EPA-AA-TEB-511-8 0-6
EPA Evaluation of the "W/A WAAG-Injection 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, Emission Control Technology Division, Office of Mobile
Source Air Pollution Control, Environmental Protection Agency, 2565
Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, (313) 668-4299 or FTS 374-8299
October 1980
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EPA Evaluation of "W/A WAAG-Injection System" 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:
Trade Names:
"Waag Power-Jector
"Power-Jector
Marketing names:
"W/A Waag-Injection System"
^'Water/Alcohol Waag-Injection System"
"Waag Water/Alcohol Fuel.Injection System"
Trade Mark:
"There is no trade mark, but this logo will be used on all literature
and packaging."
"There is only one model and the unit number on Instructions and
Warranty are purchase order numbers assigned by us."
2. Inventor of the device and patents:
a) Norman E. Waag, U. S. Patent No. 3987774
3110 Broadview Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44109
Approved October 26, 1976
b) "Exhibit "A" is a copy of the patent" (Attachment A of this
evaluation).
3. Manufacturer of the Device:
Engineered Fuel Systems, Inc.
Colony Plaza - Suite 1220
6451 North Federal Highway
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
4. Manufacturing Organization Principals:
Lome A. Cameron, Jr. , President
Alex C. Cameron, Secretary
-------
-2-
5. Marketing Organization in U. S. /Identity of Applicant:
Engineered Fuel Systems, Inc.
Colony Plaza - Suite 1220
6451 North Federal Highway
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
6. Identification of Applying Organization Principals:
Lome A. Cameron, Jr. , President
M. Aynslee Cameron, Vice President and Treasurer
Alex C. Cameron, Secretary
7. Description of Device (as supplied by Applicant):
a) "Purpose of the Device:
1. Increase engine efficiency
2. Increase life of the internal combustion engine
3. Prevent contamination of the engine caused by carbon
4. Prevent "Dieseling"
5. Increase the effective Horsepower
6. Increase octane number up to as much as ten numbers higher
7. Reduce "Blow-By"
8. Increase life of oil
9. Reduce emissions of CC>2 and NOx
10. Increase gas mileage"
b) Theory of Operation: (numbers contained in the following de-
scription refer to patent diagram-Attachment B)
"Exhibit "C" is a detailed drawing of this device," (Attachment
B of this evaluation).
"In operation, the apparatus of the invention begins to function
when the operator starts the engine and the supplementary fuel
such as water/alcohol is contained in reservoir 1. It may be
seen that the engine immediately creates a vacuum in its intake
manifold and an exhaust gas pressure varies with the torque
requirements of the engine."
"The apparatus of the invention has a fluid passage connection
to said manifold and it uses said vacuum and exhaust gas. It
provides a vacuum passage tube 19 and 20 conecting the intake
manifold 21 with the vacuum chamber 12 and an exhaust gas
passage tube 3 connecting the exhaust manifold 5 with the fuel
reservoir 1."
"The various functions performed by said apparatus under the
operator's control include the following:
Charging the Fuel Chamber
The supplementary fuel is brought to the fuel chamber 11 for use
and consists of charging the said fuel chamber 11 with supple-
-------
-3-
mentary fuel from said reservoir 1. This is accomplished as the
vacuum in the vacuum chamber 12 builds up sufficiently high to
overcome the pump spring 18 of the diaphragm pump and thus
causes the diaphragm to depress into the vacuum chamber 12.
This action of the diaphragm 13 creates a vacuum in the adjacent
fuel chamber 11 and which will be overcome as said vacuum draws
a charge of supplementary fuel into the said chamber from the
reservoir 1 through the fuel outlet 7 and fuel passage 15 and
thereon through the fuel inlet check valve 14. The exhaust
pressure in the reservoir 1 is available to aid the flow of said
fuel into said fuel chamber 11. During said operation the fuel
outlet check valve 16 remains closed."
"After the said fuel chamber 11 has been charged the said sup-
plementary fuel is discharged therefrom to the engine carburetor
as follows:
For High Torque Requirements
When the vacuum from the intake manifold 21 is reduced during
periods of high torque requirements with part or open throttle
valve conditions, pump spring 18 overcomes the reduced vacuum in
the vacuum chamber 12 urging said diaphragm 13 against the
supplementary fuel charge in the fuel chamber 11 closing inlet
check valve 14 and forcing said supplementary fuel through
outlet check valve 16 through tube passage 17 through shut-off
solenoid 30 through tube passage 35 to metering jet 37 and
nozzle 36 and finally into carburetor throat and thereon to
venturi 40.
