Inline Fuel Converters & Additives

[Inverted]

Hi all,
Not that i'm sceptical, BUT, is it ok to run fuel with additives through an inline converter?....

Chris

[Stig]

If you mean one of those tin pellet things then yes, you can run what you like through it and it won't have any affect at all.

[bmcecosse]

The 'inline converter' is a load of old nonsense, to put it politely. Throw it away! Unless you are hammering your engine on the Mway all the time - you don't need unleaded 'additives' - most of which rely mainly on hocus pocus for effect. Just set the exhaust valve gaps to 15 thou - and check/reset them every 3000 miles. It will be fine. If you really feel you MUST use an additive - the ONLY one with lead tetraethyl in it's mix is TETRABOOST - it effectively makes proper leaded fuel for you. It's not cheap - and really - you don't need it!

[cona]

i just bought a inline adder which you just stick in petrol into then out into the pump they work great and last up to 10 years which gives it all the lead it needs which is great

[bmcecosse]

No - it's not 'great' - it's a shocking waste of money! It does absolutely nothing at all!! The fact is - they get away with selling this rubbish because the Minor engine will run for years and years on unleaded fuel - without ANY additives whatsoever........

[rayofleamington]

if you do want to use something that works, then use an additive with independant test results - there are at least 4 that were proven to work (using A series engines on a test bed at MIRA) - I'm not aware of any inline device that has real proof of working.
MIRA tested quite a few additives and some failed, so it proves a point

[bmcecosse]

The only additive that can hope to work as well as original leaded fuel is Tetra-boost - it;s the only additive that contains lead tetra-ethyl and therefore effectively make 'leaded' fuel from unleaded fuel. the others may slightly boost octane rating - thus reducing the likelihood of pinking/detonation - and in that sense they may do some slight good. But same effect can be easily obtained by simply retarding the ignition slightly. But really - you don't have to do anything - although I believe it's wise to set exhaust valve gaps to 15 thou (as Leyland specified on later engines anyway) and check/reset the gaps every 3000 miles.

[MarkyB]

According to;
http://www.mgb-stuff.org.uk/lead_replacement.htm

"SURPRISINGLY, the four successful additives do not all use the same chemical formula. Millers VSP Plus is manganese-based, and is the only one currently to double as an octane booster. Redline Lead Substitute is sodium-based and has been used in America for 15 years. Superblend Zero Lead 2000 is potassium-based, a formula used in Europe for several years. Valvemaster is phosphorus-based; it has been widely used for the last five years in New Zealand and is the only substitute to have passed the Australian Standard. "

So no simple answer really.

[bmcecosse]

So - they all have very different 'solutions' to the problem - I honestly don't think ANY of them do anything significant - except the Lead Tetra-ethyl in Tetraboost - which is exactly the chemical that was used in 'leaded' petrol!

[MarkyB]

What was the test?

CAST-IRON A-series engines (as used in Austin A30s and Minis and Metros) are acknowledged to be among the most vulnerable power units for valve seat recession when using unleaded fuel - and that is why they were chosen for the test. A special batch of cast-iron cylinder heads without hardened inserts was donated by Rover.
The engine was run with a new cylinder head fitted for each test, for 50 hours at 3, 800rpm on two-thirds load, 30.8bhp (23kW), with valve-seat recession checked and tappet clearances adjusted every 10 hours; then it was run on full load, 48.3bhp (36kW), at 5, 500rpm for 20 hours, checking and adjusting every five hours.
The test was certainly severe, with 1.19mm recession occurring on untreated unleaded fuel, leaving the cylinder head unusable. A test using leaded fuel, however, showed negligible valve seat recession; to pass, a fuel treatment was permitted to show a maximum 0.3mm valve seat recession over the whole test, or 0.13mm during the first 50 hours.

[bmcecosse]

Severe running indeed - none of us run our engines as continuously hard as that - or as long as that at high load. I still believe any 'benefit' was down to slight octane rating increase and not due to any 'protection' on the exhaust valve seats. Unless constantly hammering the engine on the Mway - just do nothing - except that 15 thou clearance on the exhaust valves to make sure they don't close up when the valve gets very hot. And let's face it - the worst that can happen is that the seat recesses - and far from the head then being 'unuseable' - it's just right for fitting hard seats - or if a 940 head - it's just right for using on a small bore engine !

