EPA-AA-TEB-511-82-15
EPA Evaluation of the Fuel Economizer Device Under
Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
by
Stanley L. Syria
September 1982
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Divison
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EPA Evaluation of the Fuel Economizer Device Under Section 511 of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires that EPA
evaluate fuel economy retrofit devices and publish a summary of each
evaluation in the Federal Register.
EPA evaluations are originated upon the application of any manufacturer
of a retrofit device, upon the request of the Federal Trade Commission,
or upon the motion of the EPA Administrator. These studies are designed
to determine whether the retrofit device increases fuel economy and to
determine whether the representations made with respect to the device are
accurate. The results of such studies are set forth in a series of
reports, of which this is one.
The evaluation of the Fuel Economizer device was conducted after
receiving an application for the evaluation by an importer of the
device. The device is claimed to improve fuel economy and exhaust
emission levels, vehicle performance, and also the life of certain
ignition components. Because this device is attached into the coil
secondary lead and is intended to change the ignition secondary voltage
characteristics, it is classified by EPA as an ignition control device.
The following is a summary of the information on the device as supplied
by the Applicant and the resulting EPA analysis and conclusions.
1. Title; '
Application for Evaluation of Fuel Economizer Under Section 511 of
the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
2. Identification Information;
a. Marketing Identification of the Product;
"Choice left to Agamco, Inc."
b. Inventor and Patent Protection;
(1) Inventor
Mr. P.P. Dhahanukar, 508 Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master
Road, Fort, Bombay-400 023.
(2) Patent
"Patent for India only." (Copy of patent not submitted.)
c. Applicant;
(1) Name and address
Agamco, Inc. 2125 Center Avenue, Fort Lee,
New Jersey 07024, U.S.A.
-------
(2) Principals
Mr. Martin M. Shapiro
d. Manufacturer of the Product;
(1) Name and address
Mr. P.P. Dhahanukar, 508, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas
Master Road, Fort, Bombay-400 023.
(2) Principals
Mr. P.P. Dhahanukar
3. Description of Product (as supplied by Applicant);
a. Purpose:
"More complete combustion of the fuel, thereby improving the
fuel economy."
b. Theory of Operation;
"The Fuel Economizer unit converts the High Tension D.C. current
given by the ignition coil into High Frequency A.C. current.
This A.C. current of 20,000 cycles per second gives multiple
sparks at various points on the spark plug. Being independent
of the ohmic resistance it fires the plugs even if they are
fouled. This in effect gives cleaner exhaust and fuel economy
as much as 7 to 14% depending on the vehicle, even in the case
of electronic ignition system."
c. Construction and Operation;
Circuit Diagram:
Circuit
Dbtrlbuior
-------
d. Specific Claims for the Product;
"*Prevents air pollution
*Reduces fuel consumption from 7 to 14% through complete
combustion.
*Increases horsepower.
*Gives easier starting.
*Increases life of plugs and Delco points.
*Gives smoother acceleration, without flat-spot. (Other details
to be decided by Agamco.)"
e. Cost And Marketing Information (as supplied by Applicant);
"According to marketing strategy of Agamco, Inc."
4. Product Installation, Operation, Safety and Maintenance (as supplied
by Applicant);
a. Applicability;
(1) "All types of petrol engines.
(2) Universal application."
b. Installation - Instructions, Equipment, and Skills Required;
"Installation is very simple. No special tools or skills or
adjustments are required."
c. Operation;
"No maintenance procedure required.
Recommended to be replaced after 12 to 15 months."
d. Effects on Vehicle Safety;
"Would not result in any unsafe condition."
e. Maintenance;
"The normal maintenance schedule for the vehicle is in no way
affected."
5. Effects on Emissions and Fuel Economy (submitted by Applicant);
a. Unregulated Emissions;
"Not applicable since this device is not for use on diesel
vehicles."
b. Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy;
"Tests as may be required by E.P.A."
