EPA-AA-TAEB 76-20
An Evaluation of the Morse Constant
Speed Accessory Drive
June 1976
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency receives information about many
systems which appear to offer potential for emission reduction or fuel
economy improvement compared to conventional engines and vehicles.
EPA's Emission Control Technology Division is interested in evaluating
all such systems, because of the obvious benefits to the Nation from the
identification of systems that can reduce emissions, improve economy, or
both. EPA invites developers of such systems to provide to the EPA
complete technical data on the system's principle of operation, together
with available test data on the system. In those cases in which review
by EPA technical staff suggests that the data available show promise,
attempts are made to schedule tests at the EPA Emissions' Laboratory at
Ann Arbor, Michigan. The results of all such test projects are set
forth in a series of Technology Assessment and Evaluation Reports, of
which this report is one.
The conclusions drawn from the EPA evaluation tests are necessarily
of limited applicability. A complete evaluation of the effectiveness of
a system in achieving 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 evaluation test
projects conducted by EPA. For promising systems it is necessary that
more extensive test programs be carried out.
The conclusions from the EPA evaluation test can be considered to
be quantitatively valid only for the specific test car used, however, it
is reasonable to extrapolate the results from the EPA 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.
Morse Chain, Division of Borg Warner Corporation, has developed a
variable-ratio drive to replace the fixed-ratio waterpump drive con-
ventionally used on automobiles. Information and data supplied to the
EPA by Morse indicated that the Morse variable-ratio drive had potential
for fuel economy improvement when compared to conventional fixed-ratio
drives. The fuel economy improvement is due to reducing the horsepower
used to drive the waterpump, and hence the engine-powered accessories.
To attempt to quantify this potential fuel economy improvement, an
evaluation of the Morse drive was scheduled at the EPA's Ann Arbor,
Michigan laboratory.
-------
Test Vehicle Description
The vehicle (furnished by Morse) used in the test program was a
1975 Chevrolet Nova powered by a 1976 305 cu. in. engine, and equipped
with a three speed automatic transmission. The Nova was tested at an
inertia weight of 4000 Ibs.
In the standard production configuration, the waterpump is driven
at 1.25 times crankshaft speed by means of pulleys and V-belt. Acces-
sories (alternator, air conditioning and power steering), are driven from
the waterpump shaft with V-belts and pulleys; The drive ratios for the
accessories must be such that adequate output can be obtained from the
accessories at low engine speeds ..(idle, stop-and-go driving, etc.).
Consequently, at high engine speeds, the accessories may be driven
faster than is necessary to provide required, outputs, and thus absorb
more power than is necessary.
The Morse Controlled Speed Accessory Drive (CSAD) is designed to
reduce this energy loss by using a variable-ratio drive between the
crankshaft and waterpump. The Morse CSAD replaces the fixed pulleys on
the crankshaft and waterpump with pulleys whose effective diameter is
controlled by engine speed (rpm). The waterpump and crankshaft pulleys
are connected by a variable speed belt.
The CSAD is designed to maintain a fixed ratio between crankshaft
and waterpump up to about 1100 rpm (engine speed). As the engine speed
increases above 1100 rpm, the CSAD changes the drive ratio to maintain
constant output up to 2100 rpm (engine speed). Above 2100 rpm, the
ratio of the CSAD is fixed, so further increases in engine speed result
in increased accessory speeds. However, the rate of increase in ac-
cessory speeds is less than the rate of increase in engine speed.
In the production configuration, the test vehicle is equipped with
a flex-fan. The flex-fan is also used in the Morse CSAD installations,
and is driven on the waterpump shaft.
Test Program
Exhaust emissions and fuel economy were measured in accordance with
the 1975 Federal Test Procedure ('75 FTP). Emissions and fuel economy
were also measured during the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test and under
several steeidy state conditions. One exception to the '75 FTP was the
ambient temperature maintained during the test program. The test cell
temperature was maintained between 86 and 91 F during all tests. This
was done to provide additional load on the engine accessories during
certain portions of the test program.
-------
One of the problems of this test program was to generate sufficient
accessory loads during a chassis dynamometer emission test to demonstrate
the effects of the Morse CSAD. It was anticipated that the CSAD would
show its greatest benefit under conditions of high accessory loading.
Of the accessories installed on the test vehicle, the alternator and air
conditioning compressor could provide the most easily adjustable loads
on the engine.
Tests were conducted under two accessory loads. For the first test
condition, no additional accessory loads were imposed on the engine.
The benefits of the CSAD were expected to be minimal under this con-
dition. For the second test condition, the air conditioning system was
operated with driver controls set at maximum air conditioner settings,
and the high-beam headlights were turned on. Operating the air con-
ditioning at maximum output kept the air conditioning compressor operating
continuously during the test. Additional load was imposed on the air
conditioning system by the higher-than-normal ambient temperature main-
tained throughout the test program. No attempt was made to vary the
power steering pump load.
Tests were conducted with and without (baseline) the CSAD installed
on the test vehicle. For each vehicle configuration, tests were con-
ducted with and without increased accessory load.
Test Results
Test results, summarized below, show the effect of the Morse CSAD
on exhaust emissions and fuel economy during the '75 FTP.
'75 FTP*
Mass emissions in
grams per mile
(grams per kilometer)
No accessory load
Fuel Economy
HC CO NOx (Fuel Consumption)
Baseline-avg. 0.60 6.3 2.20 14.7 miles/gal.
of 2 tests (0.37) (3.9) (1.37) (16.0 liters/lOOkm)
CSAD-avg.
of 2 tests
% Change
0.69 8.0 2.20 14.6 miles/gal.
(0.43) (5.0) (1.37) (16.1 liters/lOOkm)
+15% +27% 0 -1%
(+1%)
* Ambient temperature between 86-91°F.
-------
175 FTP*
Mass emissions in
grams per mile
(grams per kilometer)
AC-lights on
HC
CO
NOx
Baseline-avg.
of 2 tests
CSAD-avg .
of 2 tests
1.05
(0.65)
0.88
(0.55)
21.9
(13.6)
15.6
(9.7)
3.13
(1.95)
2.88
(1.79)
% change
from baseline
-16%
-29%
Fuel Economy
(Fuel Consumption)
12.6 miles/gal.
(18.7 liters/lOOkm)
13.3 miles/gal.
(17.7 liters/lOOkm)
+6%
(-5%)
Similarly, the results obtained during the Highway Fuel Economy
Test are summarized below.
HFET*
Mass emissions in
grams per mile
(grams per kilometer)
No accessory load
HC
CO
Baseline-avg .
of 2 tests
CSAD-avg.
of 2 tests
0.14
(0.09)
0.43
(0.27)
5.6
(3.5)
17.8
(11.1)
1.88
(1.17)
1.72
(1.07)
% change
from baseline
+207%
+218%
Fuel Economy
NOx (Fuel Consumption)
20.1 miles/gal.
(11.7 liters/lOOkm)
20.3 miles/gal.
(11.6 liters/lOOkm)
-9% +1%
(-1%)
* Ambient temperature between 86-91°F.
-------
HFET*
Mass emissions in
grams per mile
(grams per kilometer)
AC-lights on
Fuel Economy
HC CO NOx (Fuel Consumption)
Baseline-avg. 0.80 30.2 3.06 17.2 miles/gal.
of 2 tests (0.50) (18.8) (1.90) (13.7 liters/100km)
CSAD-avg. 0.93 39.1 2.63 18.2 miles/gal.
of 2 tests (0.58) (24.3) (1.63) (12.9 lifers/100km)
% change +16% +29% -14% +6%
from baseline (-6%)
A detailed breakdown of '75 FTP, HFET and steady state test data can be .
found in Tables I-V1I.
