An Evaluation of Rolfite Company's
Gasoline Fuel Additive "Upgrade"
March 1975
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Background
The Rolfite Company, of Stamford, Connecticut, first contacted the
Emission'"Control'Technology Division (ECTD) in the Spring of 1973 con-
cerning a fuel additive for gasoline which they had developed and were
marketing under the name of "Upgrade". The additive was evaluated in
the Spring of 1974 by an independent testing laboratory. A test program
was conducted following several suggestions from EPA which involved testing
a vehicle for emissions and fuel economy at baseline conditions without
the additive, at three different mileage points with the additive, and
then again without the additive. Results of that program indicated
significant pollutant emission reductions after Upgrade was added to •
the fuel and about 500 miles had been accumulated on the vehicle with
the treated fuel. No significant changes in fuel economy were seen. On
the basis of the emission reductions that occurred during the tests,
EPA agreed to test the additive. The test program began in December
1974 and ended in March 1975.
The Environmental Protection Agency receives information about many
devices and additives for which emission reduction or fuel economy
improvement claims are made. In some cases, both claims are made for
a single device or additive. In most cases, these products are being
recommended or promoted for retrofit to existing vehicles although
some represent advanced systems for meeting future standards.
The EPA is interested in evaluating the validity of the claims for
all such devices or additives because of the obvious benefits to the
Nation of identifying products that live up to their claims. For
that reason the EPA invites proponents of such products to provide
to the EPA complete technical data on the product's principle of
operation, together with test data on the product made by independent
laboratories. In those cases in which review by EPA technical staff
suggests that the data submitted show promise of confirming the claims
made for the product, confirmatory tests are scheduled at the EPA
Emissions Laboratory at Ann Arbor, Michigan. The results of all such
confirmatory test projects arc set forth in a series of Technology
Assessment and Evaluation Reports, of which this report is one.
The conclusions drawn from the EPA confirmatory tests are
necessarily of limited applicability. A complete evaluation of the
effectiveness of .a product in achieving its claimed performance
improvements on the many different types of vehicles that are in
actual use requires a much larger sample of test vehicles than is
economically feasible in the confirmatory test projects conducted
by EPA. I/ For promising products it is necessary that more extensive
test programs be carried out.
The conclusions from the EPA confirmatory test can be considered
to be quantitatively valid only for the specific type of vehicle used
in the EPA confirmatory test program. Although it is reasonable to
I/ See Federal Register 38 FR 11334, 3/27/74, for a description of the
test protocols proposed for definitive evaluations of the effective-
ness of retrofit devices.
-------
extrapolate the results from the EPA confirmatory test to other types of
vehicles in a directional or qualitative manner, i.e., to suggest that
similar results are likely to be achieved on other types of vehicles,
tests of the product on such other vehicles would be required to
reliably quantify results on other types of vehicles.
In summary, a device or additive that lives up to its claims in
the EPA confirmatory test must be further tested according to pro-
tocols described in footnote I/, to quantify its beneficial effects .
on a broad range of vehicles. A product which when tested by EPA does
not meet the claimed results would not appear to be a worthwhile
candidate for such further testing from the standpoint of the like-
lihood of ultimately validating the claims made. However, a definitive
quantitative evaluation of its effectiveness on a broad range of
vehicle types would equally require further tests in accordance with
footnote ]J.
Description of Additive
The Rolfite Company claims that Upgrade is designed to improve
combustion in spark ignition internal combustion engines to yield the
desired benefits of greater power, increased fuel economy, and reduced
pollutant emissions. It is mixed with gasoline in the amount of one
ounce (approximately 30 ml) per five gallons of gasoline (1:640 ratio).
Upgrade is a manganous-amine complex - an organic nitrogen com-
pound containing about 3 ppra manganese - and is soluble in gasoline.
According to a consultant to the Rolfite Company, Upgrade acts as a
catalyst in the combustion process which increases the flame front
velocity and the rate of development of pressure, and the pressure-
versus-crank-angle curve is optimized which increases power output.
Optimizing the combustion process would lead to increased fuel
economy by converting more heat energy into useful work.
