Amazing! Too Good to be True?

Have just seen an advert for FTC which claims to be a product that will remove carbon from engines of any age, and improve emissions.

Perhaps, understandably, I am sceptical.

Part of the ad says

"FTC is a permanent one time treatment you only add once. The little pellets don't breakdown, dissolve or wear away and won't move around at the bottom at the bottom of the fuel tank"

Sounds like some marvelous form of catalyst?

I wonder if any engine or motor manufacturer, or MIRA, has tested this product and can prove or disprove these claims.

Anyone who has used this product and can tell their experience?

Does sound a bit like seeds for a money tree!   Never got one to grow in my garden.

Howard  (failed to embolden the quote )

Edited By Howard Lewis on 16/07/2022 15:12:03

These cash saving things are always about!

I read an article about things you can do to save petrol (such as not using aircon, not having windows down etc et . If you did all the tips you'd be saving "up to" 30mpg.

The only people to condone these miracle bits are the people making money out of them....

Jim

Tempted to class this like the old "Spark Enhancer" (Two woodscrews making a spark gap, in a plastic case)

My engineering colleagues were as sceptical as I over some device that worked wonders for engine economy / performance by magnetising the fuel!. Engineers, chemists, metallurgists none believed the miracle.

File under "Miracle Placebo"?

Howard

Just looked at the FTC.com website.

It is claimed to be a catalyst.

Have suggested to a contact in engine manufacture that IF it works (Needs proper testing to confirm) it might simplify, cost reduce after treatment (Which is bulky, and costly )

With the amount of money expended by vehicle and engine manufacturers to comply with increasingly stringent emissions requirements, you would have thought that there would be a world wide shortage of the product, by now!

Until I have seen genuine test bed results of "Before" and £After", shall remain unconvinced.

Howard

Howard, this reminds me of a product called "Brock Pellets" which were popular about 25 years ago at the time when leaded petrol was being phased out and car owners were concerned that they would have to go to the trouble and expense of fitting hardened valve seats to the cylinder heads of their engines in order to run on unleaded fuel without the risk of valve seat recession. The vendors claimed that the action of these pellets was catalytic when placed in the fuel tank of the vehicle, and for proof claimed that they were first developed to enable WW II Hurricane fighter planes sent to Russia to run reliably on the abysmal fuel available at that time in that country. They were quite expensive to buy, but were very popular. Did they work? Well, proponents and enthusiastic users said certainly they did, whereas the more cynical of us in the Trade were not wholly convinced. AFAIK, the discussions are still rumbling on in obscure parts of the internet.

The FTC website speaks for itself. No numbers or technical references, a TV presenter on the front page, handful of customer reviews, and if you can find them - Terms and Conditions designed to limit the seller's liability and stop them being sued. Invented in Russia during the war and thereafter suppressed by a conspiracy of oil companies and motor manufacturers. Of course!

I found this review of what's certainly the same product. It's from the same maker as FTC. Basically, the review tests were unable to find the product made any difference to fuel economy, power output, or torque, either on the road or on a dynamometer, old or new bikes A fuel chemist says the alleged catalyst might have an effect on Leaded petrol, but suggests the catalyst isn't in the tank long enough to have a significant effect on an unreactive oil. Unfortunately they didn't test emissions, so just maybe...

The Bennetts review is flawed, but - in my view - is far more substantial than FTC's weakly supported claims. As I understand scientific method, FTC's account is a straight fail. It's built on the positive comments of a tiny group of motorists plus some hearsay. Uncontrolled, inconsistent tests under different unstated road conditions, with no information about how the test group was selected. Fallible opinion, not Method, Results, Conclusions and Peer Reviewed Repeatability. Apart from the possibility of backhanders, self-selection, and simply ignoring negative comments, the placebo effect is remarkably powerful, even on honest people. Be nice to know what steps were taken to remove it. None I expect.

I'm afraid the FTC website doesn't convince me the benefits claimed are real. Insufficient evidence, sample too small and suspect, and the methodology isn't described.

Dave

Dad showed me an article about forty years ago - I think it was in the Civil Service Motoring Association magazine - reviewing a number of fuel-saving devices. The author found that they were all as effective as their makers claimed but also found that as a result he could no longer use his car.

The problem was that they saved so much fuel that every time he used it, he ended up with petrol flooding out of the filler cap.

George

I remember the leaded pellets well from the 80s/90s because fords had unhardened valves

Never bought it and tried it though because my next jalopy was a polo and would run on U/L

By the time Leaded disappeared most 80s Fords had also disappeared into a puff of iron oxide dust

Redex still do a leaded additive

I always wondered if dropping bits of chopped up old lead car battery into your fuel tank would have done the same job, I smashed up quite a few to make sea fishing weights

Edited By Ady1 on 16/07/2022 17:06:00

Of course these things work. You, selling it, say that often enough and there will always be some mug who will buy it. After all the idea is that you get the money. The one I liked was a transparant paint that you used on your numberplate so that it could not be read by a speed camera. My mate fell for that one.

However there is a fuel additive that will clean carbon out of engines. It was developed for the American military for another purpose (successfully) but was found to clean, remove, carbon deposited in a jet engine. General Electric, so impressed, bought the company that developed it and licensed production in Europe to Shell. I have sometimes wondered if it is in Shell V-Power that I occassionally use.

I think FTC is probably a con, it offers too much.

