EPA-AA-TEB-511-8 0-4
EPA Evaluation of the "Goodman Engine System"
This document contains several pages which may not reproduce well. Any
questions concerning the legibility of these pages should be directed to:
Merrill W. Korth, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile
Source Air Pollution Control, Emission Control Technology Division, 2565
Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48105, (313) 668-4299 or FTS 374-8299.
By
Thomas J. Penninga
April 1980
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Billing Code 6560-01
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 610]
[FRL
FUEL ECONOMY RETROFIT DEVICES
Announcement of Fuel Economy Retrofit Device Evaluation
for "Goodman Engine System, Model 1800."
AGENCY; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Fuel Economy Retrofit Device Evaluation.
SUMMARY: This document announces the conclusions of the EPA evaluation of the
Goodman Engine System, Model 1800 under the provisions of Section 511 of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; F. Peter Hutchins, Emission Control Tech-
nology Division, Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105,
313-663-4340.
-------
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION; The overall conclusion of this report is that the
Goodman Engine System, Model 1800 device does not have any significant effect
on regulated emissions or. fuel economy. A small reduction in Nitrous Oxides
(NOx)exhaust emissions on the Federal Highway Fuel Economy Test Procedure
(HFET).was noted .^ .... r;. ..... ._.......
The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) data generated at the Transporation
Research Center cannot be used to evaluate the Goodman Engine System Model
1800 device because too many extraneous variables such as altered timing,
higher compression ratio, different camshaft, different test fuels, and 13,000
miles between the "before and after" tests were introduced to make comparative
analysis possible. The Environmental Protection Agency data was run on a
suitable test vehicle with available unleaded fuel. The Goodman Engine System
Model 1800 device was judged by the inventor to be operating properly during
the EPA testing. The EPA data does not substantiate the claims nade about the
device.
The Goodman Engine System Model 1800 device appears to operate safely and does
not appear to cause emission of any non-regulated emissions. It is suggested
that future installation instructions specify the type of antifreeze to be
used in the device. Several antifreeze compounds such as ethylene-glycol are
known to cause engine.damage.
The reduction in NOx on the HFET cycle does suggest some promise for a better
developed water injection system. However, no significant improvement in fuel
economy was noted.
-------
Date David G. Hawkins
Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
-------
EPA Evaluation of "Goodman Engine System, Model 1800"
Under Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
The following is a summary of the information on the device as supplied by the
applicant and the resulting EPA analysis and conclusions.
1. Marketing Identification of the Device; Goodman Engine System, Model
1800 ..,......--..--
2. Inventor of the Device and Patents; The inventor of the device is
Toronta P. Goodman, P.O. Box 4, Summitt Point, West Virginia 25446.
While no patent number has yet-been granted an application for a patent,
Serial No. 64373, has been made.
3." ' "Ma'huf acture'r of the Device;
Goodman System Corporation
P.O. Box 4
Summitt Point, West Virginia 25446
4. Manufacturing Organizations Principals;
Mitchell Sachs
Toronta P. Goodman
Fritz Bell
H. Crosby Foster, II
(Company Title and Positions are not known to the EPA).
5. Marketing Organization in U.S. Making Application:
Akin, Gump, Haver & Feld*
Suite 400
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
6. Identity of Applicant:
Edward S. Knight, Esquire
Akin, Gump, Haver & Feld*
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
* Note: This law firm provides counsel for Goodman Engine Systems, Inc.
-------
7. Description of the Device; (As supplied by the applicant):
"An injection nozzle injects a finely divided spray of fluid, such as
water or a water solution, into the cylinders of the engine in response
to a flow of atomizing air. The nozzle is connected to a fluid supply
reservoir and to the outlet line of an air-injection pump that normally
supplies pressurized air to the exhaust system of the engine. The air-
injection pump provides the supply of atomizing air to the nozzle with
the pressure of the air and therefore the fluid injection being res-
ponsive to both the engine speed and the exhaust gas pressure. The
injected fluid advantageously functions as a cooling agent to suppress
detonation and provide smoother engine operation and greater fuel effi-
ciency."
8. Claimed Applicability of the Device;
"The Goodman Engine System, Model 1800, is applicable to the vast ma-
j-ority of automobiles and light-duty trucks powered by an internal com-
bustion engine and sold in the United States that have an air injection
pump which supplies pressurized air to the exhaust system of the engine,
i.e., a smog pump. The device's operation and efficiency is not limited
by vehicle make or model, engine size, carburetion, transmission type or
ignition type. The only specific vehicle requirements are (1) the exis-
tence of the smog pump and (2) the physical availability of a suitable
place to locate the device's nozzle downstream of the air filter."
9. Device Installation, Tools Required, Expertise Required (claimed);
See Attachment A.
10. Device Maintenance (claimed);
"Proper maintenance of the Goodman Engine System, Model 1800 does not
require special skills or tools. The only maintenance is as follows:
a. Refill water tank: The water level should be checked and water
added if necessary at regular intervals, such as when the operator
put(s) gasoline into the vehicle.
b. Remove the device's nozzle and flush with ordinary vinegar every
20,000 miles: The tools and skills required are those specified ...
on device installation.
c. Add antifreeze to water: During the months of the year when the
operator would mix antifreeze with the water in the vehicle's ra-
diator, it is recommended that a mixture of water and antifreeze, at
a 1:1 ratio, be utilized in the water tank in lieu of water alone."
-------
11. Effects on Vehicle Emission (non-regulated) (claimed);
"As more fully set forth and documented by the information referred to in
the ... test results, the Goodman Engine System, Model 1800, during
normal operation arid function, will not cause a vehicle utilizing the
device to emit into the ambient air any non-regulated substance other
than an insignificant amount of water vapor, in a quantity differing from
that emitted in the operation of the vehicle without the device."
12. Safety of the Device (claimed);
"The Goodman Engine System, Model 1800, does not interact with the vehi-
cle operator during the device's operation and function. It is not,
therefore, operator dependant. Even if the device should fail to func- -
tion, such malfunction would not result in .any unsafe condition endan-
gering the vehicle or its occupants, or person or property in close
proximity to the vehicle. The following are three scenarios encompassing
the totality of possible device malfunctions.
a. The device is utilized without water in the container:
If this situation should occur, the vehicle will simply operate as
if the device had not been installed. That is, the vehicle's fuel
economy and emissions will be those the vehicle would report,
holding engine tuning, tire pressure, operator performance and the
like constant, without the device. In other words, no dangerous or
adverse condition will results if the device is utilized on a vehi-
cle without water in the water container.
b. -The water container breaks:
If this situation occurs, and the water is lost, the effect on the
vehicle will be the same as that described in (a) above. The only
difference, of course, is that the water will be spilt onto the
ground and subsequently will evaporate.
c. The hoses leak or become disconnected:
If this situation should occur, the effect on the veh-icle will be
the same as that described in (a) above. As more fully described
and documented in the section on test results, such an occurance
will not adversely affect the ambient air to any significant de-
gree."
13. Test Results - Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy (supplied by applicant)
a. Transcript and comments pertaining to a "60 Minutes" television
program entitled "Those Crazy Men in their Driving Machines,"
which was broadcast over the CBS Television network on June 10,
1979.
-------
b. Test results prepared for CBS News by the Transportation Research
Center (TRC) of Ohio entitled "Effects of Engine Modifications on
Fuel Conumption, Emissions and Performance."
c. Letter from Dr. Engleman, Professor of Engineering at Ohio State
University.
14. Information Gathered by EPA;
a. A 1979 Ford Fiesta was tested on seven Federal Test Procedures and
seven Highway Fuel Economy Tests. These tests included 3 baseline
sequences, 2 sequences with the Goodman Engine System, Model 1800
operating, and two with the Goodman Engine System Model 1800 in-
stalled but without fluid in the reservior. A summary of the test
data is given in Attachment B. Copies of the original data sheets
are given in Attachment C.
b'. SAE Paper #690018 entitled "Inlet Manifold Water Injection for
Control of Nitrogen Oxides - Theory and Experiment."
c. Contract. #DAA D05-72-C-0053, Report //ADA00332 entitled "Water
Induction Studies in a Military Spark Ignition Engine."
d. SAE Paper by R. I. Potter - preprinted in 1948 entitled "Use of
Anti-Detonant Injection in a High Compression Ratio Engine."
e. SAE Paper by C. H. Hartesveldt - preprinted in 1948 entitled
"Anti-Detonant Injection."
f. Taylor and Taylor, Copyright 1961 entitled "The Internal Combustion
Engine," Chapter 6 - "Effects of Operating Variables on Detonation."
g. Edward Obert, Copyright 1973 entitled "Internal Combustion Engines
and Air Pollution," Chapter 9 - "Knock and the Engine Variables."
h. Henein and Patterson, copyright 1972 entitled "Emissions from
Combustion Engines."
i. Verbal discussion with the inventor during the week of 9-21-79 as to
the Goodman Device.
j. EPA letter to Edward S. Knight requesting information about the
device and supplied test data (see Attachment G). A second letter
reaffirming the request for information was sent on 10-23-79 (see
Attachment H). The answer was supplied by the inventor on 11-6-79
(see Attachment I).
-------
k. 1978 Ford Fiesta Deterioration Data (see Attachment E).
1. Octane Analysis of Test Fuel - Shell Unleaded (see Attachment F).
15. Analysis;
a. Description of the device; The description given in the application
varied slightly from the device supplied by Goodman Systems
Corporation for EPA testing. Mr. Goodman, the inventor, stated that.
the "improved system" does not require a float bowl fluid reservoir
and that the height of the reservoir was not critical. He stated
that a two (2) foot change in reservoir height would result in only
an eight (8) percent change in the amount of water injected. He
further stated that the device, as tested, was the Goodman Engine
System, Model 1800.
b. Applicability of the device; The applicability requirements stated
in the application appear to be correct.
c. Device Installation; The installation is straightforward and does
not require any special skills or tools. The installation instruc-
tions supplied in the application adequately enable an average
"back-yard" mechanic to install the device in less than an hour.
d. Device Maintenance; The maintenance requirements specified in the
application appear to be correct. However, because of the proximity
of the reference to engine coolant antifreeze and antifreeze for the
device - some statement that the types of antifreeze involved are
different needs to be included.
e. Effects on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated); The device, installed
according to the installation instructions should have no effect on
unregulated emissions.
f. Safety of the Device; The statements made about the safety effects
of the device appear to be correct.
g. Test Results Supplied by the Applicant:
1) The transcript of the "60 Minutes" program cannot realistically
be considered as test data. Because the thoughts and opinions
of the commentators are based mainly on the TRC test data, this
test data should be analyzed, not the transcript itself.
2) TRC Test Report; This data is summarized in Attachment D.
There are several problems with this data that do not allow
extrapolation of the Fuel Economy and Emission improvements to
all domestic vehicles with air pumps. The problems are noted
below:
-------
10
a) Different test fuels were used in the before-and-after
tests. The baseline test was run on Shell unleaded where-
as the modified test sequence was run on Shell Super
Unleaded. The use of a higher octane fuel for the after
modified tests could decrease the tendency to detonate in
the modified engine. This switch in test fuels makes
comparisons of "before and after" test data difficult as
.the. differences, . in fuel, economy and exhaust emissions
cannot be attributed only to the engine modifications. A
letter addressing this problem was sent to the attorney
representing Goodman Systems Corporation. This letter
requested explanation on the different fuels question and
on several of the following points. A copy of the letter
is given in Attachment G. When no response to the letter
arrived, a second letter- prompting a response was sent
(see Attachment H). the response dated November 6, 1979
stated that the fuel change was performed without the
knowledge of Goodman System Company Inc. personnel. The
fuel for the SAE "on-the-road" testing was apparently pur-
chased by driving the vehicle into town and filling it at
a local gasoline station. The differences in winter and
summer fuel would also add another variable to the sub-
mitted test data.
b) The application for evaluation is unclear as to the modi-
fications made to the Fiesta test vehicle engine. The "60
Minutes" transcript mentions different pistons, a reworked
head, a modified cam shaft and a compression ratio in-
crease. The EPA September 11, 1979 letter requested
clarification of the engine modifications. The
November 6, 1979 response answered the questions as shown
below: .
"The engine modifications are as follows:
The pistons were replaced with a set of Arias forged units
having a shallower combustion chamber to raise the com-
pression ratio to a measured 12:6 to 1. To get the neces-
sary exhaust valve clearance at that compression ratio, it
was necessary to recess the exhaust valve into the cy-
linder head approximately .100 inches. During the course
of development, several camshafts were tried; both more or
less agressive in their action. During the experi-
mentation, the original camshaft was sold to a customer of
the shop. When it was determined that the original cam-
shaft was very nearly ideal for the speed range used, a
replacement was obtained. There were no Fiesta part
number camshafts available, so a Ford replacement for a cc
Pinto or Capri was installed.
-------
11
The valve action is so nearly the same as the original
that the difference is undetectable. The major difference
is in the width of the lobes, since the Pinto and Capri
camshafts sometimes wore prematurely and the Fiesta lobes
were made somewhat wider to give more bearing area. The
amount of vacuum advance was increased slightly and the
mechanical advance was reduced slightly, as is normal when
increasing the compression ratio. As we will discuss
later, the effect of the water is such that the timing may
be adjusted to more optimum conditions of performance and
emissions than is the usual case. Also, due to the
cooling effect of the water, the EGR valve is no longer
required to suppress the formation of NOx, so it was
disconnected. The carburetor jetting remained the same."
These modifications make it impossible to extract the
effects of the Goodman System Model 1800 device from the
other engine modifications. These other changes are not
part of the Goodman System Model 1800 device as presented
in the application.
c) There was a significant difference in test cell humidity
settings between the "before and after" tests. While this
parameter is not specified for proper FTP testing, com-
parison testing with large humidity differences may make
comparison of results difficult especially for NOx.
d) No duplicate FTP testing was performed. The variability
of the vehicle and emission test equipment is significant,
i.e., on the order of 5%. One isolated test at each test
point gives low confidence in any comparative analysis.
e) The performance tests differed in transmission shift point
rpm. The baseline testing was shifted at 6100 rpm. The
modified version was shifted at 5000 rpm. The difference
makes comparisons of performance data difficult. De-
pending on the torque curves for the engine, this dif-
ference would widen or narrow the differences in the
acceleration data.
f) There was an extended milage interval between the baseline
and modified tests. This 13,320 mile interval would by
itself cause changes in fuel economy and emissions. This
milage interval detracts from the comparability of the two
test sequences.
