EPA-AA-TEB-81-13
Evaluation of Gastell
A Device to Modify Driving Habits
February 1981
by
Edward Anthony Earth
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 and/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 information 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,
confirmatory tests are run 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.
EPA received an application from Automotive Devices Inc. (ADI) to perform
an evaluation of the Gastell Device. Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act (15 USC 2011) requires EPA to evaluate
fuel economy retrofit devices with regard to both emissions and fuel
economy, and to publish the results in the Federal Register. Such an
evaluation is based upon valid test data submitted by the manufacturer
and, if required, EPA testing.
Gastell is a device that senses vehicle manifold vacuum. The device is
preset to give audible and visual signals to the driver so that the
driver can efficiently modify his driving habits. Data submitted by ADI
showed fuel economy benefits for some drivers and some vehicles.
Because of these apparent benefits, EPA decided to conduct confirmatory
tests as part of the evaluation. This test program was conducted over an
extended time period and consisted of three distinct test phases. This
report details the results of this three phase confirmatory test program.
The conclusions drawn from the EPA evaluation tests are necessarily of
limited applicability. A complete evaluation of the effectiveness of a
concept 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. The conclusions from the EPA evaluation test can be
considered to be quantitatively 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 (test vehicles grouped together)
The Phase I testing consisted of FTP and HFET dynamometer tests of the
Gastell Device. Overall, the use of the Gastell Device as a driving aid
did not show a significant effect on the vehicles' fuel economy or emis-
sions for either the FTP or HFET.
The Phase II testing consisted of modified LA-4's (FTP) and acceleration
rate studies conducted on the vehicle chassis dynamometer without using
the Gastell Device.
-------
-2-
The more aggressive (greater acceleration rates) modifications of the
LA-4 cycle developed showed little or no change in fuel economy when
compared to the standard FTP (LA-4). Therefore, since the preceding
tests with the Gastell Device did not show an improvement in the
vehicles' fuel economy for either the FTP or HFET, the Gastell Device
was not tested with these more aggressive driving cycles.
Evaluation of five vehicles on a test cycle consisting predominately
of accelerations did show that there was an average 14.6% improvement
in fuel economy between a very low acceleration rate (1 mph/sec.) and
the highest acceleration rates used (up to 5 mph/sec.). There was an
average 8.5% improvement in fuel economy between the moderate (2
mph/sec) and highest acceleration rates. This indicates that reduced
vehicle acceleration rates can improve fuel economy for some vehicle
operating conditions. However, when these acceleration fuel economy
improvements are adjusted for the average portion of driving time
actually devoted to acceleration, the maximum fuel economy savings
would be 1.9%; but, in consideration of the constraints of actual
driving conditions, a more realistic potential saving would be less
than 1/2%. A similar analysis based on fuel consumed during acceler-
ation modes yielded an average estimated improvement potential of
i -i
-------
-3-
level which the manufacturer claims is more fuel efficient.
The manufacturer claims the following benefits for Gastell:
1. Fuel economy savings of up to 30%, depending on driving habits.
2. Indicates engine problems when the alarm and light are on more
frequently than usual (i.e., functions as a vacuum gauge).
The unit is packaged in a 4 inch by 3 inch by 2 inch case that mounts to
the vehicle dash panel. A picture of the unit and operating instructions
are contained in the "Gastell Operator's Manual" in Appendix A.
The unit is easily installed. A vacuum line is attached to a source of
manifold vacuum and the electrical connections are attached to the
vehicle's 12 volt power. A copy of the manufacturer's installation
instructions is given in Appendix A.
Test Vehicle Description
Phase I: FTP and HFET chassis dynamometer testing with the Gastell
Device used the following three test vehicles:
A 1979 Buick Regal equipped with a 3.8 liter V-6 engine and an auto-
matic transmission. This vehicle used EGR and an oxidation catalyst
for emission control.
A 1979 Chevrolet Impala equipped with a 5.7 liter V-8 engine and an
automatic transmission. This vehicle also used EGR and an oxidation
catalyst 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 complete description of these vehicles is given in the test vehicle
descriptions in Appendix A.
Phase II: Modified LA-4, modified FTP, and acceleration rate chassis
dynamometer testing without the device:
A 1980 Chevrolet Citation and a 1975 Chevrolet Nova were used in the
development of the more aggressive driving cycles. A more detailed
description of these vehicles is given in Appendix B, "Development of
a More Aggressive Driving Cycle."
A 1980 Chevrolet Citation, 1980 Dodge Aspen, 1979 Ford Pinto, 1979
Mercury Zephyr and a 1979 Oldsmobile Cutlass were used in the Accel-
eration Test Program. A more detailed description of these vehicles
is given in Appendix C, "Fuel Economy vs. Acceleration Rate."
-------
-4-
Phase III: Road testing with the Gastell Device:
A 1980 Chevrolet Citation, 1975 Chevrolet Nova, a 1980 Mercury Cougar
XR-7, and a 1979 Mercury Marquis were used in the San Antonio road
test program. A more detailed description of these vehicles is given
in Appendix D, "Road Testing with the Gastell Device."
Test Procedures
Phase I: FTP and HFET dynamometer testing with the Gastell Device:
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. Additional tests were conducted as an
evaluation tool. These tests consisted of hot start LA-4 cycles.
This driving cycle is the basic cycle used in the FTP and the results
of these tests are similar to bags 2 and 3 of the FTP.
Prior to initial 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 specifica-
tions 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 connec-
tion of vacuum hoses, functioning PCV valve, oil and water levels,
and general condition of the engine compartment. Each test vehicle
was in satisfactory condition.
The test program consisted of baseline tests and Gastell tests. The
Gastell tests consisted of a standard test procedure (FTP or HFET)
which was altered by having the operator back off the accelerator, as
necessary, to silence the audible and visual Gastell vacuum alarms.
At each test condition a minimum of two FTP and two HFET tests were
conducted.
A second Gastell procedure, "modified" was also used. For this
procedure the FTP (LA-4) driving cycle was modified by reducing the
vehicle acceleration rate to a level just below that at which the
device would signal. This smoothed the cycle and would be represen-
tative of a very experienced driver's use of the device.
A third Gastell procedure, "frozen accelerator" was also used. For
this procedure the operator again backed off the accelerator to shut
off the Gastell alarms. The operator then held his foot fixed in
this position until the vehicle's speed matched the driving cycle.
Phase II: Modified LA-4, modified FTP, and acceleration rate chassis
dynamometer testing without the Gastell Device:
-------
-5-
After the conclusion of the Phase I Gastell test program, two
additional dynamometer test programs were- -conducted to further
evaluate the effect of acceleration rate on vehicle fuel economy.
These test programs and a detailed description of the test procedures
are contained in Appendices B and C of this report.
"Development of a More Aggressive Driving Cycle," Appendix B, was a
short test program in which the basic FTP driving cycle, the LA-4 was
modified. The LA-4 cycle was modified by increasing the acceleration
rates at speeds below 25 mph. Two cycles were used - Mod. 1 which
used slightly increased acceleration rates and Mod. 2 which used
nearly wide-open-throttle (WOT) accelerations.
"Fuel Economy vs. Acceleration Rate," Appendix C, was a short test
program which used a test cycle consisting of a series of accelera-
tions. The vehicle was accelerated at a fixed rate to a cruise
speed, cruised for a few seconds, and then decelerated at a fixed
rate of 2 mph/sec. The cruise time was chosen so that all tests to a
selected cruise speed would be of equal distance. This sequence was
repeated 4 times (5 total cycles). This test sequence was done for
each combination of acceleration rate and final cruise speed.
The complete test matrix used was:
Acceleration Rate mph/sec
Vehicle Speed 1.0 2.0 3.3 4.0 ,. 5t.O
change mph
0-35 x x x x x
0-45 xxx
20-35 x x x x x
30-45 xxx
The dynamometer rolls were coupled to minimize tire slippage. Fuel
consumption was measured with a fuel flowmeter. No gaseous emission
data was taken.
