Conference terri::cars_uk

    This reminds me of Carbonflo - the stuff "Practical Classics" tested
    about a year ago.
    
    That didn't work - they had to rebuild a freshly rebuild engine after
    10'000 miles or so.
    
    Paul

    Auto Express have this on longterm test, the result they have given is
    that its a load-of-&*!@. It seemed that the mpg and the performance
    went down, not by much but it did go down.
    
     I've looked into this myself, and it would take a long time before you
    recouped the initial cost if it did increase your MPG by the figures
    they give with the kit. 
    
     A friend of mine put it in his Sierra which was already running on
    unleaded, and it made no noticeable difference.
    
     Sounds like a waste of money. What sort of car are you planning to put
    it into ? Is there an owners club ?
    
    
    Andy

    A Friend of mine has one of these fitted to his car....a polo..it was
    on it when he bought it from a dealer....I took a look and from what I
    can see it appears to be a pipe surrounded by permanent magnets....it is
    fitted on the "suck" side of the fuel pump....in the fuel line.
    
    			The blurb claims 100% decrease in emissions from
    exhaust and the unleaded running!!  I have seen one other device which was
    sold in the "Barclayard" magazine on the same theme which clamped on
    your fuel line with the same claims with a money back offer "if not
    delighted".
    
    		Seems to me it would be simpler and cheaper to go buy some
    permanent magents and cable tie or whatever round your fuel line should 
    do the same job and save you X pounds into the bargain.
    
    		Don't ask me which way the magnets go !!
    
    						Mike...
    
    

    
    In reply to .2 (Andy), the car in question is an 1100 cc Escort Estate.
    
    Current consumtion of petrol being �80 a month, a �150 capital outlay
    would pay for itself in 2 yrs. given a saving of say 8%.
    
    I'd be quite happy with that - I expect to keep the car that long - and
    because I'd use unleaded (eases the environmental conscience) and 
    without the 'every 3rd tank of 4*' bit.
    
    But what concerns me is, does this product really stack up to its
    claims?  The Auto Express study quoted suggests it does not - this is 
    exactly the sort of Info I'm looking for.
    
    
    Regards,
    
    Rob.

    �and because I'd use unleaded (eases the environmental conscience) and 
    
    Can someone confirm/dismiss the theory that leaded does less damage to
    the enivronment than unleaded?
    

Re .5,

>   Can someone confirm/dismiss the theory that leaded does less damage to
>   the enivronment than unleaded?

I can't see how this can be the case.  Lead in petrol has been proved
to cause problems for people (particularly those with asthma and
bronchitus), animals and plants.

The question of whether unleaded petrol or diesel is more
environmentally sound is more controversial.

Jon

    I had heard (from some one at Lotus) the unleaded petrol + CAT was
    worse than leaded prtrol + lean burn.
    
    Reasoning:
    
    	1. Carbon Dioxide is the _number-one_ greenhouse gas. Air born lead
    is way down on the list. A CAT takes polutant gases (carbon monoxide) and
    converts them to CO2. Although carbon monoxide is a problem, it is not
    anything like as Ozone unfriendly as CO2.
    
    	2. Cars running unleaded petrol are less fuel efficent than those
    running leaded and a CAT absorbes energy hence you need to use more
    energy in the combustion process to get the same enery at the wheel(s).
    So you either a) loose power or b) use more petrol. In general mfgs. go
    for a compromise where you loose a little petrol and a little power
    mence you generate even more CO2.
    
    	But fitting CAT + unleaded only is very good marketing 'coz its
    Green !!
    
    	Rik
                                     

    Lead does't have much to do the greehouse effect.
    
    Lead in the air has had the finger pointed at it in retarding child brain
    development.
    
    Rob

    
    Re .9
    
    But only in Birmingham!
    
    Mark

    CO2 is not Ozone unfriendly (well, not in a big way like HFCs).
    There has always been quite a lot of CO2 in the air, but we dont think
    we want to increase it much beyond current levels.
    
    CO is a poisonous gas that is far more dangerous than CO2 in the short
    term. Excessive amounts of it can kill (it prevents the blood from
    carrying O2 and CO2 around the body). Smaller amounts can have serious
    effects (especially for people with respiratory problems). The amounts
    needed are much lower than the amounts of CO2 needed to suffocate
    someone. CO hangs around in the blood for quite a long time (days ?).
    
    In the long term CO is not hazardous - it turns into CO2 !
    (I expect it would react with airborne oxidants such as ozone, sulphur
    trioxide, nitric oxide etc.)
    
    So anything that converts CO into CO2 is doing the air a favour by
    reducing the amount of CO (without changing the amount of CO2
    ultimately produced).
    
    The efficiency thing really is a problem. Any car with a CAT will use
    more fuel than a car without.  There is also a small loss in efficiency
    when using lead-free. This is because many car engines have to be
    detuned slightly to run on lead free. Nevertheless in areas with a high
    traffic density the reduction in harmful gases is much more important
    than the (small) increase in fuel usage (and extra CO2 produced).
    
    In isolated areas it may be better not to have a CAT (though you should
    still use lead free petrol).
    
    Andrew

    
    Re: .10
    
    How would anyone know?  :-)
    
    Chris
    

One of the major problems with CO (carbon monoxide) is that it wants to form
into CO2. Guess where it gets the extra oxygen molocule from ?

Yup, O3 (i.e. Ozone) which is highly unstable and deperately want to drop it's
'spare' oxygen molocule. This is why O3 only occure in any quantity in the
upper atmosphere.

    Actually you dont want much ozone in the lower atmosphere. It is itself
    rather toxic! It is very unstable, and only exists because it is being
    continually created (from O2) by the action of sunlight (in particular
    UV light). That is why it forms in the upper atmosphere - there is more
    UV light up there to replace it as it breaks up. So we want to protect
    the ozone in the upper atmosphere, but dont need to worry too much
    about the ozone at ground level.
    
