EPA-AA-TAEB-80-2
Evaluation of the FuelXpander
Prepared by
Edward Anthony Earth
James Kranig
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-2-
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 econ-
omy or both. EPA invites developers of such systems to provide complete
technical data on the systems'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 shows promise,
attempts are made to schedule confirmatory tests at the EPA Motor Vehi-
cle Emission 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 FuelXpander is a retrofit device, marketed by FuelXpanders LTD. of
Glen Falls, New York. It is designed to pre-heat the gasoline before it
reaches the carburetor. The manufacturer claims the device improves
fuel economy, safety, and performance.
The Postal Inspector in Glen Falls requested EPA to test the device to
determine if it met its claims. The basic question asked was whether
"with a FuelXpander installed on an engine, will the fuel economy, on
the average under different outside temperatures, increase, stay the
same, or decrease." It was in response to this request, that the TAEB
agreed to test the FuelXpander.
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 vehicle 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.
Summary of Findings
- The FuelXpander did not demonstrate any statistically significant
effect on fuel economy for either vehicle tested in either the FTP
or the HFET.
-------
-3-
- The FuelXpander either had no effect on emission levels or it
caused an increase in the emission levels. The only exception was
a decrease of NOx for the HFET tests for the Aspen.
The FuelXpander did not have a statistically significant effect on
evaporative emissions but there appeared to be a trend toward
smaller evaporative emission increases as the ambient temperature
was increased when the FuelXpander was used.
Use of the FuelXpander appeared to have a mixed effect on the
emission levels as the ambient temperature was increased with the
effect being different for each vehicle, test cycle, and emission
product.
The FuelXpander showed either no effect or a detrimental effect on
fuel economy when the ambient temperature was increased.
Device Description
The FuelXpander is an after market device, designed to pre-heat gasoline
before it reaches the carburetor. The device operates as a tube and
shell heat exchanger, constructed of copper and/or brass. It uses the
engine coolant as the heat source and transfers this heat to the gaso-
line by conduction. The FuelXpander is installed in the fuel line as
close as possible to the carburetor. The vehicle passenger compartment
heater lines are cut and Y fittings are installed to divert part of the
engine coolant through the device. Upon entering the device, the fuel
is introduced to a chamber through which the water line (heat source)
travels. This chamber is designed to transfer engine coolant heat to
the fuel. From there, the fuel enters the carburetor in the normal
manner.
The following benefits are claimed by the manufacturer :
Performance - "The response to the gas pedal is immediate. Car seems to
just glide along. The superior fuel atomization and equal cylinder
distribution allows for the elimination of surging, gives smooth pickup
and longer spark plug life... This (performance) is improved by more
positive acceleration. When one touches the accelerator, hesitations
disappear. Vehicle appears to operate as if the pollution devices were
not there."
These statements were taken from brochures accompanying the device.
There were some differences between the claims made in each brochure,
however, they were essentially similar. There was no information in-
dicating which brochure was the most current.
-------
-4-
Safety - "The finer atomization of the fuel and more equal distribution
does away with the hesitation that is experienced on the late-model
cars. Also, the automobile will not stall after repeated panic stops."
Safety is increased as most surges and stalling is eliminated, even in
repeated panic stops."
Economy - "This device should provide longer plug (spark?) life, longer
intervals between tune-ups because of better vaporization and more equal
distribution of fuel to each cylinder. In most vehicles gas mileage
will improve. Marginal spark plugs will fire this better vaporized and
heated fuel mixture. It improves the driving of the vehicle, and when a
car is running better, it should give better mileage."
Improved Gas Mileage - "The FuelXpander, by pre-heating the fuel prior
to entry into the carburetor, allows for a better air-fuel mixture to be
delivered to the cylinders."
Other claims may be found in the brochures that came with the device.
Copies of both brochures are contained in the appendix.
The FuelXpander was installed in the test vehicles according to the
instructions that came with the device. One set of these instructions
(A) noted the device could be positioned for several temperature gains.
The second (B) shows only the position designated coolest (the device
was installed in the position designated hottest). Both sets of in-
structions require use of equipment (infra-red gas analyzer or air-fuel
ratio gauge) normally available only at some repair shops.
