76-28 AW
An Evaluation of the EI-5
Fuel Additive
September 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
devices for which emission reduction or fuel economy improvement claims
are made. In some cases, both claims are made for a single device. In
most cases, these devices 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, because of the obvious benefits to the Nation of
identifying devices that live up to their claims. For that reason the
EPA invites proponents of such devices to provide to the EPA complete
technical data on the device's principle of operation, together with
test data on the device made by independent laboratories. In those
cases in which review by EPA technical staff suggests that the data.
submitted holds promise of confirming the claims made for the device,
confirmatory tests of the device are scheduled at the EPA Emissions
Laboratory at Ann Arbor, Michigan. The results of all such confirmatory
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 confirmatory tests are neces-
sarily of limited applicability. A complete evaluation of the effective-
ness of an emission control system 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. \l For
promising devices it is necessary that more extensive test programs be
carried out.
The conclusions from the EPA confirmatory tests 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 extra-
polate 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 device on such other vehicles would be required to reliably
quantify results on other types of vehicles.
In summary, a device that lives up to its claims in the EPA confirma-
tory test must be further tested according to protocols described in
footnote \J , to quantify its beneficial effects on a broad range of
vehicles. A device 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 likelihood 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 I/.
I/ See Federal Register 38 FR 11334, 3/27/74, for a description of the
test protocols proposed for definitive evaluations of the effectiveness
of retrofit devices.
-------
EPA had begun receiving inquiries from private citizens and govern-
mental agencies across the country about a motor fuel additive called
EI-5 when a request for EPA testing was made by a Federal Trade Com-
mission Regional Office, on behalf of the State of Minnesota, which was
undertaking investigation of advertising claims for the product. Claims
made for the additive were that its use yields improvements in fuel
economy of 18 to 25 percent. Because of the apparent national promotion
of the product, and the considerable public interest as to its effectiveness
in improving fuel economy, an evaluation test program was conducted.
Test Vehicle end Fuel Additive Description
EI-5 is a liquid additive that is supplied with instructions directing
that the product be used in both the fuel tank and engine crankcase.
The exact composition of EI-5 is considered to be a trade secret by the
manufacturer. The manufacturer does indicate (in information furnished
to EPA by the Minnesota Attorney General) that the main ingredients of
EI-5 are "refined pure oil, xylene and antioxidants." EI-5 is claimed to
interact with and modify gasoline molecules, resulting in "more complete
combustion."
The directions for the initial application cf the product call for
the addition of one ounce of EI-5 for each five gallons of fuel in a
full fuel tank, and the addition of three ounces of EI-5 to the oil in
the crankcase. Also, one ounce of EI-5 per cylinder is poured into the
carburetor throat with the engine warm and running at fast idle.
For subsequent refuelings, EI-5 is added to the fuel in the pro-
portion of one ounce or less for each seven gallons of fuel. It is
suggested in the directions accompaning the product that better fuel
economy may be achieved by lowering the proportion of EI-5 to fuel,
i.e., one ounce of EI-5 for each eight to ten gallons of fuel. For oil
changes, one ounce of EI-5 per five quarts of oil is recommended.
Two vehicles were used for the test program, a 1970 Chevrolet for
evaluation of the additive and a 1970 Plymouth Valiant for a control
vehicle. Both vehicles had accumulated approximately 22,000 miles. The
Chevrolet is equipped with a 350 cu in. engine and an automatic trans-
mission. The Valiant is equipped with a 225 cu in. engine and an auto-
matic transmission.
A tabulation of pertinent vehicle statistics is given on the vehicle
information sheets at the end of this report.
-------
Test Program
Exhaust emission and fuel economy tests were conducted in accord-
ance with the 1975 Federal Test Procedure ('75 FTP) for light-duty
vehicles (Federal Register, June 30, 1975, Vol. 40 No. 126, Part III),
and the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET). Evaporative emissions
were not measured.
Of the two vehicles used during the test program, only the 1970
Chevrolet was treated with the EI-5. It was expected that the primary
effects of the EI-5 would result from pouring the additive through the
carburetor, and would probably be due to the solvent action of the EI-5
on carburetor and intake manifold deposits, as well as liquid droplets
entering the combustion chamber and possibly knocking loose accumulated
carbon deposits.
For comparison purposes, the 1970 Valiant was subjected to the same
series of tests as the Chevrolet, but the Valiant was not treated with
EI-5.
