ezero1 device (CGON)

[mac11irl]

1 hour ago, Wino said:

The "up to ... less x", "up to ... more mpg" may not breach guidelines, but does anyone else who's watched the video on the cgon homepage think the "we've stripped down hundreds of engines looking for any possible problems..." line has the slightest possibility of being true? Sounds like a stinking-great whopper to me.

 

Why on earth would you need to strip down that many? This isn't a big rich company with lots of spare cash (far from it).  If they stripped down two or three after running the (miniscule amounts of) snake oil for a while, wouldn't that have been reassuring enough if they looked OK? 

Nope. I believe they should thousands stripped before going to market....

And have full unedited video of each engine being stripped and reassembled, tested before during and after the treatment.....

[fabdavrav]

12 hours ago, mac11irl said:

Nope. I believe they should thousands stripped before going to market....

And have full unedited video of each engine being stripped and reassembled, tested before during and after the treatment.....

 

When engine oils get tested do they do this many?...er NO!

 

When Manufactures come out with a new engine do they do this many?...er NO!

 

Did VAG do this many to pre-test the diesel gate fix?...er NO!

 

You will find it usually in the tens of engines in most cases which are tested...& maybe low hundreds... asking for more from a very small company is being ridiculous...

 

When people get their engine remapped, which loads on this forum do (amongst others) many of those companies use "generic" maps for that engine output which may have only been on one test engine & dyno once..& yet they quite happily hand over similar amounts of money & some of these remaps cause premature clutch wear out, make the emissions worse, void warranties, code out DPF's, etc. etc...

 

 

[Ootohere]

VW Group and other manufacturers like Ford do Design, R&D, Drive all over the world in all climated, drive mules, test test and test again, sign off, build and then sell, and when there are snagging faults ignore the customers doing real world testing, have them jump through hoops, then do service campaigns or World Wide recalls if forced to, do upgrades, change Service Schedules / Guidelines, issue TPI's, then tell customers with out of warranty, 

get to ****, on your own, then the drop that Technology / Engines and start all over again.

It is how it often is.

Hillman Imp was a classic for that many decades ago,

advanced technology / materials, tested around the world, engines run non stop, but not suitable components for taking to work or shops in Glasgow because that meant stopping and starting.

 

Ford Focus RS latest model, all that testing, all those videos, stunt driver / rally driver input, design in burps and farts from over fueling, 

just forget to build in reliability to the engine or drivetrain.

 

eg  A lesson to all manufacturers surely, not only talk the talk, walk the walk, and do not c-0ck it up, and say sorry when you do.

Ford Focus RS issues very like the issue with the last AUDI RS3 before this one at launch, and why the Media Launch team were warming up cars before the press took them out, otherwise they drank oil.

Then there was Twinchargers, best given a good thrash before parking up, and not using the OEM spark plugs, not even the eventually revised ones with a different gap that were and are still gash,

& do not use the VW Recommended Long Life Oil if you want a long lived engine.

http://revotechnik.com/support/technical/14tsi-twincharger-engine-issues 

Vorsprung Durch Technik= Admit nothing, all overblown online, ignore, and design more new tech, memories are short!

 

Edited 24 September, 2017 by Headinawayoffski

[mac11irl]

@fabdavrav

 

I think my laughing emoticon got missed there

I were takin the pish 

[burntcrisps2]

Very interesting article, that is a good read here...

 

http://bbc.in/2yrTnyW

 

Intersting to also see that older diesels are cleaner than newer models.

also points out that emissions analytics is independent organisation.

 

[mac11irl]

@burntcrisps2

 

Cough cough 

[Breezy_Pete]

I'll just leave this here (no, I didn't complain, but glad someone or two have).

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/cgon-ltd-a17-386763.html

[mac11irl]

2 hours ago, Wino said:

I'll just leave this here (no, I didn't complain, but glad someone or two have).

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/cgon-ltd-a17-386763.html

 

Nicely done... by whomsoever made the complaints!

[andythechief]

Hi- newbie here. Interested in this topic. Tried to get comments on CGON elsewhere but you all seem a lot more energetic! I'm well aware of the HHO people and free energy ideas; it is what it is and probably isn't.

 

I've read the ASA advert ruling, and no I don't work for CGON or indeed anyone in the automotive or government or any such related business to this topic. I happen to work for a company that makes and sells rain water harvesting systems and my main area of research is polymer honeycomb structures.

