EPA-AA-TEB-81-15
Emissions and Fuel Economy of
FUEL-MAX, a Retrofit Device
F. Peter Hutchins
John T. White
May, 1981
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Abstract
This report describes the results of testing the "FUEL-MAX" device as
part of an evaluation under Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act. The FUEL-MAX is an air-bleed device which replaces
a vehicle's Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) valve. The amount of air
bled into the intake manifold is determined by the vacuum signal which
once controlled the action of the EGR valve. This device is claimed to
conserve fuel. The primary purpose of this project was to evaluate the
effect of the FUEL-MAX on exhaust emissions and fuel economy.
Testing of three typical 1979 model year passenger cars was conducted
during March, 1981. The basic test sequence included the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET). These tests
were performed both before and after installation of the FUEL-MAX. As a
result of the testing, average hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions
decreased somewhat while oxides of nitrogen displayed substantial
increases. Fuel economy was found to increase approximately three
percent on the FTP but exhibited no change over the HFET. The occurrence
of engine knock was obvious on two of three vehicles. EPA's Office of
Enforcement has determined that the FUEL-MAX can violate the
anti-tampering provisions of the Clean Air Act.
-------
-2-
Background
Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Cost Savings and Information Act
empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate devices or
fuel additives which may improve the fuel economy of conventional motor
vehicles. The EPA has developed and instituted a procedure whereby an
individual or organization may apply for an evaluation of the device or
fuel additive. This procedure requires the applicant to submit a
technical description of the system in conjunction with results from
actual testing. Once a complete application is received, the EPA will
conduct an engineering evaluation and publish the results in the Federal
Register. In those cases where the device or additive shows promise, the
EPA will conduct tests as a part of its evaluation. Such testing is
performed at EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory in Ann Arbor.
In February, 1980, EPA received an application from Fuel Injection
Development Corporation for an evaluation of the FUEL-MAX. This device
is an air-bleed mechanism which replaces the Exhaust Gas Recirculation
(EGR) valve. The amount of air bled into the intake manifold is
determined by the vacuum signal which once controlled the action of the
EGR valve.
Based on an evaluation of the test results submitted to support the
claims for the FUEL-MAX, EPA chose to conduct confirmatory testing. The
basic purpose of the testing was to determine the effect of the device on
fuel economy and exhaust emissions. Secondary purposes included an
evaluation of the installation instructions and driveability factors.
Test Vehicles
Three typical 1979 production vehicles were used: a Ford Pinto with a
4-cylinder engine, an Oldsmobile Cutlass with a 6 cylinder engine, and a
Mercury Zephyr with an 8 cylinder engine. All vehicles were equipped
with automatic transmissions. A more detailed description of each
vehicle is provided in Appendix A.
Test Fuel
Commercial, unleaded regular fuel was used in the testing of the
FUEL-MAX. A single batch of the fuel was purchased and stored at the
EPA. The motor octane number was 83 while the research octane number was
91. The decision to use a commercial fuel was based upon the knock
sensitivity of some engines to EGR deactivation. The Indolene fuel used
in EPA testing has a higher octane rating than typical commercial
unleaded gasoline. Thus, use of commercial fuel was appropriate for this
evaluation where the possibility of increased knock was probable.
Type of Tests
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.
-------
-3-
Other tests were also conducted as an additional aspect of this
evaluation. These tests consisted of hot start LA-4 cycles. The LA-4
driving cycle is the basic FTP driving cycle. The results of these hot
start LA-4 tests are generally similar to bags 2 and 3 of the FTP.
Device Installation
Installation of the FUEL-MAX on the test vehicles was performed in
accordance with the device installation instructions. Following
installation, a dial on the FUEL-MAX was set for the size of the engine
as specified in the instructions; i.e., set at 1.4 for the Pinto (140
C1D), 2.3 for the Cutlass (231 CID), and 3.0 for the Zephyr (302 C1D).
The following problems were experienced during the installations:
1. On the Pinto, the installation instructions call for the EGR valve to
be disconnected from the intake manifold, but to be left connected to
the exhaust gas transfer pipe so as to close the end of the transfer
pipe. On the test vehicle, the EGR valve and the exhaust gas
transfer pipe had to be removed because the configuration of the EGR
valve was different than that shown in the installation instructions
and an exhaust leak occurred.
2. On the Zephyr, the FUEL-MAX caused an exhaust leak at the manifold
where the EGR valve is normally installed. A sealing plate and
additional gaskets had to be employed to prevent this underhood
exhaust leak.
Vehicle Test Configurations
Baseline testing was performed after each vehicle was set to the vehicle
manufacturer's tune-up specifications. The second test configuration was
with the FUEL-MAX installed in accordance with the installation
instructions. A third configuration was employed in testing the Pinto.
In this configuration (along with the FUEL-MAX), the ignition was
retarded by 5° from specifications. This was done to correct the heavy
knock which had been exhibited in the road evaluation.
-------
-4-
Test Results
The vehicles were tested during March of 1981. All tests were performed
by EPA at its Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory in Ann Arbor. Table 1
summarizes the results of this testing. Emission levels are listed in
grams/mile while fuel economy is shown in miles per gallon. The results
of the individual tests on each vehicle are presented in Appendices B, C,
and D.
