FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW, YOU MAY HAVE SEEN ADVERTS IN THE GUISE OF EDITORIAL COPY FROM A BOSTON OUTFIT STYLING THEMSELVES "NATIONAL FUELSAVER CORPORATION" promoting what they stylee as "The Platinum FuelSaver."

The which is explained (and debunked) in this recent adjudication from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in Great Britain after complaints were received about the latest specimen of American Colonial Arrogance (so to speak) from between Land's End and John O'Groats:

Ad
A national press ad, for a fuel saving device, stated "U.S. Consumer Protection has confirmed the fuel saving described in this advertisement. Device may increase petrol mileage by 22% BOSTON, USA - National Fuelsaver Corporation has developed a low cost automotive accessory called the Platinum Petrol Saver which is guaranteed to increase petrol mileage by 22% while meeting all emission standards. With a simple connection to a vacuum line, the Petrol Saver adds platinum vapor [sic] economically to the air and fuel entering the engine. Since platinum enables non-burning fuel to burn, the Petrol Saver's platinum increases the percentage of fuel burning inside the engine from 68% of each gallon to 90% of each gallon, a 22% increase. Since unburnt fuel leaving an engine is pollution, this 22% of each gallon normally burns when it reaches the platinum of the catalytic converter. Unfortunately, the platinum of the catalytic converter burns this fuel outside of the engine, where the heat and energy produced from this fuel cannot give you more miles per gallon. But when the air and fuel carry the platinum into the engine, 22% more of each gallon burns inside the engine so that 22% fewer gallons are required to drive the same distance. After a five year study, the U.S. government concluded: 'Independent testing shows greater fuel savings with the Petrol Saver than the 22% claimed by the developer.' In addition to the fuel savings, the Petrol Saver has received patents for cleaning out the abrasive carbon and raising octane, making the premium fuels unnecessary for most vehicles ...".

Issue
1. Four complainants challenged whether the fuel saving claims could be substantiated.

2. Two complainants also challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied the product had been endorsed by the US Government.

Response
National Fuel Saver Corp (NFS) sent US Court documents from 1984 and two tables of results from fleet tests on 42 vehicles in 1980. NFS maintained that the Court documents were US federal court credentials that showed they met the highest standards of truth in advertising. They argued that the fleet tests were determined by the US courts to meet all necessary controls to be admitted as valid test data 25 years ago.

NFS argued that the platinum in their Platinum Petrol Saver performed its function inside each combustion chamber between the moment that the spark plug ignited (approximately 30 degrees before top dead centre of the compression stroke) and the moment that the exhaust valve opened 180 crankshaft degrees later (approximately 30 degrees before bottom dead centre of the power stroke). They argued that there had been no changes to petrol engines in the last 60 years regarding that part of the petrol engine's function and believed therefore that their evidence was sufficient.

NFS said their platinum process could not be demonstrated in a laboratory because the dispensing of the platinum required road vibration. They said the US courts had therefore accepted their fleet tests, which were backed up by court testimony on the controls that were applied to the baseline and the "after platinum" testing.

NFS asserted that the US court case had not been concerned with whether platinum would improve miles per gallon, which they believed everyone agreed on, but about the percentage of the fuel that burnt inside the engine and the percentage left in the engine unburnt. They said the US Government's Federal Test Procedure had proved that the perfectly tuned petrol engine burnt only 80% of its fuel, and data from the Champion Spark Plug Company had proved that the average engine was 12% worse, burning only 68% of its fuel. The US court had therefore ruled in favour of NFS test data. NFS said, once the court had accepted that only 68% of the fuel burnt in the average gasoline engine they accepted the fleet tests were consistent with the science.

NFS believed the use of platinum in catalytic converters performed the same function as their platinum inside the combustion chambers. They said platinum's function was to enable the fuel that would not normally burn inside the engine to burn there, and it was sufficiently successful to give the 22% increase in miles per gallon that they claimed.

Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the evidence sent by NFS. We also noted, however, the US court documents referred to a legal case about different NFS advertising claims in the US around 25 years ago and the test data consisted of two tables of data but did not contain any details of the methodology involved. We considered that, to substantiate the fuel saving claims in the ad, we would need to see robust documentary evidence. We considered that the evidence we had seen was not sufficient to support the fuel saving claims and concluded that the ad was therefore misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld
We considered that the claims "U.S. Consumer Protection has confirmed the fuel saving described" and "U.S. government concluded: 'Independent testing shows greater fuel savings with the Petrol Saver than the 22% claimed by the developer.'" implied that the product had been endorsed by the US Government. We noted the US Court documents referred to a legal case about different NFS advertising but considered that we had seen no evidence to support either claim and concluded that the ad was therefore misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 14.5 (Testimonials and endorsements).  

Action
We told NFS to withdraw the ad and advised them to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising in future.

In other words: If it won't exactly make the cut between Maine and Mauna Loa, don't expect likewise between Land's End and John O'Groats.

Let alone the likelihood of this working as advertised with coal-derived ersatz gasolines in the South African stylee or E85.