For Low Torque Requirements
When the operator has increased the engine RPM the vacuum
decreases and the pump spring 18 thereby forces the diaphragm 13
to the end of its stroke, the exhaust manifold 5 builds up
sending exhaust gas pressure through exhaust gas passage tube 3
into reservoir 1, pressurizing supplementary fuel therein and
urging said supplementary fuel through reservoir outlet tube 7
through inlet fuel passage tube 15 forcing inlet check valve 14
open to permit pressurized supplementary fuel to enter fuel
chamber 11 and thereon through outlet check valve 16 and thereon
to said carburetor.
The operator may then set the throttle valve for steady RPM
operation and obtain substantially the same result aided by the
supply of supplementary fuel resulting from the dominant use of
the exhaust gas pressure.
For Variable Torque Requirements
When the operator has a variable engine RPM requirement with a
variable torque requirement with or without a variable throttle
valve setting requirment, the apparatus of the invention will
immediately supply the supplementary fuel to the engine car-
-------
T4-
buretor as the engine transmits a dominant vacuum and/or a
dominant exhaust gas condition to the diaphragm and metering
apparatus of the invention.
During deceleration or idling the invention becomes inactive
because the vacuum and exhaust gas conditions are minimal and it
is imperative that no supplemental fuel be injected at such
times.
Applicant's apparatus is therefore unique in the manner of
delivering supplementary fuel to the carburetor of an internal
combustion engine in its use of the above atmospheric pressure
received from the engine's exhaust manifold and the use of the
less than atmospheric pressure or partial vacuum pressure
received from the engine's intake manifold when each said
pressure is in dominance in the respective manifold.
Having thus described this invention in such full, clear,
concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the
art to which it pertains to make and use the same, and having
set forth the best mode contemplated of carrying out this
invention, I state that the subject matter which I regard as
being my invention is particularly pointed out and distinctly
claimed in what is claimed, for being understood that
equivalents or modifications of, or substitutions for, parts of
the above specifically described embodiment of the invention may
be made without departing from the scope of the invention as set
forth in which is claimed."
8. Applicability of the Device (claimed):
"The Water/Alcohol WAAG-Injection System is applicable to all
internal combustion engines with the exception of:
a) The Wankel Rotary Engine
b) All two-stroke engines that mix gasoline and oil
c) All diesel engines for the present time pending final
engineering tests.
d) All aircraft engines."
9. Device Installation, Tools and Expertise Required (claimed):
Installation of the W/A WAAG-Injection System can only be done
by authorized trained dealers of the device. Exhibit D, (At-
tachment C of this evaluation) was the initial installation
description provided by the Applicant. The Applicant, sub-
sequent to EPA evaluation commencement (July, 1980), submitted
the revised instructions provided as Attachment J of this
evaluation. In these revised instructions, mention is made of
sophisticated engine diagnostic equipment and distributor test
machines; however, no requirements for the dealer to obtain such
equipment are mandated.
10. Device Operation (claimed):
a) "Fill tank or reservoir regularly with 1/2 gallon of water
-------
-5-
and 1/2 gallon of alcohol plus one capful of inhibitor.
b) Please see Exhibit "D" (Attachment C)
11. Device Maintenance (claimed):
a) "Keep water and alcohol plus Inhibitor tank or reservoir
filled.
b) Clean out filter at (E) as shown on Installation Instruc-
tions, Part A - Page 4, using 9/16" wrench to loosen fitting.
c) If necessary blow out metering jet (K) as shown on Instal-
lation Instructions, Part A - Page 4 with air pressure.
d) No particular skills are required."
12. Effects on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated) (claimed):
"The Water/Alcohol WAAG-Injection System while operating, functioning
properly or malfunctioning will not cause a vehicle to emit into the
ambient air any substance other than pollutants regulated by EPA
(hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen, or normal
atmospheric conditions constituents, such as carbon dioxide, or water
vapor) in a quantity differing from that emitted in the operation of
the vehicle without the device."
