There is a similar thread here (http://www.aussiemagna.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14167&highlight=fuelstar) but it is very old and not the same brand.

Talking to my Dad's mate, he put one of these on his Diesel truck and swears by them. Dad just bought one for my brother for his birthday.

They are around $400-$500 I believe.

Anyone on here running one of these babys at the moment and care to comment?

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/1907/img0281lr2.jpg

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/9876/img0283ii9.jpg

on the fast magna site theirs a fitch system and theirs a huge write up about it! but i havent got one, im interesed though. theirs a link theri too that will take you to the site, and you can get quotes and everything!

cant find it..... even with search. Link?

whats it do?

Fast Magna (www.fastmagna.com) its on the left, second sponser thing down

Cool, good writeup.

Anyone here running one? SARRAS have you still got yours mate?

a fuel restrictor to make your car run leaner.... who woulda thunk it

a fuel restrictor to make your car run leaner.... who woulda thunk it

If you read the article carefully, it stated it is a catalyst, not a restrictor

While the site has a lot of information, it's just copied.

I am not sure if it is just a fuel restrictor, they have been verified quite a few times, and a good friend tells me they use them in all army cars/trucks etc....

That said, I am sceptical.

i am as well thats why i dont have one!!
i wanna find out, but im not forking out the dosh to find out it dont work!

I'll let you guys know how my brother goes with his.......

why wouldnt porchse/mercedes/lamborghini have it in there cars if it worked?

who said that they don't??

just because they don't list it doesn't mean that they haven't put them in or called them a different name.

Aahahahahahahahahahahaha

Improved performance, reduced fuel consumption, reduced carbon - ahahahaha :bowrofl: lol :bowrofl: lol

Yep, and tomorrow im going to be earning 300K per day for doing SFA.

Unless this little magical fairy built device works outside the laws of thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, and common sense - its a load of crap.

Its about as good as putting magnets in your fuel tank and think it will align the molecules to flow better.*

*Note I am yet to read this article, give me a few moments.

Best tip i got for fuel saving - take your foot off the right pedal ;)

Ah, and there's the snake oil.

A catalyst is something that "increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change".

......"The Catalyst dissolves these gums and resins so that these clusters of molecules do not form, allowing all the fuel to be used for power. This is accomplished through a complex chemical reaction, ."

I'll post the link of someone who has gone through why this cant work - though, these fuel savers used to be magnets to 'align the molecules' as they 'cluster', now its fuel passing over tin pellets to do the same thing.

']Best tip i got for fuel saving - take your foot off the right pedal ;)

Better yet ride a bike you fatties.

']Best tip i got for fuel saving - take your foot off the right pedal ;)

i got a better tip.

dont start the engine

Cost more than my LPG convert.

Good article in this months wheels magazine on all these so called fuel saving devices.

Basically all rubbish!!

Over 33 years of driving seen most of these come and go.

Don't waste your money

Cheers

Oh forgot to mention, my girlfriends dad has one in his car, says it makes a world of difference.

The theroy of the thing works, smaller carbom molecules will burn more efficiently. But can this device make them, thats the question.

Cool, good writeup.

Anyone here running one? SARRAS have you still got yours mate?

I still have mine and am still happy with it - its been on the car for about 60,000klms now. The theory behind them is sound - fuel is a biological entity - its a live thing similar to the way that yoghurt is alive. Being alive all sorts of bacteria etc actually live in it and these catalysts are used to kill off such bacteria etc. So they don't 'improve' the fuel so much as remove contaminates from it in much the same way as refineries use catalysts when they originally produce the petrol - the idea being that when such contaminates burn with the fuel they make higher soot levels, gunking up your fuel lines and combustion chamber etc, making your oil black very quickly - that sort of thing.

Certainly with the Fitch, the oil in my engine never actually gets to that dense black that most engine oils get to and this also shows in the general health of the engine. My spark plugs never soot up and recently I had the cam covers off to the replace the seals - all the valve gear etc is still factory fresh looking not stained black and brown as one would normally expect after 100,000 klms.

So in that respect the Fitch works there's no doubt about the effects. Personally I don't think it does much to improve fuel economy or power except by ipso facto effect - by which I mean that as a normal car engine ages and gunks up both the economy and power are going to get worse with age, so if by keeping things cleaner inside the engine, the Fitch staves off such ageing effects, then yes its good for economy and power. But it doesn't and cannot 'add' power nor can it suddenly and drastically improve economy.

Oh forgot to mention, my girlfriends dad has one in his car, says it makes a world of difference.

