Approval Details

Valid E.O.

Validity

This Executive Order approved the specified parts on on March 30, 1983.
As of Thursday, August 22nd, 2019 this Executive Order has not been overturned or superceeded.

Approved Parts

Models
1983 and older model year vehicle with vacuum-operated PCV systems, EXCEPT: (1) Diesel powered vehicles, (2) Fuel injected vehicles

This Executive Order may be listed as:
  • C.A.R.B.E.O. D-125
  • Executive Order 125 / D125
  • ARB # D-125
  • Executive Order No: D-125
  • C.A.R.B. No. D-125
  • Resolution D-125
For Free CARB Executive Order Status verification, email an image of the device Executive Order label as well as the Year/Make/Model and Test Group # of the vehicle to [email protected]

Download: Executive Order D-125 PDF

D-125 Document:



                                                                    (Page 1 of 2)


                               State of California
                               AIR RESQOURCES BOARD

                              EXECUTIVE ORDER D—125
          Relating to Exenptions under Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code

                               PATRON INCORPORATED
                       "HYDROPOWER WATER INJECTION SYSTEM"

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Air Resources Board by Section 27156
of the Vehicle Code; and     ©

Pursuant to the authority vested in the undersigned by Sections 39515 and
39516 of the Health and Safety Code and Executive Order G—45—5;

 IT IS ORDERED AND RESOLVED: That the installation of Hydropower Water
 Injection System manufactured by PatRon Incorporated, 1700 Waurika, P.0. Box
 1741, Elkhart, Indiana 46515 has been found not to.reduce the effectiveness
 of required motor vehicle pollution control devices and, therefore, is
 exempted from the prohibitions of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code for 1983
 and older model—year vehicles with conventional, vacuum operated, positive
 crankcase ventilation systems except for:

     1.     diesel engine powered vehicles
     2.     gasoline fuel injected engine powered vehicles
This Executive Order is valid provided that installation instruction for
this device will not recommend tuning the vehicle to specifications
different from those submitted by the device manufacturer.

 Changes made to the design or operating conditions of the device, as
 exempted by the Air Resources Board, that adversely affect the performance
 of a vehicle‘s pollution control system shall invalidate this Executive
Order.                                                          —

Marketing of this device using an identification other than that shown in
this Executive Order or marketing of this device for an application other
 than those lTisted in this Executive Order shall be prohibited unless prior
—approval is obtained from the Air Resources Board.    Exemption of a kit shall
not be construed as an exemption to sell, offer for sale or advertise any
component of a kit as an individual device,.
This Executive Order does not constitute any opinion as to the effect that
the use of this device may have on any warranty either expressed or implied
by the vehicle manufacturer.

THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CERTIFICATION, ACCREDITATION,
APPROVAL, OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENDORSEMENT BY THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD CF ANY
CLAIMS OF THE APPLICANT CONCERNING ANTI—POLLUTION BENEFITS OR AKY ALLEGED
BENEFITS OF THE HYDROPOWER WATER INJECTION SYSTEM.


PATRON INCORPORATED                                     EXECUTIVE ORDER D—125
"HYDROPOWER WATER INJECTION SYSTEM"                     (Page 2 of 2)


No claim of any kind, such as "Approved by Air Resources Board" may be made
with respect to the action taken herein in any advertising or other oral or
written communication.

Section 17500 of the Business and Professions Code makes untrue or
misleading advertising unlawful, and Section 17534 makes violation
punishable as a misdemeanor.

Section 43644 of the Health and Safety Code provides as follows:
    "43644. (a) No person shall install, sell, offer for sale, or
    advertise, or, except in an application to the state board for
    certification of a device, represent, any device as a motor vehicle
    pollution control device for use on any used vehicle unless that
    device has been certified by the state board.    No person shall
    sell, offer for sale, advertise, or represent any motor vehicle
    pollution control device as a certified device which, in fact, is
    not a certified device.   Any violation of this subdijvision is a
    misdemeanor."

Any apparent violation of the conditions of this Executive Order will be
sgbmitged to the Attorney General of California for such action as he deems
advisable.


