EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-16A
EPA Evaluation of the SYNeRGy-1 Fuel Additive Under
Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
by
Stanley L. Syria
June, 1981
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-16
6560-26
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 610]
[FRL
FUEL ECONOMY PETROFIT DEVICES
Announcement of Fuel Economy Retrofit Device Evaluation
for "SYNeRGy-1 "
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 "SYNeRGy-1 " device (fuel additive) 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))
requires 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 September 24, 1980, the EPA
received a request from XRG International, Incorporated for evaluation of
a fuel additive termed "SYNeRGy-1". This additive is intended to improve
fuel economy and exhaust emission levels of two and four cycle gasoline
fueled engines.
Availability of Evaluation Report: An evaluation has been made and the
results are described completely in a report entitled: "EPA Evaluation
of the "SYNeRGy-1" Fuel Additive Under Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act." This entire report is contained in
two volumes. The discussions, conclusions, and list of all attachments
are listed in EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-16A, which consists of 7 pages. The
attachments are contained in EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-16B, which consists of 43
pages. The attachments include correspondence between the Applicant and
EPA and all documents submitted in support of the application.
Copies of these reports may be obtained from the National Technical
Information Service by using the above report numbers. Address requests
to:
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
Phone: Federal Telecommunication System (FTS) 737-4650
Commercial 703-487-4650
-------
Summary of Evaluation
The stated intent of the additive is to improve fuel economy and decrease
emissions in gasoline engines.
The applicant did submit test data to support the claims made for
"SYNeRGy-1". A portion of the test data did not support the applicant's
claims. The remaining test data was not useful without further
clarifications. Clarification of the data was requested of the applicant
on two occasions, however, no additional information was received.
Previous EPA testing of other similar fuel additives has shown no
significant impact on fuel economy or exhaust emission levels. Thus,
there is no technical basis for EPA testing of the additive or to support
any claims made for "SYNeRGy-1".
Notification to the applicant that the evaluation of "SYNeRGy-1" would be
concluded based on available data also failed to produce a response.
Eventually, the application for evaluation of "SYNeRGy-1" was superceded
by an application for a new fuel additive termed "Gas Aid".
-------
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 the "SYNeRGy-1" Fuel Additive Under Section 511 of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
The following is a summary of the information on the device (additive) as
supplied by the Applicant and the resulting EPA analysis and conclusions.
1. Marketing Identification of the Additive:
"XRG-1" "i.e., SYNeRGy-1"
2. Inventor of Additive and Patents;
a) Dr. Harry Webb - deceased
(1) Assignee: XRG International, Inc., Stuart, Florida
b) "Patent Number 4145190 Enclosed" (Attachment A of this
evaluation)
3. Manufacturer of Additive:
XRG International, Inc.
4125 S.W. Martin Highway
Stuart, Florida 33494
4. Manufacturing Organization Principals:
Michael A. Krebser Chairman of the Board, President
Kenneth P. Ray Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Dr. Kenneth R. OlenVice President, Operations
Edward Arcardo Vice President, Public Relations
5. Marketing Organization in U.S./Identity of Applicant:
XRG International, Inc.
4125 S.W. Martin Highway
Stuart, Florida 33494
6. Identification of Applying Organization Principals:
Michael A. Krebser Chairman of the Board, President
Kenneth P. Ray Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Dr. Kenneth R. OlenVice President, Operations
Edward Arcardo Vice President, Public Relations
7. Description of Additive (as supplied by Applicant):
a) "Purpose of the Device: To improve fuel economy and decrease
emissions in gasoline engines."
b) "Theory of Operation: Not Applicable"
c) "Detailed Description of Construction and Operation: Not
Applicable"
8. Applicability of the Additive (claimed):
"XRG-1 (SYNeRGy-1) is applicable to all two (2) and four (4) cycle
gasoline engines."
-------
9. Costs (claimed):
Cost information not submitted.
10. Additive Installation, Tools and Expertise Required (claimed);
"Not Applicable"
11. Additive Operation (claimed);
"Not Applicable"
12. Additive Maintenance (claimed):
"Not Applicable"
13. Effect on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated) (claimed):
a) "EPA Evaluation - February 1980 - Enclosed" (Attachment B of
this evaluation. Attachment B references the EPA evaluation of
NRG//1, TAEB Report 77-19 which is Attachment C of this
evaluation).
b) "AESi Evaluation - August 1980 - Enclosed" (Attachment D of this
evaluation)
14. Effects on Vehicle Safety (claimed):
"Not!1 Applicable"
15. Test Results - Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy (submitted by
Applicant):
a) "EPA Evaluation - February 1980 - Enclosed" (Attachment B and C)
b) "AESi Evaluation - August 1980 - Enclosed" (Attachment D)
16. Testing by EPA:
EPA did not test the additive for this evaluation for three reasons.
First, previous EPA testing (see Attachments B and C) of two similar
fuel additives have shown no significant benefits in terms of
emissions or fuel economy. Second, the applicant has not shown there
to be a significant difference between "SYNeRGy-1" and the additives
previously tested in respect to chemical composition. Third, the
applicant did not submit acceptable test data which may substantiate
the need «for EPA testing. Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR
610.30(b) EPA elected not to test the additive.
17. Analysis:
-------
A. Description of the Additive:
(1) The additive is claimed to "improve fuel economy and
decrease emissions in gasoline engines". Further, the
patent provided by the applicant states that use of the
additive "contributes to the more efficient and longer life
of the lubricating oil at the same time giving a clean
carbon and gum-free internal combustion engine."
(2) The applicant did not describe the theory of operation.
However, the patent submitted by the applicant states the
additive works as a catalyst thereby causing the heavier
and less volatile ends of the fuel to completely burn, thus.
increasing the energy and decreasing the emissions of raw
hydracarbons.
(3). Considering the combustion and thermal efficiencies of most
modern engines, it is highly unlikely that fuel economy
improvements as much as 20% can be realized by causing a
more complete burning of the fuel. Of course this
conjecture is based on late model vehicles when properly
tuned and meeting all applicable emission standards.
Testing of similar additives by EPA (and reported in
Attachments B and C) showed that in general there was no
significant change in fuel economy or emission levels
through the use of the additives.
Data was not provided to EPA which would substantiate the
claim for cleaner engines and extended lubricating oil life
through the use of "SYNeRGy-1". Without data from an
extensive test program, EPA cannot determine the impact the
additive may have on those two parameters.
B. Applicability of the Additive:
The applicability of the additive, as stated in the application,
"XRG-1 (SYNeRGy-1) is applicable to all two (2) and four (4)
cycle gasoline engines," is judged to be correct.
C. Cost of the Additive:
Information on the retail price of the additive was not
provided. Therefore, EPA is not able to evaluate the
reasonableness of its cost.
Additive Installation - Tools and Expertise Required:
The applicant did not provide installation instructions.
However, the patent stated that the additive could be introduced
into the engine by 1) premixing of the additive and fuel in a
bulk container or, 2) direct injection of the Additive
"utilizing a system such as Harlo Klean Fuel System
(manufactured by Harlo Repower Ltd., Clearbrook, B.C., Canada)
for direct injection into the line leading into the manifold."
The instructions for bulk mixing were judged to be adequate.
-------
EPA also believes direct injection to be a feasible approach.
However, system description, test data, and sample hardware were
not made available to EPA for any direct injection system.
Therefore, EPA can not judge the acceptability of any direct
injection system for introducing "SYNeRGy-1" into the engine.
E. Additive Operation;
No specific instructions were provided for operation of a
vehicle with the additive, and none were judged to be required.
F. Additive Maintenance:
Maintenance instructions were not provided for the additive,
however, it was judged that maintenance would not be required.
G. Effects o-n Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated):
The applicant references test evaluations (Attachments B, C, and
D) by EPA and Automotive Environmental Systems, Incorporated
(AESi). These data address only regulated pollutants and normal
atmospheric constituents (e.g., carbon dioxide) and do not
address non-regulated pollutants. Further, the applicant did
not provide any other information which may show the effect of
the additive on non-regulated pollutants.
The patent submitted with the application provides a breakdown
of the additive by constituent and weight. A large percentage
of the additive consist of compounds normally found in most
commercially available gasolines. These compounds are not known
to be a problem in respect to non-regulated pollutants. The
remaining compounds constitute a small percentage and when also
considering the recommended ratio of additive to fuel of 1:1600
by volume, the actual percentage of these compounds in a tank of
fuel is extremely small. However, there is concern that a
mixture of these compounds, when subjected to the high
temperatures and pressures found in internal combustion engines,
may form hazardous unregulated pollutants. For example, it is
possible that the nitrobenzene and tertiary dodecylamine may
react to form nitrosamine which is considered to be
substantially more carcinogenic than formaldehyde. Although the
formation process for nitrosamine is still being studied, there
is no doubt that the compound is carcinogenic. The relative
carcinogenic risk associated with exposure to any nitrosamine
emissions that may be formed from this additive would have to be
evaluated.
Because of the lack of appropriate test data, and the number and
types of compounds and variables involved, EPA cannot say for
sure what effect the additive will have on non-regulated
pollutants.
H. Effects on Vehicle Safety:
The applicant did not provide warnings, cautions, or any
information relating to the use of the additive and the safety
-------
10
of the vehicle, its occupants, or persons and/or property in
close proximity to the vehicle. Therefore, EPA is not able to
fully determine the safety element in respect to the use of the
additive. However, because the additive is a highly flammable
liquid, all safety measures practiced with other similar liquids
should also be applied to the additive.
I. Test Results Supplied by the Applicant:
The applicant referenced EPA test reports (Attachments B and C)
which address the testing performed on similar additives. Both
reports conclude there were no significant changes in emission
or fuel economy levels as a result of using the additives.
Therefore, EPA expects there will not be any significant
emissions or fuel economy benefits as a result of using
"SYNeRGy-1".
The applicant also provided test data generated at Automotive
Environmental Systems, Incorporated, (AESi). EPA evaluated the
AESi data and was not able to determine, without clarification
of the data, the impact on emission and fuel economy levels.
EPA requested (Attachments E and F of this evaluation)
clarification of the data, however, the applicant did not submit
any additional information.
17. Conclusions:
EPA fully considered all of the information submitted by the
applicant. The evaluation of "SYNeRGy-1" was based on that
information. The applicant was requested on two occasions to clarify
certain test data, however, no additional information was received.
Analysis of the available data did not prove that the use of
"SYNeRGy-1" would enable a vehicle operator to achieve fuel economy
and emission benefits. Thus, there is no technical basis to support
any claims made for "SYNeRGy-1".
-------
11
List of Attachments
Attachment A United States Patent, No. 4145190, "Catalytic
Fuel Additive for Jet, Gasoline, Diesel, and
Bunker Fuels," March 20, 1979.
Attachment B Environmental Protection Agency, TEB Report
EPA-AA-TEB-80-12, "Evaluation of XRG #1, A Fuel
Additive," February, 1980.
Attachment C Environmental Protection Agency, TEB Report
77-19 CH, "Evaluation of NRG #1, A Fuel
Additive," February, 1978.
Attachemnt D Automotive Environmental Systems, Incorporated
Report, "Additive Testing Project Conducted for
XRG International, Inc.," August, 1980.
Attachment E Letter, EPA to Brian Boshart of XRG
International, Inc., December 2, 1980.
Attachment F Letter, EPA to Brian Boshart of XRG
International, Inc., March 4, 1981.
-------
12
EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-16B
Attachments to
EPA Evaluation of the SYNeRGy-1 Fuel Additive Under
Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
June, 1981
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
A11 ac hmen t' A
111'/ -* _r '-''V'ISKTOA'X?^""-!-?>» i~r-.--^«
I\KZ=t''.&ii^-s<- &^V-7*P&*&f-*s=a£i<$i£
4145190
THERE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE
Commissioner of Jrafenfs ana I raaeraarks
A PETITION PRAYING FOR THE GRANT OF LETTERS PATENT FOR AN ALLEGED
NEW AND USEFUL INVENTION THE TITLE AND DESCRIPTION OF WHICH ARE CON-
TAINED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS OF WHICH A COPY IS HEREUNTO ANNEXED AND
MADE A PART HEREOF, AND THE VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS OF LAW IN SUCH CASES
MADE AND PROVIDED HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH, AND THE TITLE THERETO IS.
FROM THE RECORDS OF THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE
CLAIMANT(S) INDICATED IN THE SAID COPY, AND WHEREAS, UPON DUE EXAMI-
NATION MADE, THE SAID CLAIMANT(s) IS (ARE) ADJUDGED TO BE ENTITLED TO
A PATENT UNDER THE LAW.
NOW, THEREFORE, THESE Leffers Pafenf ARE TO GRANT UNTO THE SAID
CLAIMANT(S) AND THE SUCCESSORS, HEIRS OR ASSIGNS OF THE SAID CJLAIMANT(S)
FOR THE TERM OF SEVENTEEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS GRANT, SUBJECT
VTO THE PAYMENT OF ISSUE FEES AS PROVIDED BY LAW, THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE
FROM MAKING; USING OR SELLING THE SAID INVENTION THROUGHOUT THE
JITED STATES.
3Jn te^timonp tofjereaf
aa/id a/ia caudect Me 3eat
©tfice ^
js /
(57
o/ie
<7
lA
S
[I:
'V-
i^t
li
4
tn
i
11
i
-------
14
United States Patent
Webb
[45]
4,145,190
* Mar. 20, 1979
[54] CATALYTIC FUEL ADDITIVE FOR JET,
GASOLINE, DIESEL, AND BUNKER FUELS
[75] Inventor: Harry M. Webb, Toronto, Canada
[73] Assignee: Natural Resources Guardianship
International, Inc., Clayville, N.Y.
[ * ] Notice: The portion of the terra of this patent
subsequent to Jul. 11, 1995, has been
disclaimed.
[21] Appl. No.: 841,905
[22] Filed: Oct. 13, 1977
Related U.S. Application Data
[63] Contmuation-in-part of Ser. No. 809,864, Jun. 24. 1977,
and a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 783,777, Apr. !,.
1977.
[51] Int. CU .v . C10L 1/22.