13. Effects on Vehicle Safety (claimed):
"The Water/Alcohol WAAG-Injection System while operating, functioning
properly or malfunctioning will not result in any unsafe condition
endangering the motor vehicle, its occupants, other persons, or
property in close proximity to the vehicle."
14. Test Results - Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy (submitted by
Applicant:
a) Automotive Exhaust Emission and Fuel Economy Test Report
Olson Engineering, Inc.
Huntington Beach, CA (Attachment D)
Project 6193
Complete test 1973 Plymouth Duster
Car selected by California Air Resources Board
b) California Air Resources Board
Haagen-Smit Laboratory
Project 2V7908-1973 Plymouth Valient
Car owned by State of California
Emissions Tests Completed (Attachment E)
Fuel Economy Test incomplete:
The engine was not properly
cleaned and complete tests
may be rerun.
c) California Air Resources Board
Haagen-Smit Laboratory
Project 2V908-1974 Ambassador
Car owned by State of California
Emissions Tests completed (Attachment F)
-------
-6-
Fuel Economy test incomplete:
The engine was not properly
cleaned and complete tests
may be rerun.
"Note: We (the Applicant) have been advised by Ron Wagner,
C.A.R.B. Engineer in charge of these tests, that we have-
been recommended for an exemption under California State
Law to VC27156. Although we have not received official
documentation, we nave been told it only awaits the
Director's signature."
d) Society of Automotive Engineers
Paper 214 - R.I. Potter, June 11, 1948 (Attachment G)
e) Society of Automotive Engineers
Paper 215 - C.H. Van Hartesveldt, June il, 1948 (Attachment H)
f) Statements from individuals
relating actual experience with
the W/A WAAG-Injection System. (Attachment I)
15. Information Gathered by EPA:
A detailed report of the test data gathered by the EPA is reflected
in EPA report, EPA-AA-TEB-81-2, "Emissions and Fuel Economy Effects
of the W/A WAAG-Injection System" provided as Attachment K. A brief
description of this testing effort is provided below:
a) A 1979 Chevrolet Nova was tested according to the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test Procecure (HFET).
A total of seven FTP's and five HFET's were used for this
evaluation. Tests were conducted in three configurations, using
commercially available, unleaded fuel; 1) "Baseline" configuration -
vehicle tuned to vehicle manufacturer's specifications, 2)
"Parameters Adjusted" configuration - vehicle tuned to vehicle
manufacturer's specifications except for additional 8° spark advance
and with .003 in. smaller carburetor jets installed per agreement
with Engineered Fuel Systems personnel, and 3) "Device Installed"
configuration - vehicles tuned as in (2) and with device opera-
tional. Device manufacturer specified mileage accumulation (1000
miles and/or 4 gallons or water/alcohol consumed) was performed
according to the Automobile Manufacturer's Association (AMA) driving
schedule after "parameters adjusted" testing and prior to "device
installed" testing per device manufacturer's instructions i.e. after
"parameters adjusted" testing, engine design parameters were reset to
vehicle manufacturer's specifications and specified mileage was
accumulated with device operational. These exhaust emissions and
fuel economy test data are detailed in Attachment K. The vehicle was
also driven on-the-road to assess vehicle operational characteristics
with the device installed.
b) A 1977 Dodge Aspen was tested with those procedures and in those
configurations cited in 15.a) above. A noted exception in the
"parameters adjusted" and "device installed" configurations was that
-------
-7-
vehicle driveability limitations permitted the installation of
carburetor jets only .002 in. smaller than those supplied by tne
vehicle manufacturer as standard equipment. A total of seven FTP's
and seven HFET's were performed. These test data are detailed in
Attachment K. The results from this vehicle were not included in the
general conclusions because of a substantial shift in emissions
(apparently vehicle induced) between the -"parameters adjusted" and
"device installed" tests.
c) A 1978 Mercury Zephyr was tested with those procedures and in
those configurations cited in 15.a) above. A total of seven FTP's
and seven HFET's were used for his evaluation. These test data are
detailed in Attachment K.
d) A 1979 Ford Granada was tested in two supplemental programs. A
summary of the procedures used for each supplemental program follows:
1. First Supplemental Program (See Attachment K)
a. All vehicle pre-test adjustments were performed by
representatives of the Applicant.
b. The test procedures and configurations were the same as
those cited in 15.a) above. Two Hot Start LA-4 tests
(first 1372 seconds of the FTP starting with a
warmed-up stabilized vehicle) per FTP/HFET test
sequence were added.
