EPA-AA-TEB-82-8
Emissions and Fuel Economy of Turbo-Garb, A Retrofit Device
Edward Anthony Barth
August 1982
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Abstract
This report describes EPA's testing of the "Turbo-Garb" as part of an
evaluation under Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act. The evaluation of this device was conducted at Che request
of the U.S. Postal Service. The Turbo-Garb is a one-inch thick
carburetor adapter plate which inserts a mesh screen and swirl devices
between the carburetor and intake manifold. The device is claimed to
improve the preparation of the fuel/air mixture and thereby improve fuel
economy and performance.
Testing of. three typical 1979 model year passenger cars was conducted at
EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory from March through May of 1982.
The basic test sequence included the Federal -Test Procedure and the
Highway Fuel Economy Test. These tests were performed both without and
with the Turbo-Garb device installed.
The overall conclusion is that there is no reason to expect that the
Turbo-Garb will significantly improve fuel economy or performance of a
vehicle. Changes in fuel economy and emissions were small with mixed
results of slight increases and decreases. . Driveability remained
essentially unchanged. Installation of the device was found to be
considerably more difficult than claimed due to the requirement to design
and fabricate several parts as well as perforn critical readjustments.
-------
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency receives information about many
systems which appear to offer a potential for a reduction in emissions
and/or an improvement in fuel economy in 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
submit information on the principle of operation together with available
test data. In those cases where the system shows promise, confirmatory
tests are run at the EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory in Ann Arbor,
Michigan. The results of such test projects are set forth in a series of
Test and Evaluation reports, of which this is one.
Under Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act,
EPA is required to evaluate devices which are claimed to improve fuel
economy for the effects on both emissions and fuel economy. The results
of these evaluations are published in the Federal Register.
The conclusions drawn from the EPA evaluation tests are necessarily of
limited applicability. A complete evaluation of the effectiveness of a
device in achieving performance improvements on the many different types
of vehicles that are in actual use requires a larger sample of test
vehicles than is economically feasible in th« evaluation of test projects
conducted by EPA. The conclusions from the EPA evaluation tests can be
considered to be quantitatively 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.
Introduction
In November, 1981, EPA received a request from Nancy A. Miller, a postal
inspector for the U.S. Postal Service, for an evaluation of the
"Turbo-Carb" device. EPA agreed to conduct this evaluation under
auspices of the Section 511 process. Since EPA had no test data on which
to base an evaluation of this type of device, the Turbo-Carb test program
was part of this evaluation process. The Post Office provided the
devices. The results of the EPA testing of the Turbo-Carb are contained
in this report. The complete evaluation of the device is contained in
the .report entitled, "An EPA Evaluation of the Turbo-Carb Device Under
Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act,"
EPA-AA-TEB-511-82-12. The Section 511 report contains the complete
evaluation and includes this test report as an attachment.
The Turbo-Carb is an adapter plate which inserts a fine mesh screen and
swirl devices between the carburetor and intake manifold. It is
approximately one inch thick. The device is claimed to improve the
preparation of the fuel/air mixture and thereby improve fuel economy and
performance. The sales literature/order form makes the following
specific claims for the Turbo-Carb device.-
-------
"up to 38% increase - 5 more miles per gallon"
"smoother running engine"
"ping eliminated"
"improved performance"
"easy installation"
"less pollution of hydrocarbons"
Appendices G and H are two versions of the sales literature/order form.
The marketer of the device provided no test data to support these
claims. However, since this evaluation and test program was undertaken
at the request of the Postal Service, EPA did not require substantiating
test data as a prerequisite to EPA testing.
Construction and Operation;
The Turbo-Garb consists of two carburetor adapter plates (each plate is
about one-half inch thick), a fine mesh stainless steel screen and a
stationary swirl prop for each venturi. The assembly is installed
between the carburetor and intake manifold. The two plates form a hollow
chamber with the screen sandwiched in the center of the chamber between
the plates. Thus, although the screen restricts the fuel/air flow, this
adverse effect is minimized by the large area of the screen. The
stationary props are attached to the bottom plate (intake manifold side)
and extend into the manifold. These props cause the fuel/air mixture to
swirl and thereby promote mixing. A drawing; of the device is given in
the installation instructions contained in Appendix F to this report.
Purpose of the Test Program
The purpose of the EPA test program was to conduct a technical evaluation
of the device to determine if the Turbo-Garb met Its advertised claims,
affected exhaust emissions, or affected safety. Emissions, fuel economy,
and installation were to be specifically evaluated. The other claims -
smoother running engine, ping eliminated, and improved performance - were
to be evaluated by noting any changes in the operating characteristics of
the test vehicle. No special test procedures were employed to evaluate
these latter claims.