-------
12
The fuel economy data for the 1978 Fiesta durability
vehicle was plotted vs. milage accumulation (see
Attachment J). This plot shows fuel economy increases as
milage increases. In particular, this graph shows a large
increase in fuel economy for this vehicle between 9,200
and 22,520 miles (the CBS Fiesta test points). The im-
provement is about 13%. While this vehicle may have not
been representative, vehicles used in the emissions certi-
fication process are supposed to be representative of the
production vehicles. The usual equation for fuel economy
vs. milage accumulation based on thousands of in-use
vehicles is:
mpg at (x miles)
/nnn .. - .846 + .018 * (In (x miles))
mpg at 4000 miles
This equation predicts a 1.64% increase in fuel economy
between 9,200 and 22,520 miles. A linear fit shows an
expected .5 mpg or 2.0% for the 1978 durability vehicle.
The chart shows the linear line end points with (+) signs.
What this discussion points out is that testing over a
large milage interval introduces significant fuel economy
variability. To minimize such variability testing should
be run as close together as possible. If possible final
baselines should also be run.
g) The performance data showed several instances where the
modified vehicle bogged down, detonated badly, stalled,
and would only reach 4,700 rpm. This data suggests that
the modified engine long term durability is questionable.
h) The increase in HC and CO emissions is significant. A
62.4% increase in HC would put many vehicles over the
applicable emission standards.
The exhaust emission standards given in the application
while correctly stated, were incorrectly applied. The
emission standards for a model year must be in the context
of the regulations for which they were intended. Because
exhaust emissions on vehicles may deteriorate over the
useful life of the vehicles, 50,000 miles of milage accum-
ulation are put on durability vehicles to determine the
level of deterioration. The best fit line for their
-------
13
exhaust emission data (each vehicle is tested every 5,000
miles and at each major maintenance point) is calculated
and the resulting multiplicative deterioration factors
(DF) for HC, CO and NOx are determined. Various cali-
brations in the same engine family are then run to 4,000
miles and tested (identified as "data vehicles"), The
results of these tests are multiplied by the applicable DF
and this product must be below the standards listed in the
application. A further description of this process can be
found in Federal Register 86.078-28. The applicable
deterioration factors (4K to 50K miles) for the 1978 Ford
Fiesta, 49-state vehicle are:
HC DF CO DF NOx DF
1.914 1.462 1.060
Using these DFs, the "before and after" test data supplied
in the application compares to the emission standards as
follows:
Baseline x Percent of Modified x Percent
Baseline DF Standard Modified DF Standard
HC .58 1.110 74% .942 1.803 120.2%
CO 6.23 9.108 60.7% 7.926 11.588 77.25%
NOx 1.52 1.611 80.6% 1.576 1.67 83.5%
This analysis, using DFs, shows that the modified version
may not have passed the HC standard for 1978 light-duty
vehicles. Because the test milage was above 4000 miles
and insufficient data was presented to establish a deter-
ioration factor for the modified vehicle, the analysis
applied the production DF to the test data as presented.
The point here is that the data does not indicate that the
vehicle passed the emission standards as indicated in the
application.
3) The letter by Dr. Engelman does not supply any test data, only
his expert opinion that properly performed water injection will
both lower NOx exhaust emissions and lower octane requirements.
He expected little improvement in fuel economy with just addi-
tion of water injection. However Dr. Engelman states that the
decrease in NOx and octane requirements allow alteration to the
vehicle engine to improve fuel economy (see Attachment K).
-------
h. The Information Gathered by EPA
1) The MVEL Test Data: The Goodman device was installed by its
inventor, Mr. Goodman. Proper operation was confirmed by
running the vehicle for 10 minutes at 50 mph and measuring the
water consumed. Mr. Goodman said that a quart of fuel would be
used in this 10 minute interval. If properly operating, the
Goodman System would have injected water at a rate equal to 5%
of the fuel consumed. The water used was replaced with water
from a 25cc graduated cylinder. The total fluid consumed in
the 10 minute test period was 1.69 fluid ounces or 5.28% of the
fuel consumed. This 5% expected flow rate was reconfirmed in
Mr. Goodman's November 6, 1979 letter. Therefore it appears
that the Goodman System Model 1800 device was properly in-
stalled and functioning correctly during the MVEL testing. Mr.
Goodman stated that "If it was off this is where I would adjust
it to ", " the way I want it."
As shown in Attachment B the test results were gathered using
an FTP and HFET test cycles. Three baseline test sequences
were run. Then two test sequences with the Goodman device
installed and operating followed by two sequences with the
device installed but without H-0. If the Goodman System Model
1800 device did reduce NOx and improve fuel economy the ex-
pected results would show improved fuel economy and reduced NOx
in part B. Part C should agree with part A.
Attachment B also indicates the percent change in emissions and
fuel economy for the FTP and HFET testing. Based on test-to-
test repeatability it appears that the only statistically
significant effect of the Goodman System Model 1800 device was
the reduction in NOx on the HFET cycle. The 1.2% increase in
fuel economy and the 2.24% decrease in NOx emissions during the
Urban Cycle show that no effective change can be attributed to
the Goodman System Model 1800 device.
The fuel used in this testing was not Indolene Clear. Instead,
at the request of Goodman Systems Inc. Shell Unleaded Fuel was
purchased at the local gas station. A 50 gallon drum was
purged and drained 3 times with Indolene HO and then drained.
The barrel was brought to the gas station and filled from the
unleaded pump. All of the subsequent testing was run with this
fuel. Shell Unleaded was chosen because similar fuel was used
during the TRC testing. A sample of the test fuel was sent to
Ethyl Corporation for Octane analysis. Attachment F displays
the octane test results. The RON of 91.35 is about mid-range
of unleaded fuel tests taken in the 1977-1978 MVMA National
Fuel Survey. Extracts of the data are given below (summer
fuel - July, 1978):
-------
15
Average for all Unleaded
Location Shell Fuel Sampled
Albuquerque 91.8 91.0
Atlanta 96.1 93.2
Baltimore 94.3 91.3
Billings None 90.7
Boston 95.8 93.1
Chicago 92.6 92.1
Cleveland 95.0 92.4
Detroit 92.2 . 92.5
16. Conclusions:
The overall conclusion of this report is that the Goodman Engine System
Model 1800 does not have any significnat effect on regulated emissions or
fuel economy. A small reduction in NOx exhaust emissions on the HFET
cycle was noted.
The CBS data generated at TRC cannot be used to evaluate the Goodman
Engine System Model 1800 device. Too many extraneous variables were
introduced to make comparative analysis possible. It appears that the
"60 Minutes" program did not really evaluate the device properly.
The EPA-MVEL data was run on a suitable test vehicle with available
unleaded fuel. The Goodman Engine System Model 1800 device was opera-
ting properly during the EPA testing. The EPA data does not substantiate
the claims made about the device.
The Goodman Engine System Model 1800 device appears to operate safely
and does not appear to emit any non-regulated emissions. It is suggested
that future installation instructions specify the antifreeze to be used.
.Several antifreeze compounds such as ethylene-glycol will cause engine
damage.
The reduction in NOx on the HFET cycle does suggest some promise for a
better developed water injection system. However, no significant
improvement in fuel economy was noted.
-------
16
List of Attachments
A - Installation Instructions Supplied by the Applicant.
B - Summary of EPA Goodman Engine System, Model 1800 Testing.
C - MVEL Test Data Sheets.
D - TRC Testing Summary
E - 1978 Ford Fiesta Deterioration Factor Data.
F - Octane Analysis of Shell Unleaded Fuel.
G - Copy of EPA September 11, 1979 Letter Requesting Additional Information.
H - Copy of EPA October 16, 1979 Letter Prompting Response.
I - Copy of 11-6-79 Letter from "P. Goodman to M. Walsh Responding to EPA
September 11, 1979 Letter.
J - Plots of 1978 Ford Fiesta Fuel Economy.
K - August 22, 1979 Letter from Dr. Engelman of Ohio State University.
-------
17 • • •.- :
. —• Attachment A
r,Aiu.cj.j. o . Page 1 of 4
O
Installation Instructions
for the
GOODMAN ENGINE SYSTEM
MODEL 1800
1. Locate the' air-injection pump (Fig. 1, No. 20). Identify
intake hose (Fig. 1, No. 32) and output hose (Fig.l, No. '26).
The intake hose will' either have its own air cleaner or will
«
share one with the engine air cleaner (Fig.l, .No. 36). . The output
hose "goes from "the air-injection pump through a valve -(Fig-. 1-, No-. 31)
that regulates air flow to a distribution manifold .(Fig. 1, No. 16):.
Although the valve on some vehicles is built directly into. the
air-injection pump and the distribution manifold is part of the
cylinder head, the basic layout and operation is identical.
Tap into the air pressure line (Fig. 1, No. 26) between the
control valve (Fig., 1 No. 24) and the anti-backfire valve (Fig.l,
No. 31), To do this take part No. 44 '(Fig. 2) and insert it into
the air pressure line (Fig. 1, No. 30).
3. Remove the top of the engine air cleaner (Fig.l, No. 36). The
fluid injection nozzle, Part No. 34 (See Figs. 4 & 5) , must be
positioned so that the fluid spray will be evenly divided among
the cylinders. Utilize the below listed applications for the
following carburetor configurations :
(1) SINGLE-BARREL CARBURETOR:
Position the fluid injection nozzle at the lower
side of the chock plate, as close to the center
as- possible.
(2) TWO-BARREL, SINGLE CARBURETOR:
With both barrels open at the same time, position
-------
—18 -.-- — -
2 of 4
the fluid injection nozzle at the center of
_^ "' the two barrels on the lower side of the choke
plate. (This configuration is generally found
on American made- 6- cylinder and V-8 engines.)
' (3) TWO-BARREL OR SINGLE-BARREL CARBURETOR WITH A PRIMARY
AND. SECONDARY THROTTLE OPENING
Position the fluid injection nozzle at the '_
primary side of the 'carburator — usually
the side nearest to the engine.(This configuration
is generally found on imports such as the Capri,
Fiat, Fiesta and Pinto).
(4) FOUR-BARREL, SINGLE CARBURETOR
Position the fluid injection nozzle at the
center of the primary side.
(5) TWO OR MORE CARBURETORS, SINGLE BARREL EACH
Unless all carburetors are fed from a common air
box that lends itself to an appropriate placement
of the fluid injection nozzle so that it can be
"~~- . "positioned without the fluid spray impacting the
side or favoring one carburetor, position each
-'' . . fluid .injection nozzle at the center of each
carburetor. . • - -
(6) TWO OR MORE CARBURETORS WITH TWO OR MORE BARRELS
Same installation as specified in (5), with fluid
injection nozzle positioned over the primary side .
unless all barrels open at the same time. If this
is so, a separate fluid injection nozzle must be
utilized for each barrel.
(7) FUEL INJECTION WITH ONE THROTTLE PLATE
Position the fluid injection nozzle at the center
of the throttle plate, on the atmospheric side.
(8) FUEL INJECTION WITH MULTIPLE THROTTLE. PLATES
~:Same installation as (5) .
4. After determining the appropriate fluid nozzle application
Tsy following the procedures indicated in STEP 3, remove the
igine air cleaner from the vehicle (Fig., 1, No. 36)-, Remove the
-------
,_ ^ , 19 _ __£.
:3 of 4
top of the engine air cleaner. Drill a .3/4 inch hole in the top
—x •
: the engine air cleaner in the appropriate position for the
' > •
fluid injection nozzle as determined by the procedures in STEP 3.
•.. •,
5. Insert fluid injection nozzle into the hole drilled in the
top of the engine air cleaner. Check for proper placement of
fluid injection nozzle as specified in STEP 3. If the hole has
been misplaced, a patch kit will be supplied and a new hole can
be drilled. Press retaining washer.
r
6. Install fluid storage container in engine compartment using
brackets provided. The fluid storage container may be placed
anywhere in the engine compartment so .long as the top of the
>ntainer is at least three inches.below-the fluid injection
nozzle, but not lower than eighteen inches.
7. Connect Hose No. 40 (Fig. 1) to the bottom fitting of the
fluid storage container. Place the non-spring loaded, one-way valve
on the opposite end of Hose No. 40. Connect this end of Hose No. 40
to the top fitting on the fluid injection nozzle (Fig. 1, No. 34).
8. Connect Hose No. 42 (Fig. 1) to Part No. 44. In the opposite
end of Hose No. 42, insert the spring-loaded, one-way valve, and
then insert this into the bottom fitting of the fluid injection
nozzle (Fig. 1, No. 34).
- 3 -
-------
• -•- 4 of 4
9. Examine the .installation to ensure proper application. Make
^**^ *
^ \ that none, .of the hoses are crimped or interfere with any of the
engine's moving'parts. If fluid, injection nozzle; does not fit
*, •
snugly, seal with a small bead of'-conventional silicone sealant.
i . • .
10. Fill fluid storage container with, water. If outside temperatures
will fall near or below 32° F, add antifreeze in a. 1:1 ratio.
