Q. There are many who say that these gadgets don’t work. What do you have to say about that?

A. Well those comments are normally made by busybodies who just don’t know or by someone who has a vested competing interest. If the comment or assertion is made by someone who has not used the product, their remarks should be ignored. Ipso facto! They just plain would not know. Much of the adverse comment has been oil company inspired. Imagine the cost to the oil companies if our technology was widely adopted… it would reduce their revenues by as much as 10% across the board. They are not going to sit by idly and watch that happen. We have numerous instances where the oil companies have taken steps to compromise our product.

Q. If the technology is so good, how come the engine manufacturers have not adopted it?

A. These things take time. For example fuel injection was first used in 1902 but was not in widespread use until the 1980’s even 1990’s Source: Wikipedia . Another example is automatic transmission. It was first developed in 1904 but was not in general use until the 1970’s, even 1980’s. Source: Wikipedia. Our technology will eventually be adopted by the engine manufacturers as increasingly more and more stringent emission control measures are imposed.

Q. There was a test performed in 1996 by the University of Melbourne which produced an adverse finding as to the ability of the product to prevent valve seat recession in an older engine designed for leaded petrol when required to run on unleaded petrol. What do you have to say about that?

A. Two things. First the test protocol was ill-conceived. The test was conducted for 17 minutes only with the engine being run at full load and wide open throttle. Now, I ask you… who in their right mind would run an engine at full load and wide open throttle with freshly cut valve sets?? It just doesn’t happen in the real world. Second, the test was commissioned by the NZ Automobile Association with the aim of putting us out of business. First, they warned their members against using the product. They themselves had introduced a competing product, a liquid additive, to be used when leaded petrol was phased out in NZ in 1996. Then they commissioned the test, again informing their members of that fact, even inviting them to “watch this space” for the result. They failed to follow the published instructions to bolt the Fuelstar to the engine; it being left laying on the floor of the test laboratory, even after we had expressly asked for it to be bolted to the engine. By the way, this step is critical to the proper operation of the product and they knew it. Armed with the negative report they then vigorously publicised the findings, causing huge damage to our reputation and financial loss. That was their aim and they succeeded! They then filed an official complaint with the NZ Commerce Commission that we had engaged in false and misleading advertising. The complaint was dismissed. What they hadn’t allowed for was that the investigating officers with the Commerce Commission knew that the product worked as claimed. They had used it themselves in their own vehicles! There are two further items of interest. First, the NZAA had refused to tell us the identity of the test agency (until after the test was completed) thus denying us the opportunity of ensuring that the test was properly conducted. Second, the head of the Department of Engineering at the University of Melbourne (Professor Dr. Harry Watson) informed us that the test had been paid for by BP (British Petroleum). Now, that was a conspiracy against Fuelstar of the highest and most reprehensible proportion.

Q. If you had been so badly done by, as you claim, how come you didn’t take action through the Courts to claim damages?

A.. It’s the parties who have the deepest pockets who win Court cases. We simply did not have the millions of dollars at our disposal to mount the legal action.

Q. How can you confirm that your product does, in fact, prevent valve seat recession?

A. We sold 200,000 units in New Zealand in 1996-97 for use in older engines designed for leaded petrol when they were required to switch to unleaded petrol in early 1996. We did not have any cases, not one, of valve seat recession where our product was used. We even had cases where the valves were receding into the head and the recession was arrested or halted upon the installation of our product.

Q. You claim that your product will overcome pinking and detonation. How can you confirm that?

A. The pinking is normally highly audible. It simply disappears almost immediately after the installation of our product.

Q. Do you have results of formal testing by independent test agencies?

A. Lots of scientists will tell you that the right way to test a product is such an such or such and such. It depends who you ask. Ask 10 different engineers and you will likely get 10 different answers. There are numerous test protocols. The fact of the matter is that it is not possible to properly test a product unless the tester fully understands how the product works. Let me explain. This product works by (a) giving a more complete combustion and then (b) by reaping the reward as the product gradually cleans up the engine. This cleanup can take as long as 500 engine hours to be completed. Once the engine cleanup is complete, the improvement in combustion and the resultant improvement in fuel efficiency can be very great indeed. Therefore, the Australian test AS2877, for example, is useless because it is a 17 minute test before and then a 17 minute test immediately after the installation of the product. A proper test is one where the engine is tested before installation of the product (either city cycle or highway cycle) then the vehicle is returned to service for a period of say 3-400 engine hours, the engine oil is changed and then the engine is retested. Now this type of test costs USD250,000 and more so they are not done every week. The only one we did was in 2003 on a Nissan UD truck of 5 litres engine capacity. The test was conducted by California Environmental Engineering, which is the test authority for the California Air Resource Board, arguably the world’s leader in Clean Air Control. That test revealed a reduction in

  • fuel consumption by 24%
  • total hydrocarbons by 44%
  • carbon monoxide by 53%
  • carbon dioxide by 30%
  • NOx by 19%

See full report.

Q. Wow… that sounds almost too good to be true?

A. Bear in mind that we did not have a vehicle for the test. We had to go buy one. The vehicle we bought was an older vehicle, so the extent of deterioration of engine efficiency was likely greater than had the vehicle been newer. Nonetheless, the results are commensurate with what we see in actual practice.

Q. How difficult is installation?

A. It is just like installing an inline fuel fitter. Any competent mechanic can install it in less than one hour.

Q. Where can I buy the product?

A. To keep the cost down, they are available only online. Delivery is 24 hours in New Zealand and Australia… allow 5-8 days for other countries.

Q. Do you offer any guarantees?

A. Yes, we warrant that no engine damage will be sustained. In 25 years of operation we’ve not had any claims for engine damage. We also offer a 30 day money back no questions asked warranty.