PB81-247942
EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-11
Evaluation of the Moleculetor Fuel Energizer Under Section 511
of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
by
Gary T. Jones
May, 1981
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
. REPORT NO.
F.PA-AA-TKR-511-81-11
2.
p. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
PBB1 ? A 7 9 A 2
C D
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Evaluation of the Moleculetor Fuel Energizer Under
Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act.
S. REPORT DATE
Mav 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Gary T. Jones
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Test and Evaluation Branch
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Technical
SAME AS BOX" 9
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This document announces the conclusions of the EPA evaluation
of the "Moleculetor Fuel Energizer" under provisions of Section
511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.
On March 24, 1980, the EPA received a
request from Energy Efficiencies, Inc. for evaluation of a fuel saving
device known as the "Fuel Energizer Moleculetor". This device is
designed to be installed in the fuel line between the fuel tank and fuel
pump. The Applicant claims that as the fuel passes through the device,
it becomes energized, burns more efficiently and therefore, provides
jLmproved fuel economy. ,
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
Fuel Consumption
Automobiles
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Fuel Economy
Gas Saving Device
c. COSATI Field/Group
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
118
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
ATTENTION
AS NOTED IN THE NTIS ANNOUNCEMENT,
PORTIONS OF THIS REPORT ARE NOT LEGIBLE
HOWEVER, IT IS THE BEST REPRODUCTION
AVAILABLE FROM THE COPY SENT TO NTIS.
-------
EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-11
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 610]
[FRL
FUEL ECONOMY RETROFIT.DEVICES
Announcement of Fuel Economy Retrofit Device Evaluation
for "Moleculetor Fuel Energizer"
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 "Moleculetor Fuel Energizer" under provisions of Section
511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.
-------
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section 511(b)(l) and Section 511(c) of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2011(b))
require that:
(b)(l) "Upon application of any manufacturer of a retrofit device (or
prototype thereof), upon the request of the Federal Trade Commission
pursuant to subsection (a), or upon his own motion, the EPA Administrator
shall evaluate, in accordance with rules prescribed under subsection (d),
any retrofit device to determine whether the retrofit device increases
fuel economy and to determine whether the representations (if any) made
with respect to such retrofit devices are accurate."
(c) "The EPA Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a
summary of the results of all tests conducted under this section,
together with the EPA Administrator's conclusions as to -
(1) the effect of any retrofit device on fuel economy;
(2) the effect of any such device on emissions of air
pollutants; and
(3) any other information which the Administrator determines to
be relevant in evaluating such device."
EPA published final regulations establishing procedures for
conducting fuel economy retrofit device evaluations on March 23, 1979
[44 FR 17946].
-------
ORIGIN OF REQUEST FOR EVALUATION; On March 24, 1980, the EPA received a
request from Energy Efficiencies, Inc. for evaluation of a fuel saving
device known as the "Fuel Energizer Moleculetor". This device is
designed to be installed in the fuel line between the fuel tank and fuel
pump. The Applicant claims that as the fuel passes through the device,
it becomes energized, burns more efficiently and therefore, provides
improved fuel economy.
Availability of Evaluation Report; An evaluation has been made and the
results are described completely in a report entitled: "EPA Evaluation
of the Fuel Energizer Moleculetor Device Under Section 511 of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act," report number EPA-AA-TEB-511-
81-11 consisting of 113 pages including all attachments.
EPA also tested the Fuel Energizer Moieculetor device. The EPA testing
is described completely in the report "The Effects of the Moleculetor
Fuel Energizer on Emissions and Fuel Economy", EPA-AA-TEB-81-18,
consisting of 21 pages. This report is contained in the preceding 511
Evaluation as an attachment.
Copies of these reports may be obtained from the National Technical
Information Center by using the above report numbers. Address requests
to:
-------
National Technical Information Center
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
Phone: (703) 487-4650 or (FTS) 737-4650
Summary of Evaluation
EPA fully considered all of the information submitted by the device
manufacturer in his Application. The evaluation of the "Moleculetor Fuel
Energizer" device was based on that information and the results of the
EPA test program.
The results of this test program did not show consistent effects
attributable to the Moleculetor on the fuel economy and emission levels
of the test vehicles. There were slight improvements in some cases and
slight losses in others. The changes in all cases were quite small and
were consistent with changes observed by EPA in other tests with vehicles
in which fuel economy measurements were made before and after mileage
accumulation. The claims of 10% to 23% fuel economy increases were not
substantiated by the findings of this EPA program.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Merrill W. Korth, Emission Control
Technology Division, Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105, (313) 668-4299.
Date Edward F. Tuerk
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
-------
EPA Evaluation of "Moleculetor Fuel Energizer" 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;
"Moleculetor Fuel Energizer" or "Fuel Energizer Moleculetor" are the
two identifiers which are used interchangeably in the application.
The Device is also referred to simply as the "Moleculetor". Various
models of this Device are manufactured for different types of
vehicles or other applications.
2. Inventor of the Device and Patents;
The inventor of the Device is specified as:
Leonard M. Pickford
83-13 Southwest Freeway
Suite 116
Houston, Texas 77074
While no patent number has yet been granted, an application for a
patent has been made. The following information applies:
Serial #114,758; Filing Date: 1/24/80.
Title: Energizing Process and Apparatus, Products Thereof and
Processors for Using the Products continuation in Part of Serial
#852,005, Filing Date: 11/16/79. Continuation of Serial #653,106,
Filing Date: 1/28/76
3. Manufacturer of the Device;
Dotcel Associates
83-13 Southwest Freeway Suite 116
Houston, Texas 77074
Leonard M. Pickford
4. Manufacturing Organization Principals:
Dotcel Associates
Leonard M. Pickford
5. Marketing Organization in U.S. Marketing Application;
Energy Efficiencies Inc. (currently known as E.E. Industries, Inc.)
P.O. Box 676
Rye, New York 10580
6. Identification of Applying Organization Principals;
Richard Hess - President
Robert Rich - Financial Administrator
Carol Hess - Vice President
-------
7. Description of the Device (as supplied by the Applicant);
"Theory of Operation: The Moleculetor serves as a container for an
induced energy field. It is attached to the fuel line between the
fuel tank and the fuel pump. As fuel passes through the Moleculetor,
it is activated. The result is that as the fuel molecules pass
through the carburetor, the vapor mist is more efficiently utilized.
The increased combustion efficiency results in major fuel savings and
reduces pollution.
Because the effect of the Moleculetor is to further refine the fuel,
regular gasoline may be substituted for premium and the average
savings are even more dramatic on diesel than on gasoline vehicles.
In addition to fuel savings, because the fuel is more efficiently
burned, the engine burns cooler and lower emissions are produced."
"Description of Construction and Operation; The Moleculetor is an
aluminum cylinder with a hollowed core to permit normal fuel
passage. Threading at both ends of the Moleculetor permits a fitting
to be attached and then connected to the fuel line of the vehicle.
It is manufacturered in four standard sizes. The size is dependent
upon the weight of the vehicle, engine displacement and whether it
uses gasoline or diesel fuel.
The Moleculetor works on any make, year or model car or truck. There
are no moving parts and there is no recharging. The Moleculetor can
be removed from one vehicle and used again."
8. Claimed Applicability of the Device;
Moleculetor Fuel Energizer #1 is for all motorcycles.
Moleculetor Fuel Energizer #3 may be used on all domestic or foreign
automobiles and light duty trucks up to 6,000 Ibs. GVW, regardless of
year or model with 4 cylinder, 6 cylinder or 8 cylinder engines using
regular, premium or no-lead gasoline.
Moleculetor Fuel Energizer #5 may be used on all motor homes, medium
trucks up to 12,000 Ibs. GVW, and all diesel cars or light duty
trucks with diesel engines.
Moleculetor Fuel Energizer #12 may be used on all heavy duty trucks,
both gasoline and diesel powered.
Moleculetor Fuel Energizer is effective on any combustion engine
using gasoline or diesel fuel.
9. Device Installation, Tools Required, Expertise Required (claimed);
"Gasoline Vehicles; The Moleculetor must be installed in the main
fuel supply line between the fuel tank and fuel pump (diagram is
supplied). On those vehicles with an Electric Fuel Pump sealed in
the gasoline tank, install Moleculetor in return line and not in main
-------
fuel supply line. Install fittings into the threading and tighten
securely. Use Teflon tape or any other approved sealant. Type of
fittings will depend upon size of fuel line (Installation kits will
be sold separately). Locate convenient place to install Moleculetor
(in most cases this will be near fuel tank or fuel pump). Avoid
being too close to muffler or catalytic converter. Cut section out
of fuel line the same length as Moleculetor fuel Energizer with
fittings and install using two short sections of fuel line (same type
and size as in vehicle now) and four clamps. Tighten clamps securely
and start car; examine closely for leaks. Support Moleculetor to
frame by using high resistant plastic straps."
"Diesel Engines: The Moleculetor must be installed in the fuel
supply line between the main tank and primary fuel filter (diagram
provided). Use proper fittings, depending upon size of fuel line.
Use Teflon tape or any other approved sealant on fittings installed
on the Moleculetor. Tighten all fittings and connections and start
engine; examine closely for leaks. The Moleculetor must be supported
properly with metal or high resistant plastic clamps.
The Moleculetor is easily installed by an auto mechanic or a home
auto mechanic. Once the proper location has been found, the device
is installed in 15 or 20 minutes."
10. Device Maintenance (claimed):
"There are no operating costs, no maintenance, no moving parts and no
recharging."
11. Effects on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated):
Applicant did not provide any information concerning the effect on
non-regulated emissions.
12. Effects on Vehicle Safety (claimed);
"None"
13. Test Results - Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy (supplied by
Applicant);
a) Automotive Exhaust Emission and Fuel Economy Test Report
Olson Engineering, Inc.
Huntington Beach, CA (Attachments A and B)
b) An article entitled "Miracle Mileage" by Chuck Nerpel and
Peter Frey in the July, 1980 issue of Motor Trend Magazine
(Attachment C).
c) An article entitled "The Moleculetor, Is This the First Genuine
Mileage 'Miracle'?" by Bill Estes in the September, 1980 issue of
Trailer Life Magazine (Attachment D).
-------
d) An article entitled "Moleculetor", by Bill Estes, in the
September, 1980 issue of Motorhome Life (Attachment E). The text
of this article is identical to that in "13C".
e) Statements by individuals relating actual experience with the
Moleculetor (Attachment F).
14. Information Gathered by EPA
A total of four vehicles were obtained and tested by EPA. They were
chosen to represent typical in~use passenger cars. Each was
inspected to ensure it was operating properly. In some cases, minor
adjustment was necessary to restore the test vehicle to
manufacturer's specifications.
A brief description of the testing is provided below:
a) A 1979 Chevrolet Chevette (VIN 1B68E9Y308318) was tested in the
following sequence:
1) Three baseline Federal Test Procedures and three baseline
Highway Fuel Economy Tests were performed.
2) A Moleculetor #3 was installed.
3) Mileage accumulation was performed (591 miles were accumulated).
4) Three Federal Test Procedures and two Highway Fuel Economy
Tests were performed on the Moleculetor-equipped test vehicle.
Test data is supplied in Attachment G.
b) A 1980 Chevrolet Citation (VIN 1X117AW122438) was tested in the
following sequence:
1) Two baseline Federal Test Procedures and two baseline Highway
Fuel Economy Tests were performed.
2) A Moleculetor #5 was installed.
3) Mileage accumulation was performed (632 miles were accumulated).
4) Two Federal Test Procedures and three Highway Fuel Economy
Tests were performed on the Moleculetor-equipped test vehicle.
Test data is supplied in Attachment G.
c) A 1980 Ford Fairmont (VIN OE91B104395) was tested in the following
sequence:
1) Two baseline Federal Test Procedures and two baseline Highway
Fuel Economy Tests were performed.
2) A Moleculetor #5 was installed.
-------
10
3) Mileage accumulation was performed (591 miles were accumulated).
4) Four Federal Test Procedures and four Highway Fuel Economy
Tests were performed on the Moleculetor-equipped test vehicle.
5) Five Federal Test Procedures and five Highway Fuel Economy
Tests were performed at increasing time intervals after removal
of the Moleculetor.
Test data is supplied in Attachment G. The results from this vehicle
were not included in the summary averages or the general conclusions
for the following reasons:
1) There were intermittent problems evident in the electrical system
during baseline testing which culminated in a complete system
failure during mileage accumulation on the Moleculetor equipped
test vehicle. The problem was traced to the voltage regulator
which allowed either full or no charge. This indicated that
non-typical engine loading was occurring during the baseline
testing. The vehicle was impossible to rebaseline because the
Moleculetor had been installed, which, according to the
manufacturer's claims, "energizes" the fuel system and takes 56
days to "de-energize" after removal of the Moleculetor.
2) The NOx values, which averaged .50 grams per mile during the
Federal Test Procedure baseline testing, were atypical and
approximately one third of the values generated by that particular
engine family during Certification testing. These values tripled
from the baseline testing to the first test with the Moleculetor
installed.
3) The average fuel economy results obtained during the baseline
testing were atypical. The value for the Federal Test Procedure
was 78% of the EPA Gas Mileage Guide value while the baseline fuel
economy for the Highway Fuel Economy Test was only 70% of the
corresponding Guide value.
d) Another Ford Fairmont (VIN OE91B104396), obtained as a substitute
for the Ford Fairmont described in I4c, was tested in the
following sequence:
1) Six baseline Federal Test Procedures and six baseline Highway
Fuel Economy Tests were performed.
2) A Moleculetor #5 was installed.
3) Mileage accumulation was performed (622 miles were accumulated).
4) Five Federal Test Procedures and five Highway Fuel Economy
Tests were performed on the Moleculetor equipped test vehicle.
Test data is supplied in Attachment G.
-------
11
15. Analysis
a) Description of Device; The description given in the application of
the physical dimensions of the device appear correct. However,
the theory of operation does not identify the induced "energy
field".
b) Applicability of the Device; The applicability requirements
stated in the application have changed in relation to which
Moleculetor model is to be used on six and eight cylinder
engines. The application states that a Moleculetor Fuel Energizer
#3 is to be used on the six cylinder vehicles. At the request of
the Applicant, the #5 unit was used on the Citation and Fairmont.
A statement was signed by the Moleculetor representative which
stated that all instructions and advertising will be amended to
provide that the #5 unit shall be used on six and eight cylinder
engines.
c) Device Installation; The installation is straightforward and does
not require any special tools. The instructions given in the
application are adequate enough to enable the average auto
mechanic to install the device in less than an hour. However, the
instructions did not state that the device should be installed as
close to the fuel tank as possible, as we were instructed to do by
the Moleculetor Representative.
d) Device Maintenance; The statement in the application that no
maintenance is required appears to be correct and reasonable.
e) Effects on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated); Non-regulated
emission levels were not assessed as part of this evaluation.
f) Safety of the Device; As long as the device is installed properly
and no gasoline leaks are evident, the statements on safety in the
application appear to be correct.
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. (OE1) and
submitted by the Applicant. Four vehicles were tested with and
without the device installed. Following is a vehicle by vehicle
analysis.
1978 Chevrolet Caprice
305 CID, 8 Cylinder
2 barrel carburetor
Automatic Transmission
Odometer: 888 miles
Only one baseline test sequence was performed on this vehicle.
The baseline FTP fuel economy was 2 mpg (15%) below the
corresponding Gas Mileage Guide number, and the HFET number was
3 mpg (16%) below the Guide value. After the baseline test
sequence, the device was installed and it appeared that
-------
12
approximately 60 miles were accumulated. Only one test
sequence was then performed which showed a 6% increase in fuel
economy on the FTP and an 11% increase on the HFET. Another
test sequence was run after an additional 1000 miles were
accumulated. Because of the low odometer reading, this
additional mileage may have had an influence on the engine
functions because of the breaking-in effect of the "green"
engine. However, this test sequence produced approximately the
same numbers as the preceding test. Because of the low
odometer reading of the vehicle and the fact that duplicate
baseline tests were not conducted, these data are deemed
insufficient.
1974 Fiat X 1/9
1300 cc, 4 cylinder
2 barrel carburetor
Manual Transmission
Odometer: 65,933
This vehicle received one baseline test sequence and one test
sequence after installation of the device. 54 miles were
accumulated after installation of the device. The FTP fuel
economy showed a 7% increase while the HFET showed a 2%
increase. The HFET increase is within OEI's claimed tolerance
of +2% (Attachment A). Again, because of the lack of duplicate
tests, these data are deemed insufficient.
1979 Chevrolet Malibu
231 CID, 6 Cylinder
2 Barrel Carburetor
Automatic Transmission
Odometer: 1,508 miles
This vehicle received one baseline test sequence and one device
test sequence. 159 miles were accumulated after installation
of the device. The FTP fuel economy showed a 5% increase and
the HFET showed a 1% increase. The HFET increase is within
OEI's +2% tolerances. Again, because of the lack of duplicate
tests, these data are deemed insufficient.
1978 Ford Thunderbird
400 CID, 8 Cylinder
2 Barrel Carburetor
Automatic Transmission
Odometer: 16,782
This vehicle received one baseline test sequence and one device
test sequence. 159 miles were accumulated after installation
of the device. The FTP fuel economy showed a 5% increase and
the HFET showed a 1% increase. All gas mileages generated were
below the corresponding values found in the Gas Mileage Guide.
These data are deemed insufficient because of the lack of
duplicate tests.
Summary comments on the Olson Engineering reports supplied by the
Applicant:
-------
13
a) No duplicate tests were performed at any single test point.
For this reason alone, the data supplied is insufficient to
determine a statistically significant increase in fuel economy.
b) Of the four test vehicles, only one (the Ford Thunderbird) had
an odometer reading in a reasonable mileage interval for a test
vehicle. The other vehicles were at extreme ends of the
spectrum, one being beyond its "useful life" and the other two
in the "green engine" category.
c) Except for the first HFET test on the Chevrolet Caprice, none
of the increases were within the 10% to 23% claimed by the
Applicant.
2) The tests run by "Motor Trend Magazine" cannot be realistically
considered as test data since they were all "on the road"
evaluations which involve many uncontrollable variables.
3) The tests run on the "Trailer Life Magazine" were similar to those
run by "Motor Trend Magazine" and the same analysis applies.
4) The article in "Motorhome Life Magazine" is identical to the
article in "Trailer Life Magazine" (the former is published by the
latter).
h) The Information Gathered by EPA: Testing by EPA is discussed in
detail in Attachment G.
16) Conclusions
The results of this test program did not show consistent effects
attributable to the Moleculetor on the fuel economy and emission
levels of the test vehicles. There were slight improvements in some
cases and slight losses in others. The changes in all cases were
quite small and were consistent with changes observed by EPA in other
tests with vehicles in which fuel economy measurements were made
before and after mileage accumulation. The claims of 10% to 23% fuel
economy increases were not substantiated by the findings of this EPA
program.
-------
14
List of Attachments
Attachment A Olson Engineering Report (June 1, 1978).
Attachment B Olson Engineering Report (August 7, 1979).
Attachment C Motor Trend Article.
Attachment D Trailer Life Article.
Attachment E Motorhome Life Article
Attachment F Statements by Individuals.
Attachment G TEB Report: "The Effects of The Moleculetor
Fuel Energizer on Emissions and Fuel Economy".
-------
15
Attachment A
Olson Engineering, Inc.
Report Dated June 1, 1978
-------
16
AUTOMOTIVE EXHAUST EMISSION
AJTD FUEL ECONOMY TEST REPORT
PREPARED FOR*
I.E.M. CORPORATION
June 1, 1978
By
Olson
Engineering Inc.
WNeto Teปl Facility
16912 CnmrrHKC* Lanซ
Murtlnfllon BnMh. California N649 (714) 094*9870
-------
17
IKTRODUCTIOK
This report summarizes a vehicle testing program conducted
at Olson Engineering, Inc. in Huntington Beach, California.
The program was designed to measure and compare exhaust
emissions and fuel economy with and without the molsouletor
fuel energy device.
.-
TEST VEHICLE
One test vehicle was selected and supplied by the olisnt
for these comparisons*
Test Vehicle: 1978 Chevrolet Caprice
305 OID V-8
with 2 BBL carburetion
and automatic transmineion
The test vehicle was adjusted to MAN.Specifications for
idle speed and ignition timing prior to the baseline and
device measurements. The odometer mileage prior to the
baseline test was 0888 miles.
VEHICLE PREPARATION
After baseline measurements the te&t vehicle was equipped
with the moleculetor fuel energy device by the clients
representative and the tune-up parameters were re-established
or verified by OEI personnel.
TEST FTJEI
The test fuel was an indolene clear (unleaded) fuel which
conforms to the Federal specifications for exhaust and
evaporative emissions testing.
-------
18
VI'"
W.
TEST CONDITIONS AJTD PROCEDURES
Currently regulated gaseous emission are unburned hydrocarbons
(HO)i cartoon monoxide (00) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX).
Unburned HC and ROX react In the atmosphere to form photo-
chemical smog. Smog, which is highly oxidizing in nature,
causes eye and throat irritation, odor, plant damage and
decreased visibility. Certain oxides of nitrogen are also
toxlo in their effect on man.