The theroy of the thing works, smaller carbom molecules will burn more efficiently. But can this device make them, thats the question.

Molecules do not cluster. If they did, it would not be petrol, it would be what happens when petrol separates.

So no, the theory is not right. Carbon is also a by-product of burning petrol, you dont burn carbon.

Carbon dioxide/monoxide and various other nasty gasses is what you are left with after the petrol is burned.

Here - read this site for yourself - personally, anyone who buys this got conned.

http://fuelsaving.info/catalysts.htm

Some quotes:

'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).'

'Indeed, when the Fitch Fuel Catalyst was tested in February 2008 by the Australian motoring organisation, the NRMA, essentially no benefit in either emissions or fuel consumption was found on the two petrol (gasoline) vehicles tested. Supporters of this technology claim that the tests were flawed in some way - either due to incorrect installation, or insufficient "conditioning period" between installing the device and performing the test. While this cannot be disproved, the negative results still represent a significant challenge to the makers of such devices.'

Thanks SARRAS, just what I was after. An opinion from someone who had actually used one.

As I said before I will let me brother monitor it for a few months and talk to my Dad's mate again in a bit and see how they find them.......

Thanks SARRAS, just what I was after. An opinion from someone who had actually used one.

As I said before I will let me brother monitor it for a few months and talk to my Dad's mate again in a bit and see how they find them.......

Ah - instead of listenting to science, you prefer to listen to opinion.

Strange.....

Ah - instead of listenting to science, you prefer to listen to opinion.

Strange.....
:stoopid: I am sooooo with you on this...

Snake oil.

Just a shonky as the recent pyramid scheme involving sport sponsorship.

Next thing I will hear about the benefits of a magnet close or around the fuel supply line.

Gerry

:stoopid: I am sooooo with you on this...

Im not trying to be a smart****.....

Just sometimes its like banging your head against a brickwall on forums. People ask for the truth, and then ignore it in the face of an opinion of someone who 'thinks it works well'.

Hell I would tell myself it works if I paid $400 for it.

Im not trying to be a smart****.....

Just sometimes its like banging your head against a brickwall on forums. People ask for the truth, and then ignore it in the face of an opinion of someone who 'thinks it works well'.

Hell I would tell myself it works if I paid $400 for it.
I know you arent being a smart****! I am just agreeing with you! Placebo my friend... Placebo... :headbange

http://www.sve.net.au/prodimages/thumbs/pol1.jpg.jpg

Im not trying to be a smart****.....

Just sometimes its like banging your head against a brickwall on forums. People ask for the truth, and then ignore it in the face of an opinion of someone who 'thinks it works well'.

Hell I would tell myself it works if I paid $400 for it.

Look I am a bit skeptical too and I am not ignoring what you have put forward but if this little device has helped out a few people I know then I will believe it must have SOME benefit.

Whether or not its worth $400 is another story.

If you have taken one apart, worked out what chemicals are in it and disproved that there is any benefit in using one, or you are a chemist and know for a fact that it won't work, then I stand corrected but at this point Sarras has used one and you havn't

If you have taken one apart, worked out what chemicals are in it and disproved that there is any benefit in using one, or you are a chemist and know for a fact that it won't work, then I stand corrected but at this point Sarras has used one and you havn't

I'll requote this as you seem to have missed it.

http://fuelsaving.info/catalysts.htm

'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).'

'Indeed, when the Fitch Fuel Catalyst was tested in February 2008 by the Australian motoring organisation, the NRMA, essentially no benefit in either emissions or fuel consumption was found on the two petrol (gasoline) vehicles tested. Supporters of this technology claim that the tests were flawed in some way - either due to incorrect installation, or insufficient "conditioning period" between installing the device and performing the test. While this cannot be disproved, the negative results still represent a significant challenge to the makers of such devices.'

Show me ONE scientific study, and not someone's 'opinion' that it 'feels better' and I'll eat my words, and run around naked at the next AMC club meet, wearing a Fitch fuel saver tied to my dinga ling.

Im not trying to be a smart****.....

Just sometimes its like banging your head against a brickwall on forums. People ask for the truth, and then ignore it in the face of an opinion of someone who 'thinks it works well'.

Hell I would tell myself it works if I paid $400 for it.

Without reading anything and i won't be, it sounds like it may work like a filter. Sarras confirms in this area they may work so all your arguments against his claims are null due to them being about powarrrrr.

Personal most ppl are stupid and this sounds like a stupid device which i already have a system on my car for and won't be needing. I'll take the lost 5kW and regularly service my car and look after it rather than trying fads.