-------
6. Testing by EPA;
EPA did not test the device for this evaluation because the test data
submitted by the applicant did not adequately support the claims made
for the device.
7. Analysis
a. Identification Information;
(1) Marketing Identification;
The marketing identification was not stated. However,
elsewhere within the application the device is referred to
as the "Fuel Economizer". In supporting test reports
(Attachment A) submitted by the applicant, reference is
made to "Petrol Saver" and also "Maruti". Although not
stated, it is assumed that Petrol Saver, Maruti, and Fuel
Economizer are one and the same device. For purposes of
this evaluation, the device will be referred to as the Fuel
Economizer.
(2) Inventor and Patent Protection;
Although the application states the device is patented only
in India, a copy of the patent was not submitted. Because
patents often aid EPA in trying to understand how a
particular device functions, the applicant was requested
(Attachment B) to provide the Agency with a copy. The
applicant did not respond to EPA's request.
b. Description;
(1) The primary purpose of the device, as stated by the
applicant, is to cause a "more complete combustion of the
fuel, thereby improving the fuel economy". The Agency
finds no problem with the statement.
(2) The applicant's theory of operation states that, "the Fuel
Economizer converts the High Tension D.C. current given by
the ignition coil into High Frequency A.C. current. This
A.C. current of 20,000 cycles per second gives multiple
sparks at various points on the spark plug." It was not
stated how the device manages to cause the high frequency
current to occur. Also not stated was why multiple sparks
should occur at other than the normal gap which is the path
of least resistance. Additionally, the impact the device
has on secondary resistance, capacitance, rise time, spark
duration, and available voltage were not addressed. EPA
requested (Attachment B) that the applicant provide more
details. Although the applicant responded (Attachment A),
the explanations provided were still inadequate. Again EPA
requested additional information (Attachment C), however,
the applicant did not provide any.
-------
To determine whether the device could alter the secondary
voltage characteristics, a sample device provided by the
applicant was subjected to some preliminary tests.
Specifically, a recent model vehicle was tested, with and
without the device, using a Sun Diagnostic Analyzer
equipped with an oscilloscope. The oscilloscope patterns
showed there were no changes in the primary voltages and
that the secondary voltage spark lines were either raised
or lowered slightly depending on which side of the device
the scope pickup leads were attached. The difference in
observed voltages represent a voltage drop across the
device and therefore suggests the secondary circuit
resistance/impedance was changed as a result of using the
device. No other changes were observed in the secondary
scope patterns. Also noted was an increase in temperature
of the device over that noted during installation. It was
attributed to operation of the device and not to elevated
engine compartment temperatures.
The Royal Automobile Club (RAG) of England tested the
device in a similar manner. Their report (Attachment A)
states that, "from the initial tests carried out using an
oscilloscope, we are of the opinion that with the use of
the device, the high tension spark intensity is increased,
naturally improving combustion within the engine, and
leading to better performance and thus fuel economy.
However, the oscilloscope trace for the secondary circuit
is unchanged [emphasis added] whether the device is fitted
or not." The RAG report does not define spark intensity
nor does it explain how it can state the spark intensity is
increased (based on oscilloscope tests) when the
oscilloscope trace is unchanged when the device is
installed. The main point to be made by referencing the
RAG report is that their scope patterns, as well as EPA's,
showed the device has minimal impact on secondary voltage
characteristics. Admittedly, the oscilloscopes used by RAG
and EPA have their limitations and perhaps more
sophisticated equipment might be required to show any other
changes within the ignition system.
EPA asked the applicant (Attachment B) if the device
consisted of capacitors, resistors, diodes, or a
transformer, and if so, what were their specifications.
The applicant responded (Attachment A) that there were no
capacitors, resistors, transformers, or diodes. However,
the narrative description in conjunction with the schematic
of the device, both of which were submitted in that same
letter, suggest the device is indeed a capacitor in series
with the other components, i.e., coil and secondary cables,
which contribute to the capacitance of the secondary
circuit. Because of the open distributor rotor and spark
plug gaps, one side of the capacitor is not actually
grounded (as it normally is with other capacitors) until
the secondary voltage reaches a value high enough to
-------
overcome the combined resistance/impedance of the mica
discs within the device and the rotor and spark plug gaps.