Phase III: Road Testing with the Gastell Device procedures:
"Road Testing with the Gastell Device," Appendix D, was a carefully
controlled road test with the Gastell Device. The drivers drove the
vehicles over a specified road route in San Antonio. Testing was
done both with and without (baseline) the Gastell Device. Details of
the test program and the San Antonio test route are given in Appendix
D.
Discussion of Results
The FTP and HFET test results are summarized in Tables I and II below.
The test results of individual tests are given in Tables A-I, A-II, and
-------
-6-
A-III in Appendix A. Results of the tests using the more aggressive
driving cycle are given in Table B-l Appendix B. Results of the accel-
eration rate tests are given in Tables C-II thru C-V of Appendix C.
Results of the road tests are given in Table III.
1. Federal Test Procedure Results - Phase I dynamometer testing with
Gastell
The test results are summarized in Table I below:
Table I
Average Vehicle FTP Emissions
grams per mile
Test Condition HC CO CC>2 NOx MPG
Buick Regal-FTP
Baseline Avg. (2 tests) .72 7.89 459 1.24 18.8
Gastell Avg. (2 tests) 1.07 7.71 464 1.01 18.5
Chevrolet Impala-FTP
Baseline Avg. (3 tests) .63 4.80 565 1.27 15.5
Gastell Avg. (2 tests) .56 4.72 563 1.34 15.5
Dodge Dart-FTP
Baseline Avg. (2 tests) .44 6.53 550 2.05 15.8
Gastell Avg. (2 tests) .38 5.86 555 1.83 15.7
Gastell Frozen Accelerator
Avg. (2 tests) .53 6.76 569 1.82 15.3
Overall the Gastell Device did not show a significant positive or nega-
tive effect on vehicle FTP emissions or fuel economy.
The use of the Gastell Device as a driver's aid did not significantly
affect the vehicle's HC emissions.
The vehicle's CO emissions were also not significantly affected by the
use of the Gastell Device.
Gastell caused mixed effects on NOx emissions. The Buick's and Dart's
FTP NOx emissions were significantly lowered. The Impala's NOx emissions
were judged to be unchanged.
The amount the Gastell Device required the driving cycle to be modified
varied appreciably between vehicles. The Gastell Device typically
sounded 15 to 20 times during the standard FTP cycle for the Buick.
However, the easing off of the accelerator only caused the driving cycle
to be appreciably altered during the long hard acceleration occurring at
195 seconds in bags 1 and 3 of the FTP for the Buick. For the Impala,
the device rarely sounded, and the device only caused the driving cycle
to be appreciably modified at 195 seconds in bag 1 of the FTP. For the
Dart, the device sounded 20 times during the FTP and appreciably altered
the driving cycle most of the time.
-------
-7-
2. Highway Fuel Economy Test Results - Phase I dynamometer testing with
Gastell
The test results are summarized in Table II below:
Table II
Average Vehicle HFET Emissions
grams per mile
Test Condition HC CO C02 NOx MPG
Buick Regal-HFET
Baseline Avg. (2 tests) .07 .39 348 1.30 25.4
Gastell Avg. (2 tests) .07 .48 351 1.44 25.2
Chevr o1e t Imp ala—HFET
Baseline Avg. (4 tests) .11 .59 410 1.51 21.6
Gastell Avg. (2 tests ) .09 .07 404 1.56 22.0
Dodge Dart-HFET
Baseline Avg. (2 tests) .05 .21 359 3.13 24.7
Gastell Avg. (2 tests) .05 .16 359 2.20 24.7
Gastell Frozen Accelerator
Avg. (2 tests) .08 .12 363 2.84 24.7
Overall the use of the Gastell Device as a driver's aid did not show a
significant positive or negative effect on vehicle HFET emissions or fuel
economy.
The Gastell device did not significantly affect the vehicle's HC emis-
sions. The HC emissions were at relatively low levels both with and
without the usage of the device.
Although one vehicle's CO decreased, overall the average emissions were
not significantly affected by the use of the Gastell Device. However,
these changes were not significant. The change in the Impala's CO emis-
sions was judged to be not caused by the use of Gastell.
Overall, the vehicle's NOx emissions were unaffected by using Gastell.
The amount the Gastell Device required the driving cycle to be modified
varied appreciably between vehicles. The device typically signalled
during the initial long acceleration and the acceleration midway through
the cycle. The Buick1s, Impala's and Dart's highway driving cycle were
only slightly modified at these points.
3. Alternative Driving Cycles Results - Phase I dynamometer testing with
Gastell
Because in the initial EPA tests Gastell had, in general, shown no
effects on emissions or fuel economy, alternative tests were conducted in
an effort to confirm the manufacturer's claimed benefits. Since the
-------
-8-
continual modulation of the throttle in response to the device could
potentially adversely affect vehicle emissions and/or fuel economy, two
alternative cycles were tried. These were the "modified" and "frozen
accelerator" cycles.
The "modified" driving cycle was an FTP (LA-4) cycle in which the vehicle
acceleration rate was reduced to a level just below the level at which
the device would signal. This smoothed the cycle and would be represen-
tative of a very experienced driver's use of the device. A "modified"
LA-4 cycle was conducted using the Buick Regal (see Table A-III). These
"modified" LA-4 tests showed no improvement in emissions or fuel economy
over the Gastell LA-4 tests.
The "frozen accelerator" cycle was an FTP or HFET in which the driver
backed off the accelerator sufficiently to silence the Gastell Device.
The driver then held the accelerator frozen at that setting until the
vehicle speed matched the driving trace. Frozen accelerator tests were
done for the FTP and HFET for the Dart. These tests (see Tables I and
II) showed no significant improvement in emissions or fuel economy for
either the FTP or HFET.
4. Post Test Gastell Checkout - Phase I
The Gastell units tested were provided by the manufacturer and therefore
presumed to function properly. However, since no benefits were perceived
in the test results, the units were checked at the conclusion of
testing. The vacuum specifications for the devices and the results of
these checks were:
Gastell Vacuum Checks
Inches Hg
Gastell Gastell
6 Cyl. Vehicle Unit 8 Cyl. Vehicle Unit
On Off On Off
Mfg. Spec. 56 78
Test Unit 1 5.3 5.7 6.7 7.3
Test Unit 2 5.1 5.9 - -
Therefore, all units were found to function properly.
5. Post Test Vehicle Inspection - Phase I
All vehicles were inspected at the conclusion of testing. The Impala and
Dart were acceptable. However, the Buick Regal had a noticeable vacuum
leak at the throttle shaft. The shaft had considerable lateral play.
When the shaft was sprayed with a carburetor cleaner, the engine idle
speed noticeably increased.
Since the effect of the leak would be lowered manifold vacuum, the leak
would tend to trigger the Gastell device sooner. Therefore, on a Buick
-------
-9-
without the leak, Gastell would trigger less often and have an expected
lesser effect. Thus, since there was a negligible Gastell effect on the
test vehicle's emissions or fuel economy, it is reasonable to assume that
the Gastell would show a lesser benefit on another similar vehicle.
Therefore, the Buick data is included in this report.
6. Development of a More Aggressive Driving Cycle - Phase II modified
LA-4 and modified FTP dynamometer testing without Gastell
The original test program for the Gastell Device was based on the use of
the FTP and HFET cycles and the results showed no significant negative or
positive effect on either emissions or fuel economy. Since an accelera-
tion limiting device was expected to reduce fuel consumption, additional
testing to investigate the effects of acceleration was undertaken.
Two altered LA-4 cycles were devised with greater acceleration rates at
the lower vehicle speeds. A small test sequence was run to evaluate the
suitability of these cycles for testing the Gastell Device. For this
study several available EPA test vehicles underwent a variety of emission
tests with modified cycles and emission tests using dynamometer coupled
rolls. Results of these tests are given in Table B-I of Appendix B. The
results are also summarized in Appendix B.
An analysis of the data from these tests indicated that the fuel economy
with the more aggressive cycles was not measurably different from that on
the standard FTP. Since the Gastell device had made no measurable fuel
economy difference on the FTP, it was concluded that the same result
would be found with the revised cycles and no tests were run with the
device installed.