[52] U.S. CL - 44/56; 44/57
[58] Field of Search 44/56, 57, 58, 51
[56] References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
1.677,273 7/1928
1.820.983 9/1931
3,232,853 11/1966
Coslaguta
Loomis
Simmon ct al.'...
44/56
44/72
44/57
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
491648 9/1938 United Kingdom 44/57
Primary ExaminerWinston A. Douglas
Assistant ExaminerY. Harris-Smith
Attorney. Agent, or FirmJohn S. Roberts, Jr.
[57]
ABSTRACT
An energy-saving fuel additive for jet engines, gasoline
and diesel engines, including additions to domestic heat-
ing and light industrial oils (#2 and #3) and residual or
bunker fuel (#4, 5, and 6). which comprises as active
ingredients a catalytic mixture of a major proportion of
picric acid and a minor proportion of ferrous sulfate,
17 Claims, No Drawings .
-------
15
4,145,190
CATALYTIC FUEL ADDITIVE FOR JET,
GASOLINE, DIESEL, AND BUNKER FUELS
This application is a continuation-in-part application 5
of pending U.S. Sen No. 783,777 filed Apr. 1, 1977. by
Harry M. Webb, and pending U.S. Ser. No. 809,864 '
filed June 24, 1977, by Harry M. Webb.
The present invention relates to an energy-saving fuel
additive for jet, gasoline, and diesel engines, including 10
the use as an additive for domestic heating and light
industrial oils (#2 and #3) and bunker or residual fuels
(#4, 5, and 6) which comprises as active ingredients a
catalytic mixture of a major proportion of picric acid
and a minor proportion of ferrous sulfate. These general .15
designations or gradations of fuel oils are as accepted by
the American Society of Testing Materials, Philadel-
phia, Pa., and cited in Encyclopedia of Chemical Technol-
"ogy II, Volume 15, page 81 (1968, Wiley-Interscience).
A preferred solvent suitable for use is a combination 20
of an alkyl benzene, such as toluene, and a lower alco-
hol, such as isopropanol. Operable substitutes for iso-
propyl-alcohol, although not preferred, are ethanol and
methanol together with water and the two may be used
in a composite relationship. The combination specially 25
may include a minor amount of nitrobenzene as well as
a particulate reducer such as a long chain tertiary amine '
(Primene SIR).
The additive mix or concentrate denotes MSX Mix
useful for bulk addition is as follows for one gallon: 30
ingredient due to the presence of the metallic ion Fe"1"*"
in the composition, causing the slightly heavier and less
volatile ends to bum completely, thus increasing the
energy and decreasing the emissions of raw hydrocar-
bons from the exhaust.
The prior art statement for the present invention is set
out below.
Relating to Picric Acid
U.S. Pat. No. 923,803 Selden teaches at column 1 use
of picrates of fused ring compounds such as naphthalene
in a.solvent selected from alcohols, benzene, and ace-
tone*
U.S. Pat. No. 3,294,501 Kawahara notes the use of
picric acid at column 1 as a lead appreciates.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,434,814 Dubeck speaks of the reduc-
tion of hydrocarbon emission from internal combustion
engines by operating the gasoline containing ortho-sub-
stituted aromatic nitro compounds and prefers picryl
acetate.
Art Bearing on Ferrous Sulfate
U.S. Pat. No. 3,002,826 Norris as an additive incorpo-
rates preferably aluminum sulfate and other salts, both
inorganic and organic, to reduce vanadium deposition
which causes corrosion and deposits.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,348,932 Kukin at column 2 states that
a small percentage of iron salts may be used as part of a
salt combination as a combustion aid in domestic fur-
naces, diesel equipment, jet engines, etc., to force com-
Ferrous sulfate
Picric acid (trinitrophenol)
Toluene
Isopropyl alcohol
Nitrobenzene
Long chain amine; e.g..
tertiary dodecylamine
Water
U.S. Gallon
Preferred Range
1.4 g .08 - 1.4 g
45.0 g 2.8 - 45.0 g
2.4kg 2.4 -1.0 kg
1.0kg 1.0-2.4 kg
2.7 g .OS - 2.7 g
1.7 g .2 - 1.7 g
Balance Balance
Imperial Gallon
Preferred Range
1.7 g 0.1- 1.7 g
54.0 g 3.5 - 54.0 g
2.9 kg 2.9 - 1.2 kg
1.2 kg 1.2 - 2.9 kg
3.2 g 0.1 - 3.2 g
2.0 g .24- 2.0 g
Balance Balance
In the solvent the preferred relationship of toluene and
isopropyl alcohol is about 2:1 by weight
. Additionally, where heavy oils are involved as with
bunker and residual fuels (#4, 5, and 6) the following
formulation is utilized per gallon:
U.S. Gallon
Ferrous sulfate
Picric acid
(trinitrophenol)
Toluene
Isopropanol
Long chain
amine; e.g..
tertiary dodecylamine
Water
Preferred
4g
8g
4kg
.8kg
2g
Balance
Range
4-5.6 g
8-12 g
4-5.6 kg
.8-1.2 kg
2-l.7g
Balance
Imperial Gallon
Preferred
Sg
10 g
5. kg
1kg
.24 g
Balance
Range
5-7 g
10-15 g
5-7 kg
1-1.5 kg
.24-2.0 g
Balance
45
50
55
The MSX Mix is utilized for dosage to fuels in the
ratio of 1:1,000 to 1:2,000 with a preferred dosage of
1:1600 parts by volume. 60
In the aforesaid formula which is set out for U.S. and
Canadian use, it is noted that the preferred range in the
MSX Mix is at or near the highest range given, which
gives a more active composition. In addition, where
nitrobenzene is utilized the top values of the range are 65
near the delimiting value presently set out by Energy
Research and Development Administration for NOx
emissions. A catalytic action occurs in the binary active
bustion of the fuel to final products, such 'as carbon
dioxide and water.
Art Pertaining to the Solvent
U.S. Pat. No. 914,624 Winand, at page 1, column 2,
mentions the use of nitrobenzene as "an oxygen-
bearer."
U.S. Pat. No. 1,423,050 Tunison, at column 2, line
103, mentions nitrobenzol or nitrobenzene as an explo-
sion promoter for internal combustion engines and die-
sel engines.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,002,435 Wenzel illustrates a water-in-
oil emulsion of hydrocarbons, water, and an alcohol
suitable for injection methods as noted in column 2.
The energy-saving compositions and method of treat-
ing fuels set out in the present invention differ from the
above-cited prior art. Primarily this invention lies in a
novel mixture of active ingredients; namely, picric acid
(2,4,6-trinitrophenol) and ferrous sulfate FeSO4). These
constitute the active ingredients of the present composi-
tion utilizing picric acid in the majority amount. In a
preferred bulk composition, the amount of picric acid in
a U.S. gallon ranges from 2.S-45.36 grams and the fer-
rous sulfate O.OS-1.36 grams. Thus, as has been stated as
to the thrust of use, the picric acid provides the major
oxidizing component of the composition and the ferrous
-------
4,145; 190
..
iron in the ferrous sulfate provides the catalytic action.
Nitrobenzene is used primarily as a solvent and has a
secondary use as an auxiliary o'xicbnt. The active ingre-
dients, as well as' the solvents of the present invention,
have a-unique utility, over compositions having other 5
salts in that this composition is compatible with the
"catalytic converter" containing platinum and paladium
compounds which has been mandatory in the United
Slates for new cars since 1975. Thus, it is an appreciator
for "no lead" fuel used in such cars. 10
COMPONENTS OF THE INVENTION
The Active Ingredients
Picric acid, also known as 2,4,6-trinttrophenol, is used
in this invention as a strong oxidizing agent- . "
Ferrous su'lfate is used for catalytic action in combi-
nation with the superior amount of picric acid noted
above. The Fe++ ion is readily oxidizing to ferric or
reduced to Fe*. The compound is included since it rep-
resents a metal compound which can be oxidized and 20
then retransformed into the lower oxidized state or first
transformed to ferric and then retransformed to ferrous.
The presence of the ferrous sulfate salt lends greater
activity to the composition than would be expected
when considering its minor percentile inclusion in the 25
composition and thus .may be viewed as a catalytic
agent. Also, and quite importantly, iron sulfate has
shown less corrosion oh iron than such compounds as
nickel sulfate, nickel nitrate, and cadmium sulfate in
comparative testing. Additionally, the combination of 30
picric acid and ferrous sulfate may be termed true syn-
ergistic mixture of other additives. In all cases, a cata-
lytic action takes place due to the presence of a ferrous
ion in the compound. The slightly heavier and less vola-
tile ends are completely burned, thus increasing the 35
energy and decreasing the emissions of raw hydrocar-
bons from the exhaust. Without the catalytic complete
combustion of the fuel, the heavy ends condense on the
comparatively cooler cylinder walls, eventually mani-
festing themselves as crankcase dilution elements, gum, 40
sludge, etc. Therefore, the addition of the product to
the fuel not only increases the energy output but also
contributes to the more efficient and longer life of the
lubricating oil at the same time giving a clean carbon
and gum-free internal combustion engine. 45
Other Ingredients
Toluene. Of the alkyl benzenes possible, toluene,
ortho-, meta-, and paraxylenes are preferred, and the
mesitylenes are operable. 50
Alkanol. Of the lower aikanols, isopropanol is uti-
lized in the MSX Mix as solvent of choice. Methyl and
ethyl alcohols are operable but not as effective.
Nitrobenzene. This compound, as in the bulk formu-
lations, is utilized as an additional solvent useful in the 55
bulk formulations. It is miscible with aikanols and is a
superior organic solvent for the picric acid..
Tertiary long chain amines. The action of the amine is
as a particulate reducer and" a preferred compound is
Primene 81R which is tertiary dodecyl amine. 60
Water. As to the water additive, a purified water free
of extraneous metal ions is preferred, although tap
water is operable.
INTRODUCTION OF THE COMPOSITION INTO
THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER OF BULK FUEL
The introduction of the composition into a diesel or
gasoline bulk container is made in a facile manner by
65
4 ") -
premeasurement and adding uie composition based
upon the number of gallons in the container. Such bulk
addition may be made per U.S. gallon by utilizing a
ratio of 1:1.000 to 1:2,000 dosage addition by volume
with a preferred dosage of 1:1600.
For atomized use, a preferred modus is to introduce a
mixture of alcohol and active ingredients into the motor
utilizing a system such as the Harlo MotorKlean Fuel
System (manufactured by Harlo Repower Ltd., Clear-
brook, B.C., Canada) for direct injection into the line
leading into the manifold. A preferred solvent utilized
in the Harlo equipment or the injection is (by volume):
25%: Isopropyl alcohol
25%: Water
12.5%: Ethanol
12.5%: MSX Mix .
25%: Methanol
The introduction of the MSX Mix into the combus-
tion chamber when using the water-alcohol mixture in
the "Harlo Device" further enhances the operation.
This results from being able to actually control the
amount of catalytic material being introduced. By a
very carefully selected orifice, one milliliter of the at-
omized mixture is introduced for every mile traveled. In
this way, at no time is a heavy concentration of the "fuel
saver" or "energy extender" introduced into the com-
bustion chamber to be wasted. By the very makeup of
the compound and its volatility, it is introduced in the
usable vapor phase.
As a result of utilization of the present composition, it
has been found by tests that improvements in fuel econ-
omy between 12.5 and 15.5 percent urban and up to 27
percent highway conditions have been experienced.
The variable range is due to make, condition, size of the
vehicle, coupled with the variations in road conditions
that drivers have at city versus highway driving, etc. It
can be further stated that a mean average mileage im-
provement for all tests is about 20%. Based currently on
the U.S. price per gallon of about 70 cents per gallon,
this means that about 14 cents on every gallon of gaso-
line can be effected in savings.
The present invention also has use for domestic heat-
ing and light industrial oils (#2 and #3) used in furnaces-
and boilers. Here the same catalytic action of the fer-
rous ion takes place and more complete combustion is
the result. Less carbon and residue is formed and the
heat is not insulated from the transfer equipment. A
greater calorific value (in BTU's) is released, giving
more heat and energy for the same given amount of
fuel. This, of course, results in less and more acceptable
emissions from the chimney or stack.
In the case of bunker fuels (#6), these fuels are
heavier and much more viscous compounds, often con-
taining considerable amounts of organic or inorganic
salts, which upon burning can diffuse and cause heavy
melts or ash. .
Stated otherwise, when used with residual fuels (#4,
#5) where high temperature, slagging, or corrosion
may be the main problem, the present additive may be
used in order to serve as a combustion catalyst to fur-
ther improve the burning properties of the fuel proper;
i.e., to improve the COj content of the flue gas and
reduce the amount of the organic or carbonaceous ma-
terial that would be left behind.
With respect to jet engines and jet fuels, which are
lighter, and aviation-type fuels or with naphthas and
special distillates for gas turbines, the additive combina-
c
-------
;!
I
3
El
i
ta
1
1
17
4,145; 190
10
lions -will reduce coke and varnish deposits in the en-
gines and exhaust parts.
EXAMPLE 1
MSX Mix Formulation
Toluene and isopropyl alcohol were mixed together.
The trinitrophenol (picric acid) was introduced to this
mixture and stirred gently. It dissolved completely
when left overnight. The nitrobenzene was added with
a slight stir. The ferrous sulfate was dissolved in a small
amount of hot water (a maximum of one-half gallon for
one hundred gallon mix) and added to the mixture.
The product was allowed to stand overnight. It was
inspected for any sediment settling, after Quality Con-
trol Tests were made and the product passed. It was
released for ultimate packaging.
The water usually present with the trinitrophenol
(picric acid) was taken into consideration in the formu-
lation of this product 2Q
EXAMPLE 2
. Exhaust Emission Test with MSX Mix
In May 1977 at the testing site of Scott Environmen-
tal Technology, Inc., two series of tests were run ac- 25
cording to the 1975 Cold Start Exhaust Emission Test
with the objective to determine the effectiveness of the
MSX fuel additive when mixed directly in bulk with
in-tank gasoline in reducing exhaust emissions and im-
proving fuel economy. The site of the test was Scott's 30
Plumsteadville, Pa., facility, which is certified by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for conducting
the federal exhaust emission test herein described.