- 4 -
-------
21
Goodman Engine System Model 1800
EPA Testing Summary
Attachment B
Page 1 of 2
I. Federal Test Procedure
A. Baseline Data
Date
HC (gm/mi) CO (gm/mi) NOx (gm/mile) Fuel Economy (mi/gal)
26.2
26.2
26.3
26.23
0.057
0.22%
9-11-79
9-12-79
9-13-79
Average
Std. Dev.
s /m
.31
.30
.30
.303
.006
1.90%
4.4-
3.6
4.5
4.17
.49
11.84%
1.40
1.31
1/31
1.34
.052
3.88
B. With Goodman Engine System Model 1800 Installed and Operating
9-18-79
9-19-79
.33
.31
4.7
4.5
1.30
1.32
26.5
26.6
Average .32 4.6 1.31 26.55
Percent (+)5.61% (+)10.31% (-)2.24% (+)1.22%
Change
C. With Goodman Engine System Model 1800 Installed but no Fluid in Reservoir
27.0
26.9
26.95
(+)2.74%
9-20-79
9-21-79
Average
Percent
.29
.32
.305
(+)0.66%
4.4
4.3
4.35
(+)4.32%
1.49
1.48
1.485
Change/Baseline
Percent (-)4.69%
'.'hange/Part B
(-)5.43%
(+)13.36
-------
22
Attachment B
2 of 2
II. Highway Fuel Economy Test
A. Baseline Data
Date
HC (gm/mi) CO (gm/mi) NOx (gm/mile) Fuel Economy (mi/gal)
38.3
38.5
38.6
38.47
.15
.39%
9-11-79
9-12-79
9-13-79
Average
Std. Dev.
s/m
.06
.06
.06
.06
0.0
0.0%
.3
.2
.2
.23
.058
24.7%*
2.20
2.17
2.15
2.173
.025
1.16%
B. With Goodman Engine System Model 1800 Installed and Operating
9-18-79
9-19-79
Average
Percent
Change
.06
.06
'.06
0.0%
.2
.2
.2
1.86
2.00
1.93
38.5.
39.0
38.75
C. With Goodman Engine System Model 1800 Installed but no Fluid in Reservoir
38.8
39.0
38.9
9-20-79 .06
9-21-79 .06
Average .06
Percent 0.0%
Change /Base line
Percent 0.0%
Change /Part B
.2
.2
.2
(+)13.0%*
0.0%
2.23
2.29
2.26
O)4.0%
(+)17. 1
(+)0.387%
* Extremely low numbers make comparative analysis questionable.
-------
CATE
ist i
iv/-<
Attacnmfent C
. „„ — .._. f&K
|> VKHICIF. SPECIFICATIONS
f — ---- — -_--_----.--_.
MANUFACTURER vi;iiICIf. I" / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE
DRIVE CODE SOURCE
fO»D GCK*,.EJ<.<.<44 0 SEOAN FRONT DRIVE STR. LEFT OTHER
IWIVF. A«L WTS TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE MODEL «CT FULL EMPTY C'JHR INWTIA 0/0 ACTUAL TIrtE.fc RIM SwL BLT PSI
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MoH.L Yf;Art YLAR TAN* TANK WEIGHT CLASS CdE DYNO HP SIZES MFH CONSTR N M N M FT RR
NON-CEH FIESTA 7Sy 7V IVOOP 3000P ?
PRIM4WY OLP'.iULIIY VFHKLF. IDENTIFICATION OR ASSIRNEO OF (IF
f'KiHE SPECIFICATIONS
.••,%l|n tNMfiE ENGINE NO. NO.
OlSULACfMENT F-OOF. ST"i.'-' "M TYPE CONf K.UKAT ION CYL CARHS
9fl. E J.f E .1.1 ( bf< (ITTU SKAPr IN-LIMt * 1
IGNITION KiMITION TI^. T I M I M, ,4PM TI". -«. CO * CO « CO CO IDLE
"\TlMlNG 1 TIMING 2 TOl . f-^-1 TIL. r,M-< LFFT .JIGMT COMU. TOI_. RPM .
iaa
7^3 loSSRI?
APPLICAHLF* ALT. MANUFACTURER
TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST-
HARRELS MFH/MOOEL INJECTION RATIO DOXN TM
Z WEHER 8.6
IOLE IPLE
TOL. GEAR ENGINE FAMILY ENGINE CODE
1,*H(1X89)
••) nuivf TKAIN AN-J CUNTUOI SYSTEM b^tciFicaTiONs
AXLk N/V A/C t>'AN<(.ASt TRANSMISSION EVAPORATION
, KATIO RATIO OOOMETEP IN>IAILF.» EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIGURATION CODE SYSTEM FUEL TYPE
-.
3.51 . MILES no SINGLE RIGHT ME«K CLOSED M-<.
MAIN-TANK AII/.-IANK
CAPACITY VOLUME CAPA(.IT> VOLUMF SHIFT SPEED
SPECIAL S'UFT SPUS (MAN OR S-At
CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES
EXHAUST PECYCLE A In PU"P UXIOATION CATALYST
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS
CANISTER UNLEADED (AT EPA-INO HO)
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
FAMILY CODE SALES CLASS
C-2
Q
SHIFT r.KF.FMS PF: l-£ '« 10MPH. i?-.t^i;OMPH. 3-ftfl>40MPH
f PA COPY bl10 0
0
e
0
o
ft
0
o
0
o
o
w
""TflP!
-------
2 of 15
OVNO SITEID207 TEST » 79-9897
I 1979 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS I PROCESSEOI I5I30IOI SEP 13. 1979
ODE VEHICLE I.D.
30 GCFBWE34449
VErt- REP. RUN. RETEST
SION EVAP INIT. CHG. CODE ACHP
0
ALT.
H.P.
MK T H .
LHUIVALF.NT
TEST
WblbHI
2000
IIYNO
H.P.
7.3
OVER- /-- TEST TYPE —
TRANS. DRIVE EXPERIMENTAL
CONFG. COOE / TEST PROCEDURE
CVS 7S-LATLH
•
PREP DATE
*
DRIVE
PI tO A AVI F
vUKO MAUC
WEIGHT WEIGHT
/- AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS -
• BARO MET
DRY
"HG BULB 8ULH UNITS
28.99 63.
• TEST DATE HR.
9-13-79 10
• BAG 1 3.602
SITE «A21b
• HC-F1D
NOX-CHEM
C02
*Q c°
"BAG 2 3.905
• SITE *A?lb
HC-F10
• NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
BAG 3 3.581
SITE «A21S
Q
HC-FIO
NOX-CHEM
• C02
CO
7 71.6 -F
ACTUAL
DYNO INERTIA
SITE SETTING
D207 2000
MILES 5.79f KM
MEASURED
GAUGE
EHPTY
/
CVS
UNIT
27C
_ « /•_ hi t T t r\ki
AALt /- — — 1 uii 1 1 lull
MEASURE tt.u
16 b7.1
23 3b.3
18 76.7
MILES 6.2ti<» KM
CUNC.
72.13
b».2*
O.HJ6
37V. 71
V 1 0 - .
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE METER
!<• I*. 3
1* 3V. 5
?3 26.0
17 39.3
MILES 5.763 KM
CONC.
10. SS
10.00
0 .SVS
96.34
d.t<.<5.
EXHAUST bAMPLE
RANGE METER
1". 22. 8
15 79.3
23 32. V
17 27.1
• WEIGHTED VALUES hC
GRAMS/MILE
'0.30
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.2990
• GRAMS/KM
0.186
BEFORE ROUNDING O.lb583
CONC.
16.67
3V. 72
0.772
66.09
H.P. H.P.
.3
RULL REVS.
BACKGROUND
HANGt "tfER
IS 2.6
1 6 0.1
23 2.0
In 0.0
HULL RFVS.
BACKGROUND
RANGE METER
K <>.V
1 <. 0.3
23 !.'•
17 0.0
ROLL REVS.
BACKGROUND
RANGE METER
1<<
i.
2.
?..
.b 32V.
n, fn
T I M 1 No ~"*/ /— — — — — — f, ^y
RPM GEAR LKFT RIGHT
TIRE NOX
ono^t. PRESSURE FACTOR
2239.0 <>5.00 1.0127
VMIA =
SAMPLE
CONC.
3.H7
o.ll
0.0<>2
0.0
VMIX =
SAMPLE
CONC.
3.60
O.OM
0.0'iu
0.0
VMU =
SAMPLE
CONC.
3. (SO
0.10
0.0<<0
O.I)
NOX
1 .31
2797.0 CU.FT.
CORRECTED
COMCENTR4TIONS
6M.SI PPM
SM.16 PPM
0.7V7 »
37V. H PPM
<.7«.i.O TU.fT.
CO'JRECTEO
CONCENTRATIONS
/.ll PPM
V.V1 PPM
O.SS7 »
96.. 1* PPM
276".. 0 CU.FT.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
13.«.« PPM
39.63 PPM
0./3S *
66.04 PP*
RM.ATIVt
HUMIDITY
65.2
DILUTION
COMB
ALDEHYOES
FACTOR =
i ni F
cnAi^
1 UL.C J'jrtl-
RPM GEAR PERIOD
15.20U
MASS EMISSIONS
CMS.
3.13
*.V2
1 IS'..**
35.01
DILUTION
GMb/Ml
O.dbV
2.b01
9.720
FACTOR =
GMS/KH
O.b<>0
1.539
199.150
6.01)0
22.137.
MAbS EMISSIONS
GMS.
O.S5
2.58
1 367.7'.
15.06
DILUTION
GMS/MI
0. l«l
O.hhl
350.28
-------
O Or';o SITEt0^fi7 IKST « 7-J->j^.~
I iny;. Hli.-i.ir run. r.ru'iuwv ANALYSIS 1 P"f)C FSSI1''! ORti?3«>r SFP 1*« I1*?"*
3 of 15
"i
Or
••i-". AI. i. tom vALHNi ACTUAL onw- /- •- 'tsi TrPt ———/
- Vf.K- "l-M, |.-ir.j. ~K.JI.iT H.P. IfST I'YM'J THANS* O^IVE EXPt'KlMENIAL
* -OOt VEHICLt-. I.U. SlON tV'P lull. CHG. (,i)l)f /.CM,; -it TH. v;Ki(\HI H.P. CO»FG. CODE / TtST PROCEDURE /
JO GCFw*tl!>. -Ju.1 01..IP Lt.FT PI'.-lT COMH «PM GEAH PEHlOO TIME
/- AMBIENT TEbT CONOIIIOriS - /
d'JLH BUL't UNITS u- I \
b?.« 71.7 F ' si'.
"H't
OrnO INF-I I A Ii.nlC..'. ll Ii KV'J .M-r "'IK ffLAI !«•-..
TtST DATt HP. SITf SI- II I'll. I,vi,"i ••.". M.I'. (ll)ll'. »"-(s illuf FAi:T'lK HIIMlOMr Al.llr.HYIlKS
S1TF
RAr.Gt '•"•- Ttf Ci •••''. "A'li'-h
• HC-F II) l» Ih. 1 1 I ."•( I'.
NOX-t:HtM 17 )"*.-< lU'l.V If
C0«f ? ) *6.M ) . l^n ?'l
C""N r.O 17 6.7 I'..In 17
•ElOHTtO VALUES HC C"
• r,«AMS/Ml| F O.'Ci i-.'rt ?<•_<.
BEFOPE WOUNOIfiG O.OSS? (i.PII ->^'J."4
G"A"S/HM (I.03<> d.13 !"->.
0 HEFOWE » ft-!' H^.Ul
-------
• Jrf *-_W,JJ^l>UmJlML_ukU.
UYNO SITEID207
TEST
1979 LIGHT OUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS I
PROCESSEDI 151.07158
SEP lit 1979
/—NMFB-
/ tODE VEHICLE 1.0.
• ' 30 GCFHKE34449
»>». ALT. EOUIVALENT ACTUAL
vf.»- PEP. PUN. PETEST H.P. TEST DYNO
SION EVAP INIT. ChG. COUE ACHP METH. WEIGHT H.P.
0 3000 7.3
TRANS.
CONFG.
PREP DATE
'CU»B
WEIGHT
AXLE
WEIGHT
GAUGF.
EMPTY
«XLE
MEASURE
/ IGNITION TIMING /
HI »2 RPM GEAR
LEFT
* CO -
RIGHT
COMB
OVER-
DRIVE
CODE
IDLE
RPM
/ TEST TYPE —
EXPERIMENTAL
/ JEST PROCEDURE
CVS 75-LATER
G-
GEAR
MEASURED
SOAK COASTOOWN
PERIOD TIME
/- AMR1ENT TEST CONDITIONS - /
BAPO
WET
CVS
' "HG BULB BULH UNITS UNIT
39.36 63.0 71.0 F ?7C
ACTUAL
DYNO INERTIA INDICATED DVU
A TEST DATE Ho. SITE SETTING UYM> H.P. H.P.
w 9-11-79 10 P?07
A BAG 1 3.5B5 MILES
2000 b
5.770 KM bJb4.
w SITE HA21S EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
a HC-FID 15
w NOX-f.HEM 16
C02 23
/-.CO 1«
^
..SAG 2 3.831 MILES
fETER CONC.
49.6 7<<.S4
S6.9 ST.Oh
34 . H U . M?3
7M.9 3^1 . 1H
6. ISO KM H9J|I.
o ' SITE "215 EXHAUST SAMPLE
M RANC,E
HC-FID 14
M NO«-CMEM 14
* C03 23
CO 1 7
* BAG 3 3.576 MILES
METF:« cu^c.
14.1 1 '.! . 4 0
4 3 . M I I . i) i
2b.7 fc.5M7
34. / t<. .iyr,
5.755 KM H:U<).
SITE »A2I5 EXHAUST SAMPLE
(^ PAN'-,E
V HC-FIO 14
fiOX-C«EM 15
n C02 23
^ ' CO 17
a «EIGHTED VALUES
w GRAMS/MILE
BEFORE HOUNDING
_ GOAMS/KM
** BEFORE WOUNDING
Ck
MKTEM r.D'IC.
22.1 16. 3b
16.2 BJ.U
32.6 0.764
27.3 66. bl
.3
POLL rtEVS.
TIPE NOX RELATIVE -
DOOM. PPESSURE FACTOR HUMIDITY ALDEHYDES
215?. 6 45.00 0.9974
VMIX= 3B54.6 CU.FT.
H;.CK(.POUNU SAMI'LE COHMECTEU
RANGE ME TEH
15 2.H
16 0.2
23 2.2
IB 0.1
ROLL PEVS.
HACKt'PUUND
PANr.K "KIE4
U b.l
14 0.5
23 2.1
17 U . 2
POLL P.EVS.