It should be noted that although the device came with a guarantee
against defects for a period of one year, the two devices received were
both defective. One of the devices leaked water during initial tests
and required resoldering to repair. A second device's fuel port was
plugged. Unplugging it left foreign material in the fuel chamber.
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. Evaporative emissions were tested
according to the Federal Register.
The vehicles were tested at ambient cell temperatures of 72°F and 85°F.
At these temperatures both vehicles were tested with the simulated dyno
air conditioning horsepower (standard road load horsepower setting +10%
for A/C) with the vehicle's air conditioning off. Both vehicles were
also tested with the standard dyno horsepower and with the vehicle air
conditioning on.
-------
-.5-
The vehicles were tested In the baseline (stock) configuration and with
the FuelXpander installed. The baseline tests were done both before and
after the device tests at each test condition to minimize bias due to
test vehicle variability or change.
All test procedures associated with a given test were conducted at the
test temperature. This included preps, overnight soaks, refueling,
evaporative emission, heat builds, etc.
Test Vehicles
The test vehicles were a 1976 Dodge Aspen Wagon equipped with a 225
cubic inch engine, three speed automatic transmission, and FR78 x 14
tires and a 1978 Chevrolet Impala equipped with a 350 cubic inch engine,
three speed automatic transmission, and HR78 x 15 tires. Both vehicles
were equipped with air conditioning. These vehicles were chosen because
they are representative of the range of vehicles available. The re-
latively large power to weight ratio of the 1976 Zmpala is represen-
tative of many full sized cars produced in recent years. The relatively
lower power to weight ratio of the the 1976 Aspen is representative of
the current trend in automobiles. Detailed descriptions of these two
test vehicles are provided in the appendix.
Thermocouples were installed on these vehicles to record appropriate
temperatures throughout the test. The temperatures recorded were engine
block coolant, coolant into device, fuel into and out of device, and.
carburetor air temperature.
Results
The object of this test program was to determine if there was signi-
ficant beneficial change in vehicle emissions, fuel economy, or per-
formance with the FuelXpander installed. Because heating vehicle fuel
might adversely affect a vehicle manufacturer's calibration, testing was
performed close to both the upper and lower temperature limits (68° and
86°F) of the test procedure. Additionally, operation of the vehicle A/C
would tend to increase the temperature of the engine coolant used in the
FuelXpander because the A/C condenser is placed forward of the radiator.
The vehicles were tested at maximum A/C to investigate this effect. To
maximize the A/C effect, A/C-on tests were conducted with the A/C set to
maximum, fan set on high, and passenger windows open.
Under the various test conditions the vehicles were tested for gaseous
and evaporative emissions. The test procedures used were the FTP, HFET,
and evaporative (diurnal plus evaporative). For the evaporative tests
the shed procedure, described in the Federal Register of June 28, 1977,
was used. This procedure uses a small enclosure (shed) to trap all
vehicle HC emissions. The standard for this test is 6 grams HC per
test. This procedure is equal to the cannister procedure of 1976 with
its equivalent standard of 2 grams of HC per test.
-------
-6-
It may appear from an initial examination of the data that the use of
the FuelXpander did affect emissions and fuel economy. However, in
order to determine whether the observed differences were statistically
significant, a statistical test, such as an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
test, must be performed. This technique analyzes the difference due to
the subject variable in relation to the test-to-test variability to
determine if the difference is real or due to testing variability. The
resultant significance determinations are stated in terms of a percent
confidence level. (See Table V for statistical analysis summary).
EFFECT OF THE FUELXPANDER
Federal Test Procedure
The FTP results for the Aspen and Impala are summarized in Tables I and
II, respectively. They are also presented in Figures 1 through 4. The
results of the statistical analysis and the actual changes between
configurations are shown in Table V.
The FuelXpander caused significant increases in HC emissions for the
Aspen. This can be seen in Figure 1. The statistical analysis in-
dicates that these increases were significant at the 99% confidence
level and ranged from 15% to 43%. In contrast, the FuelXpander did not
have a significant effect on HC emission levels from the Impala.
The FuelXpander caused a significant increase in CO emissions from both
the Aspen and Impala. The increases for the Aspen were significant at
the 95% level and ranged from 4% to 101%. The increases for the Impala
were significant at the 90% level and the changes ranged from an 8%
decrease to a 51% increase.