Test Vehicle Description ^
Both emission tests were performed on a 1976 Chev-
rolet Impala sedan (vin: 1L57H5113039) equipped with
a standard 350 cid, V-8 engine with 2-bbl. carburetor
and automatic transmission. The vehicle was received
in stock condition for the first emission test, with a 40
pretest mileage of 23,605.7. The vehicle was equipped
with the stock 1976 Chevrolet emission control equip-
ment, including catalytic converter.
The test vehicle was delivered to Scott's Plumstead-
ville, Pa., facility by 1600 hours on May 3, 1977, with
the initial "cold soak" beginning by 1700 hours. The
following morning the dynamometer was warmed up
with a non-test vehicle and the load set at 14.7 RHP at
50 miles per hour (the vehicle was equipped with fac-
tory air conditioning). The dynamometer inertia was
fixed at 5,000 pounds. The baseline emission test (stock
condition, no device) was begun at 1032 hours and
completed by 1112 hours.
Following the baseline test, several additional emis-
sion tests were performed on the test vehicle including
one 1975 Federal Cold Start Test (Scott Reports SET
1620-01-0577 and SET 1620-02-0577) and several 1972
"Hot-Start" .. emission tests (Scott Report SET
1620-03-0577). '
On May 16 and 17, 1977, Scott personnel blended
intank fuel (1 part MSX Mix additive to 16CO parts
Texaco lead-free gasoline) then accumulated 500.7
miles on the vehicle. (Mileage start: 25871.8; mileage
end: 26372.5). The "cold soak" period began at 1715 on
May 17, 1977, and was terminated at the beginning of
the 1975 "Cold-Start" Test No. 3 at 0927 hours on May
18.
The basic equation used to calculate the fuel econ-
omy of a vehicle, in miles per gallon, from the mass
emission data gathered during a 1975 Federal Emission
Test is as follows:
mpg:
grams of carbon/gallon of fuel
grams of carbon in exhaust/mile
Basic Test Data
45
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The data presented in Table 1 below summarizes the
vehicle exhaust emission and fuel economy tests per-
formed. The exhaust emissions are presented in grams
per mile for total hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and
oxides of nitrogen. Fuel economy measurements arc
shown in miles per gallon. Also included are the appli-
cable 1976 Federal Exhaust Emission Standards for
light duty vehicles.
In comparing the two sets of test results, use of the
MSX Mix additive mixed.with the in-tank fuel reduced
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons while increasing
oxides of nitrogen emissions. In addition, fuel economy
improved from 8.72 MPG to 10.65 MPG.
TABLE 1
The additive (Natural Resources Guardianship Inter-
national; Inc., West Orange, New Jersey) consisted of a
gasoline fuel additive (MSX Mix) mixed directly in the
gasoline fuel tank of the test vehicle. This mixture con-
sisted of one part additive to 1600 parts gasoline with 50
the following composition denoted 5/77:
Ferrous sulfate: 0.16 g
Picric acid (trinitrophenol): 2.8 g
Toluene: 2.7 kg
Isopropyl alcohol: 0.9 kg ' 55
Nitrobenzene: 0.13 g
Water: Balance
For both tests, the baseline fuel used was Texaco's
"lead-free" gasoline.
60
Test Procedure Description
The two 1975 cold start emission tests were per-
formed in accordance with Federal Register Volume
41, Number 146. Deviations from this procedure in- In the same manner as the procedure utilized in Ex-
cluded use of Natural Resources Guardianship Interna- 65 ample 2, another series of tests utilized the MSX addi-
tional's in-tank fuel supply for both the baseline and live designated 7/77. This additive had the composition
device tests, and the calculation of carbon dioxide mass per U.S. gallon as follows:
fuel economy. Ferrous sulfate: 1.36 grams
Data Summary - 1975 Federal Exhaust Emission Tests
Test
Date
May 4,
1977
May 18.
1977
Fuel Economy
Test CO THC NO, (miles per
Description g/mi. g/mi. g/mi.- gallon)
Baseline - 16.6 0.60 1.69 8.72"~,
Stock
Condition " ' '.
MSX Mix 9.4 0.46 - 2.32' 10.65 -
Additive -
In-Tank
Blending
(Federal 15.0 1.30 3.10
Standards
1976 LDV)
EXAMPLE 3
-------
4,145,i 90 18
Picric acid: 45.36 grams
'Toluene: 2.38 kg .'..
Isopropyl alcohol: 1.02 kg
Nitrobenzene: 2.72
-------
19
4,145,190
10
15. The additive according to claim 14 wherein the
ingredients have preferred values per U.S. gallon as
follows: .
Ferrous sulfate: 4 g
Picric Acid: 8 g ,
Toluene: 4 kg
Isopropanol: 0.3 kg
Tertiary dodecylamine: 0.2 g
Water: Balance.
16. The additive according to claim 14 wherein the
dosage is in the ratio" of 1:1,000 to 1:2,000 additive to
5 fuel.
17. The additive according to claim 14 wherein the
dosage is in the ratio of about 1:1600 additive to fuel.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
50
55
60
65
-------
EPA-AA-TEB-80-12
20
Attachment B
Evaluation of XRG #1 a Fuel Additive
by
Edward Anthony Barth
February 1980
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
21
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency receives information about many systems
which appear to offer potential for emission reduction or fuel economy im-
provement compared to conventional engines and vehicles. EPA's Emission
Control Technology Division is interested in evaluating all such, systems
because of the obvious benefits to the Nation from the identification of
systems that can reduce emissions, improve fuel economy, or both. EPA invites
developers of such systems to provide complete technical data on the system's
principle of operation, together wi.th available test data on the system. In
those cases for which review by EPA technical staff suggests that the data
available shows promise, attempts are made to schedule tests at the EPA Motor
Vehicle Emission Laboratory at Ann Arbor, Michigan. The results of all such
test projects are set forth in a series of Test and Evaluation Reports, of
which this report is one.
In February of 1978 the EPA tested NRG #1,. a fuel additive developed and
marketed by NRG International, Inc. of Clayville, New York. Contrary to NRG's
claims, the test results showed, "neither a general increase in fuel economy
nor a decrease in emissions associated with the addition of NRG #1 to the
fuel." (1)(Evaluation of NRG #1, A Fuel Additive, TAEB Report 77-19, February
1978) .*
In response to a request from the Federal Trade Commission for more in-depth
information on NRG //I (now referred to as "XRG #1") (2) this new series of
tests was performed.
The conclusions drawn from the EPA evaluation tests are necessarily of limited
applicability. A complete evaluation of the effectiveness of an emission
control system in achieving performance improvements on the many different
types of vehicles that are in actual use requires a much larger sample of test
vehicles than is economically feasible in the evaluation test projects con-
ducted by EPA. For promising systems it is necessary that more extensive test
programs be carried out.
The conclusions from the EPA evaluation test can be considered to be quanti-
tively valid only for the specific test cars used; however, it is reasonable
to extrapolate the results from the EPA test to other types of vehicles in a
directional manner, i.e., to suggest that similar results are likely to be
achieved on other types of vehicles.
Summary of Findings
There was no significant change in emissions or fuel economy through the use
of XRG it I for the group of vehicles tested.
For individual vehicles, the Citation showed a 2% fuel economy improvement on
the FTP and 4% fuel economy improvement on the HFET. There was no significant
increase or decrease in fuel economy for the Dart and Fairmont for either the
FTP or HFET.
* Numbers in parenthesis designate references at the end of this report.
-------
22
Description
XRG #1 is a fuel additive developed and marketed by XRG International, Inc.,
(formerly NRG International) of Clayville, New York.
XRG //I is recommended by the manufacturer for use "with all grades of gasoline
and diesel fuel used in internal combustion engines." It is mixed directly
with fuel in the vehicle's tank in a ratio of 1:1600 (0.08 fl. oz. additive
per gallon fuel). The following benefits are claimed by the manufacturer when
the additive is used in an automotive gasoline engine (3):
- Increased fuel economy of 10-25%.
- Decreased exhaust emissions.
- Increased engine power.
- Decreased starting time in cold weather.
- Decreased dieseling tendency.
- Decreased carbon buildup inside engine.
The manufacturer claims these benefits occur over a period of time of con-
tinued usage. That is, there are some immediate benefits from usage of the
fuel additive but full benefits are obtained only after several tankfuls of
the XRG #1 additive doped fuel. In addition, to retain these benefits. XRG #1
usage must be continued.
Test Vehicle Description
The three test vehicles used in this study were:
A 1980 Chevrolet Citation equipped with a 2.8 litre V-6 engine and an
automatic transmission. This vehicle used EGR, an oxidation catalyst,
and pulsating air injection for emission control.
A 1975 Dodge Dart equipped with a 225 cubic inch inline 6-cylinder engine
and an automatic transmission. This vehicle was calibrated to meet the
1975 California emission standards. This vehicle used an air pump, EGRr
and an oxidation catalyst for emission control.
A 1979 Ford Fairmont equipped with a 140 cubic inch inline 4-cylinder
engine and automatic transmission. This vehicle used an oxidation cata-
lyst for emission control.
A complete description of these vehicles is given in the test vehicle
description in Appendix A.
Test Procedure
Exhaust emission tests were conducted according to the 1977 Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) described in the Federal Register of June 28, 1977, and the
EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET), described in the Federal Register of
September 10, 1976. The vehicles were not tested for evaporative emissions.
-------
23
Prior to baseline testing, each vehicle was given a specification check and
inspection. The ignition timing, idle speed, and fast idle speed were checked
for agreement with the manufacturer's specifications given on the Vehicle
Emission Control Information label affixed to the engine compartment. Each
vehicle met its manufacturer's specifications and therefore no adjustments
were required.
The vehicles were inspected for engine vacuum leaks, proper connection of
vacuum hoses, functioning PCV valve, oil and water levels, and general condi-
tion of engine compartment. Each vehicle was in satisfactory condition when
initially inspected.
Because the manufacturer's claims for XRG //I additive included both immediate
and long term benefits (3) the test program included testing both immediately
after initial additive usage and after-mileage accumulation with the additive.
Each vehicle was tested in three .different conditions;
1. Baseline - as received.
2. With XRG #1 (vehicle fuel tank drained, refueled with additive doped
fuel and prepped before this test).
3. After 500 miles with XRG //I.
At each test condition duplicate FTP and HFET tests were conducted. The
accumulation of 500 miles using fuel with XRG #1 consisted of sequences of 10
HFET driving cycles and one LA-4 (the basic FTP cycle) driving cycle. The
relatively high average speed of the HFET (48 mph) was expected to minimize
the amount of time to achieve those additive benefits that are based on vehi-
cle mileage accumulation. Mileage accumulation was accomplished on a dyna-
mometer.
In addition, one vehicle, that was used in later test programs, received
baseline tests after the 500 mile XRG #1 tests.
All testing was performed using the same gasoline batch. Two barrels of the
gasoline batch were doped with the XRG #1 at the manufacturer's prescribed
doseage of 1600 parts gasoline to one part XRG #1. This XRG //I doped gasoline
was used for all XRG #1 tests and mileage accumulation.
Discussion of Results
General Data Analysis
The objective of this test program was to determine if there was a significant
beneficial change in vehicle emissions, fuel economy, or performance through
the use of the fuel additive XRG //I.
The results of these tests are summarized in Tables I and II. Results of
individual tests are given in Tables V through X in Appendix B. The results
of the statistical analysis and actual changes between configurations are
shown in Tables III and IV.
-------
Table I
Average Vehicle FTP Emissions
grams per mile
Test Condition
Baseline
XRG //I
XRG //I @ 500 miles
Baseline
XRG #1
XRG #1 @ 500 miles
Baseline
XRG //I
XRG //I (§ 500 miles
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
Chevrolet Citation - FTP
.35
.32
.33
.63
.65
.48
.76
.71
.74
1.93
2.03
1.86
Dodge Dart -
7.90
8.64
6.93
Ford Fairmont
8.40
8.57
7.74
450
449
440
FTP
568
583
563
- FTP
400
402
404
1.55
1.62
1.61
1.81
1.72
1.85
1.83
1.83
1.85
19.5
19.6
20.0
15.3
14.8
15.4
21.3
21.2
21,2
Table II
Average Vehicle HFET Emissions
grams per mile
Test Condition
Baseline
XRG #1
XRG #1 @ 500 miles
Baseline
XRG #1
XRG #1 @ 500 miles
Baseline
XRG ,'M
XRG //I @ 500 miles
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
Chevrolet Citation - HFET
.07
.06
.07
.05
.04
.04
.15
.14
.14
.02
.00
.00
Dodge Dart -
.15
.11
.10
Ford Fairmont
.63
.68
.58
313
310
300
HFET
368
374
364
- HFET
317
320
313
1.29
1.25
1.47
2.58
2.17
2.41
2.48
2.52
2.35
28.4
28.6
29.5
24.1
23.7
24.4
27.9
27.6
28.2
-------
25
Table III
FTP Change From Baseline Due to XRG #1 Fuel
Expressed in % at Minimum Stated Confidence Level*
Test Condition
Chevrolet Citation - FTP
XRC //I at 500 miles
Dodge Dart - FTP
XRG #1 at 500 miles
HC
-6%***
-24%***
Ford Fairmont - FTP
XRG #L at 500 miles -3%***
Combined Effect - All Vehicles
XRG 31 at 500 miles ***
CO
-4%***
-12%***
NOx
4% 93% C.L.
2%***
-8% 94% C.L. 1%***
***
***
MPG
2% 99% C.L.
1%***
0%
***
Table IV
HFET Change From Baseline Due to XRG //I Fuel
Expressed in % Change at Minimum Confidence Level*
Test Condition
HC
Chevrolet Citation - HFET
XRG //I at 500 miles
Dodge Dart - HFET
XRG #1 at 500 miles
Ford Fairmont - HFET
XRG #1 at 500 miles
Combined Effect - All Vehicles
XRG #1 at 500 miles
CO
NOx
14% 99% C.L.
-7%***
-5%***
***
MPG
5% 99% C.L.