Discussion
The effect of the Morse CSAD on fuel economy ranged from no change
with no accessory load, to a 6% improvement with accessory load. The
effect on exhaust emissions (during the '75 FTP) was variable, increasing
HC and CO emissions without accessory load, and reducing HC, CO and NOx
with accessory loads. The changes in exhaust emissions (CSAD installation
vs. baseline) could be due to more than one effect of the CSAD. Reduced
engine loading with the CSAD installed would tend to increase HC and
CO emissions, and lower NOx emissions. Changes in engine cooling as a
result of the CSAD installation might also affect emissions (see the
following paragraph).
During the Highway Test, it was noted that the engine temperature
gauge was reading higher with the Morse CSAD installed (compared to the
production configuration). This is probably due to the slower waterpump
speed and resultant decrease in coolant circulation, although the cooling
fan used during the dynamometer test does not provide air flow equivalent
to actual on-the-road driving. Table VIII shows waterpump speed and
crankshaft speed measured during the steady state tests. The waterpump
speed is reduced 22-31% in the speed range most prevalent during the
Highway Test, so the change in engine temperature is not suprising.
Inadequate cooling could be a possible problem area for a car equipped
with the Morse CSAD. The loads encountered in the EPA tests do not
impose much strain on the engine. Higher engine temperatures would be
expected when driving in mountainous terrain or when heavily loaded
(such as in trailer pulling).
*Ambient temperature between 86-91°F.
-------
For all test conditions, the exhaust emission penalty due to air
conditioner operation was greater for the production accessory drive
than for the Morse CSAD. The fuel economy penalty due to increased
accessory loads was 9-10% with the Morse CSAD installed and 14% with the
production accessory drive installed.
It should be noted that normal test procedures for new vehicle
certification do not call for operation of the air conditioner at maxi-
mum output during the emissions test. For new vehicle certification,
air conditioning load is simulated by increasing the normal road load
horsepower absorbed by the dynamometer by 10%. Average road load for
each inertia weight class is given as part of the '75 FTP in the Federal
Register (Federal Register, June 30, 1975, Vol. 40 No. 126, Part III).
Conclusions
1. The Morse Controlled Speed Accessory Drive does have a bene-
ficial effect on fuel economy when the test procedure is modified to
provide conditions of high accessory load. For the vehicle used in the
EPA test program, the improvement in fuel economy was approximately 6%.
2. The current design of the CSAD might not drive the waterpump
at a sufficient speed to provide adequate engine cooling under high load
conditions. This point was not investigated during the test program,
but engine temperature was unusually high in some portions of the test
program.
3. The Morse CSAD reduced the fuel economy penalty caused by
operation of 'the air conditioning and headlights at maximum setting from
about 14% to,9-10%. Savings could be greater under more severe air
conditioner requirements but this was not quantified in the EPA tests.
-------
Table I
•75 FTP
Mass emissions in
grams per mile
(grams per kilometer)
No accessory load
Test t
Baseline
77-1279
77-1416
Average
Morse CSAD
77-1265
77-1420
Average
HC
0.51
(0.32)
0.68
(0.42)
0.60
(0.37)
0.76
(0.47)
0.62
(0.39)
0.69
(0.43)
CO
5.1
(3.2)
7.4
(4.6)
6.3
(3.9)
7.6
(4.7)
8.4
(5.2)
8.0
(5.0)
C02
594.
(369.)
593.
(369.)
594.
(369.)
590.
(367.)
595.
(370.)
593.
(369.)
NOx
2.27
(1.41)
2.13
(1.32)
2.20
(1.37)
2.12
(1.32)
2.28
(1.42)
2.20
(1.37)
mpg (A
14.7
(16.0)
14.6
(16.1)
14.7
(16.0)
14.7
(16.0)
14.5
(16.2)
14.6
(16.1)
-------
Table II
'75 FTP
Mass emissions in
grams per mile
(grams per kilometer)
AC-lights on
Test //
Baseline
77-1386
77-1418
Average
Morse CSAD
77-1272
77-1773
Average
HC
1.02
(0.63)
1.08
(0.67)
1.05
(0.65)
0.95
(0.59)
0.80
(0.50)
0.88
(0.55)
CO
23.4
(14.5)
20.4
(12.7)
21.9
(13.6)
17.2
(10.7)
13.9
(8.7)
15.6
(9.7)
C02
687.
(427.)
645.
(401.)
666.
(414.)
643.
(400.)
638.
(397.)
641.
(399.)
NOx
3.43
(2.13)
2.82
(1.75)
3.13
(1.95)
2.76
(1.72)
3.00
(1.87)
2.88
(1.79)
mpg (H
12.2
(19.3)
13.0
(18.1)
12.6
(18.7)
13.2
(17.8)
13.4
(17.5)
13.3
(17.7)
-------
Table III
HFET
Mass emissions in
grams per mile
(grams per kilometer)
No accessory load
Test #
Baseline
77-1280
77-1417
Average
Morse CSAD
77-1266
77-1421
Average
HC
0.09
(0.06)
0.19
(0.12)
0.14
(0.09)
0.37
(0.23)
0.48
(0.30)
0.43
(0.27)
CO
3.2
(2.0)
7.9
(4.9)
5.6
(3.5)
15.2
(9.4)
20.3
(12.6)
17.8
(11.1)
C02
435.
(270.)
430.
(267.)
433.
(269.)
409.
(254.)
409.
(254.)
409.
(254.)
NOx
1.96
(1.22)
1.79
(1.11)
1.88
(1.17)
1.64
(1.02)
1.79
(1.11)
1.72
(1.07)
mpg (i
20.1
(11.7)
20.0
(11.8)
20.1
(11.7)
20.4
(11.5)
20.1
(11.7)
20.3
(11.6)
-------
10
Table IV
HFET
Mass emissions in
grams per mile
(grams per kilometer)
AC-lights on
Test #
Baseline
77-1287
77-1419
Average
Morse CSAD
77-1273
77-1774
Average
HC
0.51
(0.32)
1.09
(0.68)
0.80
(0.50)
0.91
(0.57)
0.95
(0.59)
0.93
(0.58)
CO
21.4
(13.3)
38.9
(24.2)
30.2
(18.8)
36.2
(22.5)
41.9
(26.0)
39.1
(24.3)
a>2
477.
(296.)
457.
(284.)
467.
(290.)
429.
(267.)
422.
(262.)
426.
(265.)
NOx
2.97
(1.85)
3.14
(1.95)
3.06
(1.90)
2.67
(1.66)
2.58
(1.60)
2.63
(1.63)
mpg («.
17.3
(13.6)
17.0
(13.8)
17.2
(13.7)
18.2
(12.9)
18.1
(13.0)
18.2
(12.9)
-------
11
Baseline
idle (300 sec.)
15 mph (24 kph)
30 mph (48 kph)
45 mph (72 kph)
60 mph (97 kph)
Morse CSAD
idle (300 sec.)
15 mph (24 kph)
30 mph (48 kph)
45 mph (72 kph)
60 mph (97 kph)
Table V
Steady State
Mass emissions in
grams per mile
(grams per kilometer)
No accessory load
HC
CO
C02
NOx
MPG (A/lOOkm)
0
0.01
0.04
(0.02)
0.04
(0.02)
0.20
(0.12)
0
0.09
(0.06)
0.06
(0.04)
0.11
(0.07)
0.43
(0.27)
0
0
0
0.01
13.4
(8.3)
O.lgms
0
0
1.42
(0.88)
18.5
(11.5)
498. gms
472.
(293.)
348.
(216.)
392.
(244.)
430.
(267.)
516. gms
486.
(302.)
360.
(224.)
391.
