The Triumph 2000 / 2500 / 2·5 Register Forum

I've never been convinced about the benefits of adding one of these to any car - I certainly wouldn't fit one to a modern car. However, two classic vehicles I have owned have had them fitted by previous owners - my late 1974 Leyland Sherpa Autosleeper and my new 2000 Mk2.

The engine in the Autosleeper was a 1.8 petrol B series.

When I collected the Triumph in Yorkshire on Friday, I filled it up with Shell 'cooking' grade and headed off home, now I didn't drive very economically at all - over the 200 miles I used about 30 litres which is a very respectable 30 mpg....I used to get similar from the Sherpa - ow both the 6 and the B series are not the most efficient engines in the world - maybe there is something in this Broquet catalyst afterall.

A friend of my grandfather was stationed with Henry Broquet in the Soviet Union during 1942 and he swore by the catalyst.

Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't but I do know I am getting 30.1 mpg on a run at speed and across the gears as well on an A road.

it is certainly no worse than our family car - a Volvo 940 Sport Edition Estate which I have tuned to about 210BHP at the moment.

There's no "maybe" about it, and that's a fact! So-called fuel catalysts, whatever brand name they go under, give no beneficial effects whatsoever.

The claims made by the shameless people that market them seem to change with the times, their main claim in recent years being the prevention of valve seat recession in engines run on unleaded fuel. That claim was proven to be completely false several years ago in tests carried out by the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs (FBHVC), in conjunction with the Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) and Rover Group.

More can be read in an article penned by myself for SIXappeal magazine several years ago, adapted for online viewing at http://www.mintylamb.co.uk/wordpress/?page_id=76.

Good to hear how you are getting on with your car.

I am very much with David on this one.

These catalysts may possibly have worked to some extent with the extremely low grade petrol used in some theatres of the Second World War but it must be remembered that during the war there was a lot of misinformation going around about technology and war materials - propaganda meant to mislead the enemy as to the true reason for improvement in equipment.

Besides if they did do anything they were supposed to improve the octane rating of extremely low grade fuel (often from less than 90) but modern fuels are so well refined this is not an issue. They were not to prevent valve seat recession which is one of the supposed benefits of these things (which people have found they don't do) and was a function of the lead content of fuel at one time and for which other products and improved refining techniques have made obsolete.

There is no scientific justification for how these so called catalysts would improve fuel, and speaking as a graduate scientist and one time teacher of Physics and technology much of the so called scientific explanation of their function by those hawking them around is little more than hyperbole.

Many of us have found that driving technique/use of throttle has much to do with quite reasonable fuel consumption on our cars - and I don't hang about when I am driving. Your experience of 30mpg is not uncommon and is as much a reflection on your driving skills and the potential of the engines in our cars as anything else.

Ted

They're even trying to sell this rubbish in New Zealand !
http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/car-par ... 939802.htm
Tony.