1%***
1%***
***
* Confidence level from statistical "t" test procedure and direction of change.
C.L. - Confidence Level
**+ indicates increase; - indicate decrease.
*** indicates change not significant at 90% confidence level. That there is no
significant change.
Note: The confidence level should not be confused with changes of absolute values
but are an indication of the statistical significance of the changes in the values
given in Tables I and II.
Note: The confidence level was not calculated for the initial XRG #1 tests.
Note: Percent change not calculated for HC and CO emissions for HFET. See text.
-------
26
From an initial review of the data given in Tables III and IV, it may appear
that use of XRG //I did cause some small changes in individual vehicle emis-
sions or fuel economy. However, in order to determine whether the apparent
differences were statistically significant, a significance test, such as a "t"
test must be performed. This technique analyzes the difference due to the
subject variable in relation to test to test variability to determine if the
difference is real or is due to testing variability. The resultant signi-
ficance determinations are stated in terms of the minimum percent confidence
level that can be ascribed to the observed difference.
The "t" test technique allows the determination of the effect of one variable
(use of XRG #1 additive) on a vehicle. The "t" test is also able to indicate
how representative the effect of the variable is for a group of vehicles. The
resultant levels of significance are stated in terms of percents. This con-
fidence level indicates the probability of assigning differences to the vari-
able (use of XRG #1 additive) being analyzed. With a test program of the size
performed, changes with confidence levels below 90% are not significant.
EFFECT OF XRG //I .
Federal Test Procedure
The use of XRG //I did not significantly affect the HC emissions for the
Citation, Dart or Fairmont.
The use of XRG #1 caused mixed effects on CO emissions. There was no signi-
ficant change in the Citation's or Dart's CO emissions. The Fairmont's emis-
sions decreased 8% (at the 94% confidence level).
The use of XRG //I caused mixed effects on NOx emissions. The Citation's NOx
emissions increased 4% at the 93% confidence level. XRG #1 did not signifi-
cantly affect the NOx emissions on the Dart or Fairmont.
The use of XRG #1 did not significantly affect the fuel economy of the Dart or
Fairmont. (The Citation's fuel economy showed a slight improvement, 2% (at
99% confidence level) .
When the FTP results were analyzed to determine the effects of XRG #1 on the
group of vehicles, the analysis showed that the use of XRG //I did not signifi-
cantly affect either HC, CO and NOx emissions or fuel economy.
Highway Fuel Economy Test
The HC and CO emissions for all three vehicles were quite low both with and
without use of the additive. HC and CO emissions are usually very low for
most vehicles on the HFET. Thus, even a very small change such as .01 grams
per mile could appear as a 5% to 30% relative change. Therefore, since the
results were low and similar, there was no significant change in HC or CO
emissions caused by the use of XRG #1.
The use of XRG #1 caused mixed results on NOx emissions. The Citation's NOx
emissions increased 14% at the 99% confidence level. The Dart's and
Fairmont's NOx emissions were not significantly affected.
-------
27
The use of XRG //I did not significantly affect the fuel economy of the Dart or
Fairmont. The Citation's fuel economy .showed a slight improvement, 4% at the
99% confidence level.
The analysis of tha HFET results to determine the effects of XRG #1 on the
group of vehicles showed that the use of XRG //I did not significantly affect
either HC, CO and NOx emissions or fuel economy.
Discussion of Additive Components and Their Effects
According to the manufacturer, XRG //I is composed mostly of isopropol alcohol
and toluene. It also contains a small amount of ferrous sulphate, nitro
benzene and water (4). An exact chemical breakdown was not given.
Toluene is a normal component of gasoline. Unleaded gasoline is reported to
presently contain 10 to 15% toluene and leaded gasoline 5 to 10% toluene (5).
Premium leaded fuel is 6% toluene. Individual gasoline fuel samples have had
up to 45% toluene.
Conclusions
Although a few individual tests indicated slight improvements in emissions or
fuel economy through the use of XRG #1, several tests indicated small emission
or fuel economy penalties. A significant but small improvement in fuel econ-
omy was noted on one vehicle for the FTP and HFET. However, for the group of
vehicles, XRG/r'l showed no significant effect on vehicle emissions or fuel
economy.
-------
28
References
1. Evaluation of NRG #1, a Fuel Additive. TAEB Technical Report 77-19,
February 1978.
2. Telephone conversation between Mr. F. Peter Hutchins, Project Manager,
EPA and Mr. Brian Boshart, engineer, XRG International Inc., on August 8,
1979.
3. NRG Fuel Additive, product information brochure (Note XRG = NRG).
4. Letter dated September 16, 1977 from Mr. Brian F. Boshart, NRG Inter-
national to Mr. Craig Harvey, EPA. Subject, NRG contents and previous
test program schedule.
5. Telephone conversation between Mr. F. Peter Hutchins, EPA and Mr. William
Meyer, Gulf Research and Development, on September 4, 1979. Subject,
toluene in gasolines.
-------
Appendix A
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1980 Chevrolet Citation
Vehicle ID - 1X117AW150868
Engine
type V-6, 4-Cycle
bore x stroke 89 x 76 mm/3.50 x 2.99 in.
displacement 2800 cc/170.9 CID
compression ratio 8.5 to 1
maximum power at rpm 115 hp/35.8 kW
fuel metering 2 Venturi Carburetor
fuel requirement unleaded, tested with Indolene
HO unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type 3-speed automatic
final drive ratio 2.53
Chassis
type 4 door sedan
tire size P185/80R13
curb weight 2905 lb/1318 kg.
inertia weight 3000 Ib.
passenger capacity 5
Emission Control System
basic type Oxidation catalyst
EGR
Pulsating air injection
Vehicle Odometer Mileage
6730 miles at start of test
program
7480 miles at end of test
program
-------
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1975 Dodge Dart
Emission control system - Air Pump, Catalyst EGR
Vehicle I.D. - LB41C5B290359
Engine
type Inline 6, 4-cycle
bore x stroke 3.40 X 4.125 in.
displacement 225 CID/3687 cc
compression ratio .... 8.4:1
fuel metering 1 Venturi, carburetor
fuel requirement unleaded, tested with Indolene
HO unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type .... 3-speed automatic
final drive ratio 2.75
Chassis
type 4 door sedan
tire size D78 X 14
inertia weight 3500 Ib.
passenger capacity 6
Emission Control System
basic type air pump
oxidation catalyst
EGR
calibrated to 1975
California standards
Vehicle Odometer.Mileage
20635 miles at start of test
program
21950 miles at end of test
program
-------
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1979 Ford Fairmont
Vehicle I.D. 9X92Y175689
Engine
type Inline 4, 4-cycle
bore x stroke 3.80 X 3.10 in./96.5 X 78.7 mm.
displacement 140 CID/2.3 1
compression ratio 9.0:1
maximum power 92 hp/68.6 k W
fuel metering 2 Venturi, carburetor
fuel requirement unleaded, tested with Indolene
HO unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type 3-speed automatic
final drive ratio 3.08
Chassis
type ' 4 door sedan
tire size BR 78 X 14
curb weight . . ' 2800 lb/1270 kg
inertia weight 3000 Ib.
passenger capacity 5
Emission Control System
basic type oxidation catalyst
Vehicle Odometer Mileage
10890 miles at start of test
program
11525 miles at end of test
program
-------
Test Condition
Baselino
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
XRG (14 miles)
XRG (55 miles)
XRG (524 miles)
XRG (552 miles)
XRG (591 miles)
32
Table V
Chevrolet Citation FTP Emissions
grams,per mile
Test #
-HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MFC
79-9919
79-9921
79-9923
79-9925
79-9927
79-9929
79-9931
79-9978
79-9980
.39
.32
.33
.34
.32
.31
.35
.32
.32
2.29
1.66
1.73
2.03
2.23
' 1.83
1.87
1.91
1.80
452
450
450
449
450
447
441
440
439
1.54
1.56
1.56
1.52
1.60
1.63
1.57
1.65
1.62
19.4
19.5
19.5
19.6
19.5
19.7
19.9
20.0
20.0
Table VI
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline (769 miles)
Baseline (1192 miles)
XRG (3 miles) V'"2-
XRG (42 miles) ^-iS
XRC (521 miles)
XRG (554 miles)
XRG (595 miles)
Dodge Dart FTP Emissions
grams per mile
Test
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
79-9778
79-9781
80-0246
80-0735
79-9782
79-9784
79-9786
79-9788
79-9986
.83
.79
.38
.50
.46
.84
.49
.47
..47
9.94
8.58
6.06
7.00
7.00
10.27
6.68
7.12
6.99
579
591
547
553
583
583
566
562
561
1.60
1.52
1.99
2.11
1.72
1.71
1.89
1.78
1.87
14.9
14.6
15.9
15.7
14.9
14.7
15.3
15.4
15,5
Table VII
Ford Fairmont FT? Emissions
grams per mile
Test Condition
Baseline '
Baseline
XRG (5 miles)
XRG (52 miles)
XRG (509 miles)
XRG (540 miles)
Test #
79-9909
79-9911
79-9913
79-9915
79-9917
79-9984
HC
.76
.76
.72
.70
.74
.74
CO
8.29
8.50
8.58
8.56
7.88
7.59
co'2
400
400
403
400
403
404
NOx
1 .-83
1.82
1.83
1.33
1.91
1.79
MPG
21.3
21.3
21.2
21.3
21.2
21.2
-------
Table VIII
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
XRG(24 miles)
XRG (66 miles)
XRG (536 miles)
XRG (568 miles)
XRG (608 miles)
Chevrolet Citation HFET Emissions
grams per mile
Test tf
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
79-9920
79-9922
79-9924
79-9926
79-9928
79-9930
79-9932
79-9979
79-9981
.07
.07
.07
.07
.06
.06
.07
.07
.07
.00
.05
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
311
316
313
310
309
310
301
299
299
1.20
1.35
1.24
1.37
1.27
1.22
1.47
1.44
1.50
28.5
28.0
28.3
28.6
28.7
28.6
29.4
29.6
29.6
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline (781 miles)
Baseline (1228 miles)
XRG (19 miles)
XRG (53 miles)
XRG (532 miles)
XRG (565 miles)
XRG (606 miles)
Table IX
Dodge .Dart HFET Emissions
grams per mile
Test #
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
79-9779
79-9780
80-0316 \
80-0734 ^
79-9783
79-9785
79-9787
79-9789
79-9987
.05
.05
.05
\ .06
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.09
.08
.19
.22
.12
.09
.06
.09
.14
379
374
356
362
376
372
364
365
364
2.02
2.01
2.79
3.48
2.07
2.27
2.40
2.34
2.48
23.4
23.7
24.9
24.5
23.6
23.8
24.4
24.3
24.4
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
XRC (24 miles)
XRG (63 miles)
XRG (520 miles)
XRG (551 miles)
Table X
Ford Fairmont HFET Emissions
grams per mile
Test If
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
79-9910
79-9912
79-9914
79-9916
79-9918
79-9985
.14
.15
.14
.14
.13
.14
.55
.70
.68
.67
.57
.59
316
317
320
319
312
314
2.50
2.45
2.44
2.61
2.31
2.39
28.0
27.8
27.6
27.7
23.3
28.1
US. GOVERNM6NT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980- 651-112/w222
-------
34 Attacnment C
77-19 CH
Evaluation of NRG
A Fuel Additive
February 1978
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
35
Background
The Environmental Protection.Agency receives information about many
systems which appear to offer potential for emission reduction or fuel
economy improvement compared to conventional engines and vehicles.
EPA's Emission Control Technology Division is interested in evaluating
all such systems, because of the obvious benefits to the Nation from the
identification of systems that can reduce emissions, improve fuel economy,
or both. EPA invites- developers of such systems to provide complete
technical data on the system's principle of operation, together with
available test data on the system. In those cases for which review by
EPA technical staff suggests that the data available show promise,
attempts are made to schedule tests at the EPA Motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory at Ann Arbor, Michigan. The results of all such test pro-
jects are set forth in'a series of Technology Assessment and Evaluation
Reports, of which this report is one.
NRG #1 is a fuel additive developed and marketed by NRG International
Inc. of Clayville, New York. A representative of NRG supplied EPA with
results of tests conducted by Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. which
showed that use of the additive resulted in increased fuel economy as
well as significant reductions in HC and CO emissions. On the basis of
this data, EPA decided to conduct confirmatory tests.
The conclusions drawn from the EPA evaluation tests are necessarily of
limited applicability. A complete evaluation of the effectiveness of an
emission control system in achieving performance improvements on the
many different types of vehicles that are in actual use requires a much
larger sample of test vehicles than is economically feasible in the
evaluation test projects conducted by EPA. For promising systems it is
necessary that more extensive test programs be carried out.
The conclusions from the EPA evaluation test can be considered to be
quantitatively valid only for the .specific test car used; however, it is
reasonable to extrapolate the results from the EPA test to other types
of vehicles in a directional manner, i.e., to suggest that similar
results are likely to be achieved on other types of vehicles.
Description
NRG #1 is recommended by the manufacturer for use with all grades of
gasoline and diesel fuel used in internal combustion engines. It is
mixed directly with fuel in the vehicle's tank in a ratio of 1:1600
(0.08 fl. oz. additive per gallon fuel). The following benefits are
claimed by the manufacturer when the additive is used in an automotive
gasoline engine:
-------
-Increased fuel economy of 10-25%
-Decreased exhaust emissions
-Increased engine power
-Decreased starting time in cold weather
-Decreased dieseling tendency
^Decreased carbon buildup inside engine
Test Procedure
Exhaust emission tests were conducted according to the 1977 Federal Test
Procedure (FTP), described in the Federal Register of June 28, 1977,
and the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET), described in the Federal
Register of September 10, 1976. Steady state and Federal Short Cycle
tests were also conducted. Evaporative emissions were not tested.
Prior to baseline testing the vehicle, described in Table 1, was tuned
to Chevrolet's specifications for ignition timing, idle speed, and spark
plug gap. One spark plug was found to be fouled with oil,.so it was
replaced. Compression in all cylinders was also checked and found to be
within specification. To precondition the vehicle, it was driven on the
dyno for two cycles of the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) ,
one HFET cycle, and another UDDS cycle.
