EPA-AA-TEB-511-82-6A
EPA Evaluation of the Dresser Economizer Device Under
Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act
by
Stanley L. Syria
August 1982
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Techology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EPA Evaluation of the "Tresser 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 EPA evaluation of the Dresser Economizer device was conducted after
receiving an application for evaluation by the manufacturer. The device
is claimed to improve fuel economy and exhaust emission levels as well as
vehicle performance. Because this device is basically a modified engine
intake manifold gasket, in accordance with 40 CFR 610.21 of the
regulations, it is classified by EPA as a J:uel-air distribution device.
The. following is the information on the device as supplied by the
applicant and the resulting EPA analysis and conclusions.
1. Marketing Identification of the Device;
"Dresser Economizer"
2. Inventors of the Device and Patents:
a. Inventors
"The inventor is Kenneth R. Armstrong assigned to Dresser
Industries' Advanced Technology Center, 1702 McGaw, Irvine,
California 92713."
b. Patent
"A patent application has been made (Number 87533), dated
October 23, 1979" (A copy of the patent application was not
provided.)
3. Manufacturer of the Device:
Dresser Industries, Inc.
1505 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
4. Manufacturing Organization Principals;
J.V. James, Chairman, Board of Directors
J.R. Brown, Jr. President
J.J. Murphy, Executive Vice President
Duane D. Rost, Executive Vice President:
-------
5. Marketing Organization in U.S. Making Application;
Dresser Industries, Inc.
1505 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
6. Applying Organization Principals:
J.V. James, Chairman, Board of Directors
J.R. Brown, Jr. President
J.J. Murphy, Executive Vice President
Duane D. Rost, Executive Vice President
7. Description of Device;
a. Purpose of the Device (as supplied by Applicant);
"The economy device was initially developed as a means of
reducing pulsation in .the intake of four cylinder engines.
While this effort was underway, esconomy gain was noted. Further
exploration showed not only improved economy on most cars on
which it was tested, but greatly improved driveability and cold
start/performance in all cars tented. Since the three problems
of economy, driveability, and cold start/performance are of such
significance, Dresser Industrj.es decided to market the
technology."
b. Theory of Operation (as supplied by Applicant):
Based on information provided by the applicant (Attachment A) ,*
the device is a gasket containing shaped port passages which is
installed between the intake manifold and the cylinder head (See
Figure 2 in Attachment A). The size of each port: passage in the
gasket is approximately half that of the original unit. The
applicant claims that the constriction increases the velocity
and turbulence of the fuel-air mixture, thereby causing a more
homogenous mixture. This activity enhances the combustion
process by making it more rapid and effective which causes
better fuel economy and improved driveability.
c. Construction and Operation (as supplied by Applicant);
"The device is fabricated as a composite intake manifold gasket
stamped from metal with gasket taaterial coated faces. Typical
installation is shown in Figure 2 and a photograph of a device
in Figure 3. (See Attachment A for Figures 2 and 3)
"The radiused unit is considered standard."
-------
8. Applicability of Device (as supplied by Applicant);
"Based on our test results to date, the device will improve
driveability and cold performance on all cars and trucks. It will
improve economy on most carbureted cars and trucks. The exceptions
found are those having electronic engine controls (spark and/or feed
back carburetion) and the Ford Windsor engine family (351, 302, etc.)
where only a small gain (1-2 percent) is shown.
"In some instances where engines have odd intake shapes (e.g., 292
six-cylinder Chevrolet) a special shape must be derived."
9. Costs (as supplied by Applicant);
In a letter to EPA (Attachment B of this evaluation) the applicant
stated, "the retail cost of the Dressier Economy Device has not yet
been established but probably would be in the range of $15 to $25."
10. Device Installation, Tools and Expertise Required (as supplied by
Applicant);
"The device installation is identical to that of an intake manifold
gasket and installation instructions are the same as specified by
vehicle manufacturers. Tools, skills required, etc., are the same."
11. Device Operation (as supplied by Applicant);
"Install as per intake manifold gasket replacement with marked side
toward carburetor (protrusion toward cylinder). Test drive. If
knock is evident, reduce basic spark advance to eliminate."