Typical Properties of Upgrade
Form Liquid
Color Amber
Specific Gravity .92
Viscosity-SSU @ 100°F 130
Cleveland Open Cup Flash Point 320
Pour Point -20°F
-------
Test Procedure
Exhaust emissions tests were conducted according to the 1975
Federal Test Procedure described in the Federal Register of November 15,
1972. Additional tests included the EPA Highway Cycle. All tests were
conducted using an inertia weight of 4000 pounds (1814 kg) with a road
load setting of 12.0 horsepower (8.95 kW) at 50 miles per hour (80.5
km/'hr) . The vehicle used in the test program was a 1970 Chevrolet
Im-^ala with a 350 CID (5700 cc) engine and automatic transmission
(a complete vehicle description is given on the following page).
The test vehicle was first tuned to manufacturer's specifications,
in accordance with which the fuel-air mixture was set using the lean idle
speed roll-off method, since exhaust CO concentration is not specified.
Ignition timing was set at, 4° BTDC; exhaust CO concentration at idle
was 0.6%. Exhaust emissions tests were conducted at the conditions
and mileage intervals shown below. As a reference, the point at which
the additive was first used is termed zero miles.
Test Program Miles with Additive in Fuel
1. Baseline tests (without additive) -550
2. Accumulate 300 miles on AMA cycle
(without additive)
3. More baseline tests (without additive) -050
4. Tests with additive at low mileage 100
5. Accumulate 300 miles on AMA cycle
6. Tests (with additive) . 560
1. Accumulate 300 miles on AMA cycle
8. Tests (with additive) 1000
9. Accumulate 500 miles on AMA cycle
10. Tests (with additive) 1670
Because the vehicle was driven to and from the test track (about
50* miles each way) and because of vehicle preparation before testing,
the total mileage accumulated between emissions tests was higher than that
accumulated at the test track on the AMA cycle.
Steps No. 2 and 3 were done because the vehicle had not been
subjected to the AMA cycle for a period of time and it was felt
necessary to establish a baseline after some driving on this cycle.
Originally, step No. 8 was to be the last, but after this step a
stabilized level of emissions and fuel economy was not evident so
the final two steps were added.
-------
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1970 Chevrolet Irapala
Engine
type 4 stroke Otto Cycle, OHV, V-8
bore x stroke 4.00 x 3.48 in/102 x 88 mm
displacement 350 CID/5700 cc
compression ratio . . 9.00/1
maximum power @ rpm 250 HP/186 kW @ 4800 RPM
fuel metering . 2 barrel carburetor
fuel requirement 94 RON
Drive Train
transmission type automatic
final drive ratio 2.73
Chassis
type . . body/frame, front engine, rear wheel drive,
4 door sedan
tire size G 78 x 15
curb weight 3888 lbs/1765 kg
inertia weight 4000 Ib
passenger capacity six
Emission Control System
basic type engine modifications, PCV
Engine Specifications (at Idle in Drive)
rpm 620
dwell 30°
CO . . Initial Setting: .6% (air cleaner removed)
(^2.5% with air cleaner attached)
Final: .3% (air cleaner removed)
(^2.0% with air cleaner attached)
timing 4° BTDC
manifold vacuum 15" Hg
-------
Two valid '75 FTP's and two valid EPA Highway Cycles were run at
each of the above points with two exceptions: only one FTP was run at the
second baseline point (Step 3) and only one Highway Cycle was run during
the last test sequence (Step 10).
The fuel used for all testing, with and without the additive, was
Indolene Clear Gasoline.
Test Results
Exhaust emissions and fuel economy data are summarized in Tables
1 and 2 below. A complete listing of all emission and fuel economy
results obtained during the program can be found in Tables 1-A through
3-A of the Appendix.
Idle CO and spark timing settings remained constant except before
the final test series. At that point idle CO and ignition timing had
both decreased slightly, to .3% and 2° BTDC respectively. One test
was run at this condition. Timing was then increased to the original
4° BTDC setting and another test run. Since the timing had only been 2°
low (retarded) when the vehicle was first tested at this mileage, and this
is within the acceptable tolerance range, that test was deemed valid
along with the last one. The slight change in timing was the only
difference between the two.
