EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-14
PB81-226706
EPA Evaluation of the Platinum Gasaver Device under Section 511
of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
by
John C. Shelton
May, 1981
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EPA Evaluation of the Platinum Gasaver Device 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;
PLATINUM GASAVER Trade Mark
2. Inventor of the Device and Patents;
A. Inventor
"A patent application is filed and is pending. The owner of the
patent rights is"
Joel Robinson
501 Washington Street
Brookline, MA 02146
B. Patent
Until the U.S. Patent Office acts on the patent application,
Pegusus Enterprises declines to submit this data to protect the
patent rights.
3. Manufacturer of the Device:
National Fuelsaver Corporation
667 Washington Street
Brookline, MA 02146
4. Manufacturing Organization Principals;
"Not Applicable."
5. Marketing Organization in U.S. making Application:
Pegusus Enterprises
6835 North Algonquin Avenue
Chicago, 1L 60646
6. Applying Organization Principals;
President: Jacek Helenowski
7. Description of Device;
A. Purpose of the Device (as supplied by Applicant):
"The purpose of the device is to improve mileage at least 20% and
to cut down on harmful polluting emissions."
-------
B. Theory of Operation (as supplied by Applicant);
"The Platinum Gasaver process operates on the chemical principal
of having platinum present where fuel is burned. The process
introduces microscopic quantities of platinum into the engine
along with the fuel and air while the vehicle is driven. With the
platinum present in the combustion chamber of the engine, a higher
percentage of each gallon of fuel will be burned, resulting in a
significant increase in miles per gallon."
"Since the platinum injection system coats the engine surfaces in
a gradual process, it is important to be aware that your vehicle
may have to be driven up to 1,800 miles before the platinum
process becomes fully effective." See Attachment B for additional
information.
C. Detailed Description of Construction (as supplied by Applicant);
For detailed description of construction see packing contents and
installation instructions, Attachment B.
8. Applicability of the Device (as supplied by Applicant);
"Is applicable to all automobiles and/or all trucks with or without
turbocharger, fuel-injection or carburetor. It works with both
leaded and unleaded fuel and is complementary with any improvement
gained by improved lubrication."
The different model numbers are:
SU-1 for gasoline powered automobiles that average 9 m.p.g. or above
before the device is installed.
SU-2 for diesel powered automobiles that average 9 m.p.g. or above
before the device is installed.
SU-3 for diesel powered automobiles that average 6-8 m.p.g. before
the device is installed.
SU-4 for diesel powered trucks that average 6-8 m.p.g. before the
device is installed.
SU-5 for diesel powered trucks that average 5 m.p.g. before the
device is installed.
9. Costs (as supplied by Applicant):
A 24,000 mile supply of the platinum costs $119 - and includes the
equipment for two vehicles at no extra cost. A 12,000 mile supply
costs $69 - and includes the equipment for one car at no extra cost.
10. Device Installation - Tools and Expertise Required (as supplied by
Applicant);
-------
A. Complete installation instructions are contained in Attachment B.
B. Only simple hand tools are required for installation.
11. Device Operation (as supplied by Applicant):
"Once the device is installed the operator must add a bottle of
Gasaver concentrate every 6,000 miles.
12. Maintenance (claimed):
None
13. Effects on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated) (claimed);
"At the absolute most, less than 1/4 of one gram of platinum will be
admitted to the atmosphere during one year (12,000 miles) of driving."
14. Effects on Vehicle Safety (claimed);
This device does not endanger the automobile or its occupants or
persons or property in close proximity to the automobile.
15. Test Results (Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy) (submitted by
Applicant);
A. A fleet of fifteen 1980 Chevrolet station wagons with 305 cubic
inch V-8 engines were tested both without and with the Gasaver
Device installed. The results are summarized in Attachment B.
B. A Hyster Lift Truck (NASA 095675) was evaluated in August 1979 for
total hydrocarbons and fuel economy. The results of this
evaluation are included in Attachment C.
16. Discussion
EPA corresponded several times (see Attachments A through E) with the
Applicant in an attempt to obtain valid test data. The Applicant
chose not to provide the required valid test data (!) and so
informed EPA by telephone on March 19, 1981. EPA had previously
notified the Applicant that EPA was obligated to complete the
evaluation based on the information available and publish the
results. The requirement for completing the evaluation was again
discussed and the Applicant concurred.
17. Conclusions
EPA fully considered all of the information submitted by the
Applicant. The evaluation of the "Platinum Gasaver" was based on
that information. The Applicant did not submit any valid data to
support the claims for increased fuel economy and lower emissions.
The Applicant was advised by letter on several occasions of EPA's
requirement that Applicant's submit valid test data following the
-------
proper EPA test procedures^'. Based on the information provided
by the Applicant, there was no technical basis to support any claims
for a fuel economy improvement or emission reduction with the
"Platinum Gasaver".
From EPA 511 Application test policy documents:
Test Results (Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy);
Provide all test information which is available on the effects of
the device on vehicle emissions and fuel economy.
The Federal Test Procedure (40 CFR Part 86) is the only test which
is recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the
evaluation of vehicle emissions. The Federal Test Procedure and
the Highway Fuel Economy Test (40 CFR Part 600) are the only tests
which are normally recognized by the U.S. EPA for evaluating
vehicle fuel economy. Data which have been collected in
accordance with other standardized fuel economy measuring
procedures (e.g. Society of Automotive Engineers) are acceptable
as supplemental data to the Federal Test Procedure and Highway
Fuel Economy Data will be used, if provided, in the preliminary
evaluation of the device. Data are required from the test
vehicle(s) in both baseline (all parameters set to manufacturer's
specifications) and modified forms (with device installed).
-------
List of Attachments
Attachment A Copy of December 17, 1980 letter from EPA to
Pegusus Enterprises containing information
describing the process to apply for an EPA
evaluation of a device.
Attachment B Copy of January 21, 1981 letter from EPA to
Pegusus Enterprises returning a device which
was received without an application for evalua-
tion.
Attachment C Copy of February 1, 1981 letter from Pegusus
Enterprises with an incomplete application for
evaluation of device. The application did not
contain any valid test data.
Attachemnt D Copy of March 11, 1981 letter from EPA to
Pegusus Enterprises containing an initial
review of the application. This letter again
notified the Applicant EPA would require
additional data/information to process the
application.
Attachment E Copy of March 11, 1981 letter from EPA to
Pegusus Enterprises detailing the type of valid
test data required before EPA could test the
device.