Executed at E1 Monte, California, this    éagjgfl_day of )        1983.




                                         K. D. Drachand, Chief
                                         Mobile Source Control Division


                                              Issue Date:   March 3, 1983




                    EVALUATION OF THE PATRON INCORPORATED‘S
                 HYDROPOWER WATER INJECTION SYSTEM DEVICE IN
               COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 27156
                         OF THE CALIFORNIA VEKICLE CODE




                                      by
                        Mobile Source Control Division
                              State of California
                              Air Resources Board
                              9528 Telstar Avenue
                                 E1 Monte, CA
                                     91731



(This report has been reviewed by the staff of the California Air Resources
Board and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources
Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.)


              State of California
              AIR RESOURCES BOARD




     EVALUATION OF THE PATRON INCORPORATED‘S
   HYDROPOWER WATER INJECTION SYSTEM DEVICE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 27156
          OF THE CALIFORNIA VEKHICLE CODE




                 March 3, 1983 —


                                      SUMMARY



      PatRon Incorporated of Elkhart, Indiana, applied for exemption from the

prohibitions in Section 27156 of the California Vehicle Code for their

"Hydropower Water Injection System" device.     The applicant has requested that

exemption be granted for all vehicles equipped with carbureted gasoline

engines.

      Two—1981, one—1982, and one—1983, model—year vehicles were used for the

evaluation of this device.     The vehicles were tested using back—to—back

(baseline and with—device) CVYS—75 and Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET)

procedures.    Bench flow tests were performed for determining the maximum flow
rates of the device.
      The test data on the original device showed the following:

      1.      The CVS—75 test results indicate that the Hydropower device, when

set to the manufacturer‘s specifications, will have little effects on

emissions from the test vehicles.

      2.      These CVS—75 and HFET tests also show that the device has little
effect on fuel economy of the test vehicle(s).
      3.      The test data also show that the device, when operating under the

worst case condition (maximum flow), will cause an increase in HC emissions
from a small—size engine.


      The applicant modified the control head with a flow Timiter and

submitted it to the staff for an engineering evaluation.   The bench flow test

data on the modified device show that the flow permitted by the preset spring

loaded check valve in conjunction with the adjustable flow control valve and

air bleed meets the Board‘s evaluation criteria, and would not increase

emissions under worst case conditions.

      Based upon the modified "Hydropower Water Injection System" device bench
flow test data, the staff recommends that the Board exempt the device from the

prohibitions in Vehicle Code Section 27156 by adopting Executive Order D—125.




                                         11


                                      CONTENTS


                                                 Page Number

 summary *
 CONTENTS

 I.      INTRODUCT ION

 II.     CONCLUSION

_ III.   RECOMMENDATION

 IV.     SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION




                                                     No
 V.      EMISSION AND FUEL ECONOMY TEST




                                                     &
 ¥I.     TEST RESULTS




                                                     Un
 VII.    DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS                  11
 APPENDIX                                            13
         A.   DIAGRAM                                14




                                          111


                    EVALUATION OF THE PATRON INCORPORATED‘S
                  HYDROPOWER WATER INJECTION SYSTEM DEVICE IN
               COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 27156
                        OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE.

1.     INTROBUCTION
       PatRon Incorporated of Elkhart, Indiana, submitted an application for

exemption from the prohibitions in Section 27156 of the California Vehicle

Code for the company‘s "Hydropower Water Injection System" device.     Vehicle
Code Section 27156 prohibits the installation of any device or mechanism which

reduces the effectiveness of the required emission control system.     This Code

also authorizes the Air Resources Board to exempt a device from this

prohibition if it can be demonstrated that the device, upon installation on

the engine, will not adversely affect the performance of the existing emission

control system.     The applicant has requested that the exemption be granted for

the installation of this device for all vehicles equipped with carbureted
gasoline engines.

II.    CONCLUSION
       The staff evaluated the device and found no evidence to show that the

"Hydropower Water Injection System" device with the modified control head will

have significant adverse effect(s) on emissions from motor vehicles.     The test
data also show that this device will have lTittle effect on fuel economy.    The

company has agreed to remove unsubstantiated fuel economy claims from the
company‘s letterhead and all advertisements in California.