Test Plan
The EPA test plan consisted of the checkout of the three test vehicles,
replicate baseline tests, device installation, and replicate device
tests. The purpose of the vehicle checkout, was to insure each vehicle
was representative of a properly-tuned vehicle and would provide a
reasonable reference test condition.
The vehicles were to be tested using the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and
Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET). The FTP is the official EPA test
procedure for determining the exhaust emissions of a vehicle. The
results of both of these tests are also used to determine a vehicle's
fuel economy. The FTP is described in the Federal Register of June 28,
1977 and the HFET is described in the Federal Register of September 10,
1976. The vehicles were not tested for evaporative emissions.
-------
Installation was to be done per the instructions supplied with the
device. Since the device raises the carburetor, it was expected to
affect hood clearance and the carburetor linkages to the throttle, choke,
and automatic transmission. Also air hoses, electrical leads, fuel lines
and vacuum lines would require repositioning (relocating). Therefore
particular attention was to be directed toward determining what
modifications and adjustments are required to maintain proper operation
of these components. The time required, ease of installation, and
problems or hazards encountered were also to be noted.
Claims for the Turbo-Garb not specifically addressed by the test plan
were engine smoothness, improved performance, and elimination of ping.
The reason for not using specific procedures; to evaluate these claims is
because these are, in large part, subjective and the procedures for their
measurement are neither well defined nor routinely used by EPA. These
latter claims were to be evaluated only by having the drivers note any
changes in the performance of the engine.
Since this 511 process was initiated by the government, EPA did not
require the inventor/marketer of the device to concur with the test
plan. However, he was informed of EPA's intention to test Us device and
was invited to observe the testing.
Three typical 1979 production vehicles were used: a Ford Pinto with a 4
cylinder engine, a Plymouth Volare with a 6 cylinder engine, and a Ford
Granada with an 8 cylinder engine. All vehicles were equipped with
automatic transmissions. A more detailed description of each vehicle is
provided in Appendix A.
Conduct of Testing
The testing was conducted from March through May. All tests were
performed by the EPA at its Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory in Ann
Arbor. The inventor/marketer was present during two days of the test
program. In general, the testing proceeded as planned. However, because
a baseline test sequence for the Pinto showed a greater than expected
variation in fuel economy, two additional baseline test sequences were
conducted on the Pinto. This baseline outl:',er (fuel economy unexpectedly
high) was deleted from the data set. A scrutiny of the Volare data led
to rejection of the two baseline HFETs. These two HFET's were rerun
after the device was removed from the vehicle. Since the first two
device test sequences on the Granada data indicated a possible benefit
for the device, a third test sequence was conducted to obtain sufficient
data to determine if the change was statistically significant.
Because the Granada data had indicated a possible fuel economy benefit,
additional testing was conducted to determine if the change was due to
the baseplate and readjusted linkage or to a combination of effects by
the baseplate, adjustments, screen, and stationary props. For a final
test sequence, the stationary props and scruen of the device were removed
and the Granada was re tested.
There were problems encountered in installing the device on each
vehicle. These installation problems are presented and discussed with
the test results.
-------
Test Results - Installation
The Turbo-Garb installation was performed by an EPA mechanic using the
instructions provided with the devices (see Appendix F).
The installation of the Turbo-Garb devices raises the carburetor over one
inch and many of the problems encountered were related to the carburetor
being raised by the device. The specific problems encountered for each
vehicle are given in Appendix E and are summarized below
The device interfered with the hood closing on one vehicle and caused
a small dent in the hood when it was closed. The installer, was
alerted to this problem by the installation instructions.
It was necessary to design and fabricate extensions for the kickdown
linkage between the throttle and automatic transmission for all three
vehicles.
The throttle linkage needed to be modified on two vehicles.
The choke rod linkage needed to be extended and readjusted on one
vehicle. These parts were not provided with the kit.
The device did not provide a leak proof seal on one vehicle and
required application of a gasket sealer to stop this vacuum leak.
Although the instructions do not allow the use of sealing materials,
the inventor allowed us to use it. He cautioned against any on the
screen.
Improper replacement studs were provided for two vehicles. These two
vehicles required studs with metric threads but the kits only
included studs with SAE threads. The inventor stated he provided
metric bolts when required. However, the kits were ordered
specifically for each vehicle yet the two kits still came with the
wrong studs.
The installation instructions, Appendix F, state in step 11 that an
extender for the manifold heat control choke rod tube was provided in
the kit. However, none was enclosed in any of the three kits
purchased.
The air hoses, electrical leads, fuel lines, and vacuum lines were able
to be readily rerouted to the raised carburutor and air filter. Several
metal lines had to be reworked, however no additional parts were required.
The instructions were generally adequate for the installation of the
device. They addressed many of the problems the installer was likely to
encounter when installing the Turbo-Garb. Only simple tools and normal
mechanical skills were needed for the installation. However, the
installer will have to design and fabricate hardware to allow the device
to raise the carburetor linkages to function properly. The installer
will also need access to the shop service manual for the vehicle in order
to properly readjust the kickdown linkage to the automatic transmission.