-------
Attachment A
December 17, 1980
hCri*JaesstefS'e-letrovskfc
Pegtisus Enterprises
6833 Horth Algonquin Ave,
Chicago, IL 6064&
Dear !ir. Helenowskl:
This letter is in response to your inquiry of 12/17/30 regarding an EPA evalu-
ation of the Platinum Gasaver. The Environmental Protection Agency is charged
by Congressional raandate to evaluate fuel economy and emission control
devices. Vhile the EPA does not actually "approve" such devices, it does
conduct evaluations for the purpose of increasing the comraon knowledge in the
area. For this reason, the outcome of any testing by EPA beconres public
information. It is this information which may be cited although no claims can
be made that any EFA findings constitute "approval" of the. device or systeia.
Enclosed with this latter is a packet of materials which you will need to
apply for an EPA evaluation of your device. This packet consists of 1) an
application format, 2) a document entitled "EPA Retrofit and Emission Control
Device Evaluation Test Policy" and 3) a copy of the applicable Federal Regula-
tions.
In order for the EPA to conduct an evaluation of your device, we must have an
application. Once you have reviewed all the documents in the packet, you
should prepare an application in accordance with the guidelines of the
application fpraat. A critical part of the application is the substantiating
test data. The required test results will have to be obtained at a laboratory
of your choice. Such testing would be conducted at your expense. A list of
laboratories which are known to have the equipisent and personnel to perform
acceptable tests has been included in the enclosed packet. If you desire, we
can assist you in the development of a satisfactory test plan.
There are, however, several aspects concerning tasting at an outside
laboratory which I would like to bring to your attention at this tine:
Hiniimura Test Requirements - Although different types of devices may
require a more complex test plan, the cdninum we require involves two
vehicles and two test sequencea run in duplicate. The vehicles should be
selected from those listed in Table 1; if possible. Each vehicle is to
be set to manufacturer's tune-up specifications for the baseline tests.
-------
The teats are conducted in a "back-to-back" manner, once with the vehicle
in baseline condition and again with the device installed with no vehicle
adjustments between tests. If installation of the device also involves
some adjustments, e.g. timing, fuel-air mixture, choke or idle speed,
another test sequence with only these adjustments should be inserted
between the first and last. Also as a minimum, the test sequence shall
consist of a hot-start LA-4 portion (bags 1 and 2) of the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) and a Highway Fuel Economy Test (KPET). The details of
these tests are contained in the enclosed packet. Although only a
hot-start FTP is required to minimize the costs to you, you ars
encouraged to have the entire cold-start test performed since any testing
and evaluation performed by EPA will be based on the complete FT? and you
isay; :wish-, to- know how a vehicle with your device performs; .over this
official test. As a final requirement, the personnel of the outside
laboratory you select should perform every element of your test plan.
This includes preparation of the test vehicle, adjustment of parameters
and installation of the device.
Submission of data — We require that all test data obtained from the
outside laboratories relative to your application be submitted to us.
This includes any results you have which were declared void or invalid by
the laboratory. We also ask that you notify us of the laboratory you
have chosen, when testing is scheduled to begin, what testa you have
decided to conduct, allow us to maintain contact with the laboratory
during the course of the testing, and allow the test laboratory to
directly answer any questions at any time about the test progr-ara.
Cost of the Testing - The cost of the minimum test plan (two vehicles,
two test sequences in duplicate) described above should be less than
$2000 per vehicle and less than $4000 for the total test at any of the
laboratories on the list. You will have to contact then individually to
obtain their latest prices.
Outcome of the Tests - Although it is impossible to accurately predict
the overall worth of a device from a small amount of testing, we have
established some guidelines which will help you determine whether the
test results with your device should be considered encouraging. These
values have been chosen to assure both of us that a real difference in
fuel economy exists and that we are not seeing only the variability in
the results. The table below presents the minimum number of cars that
need to be tested for varying degrees of fuel economy improvement
assuming a typical amount of variability in fuel economy measurement.
For a minimum test plan which was conducted on a fleet of two cars, the
average improvement should be at least 8%. If at least an 8% difference
in average fuel economy can be shown, then we would be able to say
statistically at the 80% confidence level that there is a real
improvement. Similarly, we would expect a minimum of 5% improvement for
a fleet of 5 vehicles. Te^t results which display a significant increase
in emission levels should be reason for concern.
-------
Minimum Fuel Economy Improvements versus Size of Test Fleet
gleet Size Average Improvement Required
28%
3 7%
4 6%
5 5%
10 4%
25 22
Once we receive your application, it will be reviewed to determine if it meets
the requirements listed In the format. If yonr application ia not/complete,
we will ask you- to submit further .information or data. After "any missing
Information has been submitted, your application will be reconsidered and once
it roeets our requirements, you vd.ll be advised of our decision whether or not
EPA will perform any confirmatory testing. Any EPA testing will be performed
at no cost.- to you and you will be given the opportunity to concur with our
test plan. Once this testing is complete, an evaluation report will be writ-
ten. If no further testing is required, the report will be written solely on
the basis of the test data submitted and our engineering analysis.
Despite the current backlog and increasing number of inquiries regarding fuel
economy device evaluations, the EPA intends to process your application in as
expeditious a manner as possible. We have established a goal of twelve weeks
from the receipt of a complete application to the announcement of our report.
The attainment of this objective requires very precise scheduling and we are
depending on the applicant to respond promptly to any questions or to submit
any requested data. Failure to respond in a tinely manner will unduly delay
the process. In the extreme case, we may consider lack of response as a
wichdrawl of the application.
I hope the information above and that contained in the enclosed documents will
aid you in the preparation of an acceptable application for an EPA evaluation
of your device. I will be your contact with EPA during this process and any
subsequent EPA evaluation. My address is EPA, Motor Vehicle Eraission Labora-
tory, 2565 Plyicouth Road, Ami Arbor, Michigan, 48105. The telephone number is
(313) 663-4299. Please contact tne if you have any questions or.require any
further information.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth,
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Emission Control Technology Division
Enclosure*
ECTD: TSB *gOUTHicd:X239i25&5Ply»»athgd rArvsArberM4 3105 j 12/17 /80
-------
10
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
„ „ Attachment B
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
January 21, 1981
Mr. Jack M. Helenowski, President
Pegusus Enterprises
6835 North Algonquin Avenue
Chicago, IL 60646
Dear Mr. Helenowski:
On December 17, 1980, I sent to you a package of information describing the
process by which you could apply for an EPA evaluation of your device, the
Platinum Gasaver."^ Shortly thereafter, I received pne of your devices in the
mail; but as yet, I have not received an application for evaluation from you.
