Morris Minor Owners Club

Back to the original subject (I don't use anything by the way, valve seats have not been recut for years so they have hardened, over 30k miles so far with no problems). I had the same problem on my 122s volvo a couple of months ago, seemed just like fuel starvation. I tried everything and then in desperation changed coil, points & rotor arm - the problem vanished!! I decided to put things back on by one to prove a point, the easiest first was the rotor arm. As soon as the car got hot it started missing again eventually to the point of stopping. I can only assume the rotor arm breaks down when hot, however after speaking to other people the quality of the material in aftermarket rotor arms is vastly inferior to the originals and they can give trouble.
This may have no bearing on your problem but it's worth a try and simple to do.
Best of luck

Hi Colin as to not trusting civil servants those that use it are classic & vintage car enthusiast just like you and me and they would not put any old rubbish in their pride and joy, and like i said earlier if it was good enough for the RAF and their Merlin Engines i think enough said. I did have a load of literature on it both from its use during the last war and how it was secret and i think i am right in saying that its only in the last 20 years or so that it has been made availible to joe public. My Dr and his two sons have it in their cars (Austin Healey, MGJ and a 2002 SAAB) i have it in my moggy and my wifes 2004 306 Peugeot both petrol and before in a 1967 LD Ambulance and a 405 Diesel Peugeot.
Jimmy.
(not a civil servant)

Jimmy,

The fuel catylyst won't do your engine any harm... in fact it won't really do anything at all! They are very frowned upon in general by the classic car fraternity and only a few 'practical classic' types swear by them as their valves have not recessed YET!

The point is that if you have a classic that you drive for 1000 miles per year at low revs then the valve seat recession (VSR) will be very small anyway, so adding a lump of anything non-reactive (or dissolving) into the tank will have the placebo effect of 'it's doing it's job'. When in fact it's doing nothing.

A member of our messageboard (Gareth) had one installed and was perfectly fine, until he had valve trouble! Now, I don't think he favours them too much!

A lot of people DO use the catylysts but they simply sit in the tank and do very little.

I'm sure the RAF had good reason to use what they did and I doubt very much that it's the same thing that you have in your tank!!

Also, one thing that's confusing me: Are you saying you are using it in modern cars?? I would advise against that as the valves/seats don't need protecting and if the additive actually works (which I doubt) then you will probably damage your catalytic converter!

Also, why on earth is it used in Diesel cars?? what benifit does it have?

To the original topic:

I generally renew rotor arm & points together. I did have a problem about 4-9 months ago which eventually showed itself as the fuel pump points (about 3-4 years old). I don't know if the Aston has them...

As for tin, I did find a few references to articles - I'll look them up and see what I can find. Don't hold your breath!

Colin

Hi Cam, I use my mog going up and down the motor way and so did its previous owner (back and forth to Scotland) on a regular basis a total of 15 years so far with the same unit of broguet. as for the modern car I had a spare unit that a mate use to have in his M/Bike ( Gold Wing) he took it out with the intention of putting it in an other one but never got round to buying a bike. (Wife would not let him ).
Jimmy. My Ambulance was sold to a young lad that was touring Europe with his band and so far it is still motoring although I believe he had a offer from some one in Holland to buy it from him. I done nearly 15000 miles with my local Adventure Scouts in it and then the Scout Asso. started getting stricked ( set belts) for all and they also increased the insurance from £250. to nearly £700. to bring it in line with out side insurance comps. Anyway like some one has said somethings you believe in and some you don't and over the past 20 years that I have been using it I guess you know which group I am in. TOUGH WOOD .
Jimmy

Hi Jimmy!

Well, for me, just having the unit lying around would not be good enough reason to pop it into a tank nearby for a car that might not benifit or be damaged by it!

Absolutely, some things you believe in and some you don't. However, I'm a believer in science and not 'hoping something works'. If you are happy then that's great! You carry on 'using' it, but also bear in mind that lots of people have been running fine without ANY addtitives just on raw unleaded (bmcecosse for example) with 'no problems'. I suspect that your car(s) would have run just the same with or without the unit.

jtd.75 wrote:TOUGH WOOD

I'm sorry to hear that and I hope it gets better soon!