At that instance, current flow is established, thereby
causing a spark to occur across the spark plug gap. Thus,
although the device seems to be a capacitor, its use is
unlike most others in that it is not truly grounded at all
times, and also that the mica discs contained therein are
intended to be inadequate in coping with the high voltage
and thereby, by leakage, allow current flow to exist. The
current flow combined with the high mica resistance/
impedance should cause a voltage drop across the device.
This energy loss should also result in heat being
generated. Both a voltage drop and heat generation were
observed during the oscilloscope tests discussed earlier.
Since the device apparently is a capacitor in series with
other capacitors, and remembering that capacitors in series
result in reduction of the overall capacitance, the device
in effect reduces the secondary capacitance. Should this
indeed be the case, then the secondary voltage rise time
would also decrease with a consequential increase in
available voltage and a decrease in spark duration. The
rate of energy transfer across the spark plug electrodes
would also be expected to increase. While these changes
are beneficial with respect to the establishment of a good
spark at the spark plugs, it is not known without test data
whether the changes would have a significant impact on
exhaust emissions or fuel economy. It must be remembered
that EPA's understanding of the device is based upon
limited information. Should the applicant provide
additional information/test data, then EPA may develop a
different understanding as to how the device functions and
its associated benefits.
(3) The description of the device given in the application was
determined by EPA to not be adequate. The construction and
operation were not discussed and the schematics of the
device in Section 3(c) of the application were not detailed
enough. EPA requested (Attachment B) additional details on
the device. The applicant's response (Attachment A)
included a narrative description and a schematic of the
device. While these were considered helpful toward gaining
a better understanding of the device, EPA was still not
sure how the device functions without additional
information from the applicant. The applicant was
requested (Attachment C) to submit additional information,
but none was provided.
(4) The applicant makes several claims for the device. Based
on EPA's understanding of the device, the general claims
made with respect to easier starting and increased life of
spark plugs and ignition contact points, are considered to
be reasonable. The applicant did not specify, nor did he
provide data in support of, specific changes that
-------
purchasers of the device may realize. With respect to the
other claims made for exhaust emissions, fuel economy,
horsepower, and acceleration, the applicant did not provide
adequate details about, or test results in support of, the
claims made for the device. Thus, without additional
information and test results, EPA does not know if the
claims are reasonable.
(5) The cost of the device was not stated in the application.
EPA requested (Attachment B) the tentative cost of the
device, however, the applicant responded (Attachment A)
that it could not be commented on as he was unaware of the
American production cost. EPA estimates the device would
sell for under $20. For most purchasers of the device,
this would be the only cost involved as most individuals
could easily install it themselves. Even if the purchaser
had the device installed at a commercial service facility,
the cost of labor would be minimal as only a few minutes
would be required.
Installation, Operation, Safety and Maintenance;
(1) Applicability;
The applicability of the product as stated in the
application is judged to be appropriate (assuming the
applicant defines "petrol" engines as being spark-ignition
gasoline-fueled engines).
(2) Installation - Instructions, Equipment and Skills Required;
The applicant's statement that, "installation is very
simple" and that "no special tools, skills, or adjustments
are required" appear to be correct. EPA requested
(Attachment B) a copy of the installation instructions
which will be provided to purchasers of the device. The
applicant provided a copy (Attachment A) which EPA
considered adequate. Based on the design of the device,
EPA does not expect purchasers to experience difficulty
when installing the device.
(3) Operation;
The applicant states, "no maintenance procedure required"
and further, "recommended to be replaced after 12 to 15
months". These statements do not actually address
operation of the device but rather maintenance. Therefore,
they will be commented on later in Section 7c(5) of this
report. With respect to operation of the device, EPA
judged that the device is capable of functioning without a
controlling action from the driver and that it should not
affect the operation of the vehicle in any way.