Table 1
'75 FTP Composite Mass Emissions
grams per mile
(grams per kilometre)
Baseline - avg. of 3 tests
Additive - avg. of last
6 tests
% Change
HC
0%
CO
NOx
2.20 31.7 3.65
(1.37) (19.7) (2.26)
2.20 32.2 2.64
(1.37) (20rO) (2.26)
+1.6% 0%
Fuel Economy
(Fuel Consumption)
13.0 miles/gal
(18.1 litres/100 km)
13.5 miles/gal
(17.4 litres/100 km)
+4% in miles/gal
(-4% in litres/100 km)
-------
Table 2
EPA Highway Cycle
grams per mile
(grams per kilometre)
HC
CO
NOx
Baseline - avg. of 4 tests
1.15 13.94 4.24
(.71) (8.64) (2.63)
Additive
5 tests
% Change
- avg. of last
1.13
(.70)
-2%
13.28
(8.23)
-5%
4.73
(2.93)
+12%
Fuel Economy
(Fuel Consumption)
20.6 miles/gal
(11.4 litres/100 km)
20.8 miles/gal
(11.3 litres/100 km)
+1% in miles/gal)
(-1% in litres/100 km)
Perhaps a more significant summary of the test results is shown in
Figures 1 and 2. These figures plot the emissions and fuel economy history
of the test car during the program. No clear trends in either emissions
or fuel economy are apparent. A comparison of the Highway Cycle and '75
FTP urban cycle economy data tends to indicate that the drop in idle CO
noted before the last phase of the program may have more likely been
the results of a shift in carburetor calibration than some effect the
Rolfite additive was having on the combustion process. On the highway
cycle, where the carburetor's idle circuit has essentially no effect,
the last fuel economy value recorded was equal to the first baseline value.
The final 75 FTP (urban cycle) economy values, however, were 5% higher
than the initial baseline results. A change in idle CO adjustment would
tend to improve urban cycle fuel economy rather than Highway Cycle fuel
economy, where as an increase in combustion efficiency would be expected
to more uniformly improve economy, with some benefit on the Highway Cycle
being apparent.
A statistical "t" test was performed on both the '75 FTP and the Highway
Cycle tests which compared the baseline tests with the last 6 additive
tests (5 additive tests in the case of the Highway Cycle tests) to determine
if the two series were from different populations. The first two additive
tests were not used because the vehicle had not yet accumulated any AMA
driving cycle mileage. At the 90% confidence level there were no
significant differences in either emissions or fuel economy, with or
without the additive. The same test was performed using the baseline
tests and only the last test series, in which the vehicle had accumulated
over 1600 miles with the additive, and the results were the same.
-------
Conclusions
In tests conducted according to the '75 FTP at intervals during 1600
miles of mileage- accumulation, the Rolfite "Upgrade" gasoline additive
produced no significant changes in either exhaust emissions or fuel
economy. On the Highway Cycle test slight decreases in HC and CO
emissions were accompanied by a small increase in NOx emissions,
with no change in fuel economy.
The EPA test results did not confirm the emission reduction claims
made for the additive based upon the results of testing using Federal
exhaust emissions test procedures by an independent commercial laboratory.
No explanation for the discrepancy has been determined.
-------
MASS EMISSIONS
FIGURE 1
4.00
Hydrocarbon
of
Niirogen
E minions
(grant* per w\\»)
3.00
2.00
40.0
Carbon
Eci&ttoto
(gram s per nils)
20.0
BASELINES
ADDITIVE
-000
I
0
600
1260
1800
Milo«go from Addition of
-------
FUEL ECONOMY
FIGURE 2
22.0-
20.0-
18.0.
Fus!
Economy
(tnpg)
16.0-
14.0-
12.0-
to.o-
BASELINES i ADDITIVE
«
8.0-
•600
i
0
600
1200
1800
Mileage from Addition of Additive
-------
Appendix
TABLE 1-A
'75 FTP Composite Results
Mass Emissions, gpm
Fuel Economy, npg
D- t-p
C* Ul~
12-19
12-24
Test No.
15-7124
9-7154
1.
Test Type
Baseline
Baseline
Average
Without
HC
2.21
2.29
2.25
Additive
CO
35.1
32.9
34.0
C02
618
622
620
NOx
3.42
3.77
3.60
Fuel Economy
13.0
13.0
13.0
Odoa.