BACKGROUND
PANCtK MFTI hi
1- 5.2
15 0.2
23 2.0
17 0.1
HC CO CO?
0.31 4
CJ.JOHJ 4
0.192 2.
0.19157 2.
.4 331.
.411 331.
7«. 206.
7413 205.
CONC. CONCENTRATIONS
' 4.17 70.65 PPM
0.21 57. S6 PPM
0.046 0.779 *
0.47 390.74 PPM
VM|X= 479H.O CU.FT.
SAMPLE COHHECTEO
CONC. CONCENTHATIONS
3.75 6.82 PPM
0.13 10.95 PPM
0.044 0.545 »
O.'iH R4.44 PPM
VMIX= 2803.0 CU.FT.
SAMPLE CORRECTED
CONC. CONCENTRATIONS
3.H2 12.75 PPM
0.10 43.03 PPM
0.042 0.735 «
0.24 66.36 PPM
NOX
1.40
03 1.4035
0.87
69 0.8720
64.4
DILUTION FACTOR a 15.418
MASS EMISSIONS .
GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM
3.29 0.918 0.571
fl.92 2.488 1.546
1153.36 331.437 199.726
36.77- 10.255 6.373
DILUTION FACTOR * 33.459
MASS EMISSIONS
GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM
0.53 0.140 0.087
2.ri4 0.743 0.163
1354.82 354.531 330.295
13.36 3.496 3.173
DILUTION FACTOR = 17.347
MASS EMISSIONS
GMS. GMS/MI GMS/HM
0.58 0.163 0.101
6.52 1.H23 1.133
1053.33 394.366 183.849
6.13 1.715 1.066
MPG
WEIGHTED VALUES 36.3
36.1675
73-74 FTP 35.3
35.3939
UNWEIGHTED FTP 36.6
36.6095
roMMENTsi FIESTA TESTING OF GOODMAN MODEL IHOO DEVICE
f, A SPECIAL SHIFT SPEEDS OF 10-20-40
*>«X 1 FALSE STA^T ON h»r> 1
AUX.
FIELD1
AUX. AUX.
FIEL02 CODE
MPG
36.0
KPL
11.07
L/100KM
9.0
AUX.
FIELD1
AUX. AUX.
FIEL03 CODE
MPG
34.6
KPL
10.46
L/100KH
9.6
AUX.
FIEL01
MPG
39". 8
KPL
11.1
11.1073
10.8
10.7531
11.3
11.3128
AUX. AUX.
FIELD? CODE
KPL L/100KM
12.67
L/100KM
9.0
9.0030
9.3
9.3996
6.8
8.839*
7.9
6110 0
OYNO SITEI0207 TEST • 79-9893
o
-------
of 15
'• f* DYNO SITE!D?07 TF5T • /*—*i,->-
• „
0
i-*h \J
.f^'Fa. Vtrf- Kt*3
J* ^OOE VEHICLE 1.0. SION EVAP lulT
••' 30 ftCFd«E3***9 a
* 0"IVE
PREP DATE *EK,HT wtlGHT GoUbf
/- AMBIENT TEST CONIITlO'iS - /
A 8ARO WET 0-JY Cvs
" "»f> BULB WJL^I UNITS U'-IT
' i 29. 2b 6?.0 71.3 F ''fir
. i
* ACTUAL
1 19f9 Mli.H^AY FUEL ECONOMY ANALYSIS 1 PROCESSEOl 15M1I01 SEP lit 1979 A
9
• ALT. EQUIVALENT ACTUAL OVER- /---»--—- TEST TYPE —•-•«—/
. '207 *(>00 b.
a BAG 1 IP. 198 MILFS 16.*1J KM ?JI7>:.
W SITE «A?I5 F.XMAUST SA'IPL'.
RANGE METE*. CUNC.
e HC-FIO 1* \I.Z U.T'.i
** NOX-C1EM If *0./ 10^. l".
C02 23 *6.2 1.1*0
A CO 17 9.U 21 . 7 PPM 22.43- P.199 1.367 MPG KPL L/100KM **
23 2.0 0.0*2 1.102 » 2359.13 231.326 1*3.739 38.3 16.25 6.E
17 O.J 0.72 21.10 PPM 2.88 0.282 0.175 M&)
C0
-------
6 of 15
n CY.IO smiu?o7 r^sr . /i-™,..
9
/->.». • VFK-
^ J ( J T) F V t H I C 1 . K. I • O • b 1 O ' * F, V *' H 1
""' 30 GCFH«E3<»<.<.9 u
0 1.^1 vt
cu^"* f* XLL
• f.yi
/- »«HIFNT TEST C-JMniTIC'.S - /
• BO1?!) «tT O°Y C.K
"«o BULB HIILM UMTS mi
ao.17 6?.b 70.1 F ^7
ACTUAL
UY'IO INf "Tit II")
• TEST OATE MU. SITE SLIIlriC, uii
9-12-79 U DJ-07 ^UOO
O BAG i io.i9i MILFS if).".')! I'M ?j"
SITE »»?15 K«n.Misr ',AMPI F
HAhOK -Kffw CO'.C
O MC-f ID !<. |V.'. I'".'
".O'-CMEM l»i Kll.i. lllli.f
roe 23 -.r,.^ i.i
C — ^ r.i; 17 'j . ., \...i
^
•-4EI'.iHTEn VALUES >'<_
O I,UAM«;/M|LF O.»f>
tUfn-tt "ounni'ir. «).«b--"H L rfEv-i. VM|»= fclO.O CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOH = ll.7?3 •
i-i.Cr'.l DU'iii SAHI'Lt ' CO> CO-JC. CONC^Nrw»T!O^lS C.MS. GMS/M1 GMS/KH FIELDI FIELD? CODE
1". -j.r1 ,5.1V -y.Oh ff>f U.M 0.060 0.037 •
•i if. D.II o.o ino. »-H PCM ?e.u <;.i7i i.j«9 MPG KPL L/IOOKH
•"> ^i 1.' U.i><*i| l.l'l<> % 2J<>b.f>7 ?30.2'i9 1<*3.UP3 3B.» 16.34 6,1
'• 1' i).') U. 1 14.00 PPM l.BV O.lHh 0.116 JB*&
K \
fi i.u^ 'Hi» MPO KPL U/100KM \l '
S.*>1. if.\l WEIOHTEH VALUES 3«.S 16.3 6.) •
".IHS ^Ju.7?b 16.3<>76 6.1170
•i.lP 141. I.Jb 7i-7<> FTP 3B.<» 16.3 6.1
•I.MSS I..J.OM I.J'.v? 3H.*«9S 16. 3*65 6.117* •
UNWEIGHTED FTP 3R.4 lb.3 ft.l
3B.*«95 16. 3*65 6.117*
•
..M MODEL I«OU OEVICt
•
• ' r •
O
.
'• N)
CO
V; '
, ' CL/
r *'
,:.
. .
.,110 u
OYNO SITEK)^07 TEST * 79-9896
-------
7. of 15
O orNO siTEiDZor TEST « 79-<>895
!OOE VEHICLE I.0.
30 GCF8fe w»jE. •
H) MK'I ^^).^m>lt\i^..^K^\llf9»ff>-» W
-------
8 of 15
r>
o
s*
f
OTNO SITEID207 TEST • 79-9900
I 1979 HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY ANALYSIS I PROCCSSEDI 09100147 SEP !•», 1979
0
-KFR.
JOOE VEHICLE I.D.
• 30 GCFBkE34449
MFR. ALT.
VER- PEP. RUN. RETEST H.P.
SION EVAP INIT. CHG. CODE ACHP METH.
0
EQUIVALENT ACTUAL
TEST OYNO
HEIGHT H.P.
2000 7.3
TRANS.
CONFG.
/ ..... TEST TYPE «
EXPERIMENTAL'
/ TEST PROCEDURE
PREP DATE
DRIVE
CURB AXLE AXLE
WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE
/— IGNITION TIMING —/ / » CO /
»1 »2 RPH GEAR • LEFT RIGHT COMB
OVER-
DRIVE
CODE
IDLr SOAK
RPM GEAR PERIOD
" C
MEASURED
COASTOOWN
TIME
/- AM9IENT TEST CONDITIONS - /
BARO HET DPY CVS
"HG BULB BULB UNITS'1 UNIT
29.01 62.0 71.4 F ?7C
e
ACTUAL
CYNO iMtRTiA INDICATED ovu
O TEST DATE HR. SITE SETTING OrNO M..P, H.P. DOOM.
9-J8-79 M P207 2000 5.3 231S.O
O BAG 1 10.216 MILES 16.441 KM ?3nio. ROLL RFV«.
SITE HA215 F.XHAUST SAMPLE
RANOF HETFP COhC.
O HC-FID 14
1 . " NOX-CHEM 16
C02 23
. ' . CO 17
i WEIGHTED VALUES
1 . ; GFAMS/MILE
BETOPf. ROUNDING
GRAMS/KM
•J BEFORE ROUNDING
17.1 \Z
• •• 87.9 81
46. S 1
6.9 14
16
.K9 33
.67
0
0
17
CO
0.2
0.219
.14
.1364
METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS
4.6 3
0.1 0
1.9 0
0.0 0
C02
230.
230.34
141.
14.1.12
.18 9.54 PPM
.11 87.91 PPM
.040 1.113 *
.0 14.67 PPM
NOX
1.86
1.8S67
1.15
1.1537
ALDEHYDES
FACTOR « 11.632
MASS EMISSIONS
CMS.
0.64
18.97
2353.17
2.24
WEIGHTED
72-74
CMS/MI
0.062
1.857
230.345
0.220
VALUES
FTP
UNWEIGHTED FTP
O
COMMENT $1 FIESTA
SPECIAL
i «
TESTING OF GOODMAN HOBEL
JHIFT SPEEDS
OF
10-21-40
1800 DEVICE
CMS/KM
0.039
1.154
143.130
0.136
MPG
38.5
38.4726
38.4
39.4266
38.4
38.4266
AUX. AUX.
FIELD1 FIELD2
MPG
38.4
KPL
16.3
16.3433
16.3
16.3368
16.3
16.3368
KPL
16.33
AUX.
CODE
L/100KM
6.1
L/100KM
6
6
6
6
6
.1
.1187
.1
.1211
.1
6.1211
UJ
o
6116 0
OYNO StTCIDZOT TCST • 79-9900
0
-------
9 of 15
O
OYNO SITEID207
TEST • 79-VM01
|9r9 LlC.rtl OUtV VEHICLE ANALYSIS 1
PROCESSED! 09120129
SKP 21» 1979
/"*,
»FP.
iODF. \ VEHICLE 1.0.
30 GCFHWE34449 ,
PPEP DATE
CU«H
WEIGHT
Vf>-
SION EVAH
0
«t H .
I'l P.
I'M!.
HUN.
CMG.
wtTEST
CODE
ACHM
ALT.
H.P.
METM.
A»Lt
WE I (>H f
GAUC.K
.(MtMY
EQUIVALENT
TEST
WEIGHT
2000
ACIUAL
OYNO
H.P.
7.3
THANS.
CONFG.
AXLE
Mf.ASUME
/
01
IGNITION TIMING V
•2 *v* GEAR
/ % CO -
LEFT RIGHT
COMB
OVER-
DRIVE
CODE
IDLE
RPM
/ TEST TYPE ———/
EXPERIMENTAL
/ TEST PROCEDURE '—/
CVS 75-LATEH
GEAR
SOAK
PERIOD
MEASURED
COASTOOMN
TIME
/- AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS - /
BAUO WET 0"Y cv.
"HG BULB B'JLB UNITS UNI I
29.36 62.1 70.7 f ^/h
OY'IO
TEST DATE MR. SHE
9-19-79 10 D?07
AttUAL
IHKHllA
StTTINO
irOOO
1'IUILATtl)
l;T'n) H.P.
Ovtl
M.p.
OOOM.
23;. NOLL HhVS.
t O
C -
S1TF »A?li
MC-FIf)
MO«-CHEM
CO?
CO
f»H»UST SAMMIF
tIACKGUOUMII
RANiif.
IS
If,
?3
|>»
HftMv
Sfc.u
1<«.S
C')'iC.
WANI.K
IS
16
if 3
1H
"EH"
0.0
i).l
VM|»= ?«3s.o cu.Ff.
COHKtCTED
CONC. CONCKNf HA t IONS
O.u
u.0<.<»
0.47
S'j.?0 PPM
0.773 *
36S.7S f'HM
— HAG 2 3.HIB
O SITE »A?|S
MC-FID
* NO«-CH£M
CO?
CO
O
BAG 3 3. 546
SITE «A?15
• .
HC-FIO
NOX-CHEM
• CO?
CO
MILFS h.!".-. "M r.'/oi. HOLL MKvs.
F«HAIIS| SAMfL> MACKOMOii
SA"P|
HANOI
i<.
|>.
?3
|7
"LIKW
is.->
<.i;.3
?•).!
J7.«;
tuiit.
II.-.-.
IU./ii
91.11
*«N(,t
i-.
1".
?3
17
"tft»
O.I
0.0
V«IX= * CPU
10.6H PKM
0.5.13 ft
91.11 PPM
CUMC.
).«?
0.03
0.0
MILES b.716 KM
EKHAUST sAMHLt
MOLL WEVS.
HACKGKIMJIJD SAMPLE
VM|X= 2B02.0 CU.FT.
RANGE METIER
15
23
17
WEIGHTED VALUES
GHAMS/MILE
BEF09E HOUNDING
GPAMS/KM
BEFORE ROUNDING
fll.2
31. H
31. '«
MC
0.31
0.3107
0.193
0.19308
CONC.
IV. 9'.
40. *<>
U.^'.J
77. V'.
n/iNr,E
14
15
?3
17
CO
"..5
4.515
0
nftEM
4.M
O.I
t.t
0.0
CO?
325.
325.28
202.
202.12
CONC.