The vehicle was tested in three different conditions:
1) Baseline
2) With NRG //I
3) After 500 miles with NRG #1
At each test condition duplicate tests of each type (FTP, HFET, Steady
States, Federal Short Cycle) were conducted. The accumulation of 500
miles was made up of 400 miles AMA durability on a test track and 100
miles of highway driving to and from Che test track.
Test Results
Table 2 gives a comparison between average results of baseline (before
addition of NRG //I) and final (after 500 miles with NRG //I) test condi-
tions. In general, emission levels remained the same or increased with
NRG //I in the fuel. In particular, use of the additive resulted in the
following:
-------
37
Increased NOx emissions in all test procedures .
Reduced HC emissions (approximately 15%) for steady state tests at
40 and 50 mph
Increased HC emissions for all other test procedures
Increased CO emissions (approximately 23%) for the FTP
Decreased CO emissions (100%) for the Federal Short Cycle
- No measurable change in CO emissions for other tests
CO emissions for HFET and steady state tests were less than 0.1 gram/mile.
This is due to the effectiveness of the catalytic converter once it is
warmed up.
Changes in average fuel economy were small. Most tests showed a decrease
in fuel economy with NRG #1 in the fuel, but the HFET, 40 mph, and
50 mph tests showed slight (less than 3%) increases in fuel economy with
the additive.
Conclusions
Although a few EPA tests of NRG //I showed slight improvements in either
fuel economy or emissions, the majority of tests indicated that use of
the additive decreased fuel economy while increasing emissions. This
leads to the conclusion that there is neither a general increase in fuel
economy nor a decrease in emissions associated with the addition of
NRG //I to the fuel.
-------
38
Table 1
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1975 Chevrolet- Nova
Emission control system - EGR, Catalyst, Air Injection
(California calibration)
Engine
type V-8, OHV
bore x stroke 4.00 x 3.48 in. (101.6 x 88.4 mm)
displacement 350 cu. in. (5735 cc)
compression ratio 9.0
maximum power @ rpm 200 hp @ 5200 rpm (150 kW) .
fuel metering Carburetor, 4V
fuel requirement . Unleaded regular, tested with Indolene HO
unleaded 100 octane
Drive Train ..
transmission type Automatic 3-speed
final drive ratio 3.08
Chassis
type Sedan, 2 door
tire size .- ' ER78 x 14
curb weight 3585 Ib. (1626 kg)
inertia weight 400G Ib.
passenger capacity six
Emission Control System
basic type EGR, Catalyst, Air Injection
-------
39
Table 2
Comparison of Baseline and Final Test Averages
Test
Procedure
FTP
HFET
Steady State
20 mph
30 mph
40 mph
50 mph
Idle Neutral
Idle Drive
Federal
Short Cycle
Baseline
500 Miles
With Additive
HC (g/rai)
CO (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
F.E. (mpg)
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC (g/hr)
CO (g/hr)
NOx (g/hr)
F.E. (gal/hr)
HC (g/hr)
CO (g/hr)
NOx (g/hr)
F.E. (gal/hr)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
F.E. (mpg)
.62
4.8
1.86
12.7
.13
0.0
2.69
17.3
.15
0.0
.30
20.2
.09
0.0
.42'
19.8
.08
0.0
.88
19.7
.11
0.0
1.74
18.7
1.31
0.0
2.39
.74
.54
0.0
2.94
.79
.21
0.2
.91
14.9
.81
5.9
2.01
12.5
.14
0.0
2.94
17.7
,24
0.0
.32
16.2
.11
0.0
.47
19.3
.07
0.0
.97
19.8
.09
0.0
2.08
19.1
4.02
0.0
3.36
.86
1.08
0.1
3.06
.85
.29
0.0
1.26
14.9
% Change
+ 31
+ 23
+ 8.1
- 1.6
+ 7.7
0.0
+ 9.3
+ 2.3
+ 60
0.0
+ 6.7
- 20
+ 22
0,0
+ 12
- 2.5
- 13
0.0
+ 10
+ 0.5
- 18
0.0
+ 20
+ 2.1
+207
0.0
+ 41
- 16
+100
+infinite
+ 4.1
- 7.6
+ 38
-100
+ 38
0.0
-------
40
Table 3
Baseline Tests
Test #
78-5955
78-5960
78-5956
78-5961
78-5957
78-5962
Test
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
HFET
HFET
HC
(gram/mi)
1.63
.27
.56
.63
1.66
.31
.38
.61
.13
.13
Fed. Short .22
Cycles
.20
CO
(graia/mi)
23.8
0.0
0.7
5.1
20.6
0.1
0.7
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
NOx
(gram/mi)
2.53
1.23
2.46
1.84
2.64
1.28
2.45
1.88
2.82
2.56
0.74
1.07
Fuel Economy
(mi/gal)
12.0
12.2
14.3
12.7
12.1
12.2
14.1
12.6
17.0
17.6
14.9
14.9
78-5958
78-5963
78-5958
78-5963
78-5959
78-5964
78-5959
78-5964
Steady States
20 mph .19
20 .10
30
30
40
40
50
50
.09
.08
.11
.05
.11
.10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.34
.25
.45
.39
.82
.93
1.78
1.70
78-5958
78-5963
78-5959
78-5964
Idle
Neutral
Idle
Drive
1.66
.96
1.08
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.14
2.64
3.00
2.88
20.8
19.6
19.4
20.1
19.7
19.6
18.9
18.5
.(gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gal/hr)
0.59
0.89
0.81
0.76
-------
41
Table 4
Testa With NRG $1 Added
Test #
78-6329
78-6367
78-6328
78-6394
78-6331
78-6331
78-6327
78-6333
78-6327
78-6332
78-6326
78-6395
78-6326
78-6332
Test
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
HFET
HFET
HC
(gram/mi)
1.70
.27
.28
.57
1.58
.29
' .35
57
.13
.13
Fed. Short .19
Cycles . 20
S teady
20 mph
20
30
30
40
40
50
50
States
.17
.21
.08
.08
.13
.07
.18
.13
CO
(gram/mi)
23.8
0.1
0.4
5.0
19.9
0.0
0.8
4.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NOx
(gram/mi)
2.71
1.25 .
2.60
1.92
2.75
1.25
2.38
1.87
3,17
2.96
1.16
1,18
.29
.25
.45
. .43
.85
.91
1.64
1.89
Fuel Econi
(mi/gal)
12.1
12.2
14.1
12.6
12.3
12.3
14.5
12.8
16.9
17.0
16.1
15,8
19.5
21.3
19.4
19.8
19.5
20.5
17.6
18.2
(gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gal/hr)
78-6327
78-6333
78-6333
78-6395
Idle
Neutral
Idle
Drive
2.28
2.88
1.56
1.29
0.0
5.6
22.9
0.0
4.80
2.88
3.36
3.19
.86
>75
,72
.75
-------
Table 5
Tests After 500 Miles With NRG
Test
Test
78-6372
78-6377
78-6371
78-6376
.78-6371
78-6376
78-6371
78-6376
HC
(gram/mi)
Steady States
20 mph .32
20 .15
30
30
40
40
50
50
.12
.10
.07
.07
.09
.09
78-6372
78-6377
78-6372
78-6377
Idle
Neutral
Idle
Drive
4.56
3.48
1.20
.96
CO
(gram/mi)
78-6379
78-6374
78-6378
78-6373
78-6375
78-6370
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
HFET
HFET
Fed. Short
Cycles
2.19
.33
.32
.71
2.82
.42
' .38
.90
.13
.14
.25
.32
27.5
0.1
0.3
5.8
28.2
0.1
0.4
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NOx
(gram/mi)
.39
.25
.48
.45
.99
.94
2.12
2.04
0.0
0.0.
0.0
0.1
3.12
3.60
3.00
3.12
Fuel Economy
(mi/gal)
2.89
1.30
2.61
1.98
2.82
1.34
2.73
2.03.
2.94
2.94
1.25
1.26
12.0
12.1
14.3
12.6
11.9
11.8
13.9
12.3
17.7
17.6
14.8
14.9
12.2
20.1
19.2
19.4
19.7
19.9
19.0
19.1
(gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gal/hr)
.86
.86
.85
.85
-------
(. . " C
Attachment D
ADDITIVE TESTING PROJECT
CONDUCTED FOR
XRG INTERNATIONAL, INC.
AUTOMOTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, /A/CL
A subsidiary of Gcetyto*. Manufacturing Company
-------
.-<
.r //
AUTOMOTIVE fNVIHONMSNTAL SYSTEMS. INC.
ADDITIVE TESTING PROJECT
CONDUCTED FOR
XRG INTERNATIONAL, INC.
By
Alan D. Jones
Project Engineer
August 1980
AUTOMOTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, IKC.
7300 Bolsa Avenue
Westminster, California 92683
-------
c
45
c
AUTOMOTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS. INC.
INTRODUCTION
The testing described in this report was conducted in accordance with United
States Environmental Protection Agency procedures and requirements. The
tests performed were the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the Highway Fuel
Economy Test (HFET). Three vehicles received FTP and HFET testing with
catalytic converters removed and with and without XRG additive combined with
commercial unleaded fuel. Replicate FTP and HFET tests were performed to
check data repeatability.
TEST FLEET
The test fleet consisted of the following vehicles:
Vehicle Year Make/Model
Odometer
Baseline
Odometer
W/Additive Fuel Tank Engine
CX0051 1979 Chev Monte Carlo 22766
CX0052 1979 Ford LTD 15684
CX0053 1979 Buick Regal 18246
24357
17*124 .
19932
18.1
19.0
18.1
305 V-8
302 V-8
231 V-6
All three vehicles were obtained from a rental agency.
VEHICLE PREPARATION
Each vehicle received the following preparation steps:
1. Flow meter installation (FloScan Model 606). Vehicle CX0052 was
equipped with a new style FloScan 606 accurate to three decimal places.
2. Fuel tank drained and fueled to 40? capacity with gasoline.
3. Catalytic converter(s) removed and replaced with straight exhaust pipe
welded in for a leak-free system.
4. Exhaust emissions control system and vehicle parameter check.
The vehicle parameters were checked before testing began. These parameters
were also checked at the conclusion of testing. All were within
manufacturer's specifications. These data are retained by AESi to
substantiate the parameter values.
TEST PROCEDURE
All dynamometer tests are based on the Federal'Test Procedure and Highway
Fuel Economy test procedure as described in the Federal Register, Part 86,
Subpart B, and Part 600, Subpart G respectively. All emissions calculations
are based on the Federal Test Procedure. The carbon balance fuel economy
calculations are based on the Highway Fuel Economy test procedure. The fuel
density and carbon weight fractions are taken to be the same for unleaded
gasoline as for Indolene HO.
-------
46
AUTOMOTIVS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS. INC.
AESi's testing system is checked daily to ensure continued certification for
on-going EPA contract testing.
Prior to testing,, all vehicles had their catalytic converters removed as
described in the Vehicle Preparation Section. The test sequence began with
a baseline Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and Highway Fuel Economy test
(HFET).. Next replicate FTP and HFET tests were performed to verify data
repeatability. Following this the first additive was combined with the
commercial unleaded fuel at a ratio of 1 ounce .of ad-ditive for every 12
: gallons of fuel. An FTP/HFET test series was performed and replicate tests
followed immediately. .
.The catalytic converters, were welded in position prior to the next test
.-series.: Baseline FTP and HFET tests were conducted and replicate baseline
tests followed. The same additive used for testing without catalytic
converters' was then added, at the same 12:1 ratio. FTP/HFET testing with
- .additive was performed on all vehicles with replicate tests immediately
.thereafter. -
The catalytic converters were again removed as explained in the Vehicle
Preparation Section. Next each vehicle received 400 miles of mileage
accumulation using the AESi highway /city mileage accumulation driving
.schedule. The mileage accumulation was done with XRG additive in the
- commercial unleaded fuel. The additive used for the mileage accumulation
and the tests following mileage accumulation was not the same additive used
in the previous test series. All additives were unmarked. After mileage
accumulation the vehicles received FTP/HFET series with replicate tests.
. Between the baseline FTP/HFET and the mileage accumulation with the second
":7 additive the vehicles incurred an average of 1672 miles. The Chevrolet
,.' Monte Carlo (50051) had 1591 miles; the Ford LTD (#0052) had 17^0 miles; and
;;/,/. the Buick Regal (50053) had 1686 miles. The miles were accumulated with and
;:pV without catalytic converters, with commercial unleaded, fuel and with
Commercial unleaded fuel., with an additive.
<" " - « -
ADDITIVE MIXTURE -*"'-
- \v f .. J..,r
The additive was provided to AESi by XRG International, Inc. on June 23,
v.v 1980-, It wasr unlabled.,t- The mixing ratio used was 1.0 ounce of additive for
"; every .12. gallons of ;;fueiv;'j For all tests, the fuel used was Mobil unleaded
gasoline from a local\seryice station.
RESULTS
. ;:1 A: summary ''of "fuel economy" data: for FTP and HFET testing is presented in
f.. ; -Exhibit ..A.: jA^summaryc of:: FTP: exhaust emissions data is shown in Exhibit B.
: Exhibit C is a summary^ of " the HFET exhaust emissions data. A complete
'-'- listing of FTP and. HFET emissions data is presented in Exhibit D.
-------
47
AUTOMOTIVE SHViaONMeHTAL SYSTEMS. INC.
EXHIBIT A
FUEL ECONOMY SUMMARY*
WITHOUT CATALYST
VEHICLE NO TEST
W/0 ADDITIVE W/ADDITIVE
% CHANGE
CX0051
CX0052
CX0053
Fleet
'. FTP . ?.'"
HFET
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
FTP .
HFET
1.A.U39
18.933
13.72U
20.^77
1M.969
19.281
1.1.359
19.542
1H. 971
19.760
14.669
22.055
16.159
21.185
15-240
20.957
+3.7
+14. H
+6.9
+7.7
+7.9
+9.9
+6.1
+7.2
*Hannonic Mean,
n
n
where Z^ = mpg for the ith test
n = number of tests
1=1
Seer. "TEST: PROCEDURE1', for unusual test conditions ^
-------
48
.: '.' * it
,.. ; . .T .' ?/
. .: ,:>/.,; 3 :> J iS if
AUTOMOTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS. INC.