%
CO impairs the ability of the blood to carry oxygen* Excessive
exposure to 00 during periods of high concentrations (ouch as
rush-hour traffic) can decrease the supply of oxygen to the
brain, resulting in slower reaction times and impaired
judgement.
Partioulate and other missions include such things as sulfate
emissions, aldehyde emissions, and smoke emissions from
dieeel-powered vehicles. These emissions are generally not
measured as part of a routine device evaluation. They may
be measured If the control system or engine being tested
could potentially contribute to partioulate or other emissions:
The test procedure used by Olson Engineering, Inc. to measure
exhaust emlsDions from passenger cars, light trucks, and
motorcycles is the 1975 Federal Test Procedure (FTP). This
procedure may also be referred to as the Federal Driving
Schedule, CVS C/H Teot, or the Cold Start CVS Test.
-------
19
k-s.v>
TEST CONDITIONS AMD PROCEDURES (Continued)
On the day before the scheduled 1975 FTP, the vehicle oust be
parked for at least 12 hours in a area where the temperature
is maintained between 60ฐP and 86ฐP. this period is referred to
as the "cold" soak.
.**
The 1975 FTP is a oold start test, so the test vehicle is
pushed onto the dynamometer without starting the engine*
After placement of the vehicle on the dynamometer, the
emission collection system is attached to the tailpipe,
and a cooling fan is placed in front of the vehicle. The
emission test is run with 'the engine compartment hood open.
' t%
The emission sampling system and test vehicle ar* started
simultaneously, so that emissions are collected during engine
cranking. After starting the engine, the driver follows a
controlled driving schedule known as the Urban Dynamometer
Driving Schedule (RDDS) or LA-4, which is patterned to represent
average urban driving. The driving schedule is displayed to
the driver of the test vehicle, who matches the vehicle speed
to that displayed on the schedule. The LA-4 driving cycle
is 1372 seconds long and covers a distance of 7.5 miles.
At the end of the driving cycle, the engine is stopped, the
cooling fan and sample collection system shut off and the
hood closed. The vehicle remains on the dynamometer and soaks
for 10 minutes.. This is the "hot" soak preceding the hot
start portion of the test. At the end of ten minutes, the
vehicle and CVS are again restarted and the vehicle is driven
through the first 505 seconds (3.59 miles) of the LA-4 cycle.
-------
20
TEST CONDITIONS AHP PROCEDURES (Continued)
She 1975 FTP 10 the procedure used in the certification tests
of new care beginning with the 1973 nodel year. It ie also
the procedure SPA hae been using since 1971 to evaluate
prototype engines and emission control systems. The 1975 FTP
provides the most representative characterisation available
of exhaust emissions and urban fuel economy.
The teat is run in a controlled ambient cell where temperature
and other conditions can be maintained within specified limits.
During the 1975 FTP, the vehicle is driven on a chassis
dynamometer over A stop-and-go driving schedule having as
average speed of 21.6 m.p.h. Through the use of flywheels
and a water brake, the loads that the vehicle would actually
see on the road are reproduced. The vehicle's exhaust is
collected, diluted and thoroughly mixed with filtered background
air, to a known o cm atant volume flow, using a positive displace-
ment pump. This procedure is known as Constant Volume Sampling
(OVS). The 1975 FTP captures the emissions generated during a
"cold" start and includes a "Hot" start after a ten minute
shut-down following the first 7.5 miles of driving.
.
A chassis dynamometer reproduces vehicle inertia with flywheels
and road load with a water brake. Inertia is available in
250 lb. Increments between 1750 ibs. and 3000 Ibs. and In
500 lb. increments between 3000 Ibs. and 5500 Ibs. For each
inertia weight olass, a road load is specified which takes
Into account, rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag for an
average vehicle in each class.
-------
21
TEST CONDITIONS AND PROOBDCTgg (Continued)
Exhaust emissions measured during the 1975 FTP cover 3 regimes
of engine operation. The exhaust emissions during the first
505 seconds of the test are the "cold transient" emissions.
During this time period, the rehiolt gradually warms up as it
IB driven over the LA-4 cycle. The emissions during this
period will show the effects of ohoke operation and vehicle
warm-up characteristics. When the vehicle inters into the
remaining 867 seconds of the LA-4 cycle, it is considered to
be fully warmed up* The emissions during this portion of the
test are the "stabilised" emissions. The final period of the
test, following the hot soak, is the "hot transient** section,
and shows the effect of the hot start. The emissions from
taoh of the three portions of the teet are collected in
separate bags. Laboratory accuracy is normally maintained
within + 2% tolerance.
*
Fuel economy is measured on a chassis dynamometer reproducing
typical urban and highway driving speeds and loads. The fuel
economy of the test vehicle is calculated from the exhaust
emission date using ths carbon balance method. Urban fuel economy
is measured during the 1975 Federal Test Procedure, and
highway fuel economy is measured over the EPA Highway Fuซl
Economy Test. The average speed during the 1975 Federal Test
Procedure is 21.6 miles per hour. The average speed of the
Highway Fuel Economy Test is 48.2 miles per hour.
-------
22
tEST CONDITIONS AND FROCgPURBS (Continued)
A complete description of the procedures (Vol. 37 No. 221,
Part II, Hov. IS, 1972) that are followed during a 1975 FTP
can bo found in the Federal Register. Evaluation toots usually
do not include measurement of evaporative emissions.
TEST RESULTS
* i
Test results of this program are sumnariBed in Table I.
-------
23
TABLE I
COMPOSITE SUMhAflY OP RESULTS
Ttet Date
5/24/78
5/25/78
5/31/78
5/24/78
5/25/78
5/31/78
Tent Kumber
7828
7843
7868
7829
* >
7844
7869
Description
Baseline
with I.E.M.
Device
with I.l.N.
Device after
1000 miles
accumulation
Highway fuel
economy teet
Baaeliae
Highway fuel
economy teat
with I.E.M.
Device
Highway fuel
economy test
with I.E.M.
Device after
1000 miles
accumulation
EC ฃ0
0.22 4.02 1.14 11.02
0.26 3.41 1.08 11.63
0.24 2.75 1.03 11.69
16.08
17.82
17.58
OFFICIAL COPY
-------
CM VIS
15
^
ON
RANGF VALUE CVVTS
' 471 474P
2343 4577 1.002
Af7P 4775 1.007
2257
FFK
^0^m
ssis' :;..
f ::--. .- - -.; *.- -v-t'-*'-^ - \'
'ft- ':>!".. .-^ .---x ^.i"*- - i <-*:-- v Mv
. AV -ฃ<ซ--". .,i.'-'iu -.i3ซ Vฃ-~-':- j-. >ป -I
---os*^ ^:-- :"*k^^K*.-->^./--
:r r:;^ซMh r^fe^v^^jS.i*^-**61"^^'7'/' '
-^.sbAaxilfe.- '..--viiw^T^S.-'feic:; Js^iW.**^^^^-/>.,
^B0---v-'.-'-:^:^B ^^**^ซ
vIB?--'""^- ?^--^1';":"*":'''''0
. ^
^^^pEsts.'^^
-5
-5
0
5 ''-V: " ,:.:S:&ซ-;; .:!
-'.^:^'&.;lp-:'v&2ง@g$ฃ*lK -^fc^C
.... J ......^.^
:^'"!*"^1
5
*ป-B -.;& ,ซit V^ - S5fe>. ::;2
"**--'"ซ'>- * Jป A!r^!s*"> > ^
' ..;..-ir;?~-'; ;-v J^.~^-^
..* ':. .ปj^ปV4-.;X.-'^;^ซฃซr--"li^ปtvv "ป- vi.--&ซซar.-ia
-vl---E'KVT.v.,..^^.S^jf^.;^^^^s
rfiVwr.'^^^-^^^-^'- 'i^iซ^&i .
ITfilNG, -W^^; -^^^j
ftIEi>f5/S4/7S
l^iitf7*
^?ffcN6INE f
.:^'j;CLASS 73
OLSON EN6 NEEDING*
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARC
HUNTINGTON' BEACH*. Vซ^5J|Sฎu^--!rf^:*
, : -;: -.-.. -.- -^^-^P^^^^UI^
-..IIMEt 'ป7t'5(51^4^^^
A^^>ซr^'*' -^ -' -'^^^-f^fe.^
ftVf^i:
f*^-;-V.^f-
v^i-1 %*-r^r
^^ฃ-^.?L^::;
Si??A#tL
;***
j.-'}-/'.-.'-^*:^ei
f -^.-^?
f>-if.- _>'!?
^W*?-^
eSi^^'i^S^
-5y!
cvs.il . ..
^-%^^ป^1
fV 11297 84.f 919.0 4 US*
3*8 0*0 0*6
&''ซ*
>ซ...^, *'
sAlP-
i:M
v-s.^,
^
:T^
xft.r
"tt357
11.02
**ซy
:.4 >-,5-,
23.8
0.3
39.3
H**1
'ซ*>?*
^
r*i3^J
-ฃ^.$1^
slfel
p?;S3
T"^ ^1""-1''
^^*jpt?"-
,*sป'x' is.^.r*'-.-.".
-------
25
nasTR
002
CO
HC
NOX
SPAN
INSTR
COS
CO
HC
NOX
ZERO
INSTR
CO 8
CO
HC
NOX
RANGE
2
2
I
1
VALUE
0
0
0
0
CMVTS
e
0
-5
0
MVTS
12
0
7
-13
CALIBRATION
RANGE
2
2
1
1
VALUE
472
2846
4674
2260
CMVTS
4742
4575
4772
4547
GAIN
0.998
1.003
1.007
1.001
CALIBRATION
RANGE
2
2
1
1
VALUE
0
0
2
0
CMVTS
0
0
2
0
MVTS
-13
0
5
-10
ERR
EBR
ERR
OLSON END NEERING, INC.
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CENTER
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92649
UNIT ซ I
DATEl 05/25/78 TIMES 14S21S48
TEST t 7843
CHASSIS f IN69U8C12015
ENGINE t /
CLASS 78
DISP 350
WEIGHT 4000
TRAN 0
AXEL /
CARB 1X4
ODOM 00974
TEMP 75
BAR ฃ9.88
HUMID 40
COLD START CVS II/VITH DEVICE/I.E.M. DEVICE
HC :...,
BAG*
AMB1
EXH1
AMB2
EXH2
AMB3
EXH3
REV
11854
19305
11247
HC
4.6
96.4
7.0
9.5
4.4
20.0
CO
0.0
817.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
NO
0.1
39.6
0.0
21.4
0.3
37.7
C02
0.04
2.43
0.04
1.63
0.05
2.15
CO
0.44 7*92
0.03 0.00
VTD GRAMS/MILE
FUEL CONSUMPTION
0.08
0.26
01
3.41
NO CO*
0.57 364.96
0.53 416.46
0.54 320.69
1.08 756.19
11.63 MPG
-------
26
**ABORT
DATE: 05/24/78
SYSTEM START-UP
DATE: 05/24/78
ENTER FUNCTION
?BA
ZERO CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE
C02 2
CO 2
HC 1
NOX 1
SPAN CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE
C02 2 472
CO 2 28 50
HC 1 4672
NOX 1 2261
ZERO CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE
C02 2
CO 2
HC 1
NOX 1
TIME: 03129:15
TIME: 08:29:35
IE CMVTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
-5
0
MVTS ERR
-13
5
5 .
5
CMVTS GAIN ERR
4745 0.999
4580 0.970
4775 1.011
4550 0.989
IE CMVTS
0
0
0
0
-3
-3
-5
0
MVTS B R
7
5
7
-13
OLSON ENGINEERING* INC.
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CENTER
HUNTINGTON BEACH* CA. 92649
UNIT * 1
DATE! 05/24/78 TIME: 08!32:32
TEST * 7829
CHASSIS * IN69U8C12P15
ENGINE * /
CLASS 78
DISP 305
WEIGHT 4000
THAN 0
AXEL /
CAR* 8B
ODOM 00900
TEMP 82
BAR 29.86
HUMID 30
HOT START HFFT/AT BASELINE
BAG* REV HC
AMB1 6.3
EXH1 17044 9.5
VTD GRAMS/MILE
FUEL CONSUMPTION
CO
0.0
8.0
NO
0.1
82.2
C02
0.05
3.28
HC
0*03
0.03
CO
0.09
0.09
NO
l.3f
1.30
coe
551.23
551.23
16.03 MPG
-------
27
**!IOHZVZUCSPSTART-UP
DATEl 05/25/78 TIMEt
ENTER FUNCTION
? BA
ZERO CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE CMVTS
COS 200
co 202
HC 122
NOX 1 0 0
SPAN CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE CMVTS
C02 2 473 4747
CO 2 2848 4577
HC I 4671 4770
NOX 1 2257 4542
ZERO CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE CMVTS
C02 200
CO 200
HC 10-3
NOX 1 1 2
14t49t55
MVTS ERR
-5
2
2
-23
GAIN ERR
0.996
0.998
0.964
1.010
MVTS ERR
10
2
0
.23
*
i -,
i .
OLSON FNQ NEERING* INC.
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CENTER
HUNTINGTON BEACH/ CA. 92649
UNIT * 1
DATE! 05/25/78 TIMEl 14152! 56
TEST f 7844
CHASSIS * IN69U8C12015
ENGINE * /
CLASS 78
DISP 350
HEIGHT 4000
IRAN 0
AXEL /
CARB 1X4
ODOM 00935
TEMP 83
BAR 29.87
HUMID 29
HFET/ W/I.E.M. DEVICE
BAG* REV HC
AMB1 8.5
;JDCH1 17114 11.0
VTD GRAMS/MILE
FUEL CONSUMPTION.
CO NO C02
0.0 0.8 0.05
0.0 74.3 2.97
'.flfi MPG
HC
0.02
0.02
CO
0.00
0.00
NO C02
1.16 497.45
1.16 497.45
-------
28
ZFRO
INSTR
CO 2
CO
HC
NOX
SPAN
INSTR
C02
CO
HC
NOX
ZFRO
INSTR
COS
CO
HC
NOX
CALIBRATION
hANGE
2
2
I
1
VALUE
0
0
e
0
CMVTS
-5
-3
0
0
MVTS
10
5
2
-13
EPh
CALIfcPATION
RANGF
2
2
1
1
VALUE
472
2350
4667
2262
CMVTS
4745
4530
4772
4552
GAIN
1 .000
1.000
1 .000
0.935
ERR
CALIBRATION
RANGE
2
2
1
1
VALUE
0
0
0
0
CMVTS
-3
0
0
0
MVTS
-3
2
-3
-10
ERR
OLSON ENGINEERING* INC.
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CENTER
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92649
UNIT * 1
PATE: 05/31/73 TIME: 03:43:36
TEST * 7363
CHASSIS * IN69U3C12015
ENGINE * /
CLASS 73
DISP 305
WEIGHT 4000
TRAN 0
AXEL /
CARE 1X2
ODOM 02028
TEMP 72
BAR 29.35
HUMID 42
COLD START CVS II/V/APRX 1000 MI/ACM-AFTFR I.F.M.
BAG* REV
AMB1
EXH1 11242
AMB2
EXH2 19289
AME3
EXH3 11240
HC
5.3
83.7
7.3
10.5
5.6
15.3
CO
0.0
652.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
NO
0.0
36. 1
0.2
21 .4
0.3
35.9
C02
0.05
2.34
0.05
1.63
0.05
2. 14
WTE GPAMS/MILF
HC
0.41
0.03
0.05
0.24
CO
6.37
0.00
0.02
2.75
NO C02
0*52353.00
0.52 417.86
0.51 322.03
1.03 753.23
FUEL CONSUMPTION
1 1.69 MPG
-------
29
**AtOhT
EA1F: 05/31/7?
09: 19: 35
SYSTFtt STAFT-UF
EATF: 05/31/7? TIME: 09:19:51
FNTFR FUNCTION
? bP
ZERO
INSTh
COP.
CO
HC
NOX
SFPN
INSTh
co?
CO
HC
NOX
CPLItFPTION
RANbF
2
2
I
1
V/PLl'F
C?
0
0
e>
CM VIS
-3
-5
0
0
MVTS
0
7
0
-5
FRh
CPLIkh.Pl I ON
RANbF
2
e
i
i
VALUE
47?
23 4f-
Af 65
PPfP
CMVTS
4742
4575
477B
4547
GPIN
0.997
1.0P2
1 .P104
0.973
ERR
ZFRO CPLIfcFPTION
INSlh RPNbE VPLUF CMVTS MVTS
C02 200-3
CO 2005
HC 1002
NOX 1 0 0-10
FhP
TIMF: 09:?2:53
OLSON ENGINFFRINb* INC.
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CFNTER
HUNTINbTON bFACH, CA. 92649
UNIT # 1
LATF: 05/31/73
TEST * 7369
CHASSIS * INf9U3Cl?015
ENGINE # /
CLASS 73
El SI- 305
V,EIGHT 4000
TRAN 0
AXEL /
CARV IX ฃ
oro-i 02039
TFMF T(
bAF 29.35
HUMIL 41
HOT STAF1 HFFT/SA-'F COMMFNTS AS TFST NO. 736?
bAl-.# LEV HC1 CO NO CO? MC
A"M 5.1
FXH1 17T19 1P.F
FIFL PC'^fn ITC" l
OMMI
CO
f'.F
0.0
:NTS AS
NO
0. 1
70.7
TFST NO
CO?
0.05
3.01
,03
CC
0.00
0 . 0 0
NC CO?
1.14504.37
-------
30
Attachment B
Olson Engineering, Inc.
Report dated August 7, 1979
-------
31
AUTOMOTIVE EXHAUST EMISSION
AND FUEL ECONOMY TEST REPORT
Prepared for
I.E.M. CORPORATION
5030 Paradise Road
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
August 7, 1979
By
Engineering Inc.
Automotive Hneorcti Center
15442 Chemkol lone
Huntlngton Beoch. ColHomta 99649 (714) ซ9ป -4W1
-------
32
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes a vehicle testing program conducted
at Olson Engineering, Inc. in Huntington Beach, California.
The program was designed to measure and compare exhaust
emissions and fuel economy with and without the moleculator
fuel energy device.
TEST VEHICLES
Three test vehicles were selected and supplied by OEI for
these comparisons.
Test Vehicle No. 1
Test Vehicle No. 2
Test Vehicle No. 3:
1974 Fiat X-19
1300 cc 4 cylinder
2 barrel carburetion
Manual transmission
Odometer: 65,933 miles
Basic timing: TDC
Idle RPM: 850
Idle CO: 1.257.
1979 Chevrolet Malibu
231 CID V-6
2 barrel carburetion
Automatic transmission
Odometer: 1,508 miles
Basic timing: 15ฐ BTC
Idle RPM: 600 (D)
1978 Ford Thunderbird
400 CID V-8
2 barrel carburetion
Automatic transmission
Basic timing: 12ฐ BTC
Idle RPM: 600 (D)
-------
33
TEST VEHICLES (Continued)
The test vehicles were adjusted to manufacturer's specifications
prior to baseline measurements and reconfirmed prior to device
measurements.
VEHICLE PREPARATION
After baseline measurements the test vehicles were equipped
with the moleculator fuel energy device by OEI Technicians
and the tuneup parameters were reestablished or verified by
OEI Personnel. (Installation instructions attached.)
TEST FUEL
The test fuel was an indolene clear (unleaded) fuel which
conforms to the Federal specifications for exhaust and
evaporative emissions testing. The test vehicle's fuel tanks
were filled prior to baseline measurements, and the same fuel
was used for all tests and mileage accumulation.
TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES
Currently regulated gaseous emissions are unburned hydrocarbons
(HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
Unburned HC and HOx react in the atmosphere to form photochemical
smog. Smog, which is highly oxidizing in nature, causes eye and
throat irritation, odor, plant damage and decreased visibility.
-------
34
TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES (Continued)
Certain oxides of nitrogen are also toxic in their effect on
man.
CO impairs the Ability of the blood to carry oxygen. Excessive
exposure to CO during periods of high concentrations (such as
rush-hour traffic) can decrease the supply of oxygen to the
brain, resulting in slower reaction times and impaired judgment
Particulate and other emissions include such things as sulfate
emissions, aldehyde emissions, and smoke emissions from
diesel-powered vehicles. These emissions are generally not
measured as part of a routine device evaluation. They may be
measured if the control system or engine being tested could
potentially contribute to particulate or other emissions.
The test procedure used by Olson Engineering, Inc. to measure
exhaust emissions from passenger cars, light trucks and
motorcycles is the 1975 Federal Test Procedure (FTP). This
procedure may also be referred to as the Federal Driving
Schedule, CVS C/H Test, or the Cold Start CVS Test.
The 1975 FTP is the procedure used in the certification tests
of new cars beginning with the 1975 model year. It is also the
-------
35
TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES (Continued)
procedure EPA has been using since 1971 to evaluate prototype
engines and emission control systems. The 1975 FTP provides
the most representative characterization available of exhaust
emissions and urban fuel economy.
The test is run in a controlled ambient cell where temperature
and other conditions can be maintained within specified limits.
