EPA-AA-TEB-80-12
Evaluation of XRG #1 a Fuel Additive
by
Edward Anthony Earth
February 1980
Test 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 im-
provement 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 shows promise, attempts are made to schedule tests at the EPA Motor
Vehicle Emission Laboratory at Ann Arbor, Michigan. The results of all such
test projects are set forth in a series of Test and Evaluation Reports, of
which this report is one.
In February of 1978 the EPA tested NRG #1, a fuel additive developed and
marketed by NRG International, Inc. of Clayville, New York. Contrary to NRG's
claims, the test results showed, "neither a general increase in fuel economy
nor a decrease in emissions associated with the addition of NRG //I to the
fuel." (1)(Evaluation of NRG #1, A Fuel Additive, TAEB Report 77-19, February
1978).*
In response to a request from the Federal Trade Commission for more in-depth
information on NRG //I (now referred to as "XRG #1") (2) this new series of
tests was performed.
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 con-
ducted 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 quanti-
tively valid only for the specific test cars 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
There was no significant change in emissions or fuel economy through the use
of XRG #1 for the group of vehicles tested.
For individual vehicles, the Citation showed a 2% fuel economy improvement on
the FTP and 4% fuel economy improvement on the HFET. There was no significant
increase or decrease in fuel economy for the Dart and Fairmont for either the
FTP or HFET.
* Numbers in parenthesis designate references at the end of this report.
-------
Description
XRG //I is a fuel additive developed and marketed by XRG International, Inc.,
(formerly NRG International) of Clayville, New York.
XRG //I 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 (3):
- 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.
The manufacturer claims these benefits occur over a period of time of con-
tinued usage. That is, there are some immediate benefits from usage of the
fuel additive but full benefits are obtained only after several tankfuls of
the XRG #1 additive doped fuel. In addition, to retain these benefits, XRG #1
usage must be continued.
Test Vehicle Description
The three test vehicles used in this study were:
A 1980 Chevrolet Citation equipped with a 2.8 litre V-6 engine and an
automatic transmission. This vehicle used EGR, an oxidation catalyst,
and pulsating air injection for emission control.
A 1975 Dodge Dart equipped with a 225 cubic inch inline 6-cylinder engine
and an automatic transmission. This vehicle was calibrated to meet the
1975 California emission standards. This vehicle used an air pump, EGR,
and an oxidation catalyst for emission control.
A 1979 Ford Fairmont equipped with a 140 cubic inch inline 4-cylinder
engine and automatic transmission. This vehicle used an oxidation cata-
lyst for emission control.
A complete description of these vehicles is given in the test vehicle
description in Appendix A.
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. The vehicles were not tested for evaporative emissions.
-------
Prior to baseline testing, each vehicle was given a specification check and
inspection. The ignition timing, idle speed, and fast idle speed were checked
for agreement with the manufacturer's specifications given on the Vehicle
Emission Control Information label affixed to the engine compartment. Each
vehicle met its manufacturer's specifications and therefore no adjustments
were required.
The vehicles were inspected for engine vacuum leaks, proper connection of
vacuum hoses, functioning PCV valve, oil and water levels, and general condi-
tion of engine compartment. Each vehicle was in satisfactory condition when
initially inspected.
Because the manufacturer's claims for XRG #1 additive included both immediate
and long term benefits (3) the test program included testing both immediately
after initial additive usage and after-mileage accumulation with the additive.
Each vehicle was tested in three different conditions:
1. Baseline - as received.
2. With XRG #1 (vehicle fuel tank drained, refueled with additive doped
fuel and prepped before this test).
3. After 500 miles with XRG #1.
At each test condition duplicate FTP and HFET tests were conducted. The
accumulation of 500 miles using fuel with XRG //I consisted of sequences of 10
HFET driving cycles and one LA-4 (the basic FTP cycle) driving cycle. The
relatively high average speed of the HFET (48 mph) was expected to minimize
the amount of time to achieve those additive benefits that are based on vehi-
cle mileage accumulation. Mileage accumulation was accomplished on a dyna-
mometer.
In addition, one vehicle, that was used in later test programs, received
baseline tests after the 500 mile XRG #1 tests.
All testing was performed using the same gasoline batch. Two barrels of the
gasoline batch were doped with the XRG #1 at the manufacturer's prescribed
doseage of 1600 parts gasoline to one part XRG //I. This XRG #1 doped gasoline
was used for all XRG #1 tests and mileage accumulation.
Discussion of Results
General Data Analysis
The objective of this test program was to determine if there was a significant
beneficial change in vehicle emissions, fuel economy, or performance through
the use of the fuel additive XRG #1.