 

Why am I interested in CGON? Because I am an engineer I guess. And because my family all has VAG cars that we maintain ourselves, and one is even a diesel Skoda Yeti!

 

The inventor behind CGON, this Brian Sheard fella who some here alledge is attempting to sell snakeoil, remapped my A5 3.0 TDi several years ago. He's a real bloke making his living like the rest of us. I maintain my car myself and it has been trouble free since his remap at 36K miles. The car has now done 165K miles and my clutch and gearbox remain intact. So too my swirl flap mechanisam. I commute about 120 miles per day from north devon to Weston-super-mare, all at motorway speeds so I guess pretty kind to the big diesel lump as driving cycles go.

 

I think it unlikely Brain is not a  performance map developer, I saw no rolling roads or such like when I visited- that and he freely told me he used Quantumn maps so my testamony isn't to suggest he knows something significant that others do not, but I have used his services and chatted to his guys at the workshop. It is a garage with facilities to work on cars, pretty simple and a bit more of a 'shed' than your polished chain garage. It seems to me he setup a remapping and DPF 'maintenance' company having come out of the RN. From this perspective, this engineer in my view is a genuine chap. I believe that he believes in his product and has put significant ( relatively speaking) money and effort into it. I don't see many early retirees from the RN inventing stuff so I respect the chap for giving it a go whether his is on to something or not.

 

So the ASA- how many engineers take a product to market without sales people? My firm has sales people, they would sell their own family if they could. Coversely as an engineer I could lose them sales everyday! So, just because the ASA do not like the sales hype, and granted the evidence may not be conclusive, it does not mean that the idea behind this device does not have any merits at all.

 

I cannot find all the technical answers I want, like many here I have noted it would seem that this device and others like it will not generate a hugely significant increase in calorific contribution to combustion to reduce the use of existing fuel such that you would notice such a saving as to easily justify it financially, and herein is perhaps their business challenge as the cost of fuel is the thing which makes the economic argument. However, despite this lacking in evidence financial argument, I do believe there are probably merits in the combustion process improvements and the potential here is the most interesting to me.

 

The 64m dollar question is; does the combustion process benefit from an introduction of this gas give a benefit such that those gases which are causing our air to be polluted are reduced by a measurable amount?

 

This is hardly a NOS system, and there is not the infrastucture to provide such an equivalent volume of explosive compressed gas if it was anyway, this is just a small gas generator which makes a type or types of hydrogen with a special attention to the liquid used to do so. I have not done a patent search, but I guess you would not be able to protect an electrolyser as there must be an awful lot of them already patented.

 

I'm personally not just interested in having a formula that proves my £500 will repay me in fuel bill savings- I am also and mainly interested in air quality and the reduction in the most harmful emmissions which are plaguing our cities and many others around the world. I am also interested because I want to keep the freedom to drive my car, vans and bikes a while slightly reducing their existing impact on the environment a little. To do this I will pay money and I think so too will a lot of other people. I like electric cars, but they create other problems which may not be anymore palatable in the long run so as yet I have not bought one.

 

I am also interested because I tinker with cars and I can see the day coming that the results of my car tinkering are going to catch up with me at an improved MOT testing station....the days of certified at point of manufacture with a CO2 sticker are numbered in my view. It will take a while, but eventually opacity and the presence of a DPF will not be sufficient for our beloved diesels. If diesel scrappage does go ahead en-mass, you can guess who is going to be paying for the government sponsored scheme...

 

I think CGON should be considered to be primarily about an improvement in harmful gaseous emmissions. The question many have including me is; is there is a discernable improvement and can this be measured and validated?

 

There appear to be some on here who know more about chemistry than I do so to them I ask this; if you were to want to collect data to assess the efficacy of this or a system like it, what parameters would you seek to measure, to what resolution and with what frequency? Do you know what sort of transducers you would use? I have read a little about Efficient Dynamics and what they are interested in, which appears to be the real world driving emmission tests.  This is not exactly the same as what CGON are interested in but clearly it is a readily available body of knowledge and capability which CGON have sought to tap into. Is it just a case of getting them to do more of the same with Efficient Dynamics or is there something missing from this approach? If so, what?

