77-19 CH
Evaluation of NRG #1,
A Fuel Additive
February 1978
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 fuel economy,
or both. EPA invites developers of such systems to provide complete
technical data on the system's principle of operation, together with
available test data on the system. In those cases for which review by
EPA technical staff suggests that the data available show promise,
attempts are made to schedule tests at the EPA Motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory at Ann Arbor, Michigan. The results of all such test pro-
jects are set forth in a series of Technology Assessment and Evaluation
Reports, of which this report is one.
NRG //I is a fuel additive developed and marketed by NRG International
Inc. of Clayville, New York. A representative of NRG supplied EPA with
results of tests conducted by Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. which
showed that use of the additive resulted in increased fuel economy as
well as significant reductions in HC and CO emissions. On the basis of
this data, EPA decided to conduct confirmatory tests.
The conclusions drawn from the EPA evaluation tests are necessarily of
limited applicability. A complete evaluation of the effectiveness of an
emission control 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 manner, i.e., to suggest that similar
results are likely to be achieved on other types of vehicles.
Description
NRG #1 is recommended by the manufacturer for use with all grades of
gasoline and diesel fuel used in internal combustion engines. It is
mixed directly with fuel in the vehicle's tank in a ratio of 1:1600
(0.08 fl. oz. additive per gallon fuel). The following benefits are
claimed by the manufacturer when the additive is used in an automotive
gasoline engine:
-------
-2-
-Increased fuel economy of 10-25%
-Decreased exhaust emissions
-Increased engine power
-Decreased starting time in cold weather
-Decreased dieseling tendency
-Decreased carbon buildup inside engine
Test Procedure
Exhaust emission tests were conducted according to the 1977 Federal Test
Procedure (FTP), described in the Federal Register of June 28, 1977,
and the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET), described in the Federal
Register of September 10, 1976. Steady state and Federal Short Cycle
tests were also conducted. Evaporative emissions were not tested.
Prior to baseline testing the vehicle, described in Table 1, was tuned
to Chevrolet's specifications for ignition timing, idle speed, and spark
plug gap. One spark plug was found to be fouled with oil, so it was
replaced. Compression in all cylinders was also checked and found to be
within specification. To precondition the vehicle, it was driven on the
dyno for two cycles of the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) ,
one HFET cycle, and another UDDS cycle.
The vehicle was tested in three different conditions:
1) Baseline
2) With NRG //I
3) After 500 miles with NRG //I
At each test condition duplicate tests of each type (FTP, HFET, Steady
States, Federal Short Cycle) were conducted. The accumulation of 500
miles was made up of 400 miles AMA durability on a test track and 100
miles of highway driving to and from the test track.
Test Results
Table 2 gives a comparison between average results of baseline (before
addition of NRG #1) and final (after 500 miles with NRG #1) test condi-
tions. In general, emission levels remained the same or increased with
NRG #1 in the fuel. In particular, use of the additive resulted in the
following:
-------
-3-
Increased NOx emissions in all test procedures
Reduced HC emissions (approximately 15%) for steady state tests at
40 and 50 mph
- Increased HC emissions for all other test procedures
Increased CO emissions (approximately 23%) for the FTP
Decreased CO emissions (100%) for the Federal Short Cycle
No measurable change in CO emissions for other tests
CO emissions for HFET and steady state tests were less than 0.1 gram/mile.
This is due to the effectiveness of the catalytic converter once it is
warmed up.
Changes in average fuel economy were small. Most tests showed a decrease
in fuel economy with NRG #1 in the fuel, but the HFET, 40 mph, and
50 mph tests showed slight (less than 3%) increases in fuel economy with
the additive.
Conclusions
Although a few EPA tests of NRG //I showed slight improvements in either
fuel economy or emissions, the majority of tests indicated that use of
the additive decreased fuel economy while increasing emissions. This
leads to the conclusion that there is neither a general increase in fuel
economy nor a decrease in emissions associated with the addition of
NRG #1 to the fuel.
-------
Table 1
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1975 Chevrolet Nova
Emission control system - EGR, Catalyst, Air Injection
(California calibration)
Engine
type V-8, OHV
bore x stroke 4.00 x 3.48 in. (101.6 x 88.4 mm)
displacement 350 cu. in. (5735 cc)
compression ratio 9.0
maximum power @ rpm 200 hp @ 5200 rpm (150 kW)
fuel metering Carburetor, 4V
fuel requirement Unleaded regular, tested with Indolene HO
unleaded 100 octane
Drive Train
transmission type Automatic 3-speed
final drive ratio 3.08
Chassis
type Sedan, 2 door
tire size .- ER78 x 14
curb weight 3585 Ib. (1626 kg)
inertia weight 400C Ib.