c. The 1000 mile (and/or 4 gallons of mixture consumed)
"clean-out" procedure was deleted with the consent of
the Applicant to expedite testing.
d. The "device installed" configuration adjustments were
performed by representatives of the Applicant (as they
would perform them in the field) with EPA personnel
observing. Adjustments performed included: 1) NO
change in carburetor main jet size, 2) modification to
both the centrifugal and vacuum advance distributor
curves and 3) advancing the basic ignition timing from
nominal (8° BTDC) to 10° BTDC.
e. A total of six FTP's, six HFET's and ten Hot LA-4's
were conducted for consideration in this evaluation.
2. Second Supplemental Program (See Attachment K)
a. The Hot LA-4 test procedure was primarily used for this
phase of the evaluation. The test configurations were
the same as those cited in 15.a) above with the following
exceptions for distri-butor advance curve and ignition
timing.
1) Mean Distributor - set to vehicle manufacturer's
nominal specificatons
-------
-8-
a) Baseline - nominal ignition timing (8° BTDC)
b) Parameters Adjusted - nominal +4° initial
timing
c) Device Installed - nominal +4° initial timing
2) EPA-Modified Distributor - set to maximum
vehicle manufacturer's production tolerance limit
a) Parameters Adjusted - nominal +2° initial
timing
b) Device Installed - nominal +2° initial timing
3) WAAG-Modified Distributor - set by represen-
tatives of the Applicant for the First Supplemental
Program
a) Parameters Adjusted - nominal +2° initial
timing
b) Device Installed - nominal +2° initial timing
Sixteen Hot LA-4 tests were conducted for this portion of
this evaluation.
b. Water/Alcohol flow rates were measured during vehicle
operation according to the following driving cycles:
1) FTP
2) HFET
3) AMA
4) LA-4
5) Modified LA-4 (acceleration rates of 5.0 mph/sec
rather than standard 3.3 mph/sec)
These measurements were conducted at both 3500 Ib. IVi and
4000 Ib. IW dynamometer settings and with both a "yellow" and
a "blue" injection pump spring.
e) Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) paper #690018, "Inlet Manifold
Water Injection for Control of Nitrogen Oxides - Theory and Experiment."
f) Report #ADA 00332, Contract #DDA D05-72-C-0053, "Water Induction Studies
in a Military Spark Ignition Engine."
g) Taylor and Taylor; Copyright 1961; "The Internal Combustion Engine,";
Chapter 6, "Effects of Operating Variables on Detonation".
h) Edward Obert; Copyright 1973; "Internal Combustion Engines and Air
Pollution"; Chapter 9, "Knock and the Engine Variables".
i) Charles Fayette Taylor; Volume 1; Copyright 1966; "The Internal-Com-
bustion Engine in Theory and Practice"; Chapter 12, "The Performance of
Unsupercharged Engines"
j) Charles Fayette Taylor; Volume 2; Copyright 1968; "The Internal-Com-
bustion Engine in Theory and Practice"; Chapter 2, "Combustion in
Spark-Ignition Engines II: Detonation and Preignition".
k) Henein and Patterson; Copyright 1972; "Emissions from Combustion
Engines".
-------
-9-
1) State of California Air Resources Board (CARB), Executive Order D-91,
"WAAG Enterprises, W/A WAAG Injection System". (Attachment L)
m) Verbal discussions with Ron Wagonner, California Air Resources Board,
between 8-14-80 and 9-11-80, regarding CARB Executive Order D-91.
n) State of California Air Resources Board Staff Report; March 13, 1974;
"Evaluation of the Tetrahedron Associates, Inc., 'Powerjector1 Device for
Exemption from the Prohibitions of Section 27156 of the Motor Vehicle Code"
(Attachment M)
«
o) State of California Air Resources Board Staff Report; December 13, 1974;
"Evaluation of the Tetrahedron Associates, Inc., "Water-Motive Demand
Injector' Device for Exemption from the Prohibitions of Section 27156 of
the Motor Vehicle Code" (Attachment N)
16. Analysis:
a) Description of Device: The description of the device originally
provided by the Applicant was found to deviate from the actual device
submitted for testing. When informed of the discrepancy, Mr. Lome
Cameron, Jr. of Engineered Fuel Systems, Inc., indicated that the
description contained in the 511 Evaluation request was only applicable
to boats. He stated that all references to any connection of the W/A
WAAG-Injection System to the exhaust manifold should be deleted. Only
the device connection to the intake manifold is appropriate for auto-
mobile applications.