12. Device Maintenance (claimed);
"No maintenance is required."
13. Effects on Vehicle Emissions (nonregulated) (claimed);
"No effect."
14. Effects on Vehicle Safety (claimed);
"The device has no adverse effect on vehicle safety. Power loss,
which can occur with the device is only at the combination of high
RPM and wide open throttle, a condition which can rarely if ever be
attained.
"The improved driveability of the device in itself provides increased
safety by reducing/eliminating sag and stall."
-------
15. Test Results - Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy (submitted by
Applicant);
The applicant provided exhaust emission, fuel economy, and
performance test results (Attachments C and C-l through C-4)
generated at the Dresser Advanced Technology Center and at Systems
Control, Inc.
16. Testing by EPA;
Because the test data submitted by tha Applicant suggested there are
potential fuel economy benefits associated with the device, EPA
conducted confirmatory testing. EPA developed a Test Plan/Test
Agreement which was sent to the Applicant for review and concurrence
(Attachment D). Subsequently, a revised Test Plan/Test Agreement was
sent to the applicant (Attachment E) for concurrence. The Applicant
concurred (Attachment F) that the revised test plan would accurately
reflect the effectiveness of the device.
a detailed description of the testing conducted by the EPA in support
of this evaluation is reflected in EPA report, EPA-AA-TEB-82-3,
(Attachment G). A brief description of this testing effort is
provided below:
Four recent model year vehicles (Plymouth Volare with a 225 CUD
engine, Chevrolet Nova with a 350 CID engine, a Chevrolet Laguna with
a 350 CID engine, and an Oldsmobile Cutlass with a 231 CID) were
tested for emissions and fuel economy. Tests were conducted
according to the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and Highway Fuel
Economy Test (HFET). The test program consisted of duplicate FTP and
HFET tests with and without the Dresser Economizer installed. In
addition to the FTP and HFET tests, performance was also evaluated by
wide-open-throttle accelerations from 5 mph to 60 mph while on the
chassis dynamometer. Starting characteristics and driveability were
also observed at all times under both cold and warm engine conditions.
EPA's findings from this testing are listed below:
1. Hydrocarbon emissions varied front no change to a gain of 22% on
the FTP and from a gain of 39% to a reduction of 10% on the HFET.
2. Carbon monoxide emissions vatlfid from a gain of 22% to a
reduction of 13% on the FTP a.nd from a gain of 50% to a
reduction of 18% on the HFET.
3. Oxides of nitrogen changes ranged from a gain of 57% to a
reduction of 4% on the FTP and from a gain of 61% to a reduction
of 17% on the HFET.
4. Fuel economy varied from a penaluy of 3% to a gain of 4% on the
FTP and from a penalty of 3% to a gain of 2% on the HFET.
5. The Dresser Economizer caused the acceleration times from 5 mph
to 60 mph to increase from 1% to 10%, however, this would not be
noticed by most drivers.
-------
6. Although the evaluation was subjective, driveability of the
vehicles under both cold and warn; conditions was not noticeably
affected.
In general, the device caused varying test results among the test
vehicles and no definite trends were noticed. This was also true even
for vehicles with similar engine configurations. None of the
improvements in fuel economy or emissions were statistically significant.
17. Analysis
a. Description of the Device;
The device is judged to be adequately described in Section 7.
b. Applicability of the Device;
The applicant states, "the device will improve driveability and
cold performance on all cars and trucks. It will improve
economy on most carbureted carsi and trucks. The exceptions
found are those having electronic engine controls (spark and/or
feed back carburetion) and the Ford Windsor engine family (351,
302, etc.) where only a small gain (1-2 percent) is shown".
From these statements, it appeared the Dresser Economizer is
applicable to more than conventional gasoline-fueled piston type
engines. That is, it is intended to be used on turbine and
rotary type engines and also on propane and gasohol fueled
engines. In a letter to the applicant (Attachment H) EPA
questioned the applicability of the device. The applicant
responded (Attachment B) that the device is presently intended
only for carbureted gasoline-fueled engines. Although not
specifically stated, it is assumed the applicant is referring to
piston type engines.