I know you arent being a smart****! I am just agreeing with you! Placebo my friend... Placebo... :headbange

http://www.sve.net.au/prodimages/thumbs/pol1.jpg.jpg

:badgrin: I was reading this thread wondering if anyone was gonna mention Brocks infamous "energy polarizer"

I'll requote this as you seem to have missed it.

Fitch Fuel Catalyst was tested in February 2008 by the Australian motoring organisation, the NRMA, essentially no benefit in either emissions or fuel consumption was found on the two petrol (gasoline) vehicles tested.

But you shouldn't believe everything you read..... :doubt:

But you shouldn't believe everything you read..... :doubt:

lol

Fair call.

I'll take the word of a controlled test over 'it feels better' :lol:

lol

Fair call.

I'll take the word of a controlled test over 'it feels better' :lol:

So will I, but this type of discussion will never reach a outcome either way, there are compelling "studies" on both sides as to whether these kind of products work or not, as the old saying goes "a fool and his money are soon parted" (not saying everyone who buys these are fools though) I just couldn't justify spending $400 on something that may or may not do what it says.

$400 is to much for me to find out, and I did not say molecules clumped together.

I was talking about long and short carbon chains, and short chains do burn faster/cleaner in environments with not enough O2 it's a fact of chemistry, get used to it.

Sorry the clumped together bit was from Flitch or whoever they are.

As for short chain vs long chain molecules:

'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).'

And while yes, short chain molecules may burn better in environments with insuffecient 02, this isnt the environment of a combustion chamber.

Secondly - to break down a long chain molecule into short chain, you need heat, pressure, and a catalyst. Tin itself, as a 'catalyst' cannot sufficiently break down a long chain molecule into a short chain.

Thirdly, even if it could, an ECU was not designed around short chain molecules, it was designed around working under normal fuel, which contains both.

This isnt a go at you either - just posting up info for people who may want to know why these wont work.

And while yes, short chain molecules may burn better in environments with insuffecient 02, this isnt the environment of a combustion chamber.


Yes it is.

Yes it is.

How so?

If you dont have enough 02, you run rich, ECU adjusts the A/F ratio.

How so?

If you dont have enough 02, you run rich, ECU adjusts the A/F ratio.

Fair point, damn it I knew my chemistry teacher was wrong.

I'll take the word of a controlled test over 'it feels better' :lol:

i prefer opinion over science.
ignorance and stupidity is bliss

:)

The problem is with something like this is that there are to many variables working in ways that most of us fail to comprehend to give and yes or no answer to if these products really work or not.

I mean sure, you engine may be clean but that may be the fuel you use, the oil, the filter, general wear of the engine, the roads you drive on, the air quality etc..... It just goes on.

Buy one if you want to, but think about it like an insurance and that it may possibly do something for performance/economy, depending on to many factors to list.

The problem is with something like this is that there are to many variables working in ways that most of us fail to comprehend to give and yes or no answer to if these products really work or not.

I mean sure, you engine may be clean but that may be the fuel you use, the oil, the filter, general wear of the engine, the roads you drive on, the air quality etc..... It just goes on.

Buy one if you want to, but think about it like an insurance and that it may possibly do something for performance/economy, depending on to many factors to list.

Even in the face of logic, science, engineers......?

Sorry - not meaning to start an arguement, but you have yet to prove one of these works. As does any of the manufacturers, all they would have to do is pay a Lab to do a test, and they would have the results in black and white within a week. Considering the amount of money these guys scam from people, it would be rather easy to prove it works.

Not one of these manufacturers have provided ONE shred of evidence, not a single test, not one documentary shred of proof. They go off 'it was used in WW2 by the british' which, funnily enough, is not documented ANYWHERE by the british.

Ask your chemistry teacher if adding Tin alone, will increase your fuel efficiency, clean your engine and give you a blowie first thing in the morning too.

Well look on the bright side, you will have an awsome fuel filter lol

I don't believe these will work for a second. now from what i've heard what you have to do is put aluminium spacers where your fuel rail spacers are so it heats the fuel up and replace the inlet manifold gaskets with other types. now THAT will do what the fuel star claims it can do... :roll:

Even in the face of logic, science, engineers......?

Sorry - not meaning to start an arguement, but you have yet to prove one of these works. As does any of the manufacturers, all they would have to do is pay a Lab to do a test, and they would have the results in black and white within a week. Considering the amount of money these guys scam from people, it would be rather easy to prove it works.

