How Does Or Does The Fitch Fuel Catalist Work
11-05-2007, 06:03 PM
#1
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Does Or Does The Fitch Fuel Catalist Work LOOKING AT BUYING ONE BUT I DONT REALLY UNDERSTAND THEM... ANYBODY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THESE
http://www.fitchfuelcatalyst.com/
http://www.fitchfuelcatalyst.com/
11-05-2007, 06:28 PM
#2
Teching In
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a total scam to me.
The only way a catalyst could work with out an input from an external energy source is by breaking the long chains of molecules into smaller ones. In that case it would be using the energy from the fuel to do so. The end result is you would have fuel that contained less chemical energy and therefore have less energy to generate power to put to the wheels with being drawn into your cylinders.
The only way a catalyst is going to work to your benefit is to have it in the cylinder when combustion takes place. Using platinum spark plugs would probably do more than this catalyst even if the catalyst did work. If you want more effect go talk to a jewler about plating your piston crowns and combustion chambers with platinum.
The only way a catalyst could work with out an input from an external energy source is by breaking the long chains of molecules into smaller ones. In that case it would be using the energy from the fuel to do so. The end result is you would have fuel that contained less chemical energy and therefore have less energy to generate power to put to the wheels with being drawn into your cylinders.
The only way a catalyst is going to work to your benefit is to have it in the cylinder when combustion takes place. Using platinum spark plugs would probably do more than this catalyst even if the catalyst did work. If you want more effect go talk to a jewler about plating your piston crowns and combustion chambers with platinum.
11-06-2007, 12:30 PM
#5
Teching In
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at their results you can see that there is no real difference. In fact for this one you can see that they could have just waited until the correction factor just changed. Also for the points they picked to state numbers from was just a little oscillation that occurred at different rpms. I have seen lots of dyno runs with no changes made that are not this consistent.
http://www.fitchfuelcatalyst.com/doc...98Corvette.pdf
http://www.fitchfuelcatalyst.com/doc...98Corvette.pdf
Trending Topics
01-04-2008, 03:19 PM
#8
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe you guys, but I am curious about the results that HP TV got.
They ran a test with an LS engine (forget which now), on 93 octane on an engine dyno. Noted power and fuel usage (gallons per hour I think), and then hooked up the Fitch thing and re-ran the test. Power was up ever so slightly, and fuel use was down slightly. Then they drained the tank, put 87 in, re-ran the test and noted the drop in power and increase in fuel consumption. Then re-hooked up the Fitch and tested one last time, here the power increase was larger (but still less than with straight 93 octane and no "catalyst"), but the fuel use was well below any other configuration. The power loss was small compared to the reduction in fuel consumption.
The way they did the test seemed legit. But what you guys are saying makes sense too. So I'm just curious.
They ran a test with an LS engine (forget which now), on 93 octane on an engine dyno. Noted power and fuel usage (gallons per hour I think), and then hooked up the Fitch thing and re-ran the test. Power was up ever so slightly, and fuel use was down slightly. Then they drained the tank, put 87 in, re-ran the test and noted the drop in power and increase in fuel consumption. Then re-hooked up the Fitch and tested one last time, here the power increase was larger (but still less than with straight 93 octane and no "catalyst"), but the fuel use was well below any other configuration. The power loss was small compared to the reduction in fuel consumption.
The way they did the test seemed legit. But what you guys are saying makes sense too. So I'm just curious.
01-26-2008, 01:28 PM
#9
Staging Lane
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the best way to test this would be to do an oil analysis before using this then after. Many of the impurities in our fuel cause the dirt in our oil. If you were able to prolong oil change intervals using synthetic, the cost savings can be substantial.
Ryph
Ryph
02-04-2008, 12:01 PM
#10
these devices really do work. Fuel injected engines are "designed" to run inefficiently. Fuel sprayed into cylinders often comes out as droplets.....The unburned fuel is sent through the exhaust where the CAT or "Catalyst" (normally platinum) changes the larger molecules of fuel without itself changing. The now smaller fuel particles burn easily in the hot converter and the emissions are reduced.
If you strip the fuel into smaller parts first and make them easier to burn, you will need less gas. As far as their numbers, I don't know but It will help to some degree...just like its a know fact that ionizing fuel with magnets also helps...
Another good one is a combo of pure Xylene, PURE Acetone and Torco GP-7 mixed 1 part, 2 parts and 1 part respectively. This mixture is added 3 oz per 10 gallons and will be instantly noticeable. Engine runs quieter, throttle response better a little more power....WHY? Because it does does pretty much the same thing as the fitch. Breaks down gas into smaller parts so they burn more completely and you need less gas to go so your MPG increase and emissions are down.
If you strip the fuel into smaller parts first and make them easier to burn, you will need less gas. As far as their numbers, I don't know but It will help to some degree...just like its a know fact that ionizing fuel with magnets also helps...
