Irwin
I, like Egil and John (Lye), was just as much a sceptic about the Fuelstar
device, but it got to the stage where I was prepared to give anything a go -
the fuel in this country was and still is THAT bad. Fuelstar state quite
adamantly that they will completely refund money to disatisfied customers.
To date they say that the reclaim rate is virtually zero - despite the
campaign that the Automobile Association waged against it.
I am not a chemist (never will be), and I too felt that the claims were
utterly ridiculous when they were first made - but claims can not be
discounted until you have proof. The statements I recalled in my last
posting were from memory - I can find more accurate statements if I delve
deeper into my recently shifted archives.
After many months of sheer frustration with the new fuel, the poor starting,
worsening fuel consumption, sooty spark plugs and so on, I thought that if
even half the claims were true, I would be ahead, and so it has proved.
Before the introduction of unleaded, the car was going really well. The
unleaded fuel affected many thousands of cars here in New Zealand including
mine. I can not comment on emissions levels as I have not had access to the
required analysers, but you only need to stand near a car not fitted with a
Fuelstar to know that it is burning rich and has been setup that way to run
somewhere near expected performance levels.
Using fuel consumption as an example, I went from 28mpg, down to 20mpg with
unleaded and valvemaster then back to 27mpg with the Fuelstar. Starting
improved to the point where I can start the car without the choke in the
morning (I know, it is burning a little rich at the moment) and there is
absolutely no valve seat recession - I check every 10000km or so. I was also
needing to clean the spark plugs every 5000 km, but since fitting the
device, I have replaced a set of plugs after 40000km of running and even
that was an extravagance.
John mentioned that his TR3A goes perfectly well using unleaded and I have
reason to doubt that, but what must be remembered is the formulations are
quite different between the fuel here in New Zealand and the US equivalent.
To increase the octane rating (which is still poor in comparison to the US),
the New Zealand oil companies boost the fuel with a far higher percentage of
aromatics to keep refining costs down.
I know the Fuelstar claims sound ridiculous (remember that I too was a
sceptic) - and some of them are (eg. the exhaust does not burn grey like a
car running on leaded petrol) but the results, where they counted, were
outstanding. I am not the only one, as stated previously, to find this out.
I know this reads like a sales pitch, but I AM IN NO WAY ALIGNED WITH THE
FUELSTAR COMPANY. I am just a very satisfied customer who believes that the
product is appropriate for those who have problems with their cars adjusting
to these new fuels. Of course, all this would not have been necessary, had
leaded fuel still been available here - or at least a better formulation of
unleaded been available, but that's another story...
As stated above, you can never discount a product until you yourself have
tried it and got the proof. The company is prepared to stand by its product
and refund those that are not satisfied - so it would cost nothing to try...
David Greed
1979 2500S Man O/D (up and running great with a Fuelstar)
1992 Citroën BX Turbo Diesel (thank goodness there is no debate about fuel
with this one!!!)
PS. For those wondering why I still use imperial figures for calculating
fuel consumption, I just can not get used to litres/100 km as a standard...
Email: greed@wave.co.nz (Home)
sys_dwg@cmosaf.telecom.co.nz (Work - AlphaStation)
david.greed@telecom.co.nz (Work - PC)
-----Original Message-----
From: Irwin Armstrong <armstrong@btinternet.com>
To: Egil Kvaleberg <egil@kvaleberg.no>; David Greed <greed@wave.co.nz>
Cc: triumphs@autox.team.net <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Date: Tuesday, 20 October 1998 02:48
Subject: Re: Only for Triumph enthusiasts in NEW ZEALAND
>
>David/Egil
>
>Interesting
>
>You are a satisfied customer and Egil thinks it can't possibly work.
>
>Can you detail exactly what you found it did for your car and if you have
any
>data to back it up e.g. increase in power or mileage and if you have
measured
>your valve seat wear etc..
>
>I am always interested when someone who is independent supports a product
and
>actually uses it, but I am also a sceptic like Egil.
>
>I would love it to be correct as I could use one soon, as leaded petrol
will
>disappear here next year, but don't want to throw away money.
>
>Irwin
>
>Egil Kvaleberg wrote:
>
>> On 19 Oct 1998, David Greed wrote:
>>
>> > hence the reason for the fuel passing through
>> > the tin cones just prior to entering the carburettor(s).
>>
>> It has long since been shown that any tin content that might possibly be
>> released by such devices is far, far too small to do anything at all, be
>> that useful or harmful.
>>
>> > The fuelstar also
>> > uses magnets that somehow affects the molecular structure of the fuel
which
>> > makes for a cooler burn and is therefore less harsh on the exhaust
valves.
>>
>> This "somehow" is really something I would like to know about!
>>
>> Unlike water molecules, for instance, molecules found in petrol are
>> entirely un-polar, and thus completely, utterly unaffected by any
>> electrical or magnetic field.
>>
>> The only reason I can imagine that these devices are reported to work
>> under certain conditions, is that they are used on vehicles where driving
>> conditions or otherwise dictate that things would have worked anyway.
>>
>> I followed the pointer to the web site, and found the claims made
>> regarding decreased consumption, increased engine power and extended
>> engine life so outrageous, that these alone would indicate that this is
>> just yet another hoax. Predictably, I found no references whatsoever
>> to any scientifically conducted tests that might support these claims.
>>
>> Such magic clamp-on-devices for the fuel line, with outrageous claims,
has
>> existed as long as have autocars. And, I'm sorry to report, they work no
>> better now than they have before.
>>
>> Egil
>> --
>> Email: egil@kvaleberg.no Voice: +47 22523641, 92027705 Fax: +47 22525899
>> Snail: Egil Kvaleberg, Husebybakken 14A, 0379 Oslo, Norway
>> URL: http://www.kvaleberg.com/ PGP: finger:egil@kvaleberg.com
>
>
|