18569
18627
After 300-mile AMA Cycle
12-31
1-11
1-14
After
1-24
1-28
After
2-13
2-14
After
3-04
3-07
16-7158
16-7280
9-7334
300-Mile AMA
16-7479
16-7516
Baseline
Additive
Additive
Average
(-.. 1 n
L.JI «_j.S
Additive
Additive
Average
2.11
r
2. With
2.27
1.87
2.07
2.28
2.20
2.24
27.1
Additive
32.5
27.5
30.0
34.8
33.0
33.9
628
609
584
597
609
617
613
3.75
3.60
4.07
3.84
3.72
3.84
3.78
13.1
13.3
14.0
13.6
13.2
13.1
13.1
19067
19213
19261
_
19673
JL9734
Second 300-mile AMA Cycle
15-7749
16-7774
500-mile AMA
16-8036
15-8095
Additive
Additive
Average
Cycle
Additive
Additive
2.00
2.11
2.06
2.36
2.28
30.0
29.4
29.7
32vl
34.0
588
603
596
588
585
3.36
3.49
3.43
4.01
3.39
13.8
13.5
13.6
13.7
13.7
20120
20150
, 20768
20859
Average
2.32
33.1
587
3.70
13.7
-------
Table 2-A
Bag 1 Cold Transient
'75 FTP Individual Bag Results
Mass emissions, grams per mile
Fuel economy, miles per gallon
Bag 2 Hot Stabilized
Bag 3 Hot Transient
Test Number
15-7124
9-7154
16-7158
16-7280
9-7334
16-7479
16-7516
15-7749
16-7774
16-8036
15-8095
HC
2.72
2.50
2.64
3.08
2.40
2.65
2.80
2.45
2.50
3.02
3.08
CO
56.29
44.87
44.00
51.54
45.97
51.64
58.94
46.57
43.19
55.37
51.87
C00
X*
615
609
616
605
569
595
604
572
590
588
605
NOx
4.07
4.33
4.23
4.24
4.55
4.20
4.37
3.78
3.88
4.65
4.17
Fuel
Economy
12.5
12.9
12.8
12.8
13.7
13.0
12.6
13.6
13.3
13.0
12.7
HC
2.23
2.43
2.12
2.24
1.84
2.33
2.14
1.98
1.99
2.30
2.25
CO
32.19
33.34
25.74
32.47
24.97
34.76
28.94
30.01
28.67
36.25
32.98
C00
646
652
662
639
619
641
649
623
637
613
599
NOx
2.76
3.03
3.01
2.83
3.34
2.94
3.02
2.58
2.64
3.21-
2.54
Fuel
Economy
12.6
12.5
12.5
12.7
13.4
12.6
12.6
13.1
12.9
13.1
.13.5
HC
1.77
1.87
1.68
1.72
1.54
1.89
1.85
1.71
2.02
1.98
1.74
CO
24.82
23.00
17.02
18.33
18.32
22.13
21.28
17.32
20.41
6.66
22.53
CO,
A*
566
577
572
554
526
557
565
532
547
540
542
NOx
4.20
4.75
4.81
4.60
5.09
4.85
500
4.53
4.81
5.04
4.41
Fuel
Econori
14.5
14.3
14.7
15.1
15.8
14.8
14.7
15.7
15.1
15.9
15.2
-------
TABLE 3-A
EPA Highway Cycle
Mass Emissions, gpm
Fuel Economy, mpg
1. Without Additive
Date
12-19
12-24
Test No.
15-7124
9-7154
Following 300-mile
12-31
1-03
1-10
1-14
A-'ter
1-24
1-27
After
2-13
2-14
After
16-7158
16-7166
9-7280
19-7334
Test Type
Baseline
Baseline
Average
AMA Cycle
Baseline
Baseline
Average
Additive
Additive
Average
HC
1
1
1
1
1
1
2.
1
£
0
.15
.21
.18
.10
.14
• 12
With
.10
.55
.83
CO
15
13
14
13
14
13
.05
.24
.15
.31
.17
.74
CO?
398
412
405
403
405
404
NOx
3.64
4.39
4.02
4.42
4.53
4.48
Fuel Economy
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
9
3.
6
8 '-•
6.
7
Odoa.
18,591
18,646
19,079
19,126
Additive
12
15
14
.92
.10
.01
384
428
406
4.28
5.01
4.65
21.
19.
20.
8
6.
6
19,193
19,286
First 300-mile AMA Cycle
16-7479
16-7516
Additive
Additive
Average
1
I
1
.25
.13
.19
17
11
14
.83
.65
.74
405
418
412
4.44
4.92
4.68
20.
20.
20.
3
2^
2
19,673
19.724
Second 300-tnile AMA Cycle
15-7749
16-7774
500-mile AMA
Additive
Additive
Average
Cycle
1
1
1
.00
.12
.06
11
11
11
.13
.83
.38
377
405
391
4.13
5.19
5.10
22.
20.
21.
3
8
5
20,134
20,161
1.16
13.95
399
4.96
20.9
20,768
------- |