In order for the EPA to conduct an evaluation of your device, we must have an
application prepared According to the application format as described in the
information I sent to you on December 17. EPA is not taking any action on
your device at this time. • • :-
Your device is being returned to you. If EPA evaluates your device at a later
date, there will be no problem in procuring the necessary units for our tests.
Please let me know if you plan to apply for an EPA evaluation.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth
Senior Project Manager
Test and Evaluation Branch
cc: P. Hutchins
-------
PEGUSIIS ENTERPRISES MA™. GROUP
6835 NORTH ALGONQUIN AVENUE
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 80848
16 December 1980
Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Fuel Economy Evaluation Branch
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor/ Michigan 48105
Gentlemen:
Included you will find a "Gasaver" device (the included
model is designed to work optimally in an automobile which
averages 15 mpg) for which I have distribution rights in the
greater Chicago area to include sales to the Federal
Government/ its agencies/ and departments. As the attached
articles from Design News/ Easy Reader/ and The Boston
Phoenix describe the process through which this device can
attain approximately a 20% mileage increase on a multitude
of fuels/ I will not attempt to repeat the same facts to you
in this letter. What I do desire is to have the process
tested by your field and laboratory facilities so that I may
eventually market this device to the General Service
Administration and the Defence Procurement Agency. I am
confident that your evaluation will prove the claims found
in the attached articles to be valid.
I have taken the liberty of also asking the U.S. Army Tank
and Automobile Command in Warren/ Michigan to conduct a
similar test, but of course all my future prospects depend
upon your agency's evaluation of my product's worth as a
fuel saving device and non-pollutant.
Included also is a copy of my manufacturer's basic statement
of our product's goals and success in obtaining these goals.
I would also like to point out that this process is already
being used by the Armed Forces of the State of Israel to
extend the range of their Armoured Wheeled and Track
Vehicles as well as their low performance aircraft/ namely
helicopters. Both Martin Marietta Corporation and the
Transportation Management Corporation have tested our
product with very encouraging results.
-------
PEGBSUS ENTERPRISES MARK™* GROUP
6835 NORTH ALGONQUIN AVENUE
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60648
You will find me readi ly avai lable to answer any quesx-ions
or to provide additional supplies should your tests require
the same. I may be reached by writing at the following
address:
Pegusus Enterprises
Marketing Group
P.O. Box 59126
Chicago, Illinois 60659
or by telephoning (312) 775-9359
(312) 774-0763
(312) 774-0784
Sincerely,
Jacek M. Helenowski
President
Pegusus Enterprises
JMH/tkh
Incl: 5 Articles
-------
13
NATIONAL FUELSAVER CORP.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
3.
4.
PACKING CONTENTS and INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS
1 GASAVER INSTRUMENT
1 Small plastic "T" connector
1 12 ounce bottle of GASAVER SOLUTION (This 12 ounce bottle contains
the same amount of platinum, 6,000 miles worth, that is contained in
each of the 1 ounce bottles of GASAVER CONCENTRATE. )
1 1 ounce bottle of GASAVER CONCENTRATE
1 Plastic, self-locking, releasable, strap
1 6 foot length of rubber tubing
1 Funnel
B
GASAVER INSTRUMENT
HORIZONTAL OPENING
GASAVER TUBING
"T"CONNECTOR
VACUUM LINE OF VEHICLE
Pour the 12 ounce bottle of GASAVER SOLUTION into the GASAVER INSTRUMENT
very slowly to avoid spilling. (The horizontal opening "B" looks like it is closed.
It is open to a diameter of less than 1/200 inch, which is proper. )
Find a safe and convenient location for the GASAVER INSTRUMENT under the hood
of your car. Keep it away from the hot parts of the engine and exhaust. Also avoid
sharp metal corners and the battery. Usually there is a suitable spot behind a headlight.
Secure the GASAVER INSTRUMENT. We have provided a self-locking strap.
Locate a rubber vaccum line leading out of the base of the carburetor. Usually the
one:to the choke or the air cleaner is best. Cut this tubing at a convenient spot and
insert two legs of the plastic "T".
Connect one end of the GASAVER TUBING to the third leg of the "T", and the other
end to the Horizontal opening "B" on the instrument.
Race engine slightly to see bubbling in the GASAVER SOLUTION. A bubbling rate
of 7 to 15 bubbles per 10 seconds is best. If bubbling rate is otherwise contact your
supplier.
Your platinum GASAVER is now fully operational, although it may take from 200 to 1,800
miles to become fully effective. After each 6,000 miles of driving the platinum
GASAVER SOLUTION will be down only one ounce, but all the platinum will have been
used. Therefore, after each 6,000 miles of driving it is necessary to add one ounce
of platinum GASAVER CONCENTRATE to the instrument to keep this process
operational.
DISTRIBUTED BY:
PEGUSUS ENTERPRISES
Marketing Group
P.O. Box 59126
Chicago, Illinois 60659
-------
PLATINUM GASAVER TEST RESULTS
14
VEHICLE
NUMBER
59
63
53
51
56
64
60
55
68
50
62
66
57
54
65
AVERAGE
MILES PER
GALLON
WITHOUT
GASAVER
12.0
11.3
14. 1
13.0
12-'2 j
9.6
13.3
9.8
14.3
10.8
14. 1
15.8
14.4
13.1
12.9
12.7
- MILES PER
GALLON
WITH
GASAVER
17.8
16.6
20.7 .,;
18.8 j:
17. 1 .:
13.3
17.9
13.1
18.4
13.9
17.6
17.5
15.9
14. 0 ;
11.3 "./
16.3
PER CENT
IMPROVEMENT
WITH
GASAVER
48.3%
46. 9%
.46. 8%
44. 6%
40. 2%
38. 5%
34. 6%
33.7%
28.7%
28.7%
24. 8%
10.8%
10.4%
6. 9%
-12.4%
28.3%
Installation of the PLATINUM GASAVER, manufactured by NATIONAL FUELSAVER
CORPORATION of Brookline, Massachusetts, was performed on 4/22/80 on the above
numbered fifteen 1980 Chevrolet station wagons with 305 cubic inch V-8 engines (odometer
readings between 15,070 and 38,784), owned and operated by TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION of Medford, Massachusetts.
The "Miles par gallon with GASAVER" column shows the improvement starting on 5/9/80,
by which date each of the cars had been fully initialized with the platinum process. The
test period ended on 5/26/80. These test results are purely a function of miles travelled
and fuel consumed. Other variables which may have influenced this study have not been
defined.
