length unladen = 10.58klm per lt ,, average h/way run laden = 10.42 klm per lt ,,, average h/way run laden + towing c/trailer = 10.19 klm per lt ,, add the roof rack and same avg drops to 10.12 klm per lt [ only thing ever on r/rack is 4 fishing rods] ,,,,come on BillS lets put the
Bulls--t bed ,, send me your Fitch so we can all see if it does as you {an honest man} claims.!!!!!!
FollowupID: 424888

Follow Up By: Leroy - Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 20:48

Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 20:48
I have a VT v6 and those figures prior to fiting your fitch is a load of bleep . If I was getting that sort of milage then i would think something is wrong. As for getting 1000km out of a tank of a VT after fitting.......cmon. I know my mate couldn't be bothered seeing if his suby wouldn't ping running unleaded with your POS as he couldn't be bothered wasting his time but cmon....I'll say it again 1000km out of a tank in a VT. Oh but mine is a 99 so that probably doeesn't count! Love to know what month the 98 VT was built?

FollowupID: 424899

Follow Up By: Member - Bill S (NSW) - Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 21:43

Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 21:43
HEY Leroy, Do not know where you got the 1000,klms from??? his best reading ona tank was 430klms for 30.23ltrs his longest run was 701klms for70.71ltrs.WE will now await the report filed by ALLOY when he gets his fitted(if thats OK by you??)

REgards BILLS ps Iwill check year model at Golf tomorrow
FollowupID: 424922

Follow Up By: Leroy - Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 22:03

Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 22:03
14.22km/l x 70l = 995.4 and that's leaving 5l in the tank!! Now I can do better than 701km for 70.71......not much better but often in the high 9's....and that is no fitch.....er I mean bleep !

FollowupID: 424927

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 23:25

Friday, Apr 28, 2006 at 23:25
Actually thats a spelling mistake.

Its Bull S.. not bill
FollowupID: 424951

Follow Up By: Don from Fitch Fuel Catalyst Australia Pty Ltd - Saturday, Apr 29, 2006 at 22:07

Saturday, Apr 29, 2006 at 22:07
HI Guys,Heres a follow up on the fitch fitted to mr williams VT 12th tank after fitting
430klms for 30.23litres 11th tank 251klms for 18.81litres 16th tank 412klms for37.7litres 9th tank 438klms for33.41litres
Start from first after fitting 384k=40.29lt
7/74k=14.46lt fully loaded mountain run.

AS reported by owner
FollowupID: 425076

Follow Up By: Don from Fitch Fuel Catalyst Australia Pty Ltd - Saturday, Apr 29, 2006 at 22:13

Saturday, Apr 29, 2006 at 22:13
Same car before fitting FITCH 5 tanks recorded
Owner reports this was consistant before fitting
FollowupID: 425079

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Saturday, Apr 29, 2006 at 23:04

Saturday, Apr 29, 2006 at 23:04
new name, same manure.
FollowupID: 425085

Follow Up By: Leroy - Tuesday, May 02, 2006 at 21:19

Tuesday, May 02, 2006 at 21:19
That is the biggest load of bleep e I have ever read. Especially from a guy who had to ask '


Now before fitting the fuctch he was getting on average 16.59L/100km. Now this would indicate to a normal person that there was something wrong with the vehicle.

Now after fitting the fuctch you say he is getting 10.37L/100km on average with his best being 7.03L/100km. That is the biggest piece of baloney I have ever read.

That's like over 1066km out of a tank....

.......that's like more than 633km more out of a tank!!!!! ROFLMAO....

ROFLMAO.......stop it......stop it......I can't take it anymore......LMAO....using your figures not mine.......rrrrrr stop it....... ROFLMAO

FollowupID: 425688

Reply By: G.T. - Monday, May 01, 2006 at 15:37

Monday, May 01, 2006 at 15:37
Bill, I can`t stand the suspense. Does Roachie get his money back ? Regards G.T.
AnswerID: 170036

Follow Up By: Alloy c/t - Monday, May 01, 2006 at 16:16

Monday, May 01, 2006 at 16:16
The real suspense is that I am now waiting for a Fitch as in that BillS has accepted my proposal ,,
FollowupID: 425405

Follow Up By: Don from Fitch Fuel Catalyst Australia Pty Ltd - Monday, May 01, 2006 at 19:06

Monday, May 01, 2006 at 19:06
G.T Roachy had his money refunded imediatly (why you ask0??)and he stated so in a previous thread

Alloyc/t As you are in QLD Paul Riley my QLD counterpart will be looking after you from here,hope thats acceptable to you??

FollowupID: 425450

Follow Up By: Leroy - Tuesday, May 02, 2006 at 21:20

Tuesday, May 02, 2006 at 21:20
don't waste your time Alloy.....arrrrrg

FollowupID: 425689

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)