II1.   RECOMMENDATION

       Based on the test data and the submitted information, the staff

recommends that the Board exempt the "Hydropower Water Injection System"

device from the prohibitions in Vehicle Code Section 27156.    The staff,

therefore, recommends the adoption of Executive Order D—125.


IV.   SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION

      The "Hydropower Water Injection System" device (Figure 1) is designed to

be connected to the engine intake manifold through a tee connection in the

hose Tine between the positive crankcase ventilation (PCY) valve and the
carburetor.     The device is a combination of water injection and air bleed.     It

consists of a plastic water reservoir, two plastic hoses (3/8" diameter and

3/16" diameter), a plastic tee, five (5) plastic mounting straps, and a
control head.

      The control head consists of a vacuum gauge, a transparent plastic tube

flow indicator, and a mixing chamber.     The 2" (diameter) by 1/2" (high) mixing

chamber of about 1.5 cu. in. capacity is the heart of this device.     It has two

inlet ports and two outlet ports.     Through plastic tubes, one outlet port is

connected to the vacuum gauge and the other is connected to the PCV Tine of
the engine.     One of the inlet ports is open to the atmosphere for air bleed

into the mixing chamber through a piece of packed foam rubber filter.     The

other inlet port is fitted with a spring loaded ball valve which serves as a
check valve to allow water from the reservoir to flow into the mixing chamber

ofi]y under high vacuum engine operating conditions.     A control knob mounted in

front of the control head (integral part of the chamber) can be turned from

zero to six equal graduations.    The control knob has a threaded stem with a

tapered tip that moves forward or backward when the knob is turned to requlate

or stop the flow of water into the chamber.                                       7

      The amount of water injection is a function of engine intake manifold

vacuum and the inlet port opening as set by the flow control knob.    Maximum

flow rate is obtained under high manifold vacuum engine operating


conditions (such as idle, Tow speed cruises, and deceleration) and large valve

opening (knob position 6).     Little or no water injection occurs at Tow
manifold vacuum.     The proper flow control setting is to be done by the driver

of the vehicle.     The higher the control knob position number, the more water

is fed to the engine.    According to the operating instructions, the control

knob setting varies according to the engine displacement and the vehicle

operating conditions.     Flow control knob positions #1 and #2 are suitable for

most vehicle engine applications as recommended by the manufacturer.        The

amount of air bled into the PCV lTine is not controlled by the control knob, it

is controlled by the engine intake manifold vacuum through the PCY Tine.          The

air/water mixture from the mixing chamber then passes through the flow

indicator and the tee connection into the PCV Tine.
V.       EMISSION AND FUEL ECONOMY TEST
         The test vehicles selected were popular or representative models for

performance evaluation of aftermarket add—on devices.     The test vehicle was

inspected and road tested to assure that it was in good operating condition

for emissions testing.

         The comparative emissions and fuel economy tests (baseline versus

with—device tests) were conducted in accordance with the cold—start CVS—75 and

Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) procedures.     The baseline tests were run with

the vehicle engine set to vehicle manufacturer‘s specifications.

         Three series of with—device tests were performed by the Air Resources

Board.    The first serfes subjected the device to CVS—75 and Highway Fue!l

Economy Test (HFET) procedures using a 1981 Ford Fairmont, with a

straight—six, 200 CID engine, and a three—speed automatic transmission.       The

with—device tests were run with the device installed and adjusted according to

the device manufacturer‘s written instructions.


       A 1981 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, with a V—6, 231 CID engine and a
three—speed automatic transmission, was used for the second series of tests.

Again, the device was installed and adjusted according to the device

manufacturer‘s written instructions and CVS—75 and HFET‘s were performed.
       The third test series of CVS—75 and HFET were performed using two (2)

test vehicles:       a 1982 Chevrolet Chevette, with an I—4, 98 CID engine equipped

with a three—speed automatic transmission, and a 1983 Chevrolet Caprice with a

V—8, 305 CID engine equipped with a four (4)—speed automatic transmission.
These tests were conducted to evaluate the effect of the device on exhaust

emission under the worst device operating conditions — maximum water flow and

no water flow.