 

No I have not bought one of these, but I am very interested to do so if only as an experiment- who knows, perhaps my variable geometry turbo might last a little longer before it gets stuck. The device isn't the cost issue I am bothered about, but the reliable and robust way to analyse it's effects is because I do not have the gaseous chemistry skills to back up a data acquisition system which I could probably create without too much of a problem if there were other skills to design the sampling transducer side of things. I think there are some real experimental challenges here, because quite frankly unless you use the vehicle in exactly the same way on exactly the same road at exactly the same speed, your results are not going to be directly, quantitatively comparable. However, it all comes down to the magnitude of improvement and the accuracy with which effects can be measured. You can do so much on a engine test bed and I have a friend that used to do this for a major automotive manufacturer, but these are almost legislation driven test platforms- make the emmissions hit these targets which of course we know now means beat the test! The advent of real world emmissions tests opens a new approach and means that if emmission retrofits like CGON could be used and were effective, this would be a far more cost effective alternative to diesel scrappage and could have an immediate effect in our cities. Not everyone is as lucky to live in the prevailing atlantic breeze.

 

Is anyone with contributory skills interested to find out too?

Edited 23 October, 2017 by andythechief

[andythechief]

Apologies- reading a heap of typos I cannot edit. Efficient Dynamics one in particular, this is meant to be Emmission Analytics

Edited 23 October, 2017 by andythechief

[chimaera]

You claim to be an engineer, and to have read this thread, yet you still think there's merit to testing this nonsense?

 

To reiterate: the laws of thermodynamics say this device can't do what it claims to do. End. Of. Story. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

[Breezy_Pete]

Brian Sheard is no longer registered as being in charge of this company.

The patent application has little chance of being granted, IMO, having read it.

 

 

 

[andythechief]

8 hours ago, chimaera said:

You claim to be an engineer, and to have read this thread, yet you still think there's merit to testing this nonsense?

 

To reiterate: the laws of thermodynamics say this device can't do what it claims to do. End. Of. Story. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

Testing yes- why not test to prove it does not work if that sounds more appealing?

 

The laws of thermodynamics pertain to conservation of energy. Internal combustion engines and the way gases mix and fuels burn are not purely governed by a simplistic application of the laws of thermodynamics.

 

I try not to make polar judgements about something purely by academic laws. I am an engineer, not an academic. For me this is about real world conditions and efficiency not challenging the laws of physics getting more energy out than you put in which clearly will never happen. Car engines have become more efficient since the laws of thermodynamics were written.

 

Yes, I agree someone is trying to sell something. Sales people are everywhere and I mostly dislike them. That does not mean the device does not have an effect and I am interested to know what effect in a quantitative way.

[andythechief]

2 hours ago, Wino said:

Brian Sheard is no longer registered as being in charge of this company.

The patent application has little chance of being granted, IMO, having read it.

 

 

 

Brian Sheard- yes I found this too https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08234358/filing-history?page=1 but I assume he is still involved although may not be the major share holder. I have his number somewhere from when I had the remap done, I'll see if I can reach him.

 

I also found this rather commercially damning web page http://fantasyequitycrowdfunding.blogspot.co.at/2016/07/cgon-takes-crowdcube-prize-for-seismic.html Although tempting to conclude this just means it is all a failure, I would rather get back to first principals and see what the device does.

 

I'm not so interested in patents or current commercial success to be honest. Having said that, which patent have you read? I can find three with a quick search:

 

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=20170705&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=GB&NR=2545911A&KC=A&ND=4

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=15&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20170629&CC=WO&NR=2017109446A1&KC=A1

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=17&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20170526&CC=WO&NR=2017085438A1&KC=A1

 

I managed to download the UK patent from here https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/ but not the other two worldwide applications.

 

I am still interested in the actual effects. IP does not prove anything useful for me.

[fabdavrav]

 

15 hours ago, andythechief said:

Hi- newbie here. Interested in this topic. Tried to get comments on CGON elsewhere but you all seem a lot more energetic! I'm well aware of the HHO people and free energy ideas; it is what it is and probably isn't.

 

I've read the ASA advert ruling, and no I don't work for CGON or indeed anyone in the automotive or government or any such related business to this topic. I happen to work for a company that makes and sells rain water harvesting systems and my main area of research is polymer honeycomb structures.

 

Why am I interested in CGON? Because I am an engineer I guess. And because my family all has VAG cars that we maintain ourselves, and one is even a diesel Skoda Yeti!