Table 1
Summary of Test Results
FTP
Vehicle
Ford
Pinto
Oldsmobile
Cutlass
Mercury
Zephyr
Overall
Fleet
Configuration
Baseline
FUEL-MAX
Average Change
Baseline
FUEL-MAX
Average Change
Baseline
FUEL-MAX
Average Change
Baseline
FUEL-MAX
Average Change
HC
2.08
1.58
-24%
1.89
1.46
-23%
2.47
2.08
-16%
2.15
1.71
-20%
CO
26.0
18.6
-28%
21.0
19.4
-8.0%
25.5
14.2
-44%
24.2
17.4
-28%
NOx
1.35
6.03
+350%
1.55
7.44
+380%
0.67
7.17
+970%
1.19
6.88
+480%
MPG
21.
22.
+4.
18.
18.
+1.
15.
15.
+3.
17.
18.
+3.
5
4
2%
2
5
6%
2
7
3%
9
5
4%
HC
.76
.61
-20%
.40
.23
-43%
.89
.83
-7.0%
.68
.56
-18%
HFET
CO
5.2
2.8
-46%
4.7
1.6
-66%
2.7
1.2
-5.6%
4.2
1.8
-57%
NOx
2.38
6.83
+190%
1.56
8.72
+460%
1.17
9.03
+670%
1.70
8.19
+380%
MPG
29.
29.
+1.
26.
26.
-0-
22.
22.
-0.
25.
25.
+0.
0
3
0%
4
4
9
8
4%
8
9
4%
The Pinto exhibited heavy knock during the road evaluation. In this case,
the basic timing was retarded 5° and the vehicle was retested. The results
are shown in Table 2 below:
Table 2
Summary of Test Results on Pinto with Retarded Timing
Vehicle Configuration HC
Ford
Pinto
Baseline
FUEL-MAX
FUEL-MAX (-5°) 1.20
Average Change -42%
(from baseline)
HC
2.08
1.58
1.20
-42%
CO
26.0
18.6
18.3
-30%
FTP
NOx
1.35
6.03
4.46
+230%
HFET
MPG
21.
22.
22.
+3.
5
4
2
3%
H£
.76
.61
.50
-34%
C0_
5.2
2.8
2.0
-62%
NOx
2.38
6.83
5.24
+120%
MPG
29.0
29.3
29.8
+2.8%
-------
-5-
On-Road Evaluations and Observations
Pinto; With FUEL-MAX installed, the vehicle exhibited the following
knock characteristics;
a) Cold engine, light acceleration - moderate knock
b) Heavy knock on light accelerations or while maintaining
speed on a minor grade
c) Under wide-open throttle accelerations to 55 mph, knock
did not occur
d) Idle quality was poor (rough) with a warmed-up engine
Ignition timing retard of approximately 5° removed the
knock. Vehicle acceleration performance deteriorated.
Cutlass; With FUEL-MAX, this vehicle exhibited stumble and hesitation
attributable to a lean air/fuel mixture. Knock (trace) occurred
under heavy accelerations, moderate accelerations and light
accelerations. Intermittent, light knock occurred under highway
cruise conditions with FUEL-MAX.
Zephyr; This vehicle exhibited occasional occurrences of trace knock.
When cold, the vehicle exhibited stumble at 20 mph.
Conclusions
As a result of EPA testing of FUEL-MAX on three 1979 passenger cars, the
following conclusions were drawn:
1. The installation instructions and the material packaged with the
device were not adequate in all cases.
2. Use of the FUEL-MAX resulted in a decrease in hydrocarbon
emissions. The average decrease was 20% for the FTP and 18% for
the HFET.
3. Carbon monoxide emissions were also reduced; 28% over the FTP
and 57% over the HFET.
4. NOx emissions increased substantially; 480% over the FTP and
380% over the HFET.
5. Use of the FUEL-MAX resulted in a three percent increase in fuel
economy on the FTP but essentially no change on the HFET.
6. During the road evaluations, FUEL-MAX caused heavy knock on one
car, and light knock in another. Knock was rarely noted on the
third car.
-------
-6-
7. Installation of the FUEL-MAX device is considered "tampering1
under the provisions of the Clean Air Act*.
*"EPA tests showed that the use of this device, on the vehicles tested
caused emissions to exceed applicable standards. Thus, the installation
of this device by a person in the business of servicing, repairing,
selling, leasing, or trading motor vehicles, fleet operators, or new car
dealers will be considered in violation of Section 203(a)(3) of the Clean
Air Act, the Federal prohibition against tampering with emission control
systems. That is, there is currently no reasonable basis for believing
that the installation or use of this device will not adversely affect
emission performance. This determination does not preclude the use of
the FUEL-MAX device on a different vehicle or vehicles than those tested
by EPA if Federal Test Procedure tests performed on such vehicles clearly
establish that emission performance of those particular vehicles is not
adversely affected.
-------
-7-
Appendix A
Test Vehicle Descriptions
Make/Model
Model Year
Type
Vehicle I.D.