(243.)
403.
(250.)
0.87gms
0.45
(0.28)
0.86
(0.53)
1.05
(0.65)
0.81
(0.50)
1.13gms
0.51
(0.32)
0.99
(0.62)
0.99
(0.62)
2.2
(1.37)
18.8
(12.5)
25.5
(9.2)
22.6
(10.4)
19.6
(12.0)
18.2
(12.9)
24.6
(9.6)
22.5
(10.5)
20.5
(11.5)
-------
12
Baseline
idle (300 sec.)
15 mph (24 kph)
30 mph (48 kph)
45 mph (72 kph)
60 mph (97 kph)
Morse CSAD
idle (300 sec.)
15 mph (24 kph)
30 mph (48 kph)
45 mph (72 kph)
60 mph (97 kph)
Table VI
Steady State
Mass emissions in
grams per mile
(grams per kilometer)
AC-lights on
HC
CO
C02
NOx
0.9gms 495gms 2.53gms
mpg (H/100km)
1.19
(0.74
0.87
(0.54)
0.05
(0.03)
0.82
(0.51)
0
1.07
(0.67)
1.07
(0.67)
0.44
(0.27)
1.18
(0.73)
13.2
(8.2)
21.0
(13.1)
2.0
(1.2)
35.0
(21.8)
l.Sgms
11.2
(7.0)
25.1
(15.6)
28.7
(17.8)
49.4
(30.7)
548.
(341.)
441.
(274.)
465.
(289.)
436.
(271.)
511. gms
584.
(363.)
406.
(252.)
404.
(251.)
426.
(265.)
1.26
(0.78)
0.68
(0.42)
1.75
(1.09)
4.27
(2.65)
2.74gms
1.15
(0.71)
0.64
(0.40)
1.30
(0.81)
3.26
(2.03)
15.5
(15.2)
18.6
(12.6)
18.9
(12.4)
18.0
(13.1)
14.7
(16.0)
19.8
(11.9)
19.7
(11.9)
17.5
(13.4)
-------
Table VII
Individual Bag Emissions in Grams per Mile
Bag 1: Cold Transient Bag 2: Stabilized Bag 3: Hot Transient
Test * HC CO C02 NOx MPG HC CO C02 NOx MPG HC CO C02 NOx MPG
Baseline: No accessory load
77-1279 1.3210.0608. 3.39 14.1 0.09 2.6616. 1.62 14.3 0.70 6.4540. 2.65 16.1
77-1416 1.25 9.4 610. 3.58 14.1 0.31 5.0 618. 1.39 14.2 0.94 10.6 534. 2.44 16.0
Morse CSAD: No accessory load
77-1265 1.98 14.7 587. 3.12 14.4 0.30 5.2 620. 1.48 14.1 0.69 6.9 535. 2.60 16.2
77-1420 1.33 9.9 603. 3.47 14.3 0.25 6.8 627. 1.63 13.9 0.81 10.5 530. 2.61 16.2
Baseline: AC - lights on
77-1386 1.53 20.6 702. 4.93 12.0 0.74 21.7 717. 2.77 11.8 1.17 28.6 618. 3.58 13.3
77-1418 1.40 13.8 666. 4.48 12.8 0.75 19.5 676. 2.05 12.5 1.46 27.2 570. 3.06 14.4
Morse CSAD: AC - lights on
77-1272 1.38 13.9 656. 4.00 13.0 0.61 16.5 680. 2.05 12.5 1.28 21.1 563. 3.17 14.8
77-1773 1.24 10.2 651. 4.43 13.2 0.61 13.7 668. 2.32 12.8 0.82 17.2 571. 3.23 14.8
-------
14
Vehicle Speed
Idle (neutral)
Idle (drive)
15 mph (24 kph)
30 mph (48 kph)
45 mph (72 kph)
60 mph (97 kph)
Table VIII
Morse CSAD
Crankshaft rpm vs. Waterpump rpm
Waterpump rpm
750
Crankshaft rpm
600
550
800
1100
1600
2250
600
900
1100
1250
1550
-------
15
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1975 Chevrolet Nova
Emission control system - 1976 Engine, OC/EGR/EFE
Engine
type 4 stroke, Otto Cycle, V-8 ohv
bore x stroke .......... 3.74 x 3.48 in./95 x 88.4mm
displacement 305 cu. in./4999cc
compression ratio 8.5:1
maximum power @ rpm 140 hp/104kW at 3800 rpm
fuel metering ... 2 barrel carburetor
fuel requirement 91 RON, unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type 3 speed automatic
Chassis
type Front engine, rear wheel drive
tire size • FR 78 x 14
curb weight 3797 lbs/1722 kg
inertia weight 4000 Ibs.
passenger capacity 5
Emission Control System
basic type OC/EGR/EFE
oxidation catalyst location .... Underfloor
substrate. Pellet
volume 260 cu. in./4261cc
loading 05 troy oz./1.56gm
EGR type Ported
durability accumulated on system . 33000 mi/5300km
-------
LIBRARY C;:;-Y DC XOT HEMOVE
EPA-AA-TEB-511-82-14
EPA Evaluation of the P.A.S.S. KIT Device Under
Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
by
Edward Anthony Earth
September, 1982
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Divison
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EPA Evaluation of the P.A.S.S. KIT Device Under Section 511 of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires that EPA
evaluate fuel economy retrofit devices and publish a summary of each
evaluation in the Federal Register.
EPA evaluations are originated upon the application of any manufacturer
of a retrofit device, upon the request of the Federal Trade Commission,
or upon the motion of the EPA Administrator. These studies are designed
to determine whether the retrofit device increases fuel economy and to
determine whether the representations made with respect to the device are
accurate. The results of such studies are set forth in a series of
reports, of which this is one.
The evaluation of the P.A.S.S KIT device was conducted upon the
application of the marketer of the device. This device is claimed to
eliminate the load of air conditioning compressor when accelerating and
thereby improve fuel economy and performance. The device is an intake
manifold vacuum switch that is designed to disengage the air conditioning
compressor during periods of high power demand.
The following is a summary of the information on the device as supplied
by the Applicant and the resulting EPA analysis and conclusions.
1. Title;
Application for Evaluation of the P.A.S.S. KIT Device Under Section
511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
2. Identification Information;
a. Marketing Identification of the Product;
Model Number - 07-06-10
b. Inventor and Patent Protection;
(1) Inventor
Fasco Industries Inc.
1100 Airport Road
Shelby, NC 28150
(2) No patent at this -time. Patent application being prepared.
c. Applicant;
(1) Cartel Products Division
Vandenberg Corporation
3133 Madison SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49508
-------
(2) President: Charles Vandenberg
Executive Vice President: Gene Goulooze
Vice President: Jay Kuiper
(3) Jay Kuiper is authorized to represent the Cartel Products
Division of the Vandenberg Corporation in communication
with EPA.
d. Manufacturer of the Product:
(1) Cartel Products Division
Vandenberg Corporation
3133 Madison SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49508
(2) President: Charles Vandenberg
Executive Vice President: Gene Goulooze
Vice President: Jay Kuiper
3. Description of Product (as supplied by Applicant);
a. Purpose;
"The objective of this product is to provide a means of
eliminating the power requirement of the air conditioner
compressor during periods of high engine power demand, in an
effort to reduce fuel consumption with no increase in pollutant
levels."
b. Theory of Operation;
"During acceleration or passing, a higher than average power
output is required of an automotive engine resulting in a
corresponding drop in manifold vacuum. When this reducing
vacuum signal falls below a predetermined level, the diaphragm
operated switch provided in this 'kit' breaks the electrical
circuit to the air conditioner compressor clutch. This action
renders the compressor inoperative until manifold vacuum again
rises above the preset level causing the switch to close thus
allowing the air conditioner compressor to operate again."
c. Construction and Operation;
"Exhibit attached." The exhibit was a sample of the product.
d. Specific Claims for the Product;
"We feel that positive claims can be made in two categories in
future media and printed advertising.
