Improved MPG when towing!

Jul 26, 2005
101
0
0
Visit site
To any of you that may be interested, I recently fitted a 'Broquet' fuel catalyst to my 2003 TDCI 130 Mondeo and have noticed a marked improvement in fuel economy both solo and towing. I was a bit sceptical at first (who wouldn't be?) but I have to say it looks good. I am getting about an extra 40 -50 miles to a tank of diesel, including towing, and that can't be bad. The blurb that the compnay sent me had some comments in from 'Caravan Life' (sorry PC!) saying that they had tested it and had noticed improved fuel economy even whilst towing and running the air con.

Broquet also say it reduces the 'soot' coming out of the exhaust, but I can't tell if this true or not yet. I just hope it is true, so that the front of the van stays cleaner when I'm towing!

It may also be of interest to know that the product is fully guaranteed not to damage your engine, and last for something like 200,000 miles.

I know this looks a bit like a sales pitch, but I don't work for them promise! I'm just really impressed. The website address was www.broquet.com and when I rang them to ask questions they were very helpful and the woman I spoke too really knew what she was talking about. Phone number was 01788 540068.
 
Mar 14, 2005
93
0
0
Visit site
If this is not a sales pitch I'll go to sea in an open boat!

Ask yourself, if this thing really gives an extra 50 miles per tank full, why don't all the car makers snap it up and fit it to new models. I'll tell you why - 'cos it don't work!
 
Jul 26, 2005
101
0
0
Visit site
I object to your comments Mike!

All I'm trying to do is save somebody a bit of money, and I HAVE fitted and it does give me 50 extra miles to a tank (approx 10% increase). I do STATE I drive a DIESEL.
 
Mar 14, 2005
189
0
0
Visit site
These magical devices come to the surface every so often but no-one has ever shown PROPER statistics as evidence that they work. Towing fuel consumption can vary by +/- 20% in careful driving, much, much more if there's no real discipline.

It comes back to " If they were any good, manufacturers would fit them as standard"
 
Mar 14, 2005
987
0
0
Visit site
Sonic,

I am not one to criticize your fuel saving achievements by the fitting of a Broquet Fuel Catalyst.

I go along with Roger L comments with regards Fuel Consumption with carefull driving.

Interested what RPM you maximise in each gear change,do you drive a automatic , or do you have a six speed gearbox.

What was your original MPG to make up your mind to purchase the

Broquet Catalyst.

Royston
 
Jul 26, 2005
101
0
0
Visit site
Sonic,

I am not one to criticize your fuel saving achievements by the fitting of a Broquet Fuel Catalyst.

I go along with Roger L comments with regards Fuel Consumption with carefull driving.

Interested what RPM you maximise in each gear change,do you drive a automatic , or do you have a six speed gearbox.

What was your original MPG to make up your mind to purchase the

Broquet Catalyst.

Royston
Hi Royston,

I don't know my MPG figures, but I do know I used to get between 480 - 500 miles out of a tank of diesel solo, and know regularly get 540 - 550, sometimes a tad higher if doing a long run (the figures quoted are a general mix of driving). The cars a manual, 5 speed not 6. I decide to give it a go after seeing them at the NEC Caravan show a few years back, and kept the leaftlet if I ever change my car (which I now have, I used to have a company car). Broquet offer a full money back guarantee if your not satisfied, which I am, so it was basically 'what have I got to loose?'

Oh, the comments on other replys about, 'Why doesn't every motor manufacturer fit them?' Broquet say that they do provide to a least one MAJOR motor manufacturer that sells cars in the UK, but for contract reasons they cannot state who.

It's very easy for you all to 'poo-poo' the idea, but for very little cost I have substantially increased my MPG. It's better than 'chipping' as I don't have to tell the insuarnce about it, and if it didn't work, I could have got my money back.
 
