EPA-AA-TEB-82-2
Evaluation of the Fuel Maximiser^1
- A Retrofit Fuel Economy Device
By
Thomas J. Penninga
November 1981
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Background
The U.S Postal Service investigates items advertised through the mail,
for possible prosecution if mail-fraud is suspected. The U.S. Postal
service requested that EPA evaluate the Fuel Maximiser™, a fuel
economy retrofit device. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine
if the device in question did perform as it was claimed. A meeting was
held with the U.S. Postal Service representative and with representatives
of the device. The device representatives explained the theory by which
the device works and presented substantiating test data. An evaluation
of the theory and data presented is made in EPA Report
EPA-AA-TEB-511-82-1.
Description of Device;
The following description of the device was included in the supporting
data supplied by the device manufacturer. Figure 1 shows the actual
device.
"The present invention comprises a pair of closely adjacent, preferably
oppositely wound electrically conductive coils which are encapsulated in
a suitable insulating material and form an efficiency unit. The coils
have their ends connected to each other and are preferably wound about an
iron core such that the number of windings on one coil is three times the
number of windings on the other coil.
"The encapsulated efficiency unit is positioned closely adjacent the
positive pole of the battery for the engine while an electrical wire
extends from the encapsulated coils at one end and is electrically
connected to the negative terminal of the battery at its other end. The
first mentioned end of the wire is preferably electrically connected to
the coils, either directly or indirectly by connection with the iron
core."
Test Procedure - Road Testing
A two-phase test plan was devised which took into account the device
inventors concerns about testing. The first phase involved on-road
testing as suggested by the device inventors. The second phase involved
chassis dynamometer testing.
The inventor supplied two proposed test plans to the EPA. A copy of
his instructions are attached (see Attachment A). The Alternate Test
Plan for fuel economy was run. The requirements were:
(1) "two vehicles required
(2) conduct test on an oval track or a measured section of
highway of 50 miles or more one way and return to the
starting point. Ambients should be observed. Both vehicle
tests must be conducted the same day.
(3) In all tests no instrumentation can be used other than
topping of the fuel tank. Bounce car to remove all air
from the tank.
-------
Note: Do i ot use fifth wheel for measurement.
The inventor was contacted as to the feasibility of installing
in-vehicle volumetric fuel measurement systems. He stated that
such instrumentation would not negate the effectiveness of his
device. Two vehicles, a 1979 Pinto and a 1980 Citation were
checked to manufacturers specifications. A detailed description
of the test vehicles is attached (see Attachment B). Two
Fluidyne volumetric fuel measurement devices were sent to the GM
Proving Ground for calibration and cleaning. Both instruments
calibrated within 1% over the useful flow rates. Several
additional procedures were followed. They were:
i) The vehicles were warmed for 1/2 hour prior to
beginning the test.
ii) The fuel measurement did not begin until the vehicle
had stabilized at 50 mph.
iii) The two cars were driven in tandem with the same
driver-vehicle combination during each phase of the
test.
iv) The first day of testing after both vehicles completed
the first run, the device was installed only on the
Pinto, after which a second run was made. The second
day the same procedure was followed but the device was
installed only on the Citation.
v) After the first two days of testing, it was noted that
the second run of 100 miles consistently demonstrated
higher fuel economy from the first run. This was
probably due to engine temperature considerations and
increased ambient temperatures during the test day.
To determine the effect of the device, two additional
test days were run where the first run was made with
the device installed and the second run made without
the device. Any reduction in the fuel economy gains
noted during the second run could then be attributed
to the device. On the third day of testing, the
device was initially installed on the Pinto. On the
fourth day, the device was initially installed on the
Citation.
vi) On the first day of testing, the Pinto demonstrated
unrepresentative fuel economy (low) for the first leg
of the run. This data was considered an outlier and
not used in analysis. Comparative results were based
only on the down leg of the two runs.