[irmscher]

bmc can you adjust the timing to compensate ????

[bmcecosse]

Naturelment!

[Alec]

Hello BMCE,

"I still believe any 'benefit' was down to slight octane rating increase and not due to any 'protection' on the exhaust valve seats"

Of the four additives that passed this test, only the Miller's has an octane boosting claim, so where does the higher octane come from?

Alec

[rayofleamington]

don't worry about it - those that believe in facts can use an additive that has passed independant testing.
The testing easily showed the difference between an additive that works and one that doesn't and also shows what happens if you don't use anything. There were a few embarrassed suppliers who provided an additive for the testing which simply did not work.
For those that choose to ignore advice it's their own choice - I would choose an additive instead of carrying a spare head + headgasket around all the time, but that's my choice.

[chickenjohn]

Hi all,
Not that i'm sceptical, BUT, is it ok to run fuel with additives through an inline converter?....

Chris

These inline pellet "broquet" things are just a waste of money! They do nothing at all the manufacturers should be sued/ put out of business for ripping off the customer. It is fine to run your Minor on unleaded as long as you don't absolutely thrash it! Use an FBVHC approved additive if you are worried but don't waste money on these catalysts. You would be better off hanging a St Christopher or some other lucky charm from the rear view mirror than using an inline "catalyst"!

All that "lining up of fuel molecules" is pure pseudo science, anyone with a basic science education can see immediately several reasons why these claims are utter rubbish!

BTW, I have been running my traveller for over 10 years now on LRP, unleaded (sometimes with additives and sometimes not) and it has been fine. I do try and fill up with super unleaded if I can as the octane rating is higher and may help by allowing more advanced ignition withh being less prone to pinking.

[irmscher]

bmc i see you also speak french

[T100SS]

Hmm, firstly, this is not an exhaustive response, perhaps just more grist to to the mill. But I would primarily have to say that in fifteen years of Broquet experiences, I can only comment favourably.

It was my dad, an ex-RAF mechanic (Spitfire, Hurricane plus some captured & ally aircraft) who told me about use of a catalyst. I had a late 70s Suzuki motorcycle at the time - not exactly leaded or lead-free by nature. Knowing this bikes' every foible, I immediately noticed a difference after installing the Broquet device. Throttle response, starting (it had been a cow) and MPG all improved though I have no means of measuring this result nor of discovering in scientific terms exactly how they came about. I simply had to believe the Broquet explanation - call it sales pitch if you're sceptical.

When I sold the bike I kept the device, which has gone into the subsequent three machines, namely Suzuki Bandit 600, Suzuki SV650S and Triumph Tiger 100SS (the latter 1962). Each machine was used without the catalyst and performance nuance duly noted. The same zippy response occured as treated fuel made it into the float chamber. I just bought a 71 Traveller and precisely the same has happened.

I had bought and fitted a new tank send unit and the Broquet at the same time (the Broquet hangs on a chain from the old filler cap fitting in the tank neck). I drove straight to the usual garage and filled up. Over a period of regular use I have found the time between fill-ups has been extended. Again I have not measured and might only defend my precarious position by saying that if a placebo can cause my mind to alter a vehicles behaviour, then it is worth every penny. There are many nay-sayers, and a brief moment of research brought even all these into disrepute as none of them could nor had scientifically proved that the Broquet doesn't work - see link below. Incidentally, see Sir eorge Cayley's remearkes and the subseqient retraction on that forum.

I believe that much of the contention might come from comanies whose profits might suffer were such an item to become hugely popular. The same applies to many pro-environmental ideas, like cars that run on water (see BBC Tomorrows World, 1969 or 70ish). This can be compared with the Riddley Water Bomb, a means by which water could be fed into the carb mixture thus improving MPG and performance.

I do not spare the rod (indeed, the improvement encourages anything but). So it's not like I'd fooled myself by soft-pedalling either. Perhaps when 'science' can't see the wood for the trees, it should learn to accept that it has only limited means of analysis... ...Meanwhile, we should trust our instincts a little more too. Fisrt impressions are often more correct than subsequent analyses:_
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-70278.html

[bmcecosse]

[C6Dave]

A member of a Classic Club I am in has a 1950's Rover which has covered over 500,000 miles.

The car has never had any additives in since the switch over to unleaded fuels took place and in all that time, he has replaced 1 valve and nothing else.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned