Mr Revhead wrote:one of those ones with the small print "less handling and p&p"
which prob equals $500
Yes, or the 100% restocking fee
Here's a good article debunking the use of this and other "catalyst" fuel saving products http://www.fuelsaving.info/catalysts.htm and one debunking fuel saving product in general http://www.fuelsaving.info/catalysts.htm
They make a very important poing namely
A typical claim is that the combustion with the device fitted is somehow "better" or "more complete". There is never however any detail as to what is meant by this. And it is a firmly established engineering fact that, on any reasonably modern engine under normal operating conditions, the burn is already at least 98% complete. The unburnt fuel in the exhaust (even before the cat) represents 1 or 2% at most of the input fuel. If you factor in the energy in the CO emissions, the figure still only rises to 3% maximum. So even if the fuel "saving" device could totally eliminate unburnt fuel and CO in the exhaust, and give an absolutely 100% complete burn, you would only save 3% of fuel. Claims that 10%, 20% or even more of the fuel is not burnt and escapes into the exhaust are entirely false - the unburnt fuel figure is higher when the engine is stone-cold, and at high load and speed conditions, but since the engine only spends a small fraction of its time under these conditions their contribution to overall fuel consumption is small.
and
The other reason why these devices can't work is simple business. Fuel consumption is a very hot topic in the European car industry at the moment, because it is directly related to carbon dioxide, which is a "greenhouse gas". Consumers and legislators are demanding ever-better fuel consumption from new cars. The industry is investing literally billions of pounds on more efficient engines, for example diesels (and we wouldn't do that if we were in the pay of oil companies, would we?) But these more efficient engines are also much more expensive to make - for example a diesel will produce about 15 - 20% less carbon dioxide, but adds about £500 - £1000 to the cost of a car. These "fuel saving devices" claim nearly as much benefit for a tenth of the cost - the car industry would not only sell its grandmother for this kind of saving, but sacrifice its first-born son too!
Enough said... time for somebody to prove that these things actually work. Hard facts, not regurgitated BS from their websites and claims about money back guarantees which mean nothing