Initial Odometer
Engine Type
Configuration
Displacement
Fuel Metering
Fuel Requirement
Transmission
Tires
Inertia Weight
Actual HP @50 mph
Emission Control Systems
Ford Pinto Oldsmobile Cutlass
1979
2 door
9T11Y186165
23540
Spark Ignition
In-line 4
140 C1D
2V Carburetor
Unleaded
Automatic
B78-13
3000
10.3
EGR
Catalyst
1979
2 door
3R47A9M523280
34880
Spark Ignition
V6
231 CID
2V Carburetor
Unleaded
Automatic
P195/75R14
4000
12.0
EGR
Catalyst
Mercury Zephyr
1979
2 door
9E35F621630
31760
Spark Ignition
V8
302 CID
2V Carburetor
Unleaded
Automatic
CR78-14
3500
11.2
EGR
Air Pump
Catalyst
-------
-8-
Appendix B
Test Results - Ford Pinto, 140 CID, 4 Cylinder
Test Test Federal Test Procedure Highway Fuel Economy Test
Date. # Configuration HC CO NOx MFC HC CO NOx MPG
3-3-81 5560 Baseline 2.09 26.1 1.37 21.44
3-3-81 5561 Baseline 0.74 5.0 2.35 28.87
3-4-81 5562 Baseline 2.06 26.0 1.33 21.56
3-4-81 5563 Baseline 0.77 5.3 2.40 29.19
3-5-81 5564 FUEL-MAX 1.66 20.2 5.84 22.06
3-5-81 5565 FUEL-MAX 0.64 3.2 6.57 29.17
\
3-6-81 5566 FUEL-MAX 1.50 17.0 6.22 22.71
3-6-81 5567 FUEL-MAX 0.58 2.3 7.08 29.42
3-25-81 5568 Fuel Max (-5°)* 1.00 18.8 4.36 21.97
3-25-81 5569 Fuel Max (-5°) 0.49 1.9 4.93 29.80
3-26-81 5570 Fuel Max (-5°) 1.41 17.8 4.56 22.48
3-26-81 5571 Fuel Max (-5°) 0.51 2.1 5.56 29.90
*For this series of tests, the device remained in place but the basic
timing was retarded 5° to correct a heavy knock condition.
-------
-9-
Appendix C
Test Results - Oldsmobile Cutlass, 231CID, V-6
Test Test Federal Test Procedure Highway Fuel Economy Test
Date. # Configuration HC CO NOx MPG HC CO NOx MPG
3-4-81 6845 Baseline
3-4-81 6848 Baseline
3-5-81 6849 Baseline
3-5-81 6850 Baseline
3-6-81 6851 Baseline
3-6-81 6852 Baseline
1.95 22.3 1.56 18.16
1.82 20.3 1.52 18.37
1.90 20.5 1.57 18.16
0.55 7.1 1.52 26.17
0.43 5.0 1.44 26.61
0.36 4.2 1.58 26.34
3-10-81 6853 FUEL-MAX
3-10-81 6854 FUEL-MAX
3-11-81 6855 FUEL-MAX
3-11-81 6856 FUEL-MAX
1.40 18.9 7.44 18.43
1.51 20.0 7.45 18.62
0.22 1.4 8.57 26.32
0.24 1.6 8.76 26.53
3-19-81 8359 Baseline
3-19-81 8361 Baseline
3-19-81 6858 FUEL-MAX
0.40 4.6 1.61 26.43
0.25 2.6 1.63 26.40
0.23 1.9 8.82 26.42
HOT START LA-4
3-19-81 8358 Baseline
3-19-81 8360 Baseline
3-19-81 6857 FUEL-MAX
3-19-81 6859 FUEL-MAX
1.14 13.4 1.50 19.25
1.32 15.1 1.54 19.54
1.24 16.5 7.90 19.71
1.37 15.6 7.73 13.06*
*Fuel economy void - error in CO- readings.
-------
-10-
Appendix D
Test Results - Mercury Zephyr, 302CID, V-8
Test Test Federal Test Procedure Highway Fuel Economy Test
Date. // Configuration HC CO NOx MPG HC CO NOx MPG
3-3-81 6771 Baseline
3-3-81 6772 Baseline
3-4-81 6773 Baseline
3-4-81 6774 Baseline
3-5-81 6775 Baseline
3-5-81 6776 Baseline
2.42 25.2 0.66 15.10
2.42 24.1 0.69 15.25
2.46 23.2 0.71 15.23
0.94 1.4 1.34 23.08
0.86 3.8 1.07 22.58
0.86 2.8 1.11 23.09
3-10-81 8094 FUEL-MAX
3-10-81 8095 FUEL-MAX
3-11-81 8125 FUEL-MAX
3-11-81 8126 FUEL-MAX
2.05 14.3 7.20 15.72
2.12 14.2 7.14 15.72
0.81 1.2 9.31 22.77
0.85 1.1 8.75 22.80
3-18-81 8302 Baseline
2.58 29.5 0.61 15.04
-------
123
Attachment H
EPA-AA-TEB-81-15
Emissions and Fuel Economy of
FUEL-MAX, a Retrofit Device
F. Peter Hutchins
John T. White
May, 1981
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
124
Abstract
This report describes the results of testing the "FUEL-MAX" device as
part of an evaluation under Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act. The FUEL-MAX is an air-bleed device which replaces
a vehicle's Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) valve. The amount of air
bled into the intake manifold is determined by the vacuum signal which
once controlled the action of the EGR valve. This device is claimed to
conserve fuel. The primary purpose of this project was to evaluate the
effect of the FUEL-MAX on exhaust emissions and fuel economy.
Testing of three typical 1979 model year passenger cars was conducted
during March, 1981. The basic test sequence included the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET). These tests
were performed both before and after installation of the FUEL-MAX. As a
result of the testing, average hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions
decreased somewhat while oxides of nitrogen displayed substantial
increases. Fuel economy was found to increase approximately three
percent on the FTP but exhibited no change over the HFET. The occurrence
of engine knock was obvious on two of three vehicles. EPA's Office of
Enforcement has determined that the FUEL-MAX can violate the
anti-tampering provisions of the Clean Air Act.
