Richard Gosling wrote: > James, > > It's amazing what pointless gadgets people will try and sell you!! > > Numero Uno - The fuel catalyst. I remember several of these things > appearing a few years ago, in the run-up to the banning of leaded petrol. > They claim to catalytically 'modify' the fuel (i.e. the material encourages > the fuel to change without itself being affected), so that it works like > leaded fuel. It is complete bollocks, some might even consider it a con. > Their 'proof' relies on a number of testimonials from previous customers, > all purporting to be delighted. All of these cars no doubt have survived > well on the well-documented and proven 'lead memory' effect (whereby lead > impregnated into the metal after many years of leaded fuel use continues to > give protection for some time after unleaded has started to be used), and > would have gone on just as well whether or not the Fuel Cat was used. > > The MG Owners Club offered to organise and support an independant test (to > be conducted by car industry testers MIRA) whereby 3 Midgets (I think) all > with brand new heads would be run - one with 4-star, one with unleaded, one > with unleaded and the fuel cat. The Fuel Cat suppliers were asked to pay > for it, on the basis that the sales benefits of a scientific test and > recommendation by the MGOC (50,000 members) would be well worth it. The > manufacturers declined, draw your own conclusions. > > When the FBHVC were testing fuel additives (in a similar method to that > described above), the manufacturers of several of these Fuel Cat devices > were also invited to submit their products for testing - none did. Draw > your own conclusions. Interestingly, none of the major petrol companies > submitted their LRPs to these tests either.
I wasn't too sure about this one. I came to the conclusion that I'd never heard of it before - and if it really did work then everybody would be using it - and I would have heard about it. > > > Numero Duo - Well, I haven't heard of this one before, but I have my > doubts... Firstly, the coil will not be re-charged between each of these 5 > little sparks, so you will get 5 sparks that are 1/5 as strong. Secondly, > how do the 4 sparks after the first one help? If the first one succeeded in > igniting the fuel, the other will not affect anything. There have been cars > with more than one spark plug in the past - early Rolls-Royces (redundancy > reasons mainly, so the car will still work if one ignition system fails), > and recent Alfa Romeos (but their second spark fires on the exhaust stroke, > I believe, to aid combustion of remaining hydrocarbons in the exhaust to > improve emissions). If having a sequence of sparks had any real benefit, > car manufacturers the world over would be doing it right now. They aren't. I came to the same conclusion here - why isn't everyone using it? The demonstation was in the way of some sort of flammable liquid - which he poured on to the upright spark plug - the traditional spark would make the liquid ignite - however using the "spitfire" the flame was much larger. What came to mind as I watched this magician at work was that the conditions in an engine are different - firstly it's under pressure - and "contained" - so as you say the one spark would ignite the whole lot. > > > Still, it's amusing to see people try to sell this tat. Even more amusing > to watch poor innocent sods part with their money for it, as long as it's > not someone you know... > > Richard and Daffy > Another ingenious device was a device that allows you to rotate you car on its side - you basically attach 2 c shaped pieces of metal to the wheels on one side - and you then use this lifting device that's powered by a power drill. James 1977 Pimento Red Spit /// [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list /// Send admin requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] /// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool /// Send list postings to [EMAIL PROTECTED] /// Edit your replies! If they include this trailer, they will NOT be sent.