This adjustment is critical since it controls the transmission shift
points.
-------
Installation, including fabrication of part;, and necessary adjustments,
required from 2 1/2 to 8 hours.
Test Results - Fuel Economy and Emissions
The test results for each vehicle are summarized in Table I. Emission
levels are listed in grams/mile while fuel economy is shown in miles per
gallon. The individual test results for each vehicle are given in
Appendices B, C, and D.
Table I
Summary of Test Results
FTP
HFET
Vehicle Configuration
Ford Baseline
Pinto Turbo-Garb
Average Change
Plymouth Baseline
Volare Turbo-Garb
Average Change
Ford Baseline
Granada Turbo-Carb
Average Change
Ford Baseline
Granada Mod. Turbo-Carb*
Average Change
HC
CO
NOx MPG
1.18 4.20 1.58 22.3
1.29 3.74 1.64 22.3
+10% -11* +4% -0-
HC_
.64
.77
+19%
C0_
.70
.87
+25%
NOx
1.37
1.33
-3%
MPG
29.1
28.7
-1%
.71 6.63
.60 6.08
-16% -8%
.88 4.73
.99 4.23
+13% -11%
1.24
1.26
+2%
1.46
1.52
+4%
19.2
18.9
-1%
14.5
15.2
.88
.97
+10%
4.73 1.46
5.77 1.44
+22% -1%
14.5
14.9
+3%
.87 22.09 .57 26.2
.16 4.56 .45 25.9
-82_% -79% -20% -1%
.28 .51 2.21 20.5
.31 .31 1.96 21.4
+107, -39% -U% +4%
.28 .51 2.21 20.5
.25 .27 2.06 21.2
-11% -47% -7% +4%
Note: Underlined values are statistically
confidence level. Mod. Turbo-Carb emissions
statistical significance.
significant at a 90%
were not analyzed for
These data were analyzed by several statistical methods (student's "t"
test, paired "t" test, and 2 way analysis of variance) Co determine if
the changes were statistically significant for either- an individual
vehicle or a group of vehicles.
The student's "t" test is used to compare the sample means of two
populations. It is useful when there are :>nly a few data samples. It
allows the data to be readily compared at a given confidence level. The
individual test results given in the Appendix were compared (i.e., Pinto
FTP baseline tests to Pinto FTP Turbo-Carb tests, Pinto HFET baseline
test to Pinto HFET Turbo-Carb tests, etc.). This analysis showed that:
Pinto - Turbo-Carb did not cause a significant change in fuel
economy for either the FTP or HFET.
*Modified Turbo-Carb: Only carburetor baseplate used, screen and
stationary props removed.
-------
Volare - Turbo-Garb caused a statistically significant decrease in
fuel economy for both the FTP -and HFET.
Granada - Turbo-Garb caused a statistically significant increase in
fuel economy for both the FTP and HFET.
The modified Turbo-Garb also caused a statistically
significant increase in fuel economy for both the FTP and
HFET. Because this change was similar to that caused by
the complete device, this may indicate that it is the
chambered baseplate and linkage readjustments that caused
the changes and not the stationary props or mesh screen.
The student's "t" test of paired data is used to sample means of paired
observations. It is a more specialized usage of the "t" tests and has
the same features as the "t" test. The averages given in Table I were
compared for both the FTP (baseline vs. Turbo-Garb for the Pinto, Volare,
and Granada as a group) and the HFET. This paired "t" test data analysis
showed that there was no statistically significant change in fuel economy
due to the Turbo-Garb device for either the FTP or HFET for the group of
three vehicles.
The 2 way analysis of variance (2 way ANOVA) is used to compare the means
when there are several test variables (i.e., for the FTP with or without
device for several vehicles) . It can be used to test if there is or is
not a significant interaction between test, variables. The 2 way ANOVA
also showed that there was no statistically significant change in fuel
economy due to the Turbo-Garb for either the FTP or HFET for the group of
three vehicles.
Although fuel economy is largely influenced by vehicle weight and engine
displacement, emissions are largely influenced by the emission control
technology used by the manufacturer and this typically changes with model
year. Therefore the emission data was analyzed only by the student's "t"
test. The individual test results given Ln the appendix were compared
(i.e., Granada FTP baseline tests to Granada FTP Turbo-Garb tests). This
analysis showed:
Pinto - The Turbo-Garb caused a small but statistically significant
increase in hydrocarbon (HC) emissions for both the FTP and
HFET. It also caused a statistically significant increase
in carbon monoxide emissions for the HFET. However, due to
the relatively low level of the HFET CO emissions, the
actual increase was very small.