-------
125
Background
Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Cost Savings and Information Act
empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate devices or
fuel additives which may improve the fuel economy of conventional motor
vehicles. The EPA has developed and instituted a procedure whereby an
individual or organization may apply for an evaluation of the device or
fuel additive. This procedure requires the applicant to submit a
technical description of the system in conjunction with results from
actual testing. Once a complete application is received, the EPA will
conduct an engineering evaluation and publish the results in the Federal
Register. In those cases where the device or additive shows promise, the
EPA will conduct tests as a part of its evaluation. Such testing is
performed at EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory in Ann Arbor.
In February, 1980, EPA received an application from Fuel Injection
Development Corporation for an evaluation of the FUEL-MAX. This device
is an air-bleed mechanism which replaces the Exhaust Gas Recirculation
(EGR) valve. The amount of air bled into the intake manifold is
determined by the vacuum signal which once controlled the action of the
EGR valve.
Based on an evaluation of the test results submitted to support the
claims for the FUEL-MAX, EPA chose to conduct confirmatory testing. The
basic purpose of the testing was to determine the effect of the device on
fuel economy and exhaust emissions. Secondary purposes "included an
evaluation of the installation instructions and driveability factors.
Test Vehicles
Three typical 1979 production vehicles were used: a Ford Pinto with a
4-cylinder engine, an Oldsmobile Cutlass with a 6 cylinder engine, and a
Mercury Zephyr with an 8 cylinder engine. All vehicles were equipped
with automatic transmissions. A more detailed description of each
vehicle is provided in Appendix A.
Test Fuel
Commercial, unleaded regular fuel was used in the testing of the
FUEL-MAX. A single batch of the fuel was purchased and stored at the
EPA. The motor octane number was 83 while the research octane number was
91. The decision to use a commercial fuel was based upon the knock
sensitivity of some engines to EGR deactivation. The Indolene fuel used
in EPA testing has a higher octane rating than typical commercial
unleaded gasoline. Thus, use of commercial fuel was appropriate for this
evaluation where the possibility of increased knock was probable.
Type of Tests
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.
-------
126
Other tests were also conducted as an additional aspect of this
evaluation. These tests consisted of hot start LA-4 cycles. The LA-4
driving cycle is the basic FTP driving cycle. The results of these hot
start LA-4 tests are generally similar to bags 2 and 3 of the FTP.
Device Installation
Installation of the FUEL-MAX on the test vehicles was performed in
accordance with the device installation instructions. Following
installation, a dial on the FUEL-MAX was set for the size of the engine
as specified in the instructions; i.e., set at 1.4 for the Pinto (140
CID), 2.3 for the Cutlass (231 CID), and 3.0 for the Zephyr (302 CID).
The following problems were experienced during the installations:
1. On the Pinto, the installation instructions call for the EGR valve to
be disconnected from the intake manifold, but to be left connected to
the exhaust gas transfer pipe so as to close the end of the transfer
pipe. On the test vehicle, the EGR valve and the exhaust gas
transfer pipe had to be removed because the configuration of the EGR
valve was different than that shown in the installation instructions
and an exhaust leak occurred.
2. On the Zephyr, the FUEL-MAX caused an exhaust leak at the manifold
where the EGR valve is normally installed. A sealing plate and ,
additional gaskets had to be employed to prevent this underhood
exhaust leak.
Vehicle Test Configurations
Baseline testing was performed after each vehicle was set to the vehicle
manufacturer's tune-up specifications. The second test configuration was
with the FUEL-MAX installed in accordance with the installation
instructions. A third configuration was employed in testing the Pinto.
In this configuration (along with the FUEL-MAX), the ignition was
retarded by 5° from specifications. This was done to correct the heavy
knock which had been exhibited in the road evaluation.
-------
127
Test Results
The vehicles x*ere tested during March of 1981. All tests were performed
by EPA at its Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory in Ann Arbor. Table 1
summarizes the results of this testing. Emission levels are listed in
grams/mile while fuel economy is shown in miles per gallon. The results
of the individual tests on each vehicle are presented in Appendices B, C,
and D.