During the 1975 FTP the vehicle is driven on a chassis
dynamometer over a stop-and-go driving schedule having an
average speed of 21.6 mph. Through the use of flywheels and
a water brake, the loads that the vehicle would actually see
on the road are reproduced. The vehicle's exhaust is collected,
diluted and thoroughly mixed with filtered background air, to
a known constant volume flow, using a positive displacement
pump. This procedure is known as Constant Volume Sampling (CVS)
The 1975 FTP captures the emissions generated during a "cold"
start and includes a "hot" start after a ten minute shutdown
following the first 7.5 miles of driving.
A chassis dynamometer reproduces vehicle inertia with flywheels
and road load with a water brake. Inertia is available in
250 Ib. increments between 1750 Ibs. and 3000 Ibs. and in
500 Ib. increments between 3000 Ibs. and 5500 Ibs. For each
-------
36
TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES (Continued)
Inertia weight class , a road load is specified which takes into
account rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag for an average
vehicle in each class.
On the day before the scheduled 1975 FTP, the vehicle must be
parked for at least 12 hours in an area where the temperature
is maintained between 68ฐF and 86ฐF. This period is referred
to as the "cold" soak.
The 1975 FTP is a cold start test, so the test vehicle is
pushed onto the dynamometer without starting the engine. After
placement of the vehicle on the dynamometer, the emission
collection system is attached to the tailpipe and a cooling fan
is placed in front of the vehicle. The emission test is run with
the engine compartment hood open.
The emission sampling system and test vehicle are started
simultaneously so that emissions are collected during engine
cranking. After starting the engine the driver follows a
controlled driving schedule known as the Urban Dynamometer
Driving Schedule (RDDS) or the LA-4 which is patterned to represent
average urban driving. The driving schedule is displayed to
the driver of the test vehicle who matches the vehicle speed
-------
37
TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES (Continued)
to that displayed on the schedule. The LA-4 driving cycle is
1372 seconds long and covers a distance of 7.5 miles.
At the end of the driving cycle lh<- cnj'.inc i .*ป BLopped, the
cooling fan and sample collection system shut off and the hood
closed. The vehicle remains on the dynamometer and soaks for
10 minutes. This is the "hot" soak preceding the hot start
portion of the test. At the end of 10 minutes the vehicle and
CVS are again restarted and the vehicle is driven through the
first 505 seconds (3.59 miles) of the LA-4 cycle.
Exhaust emissions measured during the 1975 FTP cover three
regimes of engine operation. The exhaust emissions during the
first 505 seconds of the test are the "cold transient" emissions
During this time period the vehicle gradually warms up as it is
driven over the LA-4 cycle. The emissions during this period
will show the effects of choke operation and vehicle warm-up
characteristics. When the vehicle enters into the remaining
867 seconds of the LA-4 cycle it is considered to be fully
warmed up. The emissions during this portion of the test are
the "stabilized" emissions. The final period of the test
following the hot soak is the "hot transient" section and shows
-------
38
TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES (Continued)
the effect of the hot start. The emissions from each of the
three portions of the test are collected in separate bags.
Laboratory accuracy is normally maintained within t 2% tolerance
Fuel economy is measured on a chassis dynamometer reproducing
typical urban and highway driving speeds and loads. The fuel
economy of the test vehicle is calculated from the exhaust
emission data using the carbon balance method. Urban fuel
economy is measured during the 1975 Federal Test Procedure,
and highway fuel economy is measured over the EPA Highway
Fuel Economy Test. The average speed during the 1975 Federal
Test Procedure is 21.6 miles per hour. The average speed of
the Highway Fuel Economy Test is 48.2 miles per hour.
A complete description of the procedures that are followed
during a 1975 FTP can be found in the Federal Register (Vol. 37
No. 221, Part II, Nov. 15, 1972). Evaluation tests usually do
not include measurement of evaporative emissions.
TEST RESULTS
Test results of this program are summarized in Tables I - III.
Mileage was accumulated by OEI drivers after device installation
to "condition" the moleculator device as requested by the client
-------
39
TEST RESULTS (Continued)
These test data and results pertain to the referenced vehicles
only and are not necessarily representative of the vehicle
population in general.
*********
-------
40
TABLE I
COMPOSITE SUMMARY OF RESULTS
TEST VEHICLE NO. 1
1974 Fiat X-19
1300 cc
Test Date
5/3/79
5/3/79
Test Description
Baseline CVS-II
Baseline HFET
(grains /mile)
HC CO NOx
3.83 34.61 1.07
MFC
20.21
30.38
5/4/79
5/4/79
*Moleculator CVS-II
Moleculator HFET
3.86
31.90
1.09
21.59
31.06
*After 54 highway miles of device conditioning
-------
41
TABLE II
COMPOSITE SUMMARY OF RESULTS
TEST VEHICLE NO. 2
1979 Chevrolet Malibu
231 CID
Test Date
6/8/79
6/8/79
Test Description
Baseline CVS-II
Baseline HFET
(grams/mile)
HC CO NOx
0.19 3.72 1.19
MPG
17.38
25.70
6/12/79 *Moleculator CVS-II
6/12/79 Moleculator HFET
0.19
3.74
1.01
18.23
26.02
*After 155 miles of device conditioning
-------
42
TABLE III
COMPOSITE SUMMARY OF RESULTS
TEST VEHICLE NO. 3
1978 Ford Thunderblrd
400 CIO
Test Date Test Description HC
7/12/79 Baseline CVS-II 0.42
7/12/79 Baseline HFET
(grams/mile)
CO NOx
12.22 0.80
MPG
10.61
15.64
7/17/79 *Moleculator CVS-II 0.35
7/17/79 Moleculator HFET
10.11
0.84
11.11
15.86
*After 159 miles of device conditioning
-------
43
ZFm C0L.IPF/niOV
IVSTF JTMPF W-Ll'F CMVTS MVTS FFP
rnr r r -3 <
rn r r f -5
Mr i /i p RP
vox i P -s -PS
?1TM r^LITf-IIOM
IMfTf PfVPF VPLUF C*1V'TF PAIM FPF
rnฃ} P /'pp /j/i/ipi P.999
r.n r PSPR ^137 cป99A
Mr 1 H9S7 AS9P l.f'P3
VOX 1 PES/i /i55S l.PfS
iFVO C^LirF'PTIOM
I -'5-11 I/>^PTr V'TLl'F PM\ TT Ml-Tฃ ri'T
mr p r r -s
rn P P p -5
Mr i ซ p 3?
NOX 1 1 P - IB
OLFOV FNjr-IMBFPIMP* IMC.
PPFF^prM CFMTFF
PI-ACM* CA. 9Pf/9
UX'Il * 1
PMH t'Fป/P3/79 TIMFI IP
IFF! * 9933
CLASS 7'
ni?P 79
V FIGHT
/i 5PD
r r
r S9 3 3
1 F*-1 F If
r-f'f P9.93
F1APT
j F\ Mr rn iซn rn;> nr r" :o rn?
17.1 r. r r.7 c.r5
FV-.I l ll/i^f t'f/\.1 \Hff.C /i*. 3 1.17 P.3ซ 1">."ป/" '.71 1Sซ.9S
^rr- V.R c. ( c.7 f.c-s
fXMT 19ff3 ', ff .9 95P.P I*.?. r.7/i l.HJ 17./'V f . 39 199.SI
r-"-.? ,i7.r p.r p.f r.r?.
Fx;r? n/4p3 3/-/I./: i/if7.(A /IP. f i.rr i.7/> ]*.':' o.rf iff.i/.
'.ii r-i/:!.ซ/-ir.r ?.
-------
44
OLSON ENGINEERING* INC.
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CENTER
HUNTING TON PEACH* CA. 98649
UNIT ซ 1
DATEt 05/03/79 TIMEl 1613Rl 08
TEST i 9937
CHASSIS * FIAT
ENGINE i /
CLASS 7*
DISP 79
WEIGHT P650
TRAN 4SPD
AXEL /
CARP 2PPL
ODOM 65955
TEMP 78
PAP 29.92
HUMID 39
HFFT
PAG* REV
AMP1
EXH1 17250
WTD GRAMS/MILE
FUEL CONSUMPTION 30.38 MPG
HC CO NO
8.5 0*0 2.1
182.0 1511.0 80.4
LE
C02 HC
CI.05
1.44 1.03
1.03
CO
17.95
17.95
NO CO 2
1.40 2f0.48
1.40 260.48
-------
45
UNIT i \
DATEI 05/04/79
TEST 9945
CHASSIS t 0080361
ENGINE i 128 A-5
CLASS 74
D1SP 79
WEIGHT 6650
IRAN 4 SPD
OLSON ENGINEERING. INC.
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CENTER
HUNTINOTON BEACH* CA. 92649
TIMEl 16125103
AXEL /
CARP 2PPL
OrOM 65987
TEMP 78
PAR 89.94
HUMID 49
COLD
PAG*
AMP1
EXH1
AMPS
EXH8
AMP3
EXH3
START
REV
11483
19614
11418
CVS I
HC
18.
481.
5.
606*
7.
388.
I
/ ME
I
aoa
CO
6
8
3
6
8
8
0
8008
0
833
0
1831
0
0
0
0
0
0
3B9
i
an
NO
1
44
e
15
1
41
5
8
0
1
3
1
MW/
M01
COS
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
05
09
05
70
05
94
WTD GRAMS/MILE
FUEL CONSUMPTION 21.59'MPG
HC CO
8.48 81.34
1.83 15.25
1.69 13.12
3.86 31.90
NO COS
0.73 175.08
0.39 187.80
0.68 149.68
1.09 348.38
ZERO CALIPRATION
1NSTP
CO?
CO
HC
NOX
SPAN
INSTR
CO?
CO
HC
NOX
ZERO
INSTR
CO?
CO
HC
NOX
RANGE VALUE
2 0
2 V)
1 0
1 0
CALIPRATION
RANGE
8
8
1
1
VALUE
4P0
8496
8973
8889
CMVTS
0
0
0
0
CMVTS
4445
413?.
459?
4565
MVTS
-5
15
35
- 15
GAIN
0.997
0.99B
1. P0PJ
0.998
CALIPRATION
RANHF
?
?
1
1
VALUF
PI
0
0
Pi
CMVTS
PI
-3
0
0
MVTS
-5
17
5
-5
ERR
ERR
FRP
-------
46
OLSON ENGINEERING* INC.
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CENTEF
HUNTINGTON PEACH* CA. 98649
UNIT f 1
DATEl 05/04/79 TIMEl 16159:19
TEST * 9946
CHASSIS * 0060361
ENGINE i IBS A-5
CLASS 74
PI SP 79
WEIGHT 2850
TRAN 4 SPD
AXEL /
CARP 8BPL
ODOM 65998
TEMP 78
BAR 89.94
HIMID 49
HOT START CVS H FET / BASELINE TEST / W/MOLECULATOR
PAG* REV HC CO NO C02 HC CO NO C02
AMP1 7.8 0.0 2.5 0.05
EXHl 17888 179.8 1349.0 89.5 1.43 1.01 15.94 1.65 257.25
WTD GRAMS/MILE 1.01 15.94 1.65 257.25
FUEL CONSUMPTION 31.06 MPG
-------
47
TIMFl 131 IPt 07
OLSON ENGINEERING, INC.
AUTOMOTIVE RFSEARCH CFNTFR
HUNTINGTON PEACH, CA. 92649
UNIT i 1
DATE! 06/08/79
TEST * 10154
CHASSIS * 1T27A9R45839
ENGINE i /
CLASS 79
DISP 231
WEIGHT 3500
IRAN AUTO
AXEL /
CARP 1XPP
ODOM 01508
86
.80
TEMP
PAR 29,
HUMID 44
COLD START
CVSII-PASELINF
PAP*
AMP1
FXH1
AMP?
EXH2
AMP3
EXH3
PFV
1 1398
19559
1 1389
WTD GRAMS/MILE
FUEL CONSUMPTION
HC
7.8
74.9
9.3
1 1.2
7.0
12.7
F
CO
cue
818.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
NO
1.5
48.7
1.5
15.8
1.3
38.9
COP
0.05
1.55
0.05
0.99
0.05
1.41
HC
0.35
0.0?
0. P3
0. 19
CO
R. 61
0.0?
0.P0
3.7?
NO CO?
0.85 249.14
0.44 267.88
0.67 PP5.66
1.19 503.64
17*38 MPG
ZERO CALIPRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE
COP P
CO P
HC 1
NOX 1
SPAM CALIPRATION
INSTP RANGE
COP P
CO P
HC 1
NOX 1
ZERO CALIPRATIOM
INS7F RANPF VALUF
CO? V (*
CO r> P
HP I 0
NOX 1 ^
0
0
0
P
4P0
P49P
PPH6
CMVTS
0
0
-5
5
CM VIS
4445
41P7
4597
4560
CMVTS
0
0
-R
0
MVTS
PP
10
17
5
GAIN
1.006
0*999
1.006
0.999
MVTS
17
10
IP
15
FRR
FRP
FRP
-------
48
OLSON ENGINFFRING, INT.
AUTOMOTIVF RESEARCH CENTER
HUNTINGTON PEACH* CA. 9?649
UNIT * 1
DATEl 06/08/79 TIMFl 13l MI 30
TFST t 10155
CHASSIS * 1T27A9R45839
ENGINE * /
CLASS 79
riSP 231
WEIGHT 3500
IRAN AUTO
AXEL /
CARP 1XS-V
ODOM 01519
TEMP 86
PAR 29.8 1
HIJMI D 44
HOT START
PAG* REV
AM PI
EXH 1 17P77
HFET /
HC
7. 5
1 1. 5
PASELINF
CO
0*0
0.0
TFST
NO
1. f-
46. C
COS
0.05
1.9?
HC CO NO COP
0.03 0.0P! 0.89 344.98
WTP GRAMS/MIL F pi. 03 0.PP 0.89 344.98
FUEL CONSUMPTION P5.70 MPG
-------
49
* ""
FMTFP FUNCTION
?PA
ZFPO
CALIPPATION
INSTP RAMGF
COP
CO
HT
NOX
SPAN
INSTP
cor
CO
HP
dOX
ZFPO
INSTP
COP
CO
HC
NOX
P
P
1
1
VALUE
0
0
PI
Pi
CMVTS
0
-3
Pi
PJ
MVTS
-13
5
-8
P)
FRF.
CALIPPATION
PANGF
P
P
1
1
VALUE
4P1
P096
A56P)
PP89
CMV/TS
A^A7
413?
Af/IP
4565
GAIN
0*994
PI. 999
P.999
PI.969
FPP
CALIF-POTION
F.ANGF
P
P
1
1
VALUF
P!
PI
P>
^
CMVTS
-5
-3
0
0
MVTS
-13
5
-8
-3
FPP
UNI T d 1
PATFl 0f/IP/79
TEST * 101B?
CHASSIS * R45B39P
ENGINE i /
CLASS 79
riSP P31
WEIGHT 3500
TRAN AUTO
AXEL /
CARP PPFL
OPOM 01 f>^3
TEMP Rf
PAP P9.8P
HIMIT 33
COLP STAPT
OLSON FNGINFFPING*
AUTOMOTIVE RFSFARCH C
HUNTINGTON PEACH* CA.
TIMFI 161 191 PI
FNTFP
9P649
AM PI
FXM 1
AMP?
FXMP
AMP3
V 1 r I
Hin.
JO M<<
CONSUMPTION
cv
11
SI I
Mr:
8 .
74.
9.
1 I.
R .
i:<.
, F
/1979 MALI
8
4
a,
1
5
9
P.O
0.
B3P.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
PU/
NO
0.
fill.
1.
15.
1.
35.
W/DEVI
CF
COP
9
1
?
1
5
7
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1 .
04
50
P4
04
04
3?
HC
0.35
0. P.p
P. f*3
0. 19
ro
8.
P.
P.
:u
71
pf
pr
7/'
VO COP
P. 70 P41.43
O. .19 PfS^.^'/
r. sf ri i. r'ป
1B.P3 MPG
ro
Mr
i 130
f. FIVO rr>Lirr
-------
50
ZFPO
INSTR
COP
CO
HC
NOX
SPAN
INSTP
CO?
CO
HC
NOX
ZFPn
INSTF
CO?
CO
HC
NOX
CALIPRATION
RANGF
P
P
1
1
VPLUF
0
ft
0
pi
CMVTS
-5
0
0
-5
MVTS
-P3
7
0
5
CALI PRATION
RANGE
P
P
1
1
VALUF
4PPI
P. 49 4
45f PI
PP88
CMVTS
4445
413PI
4f 4P
456P
GAIN
Pi. 994
PI. 999
1 Pi Pi 3
PI. 99 Pi
CALI PPATION
PANPF
2
?
1
1
VALUF
PI
P
/i
PI
CMVTS
-3
P!
5
PI
MVTS
-P.5
7
-3
e
ERF
ERP
FRF
PATFI ef/ IP/79
TF?1 <* Hi IS 3
HHOSSIS # F/I5839P
F^nvr < /
CLASS 79
riSF {^31
WFIGMl
TP-AM AUTO
AXFL /
CAPP ?rn.
0 POM P 1 f 7 /I
TFMP Hf
PAI< P9.KP1
HIWI P 33
H FF1/ 1979
AUTOMOTIVF FFSFARCH CFMTFF
HUNTINPTON PB.ACH, CA. 9Pf/i9
TIMFI lft4Pt33
TMF1
1
MALIPU W/DFVICF
HC CO
f . 3 P). P
i 15.7 PI. P
NO
1.5
51. P
CO?
t". P 5
l.RR
WIT ni-AMS/MILF
HIFJ. COMSIMPIION
HC
ro
r*.
NO
91
.91
CO
34P.65
MPG
-------
Olson
*^1 Engineering Inc
~"~ ' Vปปllclซ Tปปl Facility
1M12 Corrtmปro* Larv*
Munilngton oh. CซMKxnlซ 93848 (714) tM-MTB
TEST NO.
VEHICLE
V1HICU 1MI8SION T18T DATA
DATE 6-M-7J PROJ NO. G / 3
*Y- YEAR _/ฃ>79_ MODEL
LIC NO.
TRANS
ENG TYPE "
ODO START
TYPE TEST
BARO
DYNO
"Hg.
CVS INLET PRESS.
TEST
IGN. TIM
CONVERTER/YES
IGN TYPE
EGR/YES NO
o
VAC ADV /YES
P/A _
SILENCERS/YES
CARB. I.D. NO.
VEH
GARB /
DlSPLACEhCNT
ENG I.D.
BBL._
AXLE
ODO
FINISH
COLD
HOT
'HG
ACT RLHP
ฐF DRY BULB
IND. RLHP
IDLE RPM.
HO
NO
NO
CVS A P
OPERATOR
IDLE COX
EVAP. SYS
LOCATION
DELAY VALVE/YES
SIZE
NO
PR I. JET SIZE
OTHER
CdMMLN'IS:
i.:.
Ill
-------
Olson
S Engineering Inc.
._.ฃ_-.-*t Facility
1M11 Oommarซa Can*
Munllnglon Maori. California 9649 (714)Bซ4-MTB
VEHICLE IMI5SION TI8T DATA
TEST NO. /Vl(r>Z
VEHICLE Ck {*Vป/*Y
LIC NO. &'Q*H*
TRANS Au*l*nc!f'*i.
ENG TYPE l/~ (f
ODO START &(Q>G
TYPE TEST CTS-21
BARO ;?cr. ^ "Hg.
DYNO INERTIA SrtO
CVS INLET PRESS. S~~G>'J
TEST DRIVER /^Sp-^/l/V /
^^^^^C '
IGN. TIM
CONVERTER /YES
IGN TYPE
EGR/YES NO
VAC ADV /YES
P/A
SILENCERS/YES
CAR R . in. NO
DATE CP-A<-7} PROJ NO. C?^5 cr
YEAR /^^ MODEL tWo fiby
VEH I.D. Rl~i<^& ><"?_,ฃ ENG I.D.
CARB / &!>c.(ie^ 3 ^ AXLE
5- ODO FINISH
COLD ^-^ HOT
^ฐ/cP^ 'yicrWT BULB ^0 ฐT DRY BULB &ฃ
ACT RLHP /^{^ IND. RLHP cK O
I cvs A P GCฐ.(j
OPERATOR (vVcAfif /^
IDLE RPM IDLE COX
NO
EVAP. SYS
LOCATION
NO DELAY VALVE /YES NO
SIZE
NO
OTHER
COMMENTS:
II
-------
53
IIKO CALIBRATION
IN8TR RAN8E VALUE CMVTS MVTS ERR
coe e 0 -3 -is
co e 0 -3 7
HC 100 -13
NOX I 0 -S 10
SPAN CALIBRATION
!N8TR RAN8E VALUE CMVTS 0AIN ERR
COB 6 4ftfi 4461 0.998
CO fi 6493 4075 0.984
HC I 4448 4495 0.996
NOX 1 ฃ300 4585 1.001
ZERO CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE CHVTS MVTS ERR
coe e 0 0-5
co e 0 0 7
HC I ซ -3 -18
NOX 1 0-5 7
OLSON IN6INEERING* INC.