(1) "Regarding fuel mileage when the air conditioner is in
operation, we feel there is a definite increase in fuel
economy. However, we have no certified tests to
substantiate this.
-------
(2) "Additional power is available for passing, acceleration
and maintaining speed on upgrades by temporarily
eliminating the power requirements of the air conditioning
compressor. We are aware that the EPA has evaluated a
similar product and has published its findings in the EPA
Environmental News on August 27, 1980, which stated that
the device produced an increase in gas mileage without an
increase in pollutant emissions."
e. Cost and Marketing Information (as supplied by Applicant);
"Suggested retail price is $15.95 per kit. Methods of marketing
are through the standard automotive parts distribution channels
which are Warehouse, Jobber and Dealer. Final sale is to the
end user who would purchase from a dealer."
4. Product Installation, Operation, Safety and Maintenance (as supplied
by Applicant);
a. Applicability;
(1) "This product is applicable to all automobiles and light
trucks using gasoline engines with carburetion type intake
systems. The product will operate properly with all engine
sizes, ignition types and transmission types.
"The product is not generally applicable to gasoline
engines using fuel injection or turbocharged type intake
systems.
"The product is not generally applicable to diesel engines."
(2) "Applicability is not affected, in our experience, by
weather conditions, types of driving, or topographical
differences."
b. Installation - Instructions, Equipment, and Skills Required;
"Please refer to Exhibit A attached, (maintenance procedures)."
Exhibit A is Attachment A to this evaluation.
c. Operation;
"Please refer to Exhibit A attached, (maintenance procedures)."
Exhibit A is Attachment A to this evaluation.
d. Effects on Vehicle Safety;
"Not applicable."
-------
e. Maintenance:
"No maintenance,is required of the installed product. However,
the vacuum hose added by this installation should be included in
the periodic inspection of all engine vacuum hoses and fittings
- for signs of deterioration or aging. The use of this product
should not cause any effect in the normal maintenance schedule
for the vehicle."
5. Effects on Emissions and Fuel Economy (submitted by Applicant);
a. Unregulated Emissions;
"Not applicable."
b. Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy;
"Not applicable."
6. Analysis
a. Description;
(1) As stated in Section 3a, the primary purpose of the
P.A.S.S. KIT is to eliminate the power requirements of the
air conditioning compressor when the engine is operating
under heavy load and thus reduce the fuel consumption.
This is in agreement with the theory of operation given in
3b and the function of the sample of the device submitted
with the application. That is, the product operates as an
engine intake manifold vacuum switch that is capable of
interrupting the electrical power to the air conditioner
clutch when the engine is under heavy load, and thereby
disengaging the air conditioner (A/C).
(2) The theory of operation given in Section 3b is judged to be
correct but incomplete. As stated, manifold vacuum drops
as the power output is increased by depressing a vehicle's
accelerator pedal. This vacuum signal can be readily used
to automatically declutch the air conditioning compressor
with a vacuum switch like the P.A.S.S. KIT. This will
provide more power for hill climbing or accelerating.
However, this theory does not give a reason why fuel
economy might be expected to improve.
Generally, vehicles are designed to provide their optimum
fuel efficiency while cruising and thus are not as fuel
efficient when accelerating. Air conditioning imposes an
additional load which tends to cause a vehicle to consume
fuel even less efficiently. By disabling the air
conditioner compressor when accelerating, the air
conditioning load is imposed on the engine only when it is
operating in a more fuel efficient regime. However, the
-------
fuel economy benefit, if any, actually obtained would
depend on the vehicle and how well the device is matched to
the vehicle.
(3) The P.A.S.S. KIT device provided consisted of a vacuum
switch and all the hardware necessary to install the device
on an air conditioned vehicle. The switch itself consisted
of a normally open switching element encased in a plastic
housing. The switch is connected to the vehicle as shown
in Attachment A. Under high manifold vacuum, e.g., light
loads, the switch contacts are closed, thus allowing the
air conditioning compressor to operate.
(4) In Section 3d, the applicant claimed the device would
improve the fuel economy and performance of a vehicle.
These claims are in agreement with the purpose, theory of
operation and construction of the device. However no
specific numerical improvements were claimed. The
applicant was advised by letters (Attachments B, D, and I)
and at several meetings that substantiating test data would
be required. The applicant requested the evaluation be
conducted without this data based on the similiarity of the
function of the P.A.S.S. KIT device to the Pass Master
device previously tested by EPA.
(5) The cost of the device plus installation would be
approximately $26.00 for those users who elect to have the
device installed by a mechanic. This is based on a cost of
$15.95 plus $10.00 for installation (1/2 hour of a
mechanic's labor at $20.00 per hour). However, as noted in
Section 6b(2), the installation is relatively easy and most
individuals with basic mechanical skills should be able to
install the device themselves.
b. Installation, Operation, Safety and Maintenance;
(1) Applicability;
The applicability of the device is adequately described in
Section 4b. However, it should be noted that the P.A.S.S.
KIT is only applicable to vehicles with air conditioning
systems.
Also, the air conditioning systems of many late model
vehicles have devices to turn off the compressor under some
operating conditions. For example, the A/C systems of some
GM vehicles turn the compressor off when accelerating in
the lower transmission gears. Some Chrysler cars have
switches that disengage the compressor based on the
position of the throttle. Also, a number of other late
model vehicles are equipped with devices similar to the
P.A.S.S. KIT.
-------
Therefore, EPA asked the applicant to indicate for which
vehicles the sales literature and packaging would state
that the device did not apply.
The response of the applicant (Attachment H) stated that
the device packaging would show the device was not intended
for diesel vehicles, 1982 Ford Escort and Mercury Lynx with
automatics, 1982 Buick and Oldsmobile 4 cylinder and V-6
with automatics, and 1982 Cadillacs. This labeling is
incomplete because it fails to list the many vehicles for
which the device would have no benefit since it would
either duplicate an existing vehicle device or not function
(diesel, fuel injection, turbocharged). As a result, the
potential customer for the device would be expected to
determine if his vehicle was already equipped with a
similar device.
(2) Installation - Instructions, Equipment and Skills Required;
The installation instructions (Attachment A) that were
provided with the application did not adequately describe
how the user should make the optional adjustments to the
device. As a result of several discussions and letters
(Attachments D, E, F, G, and H), the applicant revised the
installation instructions to include the changes given in
Attachment G.
These modified instructions are judged to be adequate for
the installation and adjustment of the P.A.S.S. KIT by
persons with average mechanical skills.* Installation and
adjustment will require a minimal amount of tools (drill,
knife, and screwdriver). Installation should require no
more than 15 to 30 minutes.
(3) Operation;
In Section 4c, the applicant referred to the installation
instructions for operating information. These instructions
contained no specific operating instructions. However,
since the device is designed to function automatically,
none were judged to be necessary.
(4) Effects on Vehicle Safety;
The applicant states that the P.A.S.S. KIT should not
affect vehicle safety. The device actually has the
potential to improve vehicle safety when the A/C is in
operation by providing additional power for passing.
*However, as noted by EPA in Attachment A, the installer may encounter
moderate difficulty in locating the proper vacuum line for connecting the
device.
-------
(5) Maintenance;
The recommended maintenance requirements given in Section
4e are judged to be adequate.
Effects on Emissions and Fuel Economy;
(1) Unregulated Emissions;
Since the device does not change the emission control
system of a vehicle but only changes the engine load a
small amount, the device is judged to be unlikely to affect
unregulated emissions.
(2) Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy;
The applicant did not submit test data in accordance with
the Federal Test Procedure and the Highway Fuel Economy
Test. These two test procedures are the primary ones
recognized by EPA for evaluation of fuel economy and
emissions for light duty vehicles. The requirement for
test data following these procedures is stated in the
policy documents that EPA sends to potential applicants.
Other data which have been collected in accordance with
other standardized procedures are acceptable as
supplemental data in EPA's preliminary evaluation of a
device.
The applicant was fully aware of this requirement
(Attachments B and D) but requested (Section 3d(2) and
Attachment G) that the evaluation be conducted using the
information available on a similar device, the Pass Master,
which was previously tested and evaluated by the EPA. EPA
agreed to conduct the evaluation without test data on the
P.A.S.S. KIT but informed the applicant that no specific
fuel economy benefits could be claimed (Attachments D and I
and meetings with the applicants).
EPA Test Results on a Similar Device:
EPA previously tested and evaluated another air conditioner
cutoff device called Pass Master*. EPA found that the reduced
engine loading of this device would result in a small but real
*"EPA Evaluation of the Pass Master Vehicle Air Conditioner Cut-Off
Device", EPA-AA-TEB-511-80-5.
-------
reduction in vehicle emissions and fuel consumption.** However,
although the P.A.S.S. KIT and Pass Master operate in an
identical manner, their A/C on/off set points are significantly
different. EPA has no information available to evaluate whether
one device would function better than the other. Thus, EPA is
unable to quantify the fuel economy benefits for the P.A.S.S.
KIT based on the testing of the Pass Master.
Potential Effectiveness of an Air Conditioning Cutoff Device;
Since the P.A.S.S. KIT is similar to the device previously
tested and evaluated, most of the previous statements still
apply, and are included in the following:
(1) Usage
(a) The device is generally applicable to gasoline-powered
vehicles with carbureted engines which are equipped
with air conditioning systems.
(b) The device functions only when the A/C system is
turned on. The device is then supposed to negate part
of the fuel economy penalty incurred by using the air
conditioner. This important characteristic of the
device is called the "buy-back". This is the amount
of the fuel economy penalty due to the A/C that is
saved by the device.
(2) Effect of air conditioning design
There are several types of air conditioning systems found
on American cars. While most systems incorporate similar
major components (compressor, condenser, evaporator,
receiver-dryer, and expansion valve), the method of
controlling the interior temperature of the vehicle
varies. The effect of the "P.A.S.S. KIT" compressor cutout
switch will depend on the type of system installed in the
vehicle and to what position the A/C control unit is set.
Present air conditioning systems sense an evaporator coil
parameter such as refrigerant pressure or temperature or
outlet air temperature and use this parameter to control
the amount of refrigerant to the evaporator coil. The
**The fuel economy gains with the "Pass Master" device varied from 0 to
4% depending on the vehicle and test conditions. These tests were
designed to give the device the best opportunity to display the maximum
benefit in that they were conducted with the A/C set to maximum cooling
and the windows open. Given the similarity of the devices, it is our
engineering judgment that such tests reasonably quantify the maximum fuel
economy benefit of either the Pass Master or the P.A.S.S. KIT devices.
-------
10
method of controlling the refrigerant varies. The cooling
of the vehicle interior is controlled by opening or closing
baffles which control the air flow, not the refrigerant,
and by reheating the air if necessary. There are basically
two refrigerant control systems:
(a) The Thermostatic Switch type and the Accumulation type
sense the evaporative temperature or pressure and turn
the compressor clutch on or off to maintain proper
evaporator temperature. This is called the "Cycling
Type".
(b) Three other types, (1) the Suction Throttling Valve
(STV) type, (2) the Valves in Receiver (VIR) type, and
(3) Evaporator Pressure Regulator (EPR) type regulate
the refrigerant to the compressor to maintain proper
evaporator temperature. This is called the
"Continuous" type. The Compressor runs continuously
when the air conditioner is turned on.
Several vehicle manufacturers have incorporated both types
of control on vehicles. When the A/C switch is on "Max
Cool", the compressor runs continuously. When at Normal or
"FE" (Fuel Economy) settings, the compressor cycles.
The P.A.S.S. KIT device will work best on systems designed
to operate in a "Continuous" mode. During the acceleration
modes, the compressor will be cut out by the "P.A.S.S. KIT
device. Since the compressor will run enough during
nonacceleration modes to control evaporator temperature,
the reduced engine load in acceleration may result in some
fuel economy savings (buy-back).
On "Cycling" type systems, the P.A.S.S. KIT may or may not
have an effect. If the car accelerates while the
compressor is not engaged, the P.A.S.S. KIT will have no
effect. If the compressor is engaged, the P.A.S.S. KIT
will disengage the compressor and allow the engine to
accelerate the vehicle with a reduced load on the engine.
Upon completion of the acceleration, the compressor will
run to restore the evaporative pressure/temperature. The
fuel saving will be caused by making the compressor run
during a more efficient operating mode (cruise versus
acceleration). Due to the intermittent cycling and the
delayed compressor operation, less fuel economy gain
(buy-back) is expected on this type of system.
Obtaining the optimum match of an A/C cutout device to each
type of vehicle would be an impossible task with all the
varied engine sizes, manifold vacuum modifiers, vehicle
sizes, axle ratios, and transmissions that are available.
-------
11
The P.A.S.S. KIT partially overcomes this difficulty by
allowing the user to adjust the cutout point. The cut-in
(on) setting for the P.A.S.S. KIT is fixed.
(3) Operating Variables
The final considerations on the potential effectiveness are
the operating variables.
(a) Since the device only functions when the A/C is used,
the overall benefit would depend on how much the
vehicle A/C is used.
(b) Higher ambient temperatures and humidity cause a
greater fuel economy penalty due to the use of A/C
and, thus, offer the opportunity for a greater
buy-back.
(c) The effectiveness will also depend upon driving habits
of the operator. Thus drivers who repeatedly use
heavy acceleration, and thereby activate the device
more frequently, will realize a greater benefit from
the device than drivers who use more moderate
accelerations.
(d) The type of driving cycle used will influence the
effectiveness of the device. The system will be more
effective in urban driving with its increased
acceleration modes operation than in highway steady
state driving.
(e)
The effectiveness will also depend on the penalty in
comfort the operator is willing to accept. Usually, a
vehicle is in a heavy acceleration mode for only 5 to
30 seconds. Since the evaporator fan remains on and
there is stored cooling, only a slight change in air
conditioning comfort would be noted. However,
prolonged steep grades or heavy loads may cause the
device to cut out excessively and thereby noticeably
reduce the cooling. This also will tend to occur as
the device is adjusted to maximize the fuel economy
buy-back by adjusting the P.A.S.S. KIT to activate
sooner.
8. Conclusions
EPA fully considered all of the information submitted by the
applicant. The evaluation of the P.A.S.S. KIT device was based on
that information and the results of the EPA confirmatory testing of a
similar device. The overall conclusion is that P.A.S.S. KIT should
recover part of the emissions and fuel economy penalty incurred by
using the air conditioner of some vehicles.
-------
12
The amount of this fuel economy benefit depends on several factors.
The most important factor is the amount that the vehicle air
conditioner is used. Drivers in warm climates who frequently use
their air conditioner would experience the greatest change in fuel
economy when driving in situations that frequently activate the
device. The second important factor is the suitability of the device
to the manifold vacuum characteristics of the particular vehicle.