We, the undersigned, officers of the two corporations (Transportation Management Corp.
of Medford, Mass, and National FuelSaver Corp. of Brookline, Mass.) participating in the
above study do hereby attest to the accuracy of the data contained herein and do agree that
it may b«* made available for public dissemination, but only in its entirety.
ay «* mae avaa
t+£+^S S^~
Richard ZimrnernnaJn, President
Transportation jfamagement Corp.
G. bonig)i C.P.A. , V. P. & Controller
Trinspormtion Management Corp.
o^
ra
Gordon, Fleet Manager
Date: June 18» 198°
National FuelSaver Corp. , 667 Washington St., Brookline, Mass. 02146 TEL: 617/731-4444
-------
15
NATIONAL FUELSAVER CORP.
667 VVASHiNGTON ST. 8ROOKLINE. MASS 02146 • TEL. 617/731-4444
Response to the nationalpublicity on our platinum GASAVER process has been
overwhelming. It is currently in use or. thousands of vehicles across the country
with a success rate of better than 90%. ' •
The GASAVER operates, on the same^chemical principle that oil refineries use to
reduce their fuel consumption dramatically - having platinum present where fuel
is burned. Combustion is much more complete and the oil companies are saving
billions of dollars annually.
We have adapted this principle to the automotive engine. Our process introduces
microscopic quantities of platinum into the engine along with the fuel and air while
you drive. With the platinum present in the combustion chamber of your car, a
higher percentage of each gallon of fuel will be burned, resulting in a significant
increase in miles per gallon.
Enclosed with this letter are reprints from the EASY READER (Southern California),
the BOSTON PHOENIX, and DESIGN NEWS (a national engineering magazine). These
articles describe the GASAVER platinum process. As you can see the equipment has
been improved and simplified so that installation time should not exceed fifteen minutes.
The GASAVER is highly effective on all types of vehicles - domestic or foreign, old
or new. It is the only platinum technology that works with leaded or unleaded gasoline,
or diesel fuel. The GASAVER process has not yet received the authorization of any
auto maker for new car use. Therefore, if your car is still under warranty, bo sure
to consult your dealer to insure that the installation of'the GASAVER will not jeopardize
your warranty in any way. It is also important to be aware that your vehicle may have
to be driven up to 1,800 miles before the platinum process becomes fully effective.
The vast majority of our customers are getting 3 to 4 more miles per gallon. A few
are getting as much as 6 to 8 more miles per gallon. And a small group are not
saving at all; in which case we" refund thei-r-_money. We are constantly working to
perfect our process. Therefore, we ask our customers to help us improve our process
by reporting back to us on their experience with the platinum GASAVER.
A 24,000 mile supply of the platinum costs $119. - and includes the equipment for two
vehicles at no extra cost. (A 12,000 mile supply costs $69. - and includes the equipment
for one car at no extra cost. ) Also included is an unconditional money-back guarantee.
If you would like to improve your gas mileage by 20 to 30%, simply mail us your check
or Mastercharge or VISA information, or call us with your charge card information
or C.O. D. instructions. We pay all shipping charges.
Should you require further information on our platinum GASAVER for engines or on
our platinum FUELSAVER for industrial boilers, please call us.
Sincerely,
¥^
Mass, users add 5% tax. Jot:l Robinson, \Technical Director
-------
niiu QESicn msas
Metering device 'replaces' catalytic converter
Platinum solution simultaneously reduces fuel consumption and pollutants
David J. Bak, East Coast Editor
16
Brookline, MA—in light of the
ever-threatening energy crisis and
ongoing battle against pollution, the
catalytic converter seems to offer
mixed blessings. True, it cuts down
on pollution, but due to the added
backpressure it introduces in the
car's exhaust line, it also lowers gas
mileage. And since the platinum
catalyst is deactivated in a lead
environment, more expensive
unleaded gases must be used.
An improvement over the catalyt-
ic converter lies in a simple metering
device invented by Joel Robinson,
technical director of National Fuel-
Saver Corp. Although it operates on
the same chemistry as the catalytic
converter, the new device reduces
both pollution and fuel consump-
tion. Furthermore, it allows the use
of either leaded or unleaded
gasoline.
Called the "Gasaver". the device
is similar to the unit invented for
furnace applications (See Design
News, 5-8-78, p. 82). Its major
component is a cylinder partially
filled with a nonflammable, proprie-
tary platinum solution. Penetrating
the top of the cylinder is a tube open
to the atmosphere and extending
into the solution. A brass globe
yalve and additional tubing.connect
the air space in the top of the
cylinder to the intake manifold.
When the globe valve is cracked
open, the engine manifold draws a
portion of its air from the
atmosphere through the catalytic
solution. The platinum entrained in
the air bubbles mixes with the gas,
causing more complete combustion.
By reducing the amount of un-
burned hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide, more BTUs are drawn
from the same gallon of fuel and less
pollutants are emitted.
According to Robinson, the unit
increases the number of miles per
gallon by about 20%, while prelimi-
nary estimates of the solution's cost
ATMOSPHERE-
GLOBE
VALVE
TO INTAKE
MANIFOLD~l/N
AIR SPACE-
IN TOP OF
CYLINDER
AIR BUBBLES-
WITH ENTRAINED
PLATINUM
MOLECULES
PROPRIETARY '
PLATINUM SOLUTION
Simple in construction, gas saving device consists of cylinder, globe valve, tubing and
solution.
run about 4 to 5% of the new
reduced gasoline bill. Finally, be-
cause the physical quantities are so
small, less platinum will probably be
used in the lifetime of an automobile
equipped with a "Gasaver".
Additional details . . . Contact Joel
Robinson, National FuelSaver
Corp., 667 Washington St., Brock-
line, MA 02146, 617-731-4444.
Small In size, "Gasaver" easily fits into any
open space in engine compartment.
Editor's Note: During a recent, well-
deserved vacation, ! had a chance to
test the "Gasaver" in my own car. On
the open highway up to Canada, I ran
two separate mileage tests without the
device, averaging 28 miles/gal. Coming
home I used the instrument to get a
steady 32 miles/gal—a 14% increase.
Subsequent tests have yielded readings
up to 34 miles/gal.' This is consistent
with Robinson's claim that once the
valve surfaces become coated with a
layer of platinum molecules, mileage
readings should increase by about 20%.
Due to the minute quantities of platinum
being metered into the engine, this
process takes a while. This is the reason
for the slightly lower initial.readings.
