ENGINEERING RESEARCH &
APPLICATION Ltd U.K.
Report on fuel consumption and power testing for XcelPlus (tested under a private label)
Introduction
E.R.A. Limited was
approached and agreed to undertake on a purely commercial basis, a series of
tests for XcelPlus. It was explained by
XcelPlus that they had developed a friction
modifier that would reduce frictional losses and therefore improve fuel
consumption and power.
Tests were agreed on a "back to back", these tests are described on page 3
of this report under sub heading Test Procedure. XcelPlus was to be responsible for for the vehicle
outside E.R.A. premises, it was, therefore, necessary to conduct Check Tests
to carry our Engine analysis against Manufacturing
tolerances.
The first series of Tests were carried out on the 16th April, 1986. Prior to
the test the vehicle was checked and found to be within
manufacturers specified parameters. Oil levels were visually observed
but complete investigation of lubricating fluids was not undertaken. It was
agreed that
XcelPlus would introduce the friction modifier to the engine, gear box, and
back axle and after driving the vehicle for 1,000 miles the said
vehicle would be returned and the second series of tests were undertaken
after first checking engine "set-up" and conducting the tests under as near
identical conditions as possible.
Conclusions
1. At a steady 90
K.P.H. on the chassis dynamometer there was an
improvement in fuel consumption of 5.15 %
or 2.29 MPG. (1 km/L) between Test 1 and Test 2.
This difference is more than would be expected due to experimental error and
indicates a genuine improvement.
2. At a steady 120 K.P.H. on chassis dynamometer there was an
improvement in fuel consumption of 11.32 %
or 4.28 mpg (1.8 km/L), between Test 1 and Test2.
This difference is considerably more than would be expected due to
experimental error, and indicated a substantial improvement.
3. Urban testing, to E.E.C. , procedures, showed
a
7.0 % improvement for Test 2
compared with Test 1, once again indicating a substantial gain.
4. Rear wheel power was checked in both Test 1 and Test 2 vehicle "as
received" conditions.
A
substantial increase in power in
favour of Test 2 was obtained throughout the
operating range of the engine.
5. A series of "Run Down" tests were undertaken clearly indicating that the
Test 2 "as received" condition exhibited
much less friction resistance from the power train than in Test 1.
6. The vehicle had accumulated 1,000 miles more between the tests, Test 1
being at 33,000 and Test 2 at approximately 34,000 miles.
Comments
It is our opinion
that the improvement in fuel consumption and power between Test 1 and Test 2
were genuine and taking into account experimental error represented
a considerable improvement.
The best results supplied, are those achieved having checked the vehicle at
E.R.A. and setting up to manufacturer's basic specifications were necessary.
The difference in fuel consumption and power between the two tests is what
could be expected if the Friction Modifier did in fact reduce friction in
the power train.
Based on the results obtained, the frictional losses were reduced between
the two tests.
We have been assured that the only
difference between the two tests was the addition of the Friction Modifier
XcelPlus. This being the case, the
conclusions given in our report are valid.
Finally, the tests undertaken were purely associated with measuring fuel
consumption and power under exact laboratory controlled
conditions, no other opinions concerning possible detrimental effects
of the friction modifier were asked or given.
Reported by: A. Braddon,
Approved by : J. Senior
Engineering Research and Application Limited
Customer: XcelPlus
Summary of Test Results
Vehicle: Ford Capri 2.0 L
A.
Fuel Consumption
|
Speed |
Average (MPG) |
Average (MPG) |
Increase |
|
Steady Rate 90 kph (56.25 mph) |
44.48 |
46.44 |
+4.4 % |
|
Steady rate 120 kph (75.0 mph) |
37.82 |
42.10 |
+11.3 % |
|
Urban Cycle (ECE Procedure) |
23.70 |
25.36 |
+7.0 % |
B. Power Curve
(Rear wheels 3rd gear)
|
Engine RPM |
Test
# 1 (Kw) |
Test
# 2 (Kw) |
Increase |
|
1500 |
15.80 |
17.60 |
+1.8 (11.4 %) |
|
2000 |
21.00 |
24.60 |
+3.6 (17.1 %) |
|
2500 |
28.10 |
31.50 |
+3.4 (12.1 %) |
|
3000 |
32.20 |
38.30 |
+6.1 (18.9 %) |
|
3500 |
39.20 |
44.40 |
+5.2 (13.3 %) |
|
4000 |
44.90 |
49.80 |
+4.9 (10.9 %) |
|
4500 |
47.70 |
53.60 |
+5.9 (12.4 %) |
|
5000 |
49.40 |
53.60 |
+4.2 (8.5 %) |
|
5500 |
48.30 |
53.00 |
+4.7 (9.7 %) |
C. Run downs 70
to 20 MPH in 4th Gear (5 tests run on each occasion )
|
Run |
Test
# 1 (seconds) |
Test
# 2 (seconds) |
Increase |
|
1 |
45.73 |
47.9 |
+2.17 |
|
2 |
46.52 |
48.3 |
+1.78 |
|
3 |
46.95 |
48.7 |
+1.75 |
|
4 |
46.52 |
49.0 |
+2.48 |
|
5 |
46.98 |
49.4 |
+2.42 |
|
Average |
46.54 |
48.66 |
+2.12 s (+4.6 %) |