The results of these tests are summarized in Tables I and II. Results of
individual tests are given in Tables V through X in Appendix B. The results
of the statistical analysis and actual changes between configurations are
shown in Tables III and IV.
-------
5
Table I
Average Vehicle FTP Emissions
grams per mile
Test Condition
Baseline
XRG //I
XRG //I @ 500 miles
Baseline
XRG #1
XRG #1 @ 500 miles
Baseline
XRG #1
XRG #1 @ 500 miles
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
Chevrolet Citation - FTP
.35
.32
.33
1.93
2.03
1.86
450
449
440
1.55
1.62
1.61
19.5
19.6
20.0
Dodge Dart - FTP
.63
.65
.48
7.90
8.64
6.93
568
583
563
1.81
1.72
1.85
15.3
14.8
15.4
Ford Fairmont - FTP
.76
.71
.74
8.40
8.57
7.74
400
402
404
1.83
1.83
1.85
21.3
21.2
21.2
Table II
Average Vehicle HFET Emissions
grams per mile
Test Condition
Baseline
XRG //I
XRG #1 <§ 500 miles
Baseline
XRG #1
XRG #1 @ 500 miles
Baseline
XRG #1
XRG //I @ 500 miles
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
Chevrolet Citation - HFET
.07
.06
.07
.05
.04
.04
.15
.14
.14
.02
.00
.00
Dodge Dart -
.15
.11
.10
Ford Fairmont
.63
.68
.58
313
310
300
HFET
368
374
364
- HFET
317
320
313
2.58
2.17
2.41
2.48
2.52
2.35
24.1
23.7
24.4
27.9
27.6
28.2
-------
Table III
FTP Change From Baseline Due to XRG #1 Fuel
Expressed in % at Minimum Stated Confidence Level*
Test Condition HC
Chevrolet Citation - FTP
XRG #1 at 500 miles -6%***
Dodge Dart - FTP
XRG #1 at 500 miles -24%***
Ford Fairmont - FTP
XRG #1 at 500 miles -3%***
Combined Effect - All Vehicles
XRG 31 at 500 miles ***
C0_
-4%***
-12%***
-8% 94% C.L.
***
NOx
4% 93% C.L.
2%***
1%***
***
MPG
2% 99% C.L.
1%***
0%
***
Table IV
HFET Change From Baseline Due to XRG //I Fuel
Expressed in % Change at Minimum Confidence Level*
Test Condition
HC
Chevrolet Citation - HFET
XRG //I at 500 miles
Dodge Dart - HFET
XRG #1 at 500 miles
Ford Fairmont - HFET
XRG #1 at 500 miles
Combined Effect - All Vehicles
XRG #1 at 500 miles
CO
NOx
14% 99% C.L.
MPG
5% 99% C.L.
-7%***
-5%***
1%***
1%***
***
***
* Confidence level from statistical "t" test procedure and direction of change.
C.L. - Confidence Level
**+ indicates increase; - indicate decrease.
*** indicates change not significant at 90% confidence level. That there is no
significant change.
Note: The confidence 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 and II.
Note: The confidence level was not calculated for the initial XRG #1 tests.
Note: Percent change not calculated for HC and CO emissions for HFET. See text.
-------
From an initial review of the data given in Tables III and IV, it may appear
that use of XRG #1 did cause some small changes in individual vehicle emis-
sions or fuel economy. However, in order to determine whether the apparent
differences were statistically significant, a significance test, such as a "t"
test must be performed. This technique analyzes the difference due to the
subject variable in relation to test to test variability to determine if the
difference is real or is due to testing variability. The resultant signi-
ficance determinations are stated in terms of the minimum percent confidence
level that can be ascribed to the observed difference.
The "t" test technique allows the determination of the effect of one variable
(use of XRG #1 additive) on a vehicle. The "t" test is also able to indicate
how representative the effect of the variable is for a group of vehicles. The
resultant levels of significance are stated in terms of percents. This con-
fidence level indicates the probability of assigning differences to the vari-
able (use of XRG #1 additive) being analyzed. With a test program of the size
performed, changes with confidence levels below 90% are not significant.
EFFECT OF XRG #1
Federal Test Procedure
The use of XRG //I did not significantly affect the HC emissions for the
Citation, Dart or Fairmont.
The use of XRG #1 caused mixed effects on CO emissions. There was no signi-
ficant change in the Citation's or Dart's CO emissions. The Fairmont's emis-
sions decreased 8% (at the 94% confidence level).
The use of XRG //I caused mixed effects on NOx emissions. The Citation's NOx
emissions increased 4% at the 93% confidence level. XRG #1 did not signifi-
cantly affect the NOx emissions on the Dart or Fairmont.