7. Fuel Economy vs. Acceleration Rate Tests - Phase II dynamometer
acceleration testing without Gastell
Since the net result of the preceding studies was that, for the cycles
used, there was no effect on fuel economy, a test cycle consisting
predominantly of accelerations was developed to directly quantify the
effect of fuel economy versus acceleration rate. For this study five
available EPA test vehicles were used. Results of these tests are given
in Tables C-II thru C-V of Appendix C and these results are plotted in
Figures C-l thru C-5 of Appendix C.
Vehicle manifold vacuum was measured during these acceleration tests.
Based on the vacuum levels at which the Gastell device would function for
4, 6, and 8 cylinder engines - all five of these vehicles would have
given signals at very low acceleration rates. The Citation would have
signaled at acceleration rates slightly less than 2 mph/sec. The Aspen,
Cougar, Zephyr, Pinto and Cutlass at rates near 1 mph/sec.
For this acceleration study, the average improvement in vehicle fuel
economy between worst case (greatest acceleration rate) and the lowest
acceleration rate (1 mph/sec.) was 14.6%. The improvements ranged from
6.0 to 28.9% (see Table C-III). The average improvement in vehicle fuel
economy between worst case and 2 mph/sec. was 8.5%. This improvement
ranged from 1.9% to 15.5% (see Table C-IV).
-------
-10-
The above effects - no discernable improvement in transient (i.e. FTP)
fuel economy even though the preceding acceleration study shows differ-
ences in fuel economy - is explained by considering available data on
vehicle operating characteristics'1'. In these chase car studies, it
was found that less than 13% of vehicle operating time is spent accel-
erating and only 34% of these accelerations, occur at rates above 2.2
mph/sec. Even if the 14% improvement in fuel economy was applied to all
the 13% of vehicle operation involving acceleration, the maximum possible
fuel savings would be 1.9%. To achieve these savings would require that
the driver always reduced acceleration to a level on the order of one
mph/sec. when signalled by the device. More realistically the fuel
economy improvement should only be applied to the accelerations above 2.2
mph/sec. since accelerations at rates as low as one mph/sec. would many
times be unsafe. Combining the potential fuel economy improvement
(8.5%), the percentage of time accelerating (13%) and the percentage of
time at accelerations above 2.2 mph/sec. (34%), gives an overall antici-
pated improvement of .4%. Such a fuel economy increment is below the
threshold of sensitivity for all but the most highly controlled tests.
A similar analysis can be applied to the fuel consumption data from the
GM study. It was found in that study that 20.8% of total fuel used per
trip is consumed during acceleration modes. Again, if the Gastell Device
would reduce all acceleration rates down to the order of one mph/sec.,
the maximum potential savings would be 14.6% of 20.8% which is equal to
3%. If the Gastell device alerts the driver to only those accelerations
above two mph/sec., then only the fuel consumption during accelerations
at rates above two mph/sec. would be reduced. This yields a potential
savings of 14.6% of (37.5% of 20.8%) equals 1.3%. Validation of this
potential improvement would also require a large number of controlled
tests.
8. Road Tests with the Gastell Device - Phase III
During the course of the various phases of the chassis dynamometer test
program, the developer of the device, Mr. Ray Smith, was kept abreast of
the results. As more and more of the testing continued to yield negative
results, he became critical of the chassis dynamometer procedure and made
a number of suggestions, primarily directed toward road testing of the
device. In an effort to try every reasonable possibility in evaluating
the device, his suggestion was pursued.
EPA first looked into the feasibility of a road test program in some type
of fleet operation. The basic approach was for the selection of govern-
ment owned vehicles which are operated by the same driver over essen-
tially the same route every day. After investigating several options,
the particular fleet considered was that of the United States Park Police
which operates in the metropolitan Washington DC area. The Park Police
"Measurement of Motor Vehicle Operation Pertinent to Fuel Economy"
(GM Chase Car Study), SAE Paper 750003, February, 1975
-------
-11-
volunteered the availability of 20 of their vehicles, 10 of which could
be used as test cars, and 10 for control. After an appropriate interval,
the control and test fleets could be reversed. It was recognized that
the vehicle operation would not be representative of private owner usage
and most importantly, that test variability involving fleet tests is
generally very high. Estimates of the average effectiveness of the
device documented in Section 7 above indicated that a more controlled
road test might be necessary so the Park Police fleet test was deferred.
A pilot test program was run over a route in Ann Arbor which had previ-
ously been selected for durability testing. The route, which had been
approved for the EPA durability driving schedule, is approximately 30
miles long with an average speed of 34 miles per hour. An available EPA
test vehicle (a 1980 Citation - see vehicle description in Appendix D)
was instrumented with a Fluidyne fuel flow meter and driven repeatedly
over the route. Fuel flow was totaled over each circuit of the 29.5 mile
route and the data with and without the device is plotted in Figure 1.
Data variability was high and at least part of the variability was
attributed to the late autumn weather conditions with frequent rain,
variable winds, and wide temperature excursions. Because of this vari-
ability, it was decided that a road test program should be conducted in
the southwestern United States where more temperate weather conditions
are available.
San Antonio, Texas was selected as the test site for two major reasons.
An urban road route had been defined there several years ago for use in
an emission factors program which has traffic conditions known to be
representative of most cities. Southwest Research Institute is also
there and offered the use of their laboratory facilities for any work
which needed to be done on test cars. Two EPA technicians drove the
instrumented Citation to San Antonio and rented a late model full-sized
car with a V-8 engine (1980 Cougar - see vehicle description in Appen-
dix D) as a second test car. Each driver took turns driving the two cars
with and without the Gastell Device installed over the San Antonio road
route. Sufficient driving was done prior to the test to familiarize the
drivers with the route and with the test vehicles. The Ann Arbor
experience had suggested that such familiarization would enhance repeat-
ability during a test. Further information on the driving route and the
test procedures used are given in Appendix D.
Results of the tests are shown in Figures 2 through 5. These figures
illustrate that only one of the four vehicle/driver combinations showed a
significant positive result with the devices. One driver had better fuel
economy on both cars without the driver's aid than the other driver had
on either car with the driver's aid. The data suggest two things. One,
that the effectiveness of the device is highly dependent on the driving
technique or "agressiveness" of the driver and two, that effectiveness is
also a function of characteristics associated with the vehicle.
At the conclusion of this test series the drivers returned to Ann Arbor
and the data were analyzed. Table III provides the results of that
analysis. Since the device had shown a positive effect on the Cougar and
Mr. Smith had suggested that more effectiveness should be found on large
cars than small cars like the Citation, a second road test program was
-------
z
z
a
h
a.
ui
z
a
J
LJ
u
L
S000
HH00
3000
2000
0
RCCELERRT DN RRTE ETUDY
CITRTIDN-RNN RRBDR-PRRKER
-Practice
Without Device
With Device.
KJ
i
0.0
RUN NUMBER
22.0
TdP 2/IB/BI
Figure #1
-------
RCCELERRTIDN RRTE 5TUDY
CDUGRR-5RN RNTDNID-BRLER-I
A. K J KJ «J
^- 1 E00
Z
D
— 1 200
h
EL
— ' a00
in
z
n
H0H
J
U
U
LL 0
.
—
_.._
Without
Device
_.-
W
ith Device *_
>
— ;
^
^
PV*VV
"~
I*»H
Without
Device
With
Device
•, '.
*
r*—
'
U)
a.a
RUN NUMBER
Figure #2
3S.0
TUP 2/1B/BI
-------
2000
RCCE_ERRT- DM RRTE STUDY
C D LI G R R - 5 R N R N T D N I D - K R M P M R N
z
z
a
[L
£
H
Ul
z
a
LiJ
:i
L
IE00
200
000
400
0
Without Device
With Device
0.0
RUN NUMBER
Figure #3
IS.0
TUP 2/!H/BI
-------
z
z
n
n
z
n
ui
z
a
J
u
J
L
RCCELERRT DN RRTE STUDY
CITRTIDN-5RN RNTDNID-BRLER
2000
200
B00
400
0
Without Device
With Device
Ln
I
0.0
RUN NUMBER
IB.0
TdP 2/1B/BI
Figure #4
-------
RCCELERRT DN RRTE STUDY
CITRTIDN-SRN RNTDNID-KRMPMRN
20013
^ IG00
Z
D
— 1200
h
[L
H
in
z
n
J
III
n
L
B00
H00
-
**
*
•
-<
*
n
—
n
P
^ ^
nil 1
rfl li 1
m k^ )) '/ ')(
111
« (« i 8
JX Vv Bi fl!