 

 

I too read the ASA article.....basically its an advertising technicality......CGON effectively did a catch all statement, when they should have done a specific singular statement.....

 

Something I said earlier in this thread:-

When people get their engine remapped, which loads on this forum do (amongst others) many of those companies use "generic" maps for that engine output which may have only been on one test engine & dyno once..& yet they quite happily hand over similar amounts of money & some of these remaps cause premature clutch wear out, make the emissions worse, void warranties, code out DPF's, etc. etc...& how many get their cars on dynos & basically cry when their maps don't produce the claimed power?...again this happens...

 

Again as I have said earlier the basic principal of using hydrogen to crack the fuel into smaller bits is well used in the oil industry....it's called "hydrocracking"...

 

I'll just Quote from wiki as it's nice & easy instead of writing out from text book...

I. Heavy aromatic feedstock is converted into lighter products.....

The primary functions of hydrogen are, thus:

1. preventing the formation of polycyclic aromatic compounds if feedstock has a high paraffinic content,
2. reducing tar formation,
3. reducing impurities,
4. preventing buildup of coke on the catalyst,
5. converting sulfur and nitrogen compounds present in the feedstock to hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, and
6. achieving high cetane number fuel

you could fit a hydrogen tank in the boot & injected the hydrogen into the combustion chamber to achieve a similar result, just that this device is a self contained hydrogen generator which has power input from the engine to operate it.

 

The idea of fitting one to a dirty diesel to clean up the exhaust air is a far more eco/green thing to do instead of ditching an otherwise good vehicle & buying a new eco one considering the extra materials the new car will have consumed from the earth...why rip up the earth to be more eco when you can improve the existing?...

Edited 24 October, 2017 by fabdavrav

[Breezy_Pete]

I bet the real applications use a shed load more hydrogen per unit mass of hydrocarbon. Orders of magnitude more, I should think.

[mac11irl]

@Wino i agree...

 

In theory and practical applications adding more hydrogen to the chemistry of the burn will make it more efficient,yeah. (Adding liquid oxygen has an even better effect....)

 

And yeah putting a tank of it in the boot would do great wonders. But hydrogen is a notorious pain in the arse to store as it tends to leak through tiny molecular holes and interact with everything. So there is a safety issue driving around with that in the back..

The issue with cgon's doohickey and many many other similar products is the tiny amount of additional hydrogen they can produce. And the amount of energy they need to take from the engine in order to produce the tiny amount of hydrogen to improve the engines efficiency. The laws of thermodynamics arent made up because that what some olde scientific types decided, they are just the written down basics of how physics in this universe (which according to CERN last week, shouldnt even exist due to its own laws and measurements made) has to work..they cant be changed.

 

If the system makes the engine cleaner running, great, but dont think its going to do that without needing to use energy to accomplish it. If its cleaner but reduces power and mpg to do that... is it really cleaner??

[chimaera]

Plus, unless you're storing liquid hydrogen, it's not very energy dense. Ford tested a hydrogen fuelled Mondeo 2.0 several years ago and only managed to get 50 bhp out of it, when its petrol cousin was around 140 bhp.

 

As I mentioned before, one major failing of all of these devices is that the gas mixture they generate is homogenously mixed with the intake charge to a dilute enough level that it's not going to meaningfully contribute to the combustion event. Combustion involves a cascade of bond-breaking in the fuel molecule until it's a mixture of carbon and hydrogen radicals floating around looking for some oxygen molecules to pull asunder so they can turn into CO2 and water. The H2 molecules will meet the same fate.

 

If the device was configured so that the gas mixture was deposited right in front of the spark plug/fuel injector just before ingnition, it might _just_ have the effect described, but it'd be tiny if it happened at all. There's just not enough hydrogen there to do anything meaningful.

[tubbyleigh]

On 10/23/2017 at 18:38, andythechief said:

Hi- newbie here. Interested in this topic. Tried to get comments on CGON elsewhere but you all seem a lot more energetic! I'm well aware of the HHO people and free energy ideas; it is what it is and probably isn't.

 

I've read the ASA advert ruling, and no I don't work for CGON or indeed anyone in the automotive or government or any such related business to this topic. I happen to work for a company that makes and sells rain water harvesting systems and my main area of research is polymer honeycomb structures.