    One molecule of CO will consume at most one molecule of O3 before
    becoming CO2. The CFCs are not consumed by the reaction which destorys
    ozone - each molecule can destroy very many ozone molecules before it
    is neutralised. Furthermore CO is likely to become CO2 well before it
    can reach the upper atmosphere.
    
    A car emitting CO instead of CO2 has very little effect on the ozone layer.
    The worst effects are purely local (due to the toxicity of CO before it
    becomes CO2). Of course you do want to reduce the total number of carbon
    atoms emitted, as they all eventually form CO2 which we have enough of
    already.
    
    Andrew

    
    
    For humans, the problem with CO is that is more readily absorbed
    into the blood than oxygen. Haemoglobin, that would have become
    oxy-haemoglobin absorbs the just about all the CO before it takes
    on any oxygen. Eventually, if the concentraions of CO are high
    enough you suffocate, just as if there was no oxygen.

    Richard.
    

    Catalytic converters were invented to solve problems in places like LA.
    IMHO they are undesirable almost everywhere else. Lean burn and lower
    power has to be the long term "right thing".
    The governments were conned.
    
    Andrew

    Whilst on the subject of catalytic converter, could someone please
    indicate how long they last, before a) they are not effective b) they
    rust like the rest of the exhaust system
    
    
    Cheers

Re: .17

The answers are:

	a - unless you do something silly like put leaded fuel in the tank
	    or do something that grossly overheats the converter the life
	    is ten to twenty years.

	b - the exhaust systems are stainless steel so should also last
	    a very long time.

I think that the regualtions reauire that the lifetime of the converter
system be such that it should not normally need replacement before the
vehicle dies.

jb

    So now is not the time to be a KwikFit fitter?
    What will all those highly skilled artisans be doing in the future?
    
    Andrew

    Watching the News-at-10 a few nights ago they mentioned that a
    ``KwickFit'' tyre fitter gets payed about �14,000 per year for their
    skilled craft ! Whats more thay were classed as lower payed !!
    
    (And a P.E. teacher got �26,000 ...)

    
    All I really wanted was feedback on Powerplus, and somehow we're down
    to the pay rates of PE Teachers and Kwik-fit fitters !!
    
    It has been interesting, though ... even a good laugh sometimes!
    
    R.

I have a thing called Fuel Cat in my petrol tank. Same as Carbon Flo, but 
slightly bigger, apparently better and a lot cheaper. Carbon Flo quoted me
circa �80, whereas I payed �35 for Fuel Cat. I haven't gone over to unleaded
yet but I am saving fuel. I am now getting between 10 and 25 miles more to a
tank of petrol.

Simon

    
    Is this 'Fuel Cat' advertised as enabling a normally-leaded engine to
    run on unleaded?
    
    As I don't know what Carbon Flo did, what (in essence) does the Fuel
    Cat do?
    
    Rob.

Yes it is supposed to enable any petrol engine to run on un-leaded.

simon

>>Yes it is supposed to enable any petrol engine to run on un-leaded.
    
    And you have faith that this product will save your valve seats ? !!!
    
    J.R.

Well. As I am getting a better fuel comsumption I am not too worried about 
staying on leaded. Apparently the company that supplies fuel cat have never
had a complaint. With all the gaurantees they give I don't think there will
be any problems.

Simon

I wouldn't trust a guarantee from anyone selling one of these gadgets.  If it
was this simple, cheap and reliable, wouldn't they be fitted by major motor
manufacturers or used by them to retrofit to older cars rather than expensive

You only find out the quality of the guarantee when you claim - if they're
still in business

Of course, I may be too cynical.

Mike.

>>Well. As I am getting a better fuel comsumption I am not too worried about 
    
    I know you quoted some figures before, but I wonder how accurate
    they can have been ?  Maybe you 'found the results you hoped for' ?
    
    I also assume that you had to retard the ignition timing to allow the
    engine to run the lower-rated fuel, regardless of lead content.
    Maybe this would have some effect on your consumption figures ?
    
    I too would claim to be cynical, but I cannot believe that the
    addition of a simple gadget will have any effect on the 'upper
    cylinder lubrication' required by [older design] engines, where
    lead previously fulfilled that function.  Again, if it were so
    simple to protect valve seats against wear, wouldn't you expect the
    manufacturers to use this solution, rather than going to the expense
    of fitting harder valve seats on their engines to run unleaded ?
    
    J.R.

    I though lead was put into fuel to help prevent knocking, and that the
    lead was combiened with something else that would allow it to be
    discharged with the rest of the exhaust gasses (else engines would get
    rather clogged up).
    
    Is this just a figment of my imagination?

>>                       -< More to lead than lubrication >-
    
    Yes, it also serves to increase the octane (?) rating of the fuel.
    
    That's why ignition is retarded for unleaded fuel - in most cases.
    
    J.R.

J.R. What I actually said was;

� As I am getting a better fuel comsumption I am not too worried about 
� staying on leaded
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I haven't gone over to un-leaded fuel. If I did I would loose the extra economy
that I have gained. I shall do some calculations and find out how much I really 
am saving.

The next step is to save up and get a Kenlowe fan. That will also make a
difference to my fuel usage.

Simon

>>J.R. What I actually said was;
>>
>>� staying on leaded
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    A misunderstanding on my part as to which gadget you had fitted.  Sorry.
    
    My comments (opinion) will still apply for any of these extras that
    claim to allow cars to run on unleaded when they normally wouldn't.
    
    
    J.R.

No problem...  It does allow you to go over to unleaded but...


Simon