EXHIBIT B
FTP EXHAUST EMISSIONS - SUMMARY
VEHICLE
CX0051
W/0 Cat
POLLUTANT W/0 ADDITIVE W/ADDITIVE
HC
CO
co2
NOxC
1.785
51.858
527.256
1.075
1.647
43-941
518.062
0.996
% CHANGE
- 7.7
-15-3
- 1.7
- 7-3
CX0052
W/0 Cat
HC
CO
co2
NOxC
2.625
35.245
582.425
5.942
2.062
22.665
562.354
5.441
-21.4
-35.7
- 3.4
CX0053
HC
CO
co2
NOxC
1.233
29-378
542.350
2.903
1.729
12.955
523-272
1.205
-»-40.2
-55.9
- 3.5
-58.5
Fleet
W/0 Cat
HC
CO
C02
NOxC
1.881
38.827
550.677
3.307
1.813
26.520
534.563
2.547
- 3-6
-31-7
- 2.9
-23.0
NOTE: All of the above emissions data are mathematical averages in grams
per mile of the actual test data obtained.
See "TEST PROCEDURE" for unusual test conditions
-------
49
AUTOMOTIVE ENVtRONMSNTAL SYSTEMS, INC.
EXHIBIT C
HFET EXHAUST EMISSIONS - SUMMARY
VEHICLE
POLLUTANT W/0 ADDITIVE W/ADDITIVE
CHANGE
CX0051
W/0 Cat
HC
CO
co2
NOxC
0.417
9-524
452.288
1.338
0.378
4.861
439.9^3
1.260
- 9-4
-49-0
- 2.7
- 5.8.
CX0052
W/0 Cat
HC
CO -
C02
NOxC
1.144
9-275
414.863
8.190
1.021
4.838
391-249
7.443
-10-8
-47.8
- 5.7
- 9-1
CX0053
W/0
HC
CO
C02
NOxC
0.209
7.537
447.425
3-609
0.566
3-563
411.199
1.222
t-170.8
-52.7
- 8.1
-66.1
Fleet
W/0 Cat
HC
CO
co2
NOxC
0.590
8.779
438.192
4.379
0.655
4.421
414.130
3-308
+11.0
-119-6
- 5-5
-2H-5
NOTE: All of the above emissions data are mathematical averages in grams
per mile of the actual test data obtained. .
See "TEST PROCEDURE" for unusual test conditions
-------
EMOTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS. INC
'. ' ' EXHIBIT P/^1':'-^]
FTP AND HFET EMISSIONS DATA V
WITHOUT CATALYST
VEHICLE
NUMBER
Without
CX0051
TEST .
NO.
Additive
1
2
CX0052 1
2
CX0053 1
2
With Additive
CX0051
CX0052
CX0053
1
2
1
2
1
2
HC
1.924
1.645
3.038
2.212
1.266
1.200
1.605
1.689
2.206
1.917
1.618
1.840
CO
56.042
47.674
38.159
32.330
30.329
28.426
41.936
45.946
22.249
23.081
13-120
12.790
C02
524.828
529.684
574.890
589.960
537.881
.546.819
525.383
510.740
563-865
560,843
533.650
512.893
NOxC
0.993
1.156
6.018
5.866
2.961
2.844
1,029
0.962
5.503
5.378.
1.213
1.196
MPG
14.326
14.554
13.759
13.690
15.042
14.897
14.870
15.074
14.638
14.701
15.870
16.458
HC
0.428
0.406
1.146
1.141
0.183
0.234
'0.392
0.364
1.010
1.031
'? 0.549
0.583
CO
11.398
7.650
9.105
9.445
7.749
7-324
4.751
4.970
5.178
4.497
3-713
3-412
C02
460.922
443.653
411.764
417.962
449.122
445.727
440.123
439.762
391.681
390.817
412.621
409.777
NOxC
1.341
1.335
8.433
7.947
3-788
3.430
1.244
1.275
7.456
7.429
1.205
1.239
MPG
/""*'
18.467
19*423
20.637
20.320
Ul
.' o
19-200
19-363
19.758
19.762
/*».
22.0<
22.106
21.104
21.267'
NOTEi All emissions data In grama per mile
See "TEST PROCEDURE for unusual test conditions
-------
Attachment E
c
JMTED Si , "ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
A'"iM ARBO"? MICHIGAN 'BlCri
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
jcaaber 2, 1980
Hr. Brian Boshart
XEG International, Inc.
\\?.:) S.U. Martin Highway
Stuart, Florida 33494
Dear Mr. Boshart:
The EPA Engineering Evaluation Group has completed a review of your
application for evaluation of "SYNeRGy-l"/"XRG-l"/"NRG-l" under Section 511 of
-he Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. This review indicated
;hat several areas of the test program conducted at Automotive Environmental
Systems, Inc. (AESi) require clarification prior to further processing of your
.application. These areas are as follows:
Thu AESi report does not sufficiently detail the actual test program
conducted* Please provide a detailed description of that program to
include the amount of mileage accumulated on each test vehicle, the
condition of the emission control equipment of each test vehicle during
each -stage of testing and mileage accumulation, and the number of
additives used in the program and-when each additive was used.
. Please provide both emissions and fuel economy data on the AESi vehicles
with the catalytic converters installed for each additive used.
. Please provide a detailed description of the actual test program for the
catalyst equipped vehicles, if that program deviated from that conducted
on the vehicles without a catalyst installed.
. Complete descriptions of all engine design parameter settings (air-fuel
ratio, ignition timing, etc.), dynamometer settings (power absorber
setting, inertia, etc.), ambient conditions during testing and specific"
emission control system for each vehicle tested at AESi are required.
, Ple.ase provide a chemical breakdown by weight of each additive used for
the AESi test program and a signed affidavit certifying that the
additives -ised during that program conform with the patent documentation
provided with your application, the description of the additive as
registered with Che EPA in Research Triangle Park, N.C., and assuring the
EPA that the additives used during the AESi program are representative of
the. product being marketed.
Additionally, the product patent documentation references testing conducted at
Scotf. Environmental Technology. Please provide the following information /data
relative, to that testing:
-------
52
. Scott reports; SET 1620-01-0577, SET 1620-02-0577, SET 1620-03-0577 and
Scott report detailing tests conducted on MSX additive designated 7/77.
. A detailed description of each test vehicle, dynamometer setting used,
engine design parameter settings, and all test ambient conditions.
If, af!:er review of the above requested information, the EPA deems it
appropriate to conduct confirmatory testing at this facility, a test plan to
evaluate "SYNeRGy-l"/"XRG-l"/"NRG-l" will have to be agreed upon and a
.sufficient quantity of "SYNeRGy-l"/"XRG-l"/"NRG-l" wiH have to be supplied.
In the interest of saving time, the attached proposed test plan is provided
for your concurrence. If the proposed test plan is agreeable, please provide
sufficient additive with your response to accomplish the total test program.
Please be sure to provide a signed affidavit certifying that the supplied
additive for evaluation conforms with; 1) the additive description contained
In the patent documentation, 2) the additive description on record at the EPA*
Research Triangle Park, N.C. facility and 3) the additive is representative of
the additive marketed as "SYNeRGy-l"/"XRG-l"/"NRG-l".
Your cooperation in. this matter and rapid response are appreciated. I loolc
forward to receipt of the requested information so that we can continue
processing your application for evaluation. If you require any further
Information or assistance, please feel free to contact ray office
(313-66^-4299).
Sincerely,
; . -""«.. ---' >-«" - - :
Merrill W. Korth, EPA Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Enclosure
-------
53
Attachment I
Proposed Test Plan for EPA Evaluation
of "SYNeRGy-l"/"XRG-l"/"NRG-r'
(hi each of three (3) representative vehicles, performed the following:
1)-- Three (3) FTP/HFET test sequences with vehicle engine design
parameters set to vehicle manufacturer's specifications (baseline).
2) Three (3) FTP/HFET test sequences with vehicle engine design
parameters set as in 1) above and fuel additive introduced.
3) Accumulate 500 miles using fuel additive according to the Automobile
Manufacturers Association driving schedule and vehicle engine
design parameters set as in 1) above.
£) Three (3) FTP/HFET test sequences using fuel additive and vehicle
engine design parameters set as in 1) above.
Representativeness of the vehicles means that the vehicles; (1) will have been
la consumer use, (2) will reflect a large percentage of the vehicles presently
in use und will be neither very new nor very old, (3) will represent a small
tingine displacement, a medium engine displacement and a large engine
displacement and (A)- will represent each of the three domestic manufacturers.
Addi':loyally, all test sequences and mileage accumulation will be accomplished
with coiimercial grade unleaded fuel.
Concurrence:
Mr . B r i.in B os ha r t
XRG International, Inc.
-------
o
Attachment F
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
° J^N'/^. ." ANN-ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
>.
OFFtCE OF
March 4, 1981 AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
Mr. Brian Boshart
XRG international, Inc.
4125 S.W. Martin Highway
Stuart, FL 33494
Dear Mr. Boshart:
It was good to learn during our telephone conversation on 2/26/81 that
you soon will be responding to our letter of 12/2/80. I was sorry to
hear that you had recently been ill.
Your application for an EPA evaluation dates well back into 1980 and we
are concerned that the evaluation can not progress until we receive the
information we have requested. If we do not receive your data by
April 1, 1981, we plan to complete our evaluation without it, in which
case, we will not be able to conclude that your additive improves fuel
economy.
EPA we are in a posiHqn to promptly continue our evaluation of
/"yRG-1"^"NI'G-l" as soon as we receive the information that we
requested trom you. Since you are planning to do this I would like to
encourage you to forward the data as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
-------
Appendix A
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1980 Chevrolet Citation
Vehicle ID - 1X117AW150868
Engine
type V-6, 4-Cycle
bore x stroke 89 x 76 mm/3.50 x 2.99 in.
displacement 2800 cc/170.9 CID
compression ratio 8.5 to 1
maximum power at rpm 115 hp/85.8 kW
fuel metering 2 Venturi Carburetor
fuel requirement unleaded, tested with Indolene
HO unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type 3-speed automatic
final drive ratio 2.53
Chassis
type 4 door sedan
tire size P185/80R13
curb weight 2905 lb/1318 kg,
inertia weight 3000 Ib.
passenger capacity 5
Emission Control System
basic type Oxidation catalyst
EGR
Pulsating air injection
Vehicle Odometer Mileage
6730 miles at start of test
program
7480 miles at end of test
program
-------
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1975 Dodge Dart
Emission control system - Air Pump, Catalyst EGR
Vehicle I.D. - LH41C5B290359
Engine
type Inline 6, 4-cycle
bore x stroke 3.40 X 4.125 in.
displacement 225 CID/3687 cc
compression ratio .... 8.4:1
fuel metering 1 Venturi, carburetor
fuel requirement unleaded, tested with Indolene
HO unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type .... 3-speed automatic
final drive ratio 2,75
Chassis
type 4 door sedan
tire size D78 X 14
inertia weight 3500 Ib.
passenger capacity 6
Emission Control System
basic type air pump
oxidation catalyst
EGR
calibrated to 1975
California standards
Vehicle Odometer Mileage
20635 miles at start of test
program
21950 miles at end of test
program
-------
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1979 Ford Fairmont
Vehicle I.D. 9X92Y175689
Engine
type Inline 4, 4-eycle
bore x stroke 3.80 X 3.10 in./96.5 X 78.7 mm.
displacement 140 CID/2.3 1
compression ratio 9.0:1
maximum power 92 hp/68.6 k W
fuel metering 2 Venturi, carburetor
fuel requirement unleaded, tested with Indolene
HO unleaded
Drive Train
transmission type 3-speed automatic
final drive ratio 3.08
Chassis
type ' 4 door sedan
tire size BR 78 X 14
curb weight . . ' 2800 lb/1270 kg
inertia weight 3000 Ib.
passenger capacity .5
Emission Control System
basic type oxidation catalyst
Vehicle Odometer Mileage
10890 miles at start of test
program
11525 miles at end of test
program
-------
Table V
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
XRG (14 miles)
XRG (55 miles)
XRG (524 miles)
XRG (552 miles)
XRG (591 miles)
Chevrolet Citation FTP Emissions
grams,per mile
Test #
-HC
CO
CO,
MOx
MFC
79-9919
79-9921
79-9923
79-9925
79-9927
79-9929
79-9931
79-9978
79-9980
.39
.32
.33
.34
.32
.31
.35
.32
.32
2.29
1.66
1.73
2.03
2.23
' 1.83
1.87
1.91
1.80
452
450
450
449
450
447 .
441
440
439
1.54
1.56
1.56
1.52
1.60
1.63
1.57
1.65
1.62
19.4
19.5
19.5
19.6
19.5
19.7
19.9
20.0
20.0
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline (769 miles)
Baseline (1192 miles)
XRG (3 miles)
-------
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
XRG(24 miles)
XRG (66 miles)
XRG (536 miles)
XRG (568 miles)
XRG (603 miles)
33
Table VIII
Chevrolet Citation HFET Emissions
grams per mile
Test #
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
79-9920
79-9922
79-9924
79-9926
79-9928
79-9930
79-9932
79-9979
79-9981
.07
.07
.07
.07
.06
.06
.07
.07
.07
.00
.05
.01
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
311
316
313
310
309
310
301
299
299
1.20
1.35
1.24
1.37
1.27
1.22
1.47
1.44
1.50
28.5
28.0
28.3
28.6
28.7
28.6
29.4
29.6
29.6
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline (781 miles)
Baseline (1228 miles)
XRG (19 miles)
XRG (53 miles)
XRG (532 miles)
XRG (565 miles)
XRG (606 miles)
Table IX
Dodge Dart HFET Emissions
grams per mile
Test #
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
79-9779
79-9780
80-0316 A
80-0734 ^
1
79-9783
79-9785
79-9787
79-9789
79-9987
.05
.05
.05
\ .06
.04
.04
.04 -
.05
.04
.09
.08
.19
.22
.12
.09
.06
.09
.14
379
374
356
362
376
372
364
365
364
2.02
2.01
2.79
3.48
2.07
2.27
2.40
2.34
2.48
23.4
23.7
24.9
24.5
23.6
23.8
24.4
24.3
24.4
Test Condition
Baseline
Baseline
XRC (24 miles)
XRG (63 miles)
XRG (520 miles)
XRG (551 miles)
Table X
Ford Fairmont HFET Emissions
grams per mile
Test #
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
79-9910
79-9912
79-9914
79-9916
79-9918
79-998r;
.14
.15
.14
.14
.13
.14
.55
.70
.68
.67
.57
.59
316
317
320
319
312
314
2.50
2.45
2.44
2.61
2.31
2.39
28.0
27.8
27.6
27.7
23.3
28.1
U.S. GOVERNM6NT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980- 651-112/u222
-------
34 Attachment C -
77-19 CH
Evaluation of NRG #1,
A Fuel Additive
February 1978
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency receives infonnatio"tt about many
systems which appear to offer potential for emission reduction or fuel
economy improvement compared to conventional engines and vehicles.