-------
(4) Effects on Vehicle Safety;
Based on the description of the device, EPA judges that the
applicant's statement regarding safety is appropriate.
(5) Maintenance;
The applicant states, "the normal maintenance schedule for
the vehicle is in no way affected." However, in Section 4c
of the application, the applicant states the device should
be replaced every 12 to 15 months. EPA asked the applicant
(Attachment B) how the optimum replacement interval had
been determined. The applicant responded (Attachment A)
that, "the device normally works on Indian make of 4
cylinder engines for 3 to 4 years. In American cars having
6 to 8 cylinder engines the safe optimum life would be 12
to 15 months". The applicant did not elaborate as to how
this conclusion was reached. Considering that many four
cylinder engines are being sold in the U.S., it seems the 3
to 4 year life expectancy should also apply to them.
d. Effects on Emissions and Fuel Economy;
(1) Unregulated Emissions;
Based on the description of the device, EPA does not expect
the device to have an adverse affect on unregulated
pollutants.
(2) Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy;
The applicant did not submit test data in accordance with
the Federal Test Procedure and the Highway Fuel Economy
Test. These two test procedures are the primary ones
recognized by EPA for evaluation of fuel economy and
emissions for light duty vehicles.* The applicant was
notified by telephone, and- in two letters (Attachments B and
C) to submit test results using appropriate procedures.
However, the only test results submitted (Attachment A) to
EPA were obtained using on-road test procedures. Because
the control of variables was inadequate, EPA could not use
the data in lieu of that required using the EPA recommended
procedures. Thus, the applicant did not submit acceptable
data from which EPA could evaluate the effectiveness of the
device with respect to the claims made for it.
*The requirement for test data following these procedures is stated in
the policy documents that EPA sends to each potential applicant. EPA
requires duplicate test sequences before and after installation of the
device on a minimum of two vehicles. A test sequence consists of a cold
start FTP plus a HFET or, as a simplified alternative, a hot start LA-4
plus a HFET. Other data which have been collected in accordance with
other standardized procedures are acceptable as supplemental data in
EPA's preliminary evaluation of a device.
-------
10
8. Conclusions
EPA fully considered all of the information submitted by the
applicant. The evaluation of the Fuel Economizer device was based on
that information and EPA's engineering experience. Appropriate data
was not submitted showing the device could significantly change the
ignition characteristics or that it could achieve the benefits
claimed. Thus, there is no technical basis for EPA to support the
claims made for the device or to perform confirmatory testing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; Merrill W. Korth, Emission Control
Technology Division, Office of Mobile Sources, Environmental Protection
Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, (313) 668-4299.
-------
11
List of Attachments
Attachment A Copy of a letter from Agamco,^ Inc. to EPA, June 1, 1982.
Attachment B Copy of a letter from EPA to Agamco, Inc., April 29,
1982.
Attachment C Copy of a letter from EPA to Agamco, Inc, . June 17,
1982.
-------
Cc
12
V
ATTACHMENT A
2125 Center Avenue
Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024
U.S.A.
TEL (201) 592-6670
TLX:135130
June 1, 1982
Mr. Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Emission Control Technology Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Dear Mr. Korth,
Further to your letter of April 29th and subsequent phone conversation,
we have today received the following responses to the questions you
raised in your aforementioned letter as follows:
EPA para 2: For better understanding how the device functions,
we would like to give the construction details. It consists of
four brass discs on one side separated by mica insulator discs
and one brass disc on the other side. These sub assemblies are
held appart by metallic spring which also acts as a conductor
of electric current. The brass end plates on both sides are
directly in contact with the terminals housed in the melamine
housing. We are pleased to enclose a sectional drawing showing
the construction. There is no capacitor, resistor, transformer
or diode. The simplicity of the construction makes the device
fail proof and completely reliable.