The improvement in fuel economy with the air conditioner on can range
up to a few percent depending on the vehicle and the specific
adjustments the user performs to match the P.A.S.S. KIT to his
vehicle. Another factor affecting the performance is the type of
vehicle air conditioning unit to which the "P.A.S.S. KIT" is
applied. Systems which operate continuously should realize a larger
benefit than those which cycle. The final factor is the type of
driving. The "P.A.S.S. KIT" system is expected to show the greatest
improvement in urban stop-and-go driving.
The emissions from vehicles operating with the air conditioning on
are expected to be reduced when the "P.A.S.S. KIT" is used.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merrill W. Korth, Emission Control
Technology Division, Office of Mobile Sources, Environmental Protection
Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, (313) 668-4299.
-------
13
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
List of Attachments
P.A.S.S. KIT Installation Instructions (provided with
511 Application).
Letter of December 14, 1981 from EPA to Jay Kuiper of
Cartel Products providing information on the 511
evaluation process.
Letter of December 22, 1981 from Jay Kuiper of Cartel
Products to EPA acknowledging receipt of 511
evaluation information.
Attachemnt D
Letter of January 28, 1982 from EPA to Jay Kuiper of
Cartel Products acknowledging receipt of 511
application for P.A.S.S. KIT and requesting
clarification and additional information.
Attachment E
Letter of April 13, 1982 from Jay Kuiper of Cartel
Products to EPA discussing proposed changes to the
P.A.S.S. KIT device.
Attachment F
Attachment G
Attachment H
Attachment I
Letter of April 19, 1982 from EPA to Jay Kuiper of
Cartel Products requesting copy of proposed changes
for P.A.S.S. KIT.
Letter of April 27, 1982 from Jay Kuiper of Cartel
Products to EPA providing modified installation
instructions for P.A.S.S. KIT.
Letter of May 18, 1982 from Charles Vandenberg of
Cartel Products to EPA discussing P.A.S.S. KIT sample
variability and providing additional proposed
installation instructions and device applicability.
Letter of June 10, 1982 from EPA to Charles Vandenberg
of Cartel Products stating application was now
complete but that, since no testing was performed, no
specific percentage improvements could be cited in
this evaluation.
-------
CAMUAATO*
VACUUM UNI
>"—CAMUMMQN
WtMMWT
UAOTOAX
COMIWtSSON
VACUUM MOSS TO CARBURATOft
P.A.S.S. KIT"
14
ATTACHMENT A
INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS
1. Select a mounting location In the engine compartment to allow the leads from
the P.A S S. KIT in reach the A/C compressor electrical iead(s). and the rubber
hose supplied to reach the carburetor vacuum line.
2. Locate a suitable existing mounting bolt, or drill a 1/8" hole and mount the unit
with the sheet metal screw provided.
3. Cut one of the wires connected to the A/C compressor clutch. Strip about 3/8"
of insulation (rom the ends Attach to the P.A.S.S. KIT leads with th»? wire nuts
provided. Push the wire terminals over the terminals w the base of thePA SS
KIT.
4. Locale the "Manifold vacuum" line. The "manifold vacuum" source will be near
Ihr base of the carburetor bolow Ihrj throttle plate(i> if hi-, is tho -same vacuum
source thai is connected to the distributor vacuum advance mechanism. *
Note:
— DO NO? connect to the auxiliary vacuum pump
— DO NOT use the vacuum hose connected to the charcoal liltcr lit has a con-
stant vacuum)
— Some cars may require trial and error to find the correct vacuum source
•especially those with fuel injection.
If you cannot locale the vacuum source, ask a mechanic.
5 IF YOUR CAR HAS A RUBBER VACUUM LINE cut the vacuum hose near Its
source • Insert the appropriate TEE provided, and attach to the P.A.S.S. KIT
with the rubber hose provided.
IF YOUR CAR HAS A METAL VACUUM LINE cut the line with a tubing culteror
hacksaw. Do not use slrlo cutters as (hey will close the end ol the tubing. Cut
two 1" pieces from the rubber hose provided. Slide one onto each end of the
metal tubing. Insert the Tee. and push the rubber hose over the nipple on the
Tee and the P.A S S KIT
6 You have now complelrd the Installation of your P.A SS. Kir ThH unit has
been preset al lhefaclory.however.il is adjustable lo switch off earlier or later
as follows.
1 Remove black protective cap.
2. To have compressor clutch cut out earlier, turn screw clockwise one/tenth
turn at a time.
3. To have compressor clutch cut out later, turn screw counter clock-wise
one/tenth turn at a time
4 Replace black protective cap. (The black protective cap must be replaced.)
WARNING: Do not connect to auxiliary vacuum pump.
VACUUM MOSf TO PASS PICKUP
SWITCH SPECIFICATIONS
Switch- Vacuum
Contact* • Silver, Heavy Duly
Electrical • Automotive Clutch Lo»d
Ollphrtgm • Metal
Set Point • On • 8" Vacuum
•Oil 4" V«cuum
'Ad|usl*t>le: From 2.5" Vacuum to 5" V»cuum
COMPLETE
READY TO INSTALL
PRODUCTS DIV.
AOJUSlUtNl
* EPA NOTE: The installer may encounter moderate3irMul9y'in locating the proper vacuum
line. Vacuum port elevation/location is not always indicative of .the type of vacuum signal.
Also, some Fords have dual advance (two vacuum lines).
-------
Attachment B
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
o
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
December 14, 1981 OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
Mr. Jay Kuiper
Carter Products Division
Vandenberg Corporation
3757 Lake Drive '
Grand Rapids, MI 49506
Dear Mr. Kuiper:
This is in response to your recent inquiry regarding an EPA evaluation of
your Pass Kit device. The Environmental Protection Agency is charged by
Congressional mandate to evaluate fuel economy and emission control
devices. While the EPA does not actually "approve" such devices, it does
conduct evaluations for the purpose of increasing the common knowledge in
the area. For this reason, the outcome of any testing by EPA becomes
public information. It is this information which may be cited, although
no claims can be made that any EPA findings constitute "approval" of the
device or system.
Enclosed with this letter is a packet of materials which you will need to
apply for an EPA evaluation of your device. This packet consists of
1) an application format, 2) a document entitled "EPA Retrofit and
Emission Control Device Evaluation Test Policy", 3) "Basic Test Plans and
Testing Sequences", and 4) a copy of the applicable Federal Regulations.
In all of these documents the term "device" includes fuel additives.
Motor vehicle oils, lubricants and oil additives do not fall under the
provisions of Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act. However, EPA is prepared to work with manufacturers of
these products, using the same procedures and protocols defined in the
enclosed documents.
In order for the EPA to conduct an evaluation of your device, we must
have an application. Once you have reviewed all the documents in the
packet, you should prepare an application in accordance with the
guidelines of the application format. A critical part of the application
is the substantiating test data. The required test results will have to
be obtained at a laboratory of your choice. Such testing would be
conducted at your expense. A list of laboratories, which are known to
have the equipment and personnel to perform acceptable tests, has been
included in the enclosed packet. The laboratory list is revised
periodically, so be certain that the list you are using is current.
Please allow EPA to comment on your test plan before beginning testing at
an independent laboratory. If you desire, we can assist in the
development of a satisfactory test plan.
There are, however, several aspects concerning testing at an outside
laboratory which I would like to bring to your attention at this time;
-------
16
Minimum Test Requirements — Although different types of devices may
require a more complex test plan, the minimum we require involves two
vehicles and two test sequences run in duplicate. The vehicles
should be selected from those listed in Table 1; if possible. Each
vehicle is to be set to manufacturer's tune-up specifications for tbe
baseline tes'ts.