EPA's Emission Control Technology Division is interested in evaluating
all such systems, because of the obvious benefits to the Nation from the
identification of systems that can reduce emissions, improve fuel economy,
or both. EPA invites developers of such systems to provide complete
technical data on the system's principle of operation, together with
available test data on the system. In those cases for which review by
EPA technical staff suggests that the data available show promise,
attempts are made to schedule tests at the EPA Motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory at Ann Arbor, Michigan. The results of all such test pro-
jects are set forth in'a series of Technology Assessment and Evaluation
Reports, of which this report is one.
NRG #1 is a fuel additive developed and marketed by NRG International
Inc. of Clayville, New York. A representative of NRG supplied EPA with
results of tests conducted by Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. which
showed that use of the additive resulted in increased fuel economy as
well as significant reductions in HC and CO emissions. On the basis of
this data, EPA decided to conduct confirmatory testa..
The conclusions drawn from the EPA evaluation tests are necessarily of
limited applicability. A complete evaluation af the effectiveness of an
emission control system in achieving performance improvements on the
many different types of vehicles that are in actual use requires a much
larger sample of test vehicles than is economically feasible in the
evaluation test projects conducted by EPA. For promising systems it is
necessary that more extensive test programs be carried out.
The conclusions from the EPA evaluation test can be considered to be
quantitatively valid only for the specific test car used; however, it is
reasonable to extrapolate the results from the EPA test to other types
of vehicles in a directional manner, i.e., to suggest that similar
results are likely to be achieved on other types of vehicles.
Description
NRG //I is recommended by the manufacturer for use with all grades of
gasoline and diesel fuel used in internal combustion engines. It is
mixed directly with fuel in the vehicle's tank in a ratio of 1:1600
(0.08 fl. oz. additive per gallon fuel). The following benefits are
claimed by the manufacturer when the additive is used in an automotive
gasoline engine:
-------
-Increased fuel economy of 10-25%
-Decreased exhaust emissions
-Increased engine power
-Decreased starting time in cold weather
-Decreased dieseling tendency
-Decreased carbon buildup inside engine
Test Procedure
Exhaust emission tests were conducted according to the 1977 Federal Test
Procedure (FTP), described in the Federal Register of June 28, 1977,
and the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET), described in the Federal
Register of September 10, 1976. Steady state and Federal Short Cycle
tests were also conducted. Evaporative emissions were not tested.
Prior to baseline testing the vehicle, described in Table 1, was tuned
to Chevrolet's specifications for ignition timing, idle speed, and spark
plug gap. One spark plug was found to be fouled with oil,.so it was
replaced. Compression in all cylinders was also checked and found to be
within specification. To precondition the vehicle, it was driven on the
dyno for two cycles of the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) ,
one HFET cycle, and another UDDS cycle.
The vehicle was tested in three different conditions:
1) Baseline
2) With NRG //I
3) After 500 miles with NRG #1
At each test condition duplicate tests of each type (FTP, HFET, Steady
States, Federal Short Cycle) were conducted. The accumulation of 500
miles was made up of 400 miles AMA durability on a test track and 100
miles of highway driving to and from the test track.
Test Results
Table 2 gives a comparison between average results of baseline (before
addition of NRG //I) and final (after 500 miles with NRG //I) test condi-
tions. In general, emission levels remained the same or increased with
NRG //I in the fuel. In particular, use of the additive resulted in the
following:
-------
37
- Increased NOx emissions in all test procedures
Reduced HC emissions (approximately 15%) for steady state tests at
40 and 50 mph
- Increased HC emissions for all other test procedures
- Increased CO emissions (approximately 23%) for the FTP
Decreased CO emissions (100%) for the Federal Short Cycle
- No measurable change in CO emissions for other tests
CO emissions for HFET and steady state tests were less than 0.1 gram/mile.
This is due to the effectiveness of the catalytic converter once it is
warmed up.
Changes in average fuel economy were small. Most tests showed a decrease
in fuel economy with NRG #1 in the fuel, but the HFET, 40 mph, and
50 mph tests showed slight (less than 3%) increases in fuel economy with
the additive.
Conclusions
Although a few EPA tests of NRG //I showed slight improvements in either
fuel economy or emissions, the majority of tests indicated that use of
the additive decreased fuel economy while increasing emissions. This
leads to the conclusion that there is neither a general increase in fuel
economy nor a decrease in emissions associated with the addition of
NRG //I to the fuel.
-------
38
Table 1
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1975 Chevrolet Xova
Emission control system - EGR, Catalyst, Air Injection
(California calibration)
Engine
type V-8, OHV
bore x. stroke 4.00 x 3.48 in. (101.6 y. 88.4 mm)
displacement 350 cu. in. (5735 cc)
compression ratio . . 9.0
maximum power @ rpm 200 hp @ 5200 rpra (150 kW) .
fuel metering Carburetor, 4V
fuel requirement . . Unleaded regular, tested with Indolene HO
unleaded 100 octane
Drive Train .
transmission type Automatic 3-speed
final drive ratio 3.08
Chassis
type ......... Sedan, 2 door
tire size .- ' ER78 x 14
curb weight 3585 Ib. (1626 kg)
inertia weight . 400G Ib.
passenger capacity six
Emission Control System
basic type EGR, Catalyst, Air Injection
-------
39
Table 2
Comparison of Baseline and Final Test Averages
Test
Procedure
FTP
HFET
Steady State
20 mph
30 mph
40 mph
50 mph
Idle Neutral
Idle Drive
Federal
Short Cycle
Baseline
500 Miles
With Additive
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
F.E. (mpg)
HC
CO
NOx
F.E. .
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC
CO
NOx
F.E.
HC (g/hr)
CO (g/hr)
NOx (g/hr).
F.E. (gal/hr)
HC (g/hr)
CO (g/hr)
NOx (g/hr)
F.E. (gal/hr)
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
NOx '(g/mi)
F.E. (mpg)
.62
4.8
1.86
12.7
.13
0.0
2.69
17.3.
.15
0.0
.30
20.2
.09
0.0
.42 '
19.8
.08
0.0
.88
19.7
.11
0.0
1.74
18.7
1.31
0.0
2.39
.74
.54
0.0
2.94
.79
.21
0.2
.91
14.9
.81
5.9
2.01
12.5
.14
0.0
2.94
17.7
,24
0.0
.32
16.2
.11
0.0
.47
19.3
.07
0.0
.97
19.8
.09
0.0
2.08
19.1
4.02
0.0
3.36
.86
1.08
OM
3.06
.85
.29
0.0
1.26
14.9
% Change
+ 31
+ 23
+ 8.1
- 1.6
+ 7.7
0.0
+ 9.3
+ 2.3
+ 60
0.0
+ 6.7
- 20
+ 22
0,0
+ 12
- 2.5
- 13
0.0
+ 10
+ 0.5
- 18
0.0
+ 20
+ 2.1
+207
0.0
+ 41
- 16
+100
+infinite
+ 4.1
- 7.6
+ 38
-100
+ 38
0.0
-------
40
Table 3
Baseline Tests
Test //
78-5955
78-5960
78-5956
78-5961
78-5957
78-5962
Test
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
HFET
HFET
HC
(gram/mi)
1.63
.27
.56
.63
1.66
.31
.38
.61
.13
.13
Fed. Short .22
Cycles
.20
CO
(gram/mi)
23.8
0.0
0.7
5.1
20.6
0.1
0.7
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
NOx .
(gram/mi)
2.53
1.23
2.46
1.84
2.64
1.28
2.45
1.88
2.82
2.56
0.74
1.07
Fuel Economy
Cmi/gal)
\ **» ft6**/
12.0
12.2
14.3
12.7
12.1
12.2
14.1
12.6
17.0
17.6
14.9
14.9
78-5958
78-5963
78-5958
78-5963
78-5959
78-5964
78-5959
78-5964
Steady States
20 mph .19
20 .10
30
30
40
40
50
50
.09
.08
.11
.05
.11
.10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.34
.25
.45
.39
.82
.93
1.78
1.70
78-5958
78-5963
78-5959
78-5964
Idle
Neutral
Idle
Drive
1.66
.96
1.08
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.14
2.64
3.00
2.88
20.8
19.6
19.4
20.1
19.7
19.6
18.9
18.5
.(gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gal/hr)
0.59
0.89
0.81
0.76
-------
41
Table 4
Tests With NHG
Added
Test //
78-6329
78-6367
78-6328
78-6394
78-6331
78-6331
78-6327
78-6333
78-6327
78-6332
78-6326
78-6395
78-6326
78-6332
Test
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
HFET
HFET
HC
(gram/mi)
1.70
.27
.28
.57
1.58
.29
' .35
.57
.13
.13
Fed. Short .19
Cycles . 20
Steady
20 mph
20
30
30
40
40
50
50
States
.17
.21
.08
.08
.13
.07
.18
.13
CO
(gram/mi)
23.8
0.1
0.4
5.0
19.9
0.0
0.8
4.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NOx
(gram/mi)
2.71
1.25
2.60
1.92
2.75
1.25
2.38
1.87
3.17
2.96
1.16
1.18
.29
.25
.45
. .43
.85
.91
1.64
1.89
Fuel Econi
(mi/ gal)
12.1
12.2
14.1
12.6
12.3
12.3
14.5
12.8
16.9
17.0
16.1
15.8
19.5
21.3
19.4
19.8
19.5
20.5
17.6
18.2
(gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gram/hr) (gal/hr)
78-6327
78-6333
78-6333
78-6395
Idle
Neutral
Idle
Drive
2.28
2.88
1.56
1.29
0.0
5.6
22.9
0.0
4.80
2. .88
3.36
3.19
.86
,75
,72
,75
-------
Table 5
Testa After 500 Miles With NRG #1
Test #
78-6379
78-6374
78-6378
78-6373
78-6375
78-6370
78-6372
78-6377
78-6371
78-6376
78-6371
78-6376
78-6371
78-6376
HC
Test (gram/mi)
Bag 1 2.
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP . .
Bag 1 2.
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
HFET
HFET
Fed. Short .
Cycles
Steady States
20 mph
20
30
30
40
40
50
50
19
33
32
71
82
42
38
90
13
14
25
32
32
15
12
10
07
07
09
09
CO NOx
igram/mi) (gram/mi)
27.5
0.1
0.3
5.8
28.2
0.1
0.4
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.89
1.30
2.61
1.98
2.82
1.34
2.73
2.03.
2.94
2.94
1.25
1.26
.39
.25
.48
.45
.99
.94
2.12
2.04
Fuel Economy
(mi/gal)
12.0
12.1
14.3
12.6
11.9
11.8
13.9
12.3
17.7
17.6
14.8
14.9
12.2
20.1
19.2
19.4
19.7
19.9
19.0
19.1
(gram/hr) (gram/hr) . (gram/hr) (gal/hr)
78-6372
78-6377
78-6372
78-6377
Idle
Neutral
Idle
Drive
4.56
3.48
1.20
.96
0.0
0.0.
0.0
0.1
3.12
3.60
3.00
3.12
.86
.86
.85
.85
-------
43 ( Attachment D
ADDITIVE TESTING PROJECT
CONDUCTED FOR
XRG INTERNATIONAL, INC.
AUTOMOTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC.
A subsidiary of CttufffM.ManulacturirgComp3nY
-------
44
, ' '' /
a i- 'j [i ii
AUTOMOTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS. INC.
ADDITIVE TESTING PROJECT
CONDUCTED FOR
XRG INTERNATIONAL, INC.
By
Alan D. Jones
Project Engineer
August 1980
AUTOMOTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, IKC.
7300 Bolsa Avenue
Westminster, California 92683
-------
45
AUTOMOTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS. INC.
INTRODUCTION
The testing described in this report was conducted in accordance with United
States Environmental Protection Agency procedures and requirements. The
tests performed were the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the Highway Fuel
Economy Test (HFET). Three vehicles received FTP and HFET testing with
catalytic converters removed and with and without. XRG additive combined with
commercial unleaded fuel. Replicate FTP and HFET tests were performed to
check data repeatability.
TEST FLEET
The test fleet consisted of the following vehicles:
Vehicle Year
Make/Model
CX0051 1979 Chev Monte Carlo
CX0052 1979 Ford LTD
CX0053 1979 Buick Regal
Odometer
Baseline
22766
15684
18246
Odometer
W/Additive Fuel Tank Engine
24357
17424 :
19932
18.1
19-0
18.1
305 V-8
302 V-8
231 V-6
All three vehicles were obtained from a rental agency.
VEHICLE PREPARATION
Each vehicle received the following preparation steps:
1. Flow meter installation (FloScan Model 606). Vehicle CX0052 was
equipped with a new style FloScan 606 accurate to three decimal places.
2. Fuel tank drained and fueled to 40? capacity with gasoline.
3- Catalytic converter(s) removed and replaced with straight exhaust pipe
welded in for a leak-free system.
4. Exhaust emissions control system and vehicle parameter check.
The vehicle parameters were checked before testing began. These parameters
were also checked at the conclusion of testing. All were within
manufacturer's specifications. Tnese data are retained by AESi to
substantiate the parameter values.
