Geko Posted January 19, 2016 Report Share Posted January 19, 2016 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TRIUMPH-TR4-RUN-ON-NORMAL-95-UNLEADED-PETROL-INTANK-EASY-TO-FIT-AND-INSTALL-/272109108010?ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:MY:3160 "THE FORMULA POWER FUEL CATALYSTThis will allow any engine designed to run on leaded petrol to run safely on normal pump unleaded 95 octane fuel.The fuel catalyst has the desired effect of raising the octane lubricating the engine and burning at a slightly lower burn temperature.There is no need to use a liquid additive or to retard the ignition timing or to fit hardened valve seatsThe fuel catalyst is a tin amalgam and follows very closely to the original Royal Air Force receipe which was developed to combat poor quality and low octane fuel.This product is not unique to us, there are a few companies producing a similar product but we hope you will be impressed with our honesty about this product.It simply is placed into the petrol tank of any car or motor cycle and then only 95 unleaded fuel needs to be used.Lead was put into petrol in 1936 to stop the KNOCK this product was developed in 1941 for the Royal Air Force.HOW LONG DOES IT LAST? Some companies claim unbelievable mileage but you cannot claim this as cars and motor cycles differ in the amount of fuel they consume.We therefore state that our product will be good for 100,000 miles.We give a 6000 mile test period, a full refund if you are not satisfied and a £1,000,000 product liability insurance underwritten at Lloyds.ONE FINAL POINT IF YOU LEAVE YOUR CAR OR MOTOR CYCLE FOR MONTHS ON END WITHOUT USING IT THE FORMULA POWER FUEL CATALYST WILL KEEP THE FUEL FRESH AND STOP IT BECOMING STALE.MADE IN BRITAIN MADE IN BRITAIN MADE IN BRITAIN" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted January 19, 2016 Report Share Posted January 19, 2016 Bullshit baffles brains. Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Motorsport Mickey Posted January 19, 2016 Report Share Posted January 19, 2016 Just a snake oil product to trap drivers who think that the fuel companies don't spend stupid amounts of money on their products. There is no way to have higher octane fuel other than to blend it to be so, and the oil companies are under the cosh to keep removing octane and make it safer. Don't waste your money. Mick Richards Quote Link to post Share on other sites
peejay4A Posted January 19, 2016 Report Share Posted January 19, 2016 Not this one again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Salisbury Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 You might just as well chop up lumps of roofing lead and stick them in the tank, you'd get much the same result, that is nothing!!..... there is no substitute for properly blended Tetra-ethyl lead an organo-metallic liquid that was the original additive, by the petrol companies, to leaded petrol, all the other lead substitutes are just that, substitutes, none are as effective at raising the octane points, or protecting valve seats as TEL, that's why it was used for so long (still is in small supplies and in AVGAS aviation fuel) It's not cheap by any means but you can still buy Tetra-ethyl lead from Tetraboost and do the Chemistry set thing and add it to every tankfull, or fit hard exhaust valve seats and suitable exhaust valves, though even then you need to keep an eye on the octane rating of your petrol, or carefully adjust the timing for anything lower than 98octane, these cars were designed for the old 5Star 101plus octane stuff. Accept no substitutes!! Cheers, Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stevecross Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 +1 for Tetraboost. Been using it for 16 years now to run my 150bhp TR6 at 100 octane and for valve protection in many other cars. See you can buy in single bottles now rather than bulk. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lebro Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Ha ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerH Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Be very careful of any of the products with TEL in it. Not a good idea to get onto your hands - wear rubber/plastic gloves. Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 This ? http://tetraboost.com/order/ ATB Graham Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 +1 for Tetraboost. Been using it for 16 years now to run my 150bhp TR6 at 100 octane and for valve protection in many other cars. See you can buy in single bottles now rather than bulk. Steve Steve does it affect the paintwork if you spill it ? ATB Graham Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stevecross Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Graham Yes it does (don't ask me how I know!) As Roger says you need to take care with it. As the TR has a centre fill I keep a wide funnel in the boot. If I am just going out to fill the car up I dilute an appropriate amount into a can of petrol and pour that in first. If I am going to need to fill up when out I use a previously empty bottle containing just what I think I will need rather than carrying a full bottle to reduce the chance of spillage. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Hi Graham, you don't spill it . . . . . any carelessness with TEL and paintwork will be the least of your worries. Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) On the other hand.....tin might have some effect on fuels, possibly reducing gumming and coking: http://www.tinnovations.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Tin-Fuel-Catalysts-Mechanism.pdf BUT high quality modern fuels are protected against oxidation of oils to gums so I very much doubt a few balls of tin/lead in the tank would make any difference. That article reads very much like a come-on for funding, it is not a rigorous peer-reviewed piece of work. Most catalysts work best when they present a very high surface area to the reactants , the exact opposit of balls in a bag. I remain a sceptic. And if its octane that wanted, water injection will add 10 RON. https://supertrarged.