Reprinted from DESIGN NEWS January 8, 1979
© 1979 by CAHNERS PUBLISHING COMPANY
-------
Volume IX, Number 49
Reflections
from the South Bay
August 16.1979
Rick Danko • Fireside Theater * Volleyball •- Writing, Photo Contest
Believe it or not: a fuel saver that really works
'LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
YMf/iy-*
2L4&3
MPO |
21%
n%
by Frank Wicks
"The biggest problem in our business is the 10,000 people out
there who are selling water-injection systems." Joel Robinson says
of the fuel-saving industry.
Robinson, a Massachusetts resi-
dent and inventor of a legitimate
fuel-saving device called, appropri-
ately enough, "Gasaver," com-
plains that the gimmick-type gas-
saving devices that are on the
market make it difficult for those
who make genuine breakthroughs
in this field.
"There are 101 water-injection
systems around, but they're all
phonies. Can you tell me why water
would help combustion? Water puts
fire out; it doesn't help it to burn
better," Robinson says.
Another gas-saving gimmick that
recently surfaced involved a man
who claimed that for 10 dollars he
would install a device which, he
said, would increase mileage by 25
percent. Unfortunately, it turned
out that all he would do was attach
a rubber cord to the gas pedal and
anchor it below the dashboard, thus
making it more difficult to press
down the accelerator.
It's not too difficult to believe
Robinson when he says, "When-
ever we start talking to anyone
about our method, we have to give
them 10 minutes to stop laughing
before we can explain why it
works."
Actually, the Gasaver operates on
a principle long recognized by
chemists and engineers. However,
it wasn't until recently that
Robinson's invention made it
possible to successfully apply this
principle to the automobile.
When gasoline is burned in the
standard internal-combustion en-
gine, usually only about 70 percent
of it will burn effectively. The
remaining 30 percent, which is lost,
contains two basic items: hydro-
carbons (gas vapor that did not
burn), and carbon monoxide (par-
tially burned gasoline).
In 1974, automobile manufactur-
ers began installing catalytic con-
verters on all new cars. The catalytic
converter, working on the same
principle as Robinson's Gasaver,
burns the hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide by bringing them into
contact with platinum at combus-
tion temperatures.
This process promotes a more
thorough and complete burning,
thus producing fewer pollutants.
Unfortunately, this process takes
place outside of the engine, and the
energy produced is lost; actually, it
robs the engine of energy because
of the "backpressure" it produces.
Gasaver's West Coast distributor,
Jack Leopold of Torrance, ex-
plained how the Gasaver works.
"The Gasaver injects a platinum
vapor directly into the engine where
the catalytic action of the platinum
promotes faster and more complete
combustion — with 15 to 25 percent
savings in gasoline.
Robinson added, "We're not
doing anything new chemically;
we're simply changing the location
of where the process occurs."
The platinum-injection system
coats the engine surfaces in a grad-
ual process. The longer the process
is continued, the less energy is lost
in the exhaust. Although results can
be seen almost immediately, Leo-
pold says the process won't reach
its full capacity until after., about
1800 miles.
Robinson, a graduate of Boston
University as an industrial engineer
who has successfully applied the
catalytic process to oil-burning fur-
naces in industrial facilities, says
chemists have been trying to intro-
duce platinum into the engine for
years.
"Theoretically," he says, "there
are three ways to use the platinum.
One is to paint the surfaces with it
like they do with the catalytic con-
verter. However, it is not possible to
coat engine parts. The second way
is to add it to gas, but the chemists
haven't figured how to do that yet.
In our method, we bring the plati-
num into the engine with the incom-
ing air.
"If either of the first two methods
were possible, it would demand the
use of unleaded gas. Lead imme-
diately destroys the effect of plati-
num, and that's why catalytic con-
verters need unleaded gas. But our
process can be retrofitted to old
cars and can use leaded gas."
Dr. Herbert Kaesz, professor of
chemistry at UCLA, confirmed the
fact that the Gasaver is based on es-
tahlished chemical principles. "The
idea is a sound one. I'm just sur-
prised that they are the only ones on
the market with it ... I'm going to
put one on my car."
New that a gallon of gas has
reached a dollar in price, the
Gasaver might seem like a logical re-
placement for the catalytic con-
verter. Enough of the solution to
last for 24,000 miles sells for $119.
si
UETT"«
However, neither Robinson nor
Leopold profess any desire in chal-
lenging the powers that be.
"We are not at all interested in
giving the auto companies, the oil
companies, or the platinum com-
panies that kind of fight. They like
the catalytic converter, and we're
too small to get into that kind of
competition," Robinson explained.
Robinson says that while the
general public may be hesitant to try
out the device, those people in the
technical community have been his
best customers. "So far, most of
our customers have been engineers'
because they understand the prin-
ciples behind it."
On a recent trip to San Francisco,
Easy Reader staff member Robert
Triptow took the opportunity to test
the Gasaver on his 1966 Volks-
wagen Bug.
Driving an unloaded car up High-
way 5 without the device; he used
two tankfuls of gas and averaged 27
miles per gallon.
On his return trip, Triptow took
the longer route down Highway
101. With the device attached and
"the car loaded with belongings he
had picked up, he used just under
two tankfuls and averaged 32 miles
per gallon. "" ~~
Although his mileage increased
by over 18 percent, according to
Gasaver's promoters, his future
mileage should increase even more
as the engine parts gradually be-
come coated with the platinum
molecules.
Further- information concerning
the Gasaver product may be
obtained by• contacting National
FuelSavef Corp., 667 Washington
Street, Brookline, Mass. 02146, Tel:
617/731-4444..
-------
18
jTHE BOSTON PHOENIX, SECTION FOUR, AUTOMOTIVE, FEBRUARY 19, 1980
Relocating the catalyst
Putting the platinum before the carb
by Paul D. Lehrman
Every so often, another miracle gadget that promises to cut
your gasoline bills in half shows up in the back pages of your
favorite picture magazine or flashes a toll-free number at you
during Rhoda reruns. These expensive toys eventually get
dumped onto the -front pages of Consumer Reports, where they
are invariably characterized as useless, so it's nice to find a com-
pany that not only considers that kind of marketing "cheap," but
also makes a product that gives every indication that it can
deliver.
Using platinum as a catalyst for increased efficiency in com-
bustion is no longer a revolutionary idea, but applications of the
principle that will save consumers money seem to be farthest from
the minds of those who run major oil companies and automobile
manufacturers. However, for Joel Robinson, Technical Director
of National FuelSaver Corporation, it's the first thing.