Based on EPA's understanding- of t:he applicability of the device,
a test program was developed for EPA testing of the Dresser
Economizer. Because the applicant did not specifically exclude
1980 and 1981 model year vehicles with electronic, engine
controls (spark and/or feedback carburetion), EPA planned to
test vehicles representing those model years. In subsequent
oral discussions with the applicant, EPA learned that these
vehicles were not appropriate test vehicles. Therefore, EPA
revised the test program to te«t only 1979 and earlier model
year vehicles.
c. Costs:
According to a letter from the applicant to EPA (Attachment B)
the cost of the Dresser Economizer is expected to be in the
range of $15 to $25. The milas one would have to drive to
recover the cost of the device was estimated by using the fuel
economy levels and gains realized during the EPA testing of .the
Chevrolet Laguna. The Laguna tent results were used because the
largest gains were achieved with that vehicle. Combining the
-------
FTP and HFET test results on a 55/45 ratio respectively, a
composite fuel economy value was calculated for each the
Baseline and Device test configurations. These values resulted
in a 3 percent fuel economy gain as a result of using the
device. At a fuel economy level of 14 MPG, a 3 percent gain
would mean one would have to drive approximately 5300 miles to
recover the cost of the device. This is assuming a cost of $15
per device and $1.40 per gallon o:c gasoline.
The estimated price of the device does not include the cost of
installation. Considering that many purchasers of the device
will have the device installed at a service facility, an
additional expense would be incurred. Assuming 2 to 3 hours for
installing the device at a labor rate of $20 per hour, the cost
could be an additional $40 to $60. This means the miles
required to be driven would need to be increased by a factor of
3 to 5. For those vehicles with high odometer mileage at the
time of device installation, the. amount of operation necessary
to recover the cost of the device may exceed the remaining life
of the vehicle•
d. Device Installation - Tools and Expertise Required;
The applicant states that the "installation instructions are the
same as specified by vehicle manufacturers". EPA takes
exception to this statement in that the installation
instructions recommend retarding; of the initial timing should
the device cause a detonation problem. EPA believes this
recommendation is inappropriate for the installation of an OEM
gasket. EPA does agree with the applicant in that the device
installation is identical to that of an intake manifold gasket
and that the tools and skills required are the same. In
general, the installation instructions were judged to be
adequate.
e. Device Operation;
The operating instructions referred to in Section II consist of
additional installation instructions. Additionally, it is
stated that the vehicle should be driven after installation of
the device. If detonation is a problem, spark advance should be
retarded. Aside from this, EPA does not expect there to be any
further actions required by the driver.
f. Device Maintenance:
The applicant states that 'no maintenance is required".
Although the applicant did not: provide any data showing the
short and long term effects of the device, EPA does not expect
there to be a durability problem or the need for maintenance.
-------
g. Effects on Vehicle Emissions (nonregulated);
As claimed, the device is judjjed to be unlikely to affect
nonregulated emissions.
h. Effects on Vehicle Safety;
EPA agrees with the applicant :ln that the device should not
cause a safety problem and that che slight loss in engine power
is of little consequence.
i. Test Results Supplied by Applicant;
The applicant did submit test data in accordance with the
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test
(HFET). The requirement for test data following these
procedures is stated in the test policy documents that EPA sends
to potential applicants.* The test data submitted by the
applicant are listed below and evaluated.
(1) Attachments C-l and C-2 contain test results obtained at
Dresser Industrie's test facility. The summary of test
results in Attachment C-l were for 11 test vehicles while
the detailed test results in Attachment C-2 also included
those for test vehicle Number 12. All 12 vehicles were
from the 1971 to 1979 era.
The test results showed that exhaust emissions varied
considerably in both a positive and negative manner. Five
vehicles exceeded their emission standards when tested with
the device. In most instances, this was attributed to
oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The test results also showed an
average gain in fuel economy of approximately 8 percent and
7 percent for the FTP and HFET, respectively.
* From EPA 511 Application test policy documents;
Test Results (Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy);
Provide all test information which is available on the effects of the
device on vehicle emissions and fuel economy.