Volare - The Turbo-Garb caused no statistically significant change
in FTP emissions. The changes noted for the HFET are not
significant because this vehicle has in the past shown
considerable variability in HFET emissions, (HFET fuel
economy has not been variable)• This variability is
apparently characteristic of t:he vehicle.
-------
Granada - The Turbo-Carb caused a small but statistically significant
increase in HC emissions for both the FTP and HFET. It
also caused a statistically significant change in HFET NOx
emissions. However, again due to the relatively low levels
of these emissions, the actual Increases were very small.
The changes due to the modified Turbo-Carb were not
analyzed for statistical significance.
Test Results - Vehicle Performance
As noted previously, there were no special tests prescribed specifically
for evaluation of vehicle performance. The drivers were simply requested
to note and comment upon the operation of the vehicle. To insure a
reasonable comparison, the same operator drove a given vehicle for both
the baseline and device tests.
There were no changes in engine smoothness, or performance. None of the
vehicles experienced ping with or without l:he device. The results are
summarized below.
Table II
FTP Driveability
Pinto Volare Granada
Baseline soft spot in accel. Good Good
Turbo-Carb soft spot in accel. Good slight soft spot in accel.
The starting was good for each vehicle for both baseline and with the
Turbo-Carb device.
Table III
HFET Driveability
Pinto Volare Granada
Baseline Good Good Good
Turbo-Carb Good Good Good
Overall, there was no appreciable change in vehicle performance caused by
the Turbo-Carb device.
No safety hazards were observed with the device.
Conclusions
The overall conclusion is that there is no reason to expect that the
Turbo-Carb will significantly improve fuel economy or performance of a
vehicle. The Turbo-Carb failed to meet its; advertised claims of "up to
38% fuel economy improvement" and "improved performance".
-------
10
The fuel economy changes found on the three vehicles tested were small.
Two of the vehicles showed either a decrease or no change in fuel economy
and one showed a slight increase. Emissions were only slightly affected
with mixed directional results. No improvements were observed by the
test driver in the operating characteristics of the vehicles.
Installation of the devices was significantly more difficult than
claimed. Considerable time and mechanical skills were required, several
parts had to be designed and fabricated, and a number of critical
readjustments had to be made.
-------
11
Appendix A
Test Vehicle Descriptions
Make /Model
Model Year
Type
Vehicle I.D.
Initial Odometer
Engine;
Type
Configuration
Displacement
Fuel Metering
Fuel Requirement
Emission Control
System
Transmission
Tires
Ford Pinto
1979
2 door
9T11Y186165
26390
Spark Ignition
In-line 4
140 CID
2V Carburetor
Unleaded
EGR
Catalyst
Automatic
BR78X13
Plymouth Volare
1979
2 door
HL29C9B217336
32280
Spark Ignition
In-line 6
225 CID
IV Carburetor
Unleaded
EGR
Catalyst
Automatic
D 7 8X1 4
Ford Granada
1979
4 door
9W82F123952
26980
Spark Ignition
V8
302 CID
2V Carburetor
Unleaded
EGR
Air Pump
Catalyst
Automatic
ER78X14
Test Parameters:
Inertia Weight
HP @50 mph
3000
9.7
3500
12.0
4000
11.1
-------
12
Appendix '8
Test Results - Ford Pinto, 140 CID, 4 Cylinder
Test
Date
3-25-82
3-25-82
4- 1-82
4- 1-82
4-15-82
4-14-82
4-28-82
4-28-82
4-29-82
4-29-82
Test
#
2382
2383
2854
2853
2386
2362
2388
2389
2390
2391
Configuration
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Tur bo-Car b
Turbo- Garb
Tur bo-Car b
Turbo-Garb
Federal
HC CO
1.21 5.
1.16 4.
1.16 3.
1.26 3.
1.32 3.
Test
Procedure
NOx
14
44
01
68
80
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Appendix
Test
Date
4-14-82
5- 6-82
4-15-82
5- 6-82
4-27-82
4-27-82
4-28-82
4-28-82
Test
#
2374
2379
2380
3306
2375
2381
3142
3141
Test Results -
Configuration
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Turbo-Garb
Turbo-Garb
Turbo-Carb
Turbo-Carb
Plymouth
Federal
HC CO
.76 6.
.65 6.
.62 6.
.57 5.
62
.51
60
60
57
C
Volare,
Test
MPG
21.9
22.2
22.8
22.3
22.3
225 CID
.Procedure
NOx
99
26
49
66
1.
1.
1.
1.
25
23
25
27
MFC
19.2
19.2
18.9
19.0
Highway Fuel Economy Test
HC CO
.62 .73
.63 .72
.68 .64
.71 .87
.82 .87
, 6 Cylinder
Highway Fuel
HC CO
.92 22.87
.82 21.30
.15 4.12
.17 4.99
NOx
1.43
1.30
1.37
1.35
1.31
MPG
28.