Prior to the start of emission testing, both vehicles were fueled
with a commercial unleaded fuel and driven approximately 200 miles on
public roads. This same base fuel was used for all mileage accumulation
and emission tests. After completing the preliminary mileage accumulation
each vehicle was tuned in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended
procedures. Baseline emission and fuel economy tests, consisting of the
75 FTP and HFET, followed the tune-up.
After completion of the baseline tests, the EI-5 was added to the
Chevrolet fuel tank and crankcase in the recommended proportions. Eight
ounces (one ounce per cylinder) of EI-5 were poured into the carburetor
throat. Similarly, six ounces of Diesel #2 (one ounce per cylinder)
were poured into the carburetor throat of the Valiant, but nothing was
added to its fuel tank or crankcase.
Both vehicles were again tested in accordance with the '75 FTP and
HFET.
The next stage of the program was to accumulate another 200 miles
on both vehicles. After completing the 200 miles, the Chevrolet fuel
tank was refilled and EI-5 added, in the recommended dosage. The pro-
portion of EI-5 used for the second dosage was one ounce per seven
gallons of fuel. The Valiant was refilled with the commercial unleaded
gasoline only. Both vehicles were tested for a final time in accordance
with the '75 FTP and HFET.
-------
Test Results
Exhaust emission and fuel economy data are summarized in the
following tables.
Baseline
average of
2 tests
1970 Chevrolet
"75 FTP mass emissions in
grams per mile
(grams per kilometer) ' '
HC
2.20
(1.37)
Initial application of EI-5
average of
2 tests
% change
from baseline
2.11
(1.32)
-4%
CO
NOx
41.6 4.22
(25.9) (2.62)
29.6 4.46
(18.4) (2.77)
Fuel Economy
(Fuel Consumption)
12.4 miles/gal.
(19.0 liters/lOOkm)
12..4 miles/gal.
(19.0 liters/lOOkm)
-29%
+6%
Second application of EI-5 (first refueling)
average of
2 tests
% change
from baseline
2.14 33.3 4.50 12.5 miles/gal. .
(1.33) (20.7) (2.80) (18.9 liters/lOOkm)
-207, +7% +1%
(-1%)
(1)
Values shown in parenthesis denote metric units
-------
Baseline
1970 Valiant
'75 FTP mass emissions in
grams per mile . .
(grams per kilometer)
HC
CO
NOx
Fuel Economy
(Fuel Consumption)
average of
2 tests
2.76 36.5 6.10 18.3 miles/gal.
(1.72) (22.7) (3.79) (12.9 liters/lOOkm)
After pouring Diesel fuel through the carburetor
average of
2 tests
% change
from baseline
2.61 32.6 6.05 18.6 miles/gal.
(1.62) (20.3) (3.76) (12.7 liters/lOOkm)
-5% -11% -1% +2%
(-2%)
After accumulating 200 additional miles
average of
2 tests
% change
from baseline
2.63 33.7 5.81 18.6 miles/gal.
(1.6A) (21.0) (3.61) (12.7 liters/lOOkm)
-5%
-8%
-5%
+2%
(-2%)
Details of individual tests ('75 FTP) and Highway cycles can be found in
tables I - VI following the text of this report.
(1)
Values shown in parenthesis denote metric units.
-------
The measurable effects of EI-5 appear to be due to the solvent
action of the additive when it is poured through the carburetor during
the initial treatment. This is supported by the behavior of the Valiant
following the addition of Diesel fuel to the carburetor throat. Both
vehicles experienced decreases in emissions of CO, but no significant
change in fuel economy. Changes in HC and NOx emissions were much
smaller and probably not significant, judging from past experience with
the test vehicles.
The test data also indicate that both vehicles' exhaust emissions
were changing in the direction of a return to baseline emissions as
mileage was accumulated following the initial treatments with EI-5 and
Diesel fuel. This further supports the hypothesis that the effects of
EI-5 are due to its solvent action when poured through the carburetor,
thus cleaning gum and varnish from carburetor circuits. Diesel fuel was
also an effective solvent in the carburetor of the Valiant. The effects
of EI-5 attributable to its presence in the fuel tank and crankcase
appear to be negligible.
Conclusions
1. The EI-5 fuel additive had no significant effect on fuel
economy.
2. The effect of EI-5 on exhaust emissions (a reduction in CO)
appears to be related to its solvent action in the carburetor.
-------
Table I
1970 Chevrolet
'75 FTP mass emissions in
grams per mile ,, ^
(grams per kilometer)
Test #
HC
CO
co2
NOx
miles/gal
(liters/
100km)
Baseline
77-3872
77-3874
Average
Initial
77-3945
77-3947
Average
Second
77-3987
77-4153
Average
2.23
(1.39)
2.17
(1.35)
2.20
(13.7)
application of EI-5
2.14
(1.33)
2.08
(1.30)
2.11
(1.32)
application of EI-5
2.17
(1.35)
2.10
(1.31)
2.14
(1.33)
44.2
(27.5)
38.9
(24.2)
41.6
(25.9)
30.5
(19.0)
28.6
(17.8)
29.6
(18.4)
(first
33.7
(20.9)
32.9
(20.5)
33.3
(20.7)
644.
(400.)
642.
(399.)
643.
(400.)
658.
(409.)
666.
(414.)
662.
(412.)
refueling)
661.
(411.)
647.
(402.)
654.
(407.)
4.24
(2.64)
4.19
(2.60)
4.22
(2.62)-
4.43
(2.75)
4.49
(2.79)
4.46
(2.77)
4.71
(2.93)
4.29
(2.66)
4.50
(2.80)
12.3
(19.1)
12.5
(18.8)
12.4
(19.0)
12.4
(18.9)
12.4
(19.0)
12.4
(19.0)
12.3
(19.1)
12.6
(18.7)
12.5
(18.9)
(1)
Values shown in parenthesis denote metric units.
-------
Table II
HFET mass emissions in
grams per mile ,,..
(grams per kilometer)
Test #
HC
CO
co2
NOx
miles/gal
(liters/
100km)
Baseline
77-3873
77-3875
Average
Initial
77-3946
77-3948
Average
Second
77-3988
77-4117
Average
1.36
(0.84)
1.38
(0.86)
1.37
(0.85)
application of EI-5
1.18
(0.73)
1.18
(.0.73)
1.18
(0.73)
application of EI-5
1.17
(0.73)
1.15
(0.71)
1.16
(0.72)
23.8
(14.8)
24.0
(14.9)
23.9
(14.9)
14.2
(8.8)
13.2
(8.2)
13.7
(8.5)
(first
14.8
(9.2)
13.5
(8.4)
14.2
(8.4)
436.
(271.)
434.
(270.)
435.
(271.)
450.
(279.)
454.
(282.)
452.
(281.)
refueling)
446.
(277.)
444.
(276.)
445.
(277.)
5.17
(3.22)
6.18
(3.22)
5.18
(3.22)
5.73
(3.56)
5.99
(3.72)
5.86
(3.64)
. 5.86
(3.64)
5.44
(3.38)
5.65
(3.51)
18.6
(12.7)
18.6
(12.6)
18.6
(12.7)
18.6
(12.6)
18.5
(12.7)
18.6
(12.7)
18.8
(12.5)
18.9
(12.4)
18.9
(12.5)
(1)
Values shown in parenthesis denote metric units.
-------
Table III
1970 Chevrolet '75 FTP
Individual Bag Emissions in
grams per mile
Bag 1: Cold Transient
Test // HC NOx CC>2
Baseline
77-3872 3.35 4.35 626.
77-3874 3.09 4.69 623.
Initial application of EI-5
77-3945 3.00 4.99 659.
77-3947 2.92 5.11 669.
Second application of EI-5 (first
77-3987 3.00 5.19 660.
77-4153 2.75 4.92 640.
CO
96.1
79.0
68.1
65.1
MPG
11.3
11.7
11.4
11.4
HC
1.99
1.90
1.92
1.84
Bag 2:
NOx
3.52
3.37
3.59
3.54
Stabilized
co2
682.
679.
694.
697.
CO
30.9
28.3
21.8
19.5
MPG
12.0
12.2
12.1
12.1
HC
1.85
2.02
1.91
1.91
Bag 3:
NOx
5.54
5.39
5.62
5.83
Hot Transient
co2
585.
586.
589.
604.
CO MPG
30.5 13.9
29.0 13.9
18.9 14.2
18.5 13.9
refueling)
73.3
63.9
11.3
11.9
1.97
1.95
3.75
3.39
688.
679.
24.0
25.5
12.1
12.2
1.93
1.91
6.17
5.52
611.
591.
22.3 13.6
23.8 14.0
-------
10
Table IV
1970 Valiant
75 FTP mass emissions in
grams per mile x.
Test #
Baseline
77-3868
77-3870
Average
Af terpouring
77-3938
77-3949
Average
HC
2.92
(1.82)
2.59
(1.61)
2.76
(1.72)
(grams per kilometer)
CO C02
38.4
(23.9)
34.5
(21.5)
36.5
(22.7)
Diesel fuel through
2.46
(1.53)
2.75
(1.71)
2.61
(1.62)
After accumulating 200
77-4007
77-4009
Average
2.53
(1.57)
2.73
(1.70)
2.63
(1.64)
29.5
(18.3)
35.7
(22.2)
32.6
(20.3)
additional
32.0
(19.9)
35.4
(22.0)
33.7
(21.0)
419.