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/tr6se-35-water-injection-revisited.pdf - and will decoke the inlet valves and piston crowns beautifully. WI does have a sound basis dating back to WWII aircraft. Peter Edited January 20, 2016 by Peter Cobbold Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Fremont Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 One of the gratifying aspects of lead removal in fuels is knowing that, despite my very " dirty " TR engines with their high overlap cams, I'm not spewing poison into the air in the form of lead - at least! Cheers, Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john.r.davies Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 I suppose the few recidivists who still fill up with lead won't make that much difference, but preventing Joe Driver doing so may have made a great difference to the world. There is good evidence (and with respect to Peter: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22484219)that after lead was removed from fuel and a twenty year delay because the children freed from lead had to grow up, the incidence of violent behaviour in urban populations fell. In fact that paper calculates that for every metric tonne of lead released, the incidence of violence rose by one and half times. I know, people will say, the world seems much more violent than it was twenty years ago, but there are other reasons for fighting. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobH Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Correlation does not imply causation. 100% of people who eat potatoes die. Should we ban potatoes? Edited January 20, 2016 by RobH Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don H. Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 ...There is good evidence (and with respect to Peter: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22484219)that after lead was removed from fuel and a twenty year delay because the children freed from lead had to grow up, the incidence of violent behaviour in urban populations fell. In fact that paper calculates that for every metric tonne of lead released, the incidence of violence rose by one and half times.... Linky no worky. On principle, I'm with RobH -- whatever sort of analysis led to a conclusion about urban violence twenty years after motor fuel lead content changes seems like a *real* stretch. Others have attributed US long term crime trends to other factors, such as the US Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion. They all seem like a conclusion jump of Olympic proportions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stillp Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Correlation does not imply causation. 100% of people who eat potatoes die. Should we ban potatoes? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stevecross Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 As a "recidivist" who runs50 year old cars rather than buying a new product every 4 years and then trying to feel smug because the manufacturer tells me 80% of it is recyclable, I will continue to add lead replacement to my car to make it run as efficiently as it was originally designed to do. I will also refuse to buy an electric car that relies on energy production from oil to produce the energy I wish to harvest. Especially that after production around 50% of that energy will have been lost sending it down the line just to be store in a secondary cell. I will also not have an extension lead trailing out of my letterbox for pedestrians to trip over while I charge it. I am also more than happy to replace an original ingredient to the fuel that my car was originally designed to run on. Not interested in "Joe Driver" but why he should want to change the octane of his fuel if his car does not need it, I don't know. The evidence that I see day after day ( pumped out from scientists that only appear interested in funding for the research that they are doing,) is constantly contradicted. Almost every week something that, almost as a mantra, we had been told was wrong is then contradicted. Sorry, I will continue to put Lead replacement into my classic and spend my time keeping it on the road rather than replacing it with a newly manufactured item made principally from steel from China where they could not care a flying F*** about pollution while watching this countries manufacturing base go down the pan And I will also start to eat more eggs after being told that they are not actually an issue anymore regarding cholesterol. How about that for a rant in a more violent society! Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) There's is no doubt lead at vanishingly low concentrations - picomolar - activates a key nerve signalling molecule, PKC. Mess with PKC and the biochemical/biological ramifications are countless. Lead is toxic to us, period, especially in the brain during development in utero and in childhood. Peter Edited January 20, 2016 by Peter Cobbold Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 As a "recidivist" who runs50 year old cars rather than buying a new product every 4 years and then trying to feel smug because the manufacturer tells me 80% of it is recyclable, I will continue to add lead replacement to my car to make it run as efficiently as it was originally designed to do. I will also refuse to buy an electric car that relies on energy production from oil to produce the energy I wish to harvest. Especially that after production around 50% of that energy will have been lost sending it down the line just to be store in a secondary cell. I will also not have an extension lead trailing out of my letterbox for pedestrians to trip over while I charge it. I am also more than happy to replace an original ingredient to the fuel that my car was originally designed to run on. Not interested in "Joe Driver" but why he should want to change the octane of his fuel if his car does not need it, I don't know. The evidence that I see day after day ( pumped out from scientists that only appear interested in funding for the research that they are doing,) is constantly contradicted. Almost every week something that, almost as a mantra, we had been told was wrong is then contradicted. Sorry, I will continue to put Lead replacement into my classic and spend my time keeping it on the road rather than replacing it with a newly manufactured item made principally from steel from China where they could not care a flying F*** about pollution while watching this countries manufacturing base go down the pan And I will also start to eat more eggs after being told that they are not actually an issue anymore regarding cholesterol. How about that for a rant in a more violent society! Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 As a "recidivist" who runs50 year old cars rather than buying a new product every 4 years and then trying to feel smug because the manufacturer tells me 80% of it is recyclable, I will continue to add lead replacement to my car to make it run as efficiently as it was originally designed to do. I will also refuse to buy an electric car that relies on energy production from oil to produce the energy I wish to harvest. Especially that after production around 50% of that energy will have been lost sending it down the line just to be store in a secondary cell. I will also not have an extension lead trailing out of my letterbox for pedestrians to trip over while I charge it. I am also more than happy to replace an original ingredient to the fuel that my car was originally designed to run on. Not interested in "Joe Driver" but why he should want to change the octane of his fuel if his car does not need it, I don't know. The evidence that I see day after day ( pumped out from scientists that only appear interested in funding for the research that they are doing,) is constantly contradicted. Almost every week something that, almost as a mantra, we had been told was wrong is then contradicted. Sorry, I will continue to put Lead replacement into my classic and spend my time keeping it on the road rather than replacing it with a newly manufactured item made principally from steel from China where they could not care a flying F*** about pollution while watching this countries manufacturing base go down the pan And I will also start to eat more eggs after being told that they are not actually an issue anymore regarding cholesterol. How about that for a rant in a more violent society! Steve Steve, What's the beef about science? Science is a discussion based on facts, and those discussions promote experiment and measurement to establish new facts,or refute older ones, and our understanding progresses. At any stage earlier discussions may be shown to be wrong, or only applicable in certain conditions. That's not what's wrong with science - that's what's right with it. And science is done in public - published - so we all get to hear about it. That's why the conflicting reports you complain about reach the news, despite the best efforts of commercial interests to kill the discussions: Ethyl Corp....tobacco...alcohol.......sugar....etc. Peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stevecross Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Peter I have no beef about science, just the way it is presented as fact when in fact, as you say, it stands there to be disproved later. Your comments regarding commercial interests attempts to kill discussions are valid. Unfortunately as most scientific research is funded by commercial interests in the first place you toss a coin to pick the good guys. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Cobbold Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Peter I have no beef about science, just the way it is presented as fact when in fact, as you say, it stands there to be disproved later. Your comments regarding commercial interests attempts to kill discussions are valid. Unfortunately as most scientific research is funded by commercial interests in the first place you toss a coin to pick the good guys. Steve Steve, Science is rarely if ever funded by commercial interests. Bell Labs springs to mind as an exception. But anything that is not published fails to contribute to the body of knowledge that is science. The commercial, behind-closed-doors work is 'development' and does not come under the scrutiny that science does. Almost all commercial "science" is a huge waste of resource and time. Drug companies spend billions but publish little.Their secret development fails, they go bust and the whole effort is lost for ever. Nothing is ever proved or disproved with certaintly in science - its all about probabilities. That's why we sometimes see conflicting reports in the press. Usually an underlying but unrecognised process explains the conflict. But at other times it is sheer bl888y lying and obfuscation by spin doctors paid by commercial interests that deliberately try to denounce science findings. Anyone who doesn't approve of the scientific method is welcome to try living without its benefits... Peter Edited January 20, 2016 by Peter Cobbold Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don H. Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 ...Almost all commercial "science" is a huge waste of resource and time... Peter, I'll agree, or at least stipulate, to most of your comments. But not this part. Sounds like a typical academic's elitist bias to this industrial scientist (smile). The three companies I've worked for in my career have developed a few products that were a bit more than a waste of resource and time. Think Nylon, Kevlar, Tyvek... The first desktop photocopier, the Xerox 914, the hydrocolloids xanthan gum and gellan gum... Knowledge was added to the collective as they've been the subject of hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers. They've been the basis of thousands of products in everyday life as the science was put to work through technology. No, commercial science is NOT a "huge waste" from where I stand. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.