Gas Saving Devices You Should Avoid And Why
Gas Saving Devices You Should Avoid And Why by Gregg Hall
Most gas saving devices available in the market may actually save gas but on the other hand may adversely affect the quality of gas emission. The EPA describes these devices as below: "Indicated a very small improvement in fuel economy but with an increase in exhaust emissions. According to Federal regulations, installation of this device could be considered illegal tampering"
Let's now look at a set of products that you should ideally stay away from.
Fuel-Max
In June 1981, EPA tested this device manufactured by Fuel Injection Development Corporation. This is an air bleed device. The EPA test results showed a mere increase in mileage in the range of 1.6% to 4.0%. Although the product showed decrease in carbon monoxide emission and also considerable reduction in hydro-carbon generation, it showed substantial increase in the emission of Nitrogen Oxide, which eventually brought the product down.
Waag-Injection System
In Waag Injection system a reservoir of a 50% mixture of water and alcohol is used in the combustion chamber. The EPA conclusions are as follows:
"In summary, throughout all three phases of the test work reported on the W/A Waag-Injection system, significant increases were found in fuel economy; however corresponding increases were found in regulated emissions, both as measured from the vehicles manufacturer's specifications.
It should be noted that although the fuel economy increases observed were statistically significant under controlled laboratory conditions, the magnitudes of these increases were small. The magnitudes of the corresponding and also statistically significant increases in regulated emissions were larger and require further development to eliminate."
ACDS Automotive Cylinder Deactivation System
Finally, the ACDS Automotive Cylinder Deactivation System was meant to deactivate 4 of the 8 cylinders in an eight cylinder engine. It was tested by the EPA in 1981.
The EPA conclusions are as follows:
1. "The operation of a vehicle on four cylinders through the use of the ACDS hardware did cause a substantial increase in vehicle emissions to levels exceeding the applicable 1979 standards. Co-emissions were typically increased several times to levels near or above the standards.
2. NOx emissions were typically twice the standard. These emissions violate the tampering provisions of the Clean Air Act."
3. "The operation of a vehicle on 4 cylinders through the use of ACDS hardware did improve fuel economy 5 to 16% for FTP and 3 to 20% for HFET for those 8 cylinder vehicles tested, but with the associated emission increases described above."
4. "The vehicles had poor drivability when using the ACDS to operate on 4 cylinders.
5. Vehicle acceleration times were substantially increased when the vehicles were operated with 4 cylinders using ACDS. The acceleration times were typically double the comparable times for 8 cylinder operation.
6. The operation of a vehicle on 4 cylinders cause a serious loss of breaking power assistance under some driving conditions.
The EPA website provides comprehensive information on what product to use and what not. It is important that as a consumer you do not get fooled by the long drawn testimonials that all promotional material include.
Gregg Hall is an author living on the Emerald Coast of Florida. Now that you know a little more about gas saving devices be sure that you get gas saving products by going to http://www.nsearch.com
Article Source: http://articles.directorygold.com
For more articles on Automotive visit the DirectoryGold Article Directory
For links to sites on Autos visit the DirectoryGold Web Directory
Most gas saving devices available in the market may actually save gas but on the other hand may adversely affect the quality of gas emission. The EPA describes these devices as below: "Indicated a very small improvement in fuel economy but with an increase in exhaust emissions. According to Federal regulations, installation of this device could be considered illegal tampering"
Let's now look at a set of products that you should ideally stay away from.
Fuel-Max
In June 1981, EPA tested this device manufactured by Fuel Injection Development Corporation. This is an air bleed device. The EPA test results showed a mere increase in mileage in the range of 1.6% to 4.0%. Although the product showed decrease in carbon monoxide emission and also considerable reduction in hydro-carbon generation, it showed substantial increase in the emission of Nitrogen Oxide, which eventually brought the product down.
Waag-Injection System
In Waag Injection system a reservoir of a 50% mixture of water and alcohol is used in the combustion chamber. The EPA conclusions are as follows:
"In summary, throughout all three phases of the test work reported on the W/A Waag-Injection system, significant increases were found in fuel economy; however corresponding increases were found in regulated emissions, both as measured from the vehicles manufacturer's specifications.
It should be noted that although the fuel economy increases observed were statistically significant under controlled laboratory conditions, the magnitudes of these increases were small. The magnitudes of the corresponding and also statistically significant increases in regulated emissions were larger and require further development to eliminate."
ACDS Automotive Cylinder Deactivation System
Finally, the ACDS Automotive Cylinder Deactivation System was meant to deactivate 4 of the 8 cylinders in an eight cylinder engine. It was tested by the EPA in 1981.
The EPA conclusions are as follows:
1. "The operation of a vehicle on four cylinders through the use of the ACDS hardware did cause a substantial increase in vehicle emissions to levels exceeding the applicable 1979 standards. Co-emissions were typically increased several times to levels near or above the standards.
2. NOx emissions were typically twice the standard. These emissions violate the tampering provisions of the Clean Air Act."
3. "The operation of a vehicle on 4 cylinders through the use of ACDS hardware did improve fuel economy 5 to 16% for FTP and 3 to 20% for HFET for those 8 cylinder vehicles tested, but with the associated emission increases described above."
4. "The vehicles had poor drivability when using the ACDS to operate on 4 cylinders.
5. Vehicle acceleration times were substantially increased when the vehicles were operated with 4 cylinders using ACDS. The acceleration times were typically double the comparable times for 8 cylinder operation.
6. The operation of a vehicle on 4 cylinders cause a serious loss of breaking power assistance under some driving conditions.
The EPA website provides comprehensive information on what product to use and what not. It is important that as a consumer you do not get fooled by the long drawn testimonials that all promotional material include.
Gregg Hall is an author living on the Emerald Coast of Florida. Now that you know a little more about gas saving devices be sure that you get gas saving products by going to http://www.nsearch.com
Article Source: http://articles.directorygold.com
For more articles on Automotive visit the DirectoryGold Article Directory
For links to sites on Autos visit the DirectoryGold Web Directory
Labels: Automotive
posted by Foodie at 2:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home