rav
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Albany, NY
Just saw it on horsepower TV where they put it on a motor and they say it gained 3mpg on 89 octane gas. Just curious if any of you have tried it and what gains if any did you have.
Fitch Fuel Catalyst anyone try it?
- Thread starter rav
- Start date
Jeepm@n
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Northern, WI
:dunno: Have not tried it, but how much is the stuff and is it cheaper than the mileage you'll receive from the supposed magic stuff?
rstarch345
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Where ever I can wheel
I've had it for about 3 years now. Allowed me to use the 97 Octane setting on my Hypertech programmer with regular gas. Don't know about the MPG factor since I didn't buy it for that. JP Magazine also has done tests and endorses it. When the item runs about $250 you have to have more need than 3MPG difference for it to be effective just for gas savings. Now if gas hits $9 a gallon, it may pay for itself more quickly.
lawsoncl
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- North Idaho
Sounds like a scam to me. Their web site makes all kinds of impossible contraditing claims, such as breaks up hydrocarbon chains and increases octave, etc. Most of the reviews I saw claimed miniscule or no improvement (such as Rider magazine in Aug 2001). The ones claiming huge improvements all seemed to be dealers in this pyramid-scheme type of marketing setup.
boomhauer
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Well if a dyno lies, then yes it's a scam.:twak:
I watched it too. They tested a 502 chev crate engine. Did 3 runs using high octane fuel around the 93 mark i think. It produced an HP increase as well as a torque increase and MPG of a .5. They then did 3 runs using a low octane 87-89. No pinging, 3 mpg increase but no HP or Torque increase. It does work.
I watched it too. They tested a 502 chev crate engine. Did 3 runs using high octane fuel around the 93 mark i think. It produced an HP increase as well as a torque increase and MPG of a .5. They then did 3 runs using a low octane 87-89. No pinging, 3 mpg increase but no HP or Torque increase. It does work.
I think this was designed originally for diesel fuel but they made a few changes to it for gas. I had read up on it and from the reputable reviews, it does what it claims. It's the cost of the item that comes into question. By the time you get done paying for the Item and the catalyst filters are you saving any money? Most likely have to drive your vehicle for alot of years to pay it back for the mileage. In diesel applications , moreover semi trucks, if they can get another .5 mile to the gallon it will pay for it self in a few months.
The other thing that I read is that it cleans up your fuel so you dont have the crap that comes in it going into your engine components. I don't figure this is a big deal on a stock engine, but a high end motor with a lot of money invested it might become a factor.
I read about this a few years ago when I was trying to squeak a few more miles and a few horses out of my 13.5 mpg Avalanche.
The other thing that I read is that it cleans up your fuel so you dont have the crap that comes in it going into your engine components. I don't figure this is a big deal on a stock engine, but a high end motor with a lot of money invested it might become a factor.
I read about this a few years ago when I was trying to squeak a few more miles and a few horses out of my 13.5 mpg Avalanche.
lawsoncl
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- North Idaho
If it really did work and provided me even a 2% increase in mpg, then I figure the payback would be about 4 years for me. I'm still skeptical. For the device to actually do what it says and break up the hydrocarbon chains means a net change in chemical energy. Does the device get hot, get cold, require power? I can certainly see that having a silver core would clean up microbial growth, but that sounds like a bad tank of fuel in the first place.
Can anyone cite any independant testing that these actually work? I'm thinking ideally an independant published report that followed established SAE procedures for dyno testing. I've seen too many dyno tests that didn't follow the proper testing procedures and corrections. You can generate a few extra percent horsepower just by not keeping a consistent engine temp, ambient temp, or by using a brand new engine for the first "unmodified" runs and then seeing a few extra horsepower as it breaks in.
It's funny that they mention EPA certification. You would think it would be mentioned on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/reports.htm. Interesting to read through some of the devices. None of the ones I read demonstrated any improvement, btw.
I read through the Fitch testing at http://www.fitchfuelcatalyst.com/downloads.cfm. Reading the actual test results, I noted that any improvements were generally a few percent and certainly within their measurement error. Some of the results look totally bogus. For example their ASTM-7 test claims the catalyst increased the amount of sulfur in the fuel by 30%. The Chevy FTPA baseline test showed 13 mpg, and the second catalyst test was 17 mpg. The vin number in the report decodes to a 69 Impala?
Can anyone cite any independant testing that these actually work? I'm thinking ideally an independant published report that followed established SAE procedures for dyno testing. I've seen too many dyno tests that didn't follow the proper testing procedures and corrections. You can generate a few extra percent horsepower just by not keeping a consistent engine temp, ambient temp, or by using a brand new engine for the first "unmodified" runs and then seeing a few extra horsepower as it breaks in.
It's funny that they mention EPA certification. You would think it would be mentioned on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/reports.htm. Interesting to read through some of the devices. None of the ones I read demonstrated any improvement, btw.