EPA para 3: The theory of operation for the device is as follows:
(a) In conventional coil ignition system the intermittent
high tension DC current is converted into High Frequency
AC current
(al) In additiion there is a voltage surging effect. Multiple
sparks are a result of AC current.
(b) Where the original ignition system has secondary alternating
current of 30 megacycles as stated in the EPA letter, the
advantage gained may be on account of the surging effect
which will raise the voltage. A party in California had
mentioned in their letter that it could be also used in
electronic ignition system.
EPA para 4: In view of the para 3b above the claims can be
substantiated only by actual performance tests on
American cars.
EPA para 5: Cannot be commented on, as we are not aware of the American
production costs,
EPA para 6: Method of installation is given in our printed leaflet.
-------
13
2125 Center Avenue
Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024
U S A
TEL:; 20 ^; 592-5670
TLX:135130
( 2 )
EPA para 7: The device normally works on Indian make of 4 cylinder
engines for 3 to 4 years. In American cars having
6 or 8 cylinder engines the safe optimum life would be
12 to 15 months.
We are also enclosing copies of the test reports performed by the Royal
Automotive Club in the U. K. and the Automotive Association in West Africa.
We trust that the attached will further assist you in your evaluation.
We would be very grateful if you could test the fuel economizer sample
which was already forwarded to you, and convey to us your findings.
Thanking you for your kind and continuous attention, we remain,
Sincerely,
AGKMCQ, INC.
MS:hs
Martin Shapiro "
Director of- Sales
-------
14
The Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association Reports on
Petrol Saver:
EPA could not obtain legible copies of the subject documents and
therefore, they have not been made part of this attachment. Individuals
may request copies of these documents from: Merrill W. Korth, Emission
Control Technology Division, Office of Mobile Sources, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. (313)
668-4299.
-------
15
FUEL ECONOMIZER
How it works*:
The Fuel Economizer unit converts . the High Tension 0. C. current given by the ignition
coil into High-Frequency A. C. current. This A. C. current of 20,000 cycles per second
gives multiple sparks at various points >on the Spark Plug. Being independent of the ohmic
resistance it fires the plugs even if they are fouled.
\
Benefits :
1 Reduces fuel: consumption from 10 to 15% through complete combustion.
- 2. Increases^Vlorse Power. '...:. .:?; , - ...
3. Gives easier starting. ;: - -
4. Increases life of Plugs and Oelco Points,
5. Gives smoother acceleration, without flat-spot.
6. Prevents air pollution
7. Life upto"4 years. . -
Directions for Installation : '- '
I *- _.-.
1. Cut with-pliers the High Tension Cable between Distributor and Coil, at a distance
of 2 inches from-the Distributor Cap. \'
,2. Disconnect the cable from the- coil.
3. Screw in the unit firmly into tha distributorside cable.
4. Screw in the unit into the cable coming from coil.
5. Connect the cable back to the coil as before.
v^ ..--,!£
;« ' vi; -x-»
.;.^..,, Clgajjt Diagram
-i.-r.-jt .V »-
Ignition ott
Olitrlbutor
-------
AGAMCO INC.
2125 CENTER AVEWUt
LEE, NEW JERSEY 07024
U.SA
13513JJ
-------
ATTACHMENT B 17
April 29, 1982
Mr. Martin M. Shapiro
Director of Sales
Agamco, Inc.
2125 Center Avenue
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Dear Mr. Shapiro.:
We have received your April 12, 1982 application for an EPA evaluation of
the "Fuel Economizer", a fuel economy retrofit device. We have made a
preliminary review of your application and will undertake a complete
review after all required information has been submitted. Our prelim-
inary comments are as follows:
1. In your transmittal letter which accompanied the application, you
stated you would appreciate our testing of the device and providing
you with our test results and "approval." I would like to make clear
that EPA does not either approve or disapprove devices. We only
evaluate the devices and make our findings available to the public in
the form of a final report.
2. Section 2(b)(2) states the device is patented in India only. If the
patent is in English, you may want to provide us with a copy so that
we may develop a better understanding of how the device functions.