The product that Robinson and his tiny staff have developed,
which is called the Gasaver, is a simple system that comprises a
special plastic jar, a T-connector, six feet of 5/16 inch hose, 'a
12-ounce bottle of platinum solution that gets poured into the jar,
and a one-ounce bottle of concentrated solution to "recharge" the
system after about 5000 miles. Its purpose is to introduce
platinum into your car's engine in such a way that the metal coats
the cylinders and pistons, allowing your engine to burn fuel more
completely and efficiently. If Robinson's figures are right, soon
after his system is installed in an automobile, its polluting
emissions are reduced by better than 10 percent and gas mileage is
improved by 15 to 25 percent.
Robinson, who' received a bachelor's degree in industrial
engineering from BU in 1964, has been working on his system for
two-and-a-half years. His early professional experience included
working as a manufacturer's representative overseas, selling fuel
additives that were designed to improve the efficiency of refin-
eries, steamship and other heavy-industry boilers. The chemicals
he sold were expensive, and the process by which they were intro-
duced and maintained in the systems was difficult and costly. He
looked around for ways to improve the situation, and during a
phone conversation with a friend who was a chemist for Exxon,
heard the word "platinum." "From that point on," he says, "I was
on my own."
After proving that the platinum injection process worked on
boilers as well as engines, Robinson decided, to concentrate his
attentions in the automotive world and developed the Gasaver
system. The first prototype had been built in April of 1978. The
following January, a trade magazine published a description of
the system and some preliminary test 'results that confirmed
Robinson's claim of 20 percent mileage improvement. He subse-
quently received some 2000 inquiries from engineers and mechan-
ics all over the country. Out of that group, he managed to talk 500
into spending .540 each on a 20,000-mile supply of the platinum
solution, with the hardware lent at no charge. With these first 500
customers. National FuelSaver was able to start its first
production run, in April of '79.
Gasaver is now in 'its third production model; as Robinson
makes improvements in the hardware, he replaces all the units in
the field. Improvements have been made in the solution, too,
which at first tended to freeze at temperatures below 25 degrees
Fahrenheit. Changes incorporated last October have solved this
problem.
The chemical principle behind Robinson's system is simple and,
in application, far from unique. The plastic container that holds
the platinum solution is strapped inside the engine .compartment
wherever practical. The bottle has an air-intake port and an outlet
with a hose coming from it, which the user splices into any
vacuum-line that feeds all the engine's cylinders. The vacuum in
the line sucks air through the plastic bottle, causing it to percolate
through the platinum solution and exit through the hose as air
carrying minute bits of the platinum compound. From there, the
air is passed into the engine block where it coats the cylinder head
and pistons. It doesn't stay there forever, so it has to be replen-
ished at a measured rate.
Once inside the engine, the catalytic action of the platinum
reduces the heat and time necessary for the gasoline to burn itself
completely down to carbon dioxide and water. Given that the
time that the gasoline has in the cylinder and the temperature of
the engine are both unchanged, the result is less carbon monoxide
and unbumed hydrocarbon residue and more power per unit of
fuel.
Why haven't others thought of this? Well, others have, but for
different uses. The catalytic converter, a muffler coated inside
with platinum, has been compulsory on all new cars since 1975; it
is another application of the same technology. The converter is
designed to reduce hydrocarbon emissions by causing unburned
gasoline to burn before it can be carried into the atmosphere as
exhaust. However, because the converter does its thing after the
engine does its, the energy (heat and pressure) produced in it is
wasted, while the engine is actually forced to work harder to
counteract the back-pressure that the burning and expanding
gases produce in the exhaust system. The catalytic converter will
work only in the presence of unleaded fuel, as lead passing
through the exhaust deactivates the platinum in the muffler.
Unleaded fuel is more expensive and energy-consuming to
produce and it yields fewer BTUs per gallon than regular leaded
gasoline. Robinson's Gasaver will work in the presence of leaded
gasoline. Robinson also maintains that his system uses the
precious metal much more efficiently, and that the amount of
platinum a catalytic converter uses up in 40,000 or 50,000 miles
will keep the Gasaver going for 150,000 miles.
Finally,' scientists at the Brookhaven National Laboratory
reportedly developed a technique for coating engine parts them-
selves with platinum during manufacture and brought the idea to
General Motors. The platinum was not self-replenishing, -how-
ever, and the report is that it all disappeared after 100 miles of
engine use.
(Continued on back page)
-------
Page 2
Other companies have made attempts at dissolving the plati-
num in the gasoline itself, but Robinson claims that it just will not
work — that his consultants have concluded the substances are
simply incompatible. The Gasaver solution is the first successful
attempt at injecting platinum into the air stream. The makeup of
the solution itself is still a well-kept secret, as the patent is still
pending.
Since his first production run, last April, Robinson has sold
about 3,000 Gasaver systems at the retail level, getting the mes-
sage across"by way of magazine, articles and advertisements in
alternative-energy and trade magazines. He refuses to advertise
on UHF television, maintaining that it would render his product
indistinguishable from others he says don't work and that it
wouldn't be an effective way to get potential customers to trust
him.
To wholesalers, however, business has been even better; his
figures indicate that nearly 40QQjunits. have been sold.
Felix Turley of Hyde Park owns two Dodge vans. Even after
numerous trips to his dealer, he was getting only eight miles per
gallon out of his new one, a '79 with a small V-8 engine, though
the EPA sticker said he should be getting 14. He heard Robinson
discuss Gasaver last spring on a radio talk show, and subse-
quently visited National FuelSaver's Brookline office.
With Robinson's unit installed, Turley's van delivered just
under 13 mpg, an increase of nearly 60 percent, until the day he
FuelSaver's Joel Robinson at work
opened his engine compartment and discovered that the jar was
gone. "I didn't support it on the bottom — just had it strapped to
the sides — and I guess it just jostled its way out," he said. 'The
hose and the top of the thing were still there, but the rest of the jar
and all the solution were lying on a street somewhere." He went
back to the company to buy another unit, but when Robinson
looked at his file, he told Turley to keep his money and go home
and wait for the mail; Robinson had just taken delivery of a
production run of an improved version of the bottle, and had sent
one out along with a 5000-mile platinum supply to every one of
his customers.
On February 1 of this year Robinson was forced by the sky-
rocketing cost of all precious metals, to raise the price of the
Gasaver. 24 thousand miles worth of the solution now costs $119.
The company gives a money-back, no-questions-asked guarantee,
and still lends the equipment free. A quick calculation shows that
in a car that gets 15 mpg, at 51.30 a gallon, the 20 percent saving
that Robinson considers average works out to a net savings of
better than S297 over 24,000 miles. And that's if the price of
gasoline doesn't go up.
The Gasaver is available directly from the factory as well as
from distributors and dealers throughout the country.
