ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: BVG-Airflo Group plc

Complaint

Objections to a national press reader offer for a fuel efficiency device. The advertisement was headlined "Improve fuel economy by up to 15%". It stated "... the fuel saver creates a swirl of air which helps to burn petrol more efficiently. This produces lower emissions, an improvement of up to 15% in fuel economy and a crisper, more responsive drive ...".

1. Both complainants challenged the claim "Improve fuel economy by up to 15%" and

2. One complainant challenged the claim "Reduce emissions".

CAP Code

Adjudication

The promoters referred the Authority to information sent by the product manufacturers during a simultaneous investigation (Ecotek Technologies plc - published 21 April 2004). The manufacturers stated that the product was an air-bleed device. They asserted that air-bleed devices were generally acknowledged to change the performance of a car, improve fuel economy and reduce emissions because they introduced more air into the combustion engine. They sent a copy of the product''s patent certificate, several magazine reviews, a product test report, dated 1993, from a government laboratory (Warren Spring) that stated that using the device reduced emissions, and certificates that stated the results of two more independent tests performed by garages; one of the tests stated that using the device reduced fuel consumption and emissions and the other stated that using the device reduced carbon monoxide emissions.

The Authority took expert advice. It understood that, if the device was fitted according to the advertisers'' instructions, it would allow an air bleed into the intake manifold to occur only when the throttle was closed as the car was slowed by the engine (overrun conditions) and at idle. The Authority further understood that modern cars adjusted the air-fuel mix automatically and would compensate for any changes made to that mixture by the insertion of an air-bleed device. It understood that even if the evidence had shown that the product was effective on older, carburetted cars, it would not have demonstrated that the same device would be effective on modern cars. It understood that, in most fuel injected cars, if the car was overrunning, the fuel supply to the engine would be cut off. The Authority understood that the device was unlikely to have a great effect on engine performance. The Authority noted, moreover, that the patent was filed in 1998. It noted the advertisers had not substantiated that the patented device was identical to one tested in 1993. It further noted the device had undergone some design changes, but the advertisers did not provide more recent tests to show its efficacy.

1. Complaints upheld

The promoters referred the Authority to the reports and reviews submitted by the manufacturers. The Authority noted some of the tests reported an improvement in fuel economy. It took expert advice. The Authority understood that the test, performed in 1993 by the Warren Spring laboratory, seemed to be a draft report and did not have an authorised signature. It also understood that an error in the test process meant that the results of only one car were accurate and that the tests had not been run again, contrary to general practice. The Authority understood that the test cars had very high and variable emissions and that the report stated that further testing would be necessary to establish whether cars with lower emissions to start with would also benefit from using the device. It understood that the fuel consumption was not measured directly but was calculated from the emissions readings. It understood that, in two tests, performed in 1993 and 1998, by a garage, the testing was carried out over a very short distance and the method of measuring the distance was not always accurate. It understood, moreover, that the 1998 tests were performed on cars that had high mileage and that the results could not therefore be assumed to be valid for cars with lower mileage.

The Authority understood that, because not enough repeated testing was carried out in the government laboratory report, the garage tests or the tests run by motoring magazines, the data from those tests was insufficient to prove that there was a statistically significant improvement in fuel economy if the product was used. It considered, moreover, that the manufacturers had not shown that the product currently sold was identical to the device tested or that it could work on newer cars. The Authority concluded that the promoters and manufacturers had not substantiated the claim and told them to remove it.

2. Complaint upheld

The promoters referred the Authority to the reports and reviews submitted by the manufacturers. The Authority noted one of the garage tests reported a reduction in carbon monoxide emissions and the Warren Spring report reported reduced emissions of several components of car exhaust. The Authority noted the Warren Spring report stated that further testing would be necessary to establish whether cars with lower emissions to start with would also benefit from using the device. The Authority took expert advice. It understood that the methodology of the tests and product reviews meant that the results were not statistically significant. It considered, moreover, that the advertisers had not shown that the product currently sold was identical to the device tested or that it could work on newer cars. The Authority concluded that the evidence did not substantiate the claim and told the promoters and manufacturers to remove it.