The tests are conducted in a "back-to-back" manner, once with the
vehicle in baseline condition, and again with the device installed
with no vehicle adjustments between tests. If installation of the
device also involves some adjustments, e.g. timing, fuel-air mixture,
choke or idle speed, another test sequence with only these adjust-
ments should be inserted between the first and last. If mileage
accumulation is necessary in order to realize the full benefit, the
same number of miles that are accumulated before the test runs must
also be accumulated before baseline runs. In addition, the method of
mileage accumulation should be kept constant. Also, as a minimum,
the test sequence shall consist of a hot-start LA-4 portion (bags 1
and 2) of the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and a Highway Fuel Economy
Test (HFET). The details of these tests are contained in the
enclosed packet. Although only a hot-start FTP is required to
minimize the costs to you, you are encouraged to have the entire
cold-start: test performed, since any confirmatory testing and evalua-
tion performed by EPA will be based on the complete FTP, and you may
wish to know how a vehicle with your device performs over this
official test. As a final requirement, the personnel of the outside
laboratory you select should perform every element of your test
plan. This includes preparation of the test vehicle, adjustment of
parameters, and installation of the device.
Submission of Data - We require that all test data obtained from the
outside laboratories in support of your application be submitted to
us. This includes any results you have which were declared void or
invalid by the laboratory. We also ask that you notify us of the
laboratory you have chosen, when testing is scheduled, to begin, what
tests you have decided to conduct, allow us to maintain contact with
the laboratory during the course of the testing, and allow the test
laboratory to directly answer any questions at ..any time about the
test program.
Cost of the Testing - The cost of the minimum test plan (two
vehicles, two test sequences in duplicate) described above should be
less than $3000 per vehicle and less than $6000 for the total test at
any of the laboratories on the list. It should be recognized that
additions to the minimum test plan (such as mileage accumulation,
parameter adjustment, or additional testing) will result in addi-
tional costs. In any case, you will have to contact them individ-
ually to obtain their latest prices.
-------
17
Outcome of the Tests - In order for EPA to best utilize our facil-
ities, confirmatory testing will be performed only on those devices
that demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in fuel
economy or emissions based on data from an EPA-recognized independent
laboratory. We have established some guidelines which will help you
determine whether the test results with your device should be consid-
ered encouraging. These values have been chosen to assure both of us
that a real difference in fuel economy exists, and that we are not
seeing only the variability in the results. The table below presents
the minimum number of cars that need to be tested for varying degrees
of fuel economy improvement, assuming a typical amount of variability
in fuel economy measurement. For a minimum test plan which was con-
ducted on a fleet of two cars, the average improvement should be at
least 6%. If at least a 6% difference in average fuel economy can be
shown, then we would be able to say statistically at the 80% con-
fidence level that there is a real improvement.
Similarly, we would expect a minimum of 3% improvement for a fleet of
5 vehicles. Test results which display a significant increase in
emission levels should be reason for concern.
Minimum Fuel Economy Improvements versus Size of Test Fleet
Fleet Size Average Improvement Required
~2 6%
3 5%
4 4%
5 3%
10 2%
Once we receive your application, it will be reviewed to determine if it
meets the requirements listed in the format. Please do not submit con-
fidential, trade secret, or proprietary information as EPA cannot assure
that such information can be protected in all situations. If your
application is not complete, we will ask you to submit further informa-
tion or data. After any missing information has been submitted, your
application will be reconsidered, and once it meets our requirements, you
will be advised of our decision whether or not EPA will perform any con-
firmatory testing. Any EPA testing will be performed at.no cost to you
and you will be given the opportunity to concur with our test plan. Once
this testing is complete, an evaluation report will be written. If no
further testing is required, the report will be written solely on the
basis of the test data submitted and our engineering analysis.
EPA intends to process your application in as expeditious a manner as
possible. We have established a goal of twelve weeks from the receipt of
a complete application to the announcement of our report. The attainment
of this objective requires very precise scheduling, and we are depending
on the applicant to respond promptly to any questions, or to submit any
requested data. Failure to respond in a timely manner will unduly delay
the process. In the extreme case, we may consider lack of response as a
withdrawal of the application.
-------
18
I hope the information above and that contained in the enclosed documents
will aid you in the preparation of an acceptable application for an EPA
evaluation of your device. I will be your contact with EPA during this
process and any subsequent EPA evaluation. My address is EPA, Motor
Vehicle Emission Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
48105. The telephone number is (313) 668-4299. Please contact me if you
have any questions or require any further information.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Emission Control Technology Division
Enclosures
-------
ATTACHMENT C 19
£OT1EL PRODUCTS DIV. \
December 22, 1981
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
ATTN: Mr. Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Emission Control Technology Division
Dear Sir,
I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you
for your help in providing the information
necessary to complete our application for
a EPA evaluation.
After compiling the necessary documentation,
we will be forwarding the application to you.
Have a joyous holiday season.
Sincerely,
cc
VANDENBERG CORPORATION
3133 MADISON AVE.. S.E. GRAND RAPIDS. MICHIGAN 495O8 » PHONE (616) 243-O457
-------
ATTACHMENT' D 20
iS:/?, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
»
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
January 28, 1982 .
Mr. Jay Kuiper, Vice President
Cartels Product Division
Vandenberg Corporation
3133 Madison, SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49508
Dear Mr. Kuiper: .
We received your letter of January 13, 1982 in which you applied for an
EPA evaluation of the P.A.S.S. KIT, a fuel economy retrofit device.
Our Engineering Evaluation Group has made a preliminary review of your
application. Although the application is essentially complete, we x*ill
need additional information in the two areas discussed below.
Exhibit A, installation instructions, shows that the off set-point is
adjustable. Although you do provide instructions for making this adjust-
ment, you provide no guidance on how to determine the most desireable set
point for the user's specific vehicle and driving conditions. The in-
stallation instructions should either describe such a procedure or
include a list of settings for specific vehicles and driving conditions.
Please send us any information on adjustment procedures or recommended
settings. ': •.-.•' ... ' •-.'•-
As you noted in Section 3d(2) of your application, EPA has previously
tested and evaluated another air conditioning compressor cut-off device
called Pass Master. Although your device operates in an identical
manner, the on/off set points of your device are significantly
different. Thus,, we are unable to quantify any fuel economy benefits
which may be attributed to your device. In order to support specific
claims for your device, it will be necessary for you to have it tested at
an independent laboratory. We will be glad to assist you in developing a
test plan. Please inform me if you plan to undertake such testing. For
your information, I have enclosed the EPA test report on the Pass Master
and a copy of the manufacturer's literature vrhich lists the off/on set
points for his various models.
-------
21
We will need your response to the preceding items to properly evaluate
your device. In order to process applications efficiently, we establish
a schedule for each one. I ask that you respond to this letter by
February 20 and plan to complete your testing by March 20. If you have
any questions or require further information, please contact me at (313)
668-4299.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Enclosures
-------
PRODUCTS mif ATTACHMENT E 22
April 13, 1982
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 M*M«»
Attn: Merrill W. Korth
• Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Dear Mr. Korth:
Chuck and I enjoyed our meeting and appreciated your
constructive comments. We are rewriting the instruction:
sheet so that it reflects the changes we have made in the
P.A.S.S. Kit.
The changes center around the fact that we have physically
identified the setting for 4-6-8 cylinder cars and have also
made a suggestion to the do-it-yourselfer how he can set the
device to cut out the air conditioner to fine tune it even
further.
In the next few weeks we will set up a meeting and present
the changes to you.
Looking forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
VANDENBERG CORPORATION
3133 MADISON AVE.. S.E. GRAND RAPIDS. MICHIGAN 495O8 • PHONE (616) 243O457
-------
Attachment F „.,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
April 19, 1981 OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
Mr. Jay Kuiper, Vice President
Cartels Product Division
Vandenberg Corporation
3133 Madison, SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49508
Dear Mr. Kuiper:
You stated in your letter of April 13 that you had modified set points
and installation instructions for the P.A.S.S. KIT. On the other hand, I
was disappointed that you did not actually include this information with
your letter hut intend to present it to us at a future date.