TEST PROCEDURE
All dynamometer tests are based on the Federal "Test Procedure and Highway
Fuel Economy test procedure as described in the Federal Register, Part 86,
Subpart B, and Part 600, Subpart G respectively. All emissions calculations
are based on the Federal Test Procedure. The carbon balance fuel economy
calculations are based on the Highway Fuel Economy test procedure. The fuel
density and carbon weight fractions are taken to be the same for unleaded
gasoline as for Indolene HO.
-------
:.=>v-.-?.v"v:v.:--;. ":-'-. :. -. 46
.''.../.'.. '"'" ' '''' '' /T-.-
." : -."'-;-:!i''"x 7 ''':'""'- 4 j ' . "..vi>"
^-..'.^^ii'isSlB' ' ,
AUTOMOTIVE SNVIRON.VSNTAL SYSTEMS. INC.
AESi's testing system is checked daily to ensure continued certification for
on-going EPA contract testing.
Prior to testing,, all vehicles had their catalytic converters removed as
described in the Vehicle Preparation Section. The test sequence began with
a baseline.Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and Highway Fuel Economy test
(HFET).. Next replicate FTP and HFET tests were performed to verify data
repeatability. Following this the first additive was combined with the
commercial unleaded fuel at a ratio of 1 ounce of additive for every 12
' gallons of fuel. An FTP/HFET test series was performed and replicate tests
followed immediately.
' The catalytic converters, were welded in position prior to the next test
.-series.: Baseline FTP and HFET tests were conducted and replicate baseline
tests followed. The same additive used for testing without catalytic
converters was then added at the same 12:1 ratio. FTP/HFET testing with
V;- additive was performed on all vehicles with replicate tests immediately
... .thereafter. _... .;.' . ..
The catalytic converters were again removed as explained in the Vehicle
Preparation Section. Next each vehicle receive?? 400 miles of mileage
accumulation using the AESi highway/city mileage accumulation driving
. schedule. The mileage accumulation was done with XRG additive in the
- commercial unleaded fuel. The additive used for the mileage accumulation
and the tests following mileage accumulation was not the same additive used
in the previous test series. All additives were unmarked. After mileage
accumulation the vehicles received FTP/HFET series with replicate tests.
. Between the baseline FTP/HFET and the mileage accumulation with the second
^- .7 additive the vehicles incurred an average of 1672 miles. The Chevrolet
'V.Monte Carlo (#0051) had 1591 miles; the Ford LTD (#0052) had 17*10 miles; and
V^ the Buick Regal (#0053) had 1686 miles. The miles were accumulated with and
.;:-V without catalytic converters, with commercial unleaded, fuel and with
commercial, unleaded fueL with an additive.
ADDITIVE MIXTURE '*'-
'..tr. ~~: - . .
The additive was provided to AESi by XRG International, Inc. on June 24,
1980. It was unlabled. The mixing ratio used was 1.0 ounce of additive for
every 12. gallons of vfuelvr For all tests, the fuel used was Mobil unleaded
.-_; gasoline from a local\seryice station.
RESULTS . "',',. V~ - '
- -; ^ * < ^^
:v A: summary of fuel economy data for FTP and HFET testing is presented in
; Exhibit A.: A.Vsummary;. of-'lFTP. exhaust emissions data is shown in Exhibit B.
- Exhibit C is' a summary: of" the HFET exhaust emissions data. A complete
listing of FTP and HFET. emissions data is presented in Exhibit D.
-------
47
., "vi:;-;; 7?isV':i' 3 3 :J 3
AUTOMOTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS. INC.
EXHIBIT A
FUEL ECONOMY SUMMARY*
WITHOUT CATALYST
VEHICLE NO TEST
W/0 ADDITIVE W/ADDITIVE
% CHANGE
CX0051
CX0052
.CX0053
Fleet
\ FTP . -'.''."'
; HFET'i .. ; ' ' ' v.
"FTP: ".". .;.
- HFET ';;;'./ (.':. '(
- 'FTP. "':? " -"
: HFET; .--.'.
FTP .
HFET
1.M.M39
18.933
13.724
20.477
1M.969
19-281
11.359
19-5^2
14.971
19.760
1U.669
22.055
16.159
21.185
15.240
20.957
+3.7
+4.4
+6.9
+7.7
+7.9
+9.9
+6.1
+7.2
*Harinonic Mean,
-: n
n
where Z^ = mpg for the ith test
n = number of tests
Seer. "TEST PROCEDURE",' for- unusual test conditions
-------
48
., ,.
. .4 ..::-',.; 3 !> J ii :l
AUTOMOTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS. INC.
EXHIBIT 3
FTP EXHAUST EMISSIONS - SUMMARY
VEHICLE
CX0051
W/0 Cat
POLLUTANT W/0 ADDITIVE W/ADDITIVE
HC
. CO
co2
NOxC
1.785
51.858
527.256
1.075
1.647
43.9*0.
518.062
0.996
% CHANGE
- 7.7
-15.3
- 1.7
- 7-3
CX0052
W/0 Cat
HC
CO
C02
NOxC
2.625
35.245
582.425
5-942
2.062
22.665
562.354
5.441
-21.4
-35.7
- 3.4
- 8.4
CX0053
HC
CO
co2
NOxC
1.233
29.378
542.350
2.903
1.729
12.955
523.272
1.205
+40.2
-55.9
- 3.5
-58.5
Fleet
W/0 Cat
HC
CO
co2 -
NOxC
1.881
38.827
550.677
3-307
1.813
26.520
... 534.563
2.547
- 3-6
-31-7
- 2.9
-23-0
NOTE: All of the above emissions data are mathematical averages in grans
per mile of the actual test data obtained.
See "TEST PROCEDURE" for unusual test conditions
-------
. :..v';:.A/ j? ,J if' :J i/
AilTO.'.IOTIVS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS. INC.
EXHIBIT C
HFET EXHAUST EMISSIONS - SUMMARY
VEHICLE
POLLUTANT W/0 ADDITIVE W/ADDITIVE
% CHANGE
CX0051
W/0 Cat
HC
CO
C02
NOxC
0.117
9.521
152.288
1.338
0-378
1.861
139.913
1.260
-49-0
- 2.7
- 5-8.
CX0052
W/0 Cat
HC
CO
C02
NOxC
1.111
9.275
111.863
8.190
1.021
1.838
391-219
7.113
-10.8
-17.8
- 5.7
- 9-1
CX0053
W/0
HC
CO
co2
NOxC
0.209
7.537
117.125
3.609
0.566
3.563
111.199
1.222
+170.8
-52.7
- 8.1
-66.1
Fleet
W/0 Cat
HC
CO
C02
NOxC
0.590
8.779
138.192
1.379
0.655
1.121
111.130
3-308
+11.0
-19-6
- 5.5
-2*».5
NOTE: All of the above emissions data are mathematical averages in grams
per mile of the actual test data obtained.
See "TEST PROCEDURE" for unusual test conditions
-------
OMOTIVf fNVIROHMEtlTAL SYSTCMS. INC.
EXHIBIT'D ..^''"^jiJ-
AND HFET EMISSIONS DATA
WITHOUT CATALYST
VEHICLE
NUMBER
Without
CX0051
TEST
NO.
Additive
1
2
CX0052 1
2
CX0053 1
2
With Additive
CX0051
CX0052
CX0053
1
2
1
2
1
2
HC
1.924
1.645
3.038
2.212
1.266
1.200
1.605
1.689
2.206
1.917
1.618
1.840
CO
56.042
47.674
38.159
32.330
30.329
28.426
41.936
45.946
22.249
23.081
13-120
12.790
C02
524.828
529.684
574.890
589.960
537.881
.546.819
525.383
510.740
563.865
560.843
533-650
512.893
NOxC
0.993
1.156
6.018
5.866
2.961
2.844
1,029
0.962
5.503
5.378.
1.213
1.196
MPG
14.326
14.554
13-759
13.690
15.042
14.897
14.870
15.074
14.638
14.701
15.870
16.458
HC
0.428
0.406
1.146
1.141
0.183
0.234
'0.392
0.364
1.010
1.031
'? 0.549
0.583
CO
11.398
7.650
9.105
9.445
7.749
7.324
,4.751
4.970
5.178
4.497
3.713
3.412
C02
460.922
443.653
411.764
417.962
449.122
445.727
440.123
439.762
391.681
390.817
412.621
409.777
NOxC
1.341
1-335
8.433
7.947
3.788
3.430
1.244
1.275
7.456
7.429
1.205
1.239
MPG
18.467
19*423
20.637
20.320
Ul
.' o
19.200
19-363
19.75.8
19.762
/*»"»,
22.0'
22.106
21.104
21.267'
NOTEj All emissions data in grama pop mile
See "TEST PROCEDURE for unusual test conditions
-------
Attachment E
INiTED <>; , ~ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARnor? MICM|'';AN '.BIOS
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
jcanber 2, 1980
lie. Brian Boshart
XRG International, Inc.
4l2:i 5.VI. Martin Highway
Stuart, Florida 33494
Dear Mr. Boshart:
o
The EPA Engineering Evaluation Group has completed a review of your
application for evaluation of "SYNeRGy-l"/"XRG-l"/"NRG-l" under Section 511 of
-he Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. This review indicated
"hat several areas of the test program conducted at Automotive Environmental
Systems, Inc. (AESi) require clarification prior to further processing of your
.implication. These areas are as follows:
. 1'hu AESi report does not sufficiently detail the actual test program
conducted. Please provide a detailed description of that program to
include the amount of mileage accumulated on each test vehicle, the
condition of the emission control equipment of each test vehicle during
each -stage of testing and mileage accumulation, and the number of
additives used in the program and. when each additive was used.
. Please provide both emissions and fuel economy data on the AESi vehicles
with the catalytic converters installed for each additive used.
. Please provide a detailed description of the actual test program for the
catalyst equipped vehicles, if that program deviated from that conducted
on the vehicles without a catalyst installed.
. Complete descriptions of all engine design parameter settings (air-fuel
ratio, ignition timing, etc.), dynamometer settings (power absorber
setting, inertia, etc.), ambient conditions during testing and specific
emission control system for each vehicle tested at AESi are required.
, Ple.ase provide a chemical breakdown by weight of each additive used for
the AESi test program and a signed affidavit certifying that the
additives 'ised during that program conform with the patent documentation
provided with your application, the description of the additive as
registered with Che EPA in Research Triangle Park, N.C., and assuring the
EPA that the additives used during the AESi program are representative of
tht: product being marketed.
AJcii v.ioually, the product patent documentation references testing conducted at
Scott Environmental Technology. Please provide the following information/data
relative to that testing:
-------
52
. Scott reports; SET 1620-01-0577, SET 1620-02-0577, SET 1620-03-0577 and
Scott report detai.li.ng tests conducted on MSX additive designated 7/77.
. A detailed description of each test vehicle, dynamometer setting used,
engine design parameter settings, and all test ambient conditions.
If, after review of the above requested information, the EPA deems it
appropriate to conduct confirmatory testing at this facility, a test plan to
ovaluatkJ "SYNeRGy-l"/"XRG-ri/"MG-l" will have to be agreed upon and a
sufficient quantity of "SYNeRGy-l"/"XRG-l"/"NRG-l" ^11 have to be supplied..
In the interest of saving time, the attached proposed test plan is provided
for your concurrence. If the proposed test plan is agreeable, please provide
sufficient additive with your response to accomplish the total test program.
Please be sure to provide a signed affidavit certifying that the supplied
additivi; for evaluation conforms with; 1) the additive description contained
in the patent documentation, 2) the additive description on record at the EPA,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. facility and 3) the additive is representative of
;he additive marketed as "SYNeRGy-l"/"XRG-l"/"NRG-l".
Your cooperation in. this matter and rapid response are appreciated. I look
forward to receipt of the requested information so that we can continue
processing your application for evaluation. If you require any further
information or assistance, please feel free to contact ray office
(313-665-4299).
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth, EPA Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Enclosure
-------
53 f- Attachment I
C t
Proposed Test Plan for EPA Evaluation
of "SYNeRGy-l"/"XRG-l"/"NRG-l"
(hi each of three (3) representative vehicles, performed the following:
1)-- Three (3) FTP/HFET test sequences with vehicle engine design
parameters set to vehicle manufacturer's specifications (baseline).
2) Three (3) FTP/HFET test sequences with vehicle engine design
parameters set as in 1) above and fuel additive introduced.
3) Accumulate 500 miles using fuel additive according to the Automobile
Manufacturers Association driving schedule and vehicle engine
design parameters set as in 1) above.
£) Three (3) FTP/HFET test sequences using fuel additive and vehicle
engine design parameters set as in 1) above.
Representativeness of the vehicles means that the vehicles; (1) will have been
ia consumer use, (2) will reflect a large percentage of the vehicles presently
in us« and will be neither very new nor vary old, (3) will represent a small
engine displacement, a medium engine displacement and a large engine
displacement and (4)- will represent each of the three domestic manufacturers.
Additionally, all test sequences and mileage accumulation will be accomplished
with c.oiimercial grade unleaded fuel.
Concurronce:
Mr. Brian Boshart
XRG International, Inc.
-------
5, Attachment F
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN-ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
.. , , iaQ, AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
March 4, 1981
Mr. Brian Boshart
XRG international, Inc.
4125 S.W. Martin Highway
Stuart, FL 33494
Dear Mr. Boshart:
It was good to learn during our telephone conversation on 2/26/81 that
you soon will be responding to our letter of 12/2/80. I was sorry to
hear that you had recently been ill.
Your application for an EPA evaluation dates well back into 1980 and we
are concerned that the evaluation can not progress until we receive the
information we have requested. If we do not receive your data by
April 1, 1981, we plan to complete our evaluation without it, in which
case, we will not be able to conclude that your additive improves fuel
economy.
HOT-O at EPA we are in a posit-i'on to promptly continue our evaluation of
cUsTNe.RQy-l"/"'!fRG-T"7"NRG-l" as soon as we receive the information that we
requested trom you. Since you are planning to do this I would like to
encourage you to forward the data as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch ,
------- |