JA

Edited By JA on 16/07/2022 17:19:45

I poured redex into my escort 2 spark plug ports to remove carbon once

Then screwed the plugs back in after 30 mins... and went for a test run

I was like a WW2 destroyer making smoke for about 10 mins, the entire street disappeared, totally hilarious

...didn't bother doing it again though

I think the “screws-in-a-box” may have some merit.

I believe dad used a button for each spark plug. Maybe only on the weak pot, perhaps?

This was on the old Fordson standard, which had a not-so-strong magneto and the old girl easily oiled the plugs and soon only ran on three. Never required on anything else with a magneto.

The reasoning behind it was to strengthen the ignition spark by raising the voltage/energy before the spark was transferred to the plug electrode gap. I don’t suppose they thought of the reason - and simply did it to improve the engine operation.

I do know that we could hear the old fordson from a long way off - by the interference on the telly, and possibly on the wireless. The tractors with Bosch magnetos did not interfere with the telly.

I thought they had tightened up Trading Standards powers to include online sales.

Great opportunity to set yourself up a website loaded with clickbait adverts then sue this 'celebrity' whoever he is. The resultant personal publicity sends people to your site where you get the advertising revenue. You base your claim for compensation on trying the device while driving lie a prat so your fuel consumption, as proven and witnessed by an engineer mate, actually increases.

Dear me!

You are all all cynical as I am.

Yes, MUCH too good to be true. Unless test bed figures, under sontrolled conditions can be shown.

The only device that ever found that worked was the Gefarator.

This allowed air to be admtited to the exhaust system when it went sub atmospheric, so that residuals were not drawn back into the cylinder. Obviously with a cooler, cleaner charge, torque did increase slightly.

But the advantages of other wonder devices all seemed to be figments of someone's imagination.

Howard

I had a 1960 moggy minor traveller. This was around 1968. Burned oil like no tomorrow until i found a miracle cure. It was called piston seal. Drove round all night at 30mph as instructions.

I think it burned more oil than ever after that.

Steve.

Edited By Steviegtr on 16/07/2022 20:16:52

You can get oiled plugs to fire (Chrysler 180) by pulling the lead off the offending plug about a 1/4", the extended spark ups the voltage no end, the down side is you might twitch a bit and you will need a new coil at some point soon.

Anyone remember the 'Economiser' looked like a pressure regulator.

but only if you sprinkle magic pixie dust over the engine

I used a device on my car in the 60’s it was called the GM Manifold Modifier, ( developed by a gentleman called George Mangoletsi if I remember correctly ) it consisted of a plate shaped to fit between the carburettor and the inlet manifold, it incorporated an annular groove that formed an undercut of a small protrusion that extended into the inlet manifold, this annular groove was connected by a small drilling which admitted air from outside into the inlet manifold. The purpose of the device was to supposedly mix air from the groove with any neat fuel that was running down the walls of the carburettor into the inlet manifold, carburettors on standard cars were notoriously inefficient in those days in producing a homogeneous mixture, if you wanted an efficient carburettor then you threw away the standard device and graduated to such as Weber or Dell Orto for better performance. The GM device actually weakened the fuel air mixture by the introduction of the air from outside and in the process produced a more homogeneous mixture which smoothed the running of the engine. I had one fitted on a side valve engined 1954 Ford Popular and later another on a 1970 Ford Cortina 1300, I remember that on both cars the engines ran smoother with the device fitted and there was a small increase in overall fuel economy so in my case I was convinced that there was some engineering reason for the device and it wasn’t Snake Oil. Dave W

I keep detailed records of fuel and mileage (cars and motorbikes) and every so often add them to a spreadsheet to look at fuel consumption trends. The most obvious characteristic is that tank-to-tank variation is so great that it is very difficult to draw any conclusions, although sometimes you can see a seasonal trend if you plot averaged values. So, if you want to advertise your latest wonder-fix for fuel consumption, you give it to a bunch of drivers and about half of them will see an improvement tank-to-tank. Nothing to do with the gadget, just normal variation (and my figures are often +-10% on this basis). Then ask for comments from the ones who saw an improvement. Hardly scientific but probably just about legal if you word it right - just quote a satisfied customer and let readers infer more than is said. Still snake oil...

This is also why I get hot under the collar about "official exhaust pollution figures often under-estimate real-world figures by seven times!" kinds of statements. Of course real-world figures don't agree with standardised laboratory tests. Real-world figures don't even agree with other real-world figures as there are too many uncontrolled variables. I always thought that the "these figures are for comparison only and may not be achieved in real-world operation" was pretty clear - but apparently no-one has ever read that bit.

I know the twin progressive-choke Weber I fitted to my ancient 1300 Mk2 Cortina did wonders for the fuel consumption compared to the original Ford offering but at least there were credible reasons for understanding why - and not magic beans in the fuel tank.

You have to remember that a carburettor is guaranteed to give the wrong mixture under all conditions of load and speed. Some were worse than others.

Chap I worked with put those magic beans in his tank on a Ford engine in a kit car. Didn't stop valve seats regressing into the head, after a few 10s of thousands of miles he had to have inserts

Edited By duncan webster on 16/07/2022 23:15:30

I had a gizmo on my ford mk2 that let air into the manifold side under certain load conditions to save fuel

it didn't make things worse, fitted onto one of the rubber vacuum hoses I think and opened under high vacuum