Eolys Rip Off

cachaciero · Unread post by **cachaciero** » 08 Sep 2010, 10:52

During a Lexia session I discovered a new Diagnostic Message :-
Additive System Low Level Sensor fault Permanent. A check on the parameter pages said that additive low level had not been reached. Havn't yet reached firm conclusion about this apparent contradiction but anyway decided that if I was going to "attack" elements of the Eolys tank it would be a good idea to get some Eolys in.

Now we all know that Citroen charge a lot of money and logic said that there should be alternative sources which would be cheaper, so started the investigation.

After some considerable time on the web the only alternative source I could find was GSF. When I asked GSF for a price it was within a few quid of the CItroen further inquiries elicited the information that GSF get it from Citroen as being the only supplier, the belief is that TOTAL will only supply Citroen. If that is the case it explains the high price and I believe is also against ECC competition rules.

Now like most people I don't like being screwed over but this does leave me with a dilemma.

I agree in principal with the FAP system even though I know that it reduces performance and increases consumption a little I can accept this but I don't feel inclined to accept this and be screwed over at the same time so the question is is it time for the FAP to go ?

cachaciero

JohnD · Unread post by **JohnD** » 08 Sep 2010, 11:54

cachaciero wrote:
After some considerable time on the web the only alternative source I could find was GSF. When I asked GSF for a price it was within a few quid of the Citroën further inquiries elicited the information that GSF get it from Citroën as being the only supplier, the belief is that TOTAL will only supply Citroën. If that is the case it explains the high price and I believe is also against ECC competition rules.

Eolys was developed and is produced by Rhone-Poulenc or Rhodia as I believe they call themselves now. All pharmaceutical companies have copyright on any new product they bring to market for a period of ten years. Thereafter other companies can get in on the act. The fact that the formulation of Eolys was changed around 2003/4 probably means the start of a new ten year copyright period.

KP · Unread post by KP » 08 Sep 2010, 12:47

If you can get rid of the system and the FAP as well without always getting warning messeges up then i would do it, if only for the increased mpg as when it comes to MOT time don't they only smoke test diesels still??

cachaciero · Unread post by **cachaciero** » 08 Sep 2010, 14:15

Well having read up on the low level sensor which is part of the pump which is part of the tank and inseperable then if it really is U/S then the FAP system will have to go as I don't intend buying a complete new tank for a tuppeny halfpenny sensor! Mind I can think of possible repair schemes if I only knew what the value of the thermistor sensor was.

cachaciero

Unread post by **Paul-R** » 08 Sep 2010, 14:37

cachaciero wrote:Mind I can think of possible repair schemes if I only knew what the value of the thermistor sensor was.

My thoughts exactly concerning the outside air temperature sensor in the LH door mirror!

Anyway, back to the subject. Yes, I agree that it might be time to wave goodbye to the FAP. Ever since I came across a page in the Lexia readings of my C5 which gave all sort of options for the standing still FAP burn and then had an option for the FAP to be present, or not, I've considered that the job was eminently "do-able".

You might be the first one to take the plunge though.

cachaciero · Unread post by **cachaciero** » 08 Sep 2010, 18:41

Paul-R wrote: You might be the first one to take the plunge though.

No I won't be the first I have read in other fori of others that have done it. There are "several "system Approaches" to removing it but the one thing I would like to be able to do if possible is to remove the ceramic element complete because as I said I do think that the use of a FAP is an environmentally friendly thing to do and if in the future it should be that the required bits from a broken 2004 on car became available I might want to re-instate it.

cachaciero

Unread post by **myglaren** » 08 Sep 2010, 18:42

Have you tried Peugeot dealers for prices?
I believe that the FAP/Eolys system is also fitted to other Eurocars so a look at MBW, Mercedes etc might pay off.

Unread post by **myglaren** » 08 Sep 2010, 18:45

Have you tried Peugeot dealers for prices?
I believe that the FAP/Eolys system is also fitted to other Eurocars so a look at MBW, Mercedes etc might pay off.

kenhall1202 · Unread post by **kenhall1202** » 09 Sep 2010, 23:38

The latest Eolys fluid is also used on Ford diesel models with the FAP, although I don't think they use the Eolys name, just a part number. Try a Google search for FORD WSS-M99C127-A1.

imperial21 · Unread post by **imperial21** » 10 Sep 2010, 08:32

Hi have you seen this on ebay it might help ?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/EOLYS-176-PEUGEOT ... 3cb08c7096

JohnD · Unread post by **JohnD** » 10 Sep 2010, 08:43

Another one who has a Cit reon.

cachaciero · Unread post by **cachaciero** » 10 Sep 2010, 09:17

imperial21 wrote:Hi have you seen this on ebay it might help ?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/EOLYS-176-PEUGEOT ... 3cb08c7096

Unfortunately that is DPX176 which is for the later 2004 on C5.

cachaciero

cachaciero · Unread post by **cachaciero** » 10 Sep 2010, 09:37

JohnD wrote:
cachaciero wrote:

Eolys was developed and is produced by Rhone-Poulenc or Rhodia as I believe they call themselves now. All pharmaceutical companies have copyright on any new product they bring to market for a period of ten years. Thereafter other companies can get in on the act. The fact that the formulation of Eolys was changed around 2003/4 probably means the start of a new ten year copyright period.

That's an interesting dimension to the story but as I understand it Eolys is a mixture of cerium oxide Iron oxide in a Parafin base the only thing which I can see that would be possibly patentable is the exact formulation. I can't see that it would be that difficult for somebody else to make the same thing with a slight variation and be outside any patent.
In fact as to the "improved" formulation i.e DPX176 it could well be that the only difference is that there is a small increase in the active ingredients and the amount added to the fuel is slightly less which would for the same total quantity of additive give a slightly improved mileage between top ups which in fact is the case.

cachaciero

JohnD · Unread post by **JohnD** » 10 Sep 2010, 12:14

cachaciero wrote:
I can't see that it would be that difficult for somebody else to make the same thing with a slight variation and be outside any patent.

cachaciero

It's the idea and the process which is patented therefore anyone else is prohibited from using the same ingredients. The chemical and pharmaceutical industries have their own version of patent law. See here:-
In the pharmaceutical, chemical and biotechnology industries the patent normally equals the product, and protects the extensive investment in research required before placing it on the market. Patent protection for chemical and pharmaceutical products is especially important compared with other industries because the actual manufacturing process is often easy to replicate and can be copied with a fraction of the investment of that required for the research and clinical testing.

Clogzz · Unread post by **Clogzz** » 10 Sep 2010, 15:07

Think to have read on a French site to put diesel in the Eolys tank.
It surely hasn’t got taste buds

French Car Forum

Eolys Rip Off

Eolys Rip Off

Re: Eolys Rip Off

Re: Eolys Rip Off

Re: Eolys Rip Off