3. S3
0.05
0.046
0.0
COMRtCItO
CONCENTRATIONS
16. 61 PPM
40.61 PPM
0.700 ft
77.96' PPM
NOK
1.32
1.3226
0.62
O.H218
V ____ j
OMMENTSI FIESTA TESTING OF GOODMAN MODEL i«oo DEVICE
SPECIAL SHIFT SHEEUb OF 10-20-40
DEVICE INSTALLED
DILUTION FACTOR = 15.A?3
MASS FMISSIONS AOX. AUX. AUX.
GMS.
^.B9'
H.JI
113S.77
3«.1V
GMS/HI
O.BI6
3i?0.3^S
9.6*2
GMS/KH F1ELD1 FUtD3 CODE
I."«S6
ISI9.UM
5.V9I
MPG
26. Z
KPL
11.15
L/100KM
9.0
DlLUIION FACTOH * 22.PI3
MASS EMISSIONS
GMS.
O.M
2.73
13i;7.V2
Ifc.fcb
GrtS/MI
o.ibo
0.71*
-------
OYNO SITEI0207
•TFST •
I 197V HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY ANALYSIS I
PHOCCSSEOI 07106107
SCP Z« i 1979
10 of 15
O
j
i
If f ,uut vtniiLC. i
Jl-> 30 GCFHKE34449
MFR.
WM. ALT. EQUIVALENT ACTUAL OVER- /-..——— TEST TYPE ———/
VFH- WI.P. RUN. PETEST H.P. TEST DYNO TRANS. DRIVE EXPERIMENTAL
.0. S10N tVAf INI). CHG. CODE ACHP METH. HEIGHT H.P. CONFO. CODE /——— TEST PROCEDURE ——"/
0 2000 7.3 HWFE
1 _
DRIVE
* vt r
PREP DATE HEIGHT WEIGHT
•
f.AUGF
Mil'lY
•*«uc. / — — — iivniiiun lininu — — — r f
MEASURE HI »3 ' MPM GEAR
LEFT RIGHT
COMB
ini r
eAAIr
IULC jv«*>
RPM GEAR PERIOD
'MEASURED
TIME
/- AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS - / • . '
A BAHO WET
"MG BULB
29.26 61.8
*
UYNO
A TEST DATE HR. SITE
9-19-79 || U.707
« BAG 1 10.163 MILES
DRY
BULB UNITS
71.3' F
ACTUAL
INERTIA
SETTING
3000
I6.JS5 KM
cv«;
UNIT
37c
iNi'llCATEO
u r NO
H.P.
DVU
H.P.
•j.3
3Jfi''S.
SITE »A21S EXHAUST SAMHLF.
RANGE
0 HC-FID 14
•NOX-CMEM 16
C02 23
0 CO 17
.lEIGHTEO VALUES
.. '" GRAMS/MILE
BEFORE ROUNDING
GRAMS/KM
£ BEFORE ROUNUING
i
1
ME T ( w
16.1
9-.. 3
4b.7
6.9
HC
0.06
O.OSH6
0.036
O.OJ647
CONC.
1 1 .HV
9J.4',
1 .1*6
16.67
HULL
we vs.
HACKGMIUNU
MANGE
14
16
33
17
CO
0
0
I).
1).
.2
.333
1 <•
13BS
TIRE
OOOM. PRESSURE
33b6. -.b.
VM|X« 412
NOX
FACTOR
0 . 9693
4.0 CU.FT.
SAMPLE CORRECTED
liEIEW CUNC. CONCENTRATIONS
4.b
0.0
2.3
0.0
C03
337.
337.
141.
141.
3.31
0.0
0.04H
0.0
NOX
3.00
40 3.0012
1 .24
30 1.3435
U.t)6 PPM
93.95 PPM
1.08? «
16.67 PPM
RELATIVE
HUMIDITY
58.5
DILUTION
ALDEHYDES
FACTOR »
i
i
11.872
MASS EMISSIONS
GMS.
0.60
30.34
2311.06
2.37
WEIGHTED
72-74
GMS/HI
0.059
2.001
227.407
0.223
VALUES
FTP
UNWEIGHTED FTP
GMS/KM
0.036
1.244
141.304
0.139
MPG
39.0
30.9800
38.9
38.9230
38.9
38.9230
AUX.
i
AUX. AUX.i
FIELDI FIEL02 CODE
MPG
38.9
KPL
16.6
16.5756
16.5
16.5478
16.5
16.5478
KPL L/100KM
16.54 , 6.0
L/100KM
6.0
6.0329
6.0
6.0430
6.0
6.0430
CO
K)
! •
COMMENTSI FIESTA TESTING OF GOODMAN MODEL 1HOO DEVICE
SPECIAL SHIFT SPEEDS OF 10-30-40
DEVICE INSTALLED
r
o
6110 0
DYNO SITEI0207 TEST • 79-9902
-------
11 of: 15
O OVMO SIHIO207
•
•'"""'MFR.
"noF ufMfn Fir
.•vUUC VLMIULt I .U
30 GCFBn£3***9
TFST • 7'J-
'I'HJ.)
VEH- I'tP. tvu'l.
. s 1 ON FVAP iMit. CHG.
0
PREP DATE WEIGHT -EIGHT
/- AMR1FNT TEST CONnlTIOtlS -
"HG BULB H'JI H U'lITS
29.13 61.0 70.3 F
ACTUAL
OYNO InfMTlA
O TEST DATE HR. SUE SET I ING
<)-Vt-V* 08 0207 2000
• BAG 1 1.585 MILES S.77U r.M
1
I9f9 L Kt'M
IIIITY VEHICLE ANALYSIS
0L 1 . C'(. HULL wFVS.
1 SITE »A?15 FXH4UST SAMPLF
R4HGE
• HC-FID is
llOX-CHEM |>>
C02 23
*" . CO IH
-'BAG 2 3.883 MILES
• HOX-CHEM ><•
C02 21
1 CO 17
BAG 3 3.58? MRFS
"F. IEK
1*. J
*rt.6
25.2
3«.H
S.7f><. KM
CUUC.
1 U . bS
1 'f • c i
HACKGPOUNU
XANGIl
IS
1 h
•* 23
IH
. MULL t'F
••t Ft"
2.h
O.U
2.0
O.U
VS.
IIACKGklUJNU
RAMOt.
!<.
)(,
il.S'S 2.1
O. 1',
M:ISI
SITE "A?15 EXHJIJST SAMPLf
• RANGE
MC-FIO 1*
NOX-CMEM 15
• C02 23
CO 17
• WEIGHTED VALUES
GRAMS/MILE
> BEFOOL ROUNDING
• GRAMS/KM
BEFORE ROUNDING
HF.TM/
22.6
"2.1
32.2
23.3
MC
0.29
0.2Y05
0.1B1
0.14052
CUNC.
1 f) . 7 t
t. f > . 0 <«
o./s
S'i.7J
f
•f
17
fl Iti*
<>.1
H.3
2.0
0.0
nv-nK nc.in. Htiuni
2000
ACTUAL
OYNO
H.P.
7.3
or f-f\
PROCESSED! 09120137
TRANS.
rnucc '
CUNr u.
r
SEP 21. 1979
DRIVE EXPERIMENTAL
CVS 75-LATER
MEASURED
• m f cnAw ^nftctnnuki
•™ IGNITION IIMI NG •*•/ / ~*~ — ~~~ ~ •« w — — — — — i \ wt j««r\ vvm^tw*»v >
12 nPH GEAR LEFT RIGHT COMB RPM GEAR PERIOD TIME
TI^E NOX RELATIVE
ODOM. PKKSSUWE FACTOR HUMIUITIT ALDEHYDES
238ft. *5. 0.9619 5R.M
VMI<« 2H09.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR ' IS. 6*1
SAMPLE
CO.'iC.
.1.-I7
0.0
0.0<>2
0.0
VM| X =
SAMPLE
CONC.
.1.S3
II. 'IH
0.0*2
n. (l
. BOLL REVS. VMixr
HACRG
WANdE
.!<•
JC,
23
17
CO
"».<•
<..3/l
.72
. 71 h 3
WOU'ID
»'h IK'<
** .M
0.2
2.0
0.0
C02
321.
"120.
199.
199.
SAMPLE
CONC.
3. S3
U.IO
0.0*2
0.0
NOX
l.*9
CORRECTED
COHCtHTH»T10NS
6J.9H PPM
titl.hj PP^I
II. UC *
*flf.V« PPM
*rn*.o CU.FT.
COWKtCIED
COUCENT«»T|ONS
\.\V PP>1
12.20 PPM
0.535 »
H5.I5 PP-1
2rni.o CU.FT.
CORRECT El)
CONCENTRATIONS
13. *0 PPM
45.9* PPM
0.71* »
56.73 PPM
MASS EMISSIONS
GMS.
2.9<.
10. Od
1120. 47
37. 7H
OILUIION
GMS /Ml
O.P19
2. HOI
312.532
111.538
FACTOR «
GM^/KM
0.509
l.r<.|
19*. 198
6.5*H
22.937
MASS EMISSIONS
GMS.
0.56
3.0'»
I32H.H3
13.<>3
DILUTION
GMS/MI
0.1**
0.783
3*1.205
3.*59
FACTOR »
GMS /KM
0,090
O.*fl7
212.015
2.1*9
I7.60B
MASS EMISSIONS
GMS.
0.61
6.66
102H.a8
S.20
WEIGHTED
GMS/MI
0.170
1.658
287.260
I.*b2
VALUES
53 l.*938
0.93
72-7*
FTP
16 0.9282
UNWEIGHTED FTP
•
i \COMMENTSI FIESTA TESTING ot
4j SPECIAL
GMS/KM
0.106
1.155
178.095
0.902
MPG
27.0
26.9683
26.1
26.1179
27.4
27.4160
AUX.
FIFLOI
MPU
26.
AUX.
FIEL01
MPG
25.
AUX.
FIEL01
MPG
30.
KPL
11.5
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
KPL L/IOOKM
7 11.37 8.8
AUX. AUX.*
FIEL02 COOE
KPL L/IOOKM
5 10.86 9.2
AUX. AUX.
F1EL02 COOE
! KPL L'/IOOKM
6 13,00 T.T
L/IOOKM
8.7
11.4924 8.7013
II. 1
9.0
11.1038 9.0058
11.7
8.6
11.6557 8.5794
GOOOMAN MOOtL IfOO OEVICE ,
SHIFT SPEEDS OF
DEVICE INSTALLED.
V
o
• MtK
10-20-dO
HEStHVOIR
EMPTY
h 1 1 0 0
•
OYNO SIT
•'
MM07 . .TEST,* J9.-.«*03 ^_
O
Uo
U)
O
,.; ,;... r,.^.'SJj;, 5rit-«*".'*.,!.f •'••• '.l-'i
-------
12 of 15
; r~> OYNO SITEID207 TF.ST • 7v-vv.i-
c»
— ^MFR. ' VFH- KM1. WH'J.
\ pOOE VEHICLE I.D. SION EVAIJ |N|I. CHIi.
• .' 30 GCFB«E3***9 0
^ Ok 1 Vt
CURB AXLE AXLC
PREP DATE WEIGHT WF.IGHF ijAUM MtASOPF
0 h M ^ I y
/- AMRIFNT TEST CONDITIONS'- /
9 BAPO MET D"Y r\r,
"MO BULB BULB UNITS u-ni
29.13 61.3 70. H F ,'7l
| ACTUAL '
OY'IO IMth'IlA INiMCAILU O
• TEST DATE HB. SITE SEITING nvm h.P. H
9-20-79 09 O207 <"00<> S.J
• BAG 1 10.239 MILES lh.*7») KM 7.1.1/1. HULL *f
SITE «A21S EXHAUST SAMPLE HACKG
I • HC-FIO !<. 16. f) l^.r-S !<•
MO>-rHEM 17 fc^.J l(lf>.4M 17
C02 23 <.6.l 1 . 1 i/ 23
*> CO 17 6.1 1 " . 1 ) 1 /
^EIGMTtn VALUtS MC i:n .
fcv OPAMS/MILE 0.06 0.?
BEFOPE MOUNOINO O.UhO^ n.l-*<.
GPAMS/KH 0.03/ (1.12
• BEFOBF. ROUNDING O.OJ7<.S O.l?06
COMMENTSI FIESTA TESTING OF OOOliX(.N SYSTEMS
SPECIAL SHIFT SPEEDS OF 10-20-*0
• DEVICE INSTALLED. WAltw kFSLRVOIR
•o
o
1 l-*3 58.3
VS. Vrt|X= .0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR » 11.7^3
HOUND SAMPLL COMWLCItO MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUK.
MKTt.? CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELDl FIELD2 CODE
*.S 3.31 9.23 PPM o.«>2 0.060 0.037
0.0 O.n lOb.VH PPM 22. 87 2.23* 1.^88 MPG KPL L/100KM
1.9 O.OMI 1.101 % 2335.3* 228.083 1*1.72* 38.8 16. »9 6.1
0.0 0.0 l*.73 PPM 1.99 0.19* 0.121
C02 '-lUX MPG KPL L/100KM
22«. ?.23 WEIGHTED VALUES 38.8 16.5 6.1
-------
13 of 13
f~) OYNO SITEI0207 TFST « 7V--»VO'.
1 1979 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS
PROCESSED! OTIORM3
SEP 2*1 1979
(
ft
tFR.
CODE VEHICLE l.D.
30 GCFBWE34449
VER-
SION EVAP
0
Mf M.
REP.
INIT.
HUN,
CHli,
PETEST
CODE
ACHP
ALT.
H.P.
METH.
LOUlVALtNT
TEST
WEIGHT
2000
ACTUAL
DYNO
H.P.
7.3
TRANS.
CONFG.
