Powerplus fuel filter - Roger Jones
My revived Capri 2.8i is running happily on unleaded fuel with a lead additive. However, I saw in the Mercedes-Benz Club magazine this morning favourable mention of someone running an old unconverted Merc on unleaded with the Powerplus fuel filter. I have visited

www.magyk.com/pages/powerplus/

to see many plausible testimonials and other information.

Is this just another over-hyped gadget or has anyone here had a good experience with one?

(For the full Capri story:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=13...# )
Powerplus fuel filter - Adam Going (Tune-Up)
Hi Roger,

None of these "devices" (in-line or in-tank) were approved by the Federation of British Historic vehicle Clubs when they invited manufacturers to submit their products for testing in the early '90s. Names of products, owners of rights, and makers come and go, but early on we undertook some testing (and, indeed fitting) of a product called Powerplus and were completely underwhelmed by the product and the (then, at least) pyramid selling chain.

Many were fitted to cars that were unlikely ever to have a problem anyway (due to good original engineering and / or pattern of use), and often the "it feels like a different car" accolades were because it was fitted at a service and the car was going to feel better anyway !

I have personally seen more than one engine with bad valve seat recession after only a few thousand miles, and one very very expensive MGB engine with a cracked piston crown due to high-speed detonation with both an in-line unit AND the pellets in the tank.

As for tugging at the heart strings with the Spitfire connection..... I could go on !!

IMHO SNAKEOIL

Regards, Adam
Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble.
Powerplus fuel filter - Dizzy {P}
I absolutely agree with Adam. Warnings against being caught by these useless gadgets have also appeared in earlier threads, e.g. my posting www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=13...9
Powerplus fuel filter - Dizzy {P}
In my posting referred to above, I said that evidence showing that the gadgets don't work (and can even do harm) could not be made public due to agreements, etc. I think I can expand just a little on this without getting into trouble.

The situation was that the FVBHC were unable to finance tests by themselves as these required a supply of not only the gadgets but also a batch of engines to test them on, and test facilities as well of course, so they asked for the co-operation of the gadget makers. I think the gadget makers took part in the tests because a refusal to do so would immediately condemn their product.

The arrangement was that the gadget makers would submit samples for testing plus a few thousand pounds each towards the cost. In exchange for this support they required assurance that no results of the tests would be made public without their agreement. The result of this was that test failures ('catastrophies' in some cases!) were kept from the public.
 

Ask Honest John

Value my car