The Federal Test Procedure (40 CFR Part 86) is the primary test which
is recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the
evaluation of vehicle emissions. The Federal Test Procedure and the
Highway Fuel Economy Test (40 CFR Part 600) are the only tests which
are normally recognized by the U.S. EPA for evaluating vehicle fuel
economy. Data which have been collected in accordance with other
standardized fuel economy measuring; procedures (e.g. Society of
Automotive Engineers) are acceptable: as supplemental data to the
Federal Test Procedure and Highway Fuel Economy Test and will be
used in the preliminary evaluation of the device.
-------
(2) Attachments C-3 and C-4 contained exhaust emission and fuel
economy test results obtained at Systems Control
Incorporated ,(SCI) and performance data obtained at the
Orange County International Raceway by both Dresser
Industries and SCI. The SCI data was from three vehicles
(Nos. 8. 9. and 11) which were also tested by Dresser
Industries. These results showed an average fuel economy
gain of 10 percent for both the FTP and . HFET. This
substantiates Dresser test results which also showed a 10
percent gain over the FTP and HFET on the same three
vehicles. The exhaust emissions also showed considerable
variations.
The performance data consisted of wide-open-throttle
accelerations which showed an improvement in some instances
and adverse effects in others. In general, the
performance did not appear to be significantly.affected and
would not likely be noticed by the average driver.
(3) Because the applicant stated that Dresser Industries had
recently performed additions,! tests on newer vehicles, EPA
requested (Attachment H) that these test results be
provided to EPA. The applicant did provide (Attachment B)
the test results which had been generated using sis. 1978
through 1981 model year vehicles. These results showed
that emissions varied considerably with one vehicle
excceeding the emission standards for NOx. With respect to
average fuel economy, there was a penalty associated with
the use of the device. However, this penalty was
considered to be negligible.. The applicant attributes the
insignificant changes to the electronic control systems
used on the engines.
Overall, the data submitted by the applicant for 1979 and earlier
model years indicated there are potential benefits associated with
the Dresser Economizer. For this reason, EPA elected to test the
device.
18. Conclusions
EPA fully considered all of the information submitted by" the device
manufacturer in his application. The evaluation of the Dresser
Economizer device was based on that information and the results of
the EPA test program.
The test data submitted by the applicant showed fuel economy and
emission benefits when using the Dresser Economizer while the results
from the EPA test program showed that for three of the four vehicles
tested there were no benefits associated with the device. Even for
the one vehicle which did show a benefit, the gain was determined not
to be statistically significant. EPA does not know why the test
results supplied by the applicant differed from those achieved from
the EPA test program. The difference may be attributed to greater
test-to-test variability at the applicant's laboratory or to the
-------
vehicles themselves. In any case, EPA must base its conclusion on
the test results obtained from four typical vehicles tested under
closely controlled conditions at its own facility. Based on those
results, EPA has determined that it can not support the claims made
with respect to the emissions, fuel economy, performance, and
driveability benefits associated with ;:he Dresser Economizer.
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.
-------
ATTACHMENT A
The following information is extracted from the
Application for Evaluation of the Dresser Economizer
Fuel Economy Retrofit Device.
b) Theory of Operation; The economy device modifies
the combustion process of the internal combustion eng.ine
to provide a more rapid and effective combustion.
A.S a result of the enhanced, combustion, the follow-
ing occurs:
o Increased economy. Economy increase of 0-20
percent obtained with i wide variety of cars
tested.
o Increased driveability. in all cars testedf
driveability is improved substantially.
o Cold performance. Cold start and cold perform-
ance are vastly improved.
-------
• EGR tolerance. The car can tolerate much
greater amounts (more than double) of EGR
while still having excellent driveability.
This is extremely important in OEM applica-
tions , particularly for achieving low NOx
emission levels.
• Knock sensitivity. In some cases (not con-
sistent) knocking is increased. This appears
to be controlled with spark modifications.
«* NOx emission. In some cases, NOx emissions
increase slightly. This also can be control-
led by spark and/or EGR-and/or A/F ratio.
In some cases, the overall combination of enhanced
combustion rate and spark is too great and does not
result in economy gain but will provide gain if the
amount of spark is reduced.