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CENTER
HUNTIN6TON BEACH, CA. 92649
UNIT * I
DATE* 07/16/79 TIM El 181 45101
TEST * 10386
CHASSIS * 8J8THIS7485
ENGINE * /
CLASS 78
DISP 400
VEIGHT 4500
TRAN AUTO
AXEL /
CARB IXfiV
ODOM 16786
TB4P 84
BAR 29.66
HIMI D 43
COLO START
BAG*
AMBi
EXH1
AMP2
EXH2
AMP3
EXH3
YTD
FUEL
REV
11346
19486
11360
CVS II
HC
8.4
130.6
9.6
13.8
7.4
44.5
CO
0.0
1858.0
4.0
1.0
0.0
743.0
NO
0.6
37.5
0.6
ie.9
0.3
ฃ0.5
CO 2
0.03
2.77
0.03
1.60
0.02
2.28
CRAMS/MILE
CONSUMPTION
10.61
MP6
HC
0.62
0.05
0. 19
0.42
CO
18.
-0.
7.
12.
64
04
46
22
NO
0.
0.
0.
0.
61
35
33
80
C02
432.85
425.89
357.15
8 1 5. 59
-------
54
ZERO CALIBRATION
INSTR
C08
CO
HC
RANGE
8
8
i
VALUE
0
0
0
CMVTS
-3
e
0
MVTS
5
10
0
ERR
NOX 1168
SPAN CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE CMVTS GAIN ERR
COB 8 481 4457 1.001
CO 8 8493 4075 0.988
HC 1 4450 4497 1.005
NOX 1 8898 4580 1*003
ZERO CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE CMVTS MVTS ERR
C08 8 0 8 -88
CO 800 -13
HC 1450
NOX 10-57
TINEt 191 III 88
OLSON ENGINE EH IMS* INC.
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CENTER
HUNTINGTON BEACH* CA. 96649
UNIT * I
DATD 07/18/79
TEST * 10387
CHASSIS * 8J87H18748S
ENGINE t /
CLASS 78
DISP 400
VEI0HT 4500
TRAN AUTO
AXEL /
CARB 1X8V
ODOM 16798
TEMP 86
BAR 89.66
HUMID 39
HOT START HFET
BA8* REV HC
AM PI 6.6
tXHl 17170 17.3
VTD GRAMS/MILE
FUEL CONSUMPTION 15. 64MPG
CO
4.0
148.0
NO
0.8
33.4
coe
0.05
3.87
HC
0.07
0.07
CO
1.54
1.54
NO
C08
0.60 564.47
0.60 564.47
-------
55
ZERO CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE CMVTS HVTS ERR
C02 8 0 8-83
CO 808-3
NC I 0 0
NOX i i e IT
SPAN CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE CMVTS GAIN ERR
coe 8 4ee 4468 0.993
CO ฃ 8497 4155 0.983
HC I 4470 4546 1.018
NOX 1 8894 4S78 1.008
ZERO CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE CMVTS MVTS ERR
C08 8 0-3-5
CO 800-3
HC 1 0-10 8
NOX 1 0 -8 85
OLSON ENGINEERING* INC.
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CENTER
HUNTINGTON BEACH* CA. 98649
UNIT ป 1
DATE* 07/17/79 TIME* 08l44t49
TEST * 10409
CHASSIS i 8J87HI87485
ENGINE f T-BIFD
CLASS 78
DISP 400
WEIGHT 4500
TRAN AUTO
AXEL /
CARP 1X8V
ODOM 16941
TEMP 80
BAR 89.95
HUMID 54
HC
COLD
fปAG*
AMP.1
EXH1
AMB8
EXH8
AMB3
EXH3
START
REV
11365
19495
11344
CVS
I
I
HC
8
186
9
13
6
88
.
.
.
.
8
7
3
0
8
8
vj/o&g
CO
0.
8060.
0.
1.
0.
807.
!_
NO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
11
0
87
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
9
0
9
8
4
CO 8
0.
8.
0.
1.
0.
8.
04
50
05
57
03
85
CO
0.60 80.72
0.04 0.08
VTD GRAMS/MILE
FUEL CONSUMPTION
0.09
0.35
8.08
10.11
NO C08
0.58 390.08
0.35 413.67
0.47 351.08
0.84 781.48
11.11 MPG
-------
56
SYSTDt START-UP
DATE! 07/17/79 TIME* 091 081
DfTER FUNCTION
ZERO CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE CMVTS MVTS ERR
CO 8 8 0 8 -8
CO ฃ00-3
HC 1 9 10 -13
NOX 1107
PAN CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE CMVTS QAIN ERR
COfi fi 461 4457 0.997
CO 8 6497 4155 0.98fi
HC I 4475 4547 1.012
NOX I 8308 4600 i.017
ZERO CALIBRATION
INSTR RANGE VALUE CMVTS MVTS ERR
COC ft 0 -5 -10
CO fi 0 0 0
HC 1000
NOX 1005
OLSON ENGINEERING* INC.
AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH CENTER
HUN TING TON BEACH* CA. 92649
UNIT t I
DATE* 07/17/79 TIME! 091 111 87
TEST 10410
CHASSIS * 8J87HI87485
ENGINE * T-BIRD
CLASS 78
DISP 400
WEIGHT 4500
TRAN AUTO
AXEL /
CARB IXftV
ODOM 16951
TEMP 74
BAR 69.96
HUMID 58
HOT START HFET *>/DC\J.
BAG' REV HC CO NO CO 8 HC CO NO C02
AMP1 7.8 0.0 0.6 0.03
EXH1 17166 15.0 47.0 45*5 3.21 0*05 0.52 0.82 558.50
VTD GRAMS/MILE 0.05 0.52 0.82 558.50
FUEL CONSUMPTION 15.86 MPG
ZERO CALIBRATION
-------
57
Attachment C
"Motor Trend" Article
-------
iIIiAinmaaL
y/
B175
.W"^ TRปj?i-ป,-:.t _ -Wป^
Front-Drive
W-ffK-v
M^-
jf-
fr)S* xgt ?J.r ::':'>
>ii
R^'
i-ป ป
_ ซ. _,
vnnKXithTurismo
KlMF. ..^jk.v.i rfi._tJ^-.-.,..'^uii-ii/S^i^L-U i-i.l'^kt'.-^-ir-r.W^-. i<
v :^l^^ ^w^
LeCar
HWVi^WSK^p^*-'
^A.
NFI ATION
i .ii^Lrfirki i\jn i
**..*
Alternative
^ -.-....^ -, '^^!fe^-ii
a Gas-Saving Devio
That Really \ferlซ
.'. - --.-..'I .*fsa^:-'liJ-ซjdiiJ>i-n./i ._> .1.1?^
- % *.
a*
?;ffW
vt'-i.fe&fe;
t ....' :.SS'-;>*-'
L , ป = A,, j,.^
-.*/*
I7U86"02011I
-------
JULY
59 1980
VOL.32,
NO. 7
COVER STORY:
46 The 1981 Model E Ford
The all-new front-drive Escort may turn the
world upside down-by Jim McCraw
ROAD TESTS:
31 Crow-Country IB the Audi 9000 Twbo
Damn the tornados, full speed aheadby Fred
M.H. Gregory
35 TC3 Turismo
The 2 plus 2 Horizon moves toward becoming
America's first new wave CTby Bob Nagy
91 Renault Le CM
Americanizing a little car with a lot of
value-by Jim McCraw
JNFLA TION FIGHTERS:
65 15 Econo Coupes Under $4500
Digging for the bare bones of personal
transportationby Peter Frey
73 Recreation Salvation
The latest vacation vehicles offer solutions for
the Sl.50-a-gallon problem
82 Miracle Mileage
We still don't believe //-by Chuck Nerpel and
Peter Frey
87 Slaking the Automotive Thirst
Alcohol, whether grain or wood, is a gasoline
stretcher and octane boosterby Chuck Nerpel
FEATURES:
23 The New Economics
Are you ready for the new money rules of car
ownership?by Leon Mandel
38 Porsche 917-30
Last symbol of a bygone eraby Burge Hulett
50 Retrospect: 1970 Flat Aharth Scorpione
1958 is the year John Rich first went to Italy
to meet Carlo Abarthby Len Frank
57 The X-Car Owners Survey
How they realty feel about it out there
by Ro McGonegal
DEPARTMENTS:
5 Editor's Report-fey John Dianna
6 Rradtn* Report
13 Detroit Report-fey Ro McGonegal
16 International Report-fey Fred Stafford
18 Roving Report-fey Jim McCraw
99 Competition Report-fey Bob Nagy
104 Last Report-fey Leon Mandel
COVER Ptiaiofraptiv fcv Don JtortArv. Ford Pkoiomrdia
73
MOTOa TREND (ISSN Stn-MM). combined with CAR LIFE. SPORTS CAR GRAPHIC and
WHEELS AFIELD, n published monthly by Pnmcn Publishing Co. Uป0 Sunset BNd . Lซ
CA W069 Coniro4M CimiUlton Pd>U|c paid n Emngh.m lll.nr.ii and ai Silcm
Subtcnpiion nm U.S.. mihun. poatn>inni one year III W. iปo yean SI9V4 Canada
other countries one year SI4.94. Sinflr cop> ปl 50 Subicnpnon inquinri phone (213)
-ilOO Copyn|hrป IWO b> Pctenen Publnhin| Company All nghu retened POSTMASTER
PtCMe lend form 3S7V to Moiot Trtnd Ma|.nnt PO Bo> )}W Lot Anjclts CA 900:*
ปIOTOป TREND Jl/tCIMo3
-------
Miracle
We sbH don't
believe it
by Chuck Nerpel and Peter Frey
PHOTOS BY JIM BROWN
When we were approached by
representatives of the Internal
Energy Management Corpora-
tion with a device they called the Mole-
culaior Fuel Energizer Unit, we were
openly skeptical.
The device appears to be a solid
piece of aluminum rod an inch-and-a-
half in diameter and 6 inches long, with
a hole drilled down the center. (The
device comes in three lengthslonger
for larger engines-and has a 45-day
money-back warranty, with one year
free replacement. Prices range from
$139.95 for the smallest unit to S395 for
a diesel truck unit. However, at the out-
set of our talks with I.E.M.. the devices
sold for only S97.45. $137.50 and
S302.50. respectively.) It is installed in
the main fuel supply line, as close to
the tank as possible, so that fuel runs
through it on its way to the engine. A
secret "energy field," supposedly stored
in the aluminum, reportedly rearranges
the normal "clumped" structure of the
molecules in the fuel into a more "lin-
ear" form. This is supposed to turn
them into "smaller, more burnable
units," and raise the BTU (British Ther-
mal Unit) content.
The manufacturer's claim is that the
Moleculator will improve the efficiency
of an internal combustion engine,
whether gasoline or diesel. According to
the claims, after a break-in period of
500-1200 miles, large trucks should
show a fuel-economy improvement of
up to 40%. and a passenger car should
improve up to 23%.
This all sounded very unlikely, but
I.EM sparked our interest when they
produced a folderful of the results of
tests run by the California Air Re-
sources Board and Olson Engineering (a
government-approved testing laborato-
ry), and what appeared to be testimoni-
al letters from a stale director of The
Good Sam Club (a recreational vehicle
organization), several large trucking
firms, a diesel engine manufacturer, a
law-enforcement organization, and an
international company that services oil
drilling rigs.
We agreed to run our own tests. A
82 JULY ieso MOTOA TREND
program involving five cars was set up,
and while they were being run over a
period of several weeks, we began di-
gesting the information the Moleculator
people supplied us.
The section of the Olson Engineering
report that contained the hard data
from the laboratory-controlled tests they
ran seemed to indicate a fuel economy
increase in every case. Tests on four
cars were included, but three of them
showed only the highway-cycle results.
and the fourth only the city-cycle test.
All the tests were run on a chassis dy-
namometer that reproduces typical ur-
ban and highway driving speeds and
loads under completely controlled at-
mospheric conditions, according to the
approved Federal Test Procedure.
when we showed a copy of the re-
port to a representative of Olson Engi-
neering, he confirmed that the data in-
dicating a highway-cycle fuel mileage
increase from 16.08 to 17.82 mpg for a
1978 Chevrolet Caprice with a 305cid
V-8 and automatic transmission was
correct, but thai it was only one of
many tests they had run. When we
pressed him for a conclusion, he an-
swered with an engineer's typical cau-
tion: "The number of tests we ran was
not sufficient to produce a statistically
defensible conclusion. The data they
present here, which is not complete, is
representative of the test vehicles only.
and may not necessarily be applicable
to all cars."
The California Air Resources Board
came to a more pointed conclusion.
Portions of the Olson Engineering re-
port, selected by the I.E.M. people.
were presented to the ARB as part of
the process of getting an exemption
from the provisions of Section 27156 of
the California Vehicle Code, which pro-
hibits the sale of any automotive after-
market device that alters vehicle emis-
sions for use on 1979 or later cars.
Their comments on the evidence pre-
sented indicated seven cars had been
tested, not just the four on which we
had seen data. They state that of the
seven cars, only three had been tested
according to the full ARB-specified
-------
procedure. These cars showed average
gains of 5-7% in urban-cycle fuel econo-
my, and 1-2% in highway-cycle econo-
my, both of i 61 dered to be
within the bounds of test variability
The remaining four cars showed 8-23%
increases, but the tests did not comply
with ARB specifications and, therefore,
could not be considered valid.
The ARB then ran its own tests on
two other cars, measuring the fuel econ-
omy with both the carbon-balance anal-
ysis of exhaust gases, and with a flow-
meter placed in the fuel supply line.
These tests showed no increase in mile-
age with the Moleculator, and their re-
port ended with that conclusion.
Suddenly, we were faced with a prob-
lem. The first two items of evidence we
examined, both from laboratories where
the tests are completely controlled and
results are calculated down to the nth
degree, seem to have torn the credibility
of the Moleculator completely to
shreds. We probably would have
dropped the project right then except
for two things: these tests are the same
kind that produce the EPA new-car
mileage figures, and we know how they
vary according to real-world driving;
and we got back the results from our
first field test, showing a significant im-
provement in fuel economy.
The test vehicle was a 1979 Ford
Econoline van with a 3Slcid V-8 and
automatic transmission. It has dual fuel
tanks, so we installed a Moleculator in
the line from the main tank only, which
would allow us to switch back and forth
between the "energized" and "un-ener-
gized" fuel. Tests were run over our 73-
mile loop and on an all-highway cruise
at 55 mph.
Tmt No. 1: 1979 Fort EcoaoUBe Vซn
(351 ad V-g, automatic)
Test courK-MT 73-mile fuel loop
Distance 73 milet 73 miles
Time 2 hours 2 hours
Fuel wed 4.9 gallons 4 J gallons
Mileage 14.89 mpg 17 J8 mpg
ป.- If.1%
Test counehighway (constant 55 mph)
Distance 100 milet....
Tune 1.8 boun ....
Fuel used 7.0 gallons ..
Mileage 14.29 mpg..
/*ซ
. 100 miles
. 1.8 boun
. 6.0 gallons
. 16.66 mpg
We also put the van through instru-
mented acceleration testing, with fuel
supplied first from one lank, then the
other, and noted no difference. We
used a chassis dynamometer to measure
the rear-wheel horsepower, and an
exhaust-gas analyzer to check the emis-
sions. The "energized" and "un-ener-
gized" fuel produced exactly the same
readings.
We couldn't see how only the fuel
economy could be affected, so we con-
tacted the diesel engine manufacturer
that had tested the device on an engine
dynamometer, which produces much
more accurate horsepower readings.
Their lest engine was also equipped
Binders
and protect your issues of
TREND Magazine in this
permanent volume.
These durable binders are made of
simulated leather with gold em-
bossed title on the cover ana spine,
and make an attractive addition
to your library.
Time to get rid of that unmanage-
able stack of loose magazines in
your living room or study. Each
binder securely holds 12 issues
of MOTOR TREND Magazine, neat-
ly organized at your fingertips for
ready reference. Durable, attract-
ive, and economicalorder several
for your collection.
Only $7.00 each
3 for $17.50 or 6 (or $30.25
Save 10-20%
(Print thru Dec 3' i960 include postage a nandnng i
Petersen Library BMers
725 SurtMt Blvd. Lee Angeles. CA MM28
Send me MOTOR TREND Binders
I $7 00 ea, 3 for $17.50 or 6 for $30.25
(Postage and handling charges included.
Calif, residents add 6% sales tax) My check
or money order for S is enclosed.
To avoid delayPrint Clearly
Name
Street.
City _
State.
-Zip-
Allow 4-6 weeks for delivery
MT-780
TPfHD JUL V I MO 83
-------
Miracle Mileage
with sensors to measure manifold pres-
sure and exhaust-gas temperature. The
man who supervised the tests said there
had been no difference in any of the
readings they had taken. They did,
however, notice a 14.2% decrease in
fuel consumption.
The deeper we dug into this thing,
the more tangled the information was
getting. We decided it would be a good
idea to talk to someone who knew
more about the chemistry of gasoline,
so we contacted a scientist at the re-
search division of a major oil company.
We explained what the device was sup-
posed to do and what information we'd
gathered so far, including the positive
test results on the van. His responses
did nothing to reassure us.
He said the process of changing the
molecular structure of the fuel in the
way the manufacturer of the device de-
scribes is called "isomerization," and
that with the best technology currently
available, the process .requires a consid-
erable amount of energy and a catalytic
agent, neither of which aluminum has.
If the device actually did raise the BTU
content of the fuel, it would show up as
an increase in horsepower and in
exhaust-gas temperature. And, in re-
sponse to our own testing, he simply
said. "There are so many variables in a
field test that it is exceedingly difficult
to get accurate results."
Once again we wavered on the edge
of killing the project, but two more of
our tests had been completed, and both
showed improved fuel economy with
the Moleculator.
Tat No. 2: 1979 HIM* Accord
Test oounc-MT 73-mile fuel loop
(Han: Molenlalor wot UaiaUtd in nfixt eamtailmeiu,
contrary u uaallaieit uvtmtiioiu)
Distance 73 miles 73 milei
Time 1.6 boun 1.6 houn
Fuel used 2.1 gallons 2.0 gallons
Mileage 34.76 mpg M.S mpg
TซM No. 3: 19M Hoafe Chic
(ISOOcc 4-cyUnder, S-spccx) manual)
Test coune-MT 73-mile fuel loop
Distance 73 miles 73 miles
Time 2 houn 2 boun
Fuel OMd 1.7 gallons 1.5 gallons
ซ2.l mpg 4S.6 mpg
Certainly there were variables, but we
went to considerable lengths to make
sure the tests were as accurate as possi-
ble. In each test, the baseline and with-
device tests were done by the same
driver, over the same route, at the same
time of day. and under as nearly identi-
cal conditions of humidity and tempera-
ture as possible. We were satisfied that
our test results were accurate.
Our next contact was the law-enforce-
ment organization whose captain had
84 JUL Y 1 MO MOTOR TREND
A Moleculalor wax installed in the main lank fuel line of a IV7V Ford van equipped
with two tanks. This allowed us 10 run back-to-hack mileage tests, first on the un-
Moleculaied fuel from the auxiliary lank, then again with fuel from the main tank thai
passed through the device
written a letter to the I.E.M. people.
stating thai in tests his organization had
run on two patrol cars, they recorded a
15.4% and 17.1% increase in fuel econo-
my. We spoke to an officer who himself
had been involved in the testing, and
he told us the letter referred to a rela-
tively casual initial test. Later tests, run
out of headquarters, involved 20 vehi-
cles, six months, and several hundred
thousand miles. The conclusion was that
the Moleculator "... was found to have
no appreciable effect on fuel economy."
Next, we got in touch with the state
director of a branch of The Good Sam
Club, whose letter stated that, in tests
on a motorhome with a Dodge 440cid
engine, mpg had gone from 6.9 to 7.5
when members installed a Moleculator.
She confirmed the results and said that
several other club members had gotten
similar results from their own tests. She
also said that The Good Sam Club
viewed the Moleculator as a possible
salvation of the RV concept.
When we contacted the club's official
technical representative at their national
headquarters, he said he was aware of
the tests run by the state chapter, but
that they were purely uncontrolled, in-
dividual tests and should not be consid-
ered as the official position taken by
The Good Sam Club. He admitted that
his club was officially testing the device,
but had not yet been able to draw any
conclusions.
We were beginning to feel that the
people from I.E.M. had presented us
with information that was. to put it
charitably, open to question. Predicta-
bly, just as we had gotten good and
suspicious, everyone else we contacted
confirmed a fuel economy improvement
in their tests of the Moleculator. A
large trucking company reported an av-
erage increase in fuel economy on the
order of 19% for a test involving 10
diesel trucks over a year-and-a-half pe-
riod. A company that services oil well
drilling rigs tested the Moleculator on
two diesel-engined generators and con-
firmed a 19.23% and a 21.18% decrease
in fuel consumption. The chief mechan-
ic of a fleet of mortuary vehicles told
us of a 25% fuel economy improvement
on a 1979 Cadillac limousine.
All of these results agreed with the
results of our own final series of tests.