 

Why am I interested in CGON? Because I am an engineer I guess. And because my family all has VAG cars that we maintain ourselves, and one is even a diesel Skoda Yeti!

 

The inventor behind CGON, this Brian Sheard fella who some here alledge is attempting to sell snakeoil, remapped my A5 3.0 TDi several years ago. He's a real bloke making his living like the rest of us. I maintain my car myself and it has been trouble free since his remap at 36K miles. The car has now done 165K miles and my clutch and gearbox remain intact. So too my swirl flap mechanisam. I commute about 120 miles per day from north devon to Weston-super-mare, all at motorway speeds so I guess pretty kind to the big diesel lump as driving cycles go.

 

I think it unlikely Brain is not a  performance map developer, I saw no rolling roads or such like when I visited- that and he freely told me he used Quantumn maps so my testamony isn't to suggest he knows something significant that others do not, but I have used his services and chatted to his guys at the workshop. It is a garage with facilities to work on cars, pretty simple and a bit more of a 'shed' than your polished chain garage. It seems to me he setup a remapping and DPF 'maintenance' company having come out of the RN. From this perspective, this engineer in my view is a genuine chap. I believe that he believes in his product and has put significant ( relatively speaking) money and effort into it. I don't see many early retirees from the RN inventing stuff so I respect the chap for giving it a go whether his is on to something or not.

 

So the ASA- how many engineers take a product to market without sales people? My firm has sales people, they would sell their own family if they could. Coversely as an engineer I could lose them sales everyday! So, just because the ASA do not like the sales hype, and granted the evidence may not be conclusive, it does not mean that the idea behind this device does not have any merits at all.

 

I cannot find all the technical answers I want, like many here I have noted it would seem that this device and others like it will not generate a hugely significant increase in calorific contribution to combustion to reduce the use of existing fuel such that you would notice such a saving as to easily justify it financially, and herein is perhaps their business challenge as the cost of fuel is the thing which makes the economic argument. However, despite this lacking in evidence financial argument, I do believe there are probably merits in the combustion process improvements and the potential here is the most interesting to me.

 

The 64m dollar question is; does the combustion process benefit from an introduction of this gas give a benefit such that those gases which are causing our air to be polluted are reduced by a measurable amount?

 

This is hardly a NOS system, and there is not the infrastucture to provide such an equivalent volume of explosive compressed gas if it was anyway, this is just a small gas generator which makes a type or types of hydrogen with a special attention to the liquid used to do so. I have not done a patent search, but I guess you would not be able to protect an electrolyser as there must be an awful lot of them already patented.

 

I'm personally not just interested in having a formula that proves my £500 will repay me in fuel bill savings- I am also and mainly interested in air quality and the reduction in the most harmful emmissions which are plaguing our cities and many others around the world. I am also interested because I want to keep the freedom to drive my car, vans and bikes a while slightly reducing their existing impact on the environment a little. To do this I will pay money and I think so too will a lot of other people. I like electric cars, but they create other problems which may not be anymore palatable in the long run so as yet I have not bought one.

 

I am also interested because I tinker with cars and I can see the day coming that the results of my car tinkering are going to catch up with me at an improved MOT testing station....the days of certified at point of manufacture with a CO2 sticker are numbered in my view. It will take a while, but eventually opacity and the presence of a DPF will not be sufficient for our beloved diesels. If diesel scrappage does go ahead en-mass, you can guess who is going to be paying for the government sponsored scheme...

 

I think CGON should be considered to be primarily about an improvement in harmful gaseous emmissions. The question many have including me is; is there is a discernable improvement and can this be measured and validated?

 

There appear to be some on here who know more about chemistry than I do so to them I ask this; if you were to want to collect data to assess the efficacy of this or a system like it, what parameters would you seek to measure, to what resolution and with what frequency? Do you know what sort of transducers you would use? I have read a little about Efficient Dynamics and what they are interested in, which appears to be the real world driving emmission tests.  This is not exactly the same as what CGON are interested in but clearly it is a readily available body of knowledge and capability which CGON have sought to tap into. Is it just a case of getting them to do more of the same with Efficient Dynamics or is there something missing from this approach? If so, what?