passenger capacity six
Emission Control System
basic type EGR, Catalyst, Air Injection
-------
-5-
Table 2
Comparison of Baseline and Final Test Averages
Test
Procedure
FTP
HFET
Steady State
20 mph
30 mph
40 mph
50 mph
Idle Neutral
Idle Drive
Federal
Short Cycle
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
F.E. (mpg)
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC (g/hr)
CO (g/hr)
NOx (g/hr)
F.E. (gal/hr)
HC (g/hr)
CO (g/hr)
NOx (g/hr)
F.E. (gal/hr)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
F.E. (mpg)
Baseline
.62
4.8
1.86
12.7
.13
0.0
2.69
17.3
.15
0.0
.30
20.2
.09
0.0
.42
19.8
.08
0.0
.88
19.7
.11
0.0
1.74
18.7
1.31
0.0
2.39
.74
.54
0.0
2.94
.79
.21
0.2
.91
14.9
500 Miles
With Additive
.81
5.9
2.01
12.5
.14
0.0
2.94
17.7
.24
0.0
.32
16.2
.11
0.0
.47
19.3
.07
0.0
.97
19.8
.09
0.0
2.08
19.1
4.02
0.0
3.36
.86
1.08
0.1
3.06
.85
.29
0.0
1.26
14.9
% Change
+ 31
+ 23
+ 8.1
- 1.6
+ 7.7
0.0
+ 9.3
+ 2.3
+ 60
0.0
+ 6.7
- 20
+ 22
0.0
+ 12
- 2.5
- 13
0.0
+ 10
+ 0.5
- 18
0.0
+ 20
+ 2.1
+207
0.0
+ 41
- 16
+100
+infinite
+ 4.1
- 7.6
+ 38
-100
+ 38
0.0
-------
-6-
Table 3
Baseline Tests
Test //
78-5955
78-5960
78-5956
78-5961
78-5957
78-5962
Test
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
HFET
HFET
HC
(gram/mi)
1.63
.27
.56
.63
1.66
.31
.38
.61
.13
.13
Fed. Short .22
Cycles .20
CO
(gram/mi)
23.8
0.0
0.7
5.1
20.6
0.1
0.7
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
NOx
(gram/mi)
2.53
1.23
2.46
1.84
2.64
1.28
2.45
1.88
2.82
2.56
0.74
1.07
Fuel Economy
(mi/gal)
12.0
12.2
14.3
12.7
12.1
12.2
14.1
12.6
17.0
17.6
14.9
14.9
78-5958
78-5963
78-5958
78-5963
78-5959
78-5964
78-5959
78-5964
Steady States
20 mph .19
20 .10
30
30
40
40
50
50
.09
.08
.11
.05
.11
.10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.34
.25
.45
.39
.82
.93
1.78
1.70
78-5958
78-5963
78-5959
78-5964
Idle
Neutral
Idle
Drive
1.66
.96
1.08
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.14
2.64
3.00
2.88
20.8
19.6
19.4
20.1
19.7
19.6
18.9
18.5
(gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gal/hr)
0.59
0.89
0.81
0.76
-------
-7-
Table 4
Tests With NRG 11 Added
Test #
78-6329
78-6367
78-6328
78-6394
78-6331
78-6331
78-6327
78-6333
78-6327
78-6332
78-6326
78-6395
78-6326
78-6332
HC
Test (gram/mi)
Bag 1 1.
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
Bag 1 1.
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
HFET
HFET
Fed. Short .
Cycles
Steady States
20 mph
20
30
30
40
40
50
50
70
27
28
57
58
29
35
57
13
13
19
20
17
21
08
08
13
07
18
13
(gram/hr)
78-6327
78-6333
78-6333
78-6395
Idle 2.
Neutral 2 .
Idle 1.
Drive 1.
28
88
56
29
CO
(gram/mi)
23.8
0.1
0.4
5.0
19.9
0.0
0.8
4.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(gram/hr)
0.0
5.6
22.9
0.0
NOx
(gram/mi)
2.71
1.25
2.60
1.92
2.75
1.25
2.38
1.87
3.17
2.96
1.16
1.18
.29
.25
.45
.43
.85
.91
1.64
1.89
(gram/hr)
4.80
2.88
3.36
3.19
Fuel Econi
(mi/ gal)
12.1
12.2
14.1
12.6
12.3
12.3
14.5
12.8
16.9
17.0
16.1
15.8
19.5
21.3
19.4
19.8
19.5
20.5
17.6
18.2
(gal/hr)
.86
.75
.72
.75
-------
-8-
Table 5
Tests After 500 Miles With NRG #1
Test //
78-6379
78-6374
78-6378
78-6373
78-6375
78-6370
78-6372
78-6377
78-6371
78-6376
78-6371
78-6376
78-6371
78-6376
HC
Test (gram/mi)
Bag 1 2.
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
Bag 1 2.
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
HFET
HFET
Fed. Short .
Cycles
Steady States
20 mph
20
30
30
40
40
50
50
19
33
32
71
82
42
38
90
13
14
25
32
32
15
12
10
07
07
09
09
CO
(gram/mi)
27.5
0.1
0.3
5.8
28.2
0.1
0.4
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NOx
(gram/mi)
2.89
1.30
2.61
1.98
2.82
1.34
2.73
2.03
2.94
2.94
1.25
1.26
.39
.25
.48
.45
.99
.94
2.12
2.04
Fuel Econ
(mi/gal)
12.0
12.1
14.3
12.6
11.9
11.8
13.9
12.3
17.7
17.6
14.8
14.9
12.2
20.1
19.2
19.4
19.7
19.9
19.0
19.1
(gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gal/hr)
78-6372
78-6377
78-6372
78-6377
Idle
Neutral
Idle
Drive
4.56
3.48
1.20
.96
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
3.12
3.60
3.00
3.12
.86
.86
.85
.85
------- |