Tot No. 4: 1972 Toyota Land Cruiacr
(236cid inline six. 3-speed manual)
Test course-highway (constant 55 mph)
Mtltrmltltir
.250 miles
4.5 hours
. 12.5 gallons
. 20.0 mpg
(Note: This lest woj rvn four nmei. each lime under the
lame eonduioia. with ike lame dnter Tkt tens tkowtd a
gradual incrtate Rmlu abort an from itu final iesi.1
Distance 250 miles
Time 4.5 hours
Fuel used 15.0 gallons .
Mileage 16.6 mpg
Tot No. 5: 1970 Datum 240Z
(2.4-uter inline six. 4-speed manual)
Test coursehighway (constant 55 mph)
Distance 200 miles....
Time 3.6 houn....
Fuel used 7.2 gallons..
Mileage 27.7 mpg ....
7.SK
.200 miles
. 3.6 houn
. 6.7 gallons
. 29.8 mpg
At this point, since the story of the
Moleculator has so many conflicting
Clements, let's summarize the major
points:
1) The I.E.M. Corporation has offered
o acceptable explanation of exactly
how the Moleculator operates, or exact-
ly what it does.
2) Within the hounds of currently rec-
ognized technology, we can find no
proven way to induce a permanent ener-
gy field in aluminum that will alter the
olecular structure of fluids passing
through it.
3) Tests conducted by the California
ARB indicate that the Moleculator does
of significantly affect emissions or fuel
economy.
4) Tests conducted by Olson Engi-
neering according to ARB specifications
and submitted to the ARB by the I.E.M.
Corporation show no improvement in
fuel economy. Other tests, also conduct-
ed by Olson hut not according to ARB
specifications, show an increase but are
not considered valid by the ARB.
-------
63
WATCH THIS FOAM
EflTCREASE
See the dif-
ference with STP
Foaming Engine
Degreasertitsaii
foam, no film for-
mula eats through
grease and grime.
Safely cleans right
down to engine sur-
faces. Stays where
it's sprayed. Powers
into grease, grime
and dirt. Lifts them
up. Even loosens grit!
Just spray
It on. See its grime-
penetrating formula
blanket your engine
with cleaning
oower. see it cling as
r cleans: it won't run
Dff like kerosene-
oased cleaners
Then hose
it off. And take a
iook at clean. Right
down to the surface
Engine looks great
Easier to work on.
>^ou can see exactly
,vhat you're doing
And there's no oily
film to attract more
gnme STP Foaming
Engine Degreaser All
;oam. NO film. Try it
ALLFQAM.NOFII
c 198C STP COrDOratiOn.
5!'i:
Miracle Mileage
5) Field tests conducted by companies
and organizations on various kinds of
engines in various applications produced
conflicting results.
6) Field lefts conducted by the Motor
Trend staff consistently indicated im-
proved fuel economy.
All of these considerations make any
absolute conclusion about the Molecula-
tor impossible. The important point to
us, however, is the final one. We ran
our tests most carefully, and in a field
experiment with many variables, we
would expect results on a fuel-saving
device that didn't work to fall on both
sides of the baseline data. In each of
our tests, the results came up positive
by a significant degree. We even fab-
ricated our own "Moleculator," com-
pared it to the baseline test and the
tests run with the I.E.M. version, and
we got a substantial decrease in mileage
(baseline mpg, 43.5; with I.E.M. Mole-
culator, 48.6, with our "Moleculator."
36.6). Although we don't know why, the
vehicles in which we installed an I.E.M.
Moleculator went farther on every gal-
lon of fuel that passed through it. g|
Adding to the data...
We have tried to present as bal-
anced a view of the information
concerning the Moleculator as possi-
ble. If you have decided to purchase
one (Internal Energy Management
Corporation, P.O. Box 1429, Del Rio.
TX 78840) and try it out, we would
appreciate if you would keep a record
of the results and drop us a line after
you've reached your own conclusions.
If we gel enough responses, we'll do a
follow-up story a couple of months
from now, based on your results.
Test Procedure
I. Baseline:
Note temperature, barometric pres-
sure, and humidity.
Note the beginning and end time of
test, and the miles traveled, so that
you can calculate average speed.
Top off fuel tank (snake car to
eliminate air pockets in tanV).
Drive car 80-100 miles.
Refill tank.
Divide miles-traveled by gallons-of-
fuel-used to obtain mpg.
II. Install Moleculator as per instruc-
tions. Follow specified break-in proce-
dure.
III. Re-test car as in section I. Try to
duplicate conditions as accurately as
possible.
Factors that fleet feel mileage
I) Air temperature
2) Headwinds
3) Wet roads
4) Engine's state of tune
5) Tire inflation
6) Hilly terrain
7) Driving technique
B6jLซ.riMO UOTO*
-------
64
Attachment D
'Trailer Life" Article
-------
65
ฃV*v
m
1
^*^*l J <^
i"i\D"
Il
09 -,,
-------
'GAS-SAVER' OF THE MONTH
66
The Moleculetor
Is this the first genuine mileage 'miracle?'
by Bill Estes
WHAT WOULD YOUR REACTION BE if
someone were to show you a round alu-
minum cylinder l'/2 inches in diameter
and 8 inches long, with a hole through the
center, and claim that you could increase
fuel economy up to 23% simply by run-
ning the fuel through this device before it
reaches the carburetor?
Your initial reaction probably would be
the same as ours: "Come on ... you don't
expect me to believe that?' You're insulted
that the guy would have the nerve to lay
such a fairy tale on you. You're thinking,
"How can I get rid of this bum?"
But before you're able to call for help
(he's bigger than you are), he pulls out a
rather exhaustive fuel economy test per-
formed by a major automotive testing lab-
oratory (Olson Engineering of Huntingdon
Beach, California) and mentions that a
couple of other magazines are involved in
testing the device.
On closer examination, the Olson report
shows fuel economy increases ranging
from 10.82% to 2030% for two Chevrolet
passenger cars and a Dodge half-ton
truck.
The device, called the Moleculetor, is
described by the company as a simple
cylinder of aluminum which contains a
special energy field (secret) that suppos-
edly changes the molecular structure of
the fuel, for more efficient combustion.
The energy is supposedly distributed
throughout the vehicle by the Moleculetor.
The energy is said to last the lifetime of
the vehicle! or maybe longer. K wouldn't
have surprised us if they also claimed it
removed warts.
But Doug Lovegrove, the Moleculetor
representative who called on us, is not the
usual gas-gimmick huckster. He knows
automotive theory. Most people selling
worthless gimmicks don't even have a
clear understanding of how an internal
combustion engine operates. Lovegrove
has been in the automotive field for more
than 20 years, having worked in Chrysler
Corporation's racing program several years
ago. And he seems quite sincere in his
belief that the Moleculetor does work. Lov-
egrove handles Nevada and Hawaii for the
Moleculetor distributor, Internal Energy
Management Corporation of Del Rk), Texas.
He became interested in Trailer Life*
through Etha Mae Wilson, Nevada state
Moleculetor is designed to be spliced into
fuel line between fuel pump and tank.
director of the Good Sam Club*, who in-
stalled a Moleculetor on her motorhome
and reported a fuel economy increase
from 6.8 to 8.5 mpg. Etha Mae's fuel econ-
omy results are her own, and not con-
nected with any test performed by the club
or by TL personnel, but she is quite en-
thusiastic about the benefits of the device.
Of course, most marketers of gas-sav-
ing devices are able to come up with a
variety of testimonals. Sponsors of the
Moleculetor are substantial in number.
They don't prove anything conclusively for
a broad range of vehicles.
Does the Moleculetor actually work? It
seems to... and it's rather uncomfortable
to say so in absence of a logical expla-
nation. That business about the secret en-
ergy field is a bit too much for one's sense
of practicality.
In any case, we tested the unit on two
vehicles over a period of two months and
3,000 miles. Results were an 18% im-
provement in a 1978 Oldsmbbile station
wagon with 350 V-8 engine, and a 10%
improvement in a 1978 Chevrolet Blazer
with 400 V-8 engine. We're not alone in
suggesting that the system may actually
work Motor Trend magazine planned an
article to appear in their July issue de-
scribing their Five tests: Ford Econoline
Van, 16.7% improvement; Honda Accord,
5% improvement; Honda Civic, 13.28%
improvement; Toyota Land Cruiser, 20.4%
improvement; and Datsun 240Z, 7.58%
improvement.
Our tests produced interesting results.
First, we tested the Blazer by running fuel
economy tests, then driving the vehicle
600 miles and performing the tests again.
We used a separate fuel container so we
could accurately measure the amount of
gasoline used. We performed repeat tests
to establish margin of error, which usually
was around two-tenths of one mile per
gallon.
At the end of the 600-mile trip (the com-
pany recommends at least two tanks of
fuel be used before the Moleculetor has
its effect) we tested again and the results
showed no fuel economy improvement
The news was phoned to Lovegrove. Ini-
tially he couldn't come up with a reason
for the poor results, but after consulting
with company directors it was their opinion
that use of the separate fuel container was
the reason. The separate container was not
"energized" by the Moleculetor since it was
not permanently carried in the vehicle.
Back to the drawing board.
Next, the 1978 Olds was evaluated dur-
ing initial fuel economy tests in which we
simply filled up at a service stationa
practice we don't like because the margin
of error increases. The procedure was the
one recommended in last month's article
on gas-savers. We filled up at the same
pump, parked in the same position, under
the same weather conditions and set the
pump's automatic shutoff nozzle on slow
feed. When it shut off automatically, we
hung it up. Repeat tests showed a mileage
margin of error of around Vi mpg . . .
larger than we normally tolerate.
The plan was to drive about 800 miles
to get a feel for on-the-road fuel economy,
install the Moleculetor and drive an addi-
tional 800 miles back to the departure
point, which should be enough distance
for the unit to do its "energization" number.
Initial mileage figures were in the 10-11
range. Then, at about the 600-mile mark,
the figures mysteriously increased to the
12-13 mpg range. The Moleculetor was
installed at the 800-mile mark and the
good fuel economy figures continued
through the remainder of the trip.
Upon return, the original series of mile-
age tests was performed and the result was
a 2 mpg increase.
"Why," we asked Lovegrove, "did the
more on page 93
TRAILER LIFE, September I960 81
-------
67
MOLECCILETOR from page 81
mileage increase before we even installed
the Moleculetor?" His reply was a question:
"Where did you carry the Moleculetor on
the first leg of the trip?" "In the rear storage
compartment" was our reply ... and it
was obvious what he would say nextthat
whatever it is the Moleculetor produces
would affect the "energization" of the ve-
hicle even if the fuel is not routed through
the device. The Moleculetor, he said, will
affect fuel economy simply by being close
to the fuel tank.
At this point it became apparent that the
device not only will remove warts, it will
cure sexual impotency.
Then we went back to the Blazer which
showed no improvement in our first test
Initial tests were conducted, the vehicle
was driven on a 1,200-mile trip, and com-
parisons tests were conducted immedi-
ately afterward. The result was a 10%
improvement from 132 to 14.6 mpg
(solo).
Installation on most vehicles is simple.
The device is spliced into the fuel tine be-
tween tank and fuel pump. The company
says it should be as close to the tank as
possible but our installations were at the
fuel pump.
The price of the Moleculetor for RVs was
$129.95 when we first discussed testing
the device in March. At presstime in May
K had been increased to $214.95. The unit
for passenger cars was $89.95 and was
increased to $ 139.95. A money-back guar-
antee is offered within 45 days. The unit
may be returned to the dealer for replace-
ment up to one year, if the buyer is un-
satisfied with results.
More important than the actual price is
how long the device will take to pay for
itself. In the case of the Oidsmobile. the 2
mpg improvement would save $182 every
10,000 miles with fuel at $130 a gallon.
With the Blazer, the savings would be $94
for each 10,000 miles at the same fuel
cost assuming the mileage improvement
would occur the same way it did during
our tests.
Do our tests and those conducted by
Motor Trend mean the Moleculetor works?
Your interpretation of the results is about
as good as ours. While the results appear
to be uniformly positive, the idea that a
simple little aluminum tube can produce
enough magic to improve fuel economy
in vehicles weighing several thousand
pounds is not logical.
Possibly we're looking at the first gen-
uine mileage "miracle." If so, the volume
of test data will have to increase substan-
tially before it's strong enough to make
believers out of us skeptics who have seen
too many worthless gas gimmicks. TL
(Company address: Internal Energy
Management Corporation, Box ]429, Del
Rio, Texas 76640, or circle Reader Service
No. 337. Phone 800/331-1750 except in
Oklahoma; phone 600/722-3600 in Okla-
homa.)
-------
68
Attachment E
"Motorhome Life" Article
-------
-.'("ft. PteMteafltem -
' "sSr"!
*t W O^PU-nti*
--iJ k ^H- Wfr --* - - . -- _ ซ__ ,^_^,^ . _ ^y, .,
r *| ->^L , ^.^-^v .>-> ii
\^Mortm.
,lhe'Gas ,
jGimmlcks
3iiyasetปai??;-"V ^fl^.^^fe^oi
^r^^yt^-^^^^^'.^f
^^^^^C"^ซ!
-------
70
Molcculctor
11 That would your reaction be tf some-
Wone were to show you a round
aluminum cyfinder 1V4 inches In diameter
and 8 Inches long, with a hole through the
center, and data that you could increase
fuel economy up to 23% simply by run-
ning the fuel through this device before It
naches the carburetor?
Your initial reaction probably would be
the tame as ours: "Come on ... you
don't expect me to beftevc that?' You're
insulted that the guy would have' the
nerve to lay such a fairy tale on you.
You're thmkJn0, "How can I get rid of this
bum?'
But before you're able to caB for hdp
(he's bigger than you an), he puts out a
Although no hard tdenttfc data can be uted
to explain why (he Motocutoor fc ntcctuful,
MHL tatt reported o tubitanbal (nervate in
mltaage
rather exhaustive fuel economy test per-
formed by a major automotive testing
laboratory (Olson Engineering of Hunting-
ton Beach, California) and mentions that
a couple of other magazines are involved
in testing the device.
On doser examination, the Olson re-
port shows fuel economy increases rang-
ing from 10.82% to 20.30% for two
Chevrolet passenger cars and a Dodge
half-ton truck.
The device, called the Moleculetor, is
described by the company as a simple
cylinder of aluminum which contains a
special energy field (secret) that supposed-
ly changes the molecular structure of the
fuel, for more efficient combustion. The
energy supposedly is distributed through-
out the vehicle by the Moleculetor.
The energy supposedly lasts the tfetime
of the vehicle, or maybe longer. It
wouldn't have surprised us if they also
claimed It removed warts.
But Doug Lovegrove, the Moleculetor
representative who called on us, is not the
usual gas-gimmick huckster. He knows
automotive theory. Most people selling
worthless gimmicks don't even have a
dear understanding of how an internal
combustion engine operates. Lovegrove
has been in the automotive field for more
than 20 years, having worked In Chrysler
Corporation's racing program several
years ago. And he seems quite sincere in
his befief that the Moleculetor does work
Lovegrove handles Nevada and Hawaii
for the Moleculetor distributor. Internal
Energy Management Corporation of Del
Rio, Texas. He became interested in
Motofhome Uft* through Etha Mae Wil-
ton, Nevada state director of the Good
Sam dub* who installed a Moleculetor
on her motomome and reported a fuel
economy increase from 6.8 to 8.5 mpg
Etha Mae's fuel economy results are her
own, and not connected with any test per-
formed by the dub or by TL or MHL per-
sonnel, but she is quite enthusiastic about
the benefits of the device
Of course, most marketers of gas-saving
devices are able to come up with a variety
of testimonials Sponsors of the Molecu-
letor have a substantial number They
don't prove anything conclusively for a
broad range of vehicles
Does the Moleculetor actually work7 It
seems to ... and it's rather uncomfortable
to say so in absence of a logical explana-
tion. That business about the secret
energy field is a bit too much for one's
sense of practicality
in any case, we tested the unit on two
vehicles over a period of two months and
3,000 miles The results were an 18% im-
provement in a 1978 Oldsmobile station
wagon with 350 V-8 engine, and a 10%
Improvement in a 1978 Chevrolet Blazer
with 400 V-8 engine. We're not alone in
suggesting that the system may actually
work Motor Trend magazine planned an
article to appear in their July issue describ-
ing their five tests Ford Econoline Van.
16.7% improvement; Honda Accord. 5%
improvement; Honda Civic. 13.28% im-
provement; Toyota Land Cruiser. 20.4%
improvement; and Datsun 240Z. 7.58%
improvement.
Our tests produced interesting results.
First, we tested the Blazer by running fuel
economy tests, then driving the vehicle
600 miles and performing the tests again.
We used a separate fuel container so we
could accurately measure the amount of
gasoline used. We performed repeat tests
to establish margin of error, which usually
was around two-tenths of one mile per
gallon.
At the end of the 600-mile trip (the
company recommends at least two tanks
of fuel be used before the Moleculetor has
Its effect), we tested again and the results
showed no fuel economy improvement.
The news was phoned to Lovegrove. Ini-
tially he couldn't come up with a reason
for the poor results, but after consulting
with company directors it was their opin-
ion that use of the separate fuel container
was the reason. The separate container
was not "energized" by the Moleculetor
since it was not permanently carried in the
vehicle Back to the drawing board.
Next, the 1978 Olds was evaluated dur-
ing initial fuel economy tests in which we
Imply filled up at a service station a
practice we don't Ike because the margin
of error increases.
The procedure is the one recom-
mended In the beginning article, in this
issue Gas Savers. Gimmicks or God-
wnds? We fill up at the same pump, park
more on pay 63
Mated*
'1950
37
-------
GADGETS from page 37
in the same position, under the same
weather conditions and set the pump's
automatic shutoff nozzle on slow feed
When it shuts off automatically, we hang it
up. Repeat tests showed a mileage margin
of error of around V4 mpg ... larger than
we normally tolerate.
The plan was to drive about 800 miles
to get a feel for on-the-road fuel econ-
omy, Install the Moleculetor and drive an
additional 800 miles back to the departure
point, which should be enough distance
for the unit to do Its "energization" num-
ber. Initial mileage figures were In the
10-11 range. Then, at about the 600-mile
mark, the figures mysteriously increased
to the 12-13 mpg range. The Moleculetor
was installed at the 800-mile mark and the
good fuel economy figures continued
through the remainder of the trip.
Upon return, the original series of mile-
age tests was performed and the result
was a 2 mpg increase.
"Why," we asked Lovegrove, "did the
mileage increase before we even installed
the Moleculetor?" His reply was a ques-
tion: "Where did you carry the Molecu-
letor on the Bret leg of the trip?" "In the
rear storage compartment," was our re-
ply... and it was obvious what he would
say next that whatever It is the Molecu-
letor produces would affect the "energiza-
tion" of the vehicle even if the fuel is not
routed through the device. The Molecu-
letor, he said, will affect fuel economy
simply by being close to the fuel tank.
At this point it became apparent that
the device not only will remove warts, it
uifll cure sexual impotency
Then we went back to the Blazer which
showed no Improvement In our first test.
Initial tests were conducted, the vehicle
was driven on a 1,200-mile trip, and
comparison tests were conducted imme-
diately afterward The result was a 10%
improvement, from 13.2 to 14.6 mpg
(solo).
Installation on most vehicles Is simple.
The device is spliced into the fuel line be-
tween tank and fuel pump. The company
says it should be as dose to the tank as
possible but our installations were at the
fuel pump. Both vehicles utttzed vapor re-
*im systems so part of the fuel drawn
through the device was returned to the
tank. .
The price of the Moleculetor for RVs
was $129.95 when we first discussed test-
71
ing the device In March. At presstime in
May It had been Increased to $214.95
The unit for passenger cars was $89.95
and was Increased to $139.95. A
money-back guarantee is offered within
45 days The unit may be returned to the
dealer for replacement up to one year, if
the buyer is unsatisfied with results.
More important than the actual price is
how long the device wfll take to pay for
Itself in the case of the Oidsmobile, the 2
mpg Improvement would save $182 every
10,000 miles with fuel at $1.30 a gallon
With the Blazer, the savings would be $94
for each 10,000 miles at the same fuel
cost, assuming the mileage improvement
would occur the same way It did during
our tests
Do our tests and those conducted by
Motor Trend mean the Moleculetor
works? Your Interpretation of the results is
about as good as ours. While the results
appear to be uniformly positive, the idea
that a simple little aluminum tube can
produce enough magic to improve fuel
economy in vehicles weighing several
thousand pounds Is not logical.
Possibly we're looking at the first gen-
uine mileage "miracle." If so, the volume
of test data will have to increase substan-
tially before It's strong enough to make
believers out of us skeptics who have seen
too many worthless gas gimmicks. Q
(Company address: Internal Energy
Management Corporation, Box 1429, Del
Rio, Texas 78840. Phone 8001331-1750
except in Oklahoma; Phone 8001722-
3600 in Oklahoma.)
Note
'1980
-------
72
Attachment F
Statements by Individuals
-------
73
The World's Largest (and Fastest Growing) RV Owners Organization '-,
International Heatyuarters, P.O. Box 500, Agoura, California 9J307. (213) 991-498Q
. 11IA MAL Wll SUN
Nevada Slate Director
5 Spear St.
North las Vegas, NV 89030
March 2t>, 1980
Moleculetor Sales of Nevada .