Table 1
Summary of Test Results
FTP
HFET
Vehicle Configuration HC
CO
Ford Baseline 2.08 26.0
Pinto FUEL-MAX 1.58 18.6
Average Change -24% -28%
NOx
1.35
6.03
+350%
MPG
HC
CO
NOx
MPG
21.5 .76 5.2
22.4 .61 2.8
+4.2% -20% -46%
Oldsmobile Baseline 1.89 21.0 1.55 18.2 .40 4.7
Cutlass FUEL-MAX 1.46 19.4 7.44 18.5 .23 1.6
Average Change -23% -8.0% +380% +1.6% -43% -66%
2.38 29.0
6.83 29.3
+190% +1.0%
1.56 26.4
8.72 26.4
+460% -0-
Mercury Baseline 2.47 25.5 0.67
Zephyr FUEL-MAX 2.08 14.2 7.17
Average Change -16% -44% +970%
Overall Baseline 2.15 24.2 1.19
Fleet FUEL-MAX 1.71 17.4 6.88
Average Change -20% -28% +480%
15.2 .89 2.7 1.17 22.9
15.7 .83 1.2 9.03 22.8
+3.3% -7.0% -5.6% +670% -0.4%
17.9
18.5
+3.4%
.68 4.2
.56 1.8
-18% -57%
1.70 25.8
8.19 25.9
+380% +0.4%
The Pinto exhibited heavy knock during the road evaluation. In this case,
the basic timing was retarded 5° and the vehicle was retested. The results
are shown in Table 2 below:
Table 2
Summary of Test Results on Pinto with Retarded Timing
FTP
HFET
Vehicle Configuration HC_ CO NOx MPG H£ CO NOx MPG
Ford Baseline 2.08 26.0 1.35 21.5 .76 5.2 2.38 29.0
Pinto FUEL-MAX 1.58 18.6 6.03 22.4 .61 2.8 6.83 29.3
FUEL-MAX (-5°) 1.20 18.3 4.46 22.2 .50 2.0 5.24 29.8
Average Change -42% -30% +230% +3.3% -34% -62% +120% +2.8%
(from baseline)
-------
128
On-Road Evaluations and Observations
Pinto: With FUEL-MAX installed, the vehicle exhibited the following
knock characteristics;
a) Cold engine, light acceleration - moderate knock
b) Heavy knock on light accelerations or while maintaining
speed on a minor grade
c) Under wide-open throttle accelerations to 55 mph, knock
did not occur
d) Idle quality was poor (rough) with a warmed-up engine
Ignition timing retard of approximately 5° removed the
knock. Vehicle acceleration performance deteriorated.
Cutlass; With FUEL-MAX, this vehicle exhibited stumble and hesitation
attributable to a lean air/fuel mixture. Knock (trace) occurred
under heavy accelerations, moderate accelerations and light
accelerations. Intermittant, light knock occurred under highway
cruise conditions with FUEL-MAX.
Zephyr; This vehicle exhibited occasional occurrences of trace knock.
When cold, the vehicle exhibited stumble at 20 mph.
Conclusions
As a result of EPA testing of FUEL-MAX on three 1979 passenger cars, the.
following conclusions were drawn:
1. The installation instructions and the material packaged with the
device were not adequate in all cases.
2. Use of the FUEL-MAX resulted in a decrease in hydrocarbon
emissions. The average decrease was 20% for the FTP and 18% for
the HFET.
3. . Carbon monoxide emissions were also reduced; 28% over the FTP
and 57% over the HFET.
4. NOx emissions increased substantially; 480% over the FTP and
380% over the HFET.
5. Use of the FUEL-MAX resulted in a three percent increase in fuel
economy on the FTP but essentially no change on the HFET.
6. During the road evaluations, FUEL-MAX caused heavy knock on one
car, and light knock in another. Knock was rarely noted on the
third car.
-------
129
7. Installation of the FUEL-MAX device is considered "tampering"
under the provisions of the Clean Air Act*.
*"EPA tests showed that the use of this device, on the vehicles tested
caused emissions to exceed applicable standards. Thus, the installation
of this device by a person in the business of servicing, repairing,
selling, leasing, or trading motor vehicles, fleet operators, or new car
dealers will be considered in violation of Section 203(a)(3) of the Clean
Air Act, the Federal prohibition against tampering with emission control
systems. That is, there is currently no reasonable basis for believing
that the installation or use of this device will not adversely affect
emission performance. This determination does not preclude the use of
the FUEL-MAX device on a different vehicle or vehicles than those tested
by EPA if Federal Test Procedure tests performed on such vehicles clearly
establish that emission performance of those particular vehicles is not
adversely affected.
-------
130
Appendix A
Test Vehicle Descriptions
Make/Model
Model Year
Type
Vehicle l.D.
Initial Odometer
Engine Type
Configuration
Displacement
Fuel Metering
Fuel Requirement
Transmission
Tires
Inertia Weight
Actual HP @50 mph
Emission Control Systems
Ford Pinto
1979
2 door
9T11Y186165
23540
Spark Ignition
In-line 4
140 C1D
2V Carburetor
Unleaded
Automatic
B78-13
3000
10.3
EGR
Catalyst
Oldsmobile Cutlass
1979
2 door
3R47A9M523280
34880
Spark Ignition
V6
231 CID :
2V Carburetor
Unleaded
Automatic
P195/75R14
4000
12.0
EGR
Catalyst
Mercury Zephyr
1979
2 door
9E35F621630
31760
Spark Ignition
V8
302 CID
2V Carburetor
Unleaded
Automatic
CR78-14
3500
11.2
EGR
Air Pump
Catalyst
-------
131
Appendix B
Test Results - Ford Pinto, 140 CID, 4. Cylinder
Test Test Federal Test Procedure Highway Fuel Economy Test
Date. # Configuration HC CO NOx MFC HC CO NQx MPG
3-3-81 5560 Baseline 2.09 26.1 1.37 21.44
3-3-81 5561 Baseline 0.74 5.0 2.35 28.87
3-4-81 5562 Baseline 2.06 26.0 1.33 21.56
3-4-81 5563 Baseline 0.77 5.3 2.40 29.19
3-5-81 5564 FUEL-MAX 1.66 20.2 5.84 22.06
3-5-81 5565 FUEL-MAX 0.64 3.2 6.57 29.17
3-6-81 5566 FUEL-MAX 1.50 17.0 6.22 22.71
3-6-81 5567 FUEL-MAX 0.58 2.3 7.08 29.42
3-25-815568 Fuel Max (-5°)* 1.00 18.8 4.36 21.97
3-25-815569 Fuel Max (-5°) . 0.49 1.9 4.93 29.80
3-26-81 5570 Fuel Max (-5°) 1.41 17.8 4.56 22.48
3-26-81 5571 Fuel Max (-5°) 0.51 2.1 5.56 29.90
/
*For this series of tests, the device remained in place but the basic
timing was retarded 5° to correct a heavy knock condition.