Mar 16, 2005
650
0
0
Visit site
yes they have been tested, and no they didn't make a difference.

would love to know [if indeed they do] which manufacturer fits

them.

sales pitches.. why do people still falll for them.

if you drive a diesel, you must be in the 1%, of those who do

not even know what mpg they get, and yet you say you get 50 odd

miles more to the tankfull. always putting the same amount in

everytime! not likely so how are you working out your improved

mpg.

and don't forget in this warmer weather a car warms up quicker

and so has better fuel consumption.
 
Jul 26, 2005
101
0
0
Visit site
I wish I just hadn't have bothered.

This forum is so full of people who just want to put down others sugestions and findings.

I shouldn't have to PROVE that it's not a sales pitch, or that I am not some MORON who doesn't know how well his car runs.

I found a difference FACT, if your not interested, don't reply, this post was designed to inform people of the success I had seen and let them make there own minds up about it. Not for a selected few to just come on and say that it's a sales pitch, and that 'warm weather and better driving' are responsible. I know how I drive, and for those that quote the 'warm weather' theory, my MPG should be LESS as the AIRCON is runing more. As it is my MPG is MORE, FACT.

Go back to your stupid 4x4 debate and annoy somebody else. I'll think twice about helping any of you again. I thought Caravaners were supposed to be a friendly bunch? The selected few are not doing caravanners any favours.
 
Mar 14, 2005
9,783
682
30,935
lutzschelisch.wix.com
I can't see what you're all upset about, Sonic. Apart from Mike's comment all other responses were legitimate criticism or asking for more details to establish under what conditions the claimed improvement applies. The fact that one is sceptical of your result is only to be expected under the circumstances.
 
Jul 26, 2005
101
0
0
Visit site
Lutz,

I'll show you why.

Mike wrote:

If this is not a sales pitch I'll go to sea in an open boat!

Ask yourself, if this thing really gives an extra 50 miles per tank full, why don't all the car makers snap it up and fit it to new models. I'll tell you why - 'cos it don't work!

Direct insult at me, I am NOT a sales man. He states that they don't work, but has noo evidence to back it up, at least I quote facts and figures.

RogerL wrote:

Towing fuel consumption can vary by +/- 20% in careful driving, much, much more if there's no real discipline.

So, let me get this straight, since fitting my driving has chnaged so much that I get extra MPG and teh Broquet is doing nothing? Come on...

Mike wrote again:

All I will say is 'CAVEAT EMPTOR'

Let the buyer beware for those that don't do latin. The buyer is aware of a full guarantee, insurance backed.

Giovanni wrote:

sales pitches.. why do people still falll for them.

if you drive a diesel, you must be in the 1%, of those who do

not even know what mpg they get, and yet you say you get 50 odd

miles more to the tankfull. always putting the same amount in

everytime! not likely so how are you working out your improved

mpg.

Yet again, I am NOT a sales man. I also don't appreciate the sarcasm.

So Lutz, after all the comments I have had, 1 was genuine from Royston, which I answered in full as is the whole point of the forum.

I take time to post some info that may be useful to others, and all I get back from the majority is stuff saying that it's a sales pitch, and that it doesn't work. No facts, no figures, just making out that I'm a liar, and that my extra gain in MPG is some figment of my imagination.

Is it any wonder I'm annoyed? I couldn't give a stuff now. Oh, and I hope that Mike enjoys his trip to sea in an open boat.... he can take the rest with him.
 
Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
Visit site
Lutz,

I'll show you why.

Mike wrote:

If this is not a sales pitch I'll go to sea in an open boat!

Ask yourself, if this thing really gives an extra 50 miles per tank full, why don't all the car makers snap it up and fit it to new models. I'll tell you why - 'cos it don't work!

Direct insult at me, I am NOT a sales man. He states that they don't work, but has noo evidence to back it up, at least I quote facts and figures.

RogerL wrote:

Towing fuel consumption can vary by +/- 20% in careful driving, much, much more if there's no real discipline.

