These tests were performed by laboratories unrelated to Fitch, the manufacturers of the engines, or fuels. Complete reports available upon request.

You can also view User Feedback.

Small Engines
Engine: 3.5 hp Tecumseh
Lab: Center for Emissions Research and Analysis
Test Procedure SAE J1088 and Cal Air Resources Board Raw Gas Method (RGM)

Test Results
Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrogen Oxides Fuel Use
Reduced 48% Reduced 38% Reduced 11% Reduced 36.5%

Power Sports Engines
Launch in external player

Two dyno printouts showing the difference in power from using Fitch to treat fuel.
  1. Fourth Gear dyno run Harley Davidson 2002 FLSTCI
  2. Full gear dyno run Suzuki GSXR 1100


Auto and SUV Engines


Gasoline

Engine: 350 cu in Chevy with carburetor and distributor
Lab: Automotive Testing and Development Services, Inc. Ontario California
Test Procedure: FTP 75


Test Results
dotCO(g/mi) HC(g/mi) NOx(g/mi) CO2(g/mi) Fuel Economy (mpg)
Baseline dot.844 .259 .889 675 13.12
With FFC dot.629 .238 .676 500 17.65
%Change dot25%arrow 8%arrow 24%arrow 26%arrow 34%arrow

Light Duty Diesel Engines
Engine: 4.2Liter 6 cyl Toyota Landcruiser
Lab: VIPAC Engineers and Scientists Melbourne Australia
Test Procedure: Composite Urban Emission Drive Cycle (CUEDC)


Test Results
dotCO(g/km) HC(g/km) NOx(g/km) CO2(g/km) PM(g/km)
Baseline dot.64 .22 2.42 321.35 .17
With FFC dot.53 .2 2.1 286.15 .14
% Change dot17%arrow 9%arrow 13%arrow 11%arrow 18%arrow

Fuel Consumption improved by 11%/km post Fitch installation

Engine:2002 GMC Duramax 6.6 liter
Lab: Vehicle and Engine Emission Testing Services, Ronkonkoma NY
Test Procedure: EPA CVS-75 Drive Cycle


Test Results
dotCO(g/mi) HC(g/mi) & NOx(g/mi) CO2(g/mi) PM(g/mi) mpg
Baseline Avg. dot2.239 3.819 963.552 0.357 10.25
With FFC dot2.175 3.106 841.113 0.253 12.04
Difference dot-.065 -0.713 -122.439 -0.104 1.55
% Change dot-2.89%arrow 18.66%arrow 12.71%arrow 29.03%arrow 14.46%arrow

Fuel Consumption improved by >12%/mi post Fitch installation

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines
Engine: 7.3liter Mercruiser 270 HP rated
Lab: Marine Corporation of America Franklin Indiana
Test Results
dotHP Firing Pressure (psi) Exhaust Temp (F)
Baseline dot266 @3400 1711 1156
With FFC dot268 @3400 1740 1151

Fuel Consumption declined from 19.1 gal / hour to 17.4 gal / hour post Fitch installation

Summary: The engine picked up 2 HP, increased fuel efficiency by 1.7 gallons per hour. Exhaust temperature was 5 degrees cooler. Firing Pressure rose 29 PSI. Firing pressures are a result of fuel and air mixtures and the percentages of the fuel burnt. The more complete the burn in the combustion chamber, the higher the firing pressures will be. Results of this test indicate fuel economy increased 10% without any loss of power.

Engine: International DT 466
Lab: Ocean Air Environmental LLC of Somis, California
Test Procedure: 5 (five) separate constant speed modes or steady-state load points.


Test Results
HC + NOx(gms/bp-hr) Opacity Bsfc gal/bhp-hr Consumption gal/hr
Baseline dot4.05 17.5 .0854 8.87
With FFC dot3.87 13.5 .0805 8.36
Difference dot-0.18 -4 -.0049 -.51
% Change dot4.51%arrow 22.86%arrow 5.75%arrow 5.75%arrow

Engine: Detroit Diesel Corporation Series 60
Lab: Ocean Air Environmental LLC of Somis, California
Test Procedure: 5 (five) separate constant speed modes or steady-state load points.


Test Results
HC + NOx(gms/bp-hr) Opacity Bsfc gal/bhp-hr Consumption gal/hr
Baseline dot9.59 7.3 .0518 10.8
With FFC dot9.49 2.3 .0490 10.18
Difference dot-0.1 -5 -.0028 -.62
% Change dot1.13%arrow 68.49%arrow 5.8%arrow 5.75%arrow