Broquet Fuel Catalyst

[johna]

I have been given an "in tank" version of the above gadget. Claims to save fuel, cut emissions and enable unleaded perol to be used in older cars requiring leaded fuel.

Comprises a 4 inch long by 1 inch diameter stainless mesh tube crimped at the ends enclosing 6 flying saucer shaped disks. Quite heavy.

Blurb recons it lasts for 250,000 miles. Now I do about 3k per year in my 20 year old XR3i cabrolet, I am in my late 60's, now which will go first catalyst, car or me?

Anyone know of the product?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bruce]

don't bother with the gaget, the older 'lead' gas motors will run hust as well as with leaded, when unleaded first came out everybody believed that the valve seats would burn out without lead, but years have shown that it did not happen. if you were to have a valve job, harder seats could be installed, but would not worry about it. now if you were running a race motor, 600 hp at 10,000 rpm there may be a worry. save your money ...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Avocet]

A late colleague of mine did some research on a gadget just like the one you describe. It made absolutely no difference whatsoever! Several hundred hours on research engine and the pellets were weighed extremely accurately before and after. Their weight did not change one jot - so the theory that they somehow donate bits of themselves to the fuel washing over them is utter bunkum! (won't do any harm though - as long as they don't break loose and bash your fuel gauge sender or obstruct the feed to the fuel pump)!

Some petrol engines are more susceptible to valve seat recession than others. As has been said, unless the engine is working hard and combustion chamber temperatures are high, it probably won't be a problem. If you stay off the recetrack and don't tow a caravan you should be OK.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Wardy]

This is the same device that was being boosted towards Volkswagen owners a few years ago, with all these wonderful claims about how the engine will survive better, perform better and more economically. Turns out that it had little to no effect whatsoever!


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[snowleopard]

there was a long thread a month or so back about one of these gadgets whose claims were backed by pseudo science. general consensus was that it's a complete load of hokum.

in terms of how long the device will last, i can confidently say that it will be as effective in 250000 miles time as it is now/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[reeac]

I put one of these in the tank of my 1958 MGA roadster a few years ago when I saw that leaded fuel was being phased out. Since then I've done a few thousand miles in the car using regular unleaded. After about a year I had to adjust the idling speed as it had become too high [I hadn't touched the carbs. for about 15 years] but otherwise everything is fine. I admit that this isn't a scientific test as the engine might have run equally well without the device in the tank. One point, though - a catalyst is something that expedites a chemical process without itself being changed so weighing before and after use wouldn't prove anything if it's a true catalytic process that's going on.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bruce]

you prob had to adjust idling speed because the unleaded had cleaned out the carbon from the head and gook in carbs. ran a '67 volvo on premium unleaded for over 8 years to over 200,000 miles with no problem. unleaded also burns at a different temp which helps clean up the carbon deposits over time.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[andyb]

A few years ago I restored a 1947 Buick Straight Eight, which the chap entered the Peking to Paris Rally. he ran it with a Broquet fuel cat , and was very pleased with the results, considering the crap petrol they had to use now and then,it ran OK
Andy

<hr width=100% size=1><a href="http://www.acornmarine.co.uk">http://www.acornmarine.co.uk</a>

 

[Avocet]

Yes, you're right about what a catalyst is supposed to do but I think Broquet were using the term incorrectly. A reaction between what and what exactly? If they are claiming their device is a "catalyst" (in the true sense of the word), the fuel in the tank would have to react with something else in also in contact with the "catalyst" and there isn't anything else in the tank for it to react with! (or there shouldn't be!) I seem to remember from their literature (and it's a while back now so I could be wrong) that they were banking on the idea that tin was similar to lead in a lot of its properties and that they were substituting the "lead" in petrol with tin. For that to be true, one would expect the "tin" to dissolve over a period of time if it was doing anything. Also, the research didn't just include this. They ran a little Ricardo research engine for a while and could detect no appreciable, improvement in performance or emissions!

As for the Buick, the main problem with removing lead was found to be valve seat recession but it took the Yanks quite a long time to pick up the problem after they took the lead out of their fuel. This was widely thought to be that because American engines were traditionally very large-capacity, low efficiency units, the combustion chamer temperatures were very low and unless the engines were working very hard, the valves and seats didn't seem to suffer. We had the same thing over here but because our engines are smaller and work harder, the problem became apparent more rapidly. Even now, plenty of people run old cars on unleaded and provided they're not racing them or towing caravans, they don't seem to have the problems that people first feared.

<hr width=100% size=1>