 

No I have not bought one of these, but I am very interested to do so if only as an experiment- who knows, perhaps my variable geometry turbo might last a little longer before it gets stuck. The device isn't the cost issue I am bothered about, but the reliable and robust way to analyse it's effects is because I do not have the gaseous chemistry skills to back up a data acquisition system which I could probably create without too much of a problem if there were other skills to design the sampling transducer side of things. I think there are some real experimental challenges here, because quite frankly unless you use the vehicle in exactly the same way on exactly the same road at exactly the same speed, your results are not going to be directly, quantitatively comparable. However, it all comes down to the magnitude of improvement and the accuracy with which effects can be measured. You can do so much on a engine test bed and I have a friend that used to do this for a major automotive manufacturer, but these are almost legislation driven test platforms- make the emmissions hit these targets which of course we know now means beat the test! The advent of real world emmissions tests opens a new approach and means that if emmission retrofits like CGON could be used and were effective, this would be a far more cost effective alternative to diesel scrappage and could have an immediate effect in our cities. Not everyone is as lucky to live in the prevailing atlantic breeze.

 

Is anyone with contributory skills interested to find out too?

Hi there. I'm a mechanic who has just fitted my first cgon ezero1 to a customers car, so yes, i am selling this product.

I won't say where i work, so i have nothing to gain from this. The the profit margins are not great anyway!

Fitted unit to a 2006 merc e220d and can report a 33% reduction in emissions as tested on MOT equipment. Cgon say this will improve as the car is driven but i can't comment on this or and fuel saving.

I can say, with confidence that less soot will mean less clogging of EGR valves, variable geometry turbos and DPFs which is enough for me to recommend this product.

That is all and i hope it helps. Please don't hate me for stating my personal findings and personal opinions. 

[mac11irl]

3 hours ago, tubbyleigh said:

Hi there. I'm a mechanic who has just fitted my first cgon ezero1 to a customers car, so yes, i am selling this product.

I won't say where i work, so i have nothing to gain from this. The the profit margins are not great anyway!

Fitted unit to a 2006 merc e220d and can report a 33% reduction in emissions as tested on MOT equipment. Cgon say this will improve as the car is driven but i can't comment on this or and fuel saving.

I can say, with confidence that less soot will mean less clogging of EGR valves, variable geometry turbos and DPFs which is enough for me to recommend this product.

That is all and i hope it helps. Please don't hate me for stating my personal findings and personal opinions. 

 

Did you do pre and post data logging?

Be interested to see the results if you did?

[chimaera]

4 hours ago, tubbyleigh said:

Hi there. I'm a mechanic who has just fitted my first cgon ezero1 to a customers car, so yes, i am selling this product.

I won't say where i work, so i have nothing to gain from this. The the profit margins are not great anyway!

Fitted unit to a 2006 merc e220d and can report a 33% reduction in emissions as tested on MOT equipment. Cgon say this will improve as the car is driven but i can't comment on this or and fuel saving.

I can say, with confidence that less soot will mean less clogging of EGR valves, variable geometry turbos and DPFs which is enough for me to recommend this product.

That is all and i hope it helps. Please don't hate me for stating my personal findings and personal opinions. 

What was your test protocol?

 

What emissions did you check and what were the actual readings for each test?

 

Did you measure oil and coolant temperature for pre and post install tests?

 

If so were they the same for both tests?

 

Did you do anything else to the car between the two tests?

[tubbyleigh]

I did do before and after tests as per cgon's fitting instructions. 

The merc had 120k miles on it btw. We Did an MOT on it 2 days ago and emissions read 1.5 ppm. Had it in today and after getting it really hot, emissions were 1.446ppm. After fitting and letting it run for a short time the emissions result was 0.978ppm. Not as good as cgon claim but I really should have given it a hard, long road test first I think. Also they claim there should be a further 10% reduction after using the car for a while. 

Unfortionatly this customer only does about 2k miles a year (don't know why he bothered really) so I'm not likely to get back to you all with any fuel savings. 

[Breezy_Pete]

Is that an HC reading?

[tubbyleigh]

No, not HC. For MOT on diesels the smoke tester only tests the density of smoke not what the smoke consists of. 

I hear a rumour that that may be changing soon or at least, we won't be able to use our exsisting smoke meters. 

[Breezy_Pete]

It was the ppm units that made me think HC; isn't the opacity in units of m-1?

Don't suppose you tried disconnecting the device from the battery to see if it gave a worse result again when not working?

Maybe try that on the next one.