NOx and fuel economy were not significantly affected by the FuelXpander
for either vehicle. While Figures 3 and 4 show some apparent changes
these changes were found to be due to test-to-test variation rather than
being attributable to the effect of the FuelXpander.
Evaporative Emission Test
The Evaporative Emission Test results for the Aspen and Impala are
summarized in Tables I and II, respectively. They are also, shown in
Figure 5. The results of the statistical analysis'are shown in Table V.
Figure 5 indicates that the results vary greatly in magnitude and direc-
tion when comparing the FuelXpander to the baseline. Statistical analy-
sis indicated that the FuelXpander did not demonstrate any significant
effect on the level of HC evaporative emissions.
-------
-7-
Highway Fuel Economy Test
The HFET results for the Aspen and Impala are summarized in Tables III
and IV, respectively. They are also presented in Figures 6 through 9.
The results of the statistical analysis are shown in Table V.
The Aspen results indicated that the FuelXpander had a significant
effect on HFET, HC, CO, and NOx emissions. The HC effect was signi-
ficant at the 99% level and the increases ranged from 41% to 74%. The
CO increase was significant at the 90% level and ranged from a 127% to a
270% increase. The NOx levels decreased due to the FuelXpander at a 95%
significance level and the changes ranged from an 11% increase to a 35%
decrease.
The FuelXpander did not have a significant effect on HFET fuel economy
for the Aspen. The FuelXpander was found not to have any significant
effect on any of the regulated emissions or fuel economy for the Impala.
COMBINED EFFECT OF FUELXPANDER AND TEMPERATURE
Federal Test Procedure - Combined Effects
The combined effect of a change in ambient temperature and the effect of
the FuelXpander is shown in Table VI. The table shows the percent
change in value resulting from a change in ambient temperature. The
combined effect can be seen by comparing the percent effect ambient
temperature changes had for each of the two configurations within each
of the two A/C test conditions.
When using the FuelXpander, the Aspen HC and CO levels tended to show
greater increases than the baseline vehicle as the ambient temperature
increased. For the FuelXpander, NOx levels appeared to show either a
smaller reduction or no change at the higher temperature. Fuel economy
tended to increase with temperature in the baseline condition slightly
more than with the FuelXpander.
With the FuelXpander the HC levels for the Impala tended to show greater
decreases than the baseline vehicle as the ambient temperature in-
creased. The CO level changes and fuel economy changes with temperature
did not show a clear pattern. When in the baseline configuration, the
NOx levels tended to increase more as the ambient temperature increased.
Highway Fuel Economy Test - Combined Effect
For the Aspen the increase in ambient temperature causes a greater
increase in HC emissions with the FuelXpander. Slightly lower CO emis-
sion increases with high ambient temperature were found when the Fuel-
Xpander was used. The effect of the FuelXpander on NOx levels and fuel
economy as the ambient temperature varied did not show a trend.
-------
-8-
The combined effect of the FuelXpander and temperature on the Impala did
not have a consistent effect on the HC, CO, and NOx emission levels.
Fuel economy appeared to be unaffected. These results are shown in
Table VI.
Evaporative Emission Test - Combined Effect
For both vehicles the increase in ambient temperature tended to show a
smaller increase in evaporative emissions with the FuelXpander. These
results are also given in Table VI.
Conclusions
- Aspen HC and CO emission levels for the FTP cycle increased signi-
ficantly with the use of the FuelXpander.
- NOx and fuel economy levels for the Aspen were not significantly
affected by the FuelXpander during the FTP cycle.
- HC levels for the Impala were significantly increased by using the
FuelXpander on the FTP cycle.
CO, NOx, and fuel economy for the Impala on the FTP cycle were not
affected by the FuelXpander.
- The FuelXpander did not affect the evaporative emission results.
The FuelXpander significantly increased HC and CO levels while it
decreased NOx levels for the Aspen during the HFET cycle.
- The regulated emissions for the Impala were not significantly
affected by the FuelXpander over the HFET cycle.
- The FuelXpander did not significantly affect the fuel economy
levels for Aspen and Impala over the HFET cycle.
For the FTP cycle, relative to baseline, use of the FuelXpander on
the Aspen caused a greater increase in HC and CO emissions, no
change in NOx emissions, and a smaller increase in fuel economy as
the ambient temperature increased.