-------
132
Appendix C
Test Results - Oldsmobile Cutlass, 231CID, V-6
Test Test Federal Test Procedure Highway Fuel Economy Test
Date. // Configuration HC CO NOx MPG HC CO NOx MPG
3-4-81 6845 Baseline
3-4-81 6848 Baseline
3-5-81 6849 Baseline
3-5-81 6850 Baseline
3-6-81 6851 Baseline
3-6-81 6852 Baseline
1.95 22.3 1.56 18.16
1.82 20.3 1.52 18.37
1.90 20.5 1.57 18.16
0.55 7.1 1.52 26.17
0.43 5.0 1.44 26.61
0.36 4.2 1.58 26.34
3-10-81 6853 FUEL-MAX
3-10-81 6854 FUEL-MAX
3-11-81 6855 FUEL-MAX
3-11-81 6856 FUEL-MAX
1.40 18.9 7.44 18.43
1.51 20.0 7.45 18.62
0.22 1.4 8.57 26.32
0.24 1.6 8.76 26.53
3-19-81 8359 Baseline
3-19-81 8361 Baseline
3-19-81 6858 FUEL-MAX
0.40 4.6 1.61 26.43
0.25 2.6 1.63 26.40
0.23 1.9 8.82 26.42
HOT START LA-4
3-19-81 8358 Baseline
3-19-81 8360 Baseline
3-19-81 6857 FUEL-MAX
3-19-81 6859 FUEL-MAX
1.14 13.4 1.50 19.25
1.32 15.1 1.54 19.54
1.24 16.5 7.90 19.71
1.37 15.6 7.73 13.06*
*Fuel economy void - error in CO^ readings.
-------
133
Appendix D
Test Results - Mercury Zephyr, 302CID, V-8
Test Test Federal Test Procedure Highway Fuel Economy Test
Date. // Configuration HC CO NOx MPG HC CO NOx MPG
3-3-81 6771 Baseline
3-3-81 6772 Baseline
3-4-81 6773 Baseline
3-4-81 6774 Baseline
3-5-81 6775 Baseline
3-5-81 6776 Baseline
2.42 25.2 0.66 15.10
2.42 24.1 0.69 15.25
2.46 23.2 0.71 15.23
0.94 1.4 1.34 23.08
0.86 3.8 1.07 22.58
0.86 2.8 1.11 23.09
3-10-81 8094 FUEL-MAX
3-10-81 8095 FUEL-MAX
3-11-81 8125 FUEL-MAX
3-11-81 8126 FUEL-MAX
2.05 14.3 7.20 15.72
2.12 14.2 7.14 15.72
0.81 1.2 9.31 22.77
0.85 1.1 8.75 22.80
3-18-81 8302 Baseline
2.58 29.5 0.61 15.04
-------
Attachment
Award Winning Automotive Engineers
SMSH GAS CONSUMPTION
Tests prove
Savings up to
12!/2 mpg (cityi
Up to 33% mpg
(highway)
/'
;-%,
l«Cik^
DEVELOPED BY
THE INVENTORS
OF THE YEAR 1979
**A
American
Society of
Inventors
V-
."•!-'fu-£U
I ^ ci-"*i-£i'—• I
1 "|s oca E
9
What is Fuel Max? Pollution control systems, used on care built
since 1973 to help meet Federal emissions control standards, drive down
gas mileage and performance. Fuel Max' is a precision engineered
device that enables a car owner to change the air/fuel ratio and eliminate
the negative effects of exhaust gas recirculation. Fuel Max can add
up to l2Vt%" more mpg in city driving, up to 33%" more on the highway.
When Fuel Max was tested on 50 randomly selected 73 to 79 cars
and trucks,-gas savings averaged a dramatic 10V2%! Fuel Max also.saves
gas and improves performance on 1980 models, but to a lesser degree.
HOW does Fuel Max WOrk? Tho pollution control system
on 73—'80 automobiles works by roclrculating exhaust gas back
Into the engine by means of an EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculatlng) Valve.
This reduces the exhaust emissions but also decreases the car's
smoothness, acceleration and response. It causes more gas to be
burned. Fuel Max Is a precision built vacuum operated valve that uses
the existing EGR system but allows MORE AIR Into the engine •'.
intake and eliminates recirculation 'of exhaust gas. More air In the
combustible mixture means a leaner mix—you use less gas, get better
performance, and lower total overall emissions.
Fuel Max is easy to install. Easy-to-ioiiow instructions
included—simpler than changing your car's sparkplugs.
No carburetor adjustment necessary!
Federal EfW regulations permit vehicle owner to Install Fuel Max on own
fehicle.
Only $29,95 postpaid right to
your door. Fuel Max soon pays for itself
with the gas savings you get! .
Exclusive only through this offer.
Order tOday. Start saving gas
and getting better performance from
your car.
'Patent pending
'•Results ol tests using E.KA. protMttuns on e W? Chevy wtti
a 305 cuDic inch V-S engine. •
r
WARRANTY
Fuel Max is warranted against
delects in materials and work-
manship for one year from date of
purchase.