PMEP DATE
OPIVE
CURB A»LE
WEIGHT WEIGHT
GAUGE
(Mh'Tf
AXLK
MEASURE
/ IGNITION TIMING / / » CO /
H\ *£ HPH GEAR LEFT RIGHT COMB
OVER-
DRIVE
CODE
IDLE
RPM
/ .... TEST TYPE ———/
EXPERIMENTAL
/ TEST PROCEDURE —Y
CVS 75-LATER
SOAK
GEAR PERIOD
MEASURED
COASTDOWN
TIME
/- AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS - /
1
i
i
I
1
1
I
1
i
i
O
O
o
O
«
BAHO wET DOT
"HG BULB bULH UNITS
28.95 61.0 71.0 F
ACTUAL
TEST DATE HP
9-21-79 08
BAG 1 3.569
SITE *A215
s
'HC-FIU
NOX-CMEM
-x C02
' co
OYNO
. SITE
0207
MILTS
INMT1A
SETTING
?000
5.74J KM
r.v,
UNI T
?K.
i
1
INDICATED
UYNO
b
b
l?l.
EXHAUST SAM^Lt
RANGE
15
16
23
18
MtU,"
52.5
67.4
34.3
80.1
Cu
7b
MI
0
3<)7
NC.
,33
6.399
AUX.
FIELDI
AUX. AUX.
FiELDa CODE
MPG
26.6
KPL
11.30
L/IOOKN
8.9
i «
BAG 2 3.869
SITE »A215
MC-FIO
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
MILES
6.227 KM 'yO?? .
EXHAUST SAMPLt
RANGE
14
14
23
17
MLTf R
13. V
45. 0
25.4
34.4
CONC.
ID .
11. VI
U.S*G
b4. \i~i
MOLL HI- VS.
VM|x= 4752.0 CU.FT.
HACKC.ROUNU SAMMLf. COHP.tCTFO
RANGE
14
14
23
17
MttEW
4.H
0.2
2.0
0.2
CONC. CONCENTRATIONS
J.S3 6.HH PPM
0.05 11. S3 PPM
0.042 0.540 «
0.''H 83.70 PPM
DILUTION
FACTOR «
22.748
MASS EMISSIONS
GMS.
0.53
2.85
1328.29
13.11
GMS/MI
0.138
0.735
343.271
3.389
GMS/KM
O.OP6
0.457
213.299
2.106
AUX. AUX. AUX.
FIEL01 F1EL02 CODE
MPG KPL L/100KM
25.* 10. BO
'•3
BAG 3 3.586
SITE «A215
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
HILLS 5.770 KM bi6i). ROLL PEVS. VMIXz 277S.O CU.FT.
EXHAUST SAMPLE HACKGWOUNO SAMPLE CORRECTED
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE >«fcrLR CONC. CONCENTRATIONS
14
15
23
17
2
-------
. , u*>.
•
DYNO SITEID207
*v
TEST * 79-SI9U!)
l[A INDICATED DVU TIRE NOX
SETTING (>Y:.O ''.P. H
^M 23H/J9. ROLL REVS. VM|X= 40H2.0 CU.FT.
SITE OA?15 EXHAUST SAMPLE HACKGHOUNO SAMPLE CORRECTED
RANGE
HC-FIO 14
NOX-CMEM 17
.,. C02 ?3
) CO 17
WEIGHTED VALUES
GRAMS/MILE
UEFORE ROUNDING
GPAMS/KM
BEFORE ROUNDING
METER CUNC. RANGE
Ib.d II. (..ft l<<
44.2 lll.7<. 17
46. 1 1 . 1 J / 23
b.h 13. S? 17
HC CD
0.0ft U.S
O.Ob-i* 0.1/7
O.OJ4 o.ll
0.03444 0. 1 lOb
RELATIVE
HUMIDITY
54.6
DILUTION
ALDEHYDES
FACTOR *
11.755
MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX.
METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS CMS.
4.7 3.4b 8.50 PPM
0.1 0.7S 111.50 PPH
2.0 0.042 1.099 «
0.0 0.0 13.52 PPM
C0
-------
J.5 of 15
O "»•"> SII- li.,"i| MM ,. /•,-,.,, 1 i ,••. i i ,,| ,,,.|y VI.-IIU.F. AiUIV'ilS 1 HMUOSStUI <17l!i*l< SIP 19. 19/9 O (
O
/ f:.'t'ic vf.niri K i.o. vri'. » •. • 1,11. i •• . i .p. ii AI .ic ' - i... .IK-HI n-r-. I:O\F(.. roi>E /- —
i in (-,(•.!•••<. t -ii.««>< • ,;IIUK 7.j ' rvs
ft - I'- ;
1 sum DC if we |I,M| ,i |...if ,,...,. , ...,1-1 "1 ..• 1 '.h-.*' LflF KII-HT COI'll HMM GFAH
! 0 •' •• ;•'•
j
/- •••'ilFnl ItbF Oi:i"IFK- •, - >.
| O -IAI-O wK 1 lii't i .
j "•"> ouili hm " "• n f- ii .i l
I ?••.•),' ••?. 1 n .,• F ,»/r ,
1 ••' '
Ii ISO 1' i -'I 1 i I.'.:, ; ( • ' i > i/v'i l I--F mi* rfl l M 1 vt
0 IfcT OAII n*<. blFF -.Fill'.., .M-. . •-.!-. M.i'. iip.|. . .-.i-,vi.i FuUI'iH Hli:t|nll« »Li)tMVOkS
0 Htr. | l.jml MllfS S.7M "•• - : •• . •• H L .' '. v '•'•.- '•:••!. .1 t.i'.M. •llllilFIUM FAf.lUW - 15. ?M^
• SHI "'^1'j H ,,- . ) - 1. , | 1 • n . 1 ".II > l.'fV l'»"l >V.(IS ^.i.'-.1* | . J'JH
<"'.'•; »' J I1-.! •. II •-! ''.'I I.'IP,' o.f'.l 1 ll<>4.ril lrl.lf>'< I'J^.^fiX
•• ->»r. ? i.o'/H ".;L'-. '•.<-/i • •» -.-.. - .i i ..iv. . »'p|«r •• i- I.IP MI.II. mi.i.'l l"xi r.iriim * /*d..t|.°i
! O SI IF' •*t\'j F»MAi)t| ;.i'ii. .,,.[ • HI'I.I •,.-.: I-U-. ».'! .KI.C IFjl "ASS F MISS IONS
; '•!'-» Ii, I- is.'- | i . ;.. i. .. . ' .... •, H.p.-. I'f i n.i'.n o.lurt 0.10'-.
j ' •")'•? «' > <••.•! ..•..•! .- i ,-.! ii.n.i. ».sM« •> O-.v.(J Jih.^bH 2IS.I-SH
i •<»'• » i.t-.s fiii'. '../•-. -- 11: •• •/• . VUS| :••'•!.• I-....-I.P. I-P h. -,». ,-| ,• l,p,l< It I'IF|I "f.SS FMl'SSIlMS
M';-FI'> |i ^...'. |i . 7 | .. S.I I./'- l*«.';'i l-p;'l ll.»SrS O.ll^^ II. IIS
• il/.r itM |j >-l./ <,'.••! r. :i . i •. ft'i-i h.D'i I.IOS 1.060
, 4p> i.'i' ^i 1^.7 :../••/ .- 1 ^.i .',-., ".','!> i io<>i.ri ,""-. /,•> I I.F ll . i I <. . / i,"s. .l.iii Will. ill* O VALUI'.S l :'.-.\ ,-PII. p. ..|| l^-y. F1I- i!S.h
« ^ SMtlM. SMlFI Si'M'li', (.F |,|-/,,-«,li
O
O
p l 111 ii imio •Mitt
7S-L»It.H ^ ' j
ME*SUPEO •
SOAA COASlFIOrfN '
•"flOO I1ME i
-9
f
nUX. AUX. AIJX.
ILL01 F IELD2 CODE
Mr>u hPL L/IOOKM
Hb.O II. OF 9.0
«» i
•MIX. AOX. AUX. . O
ItLOl FltL03 CODE
HPti KF>L L/100KH 0
2S.I 10. 68 9.«
OUt. AUX. AUX.
IF.LOI FIELDS CODE 0 ,
MPf, uPL L/100KH
io.i iz./e 7.8 0 .
M-L L/IOOKM 0
II. J 8. •*
11.8606 8.4883
10.9 9.2 0
IO.H677 9.20IS
H.H e.R
ll.<.<;0 8.7563 ' 0
°,
• !
»i ,
V'll f U. S 1 * 7V-4A99
-------
38
Attachment D
Summary of TRC Fiesta Testing
Date HC (gm/mi) CO (gm/mi) NOx (gm/mile) Fuel Economy (mi/gal) Comments
10-4-78 .58 6.23 1.52 30.17 B/L
4-20-79 .942 7.926 1.576 34.05 Device
Percent (+)62.4% (-i-)27.2% (+)3.68% (+)12.92%
II. Performance Data (Averages)
A. 0-60 mph (sec.) . " •
Unmodified Modified
' o
South 18.13 Std. Dev. = .76 14.61 Std. Dev. = .42
North 16.7 Std. Dev. - 1.15 14.8 Std. Dev. = N/A
B. Quarter Mile Times (sec.)
South 21.41 Std. Dev. = .32 19.86 Std. Dev. = .2
North 21.08 Std. Dev. = .56 20.26 Std. Dev. = N/A
III SAE J-1082a Fuel Economy Test
Urban (mpg) Suburban (mpg) Interstate (mpg)
Unmodified 21.97 36.80 37.04
Modified 25.27 36.66 39.70
Percent Change (+)15.0% (-)0.38%* (+)6.70%
^Explained in Attachment I.
-------
LIGHT DUTY TEST.!wITH 13 POINTS.
VEHICLE 1.0. IST;CAP:
VEHICLE 1.0. 2ND.CAR:
ENGINE FAMILY :
FUEL TYPE :
COMMENTS :
1977 PErFWIORATION FACTORS :
PROCESSED! 11*16:49 AIKV2U. 1976
'• MODEL YH:«P: 77 MANUFACTURE cooEt 31 MODEL NAME« FIESTA
CONTROL SYS « AlW INJECTION
CATALYTIC REACTOR
EXHAUST RECYCLE
792-1 .6-S03A
1 NO UNLFAOFll. 1
MILES
SOSl.
9M38.
14838.
1<.993.
19*90.
?4K8<-?.
29839.
?9925.
3495S.
39*39.
44839.
44888.
49889.
('
o
''11
0
(,
]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FUFL SYSTFM
COMP. PATIO
i NEW n A CL.
oo ncT OISPL.
nC
.720
. THO
.^60
.6?n
. ^ iO
.04'0
.790
• ^90
• ^ 30
.HO.O
.53*0
.520
.WSO
11
5
9
h
9
10
ft
13
10
9
8
7
13
CO
.700
.400
.500
.400
.200
.200
.600
.000
.000
.400
.300
.000
.4flO
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
: 1 CHB 2 BPL TPANS :
: 8.5 AXLE :
: 2000 LB N/V :
: 9H.O CI EVAP SYS :
NOX
.890
.000
.860
.050
.970
.010
.800
.840
.950
.950
.810
.780
.670
EV/AP co?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.010
.060
.140
.0
.090
.040
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.010
312.
378.
340.
342.
302.
323.
302.
278.
350.
299.
313.
309.
294.
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
M-4
3.33
51.0 -
CANISTER;
F . E .
26.6701
22.8849
24.8509
24.8408
27.8605
25.9176 :
27.8986
29.4516
24.1492
28.0495
27.0725
27.5838 i
27.9221
4000. TO soooo. MILES
SLOPE =
iNTERCf. PT =
COPR. COEF =
COEF. OF OET =
STf). EPflOR =
4000.
3
-------
40
ETHYL CORPORATION
RESEARCH AXD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • RESEARCH LABORATORIES
ieOO WEST EIGHT MILE ROAD • FERNDALE, MIC1IIOAX -4822O • (313)
Attachment F
November 9, 1979
r~~Mr. John-Kekich
EPA
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Dear Mr. Kekich:
The results of test PO #A-1138-NMLX are as follows:
Motor 82.23
Research 91.35 .
Sincerely,
JBHrsh
-------
Xtta'chment G
UNITEDATEB E
* ' ' WASHINGTON. DC.
... v * -• ;; . -
Edvard &. XnigW,Bsquir«
'
' •
*''•••"»• 'Jv.' •^••y;.
1333 Hew
-Suite 400 ,i
"
-
»C»4 2003&
W^i?^:
Dear
•!.:
iral queries-.. «•*•— <•- ,-,•.. . ,; ; ... -,,:,
"60-Minutes!^ test/vehicle.- . ;-:, ; \v ' . ..:;:;::;;:^
^ueation areU «e lifted belov*: -•-..•.•..; S^V v ." . .. ...:;^^.lv
.Attach^i>^
"^fS^'ifS^SS;. Zf vou have not al^edy done
send thie letter. -.- • • - - .- • . . . ::..,. -
s;;i'::S';ri".s: u..".'--- ^ ; .
a-
The application ie unclear as to the modifications made .to
te»t vebicU engine. • The ."60 Minutes", transcript jaentiona differisnt
pistons, a; reworked • head; a aodified ca» shaft, and a compression-: .
retio increase. Engine .variables such as valve timing and compression
ratio do have an effect on vehicle exhaust emigBlons and fuel; economy.
These unspecified engine modifications also.make; comparisons of./"before
. and after..'te?t data""almost iapossib-le* -H&Wver,:please ask. ypur.^lient
to detail vhat engine modifications were-.'made .«o as to help wr to..under-
.etand th'eiV efforts. . •• •. •. /r.
••' '*.••••:..'"
* '*•*••"..'•
-------
;-.v: 2 of 4
" .'J'/h'.-'V "''":'v'J.S; •••••'•
.'•. .':•'.'' •;"'". s\'T'-"v?>4-?'!"-.v.
''', E^^it; Bi^^vhWe^correc.ti.y.v^-^.