The device is placed in the intake runner and
resrcic-ts the charge flow path, increasing its velocity,
In -lost cases, the restriction .iiust. be greater than 45
percent to produce an effect ^nd prefenbly in the ~~
range of 60 percent for optimal results. Further
increase produces further economy gain but at the
sacrifice of top-end power (not necessarily bad).
.In intake runners, a complex stratification can
occur. Generally, this takes two forms.
• Phase separation when larger fuel droplets
fall out of the air stream onto the manifold
floor and flow along the floor toward the
intake valve.
-------
• Velocity distribution where the flow profile
exhibits a preferential flow area, where a"
higher velocity and probably a higher density
exists. On the V-8 engines the top of the
runner apparently carries most of the flow,
because the flow is generally turning down into
into the cylinder. On the in-line engines,
the majority of flow is most probably on the
outside radius of the runner. As the runner
size decreases, this type of stratification
becomes less noticeable.
The economy device functions by effectively removing
both of the above kinds of stratificatin, close enough
to the intake valve and cylinder to prevent restratifi— .
cation. This is done by restricting the flow area and
rapidly expanding the flow to minimize the frictional
flow loss. In so doing, the fuel is reentrained and
the flow profile made more uniform. Specifically, how
this is accomplished has a laxge affect, on the improve-
ments gained, particularly in the larger cross-section
runners.
In order to remix the fuel back into the airstream,
the fuel must be either lifted from the floor or the
air diverted to the floor in the restricted zone. Either
of these methods results in large economy gain. If the
air's preferential path is on the upper portion of the
runner, however, diverting it to the floor by blocking
the upper portion of the runner, results in a much larger
power loss than blocking other portions of the flow, eg,
the bottom.
-------
Specific Findings
Tests have been run on a wide variety of cars.
These results are presented in Section 12.
A series of tests were conducted to evaluate the
effects of various blockage shapes and sizes. This
work was done on a 1978 Chevrolet Caprice equipped
with a 350 CID engine. Results indicate the following:
Size: Economy begins to increase at about 45 per-
cer.t reduction and continues to increase with decreasing
size. This parameter was explored until the size decrease
had a very obvious effect on the power loss, noticeable
in driving. Our results indicate that a power loss of
15 - 20 percent or less is not noticeable in driving
the car.
Similar results were obtained on a 400 CID Mercury:
Shape-Radius: If the holes in the restriction are
provided with a radiused edge so that the flow path lead-
ing to the valve is smooth, somewhat greater economy
increase is obtained and power loss is significantly
reduced.
Shape-Round; A round hole appears to give similar
results to a rectangular hola. Varying the number of
»
holes however while keeping the same area restriction
shows similar results for two holes but decreasing
economy gain and power loss with more than two holes.
-------
Location; Significant variations .are found depend-
ing on which portion of the ranner cross section is
left open or conversely which portion is blocked. When
the bottom is open, significant economy gain is obtained
with minimal restriction; however, power loss and NOx
gain are considerable. Comparison of the results with
centrally located holes, at equivalent power loss shows
results to be almost identical. It appears flow on the
manifold floor is good for economy but diverting the
flow to the bottom is bad and the restriction acts as_ if
it is much greater. Perhaps this is due to a severe vena
contracta formed by the flow.
Opening only a portion of the bottom and some of the
center, reduces the severe power loss and economy gain
but both are still greater than a center hol-a.. Interest- •
ingly, if compared at equivalent power loss, NOx would
be significantly lower.
Opening the top portion of the runner (blocking the
bottom) gives equivalent power loss but economy is much
lower in comparison with a central hole (again it appears
that the bottom opening is important for economy) .
Opening the sides of the runners produced further
interesting results. Two"types of openings were looked
at, one opening the inside of the runners where the inside
is defined as the two common surfaces of the siamesed
runner and the other just the.opposite, designated the
outside.
The results show the outside to have slightly increased
economy and power loss compared to an equivalent hole where
the inside has the same economy and power loss. However,
-------
NOx is significantly lower than either with the inside
pairing. The results show the outside to have slightly
increased economy and power loss compared to an equiv-
alent hole where the inside has the same economy and
power loss. However, NOx is significantly lower than
either with the inside pairing.