I feel th.it a meeting would be more productive if this information were
available beforehand. Accordingly, I ask that you submit it by May 3.
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact
me.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
-------
PRODUCTS ATTACHMENT G 24
April 27, 1982
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 MEMBE*
Attn: Merrill W. Korth .
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Dear Mr. Korth:
As of today, I have sent you two new P.A.S.S. KITS via UPS. for your
evaluation. The switches are prototypes and when completed will have
much sharper engine type numbers on the flange of the switch.
Enclosed for your evaluation are changes which we propose in the
instruction sheet as they relate to items 2 and 6 of the Instal-
lation Instructions.
At our last meeting, you challenged us to develop a switch that can be
set for 4-6-8 cylinder engines. We have also proposed changes in the
instructions which would give the installer the ability to further
adjust the switch to its most optimum position.
In the E.P.A. evaluation 'of the "Pass Master Vehicle Air Conditioner
Cut - Off Device" you state that the largest drawback with the
"Pass Master" device is that it is not optimized for each type of
vehicle. We hope that our proposed changes in items 2 and 6 in the
installation instructions will give the installer an opportunity
to "fine tune" the device so that it will operate correctly for each
vehicle.
With the changes we have submitted, I would hope that you can
release a report similar to the report prepared for the "Pass Master".
Thank you for your suggestions and encouragement.
Sincerely,
JK/rt
VANDENBERG CORPORATION
3133 MADISON AVE.. S.E. GRAND RAPIDS. MICHIGAN 495O8 • PHONE (616) 243-O457
-------
25
P.A.S.S. KIT
Additional Proposed Installation Instructions.
New Instruction #2:
' " ' *
Set red dot on adjusting screw (found under removable
rubber cover) to line up with the 4,6, or 8 cylinder
setting position shown on the body of the switch.
Locate a suitable existing mounting bolt, or drill a
1/8" hole and mount the unit with the sheet metal screw
provided. Mount switch to allow screwdriver access
to adjustment screw.
New Instruction #6: .
You have now completed the installation of your
P.A.S.S. KIT. .However, if you wish, additional
"fine tuning" can be accomplished as follows:
1. Remove black protective cap.
2. To have compressor clutch cut out earlier, turn screw
clockwise one/tenth turn at a time.
3. To have compressor clutch cut out later, turn screw
counter clockwise one/tenth turn at a time.
4. Replace black protective cap. (The black protective cap
must be replaced.)
The above described fine adjustment is easily accomplished if
you can hear or "feel" your A/C disengage. If not - we suggest
that you temporarily run a wire from the P.A.S.S. KIT switch into
the passenger compartment. Connect to a 12 volt'bulb or circuit
tester and run wire back to the A/C clutch lead. When bulb is
lit, A/C clutch is engaged. When bulb is off, A/C clutch is
disengaged.
When adjustment is completed, remove wire and indicator light
from passenger compartment and connect electrical leads permanently
as described in instruction #3.
-------
ATTACHMENT H 26
PRODUCTS DIV.
May 18, 1982
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Attn: Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Dear Merrill:
In response to your discovery of the variation in the
upper Con) set point of our P.A.S.S. KIT vacuum switches,
we have bench tested the switches on hand and found that
approximately 12% of those tested exceeded 9" Hg.. We subse-
quently discovered that the latest shipment of these switches
supplied by our vendor were manufactured to a tolerance of
7-10" Hg instead of our requirement of 8"±1" Hg.
Although our vendor has taken steps to preclude this from
happening again, we will do a spot check in our shop as
standard operating procedure in the future.
I have enclosed a revised copy of the "Additional Proposed
Installation Instructions", and copy for the exterior of the
package regarding vehicles to which the kit does not apply.
Please feel free to contact Jay or me if there is any additional
data required to write a draft of your report.
Thank you very much foryour help Merrill and Tony, we
look forward to hearing from you.
MEM»E»
Charles Vandenber
CV/rt
Enclosures
cc: Tony Barth
VANDENBERG CORPORATION
3133 MADISON AVE.. S.E. GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 495O8 • PHONE (616)2430457
-------
27
P.A.S.S. KIT
Additional Proposed Installation Instructions, (revised 5/11/82)
New Instruction #2:
Set red dot on adjusting screw (found under removable "
rubber cover) to line up with the 4,6, or 8 cylinder
setting position shown on the body of the switch.
Locate a suitable existing mounting bolt, or drill a
1/8" hole and mount the unit with the sheet metal screw .
provided. Mount switch to allow screwdriver access
to adjustment screw.
New Instruction #6:
' You have now completed the installation of your
' P.A.S.S. KIT. However, it is adjustable to switch!
off earlier or later if you wish. The objective
being to achieve a minimum of A/C compressor
operating time - while still maintaining acceptable
cooling under your normal driving conditions. This
additional "fine tuning" can be accomplished as
follows:
1. Remove black protective cap. .
2. To have compressor clutch cut out earlier, turn screw
clockwise one/tenth turn at a time.
3. To have compressor.-clutch cut out later, turn screw
counterclockwise one/tenth turn at a time.
4. Replace black protective cap. (The black protective cap
must be replaced.)
The above described fine adjustment is easily accomplished if
you can hear or "feel" your A/C disengage. If not, we suggest
that you temporarily run a wire from the P.A.S.S. KIT switch into
the passenger compartment. Connect to a 12 volt bulb or circuit
tester and run wire back to the A/C clutch lead. When bulb is
Tit, A/C clutch is engaged. When bulb is off, A/C clutch is
disengaged.
When adjustment is completed, remove wire and indicator light
from passenger compartment and connect electrical leads permanently
as described in instruction #3.
-------
28
P.A.S.S. KIT
Application Notice
NOTICE
Some 1982 vehicles have been factory equipped with
a device similar to P.A.S.S. KIT. Therefore, the P.A.S.S. KIT
would not be effective on the following vehicles:
1982 Ford Escort with automatic transmission
1982 Mercury Lynx with automatic transmission
1982 Cadillac, all models.
1982 Buick.Oldsmobile - 4 cylinder and V-6 with
automatic transmissions.
P.A.S.S. KIT is NOT recommended for use on vehicles with
Diesel engines as they do not have a reliable source of
"manifold vacuum".
-------
Attachment I
29
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
June 10, 1982 OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
Mr. Charles Vandenberg
Cartel Products Division
Vandenberg Corporation
3133 Madison, SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49508
Dear Mr. Vandenberg:
We received your letter of May 18. It appears you have adequately ad-
dressed our comments on the P.A.S.S. KIT Installation instructions and
vehicle applicability. Since you did not mention testing, it appears you
do not plan to test the P.A.S.S. KIT using a test plan approved by EPA.
Therefore, we are preparing the evaluation of your device based on the
information now available to us.
If you do decide to test at an independent laboratory, please send us
your test plan by June 30th so that we have the opportunity to review it
to preclude the risk of an oversight that might invalidate your whole
effort. We recognize that such testing is expensive and want to ensure
that any testing you undertake will meet our needs. Also let us know at
that time which laboratory you have selected and the scheduled dates for
testing. Please plan to have the test program completed by August 15 so
that our evaluation can still be completed in a timely manner.
Although we will be able to complete our evaluation without you providing
any test results, it will not include any percentage values which you can
use in your literature or advertising. Our position on this matter was
expressed to you in our meeting on May 5. If you have any questions
about our requirements, please contact me at (313) 668-4299.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
------- |