For the FTP cycle, relative to baseline, use of the FuelXpander on
the Impala caused greater decrease in HC levels, a greater increase
in NOx levels, and no pattern of change for the CO and fuel economy
levels as the ambient temperature increased.
Use of the FuelXpander appeared to cause smaller increases in
evaporative emissions for both vehicles as the ambient temperature
increased.
-------
-9-
For the HFET cycle, relative to baseline, use of the FuelXpander on
the Aspen caused greater HC increases, smaller CO increases, and no
pattern regarding NOx and fuel economy levels as the ambient tem-
perature increased.
For the HFET cycle, relative to baseline, use of the FuelXpander on
the Impala caused no apparent pattern of change for HC, CO and NOx
and had no effect on fuel economy as the ambient temperature in-
creased.
-------
-10-
Table I
Aspen Station Wagon FTP Emissions
grams per mile
Average Test
Temperature °F
71.4
72.5
70.8
71.9
85.1
85.1
84.1
84.6
Average Test
Temperature °F
72.8
74.0
72.6
74.4
85.5
84.5
86.5
85.8
Test Condition
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG Evaporative*
Baseline Dyno A/C hp
FuelXpander Dyno A/C hp
Baseline A/C on
FuelXpander A/C on
Baseline Dyno A/C hp
FuelXpander Dyno A/C hp
Baseline A/C on
FuelXpander A/C on
.94
1.08
1.06
1.25
.94
1.34
1.02
1.44
Table
6.45
6.70
8.23
11.50
4.77
9.60
8.27
16.20
II
515
492
539
514
475
469
523
514
2.80
2.46
3.09
3.04
2.35
2.33
2.98
2.91
16.9
17.5
16.0
16.6
18.3
18.2
16.5
16.3
5.90
5.86
3.90
5.08
7.55
7.07
10.43
9.29
Impala FTP Emissions
grams per mile
Test Condition
Baseline Dyno A/C hp
FuelXpander Dyno A/C hp
Baseline A/C on
FuelXpander A/C on
Baseline Dyno A/C hp
FuelXpander Dyno A/C hp
Baseline A/C on
FuelXpander A/C on
HC
.51
.62
.52
.62
.45
.49
.56
.56
CO
10.27
15.00
11.48
17.10
7.48
11.30
13.41
12.40
co2
644
635
683
696
627
625
722
700
NOx
1.96
1.75
2.33
2.34
1.99
1.57
2.67
2.53
MPG
13.4
13.4
12.6
12.2
13.9
13.8
11.9
12.3
Evaporative
3.11
5.88
5.74
5.37
7.33
6.69
7.02
5.15
* Grams/Test
-------
-11-
Table III
Aspen Station Wagon HFET Emissions
grams per mile
Average Test
Temperature °F
71.0
71.9
70.5
70.9
83.4
84.2
84.6
84.4
Average Test
Temperature °F
73.0
75.5
73.6
75.6
85.6
84.7
88.7
85.8
At- £9 U WW ILU O. U ±*S LI
Basline Dyno A/C hp
FuelXpander Dyno A/C hp
Baseline A/C on
FuelXpander A/C on
Baseline Dyno A/C hp
FuelXpander Dyno A/C hp
Baseline A/C on
FuelXpander A/C on
Table
Impala HFET
grams per
Test Condition
Baseline Dyno A/C hp
FuelXpander Dyno A/C hp
Baseline A/C on
FuelXpander A/C on
Baseline Dyno A/C hp
FuelXpander Dyno A/C hp
Baseline A/C on
FuelXpander A/C on
L1V
.22
.31
.24
.38
.31
.54
.40
.67
IV
W
.43
1.59
1,23
3.86
2.56
8.23
7.09
16.10
2
398
399
416
407
388
376
403
395
11V A.
2.91
2.87
3.17
2.73
2.51
1.62
2.39
2.16
I U. \J
22.2
22.0
21.2
21.4
22.5
22.7
21.4
21.0
Emissions
mile
HC
.06
.07
.07
.09
.07
.10
.15
.10
CO
.80
1.68
1.13
3.31
2.43
7.02
9.48
4.89
co2
477
480
527
513
481
475
539
527
NOx
2.75
2.49
3.44
3.20
2.60
1.87
3.13
3.18
MPG
18.5
18.4
16.8
17.1
' 18.3
18.3
16.0
16.6
-------
-12-
Table V
Change From Baseline Due to FuelXpander
Expressed in % at Stated Significance Level (1)
Test Condition HC CO NOx MPG Evap.