The device tested included provisions for a water/alcohol mixture
low-level warning light which was not included in the original device
description. This provision was not used during this evaluation and
does not in any way bear on the results.
b) Applicability of the Device: The applicability requirements stated
in the application appear to be correct, however, the installation
instructions do not specifically address fuel injected and variable
venturi fuel delivery systems. For these cases, conventional car-
buretor jets do . not exist and therefore, should be specifically
exempted from fuel delivery system modifications.
c) Device Installaion: The original installation instructions
submitted by the Applicant do not provide adequate guidance in the area
of carburetor jet replacement. The replacement of those components
requires specific knowledge relative to the construction of the
carburetor and is considered beyond the "minor knowledge of the engine"
level.
Subsequent to 511 Evaluation Application submittal, the Applicant
revised the device installation procedures. The revision requires
installation by an authorized device dealer who has received at least 4
hours of training in the installation procedure. Other major
differences in the two sets of installation instructions are provided
in Attachment K.
-------
-10-
Further, the WAAG Dealer Manual (Attachment J), which contains the
revised installation instructions and technical and marketing
information, includes the following passages as technical guidance to
the dealer:
Item #8 "Eliminate heat sensors in the line from the vacuum spark
advance to the carburetor. Also in cars with two hoses
from the distributor, eliminate the retard line (on some
Ford models)."
Item #12 Referring to the EGR valve, "Although we cannot tell you
to block it off, we suggest you use your own judgement as
that valve should be checked each time water and alcohol
is added. The EGR valve is not to be considered a
successful part of the emissions system."
If authorized dealers perform the Applicant suggested modifications, it
could be regarded as tampering and is subject to the legal liabilities
afforded under Section 203 of the Clean Air Act.
Additionally, neither the original nor the revised installation
instructions specifically prohibit the device from being connected to
the vacuum source for the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valve. When
advised of this fact, Mr. Lome Cameron indicated that the EGR vacuum
hose could not be used due to insufficient vacuum. He also indicated
that such a coupling could seriously impair the effectiveness of the
EGR valve operation. It is therefore, recommended that future instal-
lation instructions specifically prohibit such a coupling to the EGR
vacuum source.
During the period of the evaluation test program, it is estimated that
the average device installation time for a "trained mechanic" was from
2-3 hours. This estimate assumes that all replacement parts
(carburetor jets, gaskets, if required, etc) are immediately accessible
and does not include the time spent "troubleshooting" the vehicle to
assure that it is properly tuned to vehicle manufacturer's specifi-
cations.
d) Device Maintenance: The maintenance requirements specified in the
application appear to be correct. However, Item #6 of the WAAG Dealer
Manual (Attachment J), "Customer Service Instructions", pertains to engine
troubleshooting and assumes the ultimate purchaser has the knowledge of a
trained mechanic. Additionally, these instructions do not include
directions for the owner to inspection of all hoses for wear/deterioration
and leaks, both vacuum and water/alcohol mixture on a periodic basis.
Further, since the consumption rate of water/alcohol is vital to the
control of NOx emissions, the owner should be advised in the service
instructions to monitor this rate and notify his dealer if the consumption
rate does not comply with Applicant recommendations.
The Customer Service Instructions recommend that the vehicle not be
operated for more than 100 miles without the solution of
water-alcohol-inhibitor. However, no provisions are made for low-level
indicator testing.
-------
-11-
e) Effects on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated): Non-regulated emission
levels were not assessed as part of this evaluation. Since the device
injects a mixture of water and alcohol, the potential for increased
aldehyde formation as part of the combustion process may exist.
f) Safety of the Device: If for some reason the device malfunctions or
the operator allows the water/alcohol mixture to become depleted when
traveling in a remote area, the increased spark advance and carburetor
enleanment associated with the device could cause serious engine damage
from prolonged severe knock. Examples of potential damage are perforated
pistons and burned valves.