SGR Tolerance; One of the* benefits found in this
evaluation was that use of the* economy device greatly
enhances the tolerance of the engine for EGR and/or
charge dilution. These results are shown in Figure 1.
The base car was borderline in its driveability with
the base amount of EGR.
Results show that an equivalent economy gain is
possible in the Economizer equipped car with or without
EGR. Also, EGR, double the EGR, and double the EGR
with, further air dilution (vacuum leak) gave very little
economy loss while still maintaining excellent drive-
ab.ility. Addition of EGR to the base car gave consider-
able economy loss. This EGR tolerance can of course
be of extreme importance to meeting low NOx levels or
to possible lean operation at low NOx levels.
c) Detailed Description of Construction and Operation;
The device is fabricated as a. composite intake manifold
gasket stamped from metal with gasket material coated
faces. Typical installation is shown in Figure 2 and
a photograph of a device in Figure 3.
The radiused unit is consiidered standcird.
-------
EFFECT OF. ADDITIONAL EGR ON NOx PRODUCTION
H
0
C
R
A
K
S
/
K
I
L
£
6.0
5.0
4.0
1 A
2.0
1.0
o '00 ECR)
t BASECffl
it
o DRESSER KYIff 12
-(ECR)
(ECR u/ 2X CRIRCE)
I
12.0
13.0
ECONOMY
U.O
(MPG)
15.0
FlfillRF 1
-------
FIGURE 2
-------
FIGURE 3
-------
Attachment B
O«»S»««i
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY CENTER c DRESSER INDUSTRIES. >NC z -702 MCGAW c ? o acx -9566 z IRVINE. CALIF 927<3
August 3, 1981
Mr. Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Dear Mr. Korth:
In reference to your letter of July 14, 1981, I wish
to provide you with the following additional information
as per your request. Comments are in the same order as in
your letter.
Item 1. In reference to Section 3A of the application,
aside from the performance test, our evaluation of drive-
ability and cold start performance is subjective and was
determined mainly by our own staff driving cars before and
after addition of the device. In no case did any car have
decreased driveability and, as reported, in most cases
driveability was considerably enhanceid. This included
elimination of sag and stumble on acceleration.
Cold start was also evaluated subjectively by our
employees who would drive these cars over a period of time
and compare the cold .start performance before and after.
In general, these cold starts were not under severe winter
conditions since such a climate does not exist here but improve-
ment was readily apparent particularly on our coldest days.
Further but more specific indication of cold start
improvement is the improved capability to cold start lean
as observed in our 0.4 GPM NOx demonstration car. The
addition of the device allowed us to cold start on the CVS
cycle at 16.5 to 1 air fuel ratio as contrasted to the case
without the device when the start would have to be made at
15-15.5 to 1 air fuel ratio.
Item 2. In reference to Section 8B, the restriction
refers to reduction in comparison to the standard intake
manifold cross sectional area as exists on the OEM produc-
tion car. We have developed a design criterion which relates
the size of the restriction directly to engine size and
provides a means to size the device independent of the intake
runner size or the number of cylinders. This procedure is
confidential and is the basis of our patents applied for.
Item 3. In reference to Section 9, currently we are
only concerned with driveability, cold performance, and
economy on carbureted cars and trucks operating on gasoline
since this is the only type of engines on which we have
-------
Mr. Merrill W. Korth
Page two
August 3, 1981
conducted tests. Therefore, Section 9 should be construed
in this light.. However, we did conduct some tests on
propane which showed about half the gain that we achieved
with the gasoline fueled engine and we would anticipate that
the device would work quite well with gasohol or alcohol
fuels. However, at this time, we are limiting its applica-
tion to carbureted gasoline fueled engines. The basis for
the claims concerning driveability and cold performance
is the results of our tests in which both of these factors
have only been influenced positively and we are extrapola-
ting to other cars. The same is true for the economy.