3715 West Twain Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89103
Dear Mr. Lovegrove: \
Thank you for conducting a test on our 1978 Winnebago 26ft
motor home equiped with a 440 Dodge engine. The results of
the test showed an increase from 6.8 miles'per gallon to 8.5
miles per gallon, the total amount of increase is 25#.
The fuel crises has become such a problem with RV owners and
automobile owners across the country and with these kind of
results I am more than satisfied with the product. As Nevada
State Director of the Good Sam Club and personaly I would
recommend this product to any RV or^automobile owner.
* ! J '
I look forward to using thin product, as an Instrument to holp
keep our present status of RV life.' This may possibly be the
very thing that will keep us rolling into the future.
Best of RYing to Everyone,
Etha Mae Wilson
Nevada State Director
Trailer Life Publishing Co.. Inc.: .
T'Bi/cr Life Motorhome Life Van Life & Family Trucking RV Retailer Ridrr RV Campground Business RV Campground & Services
Dinv/ory Hi-Way HerM GOOD SAMpark Directory Sponsors of Hie (Sood Sam Club & GOOD SAMfiarks Benbuw Valley RV Resort
-------
STATE OF ARIZONA
COUNTY OR PARISH OF
AFFIDAVIT OF
M. TfryLOR _ , having been duly
sworn") avers 'and states' as' follows: ~ ' ' '
My name is KgNfJs/ETK M. T"V3W.aA _ _ / and
I am a citizen of the United States of America, domiciled in
the State of , /fttf hZ0A)A _ I am an employee
of the (?UHHJA/!g ARIZ QUA frig SฃL TJfc:, _ ,
which I presently serve in the "capacity of SERVICE?
MAfJAGEft During the time period indicated by the
attached exhibits, I was employed by the same employer as
MAfifft 0ฃA _ /' my continuous service began on
_ , 19 f* g .
The date set- forth in the attached Exhibits j
through _ ฃ \ _ inclusive were obtained through
standard runs and test runs (i.e., after installation of
MOLECULETOR energizers in the fuel lines of the described
engines and vehicles) conducted under my supervision and
under my control, and such data were obtained and kept in
the records of my employer in the usual course of its business.
They represent the facts they purport to disclose and summarize ,
To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, all
such data are accurate and trustworthy, and for the I
vehicles described in the exhibits show an average increase
ฐf W> */ % in ttie mileage performance of such vehicles.
If my initials appear in the following blank (but
otherwise I have crossed out the blank) , some of the "standard"
data of the attached exhibits were obtained otherwise than
under my supervision and control, as they extend retroactively
to include a period preceding my present employment, but
such data were taken from records of my employer made and
maintained by my employers in the usual course of its business
and to the best of my knowledge, information and belief such
data are accurate and trustworthy, and accurately state the
facts they purport to set forth:
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, the undersigned
officer duly authorized to administer oaths and jve_rifyy
statements by the above named
jThis A^Yr/iyday of
\JL# j
My Commission Expires July 31,1981
-------
75
Cummins Arizona Diesel Inc.
2239 North Black Canyon Highway
P. O. Box 6697
Phoenix, Arizona 85005
602 252 8021
July 6, 1979
Mr. Larry Wilkinson
Internal Energy Management Inc.
P.O. Box 1259
League City, Texas 77573
Dear Larry:
Please accept my sincere apology for being so slow in getting
this letter to you, but with union contract negotiations and .
the normal every day "B.S.", time slipped away very rapidly.
Cummins Arizona Diesel, 'Inc. was very happy to have the oppor-
tunity to run the fuel moleculator tests with your company.
I have enclosed several copies of the dyno report which shows
the fuel rate with and without the fuel moleculator involved.
As you caji see from the report, none of the readings varied a
great amount except for the fuel rate which dropped an average
of 24 Ibs. per hour or approximately 14.4%.
As per our agreement, the dyno report shows the tests exactly
as they were performed but, please remember that this is not an
endorsement of the product by Cummins Engine Company or Cummins
Arizona Diesel, Inc.
Again, it was our pleasure to be involved in the tests and if we
can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to call
at any time.
Very truly yours,
CUMMINS ARIZONA DIESEL,, INC.
KMT/ck Kenneth M. Taylor
General Service Manager
Enclosures
Tucson Office 1912 West Prince Road Tucson, Arizona 85705 602 887-7440
-------
CUSTOMER jtfTg.&J() 4-L-
jj fc&S? H
DYNO OPERATOR,
//
'
*JU> ^-
OIL PRESSURE COLD START PSI'
^; >?.S',/ /
RPM ^ S"<:3
^"7 ENGINE MODEL l/7>-'v^.S/N/X ?V.^.-^
PUMP CODE J2..T ^3
TIME
',ฃ>ฃ>
,
'i?St
-
' ' . (
|.vฃ
-RPM
^3^>
3?^
3->o
~
2^6
-
SCALE
iS.f
i*,ฃ
>S.f
*
-
/*;?'
HP
3:?7
3*7
3>'7
j'^7
INTAKE
MFD
PRESS
/7.J
li,.*-
/6.6
-
/ฃ.*>
RAIL
PRESS
-IS?
/S*
tss
.
' *
Ifs
" '
INTAKE
AIR
TEMP
55
c,3
$<*
.
/37
/. y
s^) ~ ^ (^
t^**^* ***^" * '
ENGINE
OIL
PRESS
ฃ.V;
4,7
t,*
--
ฃ?,
-
CRANK
CASE
PRESS
?
DYNO
WATER
TEMP
*>-
9^
VS
9y
OTT. .qflMPT.K. CHECK VISCOSITY & RECORD
-------
STATE OF flfflHO/UA. 77
COUNTY OR PARISH OF
- AFFIDAVIT or ฃRMฃ!T H. Me .... f
' , having been duly
swornTavers and states as follows:
My name is pRN9$r U. M g. 1 M*TV/?F , and
I am a citizen of the United States 6f America, domiciled in
the State of /QfltZflWA I am an employee
of the TV)e T'yQA/yJgft CjQHPAtiJ1=S . ... -
which I presently serve in the capacity of Gs&r VULE
Pt-esibEfJ'P During the time peri-od indicated by the
attached exhibits, I was employed by the same employer as
ฃtSpet~i/J3' 11 ft / my continuous service began on
I , 19 H? .
The date set- forth in the attached Exhibits
through _ /g _ inclusive were obtained through
standard runs and test runs (i.e./ after installation of
MOLECULETOR energizers in the fuel lines of the described
engines and vehicles) conducted under my supervision and
under my control, and such data were obtained and kept in
the records of my employer in the usual course of its business.
They represent the facts they purport to disclose and summarize ,
To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, all
such data are accurate and trustworthy, and for the ._._!&
vehicles described in the exhibits show an average increase
ฐf I3if> % iฐ the mileage performance of such vehicles.
If my initials appear in the following blank (but
otherwise I have crossed out the blank) , some of the "standard"
data of the attached exhibits were obtained otherwise than
under my supervision and control, as they extend retroactively
to include a period preceding my present employment, but
such data were taken from records of my employer made and
maintained by my employers in the usual course of its business
and to the best of my knowledge, information and belief such
data are accurate and trustworthy, and accurately state the
facts they purport to set forth-r
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, the undersigned
officer duly authorized to administer oaths and verify
statements by the above named , at
i i , on
this _ _{39 - day of , jgnua-vM / 19 &Q .
d .
My C^rr,-.:,:::.; L.p.re; S:-pt. 12,
-------
78EXHIBIT 5 TO 18
AFFIDAVIT QF 'THE TANNER COMPANIES
I. Run Used for Standard
1. Basic Vehicle Description (Mfg., year,
model, VIH, total miles, weight including engine,
etc.) TRUCK NO. 43-591
MFG. - I.H.C., YEAR - 1978, VIN - HGB11682,
TOTAL MILES - 168,173, WEIGHT - 16,300
2. Engine .Description (Mfg., year, model,
S.N., original or replacement and year if a
replacement, total mileage, type, fuel, etc.)
MFG. - CUM., YEAR - 1978, MODEL - NTC290,
S..N. - 10676578, TOTAL MILES - 168,173,
FUEL - NO. 2 DIESEL
.3. Load Description;
A. If carried in above vehicle (no trailer) ,
general description plus gross weight (vehicle
plus load):
B. (1) If load is a towed vehicle, description
of trailer (Mfg., model, year, number of wheels,
weight without cargo, etc.) MFG. - CHALLENGE,
MODEL - BODOM DUMP, YEAR -1977, NO. WHEELS - 12,
EMPTY WEIGHT - 11,800
B. (2) For towed vehicle, gross weight of trailer
plus pulling vehicle, with cargo:
AVERAGE GVW - 56.000
4. General Description of Standard Run
(Starting point, finish point, general weather
conditions, general traffic conditions, etc.)
STARTING POINT - PHOENIX TO YUMA AND ENDING IN
PHOENIX, GENERAL WEATHER - FAIR, GENERAL TRAFFIC -
LIGHT TO MEDIUM
5. Miles for Standard Run
Final odometer reading 100S74 miles
Starting odometer reading 90021 miles
Net Travel 10,853 miles
P. 1 of 3
-------
79
6. Inclusive Dates of Standard Run
111 V R
Starting Date: ~ 19
Finish date: . n"3ฐ 19 78
7, Fuel Consumption For Standard Run
(Number of gallons used, plus statement of how measured,
whether by filling pump meter at start and finish, or'
other) : 2411.8 gallons
by FILLED BY PUMP METER AT SAME LOCATION DURING
TEST PERIOD
8. Calculated Rate of Consumption for Standard
; Run
Net miles traveled (5 above) miles
Gal fuel used (1 above) = gal.
II. Test Run After Installation of MOLECULETOR
Energizer in Fuel Line of Engine Vehicle (as
described in Part I.above)
1. Basic Vehicle, changes {any significant
differences, including increase, in total miles,
from Standard Run; if none, please so state)
NONE
A
2. Engine description changes (any significant
difference, including miles; Please state "none" if
there are none.) NONE
3. Load description, changes:
A. No Trailer: (Any significant difference in type,
load and gross weight. State gross weight regardless,
plus "none" if there are no significant differences)
NONE
B. (1) Towed Vehicle (Any significant differences
other than weight, stating "none" if applicable)
NONE
B. (2) Gross weight of trailer with cargo and
56,000 GVW
pulling vehicle:
Exh. 5 , P. 2 of 3
-------
4. General description of Test Run (Can state
"Same as Standard Run" if this is correct. Otherwise
include starting point, finish point, general weather
conditions, general traffic conditions, etc.)
SAME
5. Miles .for Test Run: !
Final odo.-r.eter reading: 111535 miles
Starting odometer reading: 101317 miles
Net Travel 10,218 miles
6.. Inclusive Dates of Test Run:
Starting date: 12-1 19 ^f
Finish date: ] 12"3ฐ . 19
7. Fuel Consumption for Test Run:
(Number of gallons, plus statement of how measured,
whether by filling pump meter at start and finish,
or other method): GALLONS USED - 1.892.2
FILLED WITH PUMP METER AT SAME LOCATION DURING
TEST PERIOD . '
8. Calculated Rate of Consumption for Test Run:
Net miles traveled (5 abpve) miles
Gal. fuel used (7 above) = 5.4 gal.
III. Calculated Benefit Obtained by Adding KOLECUI/TOR
to Engine:
5 4 Miles with energizer (P II, S 8) Miles standard (P I, S 8)
gal gal
Benefit = ^__^
4 5MilesStandard
gal.
5 4 Miles increase ,
- ' gal.
4.5 Miles standard = 0.9 . 0. JO.O %
Exh. 5 , P. 3 of 3
-------
81EXHIBIT 1 TO 10
AFFIDAVIT QF BEST-WAY TRANSPORTATION INC.
I. Run Used for Standard
1. Basic Vehicle Description (Mfg., year/
model, VIN, total miles, weight including enginor
etc.) TRUCK NO. 501
MFG. - I.H.C., YEAR - 1978, MODEL - CO4070
VIN. - E2317HGA18110, MILES - 142, 361. WEIGHT - 10,000
2. Engine Description (Mfg., year, model,
S.'N., original or replacement and year if a
replacement, total mileage, type, fuel, etc.)
MFG. - DETROIT, YEAR - 1978, MODEL - 8V92TTA
MILEAGE - 142,361, FUEL TYPE - DIESEL
3. Load Description:
A. If carried in above vehicle (no trailer),
general description plus gross weight (vehicle
plus load): """"
B. (1) If load is a towed vehicle, description
of trailer (Mfg., model, year, number of wheels,
weight without cargo, etc.) MFG- - TRAILMOBILE.
MODEL - 27 FT,. DRY VAN, YEAR - 1979, NO. WHEELS -
4, WEIGHT - 7,000
B. (2) For towed vehicle, gross weight of trailer
plus pulling vehicle, with cargo; 78,000 GVW
4. General Description of Standard Run
(Starting point, finish point, general weather
conditions, general traffic conditions, etc.)
JPHOEXIX TO LOS ANGELES,_ BACK TO PHOENIX, WEATHER -
GOOD. TRAFFIC - MEDIUM
5. Miles for Standard Run
Final odometer reading 102611 miles
Starting odometer reading 82361 miles
Net Travel 2025ฐ miles
P. 1 of 3
-------
6. Incrci'Bive Dates of Standard Run
Starting Date; 7-1 19 79
Finish date: 8 ~ 30 19 79
7.. Fuel Consumption For Standard Run ...
(Number of gallons used, plus statement of how measured,
whether by filling pump meter at start and finish, or
3,894.2
other): ' gallons
by_
FILLED IN YARD 3Y METERED PUMP
8. Calculated Rate of Consumption for Standard
i Run
Net miles traveled (5 above) miles
Gal fuel used (7 above) = ' gal.
II. Test Run After Installation of MOLECULETOR
Energizer in Fuel Line of Engine Vehicle (as
described in Part I above)
1. Basic Vehicle, changes (any significant
differences, including increase, in total miles,
from Standard Run; if none, please so state)
NONE
2. Engine description changes (any significant
difference, including miles; Please state "none" if
there are none.) NONE
3. Load description, changes:
A. No Trailer: (Any significant difference in type,
load and gross weight. State gross weight regardless,
plus "none" if there are no significant differences)
NONE
B. (1) Towed Vehicle (Any significant differences
other than weight, stating "none" if applicable)
NONE
B. (2) Gross weight of trailer with cargo and
pulling vehicle: 78-ฐฐฐ GVW
. Exh. 1 . , P. 2 of 3
-------
4. General description of Test Run (Can state
"Same as Standard Run" if this is correct. Otherwise
include starting point, finish point, general weather
, conditions, general traffic conditions, etc.)
SAME
5; Miles 'for Test Run:
Final odometer reading: 121968 miles
Starting odometer reading: 102618 miles
Net Travel 19350 miles '
6.i Inclusive Dates of Test Run:
Starting date: 9-1 , 19 79
Finish date: 10-30 _, 19 79
7. Fuel Consumption for Test Run:
(Number of gallons, plus statement of how measured,
whether by filling pump meter at start and finish,
or other method): NO. GALLONS - 3,071.4
FILLED SAME AS BASE TEST
8. Calculated Rate of Consumption for Test Run:
Net miles traveled (5 above) miles
, Gal. fuel used (7 above) = 6.3 gal.
III. Calculated Benefit Obtained by Adding MOLECULTOR
to Engine:
6.3 Miles with energizer (P II, S 8) Miles standard (PI, S 8)
gal . gal
Benefit =
~ MilesStandard
O .
6.3
gal.
Miles increase
gal.
standard
1'1 = 0.
Miles standard
5-2
Exh. 1 , P. 3 of 3
-------
8EXI1IBIT 1 TO 10
AFFIDAVIT OF BEST-WAY TRANSPORTATION. INC.
I. Run Used for. Standard
1. Basic Vehicle Do script: ion (Mfg. ,'year,
model, VIH, total miles, weight including engine,
etc.) TRUCK NO. 501 ' .
MFG. - I.H.C., YEAR - 1978, MODEL.; C04070
VIN. - E23171IGA18110, MILES - 142, 361, WEIGHT - 10,000
2. Engine Ooscription (Mfg., year, model,
S.N., original or replacement and year if a
replacement, total mileage, type, fuejl, etc.)
MFG. - DETROIT, YEAR - 1978, MODEL - 8V92TTA
MILEAGE - 142,361, FUEL TYPE - DIESEL
3. Load Description; . .
; . -
A. If carried in above vehicle (no trailer),
general description plus gross weight (vehicle
plus load) :_ IHLLHIH .1
B. (1) If load is a towed vehicle,, description
of trailer (Mfg., model, year, number of wheels,
weight without cargo, etc.) MFG" r TRAILMO.BILE,
MODEL - 27 FT. DRY VAN, YEAR - 1979, NO.; WHEELS -
4, WEIGHT - 7,000 ' .
B. (2) For tov/ed vehicle, gross 'weight of traile:
plus pulling vehicle, with cargo; 78.000 GVW
t
4. General Description of Standard Run
(Starting point, finish point, general weather
conditions, general traffic conditions,, etc.)
PHOENIX TO LOS ANGELES, UACK'TO PilOE.Vf X, WEATHER -
GOOD. TRAFFIC - MEDIUM ' . '.
5 Miles for Standard Run
Final odomotcr reading 102611 miles
Starting odometer reading 82361 miles
Net Travel 2025ฐ ' ' _ mi lea
P. I of 3 " i
-------
6. Inclusive Dates of Standard Run ' .
Starting Date?5 7 - * '. 19
Finish date: 8 " 30 ' 19 79
7..' Fuel Consumption For Standard Run
(Number of gallons used, plus statement of how .measured,
\
whether by filling pump meter at start and finish, or
3.894.2 :
other): , gallons
by KILLED Hi YAKD 3Y METERED PLT1P
8. Calculated Rate of Consumption for Standard
; Run
Not miles traveled (5 above) miles
Gal fuel used (7 above) <* 5
II. Test Run After Installation of MOLECULETOR
Energizer in Fuel Line of Engine Vehicle (as
described in Part I above) :
1. Basic Vehicle, changes (any significant.
differences, including increase, in total 'miles,
from Standard Run; if none, please so sta'te)
NONE :
2. Engine description changes.(any significant
difference, including miles; Please state "none" if
there are none.) . NONE .
3. Load description, changes:
A. No Trailer: (Any significant difference in type,
load and gross weight. State gross weight regardless,
plus "none" if there are no significant differences)
NONE ;
B. (1) Towed Vehicle (Any significant differences
.
other than weight,'stating "none" ;if applicable)
NONE
B. (2) Gross weight of trailer with cargov> and
pulling vehicle: 78-ฐฐฐ GVW
Rxh. 1 , P. 2 of 3
-------
4. General description of Test Run (Can state
86
"Same -as Standard Run" if this is correct. Otherwise
include starting point, finish point, general weather
conditions, general traffic conditions, etc.)
SAME
v 5. Miles^for Test Run:
Final odometer reading: 121968 miles
Starting odometer reading: . 102618 miles
Net Travel' \ 19350 miles
.6; Inclusive Dates of Test Run:
Starting date: ^l , 19 79_
Finish'date: lp-30 ; _, 19 79
.7. Fuel Consumption for Test Run:
(Number of gallons, plus statement of how measured,
whether by filling pump meter at start and finish,
or other method): NO. GALLONS - 3,071.4
FILLED SAME AS :BASE TEST
8. 'Calculated Rate of Consumption for Test Run:
Net-mile's tra.veled (5 above) miles
'Gal. f.uel used (7 above) = ^ 3 gal. ..__
III. Calculated Benefit Obtained by Adding MOLECULTOR
to Engine:
6.3 MiJ.es with energizer (P II, S 8) Miles standard (P I, S 6
gal ' '. gal
Benefit = ___. ^_^
. . ,. T Miles Standard
&-^ g~aT7~
6 3 Mi*65 increase
qaj
Milcs standard
gal. . ซ 1-1 = 0. = 21'1 %
Exh. 1 , P. 3 of 3
-------
' 87
STATE OF ^qfti:z.(37\JA
COUNTY OR PARISH OF MftQl (LQ
AFFIDAVIT OF_
ETTGft _ _ - _ , having been duly
sworn, avers and states as follows: . -. .
My name is CQft^ ฃTTฃtf ' and
I am a citizen of the United States of America, domiciled in
the State of pR\2.6 fJfe _ = " " I- am a" employee
of the JIG&T-Ufiy Tffp*fSP0fiT/IT//>M ~
which I presently serve in the capacity of
fr-fl VJS0R . During the time period indicated by the
attached exhibits, I was employed by the same employer as
C.ฃ SUPE* \/l$ OR _ ? my continuous service began on
19
The date set- forth in the attached "Exhibits !
through /Jjj^ inclusive were obtained- through
standard runs and test runs (i.e., a^fter-installation of
MOLECULETOR energizers in the fuel lines of the described
engines and vehicles) conducted under my supervision and
under my control, and such data were obtained and kept in
the records of my employer in the usual bourse of its business.
They represent the facts they purport to disc-lose and summarize.
To the best of my knowledge, information and1belief, all
such data are accurate and trustworthy, and for the \Q
vehicles described in the exhibits show an average increase
of 1*1*3 * in tne mileage performance of sugh vehicles..