I
^ U iv' IT
I
0.0
I iiHiii
i
III
i II
v5 /t f (i Y
fl Vl L ^
I
W 8 v
V /
EiM
a K 1 1 «
1 1 i 1 1
lill! ill
J
j
1
1
H2.0
RUN NUMBER
Figure #5
TdP 2/IB/BI
-------
-17-
initiated. Carl Baler, the more aggressive driver, took another EPA test
car, a 1975 Nova (see vehicle description in Appendix D) with a 350
engine, to San Antonio and ran the same test sequences run on the
previous cars. The baseline was run with no problem and good repeat-
ability, but with the Gastell Device installed it was found that the
device never actuated under normal traffic conditions. After making
several checks to make sure the device was properly calibrated and that
the manifold vacuum tap was correctly installed, it was decided that a
test would be run with the calibration changed to actuate on at 9" Hg,
off at 10" Hg instead of on at 7" Hg, off at 8" Hg as specified by the
manufacturer. This is a two inch change from the normal Gastell V-8
calibration. The tests were resumed and it was found that again the
device did not actuate on the test route. Further adjustment was made
until the device would actuate on a number of accelerations but the
acceleration rates were so limited at these settings (on at 12.5" Hg, off
at 13.5" Hg or on at 11.5" Hg, off at 12.5" Hg) that the vehicle could
not be driven onto the freeway safely. No setting was found that seemed
satisfactory on this high power to weight car.
Furthermore, these tests on the Nova demonstrated that the Gastell
Device's calibration needs to be very carefully matched to the specific
vehicle. At the manufacturer's calibration setting, the Gastell never
signaled. At the calibration settings at which the Gastell signaled, the
vehicles fuel economy was altered. The results of both tests were
significant, however, at one setting there was a 2.49% fuel economy
penalty while the other showed a .96% fuel economy improvement.
The Cougar driven in the earlier test program was rerun to confirm the
data previously collected. The results of this retesting showed good
agreement with the previous improvement in fuel economy. The results are
given in Figure 6.
Another car was sought that would be more representative of high
production power-to-weight ratio vehicles. A 1979 Mercury with a 351 CID
engine (see vehicle description in Appendix D) was obtained. This has
approximately the same power-to-weight as the other high production Ford
and General Motors full sized cars. Figure 7 presents, the data on the
Mercury. The average improvement of .86% was statistically significant.
Tables III and IV present the statistical analysis of all of the road
test data. A total of two hundred and thirty road tests were conducted
using these vehicles. At the 90% confidence level (oC= .1) two vehicle/
driver combinations showed statistically significant fuel economy
improvements. However, at the 80% confidence level (°^ = .2) 4 vehicle/
driver combinations showed statistically significant fuel economy
changes. Two showed a statistically significant fuel economy improvement
and two showed statistically significant fuel economy penalties with the
use of the Gastell Device.
Conclusion
In general, the EPA testing of the Gastell Device did not show a positive
benefit from its use. None of the Phase I chassis dynamometer tests with
the device installed showed a positive fuel economy effect. Four
vehicles of varying size and power-to-weight ratio were road tested in
-------
-18-
San Antonio (with from one to two drivers each) and only one vehicle/
driver combination showed an appreciable fuel economy improvement (5%)
with the Gastell Device. It is concluded from the test data available
that only drivers with aggressive driving behavior (or other driving
habits that involve excessive throttle manipulation) could benefit from
use of this device and then only if (1) their vehicle happened to have
the fuel economy response characteristics that favorably matched the
activation setting of the device and (2) the driver consistently
responded to the device signal and refrained from such aggressive driving.
None of the Phase I chassis dynamometer tests with the device installed
showed a positive or negative effect on emissions.
Intuitively, many people might expect the principles behind the Gastell
device to produce an improvement in fuel economy. In fact, at the
beginning of the program, EPA evaluation engineers involved in the
evaluation expected the device to produce significant benefits and were
surprised when the early data showed no effect on fuel economy. This
evaluation has been more extensive than most such projects at EPA, but as
a result, we are comfortable in supporting this evaluation.
-------
z
z
a
[L
z
n
in
z
a
v
j
LJ
u
I.L
2000
IE00
1200
B00
H00
0
RCCELERRTIDN RRTE STUDY
CDUERR-5RN nNTDNin-BRLER-l I
.Without Device
n
-With Device
1
With-
out U- With
Device Device
I
Without
Device
0.0
RUN NUMBER
Figure #6
E0.0
TuIP 2/IB/BI
-------
z
z
D
h
n
Y.
u
m
z
D
J
Ld
H
L
flCCELERRT DN RRTE STUDY
MERC LI R Y - 5 R N R N T D N I D - B Fl L E R
2000
200
800
Ii00
0
Without Device
With Device
Without
Device *
RUN NUMBER
With Device
i
I
31 .0
TtJP 2/ I B/H I
i
NJ
O
Figure #7
-------
-21-
Table III
Results of San Antonio Road Route Testing
1. Vehicle
2. Driver
3. With or without
device
4. Number of tests
5. Average fuel
consumption (cc)
6. Standard
Deviation
7 . Variance
Cougar
Baler
w/o
20
1742.5
29.07
845.05
with
12
1655.3
67.85
4603.6
Citation
Kampman
w/o
7
1499.7
38.08
1450.4
with
8
1534.7
60.65
3678.7
Baler
w/o
9
1243.7
11.08
122.81
with
9
1252.2
11.25
126.6
Kampman
w/o
24
1207.2
37.75
1425.06
with
17
1221.4
43.16
1862.60
Cougar
Baler (2nd time)
w/o
32
1745.9
29.85
890.84
with
25
1663.8
33.63
1131.16
Mercury
Marquis
Baler
w/o
14
1759.8
25.28
639.21
with
17
1744.7
8.74
73.38
8. Difference between
with and w/o
testing fuel
consumption (
9. % difference
fuel consumption (
10. Ave. number of
signals per cycle
11. Calculated T
Statistic
12. Calculated degrees
of Freedom
13. Tablulated T
Statistics
for 2.«Z
19.6
1.36
14.0
(-)9.0 cc
<->.m
4.55
1.71
12.0
(-H4.15 cc
(-01.17%
6.76
1.09
33
(-O82.15 cc
(+)4.b2%
29.2
9.61
50
(-015.1
( + ).86!
5.40
2.13
16
at
=.2
1.761
1.345
Yes
Yes
1.761
1.345
No
Yes (marginal
1.734
1.330
No
) Yes
1.694
1.308
No
No
1.675
1.299
Yes
Yes
1.746
1.337
Yes
Yes
-------
-22-
Table IV
Results of San Antonio Road Route Testing on Chevrolet Nova
1. Vehicle Nova
2. Driver Baler
3. Calibration -
On" Hg, Off" Hg N/A
4. With or without
device without
5. Number of tests 16
6. Average fuel
consumption (cc) 1793.5
7. Standard Dev. 28.94
8. Variance 837.52
9. Difference between
with and w/p testing
fuel consumption -
10. % difference
fuel consumption
11. Ave. number of
signals per cycle
12. Calculated T
Statistic
Nova
Baler
7"Hg> 8"Hg(D
with
11
1790.7
2*1.99
624.50
(+)2.80
(+) .16%
0.0
.268
Nova
Baler
9"Hg, 10"Hg
with
5
1782.9
23.45
549.90
(+)10.60
(+) .59%
0.0
.832
Nova
Baler
12.5"Hg, 13.5"Hg(2)
with
4
1838.7
29.85
891.02
(-)45.20
(-)2.49%
17.4
2.725
Nova
Baler
11.5"Hg, 12.5"Hg(3)
with
2
1776.3
3.50
12.25
(•O17.20
(+) .96%
8.5
2.203
13. Calculated degrees
of Freedom
26
10
18
-------
-23-
14. Tablulated T
Statistics
for <*. = . 1
for <* = . 2
15. Significant?
at <*. =.1
at
-------
ITM Appendix A (cont.)