29.
29.
28.
28.
4
2
6
6
8
Economy Test
NOx
.59
.54
.46
.44
MPG
26.
26.
25.
25.
1
3
9
9
-------
13
Appendix I)
Test Results - Ford Granada, 302 CID, 8 Cylinder
Test Test Federal Test Procedure Highway Fuel Economy Test
Date # Configuration HC CO NOx MPG H£ C£ NOx MFC
3-25-82 2357 Baseline .86 5.09 1.43 14.5
3-25-82 2358 Baseline .28 .69 2.22 20.4
3-29-82 2359 Baseline .90 4.36 1.48 14.6
3-29-82 2360 Baseline .28 .32 2.20 20.6
4-20-82 2363 Turbo-Carb . .96 4.90 1.45 15.1
4-20-82 2364 Turbo-Carb .30 .39 1.97 21.5
4-21-82 2365 Turbo-Carb .95 3.99 1.57 15.3
4-21-82 2366 Turbo-Carb .31 .10 1.94 21.6
4-22-82 3065 Turbo-Carb 1.06 3.79 1.53 15.2
4-22-82 3066 Turbo-Carb .31 .17 1.97 21.3
5-4-82 3264 Mod. Turbo-Carb(l) .96 5.70 1.51 14.9
5-4-82 3263 Mod. Turbo-Carb(l) .24 .14 2.22 21.3
5-6-82 3304 Mod. Turbo-Carb(l) .97 5.84 1.37 15.0
5-6-82 3305 Mod. Turbo-Carb(l) .26 .40 1.89 21.2
(l)The Turbo-Carb was modified by removing the screen and stationary props
for these tests.
-------
14
Appendix E
Turbo-Garb Installation Details
Pinto
The long replacement intake manifold to carburetor bolts provided with
the kit had SAE threads. However, the manifold required metric studs
which had to be fabricated.
Installation of the Turbo-Garb required the use of the old 1/4" insulator
gasket for throttle linkage clearance and this was covered in the
instructions. However, the outside bolt hole flanges of the Turbo-Garb
interferred with other manifold bolts and flanges. This problem was
solved by filing 1/8" off the lower edge of this outer flange. This
problem could also have been solved by the user purchasing and installing
a second insulating gasket.
Fabricated extension for throttle to automatic transmission kickdown
linkage and readjusted linkage.
Fabricated one inch spacer (including metric bolts) for throttle cable
bracket.
With the spacer installed, the surfaces of the Turbo-Garb aluminum block
halves were not true, thereby inducing a severe vacuum leak. The
external application of a silicone sealer on the block mating surfaces
did not cure the leak. The device was disassembled, the aluminum blocks
halves were sanded true, and the silicone Dealer was installed between
all mating surfaces (being careful to ensure the sealer did not block
screen passages). This cured the vacuum leak. Note the instructions
specifically state "DO NOT USE GASKET SEALER ON FACE or MOUNTING SURFACE
OF GASKETS I" According to the inventor this is to prevent the screen
from being blocked by excess sealer.
Since the inventor was present at this time, he was informed that EPA
intended to use a sealer to stop the vacuum leak.
The time required for the installation was 8 hours. this included the
time required to fabricate the various hardware bits, readjust the
linkages, and correct the vacuum leaks.
Volare
The Turbo-Garb device was installed on f.he vehicle using the long
replacement intake manifold to carburetor studs provided.
Fabricated extension for rod from bimetallic choke to carburetor and
readjusted choke linkage.
-------
15
Fabricated extension for throttle to automatic transmission linkage and
readjust linkage. With the Turbo-Garb installed the air cleaner stud
interferred with the hood closing and would need to be about 1/2 inch
shorter or the hood raised 1/2 inch.
The time required for the installation was 2 1/2 hours.
Granada
The Granada, like the Pinto, intake manifold also required metric
carburetor stud bolts.
Bent and reworked manifold heat tube to meet raised choke coil.
Bent and reworked hot air tube from engine to meet raised air cleaner.
Fabricated extension for the throttle to automatic transmission kickdown
linkage and radjusted linkage.
This was the first vehicle on which the device was installed.
Installation required 2 3/4 hours.
-------
APPENDIX F 16
FUEL'&mG ¥APOB EMB&ZEB
IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, BEFORE INSTALLATION!
1. Check hood clearance between air-cleaner and hood on your vehicle: You will need 1 inch all models, except 4-barrel quad &
spread bore, 1V» inch needed, less present gaskets. TO CHECK, put thickness of fresh bread on high point of air cleaner. Close
hood, open, and if bread is compressed, reduce, by thickness of present gasket to find needed clearance, and/or if possible to
install on your vehicle. NOTE: Hood may possibly be adjusted at the hinges and latch, and/or insulation, if any, over the air
cleaner cut out, to get added clearance.