If my initials appear in the following blank, (but
otherwise I have crossed out the blank'), some of the "standard"
data of the attached exhibits were obtained otherwise "than
under my supervision and control, as they extend retroactively
to include a period preceding my present .employment, but
such data were taken from records of my employer made and
maintained by my employers in the usual course, of-its business
and to the best of my knowledge, information and belief such
data are accurate and trustworthy, and accurately state the
facts they purport to set forth; - ' f-
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, the undersigned
officer duly authorized to administer oaths and verify
statements by the above named fig.*/ ^'c^^ '_. ' ' , at
, / i _;, on
^9 day of
My Commission Expires AL'ฃ. 20, 12S2
-------
8งXHIBIT 2 TO 10 -
AFFIDAVIT OF BEST-WAY TRANSPORTATION INC.
I. Run Used for Standard ...
1. Basic Vehicle Description (Mfg.,-year,
model, VIN, total miles, weight including engine,
:i * .
etc.) THUCK NO. 503
MFG. - I.H.C., YEAR - 1978, MODEL .-;C04070. VIN. -
E2317HGA18118, MILES - 137086, WEIGHT - 10,000
2. Engine Description (Mfg., year, model,'
S^N., original or replacement: and year 'if a
\
replacement, total mileage, type, fuel} etc.)
MFG. - DETROIT, YEAR - 1978, MODEL .8V92TTA
MILEAGE - 137086, FUEL TYPE - DIESEL ;
3. Load Description; ' ,.
A. If carried in above vehicle (no trailer),
general description plus gross weight (vehicle
plus load); ' ,
B. (1) If load is a towed vehicle, description
of trailer (Mfg., model, year, number of wheels,
weight without cargo, etc.) MFG- ~ TRAILMOBILE,
MODEL - 27 FT. DRY VAN, YEAR'- 1979, NO.' .WHEELS -
4. WEIGHT - 7,000 '
B. (2) For towed vehicle, gross weight of trailer
plus pulling vehicle, with cargo; ..^8'_000 GVW
4. General Description of Standard Run
(starting point, finish point, general weather
conditions, general traffic conditions, etc.)
PHOENIX TO LOS ANGELES, BACK TO .PHQE.NLX, WEATHER '-'
GOOD, TRAFFIC - MEDIUM : ' _ '
5. Miles for Standard Run
Final odometer reading 95558 miles
74 ft 7?
Starting odometer reading miles
Net Travel ; 20686 miles
P. 1 of 3 ' 1
-------
6; Inclusive Dates of Standard Run' '. '
Starting Date 89 7-1 _ '1979
Finish date: 8"3ฐ _ , __ .19
7. Fuel Consumption For Standard Run
(Number of gallons used, plus statement of how 'measured,
whether by filling pump meter at start and finish, or
other): _ 4,221.6 gallons
by FILLED IN YARD BY METERED PUMP
8. Calculated Rate of Consumption for Standard
! Run ' ' .
Net miles traveled (5 above) miles
Gal fuel used (7 above) = 4 ^ _ gal.
1 .
II. Test Run After Installation of MOLECULETOR
Energizer in Fuel Line of Engine Vehicle (as
described in Part I above) i
1. Basic Vehicle, changes (any significant
differences, including increase, in total. railes,.
from Standard Run; if none, please so state)
NONE ' ' '
2. Engine description changes (any significant
difference, including miles; Please .state '"none" if
there are none.) . NONE
3. Load description, changes: ' \
A. No Trailer: (Any significant difference in type,
load and gross weight. State gross weight regardless,
plus "none" if there are no significant differences)
NONE
B. (1) Towed Vehicle (Any significant differences
other than weight, stating "none" if applicable)
NONE . . *
B. (2) Gross weight of trailer with cargo and
pulling vehicle: 78.000 GVW \ '
Exh. 2 ., p. 2 of 3
-------
90 ' ' * -i '
4. General description of Test Run (Can state
"Same as Standard Run" if this is correct. Otherwise
include starting point, finish point, general weather
conditions, general traffic conditions, etc.)
SAME ' . '
5. Miles for Test Run:
Final odometer reading:
116655
Starting odometer reading:
Net Travel
95569
21086
miles
miles
miles
6: Inclusive Dates of Test Run:
Starting date: 9~1
Finish date:
10-30
19
79
79
7. Fuel Consumption for Test Run:
(Number of gallons, plus statement of how measured,
whether by filling pump meter at start and finish,
or other method): NO. GALLONS - 3,573.9
8. Calculated Rate of Consumption for Test Run:
5.9
Net miles traveled (5 above)
Gal. fuel used (7 above)
. miles
gal.
III. Calculated Benefit Obtained by Adding'.MOLECULTOR
to Engine: . .
5.9 Mi*es with energizer (P II, S 8) 'Miles standard (PI, 58)
gal gal
Benefit = .
4.9
Miles
5.9
gaJ
increase
gal .
4.9
Miles standard
gal.
Standard
1.0
0.
20.4
Exh. 2 , P. 3 of 3 '
: i
-------
91
EXHIBIT 7 TO 10
AFFIDAVIT OF BEST-WAY TRANSPORTATION '-INC.
i
I. Run Used for Standard .
w 1. Basic Vehicle Description (Mfg., year,
model, VIN, total miles, weight including engine,
'. * *
etc'.) TRUCK NO. 183
MFG. - I.H.C., YEAR - 1972, MODEL - C04070, VIN.
229471Y034515, MILES - 300789, WEIGHT - 10,000
\
2. Engine Description (Mfg., year, mode1,
i *
S.N., original or replacement -and'year if a
replacement, total mileage, type, fuel, etc.)
MFG. - CAT., YEAR r 1972, MODEL - 1674
MILEAGE 300789, FUEL TYPE - DIESEL
3. Load Description: : .
A. If carried in above vehicle (no trailer),
general description plus gross weight. (vehicle
plus load): '-.'''
B. (1) If load is a towed vehicle, description
of trailer (Mfg., model, year, number of wheels,
weight without cargo, etc.) "FG- " TRAILMOBILE.
MODEL - 27 FT, DRY VAN, YEAR - 1979,.NO. WHEELS .-
4, WEIGHT - 7,000 ; .' V.
\
B. (2) For towed vehicle, gross weight>pf trailer
plus pulling vehicle, with cargo; . '
4. General Description of Standard Run
(Starting point, finish point, general_weather
conditions, general traffic conditions, etc.)
GENERAL LOCAL ROUTE IN PHOENIX .
5. Miles for Standard Run
Final odometer reading 285931 miles
Starting odometer reading 280390 -^roiles
Net Travel ; 5541 _jniles
P. 1 of 3 .:
-------
6. Incluffive Dates of Standard Run
7 1 ' 79
Starting Date: .19
Finish date: ' 8-30 ' 19 79
7. Fuel Consumption For Standard Run ;
(Number of gallons used/ plus statement of how measured,
ซ
whether by filling pump meter at start and- finish, or
other) :' ' 1.351.5 gallons
by FILLED IN YARD BY METEHED PUMP ,
8. Calculated Rate of Consumption for Standard
' Rim ' -. .
Net miles traveled (5 above) . ' '-miles
Gal fuel used (7 above) = 4.1 ' gal.
II. Test Run After Installation of MOLECULETOR
Energizer in Fuel Line of Engine Vehicle (as
described in Part I'above) '
1. Basic Vehicle, changes (any significant
differences, including increase, in total miles,
from Standard Run; if none, please so state)
NONE ' , '
2. Engine description changes (any significant
difference, including miles; Please state "none" if
there are none.) NONE v
3. Load description, changes:
A. No Trailer: (Any significant difference in type,
load and gross weight. State gross weight regardless,
plus "none" if there are no significant differences)
NONE
B. (1) Towed Vehicle (Any significant differences
other than weight, stating "none" if" applicable)
NONE ' ' "' ' .."'"
B. (2) Gross weight of trailer with cargo and
... ... 78,000 GVW
pulling vehicle: '
Exh. 7 , P. J2 of 3
-------
4. General description of Test Run tCan state
03
"Same as Standard Run" if this is correct: Otherwise
include starting point, finish point, general weather
conditions, general traffic conditions, etc.)
SAME
'5. Miles .for Test Run:
Final odometer reading:
291662
Starting odometer reading:
Net Travel
285944
5718
miles
miles
miles
6,' Inclusive Dates of Test Run': .- ' . .
Starting date: 9~1 ; , 19 ^
Finish date: 10-30 , 19
79
7. Fuel Consumption for Test Run:
(Number of gallons, plus statement of how measured,
whether by filling pump meter at start and.finish,
or other method): N0' GALLONS ' *'.<ป8.9 . % . .
FILLED SAME AS BASE TEST
8. Calculated Rate of Consumption for.test Run:
Net miles traveled (5 above)
Gal. fuel usedf7 above)'
miles
t gal.
III. Calculated Benefit Obtained by Adding MOLECULTOR
to Engine:
5.4 Miles with energizer (P II, S. 8) Miles'standard (P I, S 8)
gal . gal
Benefit = : ''
5.4
4 l
41 Miles
gal.
Miles increase
gal.
standard
gal.
Standard
1.3
0. =31.7
Exh.
, P. 3 of 3
-------
EXHIBIT 5 TO 10 '.
AF1-I DAV$T OF BEST-WAY TRANSPOBTATI ON; -I NC.
'.'ป',''
I* Run Used for Standard
1. Basic Vehicle Description ' (Mfg., year,
model, VIM, total miles, weight including engine,
etc.) TRUCK NO. 507 ' .
MFG. - I.H.C., YEAR - 1979, MODEL - C0470, VIN. -
E2317JGA10-183. MILES 87199, WEIGHT - ID',000
2. Engine Description' (Mfg., year,"model,
S.;N., original or replacement and year if a._ _
replacement, total mileage, type, fuel, etc.)
MFG. - CUM., YEAR - 1979, MODEL - FORMULA ,350,
MILEAGE - 87199, FUEL TYPE - DIESEL .. .
3. Load Description; . ;
A. If carried in above vehicle (no trailer),
general description plus gross weig"ht (vehicle
plus load): ; i '
B. (1) If load is a towed vehicle, description
of trailer (Mfg., model, year, number of wheels,
weight without cargo, etc.) MFG- -.T-RAI-LMOBILE.
MODEL - 27 FT.. DRY VAN, YEAR'- 1979,_ NO. WHEELS -
4, WEIGHT - 7,000 :
B. (2) For towed vehicle, gross weight of trailer
plus pulling vehicle, with cargo; 78.ฐฐฐ GVW
4. General Description of Standard Run
(Starting point, finish point, general waather
conditions, general traffic conditions, etc.)
PHOENIX TO LOS ANGELES, BACK.TO PHOENIX, WEATHER -"
GOOD, TRAFFIC - MEDIUM
5. Miles for Standard Run
Final odometer reading 52730 miles
Starting odornoter reading 32874 .. miles
19856
Net Travel
P. 1 of 3
-------
6. Inclusive Dates of Standard Run
Starting Date-3_5 7"1 19 ,79
! u * .. 8-3ฐ , 79
Finish date: 19
7; Fuel Consumption For Standard Run .
(Number of gallons used, plus statement of how measured,
whether by filling pump meter at start, and finish, or
other): 4,316.5 1 gallons
b FILLED IN YARD AT METERED PUMP
_
8. Calculated Rate of Consumption for Standard
,' Run ' . .
Net miles traveled (5 above) . . j, g. _- miles
Gal fuel used (7 above) =ป . . gal.
II. Test Run After Installation of MOLECULETOR
Energizer in Fuel Line of Engine Vehicle (as
described in Part I above) *
1. Basic Vehicle, changes (any significant
differences, including increase, in total miles,
' ; i
from Standard Run; if none, please so state) I
NONE
l
2. Engine description changes (any significant
difference, including miles; Please state "none" if
there are none.) .NONE .
t
3. Load description, changes:
A. No Trailer: (Any significant difference in .type,
load and gross weight. State gross weight regardless,
plus "none" if there are no significant differences)
_ . NON'E^ _ _ , _
B. (1) Towed Vehicle (Any significant differences
other than weight, stating "none" if applicable)
NONE
B. (2) Gross weight of trailer with car^o and
pulling vehicle: . 78'ฐฐฐ GVW . _ '
Exh. 5 . , P. 2 of 3
-------
4; General description of Test Run (Can state
"Same as Standard Run" if this is correct. Otherwise
include starting point, finish point, gent ral weather
conditions, general traffic conditions, etc.) _
SAME '.''
___ _ ' - I
5., Miles for Test Run:
Final odometer reading: _ _ [_ miles
Starting odometer reading:
Net Travel
' 53180
20356
: miles
miles
G.i Inclusive Dates of Test Run:
Starting date: __ 9~l ; ' 6 19 79
Finish date: _ . 1Q-30'' ', 19 79
7. Fuel Consumption for Test Run:
(Number of gallons, plus statement of how measured,
whether by filling pump meter at start and*- finish,
or other method): NO. GALLONS - 3.450.1 .
FILLED SAME AS BASE TEST . ;'
8. Calculated Rate of Consumption for Test Run:
Net miles traveled (5 above) - ' miles
Gal. fuel used (7 above) = .5.9 ' . gal.
III. Calculated Benefit Obtained by Adding MQLECULTOR
to Engine : . '
5.9 Miles with energizer (P II, S 8) Miles standard (P I, S 8) [
gal ; gal . ?
Benefit = .'-''. ' ' ' :' t
. . -MilesStandard';
5.9
^" gal.
Miles increase
ga 1.
4 6 M-ilc-s standard 1 3 : 28.3
gal. = ' = 0.' = %
Exh. S , p. 3 of 3
-------
97
Attachment G
TEB Report
'The Effects of the Moleculetor Fuel Energizer
on Emissions and Fuel Economy"
-------
98
EPA-AA-TEB-81-18
The Effects of the Moleculetor
Fuel Energizer on Emissions
and Fuel Economy
by
Gary T. Jones
May 1981
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
99
Abstract
This paper describes a program designed to evaluate the effects of the
Moleculetor Fuel Energizer on exhaust emissions and fuel economy. Three
late model passenger cars were subjected to a series of test sequences
both before and after installation of the device. Each test sequence
included the current Federal Test Procedure (for exhaust emissions only)
and the Highway Fuel Economy Test. Test vehicles were selected on the
basis of high sales volume and were set to manufacturer's specifications
before entering the program.
Based on the results of this testing, there is no reason to believe that
the Moleculetor conclusively had an effect on the fuel economy and
emission levels of the test vehicles. The changes that were shown were
quite small and were not inconsistent with trends found by EPA on other
fleets of test vehicles which were subjected to mileage accumulation.
-------
100
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency receives information about many
devices which appear to offer potential for emissions reduction and/or
fuel economy improvement on conventional engines and vehicles. EPA
invites developers of such devices to apply for a "Section 511
Evaluation". Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2011) requires EPA to evaluate fuel economy
retrofit devices with regard to both emissions and fuel economy, and to
publish the results in the Federal Register. The applicant must provide
complete technical data on the device, principles of operation, and
results of emissions and fuel economy tests. Should the application
indicate that the device shows promise, confirmatory testing will be
conducted by the EPA at its Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory in
Ann Arbor, Michigan. The results of such test projects are set forth in
a series of reports by the Test and Evaluation Branch.
EPA received a 511 application, dated March 24, 1980, from Energy
Efficiencies, Inc. (EEI) to perform an evaluation of their Fuel Energizer
Moleculetor (hereafter referred to as Moleculetor). The Moleculetor is a
cylinder of aluminum approximately 1.5 inches in diameter. Several
models in different lengths are offered for various applications. There
is a hole drilled length-wise through the center with a brass fitting on
each end. The Moleculetor is installed into the fuel line between the
fuel tank and fuel pump. According to the instructions, the installation
takes 15 to 20 minutes once the proper location has been found. The
manufacturer claims that the aluminum serves as a container for an
induced "energy field". The energy field supposedly changes the
molecular structure of the fuel as it passes through the device and
causes it to burn more efficiently. According to the manufacturer,
maximum efficiency is reached after 500 miles of driving. According to
advertisements for the Moleculetor, fuel economy improvements from 10% to
23% can be expected. In the 511 application, it was stated that
significant emission reductions were displayed by all cars that were
tested for their support data. No claims were made on changes in
driveability. EEI supplied two reports by Olson Engineering, Inc. as the
main body of their support data. Also supplied were three magazine
articles, and testimonials by individuals describing their experience
with the Moleculetor.
Purpose of EPA Program
The purpose of this program was to evaluate the effects of the
Moleculetor on fuel economy and regulated emissions. Judging from the
preliminary examination of the device itself, the claims concerning the
ease of installation and the lack of required maintenance seem to be
correct. The claim that vehicle safety would not be affected also seems
correct as long as the device was installed properly. Thus, these
aspects of the device were not part of the EPA test program.
-------
Test Plan 101
The following test plan was developed to address the claims made for the
Moleculetor.
1. Identify and obtain three test vehicles - Typical, current in~use
passenger cars were sought. Only vehicles with between 10,000 and
20,000 miles were to be obtained. The original candidates were:
Chevette, Citation, Fairmont, Cutlass, and Omni.
2. Conduct underhood inspection and perform minor adjustments - These
checks and adjustments were to ensure that the cars were operating in
accordance with the manufacturer's tune-up specifications.
3. Perform first Road Route sequence - The first sequence was to
consist of a mileage accumulation route, approximately 130 miles in
length. Since the test vehicle would be a rental car of unknown
prior use, this sequence would assure that each vehicle was
reasonably preconditioned.
4. Perform dynamometer test sequences This sequence was to include
the Federal Test Procedure (exhaust emissions only) and the Highway
Fuel Economy Test. They were to be performed at least twice at each
test point or as many times as necessary to obtain stable results.
Values for HC, CO, C02, NOx and fuel economy were to be measured.
5. Install Moleculetor - This was to be performed once all baseline
testing was complete.
6. Perform second Road Route sequence - This sequence was to consist
of four mileage accumulation routes, totaling over 500 miles. This
amount of mileage was specified by the Applicant to be necessary for
full "energization" of the vehicle.
7. Perform dynamometer test sequence with Moleculetor - This was to
be performed in the same manner as that in Step 4.
8. Assemble results and complete report.
This test plan was submitted to and approved by EEI. At this time, they
also appointed a representative to oversee the test program and provide
technical assistance. The test vehicles were then procured from local
rental agencies. They were as follows:
A 1979 Chevrolet Chevette with a 1.6 liter four cylinder engine, two
barrel carburetor, and an automatic transmission.
A 1980 Chevrolet Citation with a 2.8 liter six cylinder engine, two
barrel carburetor, and an automatic transmission.
-------
102
A 1980 Ford Fairmont with a 3.3 liter six cylinder engine, one barrel
carburetor, and an automatic transmission.
These test vehicles were selected on the basis of sales. They
represented the top three domestic nameplates in registrations for 1980.
Even though the Chevrolet Chevette was a 1979 model, its ranking in sales
was similar to the 1980 models.
There were four mileage accumulation road routes used in this program
that ranged from 127 miles to 153 miles in length. Each requires 3 to
3 1/2 hours for an average speed of approximately 45 mph. They were
developed and used in earlier EPA programs. They consist of mostly two
lane rural roads, but all have some highway and city type driving. A
description of the road routes is attached in Appendix A.
The dynamometer testing was conducted according to the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) described in the Federal Register of June 28, 1977 and
the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) described in the Federal Register of
September 10, 1977.
Conduct of the Test Program
The time interval for the dynamometer testing portion of this program ran
from November, 1980 to March, 1981. This was longer than originally
planned because numerous delays prolonged the program. After sucessful
underhood inspections were performed on the test vehicles the first road
route sequence was performed without incident. Following this the
baseline testing began. Although the Chevette and Citation completed
this phase without problems, the Fairmont displayed an apparent erratic
malfunction in the charging system. The alternator warning light would
blink off and on intermittently during the baseline tests. Nothing was
done to correct the problem at that time. Finally, after installation of
the Moleculetor, the charging system completely failed during the second
road route mileage accumulation sequence. The Fairmont was towed back to
the laboratory and the malfunction was traced to the voltage regulator.
After the installation of a new regulator, the Fairmont continued mileage
accumulation. The decision at this time was to continue testing on the
Fairmont even though changes to the vehicle had been made. The vehicle
could not be rebaselined because the Moleculetor had already been
installed. According to the manufacturer's claims, this energizes the
entire fuel system and takes 56 days to de-energize after removal. The
other two vehicles completed the road route sequences without incident.
Upon beginning the second series of dynamometer tests, the Fairmont began
to display erratic test results. After the dynamometer testing was
completed, the decision was made to acquire an identical Fairmont to
replace the original one. A replacement Fairmont was obtained, but
proved to be somewhat erratic in its baseline data. Six sequences x^ere
run before an acceptable baseline was established. The replacement
Fairmont then completed the rest of the test procedure. Because of the
problems encountered with the original Fairmont, it was decided to
perform further testing after the removal of the Moleculetor. The
results obtained from this vehicle are not included in the averages.