-------
Results - Road Testing
A Summary of the test data is given below:
Fuel Maximiser™ On Road Test Data
Date
10/7/81
10/7/81
10/7/81
10/7/81
10/16/81
10/16/81
10/16/81
10/16/81
10/28/81
10/28/81
10/28/81
10/28/81
10/29/81
10/29/81
10/29/81
10/29/81
Run No. Leg
#1
#1
#2
#2
#1
#1
#2
#2
#1
#1
#2
#2
//I
#1
#2
#2
Up
Down
Up
Down
Up
Down
Up
Down
Up
Down
Up
Down
Up
Down
Up
Down
Pinto
Fuel Economy Composite
25.07
28.35
*26.13
*28.66
26.33
28.88
27.71
28.94
*27.06
*28.29
27.11
28.72
27.63
26.92
28.26
27.21
26.61
*27.34
27.54
28.31
*27.66
27.89
27.27
27.73
Citation
lei Economy Composi
19.68**
29.85
27.92
31.48
27.14
31.36
*29.23
*31.39
27.98
30.20
28.37
30.55
*29.88
29.06
30.70
23.72
29.59
29.10
*30.27
29.05
29.42
*29.46
29.93
29.20
*with device
**questionable data
-------
There are several ways to analyze this test data
A. Car to Car Comparison
1. This method assumes that each vehicle would see the same
improvement from run #1 to run #2.
2. Any difference noted when the device was added would be
attributed to the device.
3. The (Run #2 - Run #l)/((Run #1 + Run #2)/2) X 100 percentages
«-ere calculated. The results are given below:
Date Vehicle with Device Vehicle without Device Device Contribution
10/7/81
10/16/81
10/28/81**
10/29/81**
2.70%
3.94%
.83%
1.58%
5.23%*
2.76%
1.27%
1.67%
(-) 2.62%
(+) 1.18%
(+) .44%
(+) .09%
Ave = (-) .22%
*based only on down run comparison.
**since device was tested first, this is a positive value.
B. Individual Car Comparison
1. This method assumes that a vehicle would see the same improvement
from run #1 to run #2 each day.
2. Any difference between the amount of improvement could be
attributed to the device.
3. Average (non-device improvements) were calculated and are
presented below.
Vehicle without Device (Average) Vehicle with Device Device Contribution
Pinto 2.22% 2.70% (+) .49%
Pinto 2.22% .83% (+) 1.39%
Citation 3.30%* 3.94% (-) .64%
Citation 3.30%* 1.58% (+) 1.72%
*uses only the down leg of the 10-7 data Ave = (+) .74%
C. A third method of analysis is to average all of the tests for each
vehicle without the device and compare it to the average of the data
with the device.
1. This method assumes that the variables induced by ambient
conditions and day-to-day testing are cancelled out during the
test project.
-------
2. This method assumes that the Run #1 - Run #2 difference will also
cancel out.
Vehicle Vehicle Device
without Device (mpg) with Device (mpg) Contribution (%)
Pinto 27.56 27.50 (-) .22%
Citation 29.37 29.86 (+) 1.69%
Ave = (+) .74%
All three methods of analysis show that the Fuel Maximiser^M has
negligible effect on fuel economy. The (+) .74% improvement is well
within the test-to-test variability of the road test. The data does
demonstrate the problems with running a simple without/with test. Such a
test would not account for the changes in vehicle and ambient conditions
and would demonstrate a false gain in fuel economy attributed to the
device.
Test Procedure - Dynamometer Testing
A second set of tests were run at EPA in which the test vehicles were
tested on a vehicle dynamometer. However once the Fuel Maximiser^1
was installed, the vehicle was not touched by tie down straps or
exhaust collection system. This was due to the inventor's concerns
that grounding of the vehicle negates the effectiveness of the Fuel
Maximiser™ by rerouting the ion flow generated by the device. The
procedure was performed by not using a restraining cable, only wheel
chocks. Similarly an exhaust collection cone was placed around the
vehicle exhaust system. The negative pressure of the collection
system takes in all of the vehicle exhaust without touching the
exhaust system. No other instrumentation such as fans, drivers
aides, etc., were allowed to touch the vehicles. The actual testing
sequence was as follows:
a. The test vehicles were set to manufacturer's specifications.
b. Baseline testing which included two FTP and two HFET test
sequences was run with the vehicle restrained by a tie-down
cable and without the device installed.
c. The device was then installed according to the installation
instructions in the device package.
d. The vehicles then were fueled from fuel cans and driven on
an average urban driving cycle until three tanks of fuel
each were consumed. Each night the vehicles were parked in
a fenced off area to avoid accidental grounding of the
vehicles.
e. The vehicles were pushed by hand onto a vehicle dynamometer
where the wheel chocks and exhaust collection cone were
used. Two "with device" FTP/HFET sequences were performed
on each vehicle.
-------
f. The device was then removed and the vehicle grounded with
the metal tie-down strap. The regular exhaust collection
system was attached to the vehicle exhaust. One or two
FTP/HFET sequences were performed on each vehicle.