Temp A/C Aspen - FTP
Low Dyno 15% S.L. 4% 99% -12% 4% -1%
Low On 18% 99% 40% 95% -2% 4% 30%
High Dyno 43% S.L. 101% S.L. -1% ** -1% ** -6% **
High On 41% 96% -2% -1% -11%
Impala - FTP
Low Dyno 22% 46% S.L. -11% 0% 86%
Low Dyno 19% 49% 90% 0% -3% -6%
High Dyno 9% 51% S.L. -21% ** -1% ** -9% **
High On 0% -8% -5% 3% -27%
Aspen - HFET
Low Dyno 41% S.L. 270% S.L. -1% S.L. -1%
Low On 58% 99% 214% 90% -14% 95% 1%
High Dyno 74% S.L. 221% S.L. -35% S.L. 1%
High On 68% 127% 11% -2%
Impala
Low Dyno 17% 110% -9% -1%
Low On 29% 193% -7% 2%
High Dyno 43% ** 189% ** -28% ** 0% **
High On -33% -48% 2% 4%
(1) Significant Level from Analysis of Variance Procedure and Direction
of Change,*
S. L. - Significance Level
* + indicates increase; - indicates decrease.
** indicates not significant at 90% confidence level.
Note: The significance level should not be confused with changes of absolute values
but are an indication of the statistical significance of the changes in
the values given in Tables I through IV.
-------
-13-
Table VI
Percent Change from Low Temperature to High Temperature
Test Condition HC CO
Configuration A/C
Baseline Dyno 0% -26%
FuelXpander . Dyno 24% 43%
Baseline On -4% 0%
FuelXpander On 15% 41%
Baseline Dyno -12% -27%
FuelXpander Dyno -21% -25%
Baseline On 8% 17%
FuelXpander On -10% -27%
Baseline Dyno 41% 495%
FuelXpander Dyno 74% 418%
Baseline On 67% 476%
FuelXpander On 76% 317%
Baseline Dyno 17% 204%
FuelXpander Dyno 43% 318%
Baseline On 114% 739%
FuelXpander On 11% 48%
NOx .MPG
Aspen - FTP
-16% 8%
-5% 4%
-4% 3%
-4% -2%
Impala - FTP
2%
-10%
15%
4%
3%
-6%
1%
Aspen - HFET
-14% 1%
-44% 3%
-25% 1%
-21% -2%
Impala - HFET
-5%
-25%
-9%
-1%
-1%
-1%
-5%
-3%
28%
21%
167%
83%
136%
14%
22%
-4%
-------
FTP 5UMMHRY
H5PETN
I MPHUP,
UCDW TEIMP H 1 EH TEIMP
I.S0
I.H0
* 1.30
Z
IJ
^
NX
LJ 1-00
t
d .30
o:
UJ .70
CL
g -a
§ .H0
I .30
V .20
X
.10
0
-
.
.
-
- g
- I
*
S
;
LOW TEMP HIGH TETMP
i
f
r-t-
r-
TEI5T COND 1 T 1 DNS
-------
Ul
a
IB
xs
EC IE
U
z:
N/ ^
U
12
CH
U
CL
B.00
g? E.00
HI
I H.00
2.W .
F~T R 5UMMRRY
FISRETN
UIUW TETMP
H I EH TEMP
9
1MPRLP,
LOW TEIMP
H I GH TETMP
TJ
H-
OQ
C I
H (-
fD Ln
I
NJ
TET5T
I T I DN5
OYNO R/c OR Rvxr-aN>
-------
RTF3 5UMMRRY
R5PETN
I MPFIUR
L_nW TELMP H 1 EH TETMP
3.20
3.00
XV.
Z 2.B0
EC
U 2.B0
5 2.H0
LJ 2.20
2.00
^
I.B0
tK
U I.E0
O.
I.H0
in
r 1.20
EC
£ 1.00
ID
.00
I
x 'm
5 .H0
Z
.20
0
-
.