In reference to Item 3B, it is our intention to market
the device initially in the standard configuration which is
a radiused hole and, as mentioned earlier, the size is
determined in relation to the engine size, the number of
cylinders, etc., as per our design procedure which is the
basis of our .patent application. At a later time, after
further testing, designs specific for an engine family might
be found which would be considered a product improvement.
We do not know of other engine vehicle configurations
than the Ford 351-302 Windsor family on which the device does
not function other than the newer cars equipped with engine
control systems as mentioned in the application.
In reference to a marketing plan for the device, it
would be our intention to market initially to the major
engine families and only to those on which the device provided
demonstrable economy gains. We would anticipate a continuing
effort identifying engine families and performance as the
product was developed to other engine types and families.
Driveability improvement itself might be significant
enough to warrant cost of retrofitting an engine family such
as the Ford 351-302 which shows marginal economy gain. If such
should be the case, the device would :iot be marketed as improv-
ing economy.
Item 4. Reference to Section 10 of the application, instal-
lation instructions would be included with the device; however,
its installation is simply as a replacement for the intake
manifold gasket which is well known to mechanics and do-it-.
yourselfers. Currently, the only units we have available are
prototype units. We would be happy to send one to you for
examination. The retail cost of the Dresser Economy Device
-------
Mr. Merrill W. Korth
Page three
August 3, 1981
has not as yet been established but probably would be in
the range of $15 to $25.
Item 5. In reference to .Section 15, the detailed test
results submitted with the application were those on which
we had comparative data and represent the major portion of
our testing. There exists a considerable body of data which
were obtained during development of -:he device in reference
to size, shape, etc., which we feel are not significant to
this evaluation. Attached is the data summary of our tests
on the newer cars which you have requested and, in addition,
test summaries on a Ford 302 engine which was done in confir-
mation of the fact that this engine family does not respond.
I hope that the above answers the questions that you had
regarding this device and we are prepared to assist in any
way in your evaluation.
Sincerely,
L. P. Berriman
Director of Engineering
LPB:rl
cc: M. K. Dishman
N. Colbert
Attachments
-------
C.V.S. Testing Conducted at Dresser Advanced Technology Center, Irvine, CA
Car No. - Oldsmobile Cutlass V-6 - Model Year - 1980 - 231CID (3.8L) License I045ZLE California
73 F.T.P. - City Cycle (Hot Start) (LA-4)
Number Tests
BASELINE
WITH DEVICE
VARIANCE
IMPROVEMENT
Highway Fuel Economy
BASELINE
WITH DEVICE
VARIANCE
IMPROVEMENT
Test Performed
Series (Average)
(c) 3
(d) 1
(e) 3
(f) 1
HC
(g/mi)
0.02
0.03
+0.01
0.02
0.02
0.00
CO
(g/mi)
2.09
0.57
-1.52
1.44
0.05
-1.39
NOx
(g/mi)
0.64
2.40
+1.76
0.29
1.6*
+ 1.37
C02
(g/mi)
514.9
524.7
+ 9.8