Seriously though, it's no skin of my nose if you pour paint into your tank. We are here to discuss topics based on experience, and the conclusion is that the fuel catalysts are generally frowned upon because they will not submit the items for proper testing and people have had valve problems with the units installed. This gives rise to the mistrust of the company's claims that the product actually DOES anything at all.

a bit like faith healing, sceptical maybe but a lot of folk beleive it

Wish that laying on hands worked on Moggies, just think of the garage bills you'ld avoid

I know a lot of civil servants that use it, it is recomended by their motoring and leisure mag. Have you read up on it. I do not mean to be rude or insulting but please do not comment on a product you obviously know nothing about.

Well it looks like I am the only one on here who is a member of the CSMA which is the magazine that used to have adverts for the Broquet and I cant remember when they were last advertised in the magazine, also I cant ever remember the magazine itself endorsing the product just the membership which is a different thing altogether.
As has also been stated why did they not submit the product for testing, well thats easy if you submit a product and it fails you will never make another sale but if you dont you can suggest that it didnt fail the tests, and when all said and done these tests were done for all classic car owners with no axe to grind just produce facts from scientific results, and not from clever marketing.
Also when it was advertised years ago I dont remember it being suggested that all cars with one could change over to using 2 star petrol instead of the 4 & 5 star of the day, and as I have mentioned before we have a branch member who because he has a high mileage engine decided to just change over to unleaded and worry about the head when it played up, well some years later his heads lead memory has survived 4 or 5 MOT`s (minors on tour) + the 3,000 - 4,000 or so annual mileage with no ill effects so far on a 160,000 + engine, so a lot of the results are down to how much lead memory the head has and there is no way to realistically quantify it, and the engine is not really affected until driving at constant speeds over 55mph for periods of time which lots of classic cars dont do very often, and if it was that good dont you think car manufacturers would be fitting it to new cars as emmisions and fuel economy are now a well established part of automotive design.

Just a brief update on the research...

The International Tin Research Institiute (ITRI) published some information on tine as a fuel catalyst. Unfortunately, the ITRI was a private research group (owned by tin mining companies), and was sold a few years ago to tin producer. It still exists , in a form, but is much more closely linked with the group of producers....

Also, a number of the journal articles (J Ind Chem & Eng) date from the 1920's. There aren't online (at least, I haven't found them on line), so it looks like hunting out who has paper copies......

Oh well, makes a change from servicing a Moggie (but more likely a job for the dark evenings).

Colin

Well it looks like I am the only one on here who is a member of the CSMA which is the magazine that used to have adverts for the Broquet and I cant remember when they were last advertised in the magazine, also I cant ever remember the magazine itself endorsing the product just the membership which is a different thing altogether.

No I'm also a member of the CSMA. To the best of my knowledge the CSMA refused to advertise the Broquet any more due to the lack of independant testing as they did not want to appear to be endorsing the product by advertising it. (However this is what I heard and may not necessarily be the reason).
Personally I wouldn't use this system as the manufacturers do not quote independant references for the product, as a trained boffin I can state that this is bad science even if the system does work as to be good science it must be able to be verified independantly. This is also the reason why Rosie isn't currently running on one of those natty cold fusion systems

Hi All I too am a CSMA member, and have been for over 37 years it looks like I've opened a can of worms and it makes a change to discus things other than cars, my next subject will be free sex and MMR jabs

FREE SEX! Now you're talking, have Minor,will travel!

have traveller will go all the way

Fact I have have a mpg improvement

On Staurday, Wilberforce drove back from the lake district to Anglesey at 42mpg, which is the first time I've ever seen a 1098 do more than 40mpg (although I've heard it is possible).
On Sunday evening I drove Wilberforce from Anglesey to Leamington it did 36 mpg.

That's the same car on a similar journey on the same roads at less than 5mph speed difference. On Sunday there was a big headwind and I did stick my foot right down to get up hills and used higher revs, but it goes to show that >10% difference is easily achieved on a similar journey.
If you add in other effects like thicker engine oil and longer use of the choke in Winter then you'll understand what is really involved with trying to recognise a few percent of MPG.
Those with a scientific mindset should just consider it a 'signal to noise ratio' and relaise what is trying to be measured is far smaller than the other variables.

I come across MPG measurement as part of my day job and although I can't comment on any specifics, it really is a big eye opener into how things can be done correctly (or not)