Although the likelihood of such an occurence is remote, the possibility
does exist and the ultimate purchaser of the W/A WAAG-Injection System
should be made aware of the potential dangers and warned to be alert to
excessive engine knock. It is recommended that the Applicant develop a
method of detecting water/alcohol mixture flow and provide a warning
device, other than listening for engine knock, to alert the operator to a
device malfunction.
g) Test Results supplied by the Applicant:
1) Vehicle exhaust emissions and fuel economy data obtained according
to EPA test procedures were collected at Olson Engineering, Inc. (OEI)
and were submitted by the Applicant. These data are deemed insuffi-
cient to substantiate the Applicant's claims because only one test
sequence (1 FTP and 1 HFET) per condition (1 test sequence in the
"baseline" configuration and 1 test sequnce in the "device installed"
configuration) were performed on one vehicle.
•
Based on information obtained from the OEI test report provided by the
Applicant and from the California Air Resources Board (GARB) regarding
the testing conducted by OEI, it was determined that maintenance was
performed on the carburetor of the Olson test vehicle between test
sequences and that the spark plugs had also been changed between the
test sequences. There was also a question of the appropriateness of
the inertia and road load horsepower settings used to properly
represent the test vehicle. Further, the method used to purge the test
vehicle engine of deposit build-up deviated from that specified in the
Applicant's 511 Evaluation Application (subsequent information provided
by the Applicant appears to encompass the procedure used by Olson
Engineering).
2) The data obtained at CARB indicated that the device did not produce
a statistically significant improvement in the fuel economy of the
vehicles tested. The engine "clean-out" procedures used at OEI were
also used by CARB. These data were deemed unacceptable for use in this
evaluation because the Applicant indicated in the 511 Evaluation
Application that the engines of the vehicles tested at CARB were not
properly cleaned. It is assumed by the EPA that this indication on the
part of the Applicant is a direct result of the "clean-out" methodology
used in previous testing and thereby invalidates both the OEI and CARB
data. It should be noted that the alternate method of engine deposit
-------
-12-
clean-out used by both OEI and CARB is no longer recommended by the
device manufacturer as a total clean out procedure. The 1000 miles of
operation with the system operational is recommended as a minimum
procedure even if preliminary clean out procedures are used.
The data collected at CARB was also deemed unacceptable because the
vehicles used were not considered to have representative emission
control hardware and replicate testing in each test configuration was
not performed. Without replicate testing, the variability associated
with the test facility can not be assessed and may mask the
effectiveness of the device.
3) The test fuel used by OEI and CARB, on at least one vehicle, has
high octane characteristics. The octane number of a fuel governs the
amount of spark advance tolerated by a given engine. Since the octane
number of the fuel is critical to the effectiveness of the W/A
WAAG-Injection System, due to the engine design parameter adjustments
made in conjunction with its use, a fuel with an octane number more
representative of commercial fuel should have been used in testing by
both OEI and CARB. Such a practice would have provided a better
assessment of the potential or effectiveness of the device while in use
by the ultimate purchaser.
4) Results of testing at Automotive Testing Laboratories in Ohio could
not be evaluated due to the Applicant's assertion that the test vehicle
had not been properly "baselined" by the contractor.
h) Information Gathered by EPA:
Both the dynamometer testing and subjective on-road evaluations
conducted by the EPA are discussed in detail in Attachment K. Since
this document presents an indepth analysis of the effort put forth by
EPA, a duplicate presentation is not provided.
17. Conclusions
In summary, throughout all three phases of the testwork reported on the W/A
WAAG-Injection System, significant increases were found in fuel economy;
however corresponding increases were found in regulated emissions, both as
measured from the vehicle manufacturer's specifications.
It should be noted that although the fuel economy increases observed were
statistically significant under controlled laboratory conditions, the
magnitudes of these increases were small. The magnitudes of the
corresponding and also statistically significant increases in regulated
emissions were larger and require further development to eliminate.
When the vehicles were evaluated on the road, no significant driveability
problems were found.
The observed changes in fuel economy and emissions for the vehicles tested
were primarily a result of the engine design parameter adjustments.
-------
-13-
Throughout the approximately one year period encompassed by the testing
reported herein, the Applicant expended considerable efforts and private
resources in the acquisition of test vehicles an in contracted testing with
a private laboratory, in an effort to provide EPA with technical infor-
mation concerning the effects of the W/A WAAG-Injection System on fuel
economy and emissions.
------- |