OGI Group Ltd.
114 East 32 Street
New York. New York 10016
Please send mo
I
FUEL MAX @ S2U.95 ppd, 1
Name _
Address
City
-State Zip
Enclosed is my check or money order for $ I
Visa & Mastercharge card holders dial I
toll tree #800-228-2028 ' |
Satisfaction Guaranteed or Money Refunded |
-------
135
Attachment J
13. Wilt I Really Save Gas by Driving 55 MPH
instead of 60 or 65?
Yes. The most efficient driving speed is usually
between 30 and 40 miles per hour. For each 10
mph speed increase,there is a fuel economy
penalty of about 10 percent. At speeds above 65
mph, the penalty is even greater.
14. Does the Air Conditioner Reduce Fuel
Economy?
Yes. The air conditioner uses engine power,
which causes a decrease in fuel economy of a few
percent.
15. Why Do Some Cars Run after They Are
Turned Off?
After-Run, or so-called dieseling, is aggravated
by an excessively fast idle speed. Engines should
be tuned when warmed up to idle atthe minimum
speed which gives a smooth idle. (Check auto-
matic transmission cars in "drive".) If cold idling
is a problem, the automatic choke may be set to
stay on longer. (Automatic choke also boosts idle
speed.)
16. Is There Really a Fuel Shortage?
Yes and No. There is no shortage of energy
resources, but there is a very real shortage of
cheap energy. We have become accustomed to
buying gasoline for 50$ per gallon, which is less
than we pay for beer, milk, soft drinks, or even
distilled water.
17. What Kind of Tires Give the Best Gas
Mileage?
Radial tires have less rolling resistance than bias-
ply tires, and give a fuel economy improvement of
a few percent. Higher tire pressures can also add
a few percent to fuel economy, but safety is more
important. Stick to the manufacturer's recom-
mened tire pressures.
18. Do Special Oils Really Work?
Some of the synthetic oil products and "slippery"
oils can make a small improvement in fuel econo-
my by reducing engine friction.
19. Is It Legal for Me to Change My Car's
Emission Control System?
If you are not a Professional Mechanic, Dealer
Representative, or Fleet Operator, the Federal
EPA Laws do not apply to you. Some individual
states are considering legislation which might
apply. Check your owns state's legislation if you
are not sure.
20. Can Fuel-Max Damage an Engine?
No. Fuel-Max can actually prolong the life of an
engine by eliminating the corrosive effect of
exhaust gas recirculation.
FUEL-MAX INDUSTRIES
P. O. Box 726
Bellmawr, NJ 08031
FUEL-MAX — GASOLINE CONSERVATION
FOR CARS AND TRUCKS
Fuel-Max has been designed forthe motorist who
wants to improve his vehicle's fuel economy. The
Fuel-Max installation has shown an average im-
provement in fuel economy better than ten per-
cent. For those serious about conserving fuel, an
additional ten to twenty percent may be saved by
careful attention to driving habits.
Driving Habits can make the difference between
15 MPG and 25 MPG on the same car. Careful use
of your car's power can save more fuel than any
other technique.
Most of the gasoline your car uses is consumed
during accelerations. The harder you accelerate,
the more fuel is wasted. It is for this reason that
highway driving gives better economy than city
driving.
While only about 10 horsepower are needed to
maintain your car at 55 miles per hour on the
highway, you can use all of your engine's horse-
power to accelerate. The economical driver uses
the minimum horsepower required for any driv-
ing situation. A good way to retrain yourself for
economical driving habits is to pretend there is a
glass of water on the dashboard, and drive in such
a way as to avoid getting wet.
REMEMBER THESE GAS-SAVING TIPS -
AVOID PROLONGED IDLING
DON'T CARRY AROUND UNNECESSARY
WEIGHT
ACCELERATE GRADUALLY, DRIVE
SMOOTHLY
FOLLOW THE SPEED LIMITS -
HIGHER SPEEDS WASTE FUEL
-------
136
FUEL ECONOMY —
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
To help you understand some of the technical
aspects, we have listed answers to the 20 most
frequently asked questions about fuel economy.
1. What is EGR? (Exhaust Gas Recirculation)
Exhaust Gas Recirculation is used on all cars
built after 1973. The EGR Valve is controlled by a
vacuum signal that comes from the carburetor
whenever the throttle is in the cruising range.
Most cars also have a temperature-controlled
vacuum switch in the control line to keep the EGR
Valve from opening when the engine is cold.
EGR allows some of the exhaust gas to bleed
back into the engine intake, which helps to
control one of the emissions, Oxides of Nitrogen.
When the EGR system is disconnected, fuel
economy improves a few percent, performance is
improved noticeably, Oxides of Nitrogen emis-
sions increase, and the engine may knock or ping
more than before.
Fuel-Max uses the controls and passages of the
EGR system for another purpose.
2. How does the Fuel-Max work?
Fuel-Max makes use of an engine's existing EGR
system, but bleeds air into the engine instead of
exhaust gas. The Fuel-Max improves fuel econ-
omy and performance, and causes a change in
the balance of the three regulated exhaust emis-
sions. In general, Hydrocarbon and Carbon Mon-
oxide emissions go down, and Oxides of Nitrogen
emissions go up. The total of the three emissions
usually goes down.
Fuel-Max causes the engine to run on a leaner air-
fuel mixture, only when the engine is warmed up.