So, let me get this straight, since fitting my driving has chnaged so much that I get extra MPG and teh Broquet is doing nothing? Come on...

Mike wrote again:

All I will say is 'CAVEAT EMPTOR'

Let the buyer beware for those that don't do latin. The buyer is aware of a full guarantee, insurance backed.

Giovanni wrote:

sales pitches.. why do people still falll for them.

if you drive a diesel, you must be in the 1%, of those who do

not even know what mpg they get, and yet you say you get 50 odd

miles more to the tankfull. always putting the same amount in

everytime! not likely so how are you working out your improved

mpg.

Yet again, I am NOT a sales man. I also don't appreciate the sarcasm.

So Lutz, after all the comments I have had, 1 was genuine from Royston, which I answered in full as is the whole point of the forum.

I take time to post some info that may be useful to others, and all I get back from the majority is stuff saying that it's a sales pitch, and that it doesn't work. No facts, no figures, just making out that I'm a liar, and that my extra gain in MPG is some figment of my imagination.

Is it any wonder I'm annoyed? I couldn't give a stuff now. Oh, and I hope that Mike enjoys his trip to sea in an open boat.... he can take the rest with him.
In fairness to Sonic you guys did rather shout him down. May have been better to ask him how it works, what it costs and what solid trials have been done on it?

I personaly do not rate these add on fuel savers but there have been a couple of late, tested in a magazine via a Rolling Road that have improved things.

One is the "Vortex" exhaust and the other a devise that clips in the inlet manifold to improve the fuel air mix. The results were positive - small but positive.

I have no idea what Sonic used or how it works.
 
Mar 27, 2005
485
0
0
Visit site
Lutz,

I'll show you why.

Mike wrote:

If this is not a sales pitch I'll go to sea in an open boat!

Ask yourself, if this thing really gives an extra 50 miles per tank full, why don't all the car makers snap it up and fit it to new models. I'll tell you why - 'cos it don't work!

Direct insult at me, I am NOT a sales man. He states that they don't work, but has noo evidence to back it up, at least I quote facts and figures.

RogerL wrote:

Towing fuel consumption can vary by +/- 20% in careful driving, much, much more if there's no real discipline.

So, let me get this straight, since fitting my driving has chnaged so much that I get extra MPG and teh Broquet is doing nothing? Come on...

Mike wrote again:

All I will say is 'CAVEAT EMPTOR'

Let the buyer beware for those that don't do latin. The buyer is aware of a full guarantee, insurance backed.

Giovanni wrote:

sales pitches.. why do people still falll for them.

if you drive a diesel, you must be in the 1%, of those who do

not even know what mpg they get, and yet you say you get 50 odd

miles more to the tankfull. always putting the same amount in

everytime! not likely so how are you working out your improved

mpg.

Yet again, I am NOT a sales man. I also don't appreciate the sarcasm.

So Lutz, after all the comments I have had, 1 was genuine from Royston, which I answered in full as is the whole point of the forum.

I take time to post some info that may be useful to others, and all I get back from the majority is stuff saying that it's a sales pitch, and that it doesn't work. No facts, no figures, just making out that I'm a liar, and that my extra gain in MPG is some figment of my imagination.

Is it any wonder I'm annoyed? I couldn't give a stuff now. Oh, and I hope that Mike enjoys his trip to sea in an open boat.... he can take the rest with him.
Yes well said Clive. Come on the rest of you where are your manners. I think we have another case of engaging typing finger before brain.
 
Mar 14, 2005
127
0
0
Visit site
I`m with you Sonic. I used to reply to quite a lot of topics when it took about 24 hours for a reply to get on the site but since the site changed I usually just read the various comments and shake my head. If it is any consolation I believe your claims.
 