2. Turbo-Garb is larger than some carburetor bases. Check for clearance around carburetor, humps or bolts sticking up on
manifold, air-conditioning and other engine components that might provent a good seal. A thicker gasket, size of carburetor
base, may give you clearance.
3. Check length of mounting bolts enclosed in comparison to those of 1he engine. Must be 1 inch longer, 1V. on 4-barrel quad
and spread bore types. May be cut off, if too long.
4. Check length of gas line for height needed. Longer hose or metal line* may be obtained from your local auto store, but prob-
ably will not be needed. On metal line, a splice of gasoline hose may bo made by cutting metal line, slipping hose over ends,
and clamping.
5. Check to see if you will need some large spacer nuts, washers and longer bolts to raise the mounting bracket of throttle con-
trol cables. Also check hose connections for extra length needed if any. Due to the many different applications we do not at-
tempt to supply any of the parts. ALSO—On exhaust routhed METAL SPACER applications, you may need a NEW GASKET be-
tween spacer and manifold, generally a dealer stock item.
6. Gather all tools'and parts needed before installation. For a more accurate TEST to find your mileage gain, you should test
your vehicle right before installation of fuel saver and right after installation. As weather conditions and engine conditions can
sometimes change, which may vary your results, put your vehicle in top condition before testing! By checking points, plugs,
plug wires, distributor cap, rotor, coil condenser, air cleaner, PCV vaflve, carburetor and choke for proper adjustment, and
engine oil. Replace needed parts. Use top quality parts, especially plug wires; one plug misfiring in a 4-cylinder engine is like
losing 25% mileage upward and overloading the other 3 cylinders.
FUEL FACTS:
1. Radial tires have less rolling resistance, and will give you greater mileage. Also, wide tires and mud & snow tires will reduce
your mileage. Keep tire pressure at maximum levels.
2. At 50 MPH each 10'F. drop in temperature will lower gas mileage by about 2".
3. A 500 Ib. gain in weight tends to reduce fuel economy by between (2) and (5) miles per gallon. A 2,500 Ib. car will tend to get
twice the gas mileage of one weighing 5,000 Ibs.
4. An automatic transmission can reduce fuel economy by up to 15%.
5. A 10% increase in your speed (from 50 to 55 MPH) will require a 33% increase in the horsepower, and more fuel needed to
overcome AIR RESISTANCE.
6. LOW OCTANE GAS, OPEN WINDOWS, ACCESSORIES ON, WET or SNOW-COVEHED PAVEMENT, UPGRADED PAVEMENT,
CROSSWIND OR FRONTAL WIND ALL tend to reduce mileage, possibly up to 5 MPG.
HOW TO TEST MILEAGE
It is probably impossible to get an accurate test of city driving, due to traffic jams, more or less stops and more or less waiting
time. For a more accurate test, pick a calm non-windy day, drive to the nearest NON-stop highway or interstate where there is a
fuel station and fill your vehicle's tank to V, inch from entrance of fill spout. Some vehicles take time to do this due to air en-
trapment. Write your mileage down. Each TEST should have the same weather, temperature and road conditions, the same
LOAD and tire pressure. Move out easy on the accelerator and try to drive at an even 50 MPH in all tests. Drive 20 miles or more
from start, then return to same fuel pump, same station, same spot. As many stations have their paving downgraded in various
directions, which makes it possible for your fuel to find a different levul in your tank, or air entrapment. Refill tank as before.
Then divide the number of miles traveled, by the number of gallons used. Figure to the nearest 10th of a gallon and mile.
Remember your best mileage is when it's hot and humid. If temperature fluctuates between tests, you can calculate it by using
the 2° formula as previously mentioned.
INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS
1. Check manifold vacuum at idle before removing carburetor. NOTE: A vacuum gauge is a low cost investment to analyze and
adjust your engine.
2. Remove air-cleaner, and hoses to air cleaner.
3. Remove throttle control cables and transmission linkage if any.
4. Disconnect gas line at carburetor.
5. Make diagram of carburetor, and all connecting hoses. Identify each hose with white tape or labels, numbered or etc.; then
remove from carburetor.
6. Disconnect electric choke, or-manifold heat control rod. Remove throttle springs and any other connections to carburetor.