-
B
.
v
. 2
S
8
c
L.DW TETMP H 1 EH TETMP
|,1
£ ?
OJ
TET5T CQND I T I DN5
RE7*f(CBCNTB
J> YND R/C OR RXC-OM >
-------
RTF 5UMMRRY
I MPFIL_f=»
L.nW TETMP H 1 EH TEIMP
20
IB
IE
IH
tfl 12
0.
NX 10
| fl'M
5 E.00
LJ
_| H.00
LJ
L. Z.00
0
t
.
s
1
_.
L.ON TETMP H I EH TETMP
OQ
TET5T CPND I T I DNS
KCPRCB04TB ITITHER »VNO fVC OR B/C-ON >
-------
il
10
CE
LJ
Ul
LJ
7-00
B.
H.
I 2.
V
^ 1.00
0
VRRIHRRT I VEI
RSPETN
UMMRRV
1 MPRLH
LOW TEMP H 1 EH TETMP
s
LOW TETMP H 1 EH TETMP
*i
OQ I
5 £
(D I
Ul
TETST CCDND I T I DNS
<
-------
.75
.70
EC
a .»
K .HB
Ld
0. .35
LH .30
EC
1 .15
V .10
.05
t- 0
HFEZT 5LJMMRRY
RSPETN
IMPRL.R
L-PW TEMP
H 1 EH TEMP
I
I
LOW TEMP
H I EH TEMP
^
H-
1 T 1 DNS
-------
HREZT 5UMMRRY
H5PETN
t_nW TEMP H 1 EH TEMP
IE .. n
is:
^ IH
m 13
S 12
v II
a .0
2: a.00
o: a. 00
LJ
0. 7.00
in G.00
in H.00
1 3.00
g 2.00
1.00
El
.
.
.
.
.
V
- I
r
I
r
i
ill nu rn
LOW TEMP H I
r
f
i
EH TE
I
OQ
i-l
n> o
i
TEST COND I T 1 C3N5
-------
HFEZT 5UMMRRY
RSPETN
1
3. SB
^ 3'25
g 3'M
£ 2.75:
V
2. SB
U
i ^ _
Z 2.00
o:
LJ 1.75
Q.
ui LSB
o:
LO 1.00
i .75:
a -s0
0
l_nW TETMP
.
.
V
; 1
|
H
H 1 EH TETMP
L.ON TETMF3
H I E3H TCMP
B
H-
TO
m
oo
DN>
-------
HFEIT 5UMMRRY
RSPETN
I MFRL.FI
2H
22
20
IB
IE
10 |H
IL
21
v 12
a
Q IBa
V
u E.00
d H.00
k- 2.H0
0
LOW TETMP
.
V
[ I
f
H 1 BH TEMP
UQW TETMP
H 1 BH TETMP
M
OQ
C
(D I
N3
VO hO
TETST CQND I T I C3N5
&VNO ffVC OR
-------
-23-
Appendix A
Analysis of Variance
Example: Aspen HC for FTP
Groups A/C HP A/C on Tr Tg
Rows Low Temp. - Base 0.94 1.06 , ,~ 3-96
Low Temp. - FuelXpander 1.08 1.25 5.11
High Temp. Base 0.94 1.02 , ?,
High Temp. FuelXpander 1.34 1.44
Tc = 4.30 4.77
T2/N = (9.07)2/8 = -10.28 T = 9.07
SS (total) = ZX2 - T2/N = 10.53 - 10.28 = 0.25
SSc = ETc2/nrg - T2/N = 10.31 - 10.28 = 0.03
SSr = £Tr2/ncg - T2/N = 10.30 - 10.28 = 0.02
SSg = ETg2/nrc - T2/N = 10.45 - 10.28 = 0.17
SS (residual) = SS (total) - SS (all others) = 0.25 - 0.22 = 0.03
Where: N = 8 (total entries)
n = 1 (# of replications)
c = 2 (# of columns)
r = 2 (# of rows)
g = 2 (//of groups)
-------
-24-
Summary of Mean Square Ratios
FTP - Aspen MSR FuelXpander
HC 22.67
CO 7.84
NOx 2.35
MPG 0.54
Evap. 0.01
Impala
HC 0.18
CO 5.83
NOx 2.80
MPG 0.00
Evap. 0.00
HFET - Aspen
HC 28.00
CO 5.88
NOx 6.40
MPG 0.13
Impala
HC 0.00
CO 0.20
NOx 3.58
MPG 1.19
-------
-25-
(MSR)
SS Df SS/Df MS/MS(resid)
A/C - column 0.03 C-l=l 0.03 4.00
Temp - row 0.02 r-l=l 0.02 2.67
FX - group 0.17 g-l=l 0.17 22.67
Residual 0.03 7-3=4 0.01
Total 0.25 N-l=7
F distribution (Df=l/Df=4)
90% 95% 97.5% 99%
4.54 7.71 12.2 21.2
Compare MS/MS (resid) to F distribution -
the difference is significant if the
calculated value is greater than the
table value.