Mar 14, 2005
9,783
682
30,935
lutzschelisch.wix.com
Whereas Sonic's claim of 40 to 50 extra miles on a tank is still within the realms of possibility, I just cannot believe Kanga's mate's apparent increase from 18 to 30 mpg. Without other improvements or changes to conditions, such a gain of over 60% is absolutely utopian.
 
Aug 28, 2005
603
0
0
Visit site
Whereas Sonic's claim of 40 to 50 extra miles on a tank is still within the realms of possibility, I just cannot believe Kanga's mate's apparent increase from 18 to 30 mpg. Without other improvements or changes to conditions, such a gain of over 60% is absolutely utopian.
Where can I sell my shares in BP/Shell/Esso at this time of night??
 
Mar 16, 2005
650
0
0
Visit site
i am sorry you took offence, but your reply needs a reply.

you assume that your observations are unique and totally

reliable, based on nothing more than a few tankfulls,and 5

minutes reading a leaflet.

as i have already stated it has been tested and whilst it did

no harm, it did little else.

now you did not know this when you started this topic, so

although you may have had all good intentions,you had no

evidence as to how good or bad this product could be to a car

over any long term use [know many people who keep the same

private car for 200000 miles?]

you stated that your car was giving 50 miles more to the tank.

so is this all the time or in the summer? and do you think

you will get the same 50 extra miles to the tank in the winter?

your 50 miles more to the tankfull, is like getting over 3 mpg

more, this product has been out for years. do you really think

that if it could make a such a difference that car manufacturers

would not know about it, or even use a similar device given our

tough emmissions and the quest for better mpg?

i tell you what i know.

i know what my car/s did/do to the gallon or litre, in summer

in winter on motorways and on a roads.

knowing this i know unless you do the same identicle journeys

in the same temp, every top up, your 50 miles more, means

absolutely nothing.

and being as you don't seem to know what mpg your car did anyway

you have noway of knowing if it has indeed improved.

so your so called good advice, has no facts to back it up at all

but youd be happy for everyone else to waste their money as

well.

me i actually know a little about cars, so ill waste my money

on diesel...
 
Jul 15, 2005
2,175
1
0
Visit site
Gentlemen,

Hopefully I can add some impartial, reasoned advice to this discussion thread.

I studied for a degree in Chemistry, then a research degree in catalyst Chemistry, and nowadays my company in Rotterdam builds process analysers and robotics systems for the petrochemical industry, and in my spare time I'm secretary of an Institute of Petroleum technical committee, and the UK representative to CEN on technical aspects of motor vehicle fuels.

I've read the original posting and all the responses, and also carefully read the technical information on the Broquet web-site, and the views I express are my views alone but backed by 30 years experience in Chemistry (and on-line process engineering and IT):

Apparently the Broquet device is a tin-alloy based material in a steel mesh wrapper, this can be inserted either in the fuel tank or the fuel line, and works by catalysing the fuel to burn more completely.

One of my several concerns is that the catalyst (in the fuel tank) is remote from the reaction chamber (engine cylinder), whereas for a catalyst to work it has to be in intimate contact with the reaction process.

Compare this with the exhaust catalyst fitted to your car - the catalytic reaction ocurs by bringing un-burnt fuel and extra air together on the surface of the catalyst. All three parts have to be together at the same time, not two together and then a different two at a later time.

However, it could be that particles of the tin-alloy dissolve in the fuel and then a bit of this tin-alloy would be in the engine ready to catalyse the burn process.

So does it work? At this moment we have two camps arguing without any evidence.

It would be very easy to test and prove beyond doubt the efficency of the device, but this would also be moderately exensive. There are several facilities in the UK and Europe with "engine rigs" comprising a computer controlled engine with full monitoring instrumentation.

Then the engine can be driven over a route, the changes applied, and an exact duplicate profile run. No differences due to traffic, or to weather, or by the driver taking it a bit easy or accelerating too hard.

Then we would know positively one way or another, Robert
 
Mar 28, 2005
831
0
18,880
Visit site
Gentlemen,

Hopefully I can add some impartial, reasoned advice to this discussion thread.