I read through the Fitch testing at http://www.fitchfuelcatalyst.com/downloads.cfm. Reading the actual test results, I noted that any improvements were generally a few percent and certainly within their measurement error. Some of the results look totally bogus. For example their ASTM-7 test claims the catalyst increased the amount of sulfur in the fuel by 30%. The Chevy FTPA baseline test showed 13 mpg, and the second catalyst test was 17 mpg. The vin number in the report decodes to a 69 Impala?
coop94xj
NAXJA Member # 1667
- Location
- Friendswood, Tx
boomhauer said:
It wasn't .5 mpg with 93 or 3 mpg with 89. They were reading it .5 and 3 less gallons per hour.
I don't know what that equates to mpg wise but here are some links to an article with JP magazine and they got around +1.78mpg with the Fitch system.
http://www.jpmagazine.com/techarticles/154_0607_jeep_mileage_test/photo_03.html
http://www.jpmagazine.com/techarticles/154_0607_jeep_mileage_test/index.html
Some quick math shows you that you would save about $5.45 per tank based on 17mpg before installing the system and $3 a gallon for gas with 17 gallon fill up. Filling up once a week for a year would save you around $280.00
Coop
boomhauer
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Vancouver Island
coop94xj said:
Coop, you are right it was GPH not MPH; I'll twak myself:twak:! I should have remembered that because i was thinking the way my XJ gulps the go-go juice i should save some fuel bigtime.
I really like the thought of not dumping in a can of seafoam every other tank to keep the fuel fresh. The Fitch doesn't wear out and you don't have to buy any replacement innards. it has a decent long mileage warranty.
HP TV;
With the crate 502 high oct. .5 GPH with torque and hp increases and low octane 3 GPH, with no hp or torque gains.
-B
Yeah what no one's saying about the Horsepower TV "tests" is that Fitch SPONSERS them, and has an ad prominantly featured just about every single episode for the last three or four years. They've featured Fitch products at least half a dozen times in their "hot parts" segment (where they pretend to be telling us about new products but they're really being paid for by the manufacturer for the "news").
Next thing to consider is that the first "test" they talked about being "able" to bump the timing up because they're using the Fitch.... Reading between the lines: They bumped the timing up! Well no shit that got them some small savings AND power increase. Who's to say where the timing was to begin with?
The last test they did with 87 octane.... which has more ENGERY than 93 octane! So of course they again got numbers they wanted.
Basically they started with conservative timing... that was no where near pinging, then bumped it a couple degrees for the 93, back down for the 87 without fitch and then bumped it back up for the last test. The timing was still conservative enough to not ping. And WALLA they got the numbers they wanted to get. I bet the test engine with timing properly advanced to the edge of ping then backed off a bit, running on winter blend 87 octane would put down more power and torque then the fitch equipped 93 octane test. But I also bet we never see that dyno run happen
JP mags test was less than Scientific. Just about as worth wild as butt dyno numbers.
Go read THE Acetone thread (you know the huge one) lots of people reported MPG gains... some of them because their injectors got cleaned, and some of them because they spent the next week and half driving like they wanted to get good mileage. (Acetone has been debunked see gassavers.org and Mythbusters).
Next thing to consider is that the first "test" they talked about being "able" to bump the timing up because they're using the Fitch.... Reading between the lines: They bumped the timing up! Well no shit that got them some small savings AND power increase. Who's to say where the timing was to begin with?
The last test they did with 87 octane.... which has more ENGERY than 93 octane! So of course they again got numbers they wanted.
Basically they started with conservative timing... that was no where near pinging, then bumped it a couple degrees for the 93, back down for the 87 without fitch and then bumped it back up for the last test. The timing was still conservative enough to not ping. And WALLA they got the numbers they wanted to get. I bet the test engine with timing properly advanced to the edge of ping then backed off a bit, running on winter blend 87 octane would put down more power and torque then the fitch equipped 93 octane test. But I also bet we never see that dyno run happen
JP mags test was less than Scientific. Just about as worth wild as butt dyno numbers.
Go read THE Acetone thread (you know the huge one) lots of people reported MPG gains... some of them because their injectors got cleaned, and some of them because they spent the next week and half driving like they wanted to get good mileage. (Acetone has been debunked see gassavers.org and Mythbusters).
MudDawg
NAXJA Member #728
- Location
- Central Florida
Here is something interesting. www.nrhsperformance.com click on the tech info tab....scroll the tech info...lots of good reading including a dyno test of the Fitch thingy...yeah it's Harley site...but the stuff applies to all engines.
drechsla
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- ROSELLE, IL
so is this thing hard to install im desperate for gas mileage on my xj im only getting 13-14 and i drive a lot
I have a way to save you 30 gallons of gas instantly:
Go buy 30 gallons of gas with the 100 bucks you would have paid for the Fitch.
That will "save" you more gas than the fitch will ever save it's entire installed user base.
BTW Did you READ the thread?!? :sure:
Maybe we should ask Horsepower why they didn't dyno Brake Specific fuel flow but instead used gallons per hour? BSFF can directly and accurately measure the actual combustion efficiency of an engine.
Go buy 30 gallons of gas with the 100 bucks you would have paid for the Fitch.
That will "save" you more gas than the fitch will ever save it's entire installed user base.
BTW Did you READ the thread?!? :sure:
Maybe we should ask Horsepower why they didn't dyno Brake Specific fuel flow but instead used gallons per hour? BSFF can directly and accurately measure the actual combustion efficiency of an engine.