INSTALLATION
I INSTRUCTIONS
DB/ICESiINC
For Models 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008
Your car or truck should be tuned before installation.
Read ALL instructions before starting installation. All necessary hardware
to install Gastell is included in hardware kit.
Select location for Gastell, preferably centered under dash (fig. 1), but make
sure that the chosen location will not interfere with the operation of your
vehicle. Attach mounting brackets to Gastell. Note that the brackets are re-
versible for either under—or above—dash mounting (fig. 4). Use the two hex head sheet metal screws furnished with inter-
nal-tooth lock washers. DO NOT OVER TIGHTEN.
Most American-made cars have ashtrays held by two sheet metal screws. Often the spacing of these screws is equal to
that of the Gastell brackets. So before you drill, try to use the ashtray mounting screws. If you find that you must drill, posi-
tion Gastell to dash and hold firmly. Use lead pencil to mark hole locations. Then drill Va" holes where the marks are. The
hex head sheet metal screws furnished will work in plastic or metal. Use
them to fasten the Gastell to the dash. Do not over tighten.
Choose desired routing for Gastell vacuum hose and electrical wiring. Do
not make electrical or hose connection yet. The vacuum hose must go
through the firewall without pinching or chaffing. Try to locate an existing
hole that has a rubber grommet. On most vehicles, the emergency brake,
speedometer, and gas pedal cables pass through a rubber grommet in the
firewall. If you can, enlarge this grommet to accept vacuum line. If this can-
not be done, drill %" hole in a nearby location. Install furnished rubber
grommet; then insert rubber hose from Gastell through firewall to engine
compartment. Do not stretch or pull Gastell hose. The electrical wiring
from Gastell may be connected to the fuse panel or ignition switch. The
wires should be routed along the path of existing auto wiring. Use wire ties furnished. Be sure that wires and hose are clear
of all sharp surfaces and clear of clutch, brake, accelerator, and other moving parts.
VACUUM LINE >
(CUT)
INTAKE MANIFOLD
Attach Gastell vacuum line to engine intake manifold system. To locate the proper vacuum line on the intake
start engine. Keep hands and loose clothing free of fan blade or moving parts. Disconnect a fte" or '/i" (inside
hose from the intake manifold while engine is running (see fig. 2). When the
proper vacuum hose is removed, there will be a distinct change in idle
speed. Once proper vacuum line is identified, turn off engine, and recon-
nect vacuum line to manifold. Then cut the vacuum line in an appropriate
location, preferably 5" to 6" from a connection; insert "T" fitting furnished.
Attach Gastell vacuum line securely to remaining branch of "T" (fig. 2). Be
sure Gastell vacuum line is away from all moving parts. Using wire tie fur-
nished, secure vacuum line to existing wiring on hoses.
manifold,
diameter)
Locate your vehicle's fuse panel and wiring, and identify a source of elec-
tricity that has current only when the key is in the "on" position: this may
be a wire that runs to any accessory that is activated by turning on the key.
To this wire, the red wire from Gastell (with Electro T-Tap splicer) is con-
nected (fig. 3). Use standard pliers for installing T-Tap splicer. Wrap around
a wire from 14 to 20 gauge. Apply pliers, and squeeze until T-Tap locks. Con-
nect the remaining black wire with the eyelet to a suitable ground. If exist-
ing ground screw is not available, drill '/»" hole in sheet metal near fuse
panel. Use hex head sheet metal screw furnished with internal tooth lock
washers. Do not over tighten. Wrap up any extra wire and secure to exist-
ing wiring with wire tie furnished. Do not shorten wiring or hoses: your next
vehicle may require the extra length.
Now your Gastell is ready to operate. Start engine. When the key is turned
on, red light and audible tone will operate. As soon as the engine starts,
the light and tone will cease to operate, and the green light will go on. Keep
your Gastell operating in the green for maximum mileage.
See operating manual for operation.
GROUND
SCREW
\
ALTERNATE GROUND \ \
(METAL SURFACE)
BRACK
BELOW-DASH MOUNT I ABOVE-DASH MOUNT
Warning: When drilling holes anywhere in your vehicle, make sure your drill does not come in contact with wiring or
hoses. Common sense and caution should be exercised in drilling. Electrical damage could result if you ignore this
warning.
COPYRIGHT ©1979
£!&4UTOMOTIVE DB/1CESJNC. 129 Susquehanna Street, P.O. Box 3513, Williamsport, PA 17701
-------
-25-
Appendix A
Test Vehicle Description
Chassis model year/make-1979 Buick Regal
Vehicle ID 4J47A9H123351
Engine
type Otto Spark, V-6
bore x stroke 3.8 x 3.4 in.
displacement 3.8 liter/231 CID
compression ratio 8.0:1
maximum power @ rpm 115 hp/86 KW @ 4800 rpm
fuel metering 2 Venturi carburetor
fuel requirement unleaded, tested with indolene HO unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type 3 speed automatic
final drive ratio 2.40
Chassis
type 2 Dr. Sedan
tire size P 195/75 R 14
curb weight 3312 lb/1502 kg.
passenger capacity . .•«... ^ . 5
Emission Control System
basic type EGR
Oxidation Catalyst
Vehicle Odometer mileage at
start of program 14950 miles
-------
-26-
Appendix A (cont.)
Test Vehicle Description
Chassis model year/make-1979 Chevrolet Impala
Vehicle I.D. 1L47L9S115799
Engine
type Otto Spark, V-8
bore x stroke 4.00 x 3.48 in/101.6 x 88.4 nun
displacement 350 CID/5.7 liter
compression ratio. 8.3:1
maximum power @ rpm 170 hp/126 kW
fuel metering 4 venturi carburetor
fuel requirement Unleaded, tested with indolene HO unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type 3 speed automatic
final drive ratio 2.41
Chassis
type 2 door sedan
tire size FR 78 x 15
curb weight 3840 lb/1742 kg
inertia weight . 4000 Ib.
passenger capacity 6
Emission Control System
basic type EGR
Oxidation Catalyst
Vehicle mileage at start of
test program 12,700 miles
-------
-27-
Appendix A (cont.)
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
carburetor 1 Venturi
fuel requirement 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 Ibs.
passenger capacity 6
Emission Control System
basic type air pump
oxidation catalyst
EGR
calibrated to 1975 California standards
Vehicle Odometer mileage at
start of test 21,500 miles
-------
Test Condition
Buick Regal
baseline
baseline
Gastell
Gastell
Chevrolet Impala
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Gastell
Gastell
Dodge Dart
Baseline
Baseline
Gastell
Gastell
Gastell (Frozen )
Gastell (Accelerator)
-28-
Appendix A (cont.)
Table A-I
FTP Mass Emissions
grams per mile
Test No.
80-0246
80-0735
79-4788
80-0244
80-0579
80-0581
HC
CO
CO,
547
553
553
557
574
563
NOx
1.99
2.11
85
81
1.73
1.91
MPG
80-0453
80-0567
80-0455
80-0569
.76
.68
1.45
.69
8.03
7.75
8.82
6.60
465
453
467
461
1.24
1.24
.90
1.11
18.5
19.0
18.3
18.7
80-0573
80-0575
80-0446
80-0578
80-0576
.72
.59
.58
.59
.53
4.85
4.54
5.01
5.59
3.84
569
565
560
561
565
1.29
1.29
1.23
1.43
1.24
15.3
15.5
15.6
15.5
15.5
15.9
15.7
15.8
15.6
15.1
15.5
-------
-29-
Appendix A (cont.)
Table A-II
Highway Fuel Economy Test Mass Emissions
grams per mile
Test Condition
Test No.
HC CO C02
Table A-III
LA-4 Mass Emissions
grams per mile
Test Condition
Buick Regal
Baseline
Gastell
Gastell
Gastell (modified)
Gastell (modified)
Dodge Dart
Gastell
Test No.