A summary of the results is given below:
Table I
Comments
Baseline
Baseline
with Fuel Maximiser™
with Fuel Maximiser™
without Fuel Maximiser™
Baseline
Baseline
with Fuel Maximiser™
with Fuel Maximiser™
without Fuel Maximiser™
without Fuel Maximiser™
A. Pinto
Test #
81-0287
81-0312
81-0488
81-0490
81-0492
FTP Results
Date
7-29-81
7-30-81
8-13-81
8-14-81
8-21-81
HC
1.187
1.184
1.210
1.183
1.155
CO
9.481
8.923
9.148
9.068
8.930
NOx
1.5620
1.7296
1.7493
1.7243
1.9259
FE
22.47
21.91
21.94
21.84
21.97
B. Citation
81-0494
81-0496
81-0498
81-0852
81-0856
81-0858
8-25-81
8-27-81
9-16-81
9-17-81
9-18-81
9-22-81
.380
.416
.373
.377
.416
.411
3.227
3.615
4.036
3.080
3.133
4.593
1.054
1.044
1.054
1.121
1.117
1.086
19.43
19.93
19.81
20.02
20.10
20.04
Table II
A. Pinto
Test # Date
HC
HFET Results
CO NOx
FE
Comments
81-0286
81-0313
81-0489
81-0491
81-0493
81-0616
7-29-81
7-30-81
8-13-81
8-14-81
8-19-81
8-21-81
.4896
.5130
.4747
.4258
.4841
.4770
.947
.961
.959
.866
.868
.898
1.6798
1.7179
1.9023
1.8184
1.2457
2.183
29.96
29.84
30.16
29.88
30.38
30.17
Baseline
Baseline
with Fuel Maximiser™
with Fuel Maximiser™
without Fuel Maximiser™
without Fuel Maximiser™
B. Citation
81-0380
81-0409
81-0410
81-0495
81-0497
81-0499
81-0853
81-0857
81-0859
8-5-81
8-6-81
8-6-81
8-25-81
8-27-81
9-16-81
9-17-81
9-18-81
9-22-81
.04579
.04622
.05293
.0504
.0513
.0590
.0560
.0506
.0512
.1285
.2480
.4863
1.1361
.4576
.6025
.5404
.2854
.1925
1.0879
1.0251
.9181
.8417
.9196
.8545
.9733
1.0053
.9791
29.14
29.02
28.99
27.63*
28.34
28.69
28.98
29.11
28.94
previous Baseline
previous Baseline
previous Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
with Fuel Maximiser™
with Fuel Maximiser™
without Fuel Maximiser™
without Fuel Maximiser™
*Questionable data. Three previous baseline tests (shown) gave fuel economy
much higher than the 27.63. Therefore, for analysis an average of all 5
baseline tests will be used.
-------
Table III
Comparison Summary
A. Pinto FTP (in gms/mile)
# of
tests HC
Without Device 3
With Device 2
% Difference
B. Citation
Without Device 4
With Device 2
% Difference
CO
1.18 9.11
1.20 9.11
+1.83 0.0
NOx
# of
FE-mpg tests HC
1.74 22.12
1.74 21.89
0.0 -1.04
.41 3.64 1.08 19.88
.38 3.56 1.09 19.91
-7.6 -2.31 +1.14 +.18
4
2
7
2
.49
.45
-8.3
HFET (in gms/mile)
C£
.92
.91
-.6
NOx FE-mpg
1.96
1.86
-4.92
30.08
30.02
-.2
.05 .42 .97 28.74
.06 .57 .91 28.84
+15.5 +36.32 -5.6 +.32
A copy of the actual EPA test data sheets for these tests is attached
(see Attachment C).
Analysis of EPA Dynamometer Testing:
The EPA laboratory testing showed that for both vehicles the Fuel
Maximiser™ had an insignificant effect on fuel economy or emissions.
The changes noted on HC, CO, and NOx for the HFET cycle are not
significant when one looks at the magnitude of the numbers. There will
normally be some variation in fuel economy noted during extended mileage
accumulation. Therefore the shifts noted in CO and FE for the Citation
are not unusual. It is proper to average the baseline values on either
side of the "with Fuel Maximiser^" tests because no "residual type
effect" claims are made for the device. Such an average compensates for
gradual chages in the test vehicles performance.
Conclusions
The results of the EPA testing demonstrate that with either road or
TM
dynamometer testing procedures, the Fuel Maximiser111 failed to improve
vehicle fuel economy. The two test vehicles tested are representative of
domestic manufactured vehicles and should have noted an improvement if
the device performed as it was claimed. Since both test programs found
no change in fuel consumption attributable to the device, it is concluded
that the Fuel Maximiser™ has no effect on fuel economy.
------- |