Search the Community

Hi all, Normally, I would do some investigative work on aftermarket products before sinking in my hard-earned money. At an unnamed workshop, the benefits of Broquet was greatly exalted and after muuch persuasion, I decided to take the plunge and opted for the TopFueller 60 for my petite 1.5 CC MPV. My inquisitive nature prompted me to do some research on the web and to my horror, I discovered that there was a fair number of negative comments about it on the local car forums and I narrowed down to two UK reports which pretty much damned the product. I printed the reports and headed down to the workshop, demanding a refund and the dismantlement of the product. I was asked to wait for the Broquet folks to come down to debate on the findings of the reports. Instead, two guys came swaggering by; they did not even read through the reports/simply glanced thru it, dismissed them casually and stated that they have been around for 10 years. They even dared me to publish the reports in the forums. I was taken aback by their attitude - it's really sad to see such behaviour. Well, I am one who never backs down from a challenge and this challenge will help many to make a wise decision before spending their hard-earned money on such products. For those who are getting benefits from broquet, good for you. For those who are thinking of getting one, think twice/thrice!!!! Have a good day to all. a) "OK at last something scientific. Well from a scientist any way. Yesterday I was fortunate to attend a seminar on oils and fuel additives in motorsport, at Fuchs headquarters in Stoke on Trent. Fuchs are a 800,000,000 GBP turnover company and are the owners of Silkolene. Amongst the guests were Ralliart, R.E.D., B.R.T. and many of the top competition preparation companies in the UK. The main speaker was John Rowland. John is Chief R&D Chemist for Fuchs and one of the leading petrochemical chemists in the UK. During the day, we discussed how octane enhancers work. I asked John Rowland if he had heard of Broquet. Indeed he had and he had met Henry Broquet some years ago. I asked if he had tested the product and if the product worked. He replied that the laws of chemistry would not allow tins pellets to modify the atomic structure of either iso-octanes or heptanes (the constituants of petroleum) in any way, shape or form. Nor will any tin be dissolved into the fuel. He added that using a tin pellet "catalyst" will not reduce emmissions, will not improve mpg, will not reduce detonation and will not reduce valve seat recession. During the day we were handed various leaflets which discussed commercially available oil and fuel additives. These fell into 4 categorises. 1) Useful 2) Harmless, but totally useless 3) Midly harmful, but totally useless 4) Harmful, but totally useless In John Rowlands opinion, Tin pellets fall into category 2, along with fuel line magnets." b) In of specific products, the Broquet device was tested in 1994 by the UK consumer group which They ran three different cars at three different test speeds on a rolling road - as standard, with the Broquet fitted, and with it removed again. (This is not quite as satisfactory as "proper" cycle-based rolling road tests, but far better than uncontrolled on-road measurements.) The results were as follows: Citroen AX 1.1 Speed (mph) MPG std MPG with Broquet MPG back to std 30 69 70 71 50 54 56 56 70 40 40 41 Rover 620i Speed (mph) MPG std MPG with Broquet MPG back to std 30 49 52 53 50 41 42 43 70 32 33 33 Mitsubishi Galant 1.8 Speed (mph) MPG std MPG with Broquet MPG back to std 30 55 57 58 50 46 46 47 70 35 35 34 It can be seen that the improvements after fitting the Broquet are extremely small, and in most cases the benefit remains after the device has been removed. Which? believed that this was because the cars were relatively new and still running-in - economy is therefore improving as the engine friction reduces. If the improvement were really due to the Broquet, the economy should have returned to "baseline" after it was removed. Broquet's response to this was that the tests were "unrepresentative" as they had used "modern petrol-engined cars". But remember that these cars were built in 1993, and so today would be classed as 11 years old - yet nowhere on Broquet's web site does it state that small (or zero) economy gain would be expected on post-1992 vehicles. Interestingly, certain makers of both catalyst and magnet -based fuel "saving" devices claim that they were used by the RAF during World War 2. Amazing that the British armed forces should have found not one, but two, miraculous fuel-saving devices; even more amazing that they have apparently now "lost" both of them. (Since getting fuel to the front line is a major logistical problem, the armed forces are more interested in fuel consumption than you might think.) A sceptic might wonder how much truth there is in either claim.