80-0663
HC
.44
CO
1.75
CO-
432
NOx
NOx
.72
MPG
Buick Regal
Baseline
Baseline
Gastell
Gastell
Chevrolet Impala
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Gastell
Gastell
Dodge Dart
Baseline
Baseline
Gastell
Gastell
Gastell (Frozen )
Gastell (Accelerator)
80-0454
80-0568
80-0456
80-0570
80-0438
80-0445
80-0574
80-0886
80-0831
80-0577
80-0316
80-0734
79-4789
80-0245
79-0580
79-0582
.06
.07
.07
.06
.10
.12
.12
.11
.09
.09
.03
.06
.05
.05
.05
.10
.32
.45
.78
.18
.54
.72
.69
.08
.05
.08
.19
.22
.18
.13
.24
.00
351
345
354
347
402
410
415
414
403
404
356
362
358
361
363
362
1.29
1.30
1.59
1.29
1.55
1.51
1.52
1.55
1.56
1.55
2.78
3.48
2.59
1.81
2.88
2.79
25.2
25.6
24.9
25.5
22.0
21.6
21.3
21.9
22.0
21.9
24.9
24.5
24.8
24.6
24.4
24.4
MPG
20.3
80-0661
80-0662
80-0571
80-0572
.19
.21
.23
.23
1.04
1.11
1.12
1.07
433
434
428
426
1.01
1.03
.96
.93
20.4
20.3
20.6
20.7
79-4790
.64
13.72 572
1.82
14.9
-------
-30-
Appendix B
Development of A More Aggressive Driving Cycle
In order to evaluate the effects of more aggressive driving behavior on
fuel economy, EPA modified the standard FTP (LA-4) cycle by increasing
the acceleration rates at speeds below 25 mph. The Mod. 1 cycle had
slightly greater acceleration rates than the LA-4. The Mod. 2 cycle had
nearly WOT accelerations. The intention was to use these cycles as a new
reference with which to evaluate the effects of driver habit modification
prescribed by Gastell.
A small test sequence was undertaken to evaluate the suitability of these
cycles for testing Gastell. For this study two available EPA test
vehicles were used for emission tests with the standard and modified
driving cycles. The results of these tests are tabularized in this
Appendix and are summarized below:
1.) For the LA-4 cycle, a slightly greater acceleration rate (Mod
#1) did not effect the Citation's HC emissions, NOx emissions or
fuel economy. CO emissions increased 58%.
2.) For the LA-4 cycle a greater acceleration rate (Mod #2) the
Citation's HC emissions were doubled, CO emissions were
increased fivefold, NOx emissions were unchanged, and fuel
economy was reduced 1%. The Nova's HC emissions doubled, CO
emissions were increased tenfold, NOx emissions increased 11%,
and fuel economy was reduced 3%*.
Because it was anticipated that there might be increased tire slippage
(see note) at higher acceleration rates, a test sequence was conducted
with coupled rolls. The results of these tests were similar to the
preceding tests with uncoupled rolls (the standard test condition).
Note: Tire slippage means that the front roll (inertia and power
absorbing unit roll) lags the rear roll (vehicle speed
roll). This effect would tend to mask the loading effects
of increased vehicle acceleration rates.
The overall analysis of this effort to evaluate more aggessive driving
behavior was that the mod #1 cycle used appeared to have little or no
effect on fuel economy. Since the mod #2 cycle used WOT accelerations
for all accelerations and was, therefore, not a representative cycle and
the mod #1 cycle showed minimal differences, it did not appear fruitful
to try developing a test cycle to test the Gastell Device. Therefore, no
Gastell testing was attempted with these cycles.
The test vehicles used for this testing, a 1980 Chevrolet Citation and a
1975 Chevrolet Nova were also used in the road testing and are described
in more detail in Appendix D.
*Subsequent to these emission and fuel economy tests with the Nova,
the vehicle was discovered to have a carburetor problem. This
problem may have contributed in a large part to the emissions and
fuel economy results of the mod #2 tests and, therefore, the findings
of this vehicle are suspect.
-------
-31-
Table B-I
Composite FTP and Hot Start LA-4 Emissions
grams per mile
Test
Date
Test
Number
Test
Type
1980 Citation with P 185/80 R
2-7-80
2-7-80
2-7-80
2-7-80
2-7-80
2-22-80
2-22-80
2-22-80
2-22-80
1975 Nova
*2-22-80
*2-26-80
*3-01-80
80-1475
80-1476
80-1477
80-1478
80-1480
80-1543
80-1544
80-1545
80-1546
with ER
\
80-1365
80-1367
80-1796
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
78 x
FTP
FTP
FTP
LA-4
LA-4
LA-4
LA-4
LA-4
LA-4
LA-4
LA-4
LA-4
Accel.
Type
13 radial
Mod #1
Stand.
Mod #1
Stand.
Mod #2
Stand.
Mod #2
Stand.
Mod #2
14 radial tires,
Baseline
Baseline
Mod #2
Roll
Configuration HC
tire, 7.3 hp,
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Coupled
Coupled
Coupled
Coupled
12.0 hp, 4000
Standard
Standard
Coupled
2750 Ib
.08
.04
.05
.04
.09
.07
.18
.07
.16
CO
C02.
NOx
MPG
. inertia weight
1
3
1
10
1
8
.84
.58
.14
.67
.58
.63
.51
.85
.64
370
370
369
368
367
385
376
385
378
.34
.34
.37
.43
.33
.35
.26
.35
.25
23.9
23.9
23.9
24.0
23.8
22.9
22.6
22.8
22.6
Ib. inertia weight
.66
.60
1.43
2
2
23
.34
.08
.44
697
704
721
1.31
1.37
1.49
12.6
12.5
11.6**
Note: Acceleration type standard is LA-4 cycle prescribed for the FTP.
Mod. #1 modifies the LA-4 cycle by using slightly greater
acceleration rates at speeds below 25 mph.
Mod. #2 modifies the LA-4 cycle by using much greater
acceleration rates at speeds below 25 mph.
* Re suits questionable see preceding text
**Because the baseline runs for the Nova were run with standard
dynamometer rolls and the Mod #2 was run with coupled rolls, the data are
not directly comparable. The coupled roll configuration causes a fuel
economy penalty of approximately 5% which yields an actual fuel economy
difference, attributable to the Mod #2 cycle, of about 3% for the Nova.
-------
-32-
Appendix C
Acceleration Rate vs. Fuel Economy Test
Since the Gastell and modified cycle test programs (Appendix A and B)
showed little effect on emissions or fuel economy, EPA undertook a small
test program to further investigate the fuel economy effects of reduced
acceleration.
A test program was devised consisting predominately of accelerations.
The test cycles used a sequence of accelerations to a cruise speed,
cruise for a few seconds, and then deceleration at a fixed, moderate
rate. The cruise times were chosen so that all tests to a selected
cruise speed would be of equal distance. This sequence was repeated 4
times (5 total cycles). The cycle was run for each combination of
acceleration rate and final cruise speed.
A similar sequence between two vehicle speeds was performed to evaluate
passing manuever fuel economy. As a control, vehicles were also tested
several times for steady state fuel economy.
The testing was performed in randomized order to minimize any systematic
test effects (see Acceleration Rate vs. Fuel Economy test sequence). A
fuel flowmeter was used to measure fuel consumed (no gaseous emission
data was taken). The dynamometer rolls were coupled together to minimize
tire slippage.
The maximum and minimum acceleration rates were chosen to bracket the
acceleration rates most current vehicles are capable of achieving.
The complete test matrix was:
MPH Acceleration rate
1 2 3.3 4 5
0-35 x x xxx
0-45 x x x @ @
20-35 x x xxx
30-45 x x x @ @
@ Most vehicles unable to follow the driving traces at this
acceleration rate/speed combination.
A 1980 Chevrolet Citation, 1980 Dodge Aspen, 1979 Ford Pinto, 1979
Mercury Zephyr, and a 1979 Oldsmobile Cutlass were used in this accelera-
tion test program. A description of these vehicles is given in Table
C-I. Each vehicle was checked for agreement with manufacturer's
specifications and inspected. All vehicles were in satisfactory condi-
tion.
-------
-33-
Tabel C-I
Phase 3 Acceleration Rate vs. Fuel Economy Testing
Test Vehicle Description
Vehicle ID
Engine
Type
Displacement
Carburetor
Transmission
Test Weight
Dynamometer HP
Tire Type
Tire Size
Emission Control
1980
Chevrolet
Citation
1X687AW1 19256
V-6
2.8 Liter
2 Venturi
3 Speed
Automatic
3000 Ib
10.3 hp
Radial
P185/80R13
EGR
Air Pump
Oxidation
Catalyst
1980
Dodge
Aspen
NE29CAB11858B
Inline 6
225 CID
1 Venturi
3 Speed
Lockup
Automatic
4000 Ib
12.0 hp
BIAS
D78xl4
EGR
Pulsating Air
Oxidation
Catalyst
1979
Ford
Pinto
9T11Y186165
Inline 4
140 CID
1 Venturi
3 Speed
Automatic
3000 Ib
10.3 hp
BIAS
B78xl3
EGR
Pulsating Air
Oxidation
Catalyst
1979
Mercury
Zephyr
9E35F621630
V-8
302 CID
1 Venturi
3 Speed
Automatic
3500 Ib
11.2
Radial
CR78xl4
EGR
Air Pump
Oxidation
Catalyst
1979
Oldsmobile
Cutlass
3R47A9M523280
V-6
3.8 Liter
2 Venturi
3 Speed
Automatic
4000 Ib
12.0
Radial
P195R/75
EGR
Air Pump
Oxidation
Catalyst
-------
-34-
Appendix C
Acceleration Rate vs. Fuel Economy
Test Sequence
Fuel Economy
Sample
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Speed
50 mph
35 mph
35 mph
0 mph
0-35 mph
0 mph
0-35 mph
35 mph
35 mph
0 mph
0-35 mph
0 mph
0-35 mph
0 mph
0-35 mph
0 mph
35 mph
35 mph
0 mph
0 mph
45 mph
45 mph
0 mph
0-45 mph
0 mph
0-45 mph
0 mph
0-45 mph
0 mph
45 mph
45 mph
0 mph
20 mph
20 mph
35 mph
35 mph
20 mph
20-35 mph
20 mph
20-35 mph
20 mph
20-35 mph
20 mph
20-35 mph
20 mph
Comments
initial vehicle warm up for 30 minutes
warm up for 2 minutes
steady state fuel economy for 103 seconds
idle (drive) for 30 seconds
accelerations at 1 mph/sec.
idle (drive) for 30 seconds
accelerations at 4 mph/sec.
warm up for 2 minutes
steady state fuel economy for 103 seconds
idle (drive) for 30 seconds
acceleration @ 3.3 mph/sec.
idle (drive) for 30 seconds
acceleration (§ 2 mph/sec.
idle (drive) for 30 second
accelerations @ 5mph/sec.
idle (drive) for 30 seconds
warm up for 2 minutes
steady state fuel economy for 103 seconds
idle (drive) for 1 minute
idle (drive) fuel consumption for 3 minutes
warm up for 2 minutes
steady state fuel economy for 80 seconds
idle (drive) for 30 seconds
accelerations @ 1 mph/sec.
idle (drive) for 30 seconds
accelerations @ 3.3 mph/sec.
idle (drive) for 30 seconds
accelerations @ 2 mph/sec.
idle (drive) for 30 seconds
warm up for 2 minutes
steady state fuel economy for 80 seconds
idle (drive) for 30 seconds
warm up for 2 minutes
steady state fuel economy for 3 minutes
warm up for 2 minutes
steady state fuel economy for 103 seconds
warm up for 2 minutes
accelerations @ 1 mph/sec.
warm up for 30 seconds
accelerations @ 4 mph/sec.
warm up for 30 seconds
accelerations @ 3.3 mph/sec.
warm up for 30 seconds
accelerations @ 2 mph/sec.
warm up for 30 seconds
-------
-35-
X 20-35 mph acceleration @ 5 mph/sec.
20 mph warm up for 2 minutes
X 20 mph fuel economy for 3 minutes
35 mph warm up for 2 minutes
X 35 mph fuel economy fo 103 seconds
0 mph idle (drive) for 1 minute
X 0 mph idle (drive) fuel consumption for 3 minutes
30 mph warm up for 2 minutes
X 30 mph fuel economy for 2 minutes
45 mph warm up for 2 minutes
X 45 mph fuel economy for 80 seconds
30 mph warm up for 2 minutes
X 30-45 mph accelerations @ 1 mph/sec.
30 mph warm up for 2 minutes
X 30-45 mph accelerations @ 3.3 mph/sec.
30 mph warm up for 30 seconds
X 30-45 mph accelerations @ 2 mph/sec.
30 mph warm up for 2 minutes
X 30 mph fuel economy for 2 minutes
45 mph warm up for 2 minutes
X 45 mph fuel economy for 80 seconds.
-------
-36-
Table C-II
Acceleration Rate Fuel Economy
miles per gallon
Chevrolet
Citation
2.8 liter
Dodge
Aspen
225 CID
Ford
Pinto
140 CID
Mercury
Zephyr
302 CID
0-35 mph
0-45 mph
20-35 mph
30-45 mph
Oldsmobile
Cutlass
3.8 liter
1 mph /sec.
2 mph/sec.
3.3 mph/sec.
4 mph/sec.
5 mph/sec.
19.3
19.7
19.4
18.6
18.2
16.8
16.0
15.6
14.1
14.3
21.8
21.4
20.4
19.3
19.1
16.0
15.8
15.3
15.0
14.7
17.4
17.5
16.9
16.2
15.2
1 mph/sec.
2 mph/sec.
3.3 mph/sec.
20.7
20.4
19.5
17.9
16.1
15.8
22.1
21.6
20.6
17.3
16.9
16.1
18.6
17.9
16.3
1 mph/sec.
2 mph/sec.
3.3 mph/sec.
4 mph/sec.
5 mph/sec.
25.0
23.2
22.4
22.0
20.8
22.3
19.7
18.0
17.4
17.3
27.3
24.9
23.6
22.4
22.6
20.1
18.9
18.3
18.2
17.9
21.8
20.2
18.9
18.2
18.4
1 mph/sec.
2 mph/sec.
3.3 mph/sec.
25.6
23.1
20.9
22.6
20.0
19.4
26.8
25.1
24.1
21.5
19.6
18.7
23.0
20.9
18.1
-------
-37-
Table C-III
Acceleration Rate1 Fuel Economy
Percentage Improvement from Highest Acceleration
Rate to 1 mph/sec. Acceleration Rate
0-35 mph
0-45 mph
20-35 mph
30-45 mph
combined
0-35 mph
0-45 mph
20-35 mph
30-45 mph
Chevrolet
Citation
2.8 liter
6.0%
6.1%
20.1%
22.5%
Dodge Ford Mercury Oldsmobile
Aspen Pinto Zephyr Cutlass
225 CID 140 CID 302 CID 3.8 liter
17.5% 14.1% 8.8%
13.3% 7.3% 7.5%
28.9% 20.8% 12.3%
16.5% 11.2% 15.0%
14.4%
14.1%
18.5%
27.1%
average for all vehicles is 14.6%
Percentage
Rate
Chevrolet
Citation
2.8 liter
8.2%
4.6%
11.5%
10.5%
Table C-IV
Percentage Rate Fuel Economy
Improvement from Highest Acceleration
to 2 mph/sec. Acceleration Rate
Dodge Ford Mercury
Aspen Pinto Zephyr
225 CID 140 CID 302 CID
11.8% 12.0% 7.5%
1.9% 4.9% 5.0%
13.9% 10.2% 5.6%
3.1% 4.6% 4.8%
\
Oldsmobile
Cutlass
3.8 liter
15.1%
9.8%
9.8%
15.5%
combined average for all vehicles is 8.5%
-------
Cruise
Speed-mph
Idle (drive)*
20
30
35
45
-38-
Table C-V
Cruise Fuel Economy
miles per gallon
Chevrolet
Citation
2.8 liter
.35
30.8
32.2
32.6
30.7
Dodge
Aspen
225 CID
.56
33.5
36.0
35.3
31.0
Ford
Pinto
140 CID
.31
35.5
35.0
35.3
33.3
Mercury
Zephyr
302 CID
.76
26.2
28.0
28.0
26.9
Oldsmobile
Cutlass
3.8 liter
.45
36.4
37.1
34.3
30.4
*Idle fuel consumption is expressed in gallons per hour
-------
FLEL ECONOMY V5 FKCELERRT D
0-35 MPH RCCELERRTIDN5
2B.0
z
n
j
j
c
in
Li
(1
in
u
2LI . 0
22.0
20.0
"
14.0
+ CITRTIDN 2.B LITER
X HSPEN 22£ CID
& FINTCI IH£J CID
Q ZEPHYR 302 CID
^ CLITLHHB 3.B LITER
0.00 i.00
R
-------
IL ECDNDMY V5 FKCELERRT DN
X - H E: M P H R
B ZEPHYR 302 CID
O CLITLHSS a.H LITER
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
RCCELERRTIDN RRTE
4.00 £.00
M P H / 5 E
-------
F.EL ECDNDMY V5 RCCELERRT DM
2 0 - 13 £ M PH RCCELERRTIDN5
"'7
D
n:
LD-
LI
[L
III
2B.K
2B.0
2H.0
22.0
20.0
IB.0
•f
I
CITHTIDN 2.B LITER
HSFEN 22S C|D
PINTD IH0 CID
ZEPHYR 302 CID
CUTLHSS 3.B LITER
"=fc-";
-*£-
-0
-El
-X
!G.0
IM.0
0.00
.00
2.00
3.00
M.00
RCCELERRTIDN RRTE
£.00
M P H / 5 E C
Figure C-3
-------
PL EL ECONOMY V5 F1CCELERRT ON
3 0 -- H £ M P H R C C E L E R Pi T ! DNS
Z
D
II
IH
(I
LiJ
fl
m
LI
29. 0
2E.H
?.H. 0
22.0
20 . 0
B-PJ
. 0
CITHTIDN 2.B LITER
RSPEN 22S CID
PINTD IH0 CID
ZEPHYR 302 CID
CUTLHSS 3.B LITER
to
I
E
IH.0
0.00
.00
2.00
3.00
RCCELERRT'IDN R R T E
H.00
S.00
M P H / 5 E C
Figure C-4
-------
RU 5E FUEL ECDNQMY
z
D
[E
o:
u
(i
in
u
j
z
3B.0
37.0
36.0
3S.0
3H.0
33.0
32.0
31 .0
30.0
2B.0
2B.0
27.0
2E.0
IS.0
I
m
CITHTIDN 2.B LITER
RSPEN 22S
-------
-44-
Appendix D
Road Testing with the Gastell Device
SAN ANTONIO ROAD ROUTE TEST PROCEDURE
A. The general procedure is as follows:
1. Drive test vehicle from Southwest Research Institute to Layover Point.
2. Start Vehicle
3. Start Fluidyne Recorder, wait 60 seconds. Then drive road course.
Use normal driving techniques.
4. Return to Layover Point, shift into park, idle for 60 seconds. At 60
sees, stop Fluidyne totalizer and hit print button. Record fuel and
temperature readings on work sheet.
5. Shut engine off, zero and start Fluidyne timer.
6. At 500 seconds, start vehicle using hot start procedure.
7. At 560 seconds shift into drive and drive road course using normal
driving technique. (Go to Step 4 - repeat as many times as possible
before 3:00 p.m.).
Note: The Mercury Marquis was run with 60 second layovers instead of 500
seconds.
B. General Test Requirements
1. The first test run of each day was considered warm up and the data
was not used in any subsequent calculations.
2. Only tests run between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. were used due to San
Antonio traffic considerations.
3. Only tests run on weekdays, Monday through Friday, were used due to
San Antonio traffic considerations.
4. Temperature, humidity, barometer, wind speed and direction were taken
at 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
5. All test fuel was from a single batch of Gulfpride unleaded fuel
provided by Southwest designated EM-356.
6. All test vehicle fuel tanks were drained prior to start of testing to
avoid fuel mixing.
7. All vehicles were specification checked and examined for proper
vacuum line routing and evidence of tampering.
8. The Chevrolet Citation and Nova were extensively checked out to
manufacturers specifications at the EPA-MVEL prior to being driven to
San Antonio.
-------
-45-
9. Fuel Tanks on each vehicle were filled with EM-356 fuel each
morning. Vehicles used about 1/4 tank each testing day.
10. Tire pressure of all test vehicle tires was checked and set to
manufacturer's specifications each morning prior to leaving Southwest
Research.
11. Test runs with abnormal time, fuel consumption, or circumstances were
deleted from consideration. Examples of such circumstances were
funeral processions (3 occurences) and could not exit highway due to
traffic (1 time).
12. In all test days where the Gastell Device was to be used, the device
calibration was checked prior to leaving Southwest using the
following procedure.
An 8" diameter pressure gauge that was previously checked versus
a mercury manometer in Ann Arbor was attached to a hand vacuum
pump which was then connected to the device. Ray Smith of
Gastell had transmitted the following device specifications:
ON OFF
4 cylinder vehicles 3.5" Hg 4.5" Hg
6 cylinder vehicles 5.0" Hg 6" Hg
8 cylinder vehicles 7.0" Hg 8"Hg
The devices did not need calibration until the setpoints were
modified on the Nova. The calibration checks of the 8 cylinder
devices were about on at 7.0" Hg. Since these devices were
submitted by Ray Smith with the 511 Application for evaluation
and the specifications given in the application only specified
the ON set point, the devices were deemed acceptable.
13. Testing run when the pavement was wet was not used in the analysis.
When pavement was damp the results were used if they appeared in-line
with other measurements.
14. A minimum of 5 tests were run with most vehicles to familiarize the
driver with the vehicle and route. Data was not collected during
driver familarization.
15. The fuel totalizer display was located in the vehicle so that the
driver could not see the display while driving.
16. The Fluidyne flowmeters were calibrated in July, 1980 and checked for
calibration in December 1980.
-------
-46-
Table D-I
Phase 4 Gastell Road Testing
Test Vehicle Description
Vehicle ID
Engine
type
Displacement
Carburetor
Transmission
axle ratio
Tire Type
Tire Size
Emission Control
1980
Citation
Citation
1X685AW15057
inline, 4 cylinder
2.5 liters
2 venturi
3 speed
automatic
2.53
radial
P185xRl3
EGR
1975
Chevrolet
Nova
1X27L5L115735
V-8
350 CID
4 venturi
3 speed
automatic
3.08
radial
ER78xl4
air injection
1980
Mercury
Cougar XR-7
OH93D626537
V-8
255 CID
2 venturi
3 speed
automatic
2.50
radial
P195/75R14
EGR
1979
Mercury
Marquis
9Z6ZH619190
V-8
351
2 venturi
3 speed
automatic
2.30
radial
GR78xl4
air injecti<
closed loop
3 way catalyst
pump oxidation catalyst
oxidation catalyst
oxidation catalyst
-------
-47-
San Antonio Road Route
Number of Stop Signs: 0
Number of Stop Lights: 28
Average Distance: 7.2 miles
Average Speed: 19.6 mpb
Maximum Speed: 55 mpb
Stops/Mile: 3.9
N
LEGEND
- H«LL ( t
OVER OR UNDER PASS
TRAFFIC LIGHT
SCHOOL ZONE
1
Z V
3 r
o 1
1
* \s .
1
*•--»• — 3
.20MPH,
. n
— i 1 \ —
END if
<
K
to
W
_l
u
[-*• ZARZAMORA
1 START
^ — LAYOVER PO
9PEE
SPEED LIMIT-30 MPH UNLESS OTHERWISE
Figure D-l San Antonio Road Route
------- |