3. Section 3(b) of your application describes the theory of operation
for the device. Your description does not sufficiently detail how
the device manages to convert secondary direct current to alternating
current with a frequency of 20,000 cycles per second. Does the
device consist of capacitors, resistors, transformers, or diodes? If
so, what are their specifications? Considering that all spark
ignition engines possess, even without your device, secondary
alternating current of approximately 30 megacycles once the spark is
established at the spark plugs (often referred to as the capacitance
component of the spark discharge), the 20,000 cycles per second fre-
quency attributable to your device would seem to have an insignif-
icant effect when compared to., that obtained from the 30 megacycle
frequency. Please submit any addditional information you may have
showing the affect your device has on secondary resistance, capac-
itance, rise time, spark duration and available voltage. Also,
provide a schematic drawing and a sectioned view of the device.
-------
18
You also state the high frequency alternating current gives multiple
sparks at "various points" on the spark plug. Is our assumption
correct that the "various points" you refer to are all located within
the combustion chamber? Does your statement mean that current paths
are being established at other than the usual gap which is located
between the center and ground electrode tips? If so, and considering
that electrical current generally follows the path of least resis-
tance (that being the gap located between the center and ground elec-
trode tips for spark plugs), why would current flow be established at
longer and more resistive paths when your device is used?
4. In Section 3(d), specific claims are made for the device. On what
technical basis are these claims made? Have tests been performed to
substantiate the claims? If so, please provide us with the proce-
dures used and the results.
5. Section 3(e) does not include the tentative cost of the device.
Please provide the omitted information, if available, so that we can
perform a cost analysis for our final report.
6. Section 4(b) states that," installation is very simple". However, no
details are given. Are any adjustments of the engine parameters
required? Please submit a copy of the installation instructions
which will be provided to purchasers of your device.
7. Secion 4(c) states the device should be replaced after 12 to 15
months. How has the optimum replacement interval been determined?
8. Section 5(b) does not include any test results. As explained in my
March 8 letter to you, test data will be required from an independent
test lab prior to EPA performing any testing. My letter included
details on the required test procedures and also stated that a min-
imum of two vehicles would need to be tested. I suggest you contact
independent test labs regarding the testing of your device. I am
also ready to assist you in developing an appropriate test plan.
In order to maintain our schedule for evaluating your device, I ask
that you respond to this letter by May 21 and that you submit all
test data by June 11. Should your have any questions or require
further information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
-------
ATTACHMENT C 19
JNITED S7A~E5 E.\ . irtON'-ENTAL PROTEC~;C\ -GE\CV-
A.NN AR3OR MICHIGAN IQ'.C;-
June 17, 1982
Mr. Martin M. Shapiro
Director of Sales
Agamco, Inc.
2125 Center Avenue
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Dear Mr. Shapiros
We have received your letter of June 1 in which you responded to the
questions raised in my letter of April 29. Although you provided some of
the requested information, you did not satisfy the requirements of the
following two areas*
1? Your letter did not sufficiently detail how the devices-converts
secondary direct current to alternating current with a frequency
- of 20,000 cycles per second. In fact, your response merely
reiterated the statement given in the application* Addition-
ally, you did not submit information showing the affect your
device may have on secondary resistance, capacitance, rise time,
spark duration, or available voltage. Further, you did not
explain why sparks should occur at other then the normal tenter
to ground electrode gap.
2. You did not provide the required test data which were explained
in my letter of March 8. The road test data that you provided
can only be used as supplementary information. A prerequisite
to EPA testing is that you provide data which supports the fuel
economy claims, made for the device. That data must be obtained
from an independent facility using the procedures described in
my letter of March 8.
So that we may evaluate your device in a timely manner, I ask that all
information and data be submitted by July 19. If the required informa-
tion and data are not received by that date, we will complete our evalua-
tion using all available information. A copy of our final report will be
sent to you prior to its announcment in the Federal Register. Should you
have questions regarding this course of action, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
------- |