Not one of these manufacturers have provided ONE shred of evidence, not a single test, not one documentary shred of proof. They go off 'it was used in WW2 by the british' which, funnily enough, is not documented ANYWHERE by the british.

Ask your chemistry teacher if adding Tin alone, will increase your fuel efficiency, clean your engine and give you a blowie first thing in the morning too.

TRY THESE:

http://www.fitchcatalyst.com.au/FactSheets.asp

How about an independent review of these things.

Great if they work but these things are a dime a dozen.

...Tin giving you a better fuel economy... how can petrol running through a pod with "bits of tin" in it give you better fuel economy and keep your sparks clean.

Box mentions removed carbon... interesting... since this has been around for a while shouldn't it have become stock. With all these "fuel economic" cars out there surely many major car making companies would have done this for greeny points. :confused:

TRY THESE:

http://www.fitchcatalyst.com.au/FactSheets.asp

Nice....

Want to read the latest VIPAC report? You know, a full version, with base line data to compare? 4.56Mb 13page PDF.

http://www.mynrma.com.au/cps/rde/xbcr/mynrma/Fitch_Fuel_Catalyst_Vipac_report.pdf?cpssessionid= SID-3F5768E2-FB9BDBB7

How about an independent review of these things.


an independent review would be excellent. it seems that these days most of the supporting reviews are funded by the manufacturers and as a result are far from un-biased.

http://au.video.yahoo.com/network/100000095?v=2865566 you'd be better off with this, at least its proven.

http://au.video.yahoo.com/network/100000095?v=2865566 you'd be better off with this, at least its proven.

lol @ video link, forums aren't being moderated :badgrin:

I will check this out when I get home (If I can see my instrument cluster, you know lol )

:P couldnt find the site - its a news link anyways.

http://au.video.yahoo.com/network/100000095?v=2865566 you'd be better off with this, at least its proven.


there are several people, mostly in the USA who are leading the way in this technology.

These people do all the R&D for free and share all their info for free, and allow you to buy parts from them if you wish, but also let you know where you can buy them youself. Its as close to free-info sharing as you can get.

Their systems are far more advanced than these, if you care to do the research, and even they dont yet see tangligle results from their own cars.

Hell 5 years ago a son and father duo from NZ said they had done the same thing with there RB30 R31 skyline. If it were true, it would be common by now.

While governemnets still make >40% from petrol sales i fail to see useful hydrogen technology making it to consumers or ANY fuel saving wonder products like this FITCH/FUELMiser/Fuel start BS

Lately consumer protection have proven some of these products to be false and made some of thses shops to ref8und the customers.

I admit, I have some fuel saver thing similiar but I dont think they work.

Instead of spending on these I rather just do a LPG convert.

With all these "fuel economic" cars out there surely many major car making companies would have done this for greeny points. :confused:

What you need to consider, and has already been mentioned, is that if your car does gain some benefits from this product then the model after you may not because it DOES have this sort of a product as standard. I know pretty much nothing about how fuel works in cars, especially with regards to filters, etc. But, from my limited knowledge I think that it is quite possible that Peter_Pan's car may get some benefits out of this product where a 3rd Gen might not. In my opinion, the older the car the more likely this sort of product would have SOME sort of an influence on economy.

But I could be wrong...

Whatever happened to the guy who said he could make an engine run on water?

he got dead

Nice....

Want to read the latest VIPAC report? You know, a full version, with base line data to compare? 4.56Mb 13page PDF.

http://www.mynrma.com.au/cps/rde/xbcr/mynrma/Fitch_Fuel_Catalyst_Vipac_report.pdf?cpssessionid= SID-3F5768E2-FB9BDBB7

But that site quotes the VIPAC report and concludes an improvement in fuel economy after the device is installed....???? Would they be lying? or does the Vipac report support the device? Either way I'll only believe it works when 90% of the market uses it :) "I'll follow the leading sheep mentality"

This crap still going? this stuff is like polarisers and 20 dollar ebay superchargers, they are sham items. And whoever buys this sort of stuff just wasted there hard earned dollars. As for opinions of people thinking they make a difference, its because you just spent money gives you the opinion that it works, happens with just about everyone i know including myself

Whoa I just installed one of these in the AU Falcon! I've only had it idle in the driveway so far but heres some key points:

* Smokes the front wheels at 220KM/PH now. Stock it only smoked the rears at like 170.

* Transmission shifts smother as far as I can tell in the driveway.

* Now idles at a clean 5000RPMs, stock was 700.

* Less initial oversteer when entering a corner, it now stays even.

* Improved tyre wear, getting 200,000k's from one set.