Fuel-Max does not operate at idle, or on wide-
open throttle accelerations. For this reason a
better fuel economy improvement should be
expected in highway driving than urban driving.
3. What is Engine Knock or Ping?
Knock is the sound made by a small "explosion"
in the combustion chamber, when the fuel and air
burn abruptly instead of smoothly. Heavy and
prolonged knocking can cause damage to the
engine. There are two remedies for excessive
knock: 1. Switch to a higher octane fuel.
2. Retard the ignition timing, which will
also cause the fuel economy to de-
crease.
4. Should I Change the Ignition Timing?
To get the maximum fuel economy, ignition
timing should be advanced as far as the engine
will tolerate without knocking. (Usually not more
than 8 degrees beyond factory specifications.)
Advanced timing will usually cause theemissions
to increase.
5. What is Octane? Octane is a measure of a
fuel's resistance to knock. For example, an en-
gine which knocks on 86 octane fuel might not
knock on 90 octane fuel.
6. What is Unleaded Gasoline?
Before 1975,- almost all gasoline contained a
Lead-Compound additive. Lead increases the
octane of the gasoline, but may not be used in
catalyst-equipped vehicles. The lead is deposited
on the inside of the catalytic converter and spoils
the catalyst.
7. Why does Unleaded cost more than Regular?
If lead is not used to boost a fuel's octane, the fuel
must go through additional refining to raise its
octane. The extra refining uses energy, so un-
leaded fuel costs more to manufacture than
leaded fuel of the same octane.
8. What is Air-Fuel Ratio?
The mixture of fuel and air supplied by the
carburetor or fuel injection system must be carfe-
fully set to the right ratio. Most vehicles operate in
the range of 15to 18 Air-Fuel Ratio. (15poundsof
air for each pound of fuel.)
The most efficient mixture is the leanest (highest
air-fuel ratio) that the engine will tolerate without
rough running or hesitation. There is no external
adjustment on the carburetor for air-fuel ratio,
except the idle mixture.
9. How Should I Adjust the Idle Mixture?
Turn the mixture screw (or screws) to the leanest
setting (clockwise is leaner) that gives a smooth
idle. Some cars have plastic limiter caps on the
idle screws to restrict the range of adjustment.
10. Will a Lean Mixture "Burn Valves"?
No. All modern cars operate at air-fuel ratios
greater than 15. The air-fuel ratio which gives the
highest combustion temperature is 14.7. Temp-
eratures drop as the mixture gets richer or leaner
than 14.7.
Before 1970, many vehicles used mixtures richer
than 14.7, and leaning the mixture could raise
combustion temperatures, and "bum valves".
11. Will it help to remove the Catalytic
Converter?
No. The catalytic converter has no direct effect on
fuel economy. Its removal would not produce any
change except increased exhaust emissions.
12. How Should I Measure Gas Mileage?
Anyone can measure fuel economy by keeping a
record of each fuel purchase. Start by noting the
odometer reading when the tank is full. Then note
the number of miles on the odometer and the
gallons purchased every time you buy fuel. After
using several tankfuls of fuel, divide the total
miles travelled by the total gallons used. The
result will be the miles per gallon. Be sure to
average several tankfuls of fuel, to get accurate
measurements over a long period.
-------
Attachment
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
November 7, 1980
Mr. Michael D. Leshner, Chief Engineer
FIDCO Fuel Injection Development Corporation
110 Harding Avenue
Bellmaur, NJ 08030
Dear Mr. Leshner:
During our analysis of your firm's application for evaluation of the
"Fuel-Max" fuel economy retrofit device under Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act we have found deficiencies in the data you
enclosed .with your application.
First, the appendices to one of the Scott reports were not included with the
application. We requested a complete copy of the report from Scott
Environmental Technology, Inc. but they will not release the information to us
without prior authorization from the sponsoring company. Please forward to us
Appendices A, B, and C for Scott Report #1827 01 0979, "Technical Report on
Evaluation of a Fuel Economy Device".
Second, in the test reports provided with your firm's application, the
baseline data were collected by the testing laboratory on vehicles in an "as
received" condition. The independent laboratory can not verify the status of
the engine design parameter settings. Please provide detailed information
regarding the engine design parameter settings (ignition timing, idle speed,
idle mixture, etc.) for each vehicle used for the baseline and device
installed testing supporting your firm's application for evaluation.
Thank you very much for your help on this problem. Your cooperation will
facilitate the evaluation process.
Sincerely,
rtVjuvoLu. to \
-------
. ••r fc T
Attachment L
Fuel y Injection Development Corporation
29 December 1980
Mr. Merrill W. Korth
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Dear Mr. Korth,
I have enclosed a complete copy of Scott Environmental
Technology Report #182? 01 0979. The copy which was originally
sent with our Section 511 Application did not Include the
appendices. These appendices were not available to our
company until today. The company which sponsored the test
program was not willing to share the appendices without
compensation, and we had to negotiate a special agreement
for th^-ir release.
Second, we did some checking on the engine design parameter
settings for the test vehicles. All of the vehicles were
leased by the sponsoring company for their employees.
The vehicles were all-delivered new by factory dealerships,
and were not adjusted after initial new-car preparation.
Since these calibrations were not measured, we can only assume
they were all set to factory specifications.
I apologize for the delay in forwarding this information.
Please let me know if I can help you to expedite this evaluation.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Leshner
Chief Engineer
110 Harding Avenue • Bellmawr, N.J. 08030 • 609/931-3168
------- |