Lied.:..<: 33ie enisaion standards for; *[¥}&&~?z£'i
co>te*tl':pfxt»*y^reg^
;;ejdjatot;:eaf8i^aa~;"pa^efc&
^e;venicl*»i>5.bi^O(wn«8;lo£;_B"* ""'""'"-'" rr
latiba ar«v^^
terioratiotf^The^ft fit line for; their.:;'«aiattit.';emi8*ioa
: point)- is •caiculated: and the resulting Boltip.lic*.t.ive;d«t«ri and MOac are deterainedW;; Various calibratiibaf^
run, to 4»P.PP/nilea:
itt-tbe 88nafex^ng£ne^f«»il7 at* ~th*n rua, to 4,pp/inilea ; And .te»ited^;:|j;;_ :
identifiedJa»^^^A^ebicle8*^-:;/-Tb*:-ire8ultB.,;pfj;^e8B
ttultipli«dvb^ tbe, applicable DF and; thieprpdiict. toast te; bel^;t|t^||^v
ttaJ^Ardi^ listed^ in? Bthibit Biv.;. A further description; of: &i*i&&*jf'jii$z;:.
caa^Va- fouad! in- Fedtral /:togjjter:.a6;078~28«/^y3h<^:.ayplicablgiLdeteriot^t'ioa
fouad! in- Fedtral /
factors (At; to
wiles) for the 1978 Ford
CO-DP. -.;;
1.462" -::. ;
» 49rs tate ^are: :^5^:
. . • ;--'::-
Using, these PFa^: the "before and afterV. test, datavsepplied in .the: Application
to the^ emission;itanaardB «« follows;;.-;->^. -^ :'./.;-'•;c^,_.j,^;: •
-- 'Percent of .:;.*^:(, Modified x
^: Staudard • Hodified;'.Vs 'DF :: :' StaaJarflr.
HC '
CO
SOx
.58
6.23
1.5.2
./•? 1.110 '?••-.-•-. •••
:9.108 •'--, -
1 1.611 ::?.•-...
7AZ', •
60.7Z •
80.6X '
••••' .9Aai;:.
.. 7-926 .
r .I.576.-:-.- ••••••-•.
1.803
11.5878
1.67
:-:i20.2Z::.
.-; ':77*ist;
^3.33o:J
••-. This analysis, using DF, shows that: the modified, version might not;..',
.. ."• have passed-the HC standard for 1978 light-duty vehicles. Because:;-•';,
. the test mileage was "above-4000 ailes and insufficient data vas . ' '. V
presented to^ establish a deterioration factor for the modified:•..-.
: vehicle, the; analysis applied the. production DF to the. test data as ;r,-
• presented. ..JThe point here is that the data does not indicate that v,
" > the vehicle" passed the emission standards as indicated in Attach»en-5.:.D.
' ' Farther'testing is required before such; a"statement can be made.
5. "
The "before and after"::tests vere rwi at significantly different ; :
htfaidity"'servings. While this parameter is. not specified for proper.;
' FT? testing^ comparison testing with large, humidity.differences may
oake the c-ooparison difficult. " .; ••';.;• . " J=
-------
-.<\:;.:i of 4
1-. -
8.
ine JTB»»W«* .«wjr •.•«fcc*...-***j»----r*t».'-.«'j..rr.~ -"*••• ••~-r^*--- • ;" •-.-•• -'^-; *
omy_- i«:not;^plainea:;i»':ypurvappliea^
tbe literator* now publiahed"(about .*at«^»j*#si«u'.;;:It.: i* \agreed^
"that yater injection.will'':«up^«g»:'4atpwi^3|^\:a^;::tbercf6re;.wlllv..--;
fltlw^npdifUationart^tbe/en^^e^icn/arfcBor^
becaoae.; of: detonation.'..?! The«« ^dlficatic^^^^rBiay-inalttd^;:^:;
tarbocbarglcs: or- snpercbargingif: nigter^onpreaBio^ ratio* advanced^
iparki tiaii^il different,v«lver/ti»ingVbotter^i^
apark plngagleaner jaitturea^brvtfa* of lo^r octane^fuel^oatM^ly^
either improve fuel economyVand/or perforjaance or; perait -v~ •"•-'' -
. .:• • *• ''.' • . __ . ..'. . • -.' - •. i • _».*-^._i: _^_v_«. *1
1^
over
9..
10.
lower cpBt fuel. Exhibit; A of your application st««r that;^ tbe^
injected fluid. abaorbB.beat in tbe, cennbuBtioncbasiber. Ibl»aove
-beat- wiU;xeBult in a.analler ^reaaare riae'and: lowe* thermal-'i'i^'.
efficiency:in; non-koocking- enginea. ^According; tov^bert,,an.4Br^^
proveiBentviit poweripfctip^to^X may be gained.by.vat^r iajectw>a_v^^ .
uaed oa-an: eftgine: which; experienced knock prior to. water injectMn;^
•••••••••••-'•'• : •'•=•• .••-•--• ••:•::• • •.-•-...••.,.. '. . . • ''••+££.%*$
The;-iiii«ctioii bt water into tKe. aix inlet, upstream, of tbe
iburetor fihouiid Bllgi^tly eoriebeu tbe fuel/air mixture a»^ fli«x«
ba lew oxygen iu tbe iatake.air. Thi. wiUxau^lbver
any.. -Becauw tbe^ Coodaaa Eogiue" Syatem, HodBia800,
contradict: tjieBe,tbeorie8,>a aore complete explanation ,xs
why tbe water: injection alone \
. both the^vetiicla widvtbe test eqorpment.
variation in results iof cold start FT? te.^
plicate test's are usually run. The teBta rim xm- your -vfibicl^were
single test^ vith a .f X/2 »onth interval bet^e^testB. . Based oa
theae two te>ts,. tbe coaf idence witb which -a.7Z; increase . in
economy c an ;be; claimed ia very low. •'.:-., ..
She type oflaati-f reeze to be added to' tba-vater' for operation
cold Sieni conditions wa. not apecif ied., PleaBe; Jsk ,o.
to dsscribe'the ty'pe and reeoro«aded Bacttfacturex of . toia
freese. ', ' - .-•
The asiounfof water injected by the Good^n System* Hodel
vice waa not specified. Plea9e aek your; client to provide u
the pound water/pound' fuel ratio. •• ; "• ... •:
Becauaa pf" the- above mentioned problem areas witb tbe device
cription and your FT? test reeultB, it is propoaed tbat tb •
ema Model 1800 device be inatalled on aa ^AvBtt"Ued.t-
tested *t tte'E?A Motor Vehicle. Saisaiona Laboratory in
Bi« telephone number is (313) 668-4340)*
-------
-'"'-. •".;.;,•. 4*.
-«*• ;;-V":" '
i'-^tjg&Z'
•s-!:H:i&-&';;
:,>-;::^iii;7r>:.
Hodifid-
. - Hicb»el P. Walsh. - .
reputy; AB'«i*t.«txt Adsiijiistrator. .
for Hobile Soutce.'Air Pollution Control.
cc: Kitchell.Sacks
E. D. ?oT*b)n
-------
Attachment H */
45
c
I >
Mr. Edward S. Knight,' Esquire
Adkin, Gump, Hauer, and Feld
1333 New Hamsphire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400
. Washington, D.C. 20036
.Dear Mr. Knight:
On September 21, 1979, the Environmental Protection Agency's
'testing of the Goodman System Model 100 fuel economy retrofit device
•vas completed. This testing vas performed as part of the EPA
^optional testing pursuant to your "Application for Evaluation of a
Fuel Economy Retrofit Device under Section 511 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act."
Prior to initiation of the testing, a letter was sent to your
office asking for clarification on several points presented in your
application for evaluation. As of October 23, 1979, EPA has not
received any response to these requests. On October 11, 1979, your
telephone conversation with Mr. Penninga of my staff indicated that a
second "511 Application" would soon be presented to EPA.
The EPA needs to complete the evaluation of the Goodman Systems
Model 1800 as expeditiously as possible. If it is your desire to
have your response to the September 21, 1979 letter considered in
the published evaluation, please forward your response to this office
before October 30, 1979.
Sincerely yours,
Michael P. Walsh
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
AKR-455:GKITTREDGE:EVJ:WSMW:737: X50596:10-23-79
0
-------
46
ji. .i
:vi x -T-
GAS1 SAVING D£ T
Page 1 of 5
Attachment I
* /-
i'li A ~ .k 1 V Jl j j£ JL V
H'«l Virginia Office:
< Berryville Pike
Summit Point, If. \'a. 25446
New York Office:
2A Byrjm Brook Placr
Arnionk, /V.)'. 7050*
November 6, 1979
Mr. Michael P. Walsh
Deputy Assistant Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, B.C. 20460
De?r Mr. Walsh:
This is in regard to your letter of September 11, 1979. The following are
answers to the. questions you posed in the aforementioned letter to
Mr. Ed Knight.
I. We as the inventors did not choose the fuels used for the tests. We were
under the impression that the first fuel used was Indolene Clear as
specified for the FTP, however, since we were not present for the first
test, we have no way of knowing what fuel was used. At the time of
the second test we. were told that the supply of Indolene Clear was very
short. In view of the anticipated mileage we were asked if we would
mind substituting another fuel, such as Super Shell. We agreed, since
one of our claims was increased fuel ecor-omy on any grade of fuel.
Actually the car travelled sor,,e 2300 miles" for the "on the road" test
at Trarspr.rtatien Research Center (TRC) . When fuel was needed, it was
driver: into town a-id filled up, a somewhat more true to life situation
than flint practiced at the EPA '.lab in Ann Arbor. In addition, even
though it was observed that fuel was being poured fron a barrel labeled
Indcl.::7vj Clear, there- .i:-; nc proof cf -..'hat is actually in the barrel.
any e^rnt, -he quality o!"
P . .V. ,, |. •; Q .-> r 4-n-a 1 1 v •!-r. t-Vo l^^rrfil . T-n
I'lj'-l ic. in either case much less than the In-
:'ON, Konia <•': or 5 KON numbers higher tl:~u the
and almost 10 full 'joint hi>;ii;-.i- th-.-r.
The pistons '-.vre replaced with a set of Arias forged units having
a shallower re:.;: usl'ion rhumber to raise, the compression ratio to
a measured 12: h ro 1. Tu pot the. ner-.-sKary exhaust valve clearance
at th'-.t co:r.MVsi~ i CMI ratio, it was necessary to recess the exhaust
valve into tin: cy.lJndi.-r head apni'or.Jnately . ] 00". During the
course of rU-vel oprv-nt , s-.i.-ve.ral camshafts v:cre tried; both more or
Ir-ss aggressive jr, rheir action. Hnrinr; the experimentation, the
original cansh.".ft v.-a.s sold to a cur.tnr.er of tVie shop. Ivlicn it was
doterr.iinod th.at: the original camsliaft. was very nearly ideal for
the speed r,m;.;e used, a rep lacL-niui'it was obtained. There were no
Fiesra part number camshafts available, .so a Ford replacement for
a cc i'into or l!;,'pri v.vs i nsi .-> Llecl.
** i • i V1
1 • )\ L-C'<
n NOV 8 1979
-------
2 of 5
47
A. The valve action is so nearly the same as the original that the
difference is undetectable. The major difference is in the width
of'the lobes, since the Pinto'and Capri' camshafts sometimes -wore
prematurely and the Fiesta lobes were made somewhat wider to give
more bearing area. The amount of vacuum advance was increased
slightly and the mechanical advance was reduced slightly, as is
normal when increasing the compression ratio. As we will discuss
later, the effect of the water is such that the timing may be ad-
justed to more optimum conditions of performance and emissions
than is the usual case. Also, due to the cooling effect of the
water, the EGR valve is no longer required to suppress the formation
of KOx, so it was disconnected. The carburetor jetting remained
tlie same.
Consider also that the "60 Minutes" transcript was the result of
many hours of filming, and was not intended to be a technical
discussion, nor was it in any wasy edited by the inventors.
III. Any projection as to the future emission levels is just that, a pro-
jection and ViOthing more. However, in our defense:
A. The only area of real concern is HC, which is the easiest to
eliminate by carburetor and/or timing adjustment and is easily checked
by equipment that is available at the average dealership. Also,
the report by TRC mentions that the engine was over heating during
the acceleration runs. What, they did not mention is the engine
was run at full throttle until it became; so hot the sta^Ler would
not crank the motor until it vns cooled. After the emissions te.-t
and tlie ;-icceler;it:Lon runs;, but prior to the "0:1 the track" mileage
tests, the pistons were rr-.pl^o^d with another =et with new ring's.
The cylinder block was not rebcre.d, "nor were any valves replaced.
Since thaf time the car hnn been driven about 25,000 miles and
oil con.-r.;'!rpuion ha;; be^n so .lav as to not require the addition of
any oil bc-ts-:etn changer. wMch .".1:0 done at ?bout 5,000 miles. Durini;
this :./i!-..-. ;:'ii£ r.-iv ho* 'b.\ t; ::-r<<_;.;(.-;:v f;-.;• i,A,ve Cv.vri'c ih"n ft car is nnrn;::-! ".y
f.ubjecl'.ed lo c's.pc'cinll.y in relation to the F'j ? for accumulation of
50,000 miles. The. spark plugr., a standard 1-iosch part, were
changed at appro:-, irately 24,000 uii] es and the valves have been
adjusted once. E:-;cept for changing the oil and wnt.er filters as
veil as L: i !..• ;!!'iin,v. iut- v.-ftt'er injection rio:,:-;lo at about 20,000 miles,
there had been no other maintenance at nil indicating at least a
non-complicated life. So, since hydrocarbons are a results of
generally either un'iurnpd gnsoline due to p. loss of engine 'tune',
cr as a result of engine wear causing excessive oil consumption,
we. feel confident that the long term HC emissions will not be a
problem, especially in view of Dr. Enejcmrm'a statement that "if
any tiring, tho life of components exposed to combustion shou.ld be
longer due to fha cooler rur.ning". In my pccsonnl experience
in the automotive tel'irlldiap v/nrld, it seoms tliut one. of the first
parts of the c-!;-i:-..;ion courvol :;>.•?.ten to fail Is the PCJR valve,
usually in rhe i.-'losi.d position which rt:^ulL^ in improved performance
.-".icl rulcouc for ihe consumer, so as a result, it is almost never
•rc-p.-iiroil. Sri.i.1. we must a.v. reo, furthor t.esrJi^- sln.-ul.il be. done-.,
-------
3 of 5
48
A. -since the TRC tests were the firs;, time the car. had been tested,
so unless we are willing to assume that the optimum settings were
found on the first attempt; these results should be improved with
further refinement. ,-'•' ... ... . ...