For more information contact: National FuelSaver Corp.t 667
Washington St., Brookline, Mass. 02146. Tel. 617/731-4444.
a Gasaver device
-------
Attachment C
20
PEGUSUS ENTERPRISES MARKETING GROUP
8835 NORTH ALGONQUIN AVENUE
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 00646
Pebuary 1, 1981
MR. MERRILL W. KORTH,
DEVICE EVALUATION COORDINATOR
EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
Dear Mr. Korth
Here is tjje official a-p-p-t-ication format under Section 511
for the
-------
21
PEGUSUS EITERPRISES
6830 NORTH ALGONQUIN AVENUE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6OBA6
Identification of Organization Making Application:
SEE ABOVE
I
Identification of Applying Organization's Principals:
Jacek Helenowski -- President
The above mentioned wil^represent the organization
in communications^with the EPA.
Description of Device:
a. Purpose of the device:
To improve mileage at least 20% and to cut down
on harmful polluting emissions.
b. Theory of Operation:
See articles sent 16.Dec.80
c. Detailed Description of Construction and Operation.
See articles sent 16.Dec.80
Applicability of the device;
Is applicable to all automobiles and/or all trucks with
or without turbocharger, fuel-injection or carburator. It
works with both leaded and unleaded fuel and is complementary
with any improvement gained by improved lubrication.
The different model numbers are:
SU-1 for gasoline powered automobiles that average 9m.p.g.
or above before the device is installed.
SU-2 for diesel powered automobiles that average 9m,.p.g.
or above before the device is installed
SU-3 for gasoline powered trucks that average 6-8 m.p.g
before the device is installed
SU-4 for diesel powered trucks that average 6-8 m.p.g.
before the device is installed
-------
22
PEGUSUS ENTERPRISES MARKET.KG GROUP
6835 NORTH ALGONQUIN AVENUE
CHICAGO. IL.L.INOIS SO646
SU-5 for diesel powered trucks that average 5 m.p.g.
before the..device is installed
10. Device Installation:
One full page of the articles sent 16.Dec.80 explained
the installation procedure.
11. Device Operation:
Once device is installed the operator must add
every 6,000 miles one bottle of GASAVER CONCENTRATE.
12. Device Maintenance:
NONE
13. Effects on Vehicle Emissions(non-regulated)
At the absolute most less than % of one gram
of Platinum will be admitted to the atmosphere
during one year (12,000 miles) of driving.
14. Effects on Vehicle Safety:
This device does not endanger the automobile
or its occupants or persons or property in
close proximity to the automobile.
Test Results:
15.
See articles sent 16.Dec.80
In addition to the articles mentioned above I
have included in this application a copy of the
results of -the- Martin Marietta Corp. which tested
the device for 113 hours to obtain fewer hydrocarbons
emitted and fuel savings of.34.7%.
Sincerely,
Jacek Helenowski
President
Pegusus Enterprises
Enclosure: 2
-------
i.N K.AKJ -v;v\ - r'.i
23-..
131
Test for Total
Willie Jarricek
Hydrocarbons
•
••ODIl
Off.*.
3663
'0»ll I
i5 — wu ** / y /
V ^
KC output from Kyster Lift Truck (NASA 095575)
i0-"'
fy3C**34, OCCl*
O'U (U'O
• ll«'-». f>V.
CuuIlK ^e I tUf
\
f •
r— 5
i ..i
1 — i mi«
1 - ! K»;T1
r~r
! _ I
Total hydrocarbon 58.0 pptf AV at start of. test.
Total hydrocarbon 51.5 pprn AV after 113 hours use time.
0.98 hours/gallon start of test.
1.32 hours/gallon average after 113 hours use time,
34.7 % Savings." \ •
R.
\7uO-l6
JL..Q.
Liry :.;;
OfiCl.
3726
-------
24
Attachment D
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
j
..J ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
-------
25
During our review of your submission, we also noticed a magazine adver-
tisement which stated, "This product is marketed with the authority of
the EPA". Such a statement is not based on fact since EPA has not autho-
rized or approved the Platinum Gasaver. I suggest that your delete any
such references to EPA from your advertising until after our evaluation
has been completed. If you have any questions or require further infor-
mation, please contact me.
Sincerely
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Enclosures
cc. J. Shelton
-------
Attachment E
March 11, 1981
f'sr. Jack Ilelenowski, President
Pagusus Enterprises
6835 North Algonquin Avenue
Chicago, IL 60646
Duar Mr. Kelenowaki: '
Although you have already applied for an EPA evaluation of the Pla it
Gasaver, I am enclosing a complete set of our policy documents to assure that
there is a clear understanding of the EPA requirements for private laboratory
data. A separate letter is also enclosed, discussing our preliminary
evaluation of your application. The Environmental Protection Agency is
charged by Congessional rnandate to evaluate fuel economy and emission control
devices. While the EPA does not actually "approve" such devices, it does
conduct evaluations for the purpose of increasing the comn»n knowledge in the
area. For this reason, the outcome of any testing by EPA becomes- public
information. It is this information which may be cited although no claims can
be made that any EPA findings constitute "approval" of the device or system.
Enclosed with this letter is a packet of snaterials which you will need to
apply for an EPA evaluation of your device. This packet consists of 1) an
application format, 2) a document entitled "EPA Retrofit and Emission Control
Device Evaluation Test Policy" and 3) a copy of the applicable Federal
Regulations. •
In order for the EPA to conduct an evaluation of your device, we cms t have an
application. Once you have reviewed all the documents in the packet, you
should prepare an application in accordance with the guidelines of the
application format. A critical part of the application is the substantiating.
test data. The required test results will have to be obtained at a laboratory
of your choice. Such testing would be conducted at your expense. A list of
laboratories x^hich are known to have the equipment and personnel to perform
acceptable tests has been included in the enclosed packet. If you desire, we
can assist in the development of a satisfactory test plan. - -
Once we receive your application, it will be reviewed to determine if it meets
the requirements lieted in the fornat. If so, you will be advised of our
decision whether or not EPA will perfora any confirmatory testing. Any EPA
testing will be performed at no cost to you, and you will be given the
opportunity to concur with our test plan. Once this testing is complete, an
evalation report will be written solely on the basis of the test data
submitted and our engineering analysis.
I- GTS: 7MB } Kmrn.5; dks : S2S9 : 2565PlTOotJth5d : 3/1 1/31 : 3ALE.R1 : Jcb
'
-------
27
There are, however, several aspects concerning testing at an outside
laboratory which I would like to bring to your attention at this time:
Minimum Teat Requirements - Although different types of devices may
require a more complex test plan, the minimum we require involves two
vehicles and two test sequences run in duplicate. The vehicles should be
selected from those listed in Table 1; if possible. Each vehicle is to
be set to manufacturer's tune-up specifications for the baseline tests.