7. Remove mounting bolts and lift carburetor off. Handle carefully so as not to damage any part. Also, be careful and don't drop
any parts into manifold! Now check turbo-carb for bolt hole location on your old gasket. Some models have thin KNOCK OUT
TABS in castings and gaskets if needed. Knock out ONLY the parts that BLOCK old mounting gasket HOLES. Tap metal knock
-------
17
outs towards the inside of hole with screwdriver and hammer. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS, Model 2 and 2A ONLY: On some
engines you may need to use your old insulater gasket for throttle linkage or prop clearance—check before tightening car-
buretor down! Enclosed in kit is an extra '/,» gasket, which will allow you to use a gasket on each side of your o
-------
INCREASED GAS MILEAG
18,
\
APPENDIX G
Up to 38% Increase—5 More Miles Per Gallon—Smpother Running Engine—Improv-
ed Performance—Ping Eliminated—Easy Installation. THINK OF IT! Even a 10% IN-
CREASE would be like receiving 12 cents EXTRA GASOLINE per gallon mat you Puy
a; Si.20 per gallon! Oon't be looted oy the claims ot those who offer devices to in-
crease mileage, but actually restrict me How ol air and reduce engine power. (Win-
dow Screen (255) Holes oer sq. inch. SLOCKS OUT aOout 40% AIR FLOW). The
PATENTED TUR80-CAR8 compensates (or AIR restriction Oy redirecting the Mow ot air
frpm :ne carouretor through an Enlarged Air Cfiamoer. CARBURETOR MANUALS say.
i. Raising your Carouretor Up, 2. Atomizing the Fuel (or better Vaporizing. 3. Giving
:ne Fuel Mixture "urouiance, ALL tend to give IMPROVED Distribution, Scpnomy, Per-
formance. Less Polution and Longer Engine Life. TUR80-CARB Provides ALL (3) ot
those FEATURES! Place a drop ot liquid on your dot intake manifold and watch it
soread out. but a line micro-size speck will instantly vaoprize! A course spray and
large drops ot fuel pass from carburetor into intake manifold, making it almost im-
oossioie to completely vaporize and mix with the right amount ot air. You see why
much ot your fuel is wasted and not burned! That's one reason car manufacturers
use a catalytic converter in the exhaust system to Purn the unourned gas. wnich
snpuld nave been burnt in the engine! With tne PATENTED TURBO-CARS fuel saver,
large liquid oropiets of fuel are broken into a fine micro-size particles. With a poten-
tial of i 0,000 per square inch! This makes the fuel much easier to vaporize, while a
stationary proo prpvides propulsion turbulence to mix and direct the "log-like"
atomized fuel against the hot intake manifold walls, for more complete vaporizing,
energizing and economy! With less pollution ot hydro caroons and longer engine life!
TUR80-CAR8 fuel saver has unique PATENTED FEATURES! Why not SPINNING
PROPS? 3ecause the AIR FLOW Controls the Props. SO Where's Resistance to cause
Turpulance and Mix? STATIONARY PROPS Tested an increase over the Spinning
Props! There are no moving parts to wear out. or electrical parts to burn out.
Screen—flED HOT 5 Min. SLOW TORCH Tested without any defects except discolora-
tion! Also cesigned to prevent stalling of engine from the possibility of temporary ic-
ing ot screen ounng warm up. And it's safe when properly installed. Mounts under
carouretor. mounting instructions. Sous and gaskets included.
HOW TO ORDER:
i. Check wnicn model needed oetow. Must know me numoer of barrets, as single and douole/or
douoie and four oarret are sometimes standard on me same engine model.
2. CSsex nood clearance Between air wni inn 'mi
-------
19
APPENDIX H
INCREASED GAS MILEAGE UP TO
35%
WITH
FVEL-SAV1HG VAPOR EHEEGIZER
U.S. PATENT NO. 4,163,436
IN TEST SESULTS:
THINK OF IT! <•>«< i 20% INCREASE «ouid oe like getting 24 c«» »TBA
3ASOLIN6 3« gallon i droo ol liquid on your not imam marutotd ana watcn
: soread out. am a lira menma ssacx will insanity vaoomtt A couru toray and
:arqe arooi ol luei pa» Irem caraurnor into intax* mjmlota. .naxinq ir amoa im-
MUIOM to camomeiy vaoonn and rmi wun in* ngnt amount a in. You *•• wny
Tiucn at rour hj« u wastM ana mt Ourn«d< "Mi's ant ruun car manufacnirwi
js« a cataiyiic conventf in mi jinauil system to ourn mi unournM gas. «nien
mould nav« omn ournt in in* engine! Will) me P4T5NT50 TURBO-CAfla lu« saver.
•irgs Ikiuid arooieu ol lu« v« oro«efl into a line micro-me OJrtraes. 'Him a ooten-
'Mi a 10.000 oer wuari incn! Ttiis maud me luei mucn easier to vaoorizi. onile a
natranary oroo orovMei oroouium mrouience to mix ana dirta me "oq-d«e '
nomnea run aaainst ;ne not mtaite manuoto wart], lor more comoieo «aoari2inq,
enerquinq ano ecanomyt wrrn IMS ooiiutnn ol fworo cartxms and longer engine life'
rUHM-OHB luei »av«» nas un«ju« PATENTED FEATURES! Why not SPINNING
?10PS7 Seauu me AIS FLOW Comroii mt i>rtnu. SO wnere 5 Aejunnct 10 cauu
'uraulanct and Mix? STATIONARY PROPS Tejtad an Increu* ov«r mt Somning
?f0ost There are no mownq pans to wear out. -at ewaneal oans to Ourn out.-or
-JUM louiinq or stalling at your engine! And it's sale wnen grootrry instilled.
founts under carourerar. mounting instructions, 00111 and gasiers included.
