TÜV (Germany)
TÜV is a prestigious motor test lab in Germany
Test Report: No. D4-TPT 351 - 051 - 86
Nature of test
Tests on a private car to investigate the effects of an addition
to the motor, gear box and differential oils
Product Name: XcelPlus (while under another private label)
1. Purpose of the tests
According to the customer's instructions, the effect of "XcelPlus" when
added to normally available engine and gears oils with regard to the reduction
of friction losses as well as related changes in fuel consumption and exhaust
gas emissions should be established.
2. Test vehicle
Manufacturer:
|
Ford (Germany) |
Model Name:
|
Granada 2.3 |
Type:
|
GU |
Chassis No:
|
GAGFUG 39020 |
First
Registered: |
27.02.80 |
Max. engine
power: |
79 kW @ 5000 RPM |
3. Tests conducted
3.1 Check of the idling setting of the engine
3.2 Fuel consumption measurement - DIN 70030 (ECE - R 15/04 Annex 9)
3.3 Coast-down on the dynamometer
3.4 Exhaust gas measurement - ECE Regulation 15/04
4. Measuring equipment and test devices
4.1 Motor tester from Robert Bosch: Compact Test motor tester MOT 500 ignition oscilloscope MOT 400 report printer PDR 100 pressure and vacuum tester ETT 007.01
4.2 Dynamometer from Schenck: Type 500 / GS 60
4.3 Exhaust gas analyser: Horiba CVS - 61 2
4.4 CO measuring device: ULTRAMAT 13 P with NDIR analysors
5. Procedures carried out on the test vehicle
To establish the original values, all the tests listed under (3) above were
first carried out with the original oils still in the vehicle. The engine
settings as idle were found to be in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications (Motor Data)
Following this, the engine, gear box and differential oils were replaced with
oils to which XcelPlus was added according to the manufacturer's
instructions.
Engine oil: 3.50 L Valvoline All Climate 10 W 40 + 0.75 L XcelPlus
Gear box: 1.50 L Castrol EP 80 + 0.50 L XcelPlus
Differential: 1.30 L Castrol Hypoy 90 + 0.50 L XcelPlus
After a running - in period of about 2,750 km, all tests listed under (3) above
were repeated.
To avoid as far as possible external factors influencing the test series, as far
as possible the tests were conducted with the same engine settings, with
adjustments being made as necessary. Also, new oil and air filters and new spark
plugs were fitted, and the engine idling speed was set back before the start of
the second series of tests from 900 RPM to 800 RPM.
For the duration of the tests the bonnet was plumbed, and the oil filler holes
were sealed with sealing paint.
After running about 1,500 km of the running-in period had elapsed, about 0.6 L
of motor oil was needed to top up; after the further 1,250 km a further 0.3 L was
required. The seals were on both occasions found to be undamaged.
In spite of extensive elimination of factors which could have lead to a
distortion of test results, the figures in (6) below include the inevitable
spread resulting from the practical tolerances present in the test drives and
their measurement. The figures in (6) can therefore, because of the lack of
statistical certainty involved, not be taken as absolute. However, the possible
spread in the measurements is smaller than the computed changes which were
established during the second series of tests.
6. Test results
|
Base Values |
After
Values |
Change |
|
Normal
Oil |
+
XcelPlus |
|
Odometer (km) |
46,950 |
49,700 |
2,750 |
Engine
Idling Settings |
|
|
|
Idle
speed (RPM) |
820 |
800 |
-20 |
Motor
Oil Temp (ºC) |
93 |
94 |
|
CO
Concentration (Vol %) |
1.6 |
1.53 |
-4.4 % |
Fuel
Consumption (L/100 km) |
|
|
|
City
Cycle |
13.91 |
13.22 |
-4.96 % |
90 km/h |
7.82 |
7.41 |
-5.24 % |
120 km/h |
9.91 |
9.54 |
-3.73 % |
Average (DIN 70030) |
10.6 |
10.1 |
-4.7 % |
Time
To Coast Down (average N=2) seconds |
45.93 |
54.70 |
+19.1 % |
Exhaust Values: ECE Test (average N=2) |
|
|
|
CO
(g/test) |
41.72 |
48.40 |
+16.0 % |
HC
(g/test) |
12.78 |
12.31 |
-3.7 % |
NOx
(g/test) |
7.79 |
6.25 |
-19.8 % |
HC +
NOx (g/test) |
20.57 |
18.55 |
-9.8 % |
7. Summary of results
The reduction of the frictional losses in the
test vehicle are evidenced most clearly by the considerably longer coast - down
time (19.1 %) on the test rig. They gave an
improvement in fuel consumption of 4.7 % in
the ECE mix. The changes in the exhaust gas emissions come less from the use of
XcelPlus than from the vehicle and / or motor settings. They fall more or less
within the scatter area expected in such measurements.
However, the reduction in Nitrous Oxides emissions can be attributed - at least
by inference - to the lower frictional losses in the engine through the use of
XcelPlus.
There were further tests made, beyond the main scope of this report, which
brought
no negative results; among these
were for example, an investigation for possible fluorine or other acidic
combinations in the XcelPlus treated engine and the gear - box oils, and in the
exhaust gases which could have been undesirable for the environment or for the
vehicle.
When the spark plugs were changed before each series of tests, the
compression of the cylinders was measured.
While the peripheral measurements - such as the battery voltage were not made,
which would have allowed an unrestricted confirmation of the readings taken, the
improvement measured - about 7.5 psi per
cylinder - infers an improvement in the sealing of the cylinders
In summary, it is confirmed that the test
described above under sections 3-6 showed a measurable reduction in the
frictional losses of the test vehicle through the addition of XcelPlus to the
engine, gear box and back axle oils. No negative effects resulted from the
treatment.
|