-------
-26-
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1976 Dodge Aspen Wagon
Emission control system - catalytic reactor, exhaust gas recycle
Engine
type Otto spark, inline, 6 cylinder, OHV
bore x stroke 3.40 x 4.13 in/86.4 x 104.9 mm
displacement 2.25 CID/3687 cc
compression ratio 8.4:1
maximum power @ rpm
fuel metering 1 carburetor, 1 Venturi
fuel requirement Unleaded, 91 Octane, tested with
Indolene unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type Automatic 3 speed
final drive ratio 2.94:1
Chassis
type separate body/frame, front engine, rear drive
tire size FR 78 x 14
curb weight 3815 Ib
inertia weight 4000 Ib
passenger capacity 6
Emission Control System
basic type catalytic reactor, exhaust gas recirculation
-------
-27-
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1976 Chevrolet Impala
Emission control sytem - Catalytic reactor, exhaust gas recirculation
Engine
type
bore x stroke
displacement
compression ratio
maximum power @ rpm
fuel metering
fuel requirement
Drive Train
transmission type
final drive ratio
Chassis
type
tire size
curb weight
inertia weight
passenger capacity
Emission Control System
basic type
Otto spark, V-8, OHV
4.00 x 3.48 in/101.6 x 88.4 mm
350 CID/5735 cc
8.5:1
145 HP/108 kW
1 carburetor, 2 Venturi
unleaded, 91 octane tested with
Indolene unleaded
Automatic 3-speed
2.73:1
Separate frame/body, front engine, rear drive
HR 78 x 15
4266 Ibs
4500 Ibs
6
Catalytic reactor, exhaust gas recirculation
-------
A-28
We have all seen the effect of
gasoline left in a container in the
sun. It expands and overflows. The
Fuel Expander is our method of
controlled expansion giving you
summer conditions all year long.
With its benefits of added Economy,
Safety and Performance and its
*maintenance-free operation, this
becomes the ideal retrofit device.
Enjoy it and take it. with you for
your next car.
*Cooling system must be maintained
to allow proper operation of the
Fuel Expander.
IMPROVES GAS ftyLEAGE
The Fuel Expander, by pre-heating
the fuel prior to entry into the car-
buretor, allows for'a better air-fuel
mixture to be /delivered to the
cylinders.. . . '-
SAFETY
$
The finer atomizatjjlon of the fuel
and more equal distribution does
away with the hesitation ,that is
experienced on the late-model cars.
Also, the automobile / will not stall
after repeated panic stops.
PERFORMANCE
The response to the gas pedal .is
immediate. Car seems to just glide
along. The superior fuel atomization
and equal cylinder distribution allows
for the elimination of surging, gives
smoother pickup and longer spark
plug life.
FOR
YOUR
DRIVING
PLEASURE
UE&PANDER
PAT. PENDING ^k TM
BOX 281
S -N.Y. 12801
Your Fuel Expander is guaranteed
to be free of defects for a period of
one (1) year from date of purchase.
Any unit found defective will be
replaced free of charge.
-------
A-29
INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS
**Read through instructions before starting installation.
Drain Coolant from radiator, if necessary.
Locate Fuel Expander as close to carburetor as possible in horizontal position with water line and fuel line opposite each other,
as in Figure 1.
Cut heater line and insert Y at A before Ranco valve. NOTE: This is the hot water inlet line going to heater.
Cut other heater line and insert second Y at B. NOTE: This is return from heater to water pump. Be sure Y's are inserted in
direction of flow.