The tests are conducted in a "back-to-back" manner, once with the vehicle
in baseline condition and again with the device installed with no vehicle
adjustments between tests. If installation of the device also involves
some adjustments, e.g. timing, fuel-air mixture, choke or idle speed,
another test sequence with only these adjustments should be inserted
between the first and last. Also as a minimum, the test sequence shall
consist of a hot-start LA-4 portion (bags 1 and 2) of the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) and a Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET). The details of
these tests are contained in the enclosed packet. Although only a
hot-start FTP is required to minimize the costs to you, you are
encouraged to have the entire cold-start test performed since any testing
and evaluation performed by EPA will be based on the complete FTP and you
nay wish to know how a vehicle with your device performs over this
official test. As a final requirement, the personnel of the outside
laboratory you select should perform every element of your test plan.
This includes preparation of the test vehicle, adjustment of parameters
and installation of the device.
Submission of Data - We require that all test ciata obtained from the
outside laboratories in support of your application be submitted to us.
This includes any results you have which were declared void or invalid by
the laboratory. We also ask that you notify us of the laboratory you
have chosen, when testing is scheduled to begin, what tests you have
decided to conduct, allow us to maintain contact with the laboratory
during the course of the testing, and allow the test laboratory to
directly answer any questions at any tine about the test program.
Cost of the Testing - The cost of the mininmra test plan (two vehicles,
two test sequences in duplicate) described above should be less than
$2000 per vehicle and less than $4000 for the total test at any of the
laboratories on'the list. You will huwe to contact then individually to
obtain their latest prices.
Outcome of the Tests - Although it is impossible to accurately predict
the overall worth of a device frow a small amount of testing, we have
established some guidelines which xd.ll help you determine whether the
test results with your device should be considered encouraging. These
values have been chosen to assure both of us that a real difference in.
fuel economy exists and that we are not seeing only the variability in
the results. The table below presents the minimum number of cars that
need to be tested for varying degrees of fuel economy improvement
assuming a typical amount of variability in fuel econcciy measurement.
-------
28
For a minlKura teat plan which was conducted on a fleet of two cars, the
average improvement should be at least 3%. If at least an 3% difference
in average fuel economy can be shown, then we would be able to say
3tastically at the 802 confidence level that there is a real improvement.
Similarly, we- would expect a minimum of 5% improvement for a fleet of 5
vehicles. Test results which display a significant Increase in emission
levels should be reason for concern.
Miniuuia Fuel Econoroy Improvements versus Size of Test Fleet
Fleet Size Average Improvecent Required
2 37.
3 7%
4 6%
5 SZ
10 4%
25 2%
Once we receive your application, it will be reviewed to determine if it meets
the requirements listed in the format. If your application is not complete,
we will ask you to suboit further information or data. After any missing
ir.furination fcas been submitted, your application will be reconsidered and once
it neets our requirements, you will be ndvised of our decision whether or not
EPA will perform any confirmatory testing. Any E?A testing will be performed
at no cost to you and you will be given the opportunity to concur with our
test plan. Once this testing is complete, an evaluation report will be
written. If no further testing is required, the report will be written solely
on the basis of the test data submitted and our engineering analysis.
Despite the current backlog and increasing nunber of inquiries regarding fuel
economy device evaluations, the EPA intends to process your application in as
expeditious a manner as possible. We have established a goal of twelve weeks
from the receipt of a complete application to the announcement of our report.
The attainment of this objective requires very precise scheduling and we are
depending on the applicant to respond promptly to any questions or to subrait
any requested data. Failure to respond in a tinely manner will unduly delay
the process. In the extreme case, we may consider lack of response as a
withdrawal of the application.
I hope the information above and that contained in the enclosed documents will
aid you in the preparation of an acceptable application for an EPA evaluation
of your device. I will be your contact with EFA during this process and any
subsequent EPA evaluation. Ify address is EPA, Motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory, 2565 Plynouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 43105. The telephone
nunber is (313) 663-4200. . Please contact tre if you have any questions or
require any further information.
i-
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Rrgnch
-------
Table 1
Suggested Test Vehicle Engines for 511 Applicants
The following engines are suggested as suitable candidates for the application
of a 511 process or device. These engines represent over 50% of the
powerplants built by the manufacturer of interest. By choosing one or more of
these engines, the applicant is assured that the process/device is applicable
to a representative portion of the fleet for the model year of interest. The
ease of obtaining a test vehicle is also enhanced because of the popularity of
these engines. Any make or model produced by the manufacturer may be chosen
if equipped with a suggested engine and an automatic transmission. The
following list of suggested engines is broken down by year and manufacturer.
The ranking of the engines for any given manufacturer is by sales volume.
29
1979 Model Year
General Motors
350 CID V8
305 CID V8
301 CID V8
Chrysler Corp.
225 CID L6
318 CID V8
Ford Motor Co.
302 CID V8
140 CID L4
1978 Model Year
General Motors
305 CID V8
350 CID V8
231 CID V6
Chrysler Corp.
318 CID V8
225 CID L6
Ford Motor Co.
351 CID V8
302 CID V8
200 CID L6
1977 Model Year
General Motors
350 CID V8
305 CID V8
Chrysler Corp.
318 CID V8
225 CID L6
Ford Motor Co.
302 CID V8
351 CID V8
400 CID V8
1976 Model Year
General Motors
350 CID V8
305 CID V8
Chrysler Corp.
225 CID L6
318 CID V8
Ford Motor Co.
351 CID V8
140 CID L4
250 CID L6
American Motors
258 CID L6
232 CID L6
American Motors
258 CID L6
American Motors
258 CID L6
American Motors
258 CID L6
1975 Model Year
General Motors
350 CID V8
400 CID V8
Chrysler Corp.
225 CID L6
318 CID V8
Ford Motor Co.
351 CID V8
250 CID L6
302 CID V8
1974 Model Year
General Motors
350 CID V8
Chrysler Corp.
225 CID L6
318 CID V8
Ford Motor Co,
140 CID L4
351 CID V8
400 CID V8
1973 Model Year
General Motors
350 CID V8
Chrysler Corp.
318 CID V8
225 CID L6
Ford Motor Co.
351 CID V8
400 CID V8
122 CID L4
American Motors
258 CID L6
232 CID L6
American Motors
258 CID L6
232 CID L6
American Motors
258 CID L6
232 CID L6
------- |