I studied for a degree in Chemistry, then a research degree in catalyst Chemistry, and nowadays my company in Rotterdam builds process analysers and robotics systems for the petrochemical industry, and in my spare time I'm secretary of an Institute of Petroleum technical committee, and the UK representative to CEN on technical aspects of motor vehicle fuels.

I've read the original posting and all the responses, and also carefully read the technical information on the Broquet web-site, and the views I express are my views alone but backed by 30 years experience in Chemistry (and on-line process engineering and IT):

Apparently the Broquet device is a tin-alloy based material in a steel mesh wrapper, this can be inserted either in the fuel tank or the fuel line, and works by catalysing the fuel to burn more completely.

One of my several concerns is that the catalyst (in the fuel tank) is remote from the reaction chamber (engine cylinder), whereas for a catalyst to work it has to be in intimate contact with the reaction process.

Compare this with the exhaust catalyst fitted to your car - the catalytic reaction ocurs by bringing un-burnt fuel and extra air together on the surface of the catalyst. All three parts have to be together at the same time, not two together and then a different two at a later time.

However, it could be that particles of the tin-alloy dissolve in the fuel and then a bit of this tin-alloy would be in the engine ready to catalyse the burn process.

So does it work? At this moment we have two camps arguing without any evidence.

It would be very easy to test and prove beyond doubt the efficency of the device, but this would also be moderately exensive. There are several facilities in the UK and Europe with "engine rigs" comprising a computer controlled engine with full monitoring instrumentation.

Then the engine can be driven over a route, the changes applied, and an exact duplicate profile run. No differences due to traffic, or to weather, or by the driver taking it a bit easy or accelerating too hard.

Then we would know positively one way or another, Robert
Rob, how do you find time to go away in your caravan?
 
Jul 26, 2005
9
0
0
Visit site
Gentlemen,

Hopefully I can add some impartial, reasoned advice to this discussion thread.

I studied for a degree in Chemistry, then a research degree in catalyst Chemistry, and nowadays my company in Rotterdam builds process analysers and robotics systems for the petrochemical industry, and in my spare time I'm secretary of an Institute of Petroleum technical committee, and the UK representative to CEN on technical aspects of motor vehicle fuels.

I've read the original posting and all the responses, and also carefully read the technical information on the Broquet web-site, and the views I express are my views alone but backed by 30 years experience in Chemistry (and on-line process engineering and IT):

Apparently the Broquet device is a tin-alloy based material in a steel mesh wrapper, this can be inserted either in the fuel tank or the fuel line, and works by catalysing the fuel to burn more completely.

One of my several concerns is that the catalyst (in the fuel tank) is remote from the reaction chamber (engine cylinder), whereas for a catalyst to work it has to be in intimate contact with the reaction process.

Compare this with the exhaust catalyst fitted to your car - the catalytic reaction ocurs by bringing un-burnt fuel and extra air together on the surface of the catalyst. All three parts have to be together at the same time, not two together and then a different two at a later time.

However, it could be that particles of the tin-alloy dissolve in the fuel and then a bit of this tin-alloy would be in the engine ready to catalyse the burn process.

So does it work? At this moment we have two camps arguing without any evidence.

It would be very easy to test and prove beyond doubt the efficency of the device, but this would also be moderately exensive. There are several facilities in the UK and Europe with "engine rigs" comprising a computer controlled engine with full monitoring instrumentation.

Then the engine can be driven over a route, the changes applied, and an exact duplicate profile run. No differences due to traffic, or to weather, or by the driver taking it a bit easy or accelerating too hard.

Then we would know positively one way or another, Robert
The only non tech way to gain a good approximate MPG is when you fill the tank until the first click off at the pump and reset the odometer and on the next refill do the same and divide the miles driven by liters used.

Pretty accurate especially if driving same route daily.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts