Kevin Groat

Surely there's someone out there who'd be prepared to fit the Broquets during a visit to a rolling road to give us an impartial before and after report. Like it was said above, if these do give the improvements claimed, surely all car manufacturers would fit them - a 5-10 % improvement in fuel consumption for £100, if there's any truth in this Prescott would make the fitting of these compulsory.

Kevin.

SDB

Kevin

Check out the impartial views of the respected Mr Rawle above. I think that's what you're after.

To be completely honest, I too was VERY sceptical. But before I put it on the shop (and especially as a monster deal) I spoke to MANY respected and important companies and individuals about it and just got too much of a positive response from everyone.

So I too am taking advantage of this deal as I see the 1/3 off as being a golden opportunity to try it at a greatly reduced price.

We have received a lot of order for this so far (thank you everyone) and I don't want to be the only one on here who has to pay the full price when everyone say "wow.. this broquet stuff is awesome!!" lol

Cheers

Simon

[This message has been edited by Simon de Banke (edited 17 April 2001).]

bugs bunny

David, the product I refer to looks exactly like the Broquet product. A number of '*****' in a mesh that are dropped into the fuel tank. They had some letters of recommendation from a number of 'quality' sources and have an insurance policy running to protect buyers against engine damage etc.

robski

Bugs B,

if its as good as their spark plugs I wouldnt bother. Speaking as someone who spent £50 on their plugs and was shown by a rolling road guy that V groove NGK plugs produced better power (back to back test)
(plus the NGKs were about £20 from memory)

I glad I started this thread, I think its gone just about as far as it can (or should), thanks to all for their comments.

robski

Shaun

Something that hasn't been clarified, is the amount of octane that these little pills of lust will compensate for???!!

Bob perhaps you could shed light on this one.

As many off you know I have a 350bhp Escort Cossie running 1.6bar boost on 97 octane fuel. Which is probably running closer to 330bhp, than 350bhp since the chip has been re-mapped since the drop to 97 from 98.

What I need to know is can I run Broquet, but start to use normal UL. Will these things give me the 2 octane equivalent????????

I suppose the only real way, would be to get them stuffed in the tank and take me car out with a knocklink on!!

But knowing before I spent the wongga, would be good!!!!

Shaun.

owbow

is this the same thing as the "fuel cat"?

DavidBrown

I'm surprised how loaded you guys are.

With your "it's ONLY £100 what the hell if it doesn't work" attitude.

I tell you what, I've got a great line in metal tea-strainers.. Only £50 each.. I can't prove they'll work well in your fuel tank, but "what the hell" eh ?

I'm surprised you guys don't want scientific evidence before getting buying into this hocus pocus.

owbow

it's not as good as my brand new £99 <I>triple injection double doompherst foo-foo valve...</I>

SDB

shaun... drop bob an email.. he has done the scientific testing of before and after etc with knock links (mentioned in his post above).

David
IM must put your tea-strainers in all new P1s? I guess highly respected members of this community and of the subaru tuning industry have put their impeccable reputation on the line by writing a testimonial like the one written by Bob Rawle above, all about your tea-strainers.

I have received MANY emails about this and the one thing that strikes me is this...

EVERYONE I have spoken to who has used it raves about it, EVERYONE who says "It sounds like a loads of rubish" has never tried it or looked into it, and EVERYONE who has tested it has surprised themselves by finding out it does actually work.

It's so easy to say "Of course the world isn't round!!!" just because you haven't seen it yourself.

At the end of the day, you can be a sceptic or you can trust all of the people we all pay lots of money to because they know what they are talking about.

I promise you all, I would not have put this product on the shop unless I was convinced it was worthy.

best regards

Simon

Mungo

Do you need to tell your insurance company you are using Broquet?

Richard Gledhill

Mungo: nope, no need, as it won't significantly increase engine power or torque. And anyway they'd never find it

I'm off to a rolling road in a week or so's time, and I've got the Broquet kit on order - I'll happily do two runs, one with and one without (with a little drive in between if necessary to get it going).

Will let you know how I get on.. of course that's assuming I receive the Broquet stuff in time! Any idea of delivery dates Simon?

Cheers
Richard

Bob Rawle

One or two further comments.

You need to do circa 200 ish miles or so to get the pellets working fully, I noticed it after 30 miles but waited for the 200 minimum before doing my "after" tests.

The main reason that I did not get a "power increase" after fitting was that I kept my ecu maps the same. As I run from the maps the timing does not alter under most conditions (dependant on my temperature compensation settings of course) so I was not suprised at that. What I have been able to do is run more timing up to the det limit than without it so in "real" terms and if I was using an ecu that always tried to advance up (ie Bosch management) then there would be a power increase.

Shaun, I can't say wether it increases ron, its certainly worth installing though IMHO. I actually use booster to ensure that is the case in addition to Broquet but the Broquet is allowing me to take some extra steps. I did try that experiment with the Wagon and wasn't able to compensate with Broquet alone. Unfortunately it would take too much work to try it again with the "5".

My cruise area of the fuel map is now running at a slightly lower level than before, as I run that closed loop then it would be self compensating but I ran it straight off the map to see and was pleased to be able to repeat the results that I had when I put it into the Wagon.

As a last ... yes I know its hard to understand how it works and I was as sceptical as anyone, I do not endorse/recommend or criticise anything that I have not tried and tested. In this case I think it provides benefit and I have twice carried out similar tests on two different cars to achieve similar results.

Bob

KF

I am with DavidBrown on this.
Why is it so difficult to prove?
What are F1 tanks lined with?
Why are petrol tankers not lined with this stuff?
How much would it cost to put it in a lab and do some research?
Does the effect of running Broquet + Octane boost have the same effect as running too much octane boost?
What on earth is in it that costs £100, given that there can be no more research costs needed (this stuff has been in circulation for decades).

I mean no disrespect to any of our contributers, I am a sceptic. Prove me wrong. A simple scientific lab dyno would do it.
KF.

Pete Croney

Broquet have sent me their dealer folder, which includes the results of tests they have commissioned.

The tests were carried out on low performance cars. The tests involved running the car for various periods and then testing its emision outputs. All tests show gains, although some of the gains are read into the data.

The most creditable test would seem to be the Warren Springs Laboratory tests and these were carried out in August 1992 on a 1988 Subaru 1.8, which had covered 93,000 miles.

I have number of problems with the tests.

The tests were carried out by driving the vehicle for various mileages (100, 1000, 1500, 2100) and again after removal (2600?? no data provided).

The tests make no reference to climatic changes and there is no test to determine the octane rating of the fuel used at each stage of the test process.

There are wild fluctuations between the results. At 100 miles, there were improvements in emissions, at 1000 miles, the outputs were worse. At 1500 and 2100, the outputs were better again. Whilst it possible to determine a "trend" from the results, you cannot say that fitting this will give an X% improvement.

I will quote from the text...

quote...

"After 100 miles there was an average reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) emissionsof 14.8% but after 1000 miles there was an overall increase in the CO at speeds of 90kph and greater. However after 1500 miles there was again a dramatic decrease in CO levels averaging 31.2% with a maximum of 56% at 70kph. After 2100 miles the pecentage reduction had further increased at all speeds except 120kph to give an average reduction in CO of 41.2%. The total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions showed a similar trend. After 100 miles the average reduction was 18.8%, at 1000 miles 6.8%, at 1500 miles 18.4% and after 2100 miles had reduced to an average 31.4%. The oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions showed no consistent trend, increasing at 50, 60, 70 and 80 kph, decreasing at 100 and 110kph and remaining virtually unchanged at 90 and 120kph. The emissions of carbon dioxide were also inconsistent, increasing at 50, 60 and 70 kph whilst reducing at 90, 100, 110 and 120kph.

end quote.

The report says that calculating the carbon balence from the data shows a mean reduction in fuel consumption of 3.3%.

quote...

"When the Broquet device was removed the emissions (after 500 miles)tended to return to the baseline levels.

end quote.

I do not like words like "tended" in a scientific test, so looked further.

I was most interested in the data for fuel consumption, as this would show up any increase in combustion efficiency. I also thought this is what readers of this thread would be most interested in.

From the quote above, we know that after all the tests were carried out, the Broquet was removed. The vehicle then covered a further 500 miles and was retested.

No data is shown for this last is shown.

The data for the last test must exist as they are shown in graphs of the results of the overall results.

In these graphs, the vehicle is performing considerably better after removal of the Broquet, than it was in the baseline tests and in many instances is better than the results with the Broquet fitted.

In the fuel consumption graphs, the vehicle showed the same or better consumption after the 500 miles post removal, than the best Broquet results, at 50, 70, 100 and 120kph. At 80 kph it was still better than the baseline and halfway towards the best Broquet results which showed a 2.47% improvement. At 110kph the results are within 2 litres/100km of the best Broquet results and still 3 litres/100km better than the baseline figure.

The report quotes a mean improvement in fuel consumption during the test period of 3.3%.

After the Broquet was removed, the mean improvement is 3.9%

I have not paid any attention to the tests carried out by Casella as these seem to be no more than a sweeping summary of the tests carried out by a Mr Smith from Redditch, on an E reg Fiat Croma, in 1990.

If this product is as good as the manufacturers claim, I'm sure it would be possible to conduct a test which did comply with the current EC guidelines laid down for testing this sort of product. It was this non compliance with these standards that lead the ASA to censure Broquet's advertising in 1998, dismissing all of the tests that I have been sent.

In fact I would say it was essential for this to be done, as it would certainly end this debate and prove the product once and for all. It would also stop cynics assuming that valid tests had been done... and proved nothing.

* edited as I mis typed the quote about the results after removal *


[This message has been edited by Pete Croney (edited 20 April 2001).]

David Lock

Hi KF and others,

Might I just clarify this question about testing? There seems to be a perception that we are promoting Broquet with a cavalier attitude about testing and that we simply can’t be bothered to invest in a test programme. This is just not true and over many years thousands of pounds have been spent on a rolling test programme. No we don’t have all the answers yet but please don’t accuse us of not trying!
I could write Broquet – The Test Novel but just briefly: -
There have been a wide range of laboratory and other tests on Broquet INCLUDING engine dyno tests which have recorded engine power gains. Please bear in mind that Broquet has traditionally not been marketed primarily as something to increase power but more as a technology to improve economy (thus saving fuel costs) with the added benefit of reducing exhaust gas emissions for both petrol and diesels. It has also been shown to allow the safe use on unleaded in supposedly “leaded-only” engines. The starting point for any Broquet test programme has always been to demonstrate that addition of Broquet into the fuel system reduces CO and HC emissions in petrol engines and smoke in diesels which, in turn, demonstrates an improvement in the overall combustion process. As I say other tests such as dyno power tests have often been run in parallel to further demonstrate the benefits of the product. This test programme is ongoing in the UK and in an increasing number of countries overseas
STOP PRESS. The following links into our Singapore organisation, which I have just received, may be of interest. Reporting on Broquet in EVO and WRX running on low octane. I don’t know how fast 245 kph is in mph but I would have thought over the island limit?

DavidBrown

nuff said.

Thanks for that Pete.

robski

Thanks Pete,

damn it, do I dont I!?

Im now starting to think no, I dont like things that cannot be proven.
I totally understand that its very hard to test these sort of things, but surely a bench dyno could be very controlled and could prove whether real figures improved or not.

robski

Tractor

I too would dearly love the Broquet to be our fuel saviour, but am put off by the lack of certainty about the thing. I know all of those who have had it fitted have (subjectively) been very pleased with it. However, a subjective appreciation of the thing does not cover its effects on our engines that we cannot see.

Can Scoobynet, or a Scoobynet member come up with a cheap, and as scientific a test as possible to answer the specific questions that we have, namely performance/economy/safety gains?

There are people here with sophisticated apparatus, namely knock sensors to check how their engine is behaving, and many contacts, e.g Powerstation with rolloing road equipment.

Why not do before and after tests with 95 and 97 Ron fuel, before and after the Broquet (i.e afer the 100 mile or whatever bedding in period)?

I am sure that we could devise some revealing and acceptably accurate tests with this equipment, especially with Pete C supervising the thing.

I know this seems like a lot of effort but if all the potential buyers chipped in a quid to a helpful fella with a knocklinked Scoob (which would pay him for petrol and trouble) then we could come up with some kind of conclusion. If Broquet are satisied that their product works, could they not donate some Broquets for the test, since a good result would clearly open a big market for them? The tester could also keep these for their trouble.

Well, any takers? I would do it if I had the requisite equipment, which I don't. I would say that someone with a later model STI would be the best candidate, as their cars may show up the inadequacies of UK fuel more clearly. Mr Moderator? Let's see if we can club together to answer the question and perhaps do everyone a favour.

Mike

Adam Dog

I dont see what anyone's problem is here.

I was sceptical when I bought my first lot. but was very pleased with the results, so I went for it again. i also noticed smoothness and reduced fuel consumption of about 8% in my case. Bob Rawle conducted his testing long after I was already satisfied and although I wouldn't rely on the broquets affect octane rating, £100 was worth it for that little piece of mind, which is why I went for them again in the 22B.

Now my main point here is, since no one has ever seen any evidence of these things hurting engines and there is a money back guarantee if unsatisfied, what is theer to lose?????

have I missed something?

the only potential point if you intend to make use of this, is to ensure you have a way of removing the things if you are unsatisfied, such threading some non perishable thread through them and and tying the ends of the thread to the fuel level senders allowing them to be retrieved.

KF

OK. Tractor.. these might help us know where to look. A couple more questions that should be easy to answer:

What is it catalysing (if it is a catalyst?). Washy terms about not understanding *how* catalysts work are falacious. We know what the Haber Process yields, but don't fully understand how it works.

If it is a catalyst, it would be required at the point of chemical reaction. So at least one of the following must be true.
a) It is catalysing a change in the fuel in the fuel tank.
b) It is catalysing the combustion process and therefore does not last indefinately (i.e. it is dissolving and travelling to the point of combustion)

If a), it is changing the fuel in the tank - modifying it by allowing *some* chemical reaction that would not be normally occuring, literature (from manufacturers) on this would indicate that it is either

i) Scrubbing impurities out of the fuel (where do they go? - would that cause the equipment to become tarnished / run out?)

ii) Polarising the molecules of fuel ( understanding of whether the constituent parts of petrol can be polarised, and the effects of that on combustion is beyond me:
Does polarised petrol loose polarisation with time? Is that why it has to be in your tank, and not in the tankers? Do F1 manufacturers (or even high output engines) pass petrol through a magnetic field in the induction track? Why not?)

iii) Causing some chemical change in the fuel.

iv) a combination all.

All of these things can be tested, before the fuel is burnt.

It is stated that the catalyst only works when it is "in contact" with a ferrous material. The use of the cage would suggest that the same does not apply when Iron is *in* the pellets. This would indicate to me that ii) is likely. Powerflow use a magnet, so, perhaps this is the answer and would confirm ii).


If b) it is either
i) Using tin as a lead replacement.

ii) adding catalysts to the fuel to modify the combustion process

iii) adding catalysts to the fuel to modify the post combustion process. (In the same way as an exhaust catalyst - but works using the heat of the explosion to catalyse whilst the exhaust catalyst is cold, lowering emmissions at cold start)


If it is b), use a bench dyno. The sort that they use to rate fuel would give a definitive answer. You can do all the work. Efficiency / RON at every different variable you would like to scientifically analyse.

And another thing Why are they pellets in cages? Strikes me as an inefficent layout for a catalyst. What is wrong with a honeycomb? Or smaller pellets. Halve the size and thus double the surface area.


If you fit broquet and then immediately fill up and use the fuel quickly (without a chance for the fuel to circulate), is it as effective as letting the fuel mingle for a couple of days?.
Bob Rawle's experience would suggest the answer is no.
This confuses me. You can never have too many Broquet cages, is the often touted line. Why? Either more catalysts makes more difference to the fuel (and would therefore be easier to prove) or it makes no further change. Which is it? I guess it is the latter, at which point I say "How much is the minimum you need to see the required changes in fuel?"

Just seems that there are so many more easily answered questions than answers...
Platinum is £1.71 a gram, and iron, paladium and tin are much cheaper. I am up for a bit of scientific dilligence... anyone?

Adam Dog. You are right. I am a pedant. I get easily upset by people using placebo effect and bad science to make a living out of well intentioned individuals. Can you be sure the fishing line won't adversly affect the catalysation process?

Some of the things that I have read...

KF

And this is where I point out the following, 'cos I am a cowardy custard.

1) SDB and MrLock shouldn't take offense. They have a market for the products, and whether I want to buy or not, people swear by them. People also swear they were abducted by aliens

2) I don't want to imply that Broquet are dishonest. I exchanged mails with David some time ago, and found him to be totally genuine.

3) I only have issue with people purporting to illustrate scientific method and display evidence when it is not veracible or independant.

4) I haven't made my mind up about Broquet. I just want answers...

Good afternoon.
KF.

DavidBrown

Placebo effect anyone ?

David Lock

Hi Pete C,

You say “I have not paid any attention to the tests carried out by Casella as these seem to be no more than a sweeping summary of the tests carried out by a Mr Smith from Redditch, on an E reg Fiat Croma, in 1990”

Pete, with respect, this is a tad misleading.

1) “Mr Smith” is an honours graduate and a Chartered Engineer with a lifetime’s experience of engine technology having worked as a senior lecturer in thermodynamics.

2) Casella happens to be a world authority on environmental testing and far from just providing a sweeping summary of the tests on the Croma detailed tests were undertaken on:

Fiat Croma 2.0 litre using both leaded and unleaded
Ford Sierra 2.0 litre using unleaded
Ford Sierra 1.8 litre diesel
Ford Fiesta 1.8 litre diesel
Ford Fiesta 1.8 litre using leaded
Vauxhall Astra 1.3 litre using unleaded
Ford Transit Diesel.

The Casella and Mr Smith’s parallel tests looked at changes in exhaust emissions, economy changes and included dyno tests for power gain over a wide range of engine speeds.

In addition I feel it would have been fairer if you had mentioned the many other tests and independent reports on Broquet that were contained, as far as I am aware, in the papers that were sent to you.

Regarding Warren Spring it’s certainly true that the test protocol is open to discussion but of fundamental importance is that any test should demonstrate reliability, consistency and repeatability. At the time of the test Warren Spring were at the forefront of European laboratories testing for vehicle emissions. However I believe it essential to take an overall view of ALL the evidence including the views of people that have used the product. David.

Robski, Please see my post above. Bench dyno tests HAVE been done.

Adam, Thanks and good to have a post from a sceptic who actually uses the product!

Adam M

KF,

how do you know that the people who swear they have been abducted by aliens haven't been abducted by aliens?

I happen to believe we are not alone in this universe and it would therefore be nieve of me to immediately discount the suggestion that someone may have had an alien encounter.

SDB

Look..

Here are some facts...

1) There is ZERO evidence or anything else in this thread that disproves broquet.

2) There IS evidence that proves it.

3) The ONLY people who are questioning it, are people that have done no testing on it, and have not tried it thenselves.

4) There is not ONE SINGLE case of someone saying "I bought it and it didn't work". Quite the oposite.

I really think we're about there with this.

People keep calling for testing. Well, it might be worth you going and getting some done. This is what a number of highly respected organisations and individuals have done, just so they can disprove it, only to find out that (to their astonishment) it actually works...

Even Pete Croney's valued post (which Mr Brown so triumphantly thanked him for) only proved that it DOES in fact do something to the fuel. Is it such a stetch of the "imagination" to say "it does something *good* to the fuel".

At the end of the day, we all have to make our own minds up on this.

ScoobyShop is making next to no money on these, and I know that David Lock has reduced his margins dramatically also, so I am personally taking this oportunity to try it along with over a hundred (so far) other members of this board.

If it doesn't work I will ask for my money back. Simple as that.

If it does work, I will feel nice and smug that I was not part of the "flat-earth society".

Cheers

Simon

bruce

iTrader: (5)

I have been considering these for a while, they were recommended by my import dealer for my current car, but I am changing to a newer WRX shortly that will require SUL only, I have purchased them through scoobynet as a result of the positive posts.

robski

SDB, the earth is flat, at least in Suffolk where I live.

Try telling someone from Linconshire that the earth aint flat

robski

Markus

Simon,
I'm with you on this.

I've been wondering about Broquet for some time now, and have put off doing mainly due to money. I'm in IT, but I aint that highly paid, and thus can't splash money out here, there, and everywhere. Due to the colaboration between Scoobyshop and David Lock, broquet was now an affordable option for me, which I why I have purchased it. So thanks to ScoobyShop/Simon and David for taking a hit in the money department for this fabulous offer.

I've just had the blackbeast (MY94 WRX Wagon) fully serviced (including cambelt change and new spark plugs, and probably some other bits and bobs) and it is now running better than before. This provides me with an ideal opportunity to find out what benefits there are to using broquet. I'm not a scientist and so won't have loads of data to provide, but I will (when you all remind me ) post my findings when I have some.

My plan is to run the car for two weeks on 95 RON (I know, I know ) to get a feel for it. By then my broquet should have arrived. I'll then run for a month without it, again on 95 RON fuel. I'll then pop in broquet and then run for a month with it installed. I'll then report my initial findings. then, if I have a spare moment, I'll take broquet out, and run for another month without it, then post findings and then pop it back in again. Though to be honest I'll probably not bother with the last remove/retest month. Which no doubt will cause people to cry 'inaccurate data'

Pete Croney: - Are you planning to do any scooby specific testing with Broquet, if not then why not? If you did the same kind of test that I will (with scientific equipment?) then your results would probably be held in higher regard than mine.

Personally speaking, Bob Rawle is a very knowledgeable individual (not knocking any other knowledgeable types out there) and maybe I'm niaive for trusting one persons opinion, but if he says that broquet has something going for it then that is good enough for me. Hell, I'm even considering getting broquet for SuzyQ's 'betty ford clinic' volvo 760 GLE, which drinks nearly as much as the blackbeast, and that's saying something.

just my 2 cents worth. Hope I've not upset anyone as that's not what I meant to do.

Adam M

you have upset me.

Please do not put 95 in just for teh sake of testing.

If you have a standard ecu, then put 97 in and then add broquet, you should still notice differences, but will be on the safer side of the fence.

Markus

AdamM:
Apart from the last two months, where I have run on SUL, in the previous 8 months of ownershop I only ever ran the blackbeast on 95RON fuel, and I experienced no problems.

Before and shortly after getting the car I had many, many discussions/arguments/near fist fights with people about wether I should run on NUL or SUL. Think it was 50/50. I took the option of running on NUL, why? well, it's cheaper than SUL. OK, so if my engine lets go because of det, or other problems due to low RON rating then on my head be it, and there will be a long queue of people waiting to say 'I told you so'

This is the other reason I'm getting broquet, to run on NUL all the time, with a little more confidence than I had. I can run on SUL all the time, but I'm not convinced that I've seen any beneficial effects from running on SUL.

As was pointed out to me, it's only two RON points different, obviously it should be on 100 RON, so we're talking 3 or 5 points

My, possibly niaive, understanding, was that the beast has lower (higher?) compression ration than saloon of same age, which means it's 220ps, instead of 240/260/280 thus it's not so important to run it on the highest grade of fuel.

sorry that I upset you.