353.1
358.9
+ 5.8
MPG
17.13
16.89
-0.24
-1.40%
24.98
24.72
-0.26
-1.04%
-------
C.V.S. Testing Conducted at Dresser Advanced Technology Center, Irvine, CA
Car No. - Toyota Corolla - Model Year - 1981 - 1.8L - License I1ANV633 California
73 F.T.P. - City Cycle (Hot Stout) (LA-4)
Number Tests
BASELINE
WITH DEVICE
VARIANCE
Highway Fuel Economy
BASELINE
WITH DEVICE"
VARIANCE
IMPROVEMENT
Test
Series
(c)
(d)
Performed
(Average)
4
4
IIC
0.04
0.02
-0.02
CO
(g/mi)
1.02
0.70
-0.32
NOx
(g/mi)
0.32
0.39
+ .07
C02
(g/mi)
337.2
370.6
-6.6
MPG
23.43
23.40
-0.03
(e)
4
4
0.07 2,92 0.07 305.2
0.06 1.99 0.11 304.2
-0.01 -0.93 +0.04 -1.0
-0.13%
28.65
28.88
-0.23
0.80%
-------
C.V.S. Testing Conducted at Dresser Advanced Technology Center, Irvine, CA
Car No. - Chevrolet Chevette - Model Year - 1981 - 1.6L License JJ1BCJ034 California
73 FTP City Cycle - (Hot Start) (LA-4)
Number Tests
BASELINE
WITH DEVICE
VARIANCE
IMPROVEMENT
Highway Fuel Economy
BASELINE
WITH DEVICE
VARIANCE
IMPROVEMENT
Test Performed
Series (Average)
(c) 5
(d) 3
(e) 5
(f) 3
HC
(g/mi)
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
CO
(g/mi)
1.16
1.13
-0.03
0.47
0.52
+0.05
NOx
(g/mi)
0.70
0.99
+0.29
1.05
0.98
-0.07
C02
349.8
348.2
-1.6
252.4
254.3
+ 1.9
MPG
25.24
25.35
+ 0.11
0.44%
35.07
34.78
-0.29
-0.83%
-------
C.V.S. Testing Conducted at Dresser Advanced Technology Center, Irvine, CA
Car No. - Chevrolet Citation V-6 - Model Year - 1980 - 173 CID (2.8L) License I996YTY California
73 F.T.P. City Cycle (Hot Start) (LA-4)
BASELINE
WITH DEVICE
VARIANCE
IMPROVEMENT
Highway Fuel Economy
BASELINE
WITH DEVICE
VARIANCE
IMPROVEMENT
Test
Series
(c)
(d)
-
(c)
(f)
Number Tests
Performed IIC
(Average) (g/roi)
3 0.03
3 0.02
-0.01
3 0.03
3 0.02
-0.01
CO
(g/mi)
1.56
1.25
-0.31
2.09
1.57
-0.52
NOx
(g/roi)
0.57
0.75
+ 0.18
0.30
0.44
+0.14
C02
(g/mi) MPG
515.1 17.15
506.0 17.47
-9.1 +0.32
1.87%
363.5 24.19
355.8 24.77
-7.7 +0.58
2.40%
-------
C.V.S. Testing Conducted at Dreaaer Advanced Technology Center, Irvine, CA
Car No. - Pontiac Sunbird L-4 - Model Year - 1980 - 151 CID - License I045ZLE California
73 F.T.P. - City Cycle (Hot Start) (LA-4)
BASELINE
WITH DEVICE
VARIANCE
IMPROVEMENT
Highway Fuel Economy
i
BASELINE
WIT!} DEVICE*
VARIANCE
IMPROVEMENT
Number Tests
Test Performed IIC CO NOx
Series (Average) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi)
(c) 3 0.03 1.73 0.65
(d) 2 0.03 1.65 0.82
0.00 -0.08 +0.17
(e) 3 0.01 0.63 0.91
(f) 2 0.02 0.98 1.28
. +0.01 +0.35 +0.37
C02
(g/mi) MPG
456.9 19.31
462.8 19.07
r5.9 -0.24
-1 =24%
330.7 26.76
343.4 25.74
+12.7 -1.02
-3.81%
-O
* Testa run at 5 retard to eliminate spark knock.
-------
C.V.S. Testing Conducted at Dresser Advanced Technology Center, Irvine, CA
Car No. - Mercury Zepher - Model Year - 1978 - 302 CID License I614SGR California
73 F.T.P. - C,V.B. City Cycle (Hot Start) (LA-4)
Number Tests
BASELINE
WITH DEVICE
VARIANCE
IMPROVEMENT
Highway Fuel Economy
i
BASELINE
WITH DEVICE
VARIANCE
IMPROVEMENT
Test Performed
Series (Average)
(c) 6
(d) 2
(e) 6
(f) 2
IIC
(g/mi)
0.47
0.53
+0.06
0.30
0.36
+0.06
CO
(g/mi)
0.14
0.15
+0.01
0.16
0.16
0,00
NOx
(g/mi)
1.02
1.43
+0.41
1.08
1.38
+0.30
C02
(g/mi)
520.9
522.2
+1.3
421.8
419.6
-2.2
MPG
17.04
16.94
-0.10
-0.59%
20.99
21,09
+ 0.10
0.48%
------- |