However, all individual data generated from this and the other test
vehicles can be found in Appendix B.
-------
103
There was one additional change in the original test plan. Rather than
conducting the program using commercial fuel, Indolene Clear was used.
This fuel is used throughout EPA and the automotive industry as the
standard for emissions and fuel economy testing. Its specifications are
well established and tightly controlled. The use of commercial gasoline
would have required drum storage or frequent purchases from local gas
stations. The former situation was discouraged on the basis of safety
while the latter was unacceptable because of the variability in fuel
properties and quality. These reasons for the fuel change in the
original test plan were approved by EEI. Most other test variables were
also minimized through the use of the same driver for each car and the
same test cell throughout the program.
Test Results
Shown in Table 1 are the average baseline and "Moleculetor installed" FTP
emission and fuel economy results for the test vehicles.
Table 1
Average FTP Emissions and Fuel Economy
(Emission values in grams/mile)
Number
Vehicle Test of Tests Hฃ Cฃ CO? NOx MPG
Citation Baseline 2 .47 4.00 427 1.55 20.40
Moleculetor 2 .44 3.64 417 1.74 20.95
Chevette Baseline 3 .60 6.20 348 1.50 24.70
Moleculetor 3 .66 7.17 352 1.48 24.27
Fairmont Baseline 6 .59 6.23 460 1.73 18.80
Moleculetor 5 .61 6.42 443 2.02 19.50
As these results show, there were slight variances in the fuel economy
data. The Citation displayed a 3% increase, the Chevette a 2% decrease,
and the Fairmont a 4% increase. Overall, this amounts to approximately a
2% average improvement. Typically, test-to-test variability in fuel
economy measurements for "back-to-back" testing is in the range of 1-3%.
This range can be expected to expand slightly due to equipment and
vehicle changes if time or mileage occurs between the tests as required
in this evaluation program. Thus, when test variability is taken into
account, these changes are negligible. The emission levels also remained
fairly stable with the exception of NOx on the Fairmont which increased
17%.
-------
104
Table 2 displays the average HFET emission and fuel economy results.
Table 2
Average HFET Emissions and Fuel Economy
(Emission values in grams/mile)
Number
Vehicle Test of Tests HC ฃ0 CQ2 NOx MPG
Citation Baseline 2 .11 .49 299 1.50 29.55
Moleculetor 3 .10 .56 284 1.49 31.10
Chevette Baseline 3 .13 .57 274 1.75 32.20
Moleculetor 2 .12 .50 278 1.75 31.85
Fairmont Baseline 6 .13 .06 366 1.50 24.18
Moleculetor 5 .15 .03 348 1.57 25.48
As with the FTP, the HFET fuel economy varied on both the plus and minus
side. The Citation and the Fairmont both displayed a 5% increase, while
the Chevette decreased 1%. Overall, a 3% improvement was measured. The
emission values displayed very little variances between the baseline and
Moleculetor tests.
The original Fairmont which was subsequently disqualified showed marked
increases in the FTP and HFET test numbers after the Moleculetor was
installed and 500 miles of on-the-road driving was performed. Both fuel
economy and emissions had changed significantly from the baseline tests.
Further testing after removal of the Moleculetor showed the same trend
continuing. In fact, the final test (seven weeks after removal)
displayed the highest fuel economy of any of the preceding tests
performed on it. Complete test data can be found in Appendix B.
Analysis of Results
After assembling the results, two statistical tests were performed. The
first was the one-sided t-test at a 95% confidence level. This test was
performed on individual vehicles. It showed a statistically significant
increase in fuel economy for the Fairmont over both the FTP and HFET.
The HFET fuel economy increase for the Citation was also found to be
significant. Using this same technique, no statistically significant
changes were observed for either test on the Chevette, or for the FTP on
the Citation. The other statistical test was the univariate 1-way
ANOVA. In this test, results from all three cars were standardized and
grouped. The increases in NOx emissions and the HFET fuel economy for
the fleet were deemed statistically significant by this method.
-------
105
As these tests show, even statistically speaking the results are somewhat
inconsistent. The questionable nature of the data is evident upon the
observance of the changes in the simple before and after averages of the
individual vehicles. Discounting the variability of the test, two
vehicles displayed increases on both the FTP and HFET, while the third
displayed a decrease on each test. Even if some level of test
variability is acknowledged, these changes may be attributed to the 500
miles of "on the road" driving between the "before and after" tests.
Other EPA programs have demonstrated that minor improvements in fuel
economy are possible throughout the course of test program which includes
mileage accumulation.
Conclusion
The results of this test program did not show consistent effects
attributable to the Moleculetor on the fuel economy and emission levels
of the test vehicles. There were slight improvements in some cases and
slight losses in others. The changes in all cases were quite small and
were consistent with changes observed by EPA in other tests with vehicles
in which emissions and fuel economy measurements were made before and
after mileage accumulation. The claims of 10% to 23% fuel economy
increases were not substantiated by the findings of this EPA program.
-------
106
Appendix A
Description of Road Routes Used for Mileage Accumulation
-------
Location
EPA
Jackson
Hudson
Adrian
Saline
Ann Arbor
EPA
107
ffl Adrian Road Route
(130 miles, about 3 hours)
Route Miles
Start at EPA Parking Area 0.0
EPA to Plymouth Road (turn left)
Plymouth Road to US-23 (North) (turn left
onto ramp) :
US-23 to M-14 (West) (follow expressway
to left twice)
M-14 to 1-94 (West) (merge) - 10.1
1-94 to US-127 (South) (exit right, clover-
leaf) 38.8
continue on US-127 when expressway ends "45.2
US-127 to M-34 (East) (turn left) 69.0
M-34 to M-52 (North) (turn left) . 86.2
Follow M-52 through Adrian (3 to 4 turns) 100.8
M-52 to M-12 (turn right)
M-12 to Ann Arbor-Saline Road (turn left) 115.0
At Wagner Road, continue on Ann Arbor-Saline
Road at STOP sign (veer right)
.Ann Arbor-Saline Road turns into Main Street
(straight)
Main Street to Stadium Blvd. (turn right) 122.8
Stadium runs into Washtenaw (merge)
Washtenaw to Huron Parkway (turn left) 125.6
Huron Parkway to Plymouth Road (turn left)
Plymouth Road to EPA
Finish at EPA Parking Area 129.5
Approx.
Time
-hrimin
0:00
0:17
0:50
1:00
1:28
1:50
2:12
2:30
2:43
2:51
3:00
'
-------
108
#2 - Ohio Road Route .
.(133 miles, about 3 hours)
Location
EPA
Toledo, Ohio
Ann Arbor, MI
EPA
Route
Start at- EPA Parking Lot
EPA to Plymouth Road (turn left)
Plymouth Road to US-23 (South) (turn right, enter
ramp)
US-23 to SR-2 in Ohio (West) (exit right)
SR-2 (West) to SR-109 (North) (turn right)
SR-109 turns into M-52 at Michigan border (straight) .
M-52, through Adrian, to M-50 (East) (turn right)
M-50 to Ridge Highway (turn left)
Ridge Highway to Mooreville Road (turn right)
Mooreville Road to Stony Creek (turn left)
Stony Creek to Carpenter Road (turn left)
Carpenter Road turns to Hogback at Washtenaw (straight)
Hogback Road turns into Huron River Drive (straight)
Huron River Drive to Dixboro Road (turn left)
Dixboro to Plymouth Road (turn left)
Plymouth Road to EPA (turn right)
Finish at EPA Parking Lot .
48.8
66.7
76.3
96.8
104.
113.
114.
117.
125.8
127.0
132.7
-------
Location
EPA
Ypsilanti
Milan
Saline
Manchester
Napoleon
Michigan
Center
Grass Lake
109
#3 - Ann Arbor Road Route
(153 miles, 3-1/2 to 4 hours)
Route
Miles
Start at EPA Parking Lot 0.0
EPA to Plymouth Road (left turn)
Plymouth Road to Ford Road (right turn)
Ford Road to Prospect (right turn) 6.0
.Prospect to Forest (right turn) 11.0
Forest to Hamilton (left turn) 12.0
Hamilton through Ypsilanti & over 1-94
Hamilton changes to Uhittaker
Whittaker to Milan-Oakville Road (right turn) 23.0
Milan-Oakville Road to Main (veer right)
Main, through Milan, to Saline-Milan Road (right
turn) . 30.0
Saline-Milan Road to Michigan Ave. (left turn) 35.0
Michigan Ave., through Saline, to Austin Road
(right turn) . 36.0
Austin changes to M-52 in Manchester
M-52 to Main (left turn) 50.0
Main changes back to Austin Road ' --
Austin Road to M-50 (straight at STOP sign)
M-50 to Napoleon Road (right turn) 62.0
Napolean changes to Broad Street (straight
at STOP sign on Lee)
'Broad to Fifth (right turn) 68.0
Fifth to Page Ave. (right turn)
Page to Ballard Road at TRICO Industries
before RR tracks (see map on next page)
(left turn) 69.0
Ballard to Michigan Road (right turn) 70.0
Michigan to Mt. Hope (left turn) 76.0
NOTE: Mt. Hope is Union Street on the
right side of Michigan Road in Grass
Lake
Mt. Hope over 1-94 to Seymour (right turn) 81.0
Seymour turns into Trist (no noticeable turns)
Trist to Clear Lake (left turn) 84.0
Clear Lake to Waterloo Road (turn right)
Waterloo to M-52 (turn right) 91.0
Time
hrrmin
0:00
0:09
0:17
0:36
0:45
0:55
0:56
1:13
1:29
1:37
1:40
1:42
1:50
1:56
2:00
2:10
-------
110
//3 - Ann Arbor Road Route cont.
Location Route
Chelsea
Dexter
Pinckney
New Hudson
South Lyon
EPA
-M-52 to Middle Street at light (left turn)
Middle Street to McKinley (left turn)
McKinley over RR tracks to Dexter-Chelsea Road
(right turn) .
Dexter-Chelsea Road to Main in Dexter (left
turn) - '
Main, under viaduct, to Dexter-Pinckney (veer
right)
NOTE: Main changes to Island Lake Road at
Dexter-Pinckney Road
Dexter-Pinckney Road to M-36 (right turn)
M-36 to US-23 (North) (left turn)
US-23 to 1-96 (East) (exit right)
1-96 to Milford-New Hudson, Exit 155, to
.Pontiac Trail (also Milford Road)
(exit right, then turn right)
Pontiac Trail across Grand River (veer right)
continue on Pontiac Trail (see map below)2
Pontiac Trail turns left at Silver Lake Road
(left turn)
Pontiac Trail through South Lyon
'Pontiac Trail to Dixboro Road (left turn)
Dixboro Road to Plymouth Road (right turn)
Plymouth Road to EPA (right turn)
Finish at EPA Parking Lot
Miles
94.0
94.0
101.0
110.0
121.0
127.0
134.0
147.0
151.0
153.0
Time
hr:min
2:15
2:16
2:24
2:38
2:54
3:01
3:09
3:27
3:33
3:37
'IT
-------
Ill
Location
EPA
Plymouth
Chelsea
Dexter
Ann Arbor
//4 - Howell Road Route
(127 miles, 3-1/4 to 3-1/2 hours)
Route
Miles
Start at EPA Parking Lot 0.0
EPA to Plymouth Road (turn left)
Plymouth Road to Ford Road (detour) (turn
right) . -
Ford Road to M-153 (West) (turn right, then
180t left turn at island)
M-153 to Plymouth (finish detour) (right turn>
Plymouth Road turns to Ann Arbor Road in
Plymouth, also called M-14
M-14 (East) to 1-275 (North) (right turn onto
cloverleaf) JL6.2
1-275 to 1-96 (West) (follow left lane of
1-275 straight)
1-96 to Novi Exit (Walled Lake) (right turn
off exit ramp) 27.0
Novi Road to East Lake Drive (right turn)
E. Lake Drive to Pontiac Trail (right turn) 30.8
Pontiac Trail to South Commerce Road (left turn) 31.6
S. Commerce to Oakley Park Road (right turn) 33.7
Oakley Park to Newton (left turn) '34.2
Newton to Richardson (right turn) 34.5
Richardson to Union Lake Road (left turn) 35.7
Union Lake to.Elizabeth Lake (left turn) 40.5
Elizabeth Lake to M-59 (Highland Park) (left
turn) (veer left at fork) 42.3
M-59, over US-23, past Howell, to 1-96 (West)
(right turn on ramp) 67.5
' 1-96 to M-52 (South) (exit right, turn left
off of ramp) 78.9
M-52 through Stockbridge to Chelsea
M-52 to Middle Road in Chelsea (left turn) 106.8
Middle Road to McKinley Street (turn left)
McKinley, over RR tracks, to Dexter-Chelsea Rd.
(right turn)
Dexter-Chelsea to Main (right turn) 114.0
Main to Central (veer left)
Central to Huron River Drive (turn right) 114.7
Huron River Drive to N. Main Street (turn
right) 123.8
Main to Depot Street (left turn)
Depot goes under Broadway Bridge then up to
Broadway on right lane (right turn, circle
270ฐ right)
Time
hrrmin
0:00
0:00
0:45
0:52
1:40
2:25
-------
A - Howell Road Route cont. 112 .
Location Route - Miles Time
hr:min
A2 cont. Broadway to Plymouth (veer left at fork) 125.7
Plymouth Road to EPA
EPA Finish at EPA Parking Lot 127.1 3rl5
-------
113
Appendix B
Individual Test Results
-------
114
Moleculetor Fuel Energizer Evaluation
1979 Chevette
FTP Results - Emission values are expressed in grams per mile.
Test
Number
80-6781
80-6783
80-6785
80-6936
80-6938
80-6956
HFET
Test
Number
80-6782
80-6784
80-6784
80-6937
80-6939
80-6955
Date
11/19/80
11/20/80
11/21/80
12/2/80
12/3/80
12/4/80
Results -
Date
11/19/80
11/20/80
11/21/80
12/2/80
12/3/80
12/4/80
Test
Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Moleculetor
Moleculetor
Moleculetor
Emission values
Test
Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Moleculetor*
Moleculetor
Moleculetor
HC
.62
57
.61
.76
.61
.60
CO
6.9
5.4
6.3
7.8
6.8
6.9:
are expressed
HC .,
.13
.13
.13
.16
.12
.12
CO
0.8
0.3
0.6
1.1
0.5
0.5
CO
351
346
346
348
354
355
in grams
CO
ฃ.
280
272
271
318
276
279
NOx
1.42
1.54
1.53
1.39
1.48
1.56
per
NOx
1.79
1.68
1.78
2.15
1.70
1.80
MPG
24.4
24.9
24.8
24.5
24.2
24.1
mile.
MPG
31.5
32.5
32.6
27.7
32.0
31.7
*Test voided - results not averaged into summary.
-------
r ,i i ซ
115
:' Molecule tor Fuel Energizer Evaluation
- . 1980 Chevrolet Citation
FTP Results -.'Emission values are expressed in grams per mile.
Number
,. . -i':.",v .,... ซ. .,;,
ฃ$i> .;': '' ' ( :y$rt ;;''i;' test x^^ ; . ' .
''..<#%;'- . '^"v^'V: ...-.':. 'fi^K; \ ' ..
r y^.- Date . i-^^Conditioa ' , ;, HC
CO C02
NOx MPG
: 80-6786^'... 11/18/80.;; Baseline'v;;; .50 3.9 420 1.52 20.7
; 80-6806;: 11/19/80^ ^Baseline'-A^\?- .43. 4.1 434 1.58 20.1
: 80-67|6^./:i2/2/80;;'^.. Moleculetor* ^ ;. .49 4.8 410 1.64 21.2
80-6788^v^2/3/80^;; Molecu'letor" " ? .43 3.3 416 1.76 21.0
80-6958 V;,; '12/4/80 J^Moleculetor :! v .45 4.0 417 1.72 20.9
*Test .'voided results not averaged into summary.
v'''!-\(r.'.'..;.'!-,. ' ' ,..-. '' ,".. ': ;:'.V.-;'V-': .;'.
;HFET Results .7 Emission Values are expressed in grams per mile.
Test
Number':^.r:l--Date V^.l^-';Condition::':- ','-,.= . '. HC
.i^::il^:-
*:?.$&:::
Mol^culet|r|^^; :.W
CO
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
co2
298
299
277
291
285
NOx MPG
1.50
1.49
29.6
29.5
1.43 31.9
1.52 30.4
1.53 31.0
-------
116
Moleculetor Fuel Energizer Evaluation
1980 Ford Fairmont
FTP Results - Emission values are expressed in grams per mile.
Test
Number
80-7262
80-7264
80-7266
80-7268
80-7271
80-7273
80-7744
80-7750
80-7752
80-7754
80-7756
80-7978
Date
1/13/81
1/14/81
1/15/81
1/16/81
2/3/81
2/4/81
2/12/81
2/20/81
2/24/81
2/25/81
3/3/81
3/4/81
Test
Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline*
Moleculetor
Moleculetor
Moleculetor
Moleculetor
Moleculetor
*Test voided - results not averaged
HFET
Test
Number
80-7263
80-7265
80-7267
80-7270
80-7272
80-7283
80-7745
Results -
Date
1/13/81
1/14/81
1/15/81
1/16/81
2/3/81
2/4/81
2/12/81
Emission values
Test
Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline*
HC
.61
.59
.58
.58
.56
.64
.41
.68
.58
.60
. 60 .
.61
CO
7.2
6.3
5.7
5.9
4.6
7.8
2.3 :
7.8
5.2
6.0
6.3
6.8
C00
471
460
452
460
455
462
456
448
443
447
435
441
NOx
1.58
1.66
1.80
1.92
1.71
1.71
2.22
1.97
2.01
2.15
1.98
1.99
MPG
18.3
18.8
19.2
18.8
19.1
18.6
19.2
19.2
19.6
19.3
19.8
19.6
into summary.
are expressed
HC
.12
.13
.13
.13
.14
.13
.14
CO
.03
.09
.04
.06
.03
.09
.01
in grams
CO
370
371
363
367
356
371
358
per
NOx
1.45
1.51
1.50
1.56
1.47
1.49
1.73
mile.
MPG
23.9
23.9
24.4
24.1
24.9
23.9
24.7
-------
117
80-7751.
80-7753
80-7755
80-7757
80-7979
2/20/81"
2/24/81.
2/25/81 ,
3/3781; ";;
3/4/81"]'
15
15
15
15
14
.06
.03
.01
.02
.02
356
348
345
345
345
1.53
1.57
1.65
1.61
1.49
24.9
25.4
25.7
25.7
25.7
Moleculetor
Moleculetor
., Moleculetor
Moleculetor
Moleculetor
*Test/voided - results are not averaged into summary.
l^tMoleculetor Fuel Energizer Evaluation
i:;i980 Ford Fairmont (Disqualified)
:. 'fflfl'^:':^^'^^^-''''"'-*
'V^fFTP Results, Emission values are expressed in grams per mile.
Test .;>; '. - '"."'^t/iii^'; Test
Number ' Date ,, ' Condition
HC CO CO,
NOx
MPG
80-6798 . 11/18/80 Baseline
80-6799 11/19/80 -\ Baseline
' 80^68032|J,::al2/3780'||:|^'lMoleculetor
iu 80-69545;a^k12/4/8b's%ifc^rMoleculetor
,--. w v w .^ ป ซ,, lu-'fjf1-") -t. */ r* i ,*^^*.'"-'%??'^ v **O JLGCUXG t O i
V'-: ^^^^i^^^^m^j^^'''
on_7o<;/.-:^, T /Ti/a-i ^*-:rffMoleculetor
/o Moleculetor
/o Moleculetor
%." -
/o Moleculetor
/ovMoleculetor
7o Moleculetor
.46
.49
,71
.71
.67
,65
,62
68
.65
65
62
4.9
5.6
8.2
3.9
4.7
6.3
5.1
5.7
5.1
5.2
4.8
ฃ
555
563
523
456
448
458
452
456
470
470
414
.49
.51
1.51
1.51
1.37
1.08
1.06
1.19
1.14
1.21
1.14
15.7
15.5
16.5
19.1
19.4
18.9
19.2
19.0
18.5
18.5
20.9
-------
118
HFET Results - Emission values are expressed in grains per mile.
Test
Number
80-6797
80-6800
80-6802
80-6804
80-6953
80-7255
80-7257
80-7259
80-7261
80-7609
80-7612
Date
11/18/80
11/19/80
12/2/80
12/3/80
12/4/80
1/13/81
1/14/81
1/20/81
1/29/81
2/3/81
3/3/81
Test
Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Moleculetor
Moleculetor
Moleculetor
Moleculetor
w/o Moleculetor
w/o Moleculetor
w/o Moleculetor
w/o Moleculetor
w/o Moleculetor
HC
.05
.06
.14
.17
.15
.12
.14
.14
.14
.16
.14
CO
.50
.60
.19
.05
.13
.22
.22
.16
.16
.20
.17
CO
465
469
397
367
363
371
364
364
370
363
335
NOx
.46
.47
.95
1.19
1.02
.78
.93
.91
.80
.93
.98
MPG
19.0
18.9
22.3
24.1
24.4
23.9
24.3
24.3
23.9
24.4
26.4
------- |