Another new member!

Well, just to let them "have their say", here is the website http://www.broquet.co.uk/

As usual with these things, if the claims are true then it's a good product. Having briefly read the info, it looks like the in-tank (drop some lumps tin into the fuel tank) probably does very little, makes much more sense to have the fuel flowing over the tin in the fuel lines.

There is a magazine test on there that suggests it works.

Open mind and all that, however I'm not sure I'd chance the £150+ to properly equip my P6.
 
I'd rather use Lily the Pink's mecidinal compound. Apparently it treats and cures everything, and is based on the same level of scientific evidence.

I go back to the same point that I've made before, if you want a product to do the job, there has only been one set of scientific testing conducted and that was by the FBHVC, if they don't approve an additive, then your wasting your money.

And I do think that in our Club magazines we need to balance the advertisements for snake oil with the view that your average 'joe' will assume that the club endorses the product. When I saw the Broquet advert in the P6Club magazine, I was disappointed. Do they need the advertising revenues from Broquet so badly?? Perhaps a note should be put under the advert that says that "the club is publishing the advert for the cash and in no way endorses use of the product" :D

Hmm I don't seem to remember the last time that one of these "catalysts" were advertised in the major magazines ....... could be wrong though but maybe they refuse to let them advertise???

Bri.
 
webmaster said:
Open mind and all that, however I'm not sure I'd chance the £150+ to properly equip my P6.
Click to expand...

My pebbles are only £15.00 and will treat a P6 for 250,000 miles. If your engine detonates with my pebbles in your tank, I will give you your £15.00 back - as long as you can prove it was my fault that is 8)
 
DaveHerns said:
Shouldn't it be CE approved these days ? That is , if it works
Click to expand...

CE marking only certifies that a product has met EU consumer safety, health or environmental requirements. It doesn't mean it works!
 
DaveHerns said:
Shouldn't it be CE approved these days ? That is , if it works
Click to expand...

What do the Church of England know?

:)

I must stop posting on this thread, I must stop posting on this thread, I must stop posting on this thread, I must stop posting on this thread, :shock:
 
The RP6C nor me, benefited from the article on the Broquet product in Driving Force. It was simply an offer which was extended to club members from the company and I passed on the details.
I added the words which had come from members using the product and as someone who has already blowed 3 cylinder heads myself, I was interested in hearing about the product, that is why, at the very end, it says 'Comments Welcome, Editor' ....
Because, I want the members opinions. The ones who have it that I have spoken to, say it works, but I haven't spoken to anyone who has said they use the product and it doesn't work, otherwise I would have printed that as well. So are you asking me to balance the article with a lie? because that's what it would have been.
The scientific theory of what is behind the product, is available and all the major oil companies use it to get their fuels to work in multi valve, variable timing engines, otherwise non of the modern cars about, would give the performance or mpg that they do. That is openly available on websites of companies like BP. And the bottom line fact is that the Hurricans in Russia could not fly using the basic Russian fuel until this 'additive' was created.
As I said above, I have blown 3 Rover P6 cylinder heads on modern unleaded fuel and I have spoken with a top Shell Petro-Chemist, (who I worked with for nearly 3 years), who explained the chemistry on the subject and now I use an additive.
What I am doing now is looking for the best additive. Maybe your stones are better, I don't know, but I do know they are very good when used by a qualified masseur. So what's your qualification for saying they work in your fuel tank?
 
MarkGray said:
So what's your qualification for saying they work in your fuel tank?
Click to expand...

I have a few qualifications in chemistry, but none for saying that my pebbles will work in a tank of fuel. However, I have not said they will work better, just that my observations seem to infer that I get a better throttle response and improved MPG. If I was expecting this to happen, then it probably would or I would think that it did. This is a well known phenomenom called the placebo effect.

A fair few years ago a mate of mine (Dave Starky) had some engine problems which were casued by running it on unleaded petrol. He had this type of system fitted and went to them to sort it out - they refused to do so as they deemed it to be 'fair wear and tear.' He could not 'prove' that the system did NOT work so basically he was told to get lost.

I do not believe that a few pellets can treat 10,000 gallons of petrol, and if they do, why do the petrol companies not use it in the storage tanks. They are all falling over each other to make a better petrol than everyone else, so for the cost a few pellets in their fuel lines they could say to all and sundry that their unleaded can be used in vehicles designed for leaded petrol. They could have saved the car indutry billions of pounds developing engines to run without lead, and with the extra mpg car companies could state better mpg, less CO2 and a whole host of other things. Why did your top Shell Petro-Chemist not mention this to Shell?

If it did work, the car companies could also fit it as standard to their cars? Why don't they?

I have been a victim of clever phraseology like this with a car warranty which looked very good. It wasn't.
 
MarkGray said:
The RP6C nor me, benefited from the article on the Broquet product in Driving Force
Click to expand...

Oh dear, that's worse still. At least the club should have got advertising revenue from these Charlatans.

If it worked, they'd have submitted the product to testing by the FBHVC, but all these 'catalyst' companies refused when it would have made them an enormous fortune ...... if it really worked. They didn't submit to the testing because apparently it "wasn't a fair test", seems perfectly fair to me, run an A-series engine at high revs for a definitive period of time and measure the effect, baselining on untreated 4 star and unleaded. The only thing to be scared of is...... that it doesn't work, and they'd be found out for peddling a con.

If you're looking for the best additive, then the best stuff is what the cars were designed to run on, leaded petrol. And the FBHVC have also approve that - Tetra-ethyl Lead, you can buy it by the bottle!

Brian.
 
I know this wasn't Broquet, but I would remind people here of Landcrab, 1989/1990, Carbonflo, Practical Classics (during the days it WAS good!), unleaded, totally ruined cylinder head!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top