Another good one is a combo of pure Xylene, PURE Acetone and Torco GP-7 mixed 1 part, 2 parts and 1 part respectively. This mixture is added 3 oz per 10 gallons and will be instantly noticeable. Engine runs quieter, throttle response better a little more power....WHY? Because it does does pretty much the same thing as the fitch. Breaks down gas into smaller parts so they burn more completely and you need less gas to go so your MPG increase and emissions are down.
02-04-2008, 01:07 PM
#11
Another good one is a combo of pure Xylene, PURE Acetone and Torco GP-7 mixed 1 part, 2 parts and 1 part respectively. This mixture is added 3 oz per 10 gallons and will be instantly noticeable. Engine runs quieter, throttle response better a little more power....WHY? Because it does does pretty much the same thing as the fitch. Breaks down gas into smaller parts so they burn more completely and you need less gas to go so your MPG increase and emissions are down.
Please show me a magnet that ionizes anything.
02-04-2008, 02:18 PM
#13
these devices really do work. Fuel injected engines are "designed" to run inefficiently. Fuel sprayed into cylinders often comes out as droplets.....The unburned fuel is sent through the exhaust where the CAT or "Catalyst" (normally platinum) changes the larger molecules of fuel without itself changing. The now smaller fuel particles burn easily in the hot converter and the emissions are reduced.
If you strip the fuel into smaller parts first and make them easier to burn, you will need less gas. As far as their numbers, I don't know but It will help to some degree...just like its a know fact that ionizing fuel with magnets also helps...
Another good one is a combo of pure Xylene, PURE Acetone and Torco GP-7 mixed 1 part, 2 parts and 1 part respectively. This mixture is added 3 oz per 10 gallons and will be instantly noticeable. Engine runs quieter, throttle response better a little more power....WHY? Because it does does pretty much the same thing as the fitch. Breaks down gas into smaller parts so they burn more completely and you need less gas to go so your MPG increase and emissions are down.
If you strip the fuel into smaller parts first and make them easier to burn, you will need less gas. As far as their numbers, I don't know but It will help to some degree...just like its a know fact that ionizing fuel with magnets also helps...
Another good one is a combo of pure Xylene, PURE Acetone and Torco GP-7 mixed 1 part, 2 parts and 1 part respectively. This mixture is added 3 oz per 10 gallons and will be instantly noticeable. Engine runs quieter, throttle response better a little more power....WHY? Because it does does pretty much the same thing as the fitch. Breaks down gas into smaller parts so they burn more completely and you need less gas to go so your MPG increase and emissions are down.
Do you have any chemical background to be making these claims?
02-04-2008, 02:20 PM
#14
Oh, and it's much more efficient to increase the fuel pressure to get a better atomization effect. That's why the ls1's run at 55psi compared to older cars running 42psi.
I remember hearing how the Lemans series ls1's in the daytona prototypes a few years ago had experimented with going up to 65psi, but they were having issues keeping the systems from leaking and they were going up in flames. The race series then regulated them back down to 55psi (or maybe it's 56psi).
I remember hearing how the Lemans series ls1's in the daytona prototypes a few years ago had experimented with going up to 65psi, but they were having issues keeping the systems from leaking and they were going up in flames. The race series then regulated them back down to 55psi (or maybe it's 56psi).
02-05-2008, 01:29 AM
#15
Teching In
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lololololol
http://www.racinglab.com/sunauhyga1.html
Also this cigarette-lighter insert thingy increases MPG and throttle response.
http://www.racinglab.com/sunhyvostpob.html
They claim the same **** with all their parts... for a company that has a pretty bad *** time-attack Evo (search CyberEvo on youtube) they sure do sell loads of bullshit.
Ahahahahahahaha before even reading my reply:
production s14: im gonna get flamed for even referencing a japanese car...
DetonationKing: I can't believe sun auto built that time attack evo and sells such useless crap
http://www.racinglab.com/sunauhyga1.html
Also this cigarette-lighter insert thingy increases MPG and throttle response.
http://www.racinglab.com/sunhyvostpob.html They claim the same **** with all their parts... for a company that has a pretty bad *** time-attack Evo (search CyberEvo on youtube) they sure do sell loads of bullshit.
Ahahahahahahaha before even reading my reply:
production s14: im gonna get flamed for even referencing a japanese car...
DetonationKing: I can't believe sun auto built that time attack evo and sells such useless crap
Last edited by ProductionS14; 02-05-2008 at 12:28 PM.
02-05-2008, 08:13 AM
#16
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly what I would ask. Looks like someone read the label or saw Billy Mays on a 3AM infomercial.
02-05-2008, 04:19 PM
#17
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw this thing on HP TV as well and immediately thought to myself "gimmick". But HP TV does show a change in fuel consumption for the better when using it. Do you think they fudged their numbers to make the product look good?