5. Secure all hose connections with clamps. Tighten carburetor base bolts and screws.
6. Cut fuel line near carburetor WITH TUBE CUTTER. Connect input and output fuel lines with flexible neopreme fuel line at C
and D. *On vehicles having in-line fuel filter, reposition filter between expander and carburetor. DO NOT USE HACK SAW.
Replace Coolant drained from system. Start engine, run until operating temperature is reached. MAKE SURE DEVICE IS HOT.
Attach AIR-FUEL RATIO Gauge. BE SURE CARBURETOR AIR CLEANER IS ON.
Rotate unit to desired heat range.
10. Adjust idle circuit to maximum lean position as specified by the manufacturer. (Approximately 14-15 to 1)
*You are now ready to enjoy the b&Kfiia of economy, safety, and superior performance from your new Fuel Expander.
1.
2.
3.
4.
7.
8.
9.
GARB. |
Hose line from engine block
Fig, 1
FUEL
EX PANDER
Fig. 2
ROTATE UNIT'TO HIGHEST READING
Normal - Hottest - Coolest
1 2 3
Hose line to water pump
Engine coolant and fuel flow same direction
-------
\
INTRODUCING
THJE
FUE&PANDER
PAT. PEMDtNG ^^f
A method of preheating fuel prior
to introduction to the carburetor
giving summer conditions every
season of the year.
As there are no moving parts,
the fuel expander is maintenance
free*. The FuelXpander is con-
structed from copper and brass. It
should enhance your performance for
many years to come.
*Cooling system must be maintained
to allow proper operation of your
fuel expander.
ECONOMY V
This device should provide longer
plug life, longer intervals between
tune-ups because of better vaporiza-
tion and more equal distribution of
fuel to each cylinder. In most
vehicles, gas mileage will improve.
Marginal spark plugs will fire this
better vaporized and heated fuel
mixture. It improves the driving of
the vehicle, and when a car is
running better, it should give better
mileage.
SAFETY
Safety is increased as most
surges and stalling is eliminated,
even in repeated panic stops.
PERFORMANCE
This is improved by more positive
acceleration. When one touches the
accelerator, hesitations disappear.
Vehicle appears to operate as if
the pollution devices were hot there.
B-30
FOR
YOUI
DRIVING
PUASURE
FUE&PANDER
0 BOX 281
'ALLS - N.Y i?80i
Your Fuel Expander is guaranteed
to be free of detects for a period of
one (1) year fronTdate of purchase.
Any unit found defective will be
replaced free of charge.
-------
c
in
2
o
o
n
n
m
Ln
»-
I _
,-
to
o
Ul
FUE&PANDER
PAT. PENDING ^k JM
INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS
**Read through instructions before starting installation.
1. Drain coolant from radiator as necessary.
2. Locate Fuel Expander approximately 12" from carburetor in horizontal position with water line below fuel line as
pictured below, with (*- ) on expander on inlet side.
3. Attach bracket so position will be held. :.
4. Cut heater line and insert Y at A before ranco valve. NOTE; this is the hot water line going to heater.
5. Cut other heater line and insert Y at B. NOTE: this is return from heater to water pump. Be sure Y's are inserted in
direction of flow.
6. Secure all hose connections with clamps. Tighten carburetor base bolts and screws.
7. Cut fuel line near carburetor WITH TUBE CUTTER. Connect input and output lines with approved neopreme fuel line at
C and D. On vehicles having inline fuel filter, reposition filter between expander and carburetor. DO NOT USE HACKSAW.
8. Replace coolant drained from system. Start engine, run until operating temprature is reached. MAKE SURE DEVICE IS HOT.
9. Attach AIR - FUEL RATIO gauge or INFRA - RED ANALYZER. Be sure carburetor air cleaner is on, and all lines
and pollution devices are attached as required by manufacturer.
1 0. Adjust idle circuit to maximum- lean position as SPECIFIED BY MANUFACTURER.
* Manufacturers recommend coolant mixture of approximately 50% permanent antifreeze and water.
[C A R B.|
WATER
Heater water line from engine block.
B-31
IN-LINE
FUEL
FILTER
Arrow points to
direction of flow.
4
Return heater water line to water pump.
Engine coolant and fuel flow same direction.
------- |