The use of XRG //I did not significantly affect the fuel economy of the Dart or
Fairmont. (The Citation's fuel economy showed a slight improvement, 2% (at
99% confidence level).
When the FTP results were analyzed to determine the effects of XRG #1 on the
group of vehicles, the analysis showed that the use of XRG //I did not signifi-
cantly affect either HC, CO and NOx emissions or fuel economy.
Highway Fuel Economy Test
The HC and CO emissions for all three vehicles were quite low both with and
without use of the additive. HC and CO emissions are usually very low for
most vehicles on the HFET. Thus, even a very small change such as .01 grams
per mile could appear as a 5% to 30% relative change. Therefore, since the
results were low and similar, there was no significant change in HC or CO
emissions caused by the use of XRG #1.
The use of XRG //I caused mixed results on NOx emissions. The Citation's NOx
emissions increased 14% at the 99% confidence level. The Dart's and
Fairmont's NOx emissions were not significantly affected.
-------
The use of XRG #1 did not significantly affect the fuel economy of the Dart or
Fairmont. The Citation's fuel economy showed a slight improvement, 4% at the
99% confidence level.
The analysis of the HFET results to determine the effects of XRG #1 on the
group of vehicles showed that the use of XRG #1 did not significantly affect
either HC, CO and NOx emissions or fuel economy.
Discussion of Additive Components and Their Effects
According to the manufacturer, XRG #1 is composed mostly of isopropol alcohol
and toluene. It also contains a small amount of ferrous sulphate, nitro
benzene and water (4). An exact chemical breakdown was not given.
Toluene is a normal component of gasoline. Unleaded gasoline is reported to
presently contain 10 to 15% toluene and leaded gasoline 5 to 10% toluene (5).
Premium leaded fuel is 6% toluene. Individual gasoline fuel samples have had
up to 45% toluene.
Conclusions
Although a few individual tests indicated slight improvements in emissions or
fuel economy through the use of XRG //I, several tests indicated small emission
or fuel economy penalties. A significant but small improvement in fuel econ-
omy was noted on one vehicle for the FTP and HFET. However, for the group of
vehicles, XRG//1 showed no significant effect on vehicle emissions or fuel
economy.
-------
References
1. Evaluation of NRG #1, a Fuel Additive. TAEB Technical Report 77-19,
February 1978.
2. Telephone conversation between Mr. F. Peter Hutchins, Project Manager,
EPA and Mr. Brian Boshart, engineer, XRG International Inc., on August 8,
1979.
3. NRG Fuel Additive, product information brochure (Note XRG = NRG).
4. Letter dated September 16, 1977 from Mr. Brian F. Boshart, NRG Inter-
national to Mr. Craig Harvey, EPA. Subject, NRG contents and previous
test program schedule.
5. Telephone conversation between Mr. F. Peter Hutchins, EPA and Mr. William
Meyer, Gulf Research and Development, on September 4, 1979. Subject,
toluene in gasolines.
-------
10
Appendix A
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1980 Chevrolet Citation
Vehicle ID - 1X117AW150868
Engine
type V-6, 4-Cycle
bore x stroke 89 x 76 mm/3.50 x 2.99 in.
displacement 2800 cc/170.9 CID
compression ratio 8.5 to 1
maximum power at rpm 115 hp/85.8 kW
fuel metering 2 Venturi Carburetor
fuel requirement unleaded, tested with Indolene
HO unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type 3-speed automatic
final drive ratio 2.53
Chassis
type 4 door sedan
tire size P185/80R13
curb weight 2905 lb/1318 kg.
inertia weight 3000 Ib.
passenger capacity 5
Emission Control System
basic type Oxidation catalyst
EGR
Pulsating air injection
Vehicle Odometer Mileage
6730 miles at start of test
program
7480 miles at end of test
program
-------
11
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1975 Dodge Dart
Emission control system - Air Pump, Catalyst EGR
Vehicle I.D. - LH41C5B290359
Engine
type Inline 6, 4-cycle
bore x stroke 3.40 X 4.125 in.
displacement . 225 CID/3687 cc
compression- ratio 8.4:1
fuel metering 1 Venturi, carburetor
fuel requirement v unleaded, tested with Indolene
HO unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type . . . ., 3-speed automatic
final drive ratio 2.75
Chassis
type . . . 4 door sedan
tire size D78 X 14
inertia weight 3500 Ib.
passenger capacity 6
Emission Control System
basic type air pump
oxidation catalyst
EGR
calibrated to 1975
California standards
Vehicle Odometer Mileage
20635 miles at start of test
program
21950 miles at end of test
program
-------
12
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1979 Ford Fairmont
Vehicle I.D. 9X92Y175689
Engine
type Inline 4, 4-cycle
bore x stroke 3.80 X 3.10 in./96.5 X 78.7 mm.