IV. It is our understanding that acceptable correction factors were included
in the TRC data to correct for such things as the temperature, humidity,
barometric pressure, fuel temperature, etc., since these things are
constantly changing from day to day, we must assume that the -control of
the wenthor is beyond even the legislative powers of Congress, or
they have been missing a sure way to get re-elected.
V. The.re arc sor.ie studies such as "Water Induction Studies In Spark
Ignition Engines1' done in October 1974 by Moffitt & Lestz for the
DOD (DOD /'AFRL-46-AD-A003332) that indicate that under some conditions
of load with inferior fuel improvements of up to 20% have been found in
engines that were not audibly detonating. Unfortunately, most of the
studies done on water addition to gasoline engines have been done outside
the bounds of emission controls, so that we have little information
about the effects on emissions: In my talks with Professor Englcv.ian,
Mr. Lestz and others, it has become clear that the accurate control
and uniform stomization of the water is essential if the problem of
excessive HC and CO is to be avoided. The reduction of NOx is an
accented fact, since the water helps to avoid the extremes of pressure
and temperature-which produce NOx, yet because these extremes of pressure
occur at or near TDC, they produce little or no useful power output.
The action of the water is that it passes through the carburetor and .•
pest the intake valve in the form cf liquid droplets of a uniform-size.
Thus, Hie density of the incoming ch.-u-ge is increased and the t.ei.ipera-
ture if; reduced. Just after ignition, run water becomes steam absorbing
sc:r:e 3.100 calories per gram cud at the same time it tries to expand
170P- tir.es Jtn volurr.a fis a liquid. Thus we have absorbed a tremendous
amount of heat just: at. t'he time that NOx is formed and transformed
chat ox-cess of hoar into a pressure which is then mnintainad during the
power portion ot the stroke.. If follows thai- the atoi.iization must be
unifoiT:! i;o c-.'fuvc-' thjc ;;]] cylintlvfj receive c-qual a mounts of wntcr
;:'!'.), : >; •. ;•':'...• :-'••;•. 1 i i.-.:1.-!!;. i to •.' :l: .'u:'. l~'],.::. .-'I"1 t he- \'Si--';f: turn:",
v.':; I:" •'••.. :'. ' •-..-;•'••••: v :-f '••..••:• t •>. :•;; i.,'-.: ; .. ;: t. i-f thi- ~o.--bi:r; rio-i pi i>•_<.;;•-..
"C.iii'c: i::.' inci.'1.-:"! KJ\ of the vra'-c-'- i ^; CLJ^.!^.;.:. 1 i: tiiere Is Loo ru'.ch
wcter, the losses incurred fron ti.u cr.i.) 1 L;-;g m:.-ii.-. than offset the gain
from the-lixp.nntfU-'n of the steam,, resulting in a loss of power and a
rise in HC c-Mid CO. 1 r there if. too Jir.tle v.v.ccr, the peel: pressures
can become so lri.Y" a* to cause detonation and resultant engine damage
HS v.Tell r1 s c<.'\jsii']^ ti;e fcn-nntion oi NOx.
VI. As for Mr. Obert:
It ia hard to rbiim any specific improvement in fuel economy in an
engine that is detonating, since even a small amount' of detonation can
cause complete engine failure in n very short time, which results in
no power due. to a lack of an oiv^iuo. It must he remembered that if we
nre not concern in;1, our.-'-.'lvo:; wii.h omissions, engine efficiency is'
almost a direct func.uion of t!v nuonnt of NOx, since it is produced in
piojiort i on to the no.;!, t o; ,;u'rnl urt' .m-:l i)i:essurey in the combustion
chaa-.her. 1 nin not f.-iv:J'1 L.ir with :!r. dhr.rt's work, but I believe that he
was not working within the con^tr.-! ] ;;t s of nny emission levels.
-------
4 of 5
49
VI. The injection of water in liquid, for the amount that we are using
(i.e.: 3 to 10% of the gas by volume)'does not appreciably reduce the
.. quantity of air.. Anyway,., maximum power is' produced from most engines
when the fuel/air ratio is near stoichiometric, and most engines today
run just slightly leaner than the optimum for maximum power in order
to reduce the amount of EC.
Basically, we believe that the use of a. properly calibrated and
atomized water injection system frees the engine designer from the more
normal ways of reducing emission, i.e.: retarded spark timing, low and
inefficient compression ratios and the recycling of exhaust gases,
all of which severely restrict engine efficiency. One only need
look at the current state of the art production engines, large
struggling masses of iron producing tremendous amounts of waste heat,
producing approximately one-half the horsepower per cubic inch that our
en-gine is producing, their sheer mass necessitating ever larger
ancilliarics such as tires, radiators, brakes, etc., which, in turn
need ever larger engines. A? noted in the CBS transcript, we do not
claim that this should be the end of the research, only a good start for
what we have had to start with.
VII. Two things. One, we had some trouble with the choke turning itself back
in the urban cycle, since it was run at just above freezing on a very
damp night, a condition that we had never encountered in our day to
day driving. The conditions were such that the engine was producing so
little heat that the combination of the additional cooling of the water
droplets on the choke plate overcame the electric choke heating coil which
is only 5 watts. A simple adjustment to the intake preheat air box has
since cured the trouble, otherwise the suburban cycle should have shown
a gain somewhere between the 15% and Lhc 7.2% shoT.-n for the urban and
highway cycles respectively. As for the accuracy of the indicated gain,
it was the result of testings per SAE Fuel Economy Measurement Road Test
Procedure - SAE J1022a vhich is outlined in the IRC report. Note that the
test requires that tvro consecutive runs be made within 2% fuel economy
and tint. (Note: This rest was done by treasuring, the gas in the -;ay
vc liny it. IE in the J'J'PMiil for:?.. ;v>; hv coiin tvJ ::';\ cnrbon :rol.:cu "!<_•::• in
'liio ox!^u;:u. I „ r.cr.'-'CVi.1:.'! ly prefer ;.i.i.-. ".x-;.i:<';l > even Unnu^li the :". J. It.: :s;e
by the carbfV'i balance ;..ei_!iec -.Iscv.'C oi a ip.v:'i'ji-.v ;:\ ev;:::e gcin, fouiutnin^,
on the order of lj% - from 30.17 i:;pg to 34.05 iripg.)
For whatever it is worth, in day to day driving for 5,000 miles before
the engine was modified, the cumulative average was just over 33 mpg.
Since the modifications., the milea.RC under the same conditions with the
same general routes and drivers has averaged about A3 mpg. In the
Popular Science test, Ray Hill reports a Al mpg average, including
several acceleration runs and crossing the mountains in and out of the
Shandoah Valley twice with three people and luggage. (November, 1979
issue) Mother Earth News tester David Schoonmaker reported 51 mpg under
somewhat less brutal driving with only two passengers.
-------
50
5 of 5
VIII. We used any available source of methr.no! such as "Solox" shellac thinner
in a concentration sufficient to prevent freezing. In the event that
the system is accidentally allowed to freeze, no permanent damage is
done to the system. Generally, just allowing the car to sit for-a few
minutes with the engine running will thaw the system. Incidentally,
although the-addition"of alcohol "is' suppose to be beneficial by both
lowering the temperature and raising the octane rating, we have found
no proveable differences. The type of alcohol is not critical either;
the system has been run on Gin, and while the car may in fact be happier,
it in no way demonstrates this by performing better.
IX. The amount of water used by our system is dependent upon the temperature,
load and speed of the engine. No water is used under periods of decelera-
tion, idling, of during warm up. In general highway cruise, the rate
is about 5% of the gasoline use by volume and under periods of heavy
load or acceleration the rate automatically increases to about 10%. In
our average driving, the x^ater consumption is about 5% of the fuel
consumption. The exact amount, IE, whether it is 5 or 6% at a given
time does not seem to be as important as the quality of atomization
and cylinder to cylinder distribution.
Respectively submitted,
Toronta P. Goodman
Typed By:
c^
nice M. Smith
-------
I STB F" I EI5TR FUEIL. ECONOMY
a
v^
u
LJ
13
U.
2B
2E
2H
22
RUETL ECONOMY VS . M I LETREEI —rTP ORTR
n
l A
20000
30000
H0000
5T0000
-------
• Attachment K
52 Page 1 of 3
!®l
..... --------- -• THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
August 22, 1979
Mr. T. P. Goodman
Goodman Engine, Inc.
685 K. Loudoun Street
Winchester, Va. 22601
Dear Pat:
You had asked that I put in writing the reasons for •
ray enthusiasm for the modifications you made to improve
fuel mileage of the Ford Fiesta shown on "60 Minutes."
Please feel free to show this explanation to anyone who
may be interested.
I an enclosing some pages from a report en which I
was co-author in 1943, still in some libraries as NACA
Wartime; P.eport No. E-20, and a page which is part of the
supplementary notes I hand out in my course here at the
Ohio State University, Mechanical Engineering 630, Inter- '*•
nal Combustion Engines, and have been using since 1973.
I would describe your system as the addition of a
fully modulating water injection system which incorporates
an atomizing air purr.p, and otherwise no additional parts
except that some engines night be improved by substitute
parts to fully exploit the water injection. By this I
mean the parts substitutions incorporated in the Fiesta.
The great benefit, of water injection is its function
as ar. internal coolant., which has two .extremely important
o i :C c c ".; .'-• :
1 ) It... iMrV. !'•:!•: 3 iho f'oel C
2)
The. cooling effect of the water is shown in Figure
11 of the KA.CA Report. The mean effective' -gas temperature
is used in heat transfer calculations to predict engine
tsjffi'oers.turGS at altitude, etc. The drop in mec.n effective
temperature is primarily the result of lower temperature
at the end of combustion; the effect during the compres-
sion stroke is rather trivial. It is the cooling during
and after combustion which provides both the anti-knock
effect and the reduced Nitrogen Oxide emission.
The actual benefit in a specific engine-vehicle com-
bination will defend on a number of details: Compression
-------
2 of 3
53
Mr. T. P. Goodman August 22, 1979
ratio, cam profiles, carburetion, transmission, and the ,
torque converter (if any) match. Without any changes at
all except the addition of the water injection system, it
is doubtful that much mileage change would be noted, but
I -rousV-add here that-the, R-2-600-engine covered in the NACA •
Report improved about 2 per cent with fine water spray at
the intake ports, and lost as much as 7 per cent with the
water entering the supercharger inlet from a 3/3-inch tube.
Based on this experience, I consider the fine atoro-
ization of your system essential. There may be some bene-
fit to mileage if the mist is vaporized by a manifold hot-
spot, but that possibility is one I would like to test one
day. - . ....
One group or category of engines which can benefit
greatly from water injection is the older high-compression
high-performance type which has to be run with retarded
ignition timing on the fuels available today. Originally
designed and built for 100. RON premium gasoline, these
are running with retarded timing and resulting poor mileage.
With water injection, the timing could be restored to op-
timum with substantial improvement. In addition, the HOX
emissions would drop substantially.
Another category in which substantial improvement is.
possible is in engines having an acceleration-retard in
the vaexrarn advance circuit. The water injection system as
a substitute for the acceleration retard would be mere ef-
fective in reducing the IvCX emission (purpose of the accel-
retard; ana v/ould improve both niicage and acceleration.
Acceleration and -full-load fuel-air ratio on such engines
could be set leaner, reducing the carbon monoxide and un-
bi:rTied hydrocarbon emissions as well as further improving
the mile;age.
Your ovr> deinoriST-ralicn vehicle, the- rientc., is an other
raised 'ihe fuel octane requirement. The v/.ater injection
makes it possible .to run on regular gasoline, and the NOX
is decreased from its earlier level, •'
It is corinfti vp.bl e to me that we may be forced to con-
sider increasing the yield of gasoline from crude by going
to a lower octane product. Today's cars could run on, say,
70 octane with water injection.
In rny opinion, the fine modulation of the amount of
water injected is a rather important, feature of your system,
For best efficiency, it is desirable to keep combustion
temperature from becoming too low. If there is -too much
-------
54
Mr. T. P. Goodman August 22, 1979
quenching (due to cooling) combustion is slow and less
work is done on the piston, and in the extreme, misfires
may result, giving poorer mileage in either case, and a
large increase in hydrocarbon emission in the case' of the
misfire.- It -is a-fact that the-residual gas in.the cyl-.
inder as the exhaust valve closes provides a sort of auto-
matic exhaust 'gas recirculation. This residual gas is
inert, having been burned, and reduces the flame tempera-
ture. It is a large fraction of the burning charge at
part throttle, and so provides considerable cooling effect.
At full throttle, it is a much smaller fraction of the
charge, provides far less cooling, and as a result it is
at full throttle that most of the NOX emissions are gen-
erated. For.this reason, the water .injection rate should
be highest for 9.ny given engine rpnj at wide open throttle
and shoxild TAPER OFF to zero water flow at some part-throttle
value of manifold vacuum or other parameter. Yours is
the only system I am aware of which incorporates this
full modulation.
I believe it is important that everyone who may be
concerned realizes that any water injection system will
reduce the nitrogen oxide emissions. It is in other areas
that the differences- between various systems become impor^
tant. I regard the full modulation of the water flow rate'"
which you have incorporated, and the atomization you are
using, as important features. From my own experience in
engine testing with, water injection, I know thsse make a
difference Jn how an engine runs.
I trust that the foregoing is a satisfactory explana-
tion of what your system does to provide the results we
have seen. If it is not, I would be happy to expound. I
hasten to c,c,d that an engine is ther:nodyna.iTiically even
jnore complicated than it is mechanically, and such expo-
sition would tan:e tj.ne, ..Your system is naped on sound
f V-iidamcirt.::] p"-;>.ric:i.TO.e-~ . c.riu I will gladly do iry best to
clarify hov: ix vciLr; .for boi.h milej:{~e and lew emissions.
Sincerely.
,// s _^;
i rr.i-.-t-V 1.' fv", ,-rAl w.~
Associate Professor
------- |