(261.)
419.
(260.)
419.
(261.)
the carburetor
420.
(261.)
417.
(259.)
419.
(260.)
miles
427.
(265.)
407.
(253.)
417.
(259.)
miles/gal
(liters/
NOx 100km)
6.12
(3.80)
6.08
(3.78)
6.10
(3.79)
6.02
(3.74)
6.07
(3.77)
6.05
(3.76)
6.07
(3.77)
5.54
(3.44)
5.81
(3.61)
18.2
(13.0)
18.4
(12.8)
18.3
(12.9)
18.7
(12.6)
18.4
(12.8)
18.6
(12.7)
18.3
(12.9)
18.8
(12.5)
18.6
(12.7)
(1)
Values shown in parenthesis denote metric units.
-------
11
Table V
1970 Valiant
HFET mass emissions in
grams per mile ,.,.
(grams per kilometer)
Test //
Baseline
77-3969
77-3871
Average
After pouring
77-3939
77-3950
Average
HC
1.31
(0.81)
1.30
(0.81)
1.31
(0.81)
Diesel
1.27
(0.79)
1.27
(0.79)
1.27
(0.79)
CO
11.5
(7.1)
11.4
(7.1)
11.5
(7.1)
fuel through
10.3
(6.4)
10.7
(6.6)
10.5
(6.5)
After accumulating 200 additional
77-4008
77-4010
Average
1.13
(0.70)
1.22
(0.76)
1.18
(0.73)
9.1
(5.7)
10.6
(6.6)
9.9
(6.2)
co2
343.
(213.)
333.
(207.)
338.
(210.)
the carburetor
343.
(213.)
340.
(211.)
342.
(212.)
miles
330.
(205.)
332.
(206.)
331.
(206.)
NOx
7.30
(4.53)
6.64
(4.13)
6.97
(4.33)
6.74
(A. 19)
6.80
(4.22)
6.77
(4.21)
6.33
(3.93)
6.21
(3.86)
6.27
(3.90)
miles/gal
(liters/
100km)
24.3
(9.7)
25.0
(9.4)
24.7
(9.6)
24.4
(9.6)
24.6
(9.6)
24.5
(9.6)
25.5
(9.2)
25.2
(9.3)
25.4
(9.3)
(1)
Values shown in parenthesis denote metric units.
-------
Table VI
1970 Valiant '75 FTP
Individual Bag Emissions in
grams per mile
Bag 1: Cold Transient
Test //
Baseline
77-3868
77-3870
HC NOx CO
5.92 5.77 426.
4.69 6.01 426.
After pouring Diesel fuel through
77-3939
77-3949
3.75 6.18 435.
5.10 6.04 426.
After accumulating 200 additional
77-4007
77-4009
4.69 6.23 437.
5.46 5.55 420.
CO
100.7
84.7
MPG
14.7
15.5
HC
2.21
2.14
Bag 2:
NOx
5.79
5.70
: Stabilized
co2
427.
428.
CO
24.6
23.4
MPG
18.8
18.8
HC
2.02
1.88
Bag 3:
NOx
7.03
6.86
Hot Transient
co2
399.
397.
CO
17.9
18.0
MPG
20.5
20.6
the carburetor
71.8
86.4
miles
82.7
87.2
15.9
15.4
15.3
15.5
2.20
2.30
2.08
2.06
5.54
5.59
5.56
5.10
425.
424.
432.
412.
20.1
24.8
20.5
24.0
19.1
18.9
18.8
19.4
1.97
1.84
1.73
1.95
6.80
7.02
6.94
6.38
401.
398.
409.
386.
15.6
18.2
15.7
18.1
20.6
20.5
20.2
21.1
KJ
-------
13
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1970 Plymouth Valiant
Emission control system - Engine Modifications
Engine
type ............... 4 stroke, Otto cycle, 1-6, ohv
bore x stroke .......... 3.40 x 4.12 in./86.4 x 104.7 mm
displacement ........... 225 cu in./3688 cc
compression ratio ........ 8.4:1
maximum power @ rpm ....... 145 bhp/108 kW at 4000 rpm
fuel metering .......... one barrel carburetor
fuel requirement ......... regular leaded or unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type ........ 3 speed automatic
final drive ratio ........ 2.75 :1
Chassis
* .............. front engine, rear wheel drive
tire size ............ C78 x 14
curb weight ........... 2960 lbs>/1343 k
inertia weight .......... 3000 lbs>
passenger capacity ........ g
Emission Control System
basic type ...... ...... engine modifications
durability accumulated on system . .23000 mi./37000 km
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING Of FICE: 1979- 651-112/0117
------- |