displacement 140 CID/2.3 1
compression ratio 9.0:1
maximum power 92 hp/68.6 k W
fuel metering 2 Venturi, carburetor
fuel requirement unleaded, tested with Indolene
HO unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type 3-speed automatic
final drive ratio 3.08
Chassis
type 4 door sedan
tire size BR 78 X 14
curb weight 2800 lb/1270 kg
inertia weight 3000 Ib.
passenger capacity .5
Emission Control System
basic type oxidation catalyst
Vehicle Odometer Mileage
10890 miles at start of test
program
11525 miles at end of test
program
-------
13
Table V
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
XRG (14 miles)
XRG (55 miles)
XRG (524 miles)
XRG (552 miles)
XRG (591 miles)
Chevrolet Citation FTP Emissions
grams per mile
Test #
EC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
79-9919
79-9921
79-9923
79-9925
79-9927
79-9929
79-9931
79-9978
79-9980
.39
.32
.33
.34
.32
.31
.35
.32
.32
2.29
1.66
1.73
2.03
2.23
1.83
1.87
1.91
1.80
452
450
450
449
450
447
441
440
439
1.54
1.56
1.56
1.52
1.60
1.63
1.57
1.65
1.62
19.4
19.5
19.5
19.6
19.5
19.7
19.9
20.0
20.0
Table VI
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline (769 miles)
Baseline (1192 miles)
XRG (8 miles)
XRG (42 miles)
XRG (521 miles)
XRG (554 miles)
XRG (595 miles)
Dodge Dart FTP Emissions
grams per mile
Test #
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
79-9778
79-9781
80-0246
80-0735
79-9782
79-9784
79-9786
79-9788
79-9986
.83
.79
.38
.50
.46
.84
.49
.47
.47
9.94
8.58
6.06
7.00
7.00
10.27
6.68
7.12
6.99
579
591
547
553
583
583
566
562
561
1.60
1.52
1.99
2.11
1.72
1.71
1.89
1.78
1.87
14.9
14.6
15.9
15.7
14.9
14.7
15.3
15.4
15.5
Table VII
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
XRG (5 miles)
XRG (52 miles)
XRG (509 miles)
XRG (540 miles)
Ford Fairmont FTP Emissions
grams per mile
Test #
79-9909
79-9911
79-9913
79-9915
79-9917
79-9984
HC
.76
.76
.72
.70
.74
.74
CO
8.29
8.50
8.58
8.56
7.88
7.59
400
400
403
400
403
404
NOx
1.83
1.82
.83
.83
1.91
1.79
MPG
21.3
21.3
21
21
21.2
21.2
-------
14
Table VIII
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
XRG(24 miles)
XRG (66 miles)
XRG (536 miles)
XRG (568 miles)
XRG (608 miles)
Chevrolet Citation HFET Emissions
grams per mile
Test 9
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
79-9920
79-9922
79-9924
79-9926
79-9928
79-9930
79-9932
79-9979
79-9981
.07
.07
.07
.07
.06
.06
.07
.07
.07
.00
.05
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
311
316
313
310
309
310
301
299
299
1.20
1.35
1.24
1.37
1.27
1.22
1.47
1.44
1.50
28.5
28.0
28.3
28.6
28.7
28.6
29.4
29.6
29.6
Table IX
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline (781 miles)
Baseline (1228 miles)
XRG
XRG
(19 miles)
(53 miles)
XRG (532 miles)
XRG (565 miles)
XRG (606 miles)
Dodge Dart HFET Emissions
grams per mile
Test //
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
79-9779
79-9780
80-0316
80-0734
79-9783
79-9785
79-9787
79-9789
79-9987
.05
.05
.05
.06
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.09
.08
.19
.22
.12
.09
.06
.09
.14
379
374
356
362
376
372
364
365
364
2.02
2.01
2.79
3.48
2.07
2.27
2.40
2.34
2.48
23.4
23.7
24.9
24.5
23.6
23.8
24.4
24.3
24.4
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
XRG (24 miles)
XRG (63 miles)
XRG (520 miles)
XRG (551 miles)
Table X
Ford Fairmont HFET Emissions
grams per mile
Test #
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
79-9910
79-9912
79-9914
79-9916
79-9918
79-9985
.14
.15
.14
.14
.13
.14
.55
.70
.68
.67
.57
.59
316
317
320
319
312
314
2.50
2.45
2.44
2.61
2.31
2.39
28.0
27.8
27.6
27.7
28.3
28.1
US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980- 651-112/0222
------- |