•< canoreasno. '«ouc» oy mRiiMwi tf QTMIM
•^WM ra HIM HMOM aaaaa. am/or n OOUMW to untaM on your vnwt.
•40 TE. Hooa may OOIMIV o« MMUIIO al me nii^es ana laitn. ana/or inwunan it any ovvr tne «r
::san«r cul out ta 4M aooto OMranca.
•10. i
10. 2>
:ta Carter ro.
SINGLE 9ADIIH. 12-m omy). US ana FOREIGN lain, .ncmaim) UM-mfl rnxm arm.
:OU9l£ 3AB86L. iimoa. 3uisun Toma inc. 2an tnaxw. Jiraa. Oa«. luoi.
Suuru. VOI»J»«Q«B JUHM. Jamr 3arooa
3QU8LE 34SR6L. (2 14 ooo>. 'J3 rain me. AMC 1 SMC 1980 i 81 4 ey lil ana ,'^-
: H. ina inaM uilea n uoaei 281 ranCKiN mm—<.u«. rian. Goaqe Cat. CWMnqer. *
^ymouin Arrow, uncer. Saoooro. Caari. '3jun«r. fiat. vomsvMqen "»«n mmy 2UOcaro
:OU8U 5AHRH—5J4C V6 1979-91 '96. <00. 223 ana !31 nogm 4- >iu: OMC V8
» « im> ..-.. ;977-T9 301 978-81 290. 1979-81 297 ana 305 enaHiM
V8l9«7-74 CMC V8 I9S7-58. Olrvjier y
V8 I9J7-74 mm 33ICJ 4 a«0 tan
^US 9ASR6L. Soruo Soft 4 duaaram— *«C v« 1975-78. n»a V8 I975-78 ana
I972-74 35ICJ ana "JO I»m:>. CMC V9 >96S-ai aiuailltl. Cnryver v9 1971-91 Cartv .
TQ caro. I tan JM« «
SOTS. 5hw»r«i«» uiu*«y mao» w^n«i 49 nours 01 recmat ol your oratr •**«* itmnntifs oermtf. A
:nmea suooy n a»a»woi« lor mnMuie anvoy ana UOUWMIH oram ««i 04 niwa ai won is ya-
auction n ao« 10 nim oerrwio. Peue aiiov uo 10 1601 oay« lor oewwy.
•; Ca**-v» 11*9 » rUCITT WMUCT] CO . int MJ. KiOKIS MSim»
OIE CAST ALUMINUM
MOUNTING HOLES
STATIONARY ?
MUC FOR AMEXICAN ANO FOREIGN VEHICU3
STAInCcii STHL
SCSEcN 10.000
HOLES ?S» SO. KiCH
AIR CHAM6EB TO
IMPROVE GAS/AIR
MIXTURE
MAMIFOUl IHTiXf
?S£i 30 OAT TRIAL— 41 lor any riijon you an no( roily latatitd win your
jurctUM al i TUR83-4UHS. rmirn vnlltin 31 djyi arm tietnery lor FULL 3E-
FUNOI Any unri wiuu Mi to ooente orooerrf Hue I) mimiUctunno, errar.
fuqerl ("TMuca CA.. Inc.. alien FDEE »art rioucimini jemct on any pin
rmimetf wiUim S mwlM ol purcmu, iniutunon or refflinM eictuaea.
?UC£ YOUR ORDER NCiW As mere is a LIMITED SUPPLY. II otmana is greater man
•m are looted uo lor. it .nay lane momns to re-foenf So rtvrryt Get your order in early.
Oon t oe lert out! Order on* lor eacn vemcte! Ana Save* Airogt ana nanowig f*tO
n«n oraer a two or mar* TURBO-CARBS!
SAVE! S3.QO EACH—OR08I WITHIN 10 OATI a^ POSTMARK ANO OEOUCT
FHOM PRICE ON COUPON—induce tanimra a> Preoi.
FUGETT PRODUCT:; ra.. INC. s.a. 2 aox 2:1 GASTON. IN 4/3*2 i
MOO*: FE3 » S31 -.
i a' 2A a 22 29 a 4 a -uia
Phis 22.00 Pntage ana Hanaiino,
POSJ PSKl on Qraen at rwa or mam I
;M. ft«iae«n Ad* 4% SA|'.
/rrtfo \ 2.JL. •/...•;-,' !
C1TV- ^TATE:
719- PMnNS
------- |