       The descriptions of the four test vehicles are shown below:



                              Vehicle        Vehicle         Vehicte        Vehicle
Test Yehicle                    No.            No.             No.            No.
Description                      1              2               3              4

Make                          Ford           Chevrolet       Chevrolet      Chevrolet
                              Fairmont       Monte Carlo     Chevette       Caprice

Mode1 Year                     1981           1981           1982           1983

Engine Size (CID)             1—6            V—6             I—4            V—8
                              200            231            98              305

Carburetor                    2—BBL          2—BBL           2—BBL          4—BBL

Transmission                  3—Speed        3—Speed         3—Speed        4—Speed
                 i            Automatic      Automatic      Automatic      Automatic

Emission Controls:            All with EGR, AIP, TWC, and CL.


VI.   TEST RESULTS

      The test results are shown in the following tables:

                                       Table 1
                                  1981 Ford Fairmont

                            Cold—Start CVS—75 Test




             Test         Exhaust Emissions, gm/mi        EEgsgmy
           Condition       HC           co       NOx         MPG
           BaseTine       0.32         2.36       0.73      16.60

           Baseline       0.33         2.76       0 .69     16. 60

           Average        0.33         2.56       0.71      16.60


           Device Test    0.50          2.48      0.72      16. 40

                                Hot—Start HFET Test

                                                          Fuel
             Test         Exhaust Emissions, gm/mi        Econonmy
           Condition       HC            CQ      NOx      _MPG

           BaseTine       0.08          0.18      0.99      22.20

           Baseline       0.10          0.15      0 .84     22.30

           Average        0.09          0. 17     0.92      22.25

           Device Test    0. 12        0.19       1.07      22.00


                            Table 2

                       1981 Monte Carlo

                  Cold—Start CVS—75 Test



                                              Fuel
  Test          Exhaust Emissions, gm/mi      Economy
Condition        HC        CQO      NOx         MPG

Baseline 1      0.35        5.51      0.63      18.3
Baseline 2      0.35        4.94      0.74      18.4

Average         0.35        5.23      0.69      18.4


Device Test 1   0.37        5.50      0.67      18.5
Device Test 2   0.35        5.12      0,.72     18.4

Average         0.36        5.31      0.70      18.5


                      Hot—Start HFET Test

                                              Fuel
  Test          Exhaust Emissions, gm/mi      Economy
Condition        HC          CQO      NQx       MPG

Baseline 1      0.03        0.74      0.32      27.0

Baseline 2      0.04        0.55      0.53      26.8

Average         0.04        0.65      0.43      26.9


Device Test 1   0.04        0 .76     0.34      27.1

Device Test 2   0.04        9.86      0.41     27.3

Average         0.04        0.81      0.38     27 .2


                                    Table 3

                             © 1982 Chevy Chevette

                             Cold—Start CVS—75 Test


             Test          Exhaust Emissions, gm/mi     Egggomy
           Condition*      HC         CO       NOx      __MP&
           Baseline 1      0.14      1.33      0.43       31.30

           Baseline 2      0.17      2.74      0.52       26.30

           Baseline 3      0.14      2.45      0.56       27.10
           Average         0.15      2.17      0.50       28.23

                A
           Device Test 1   0.18      1.84      0.43       26.20
           Device Test 2   0.19      2.56      0.51       25.50

           Device Test 3   0.18      2.24      0.53       25.80

           Device Test 4   0.23      2,.59     0.47       26.00
           Average         0.20      2.31      0.49       25.88

                B
           Device Test 1   0.28      2,.34     0.38       24.40

           Device Test 2   0.22      2.04      0.46       25.20

           Device Test 3   0.22      2.17      0 .40      24.60

           Average         0.24      2.18      0.41       24.73


* Test Condition:

  A — Device flow control knob completely closed (passed zero on the dial).

  B — Device flow control knob fu17y open {more than three complete turns).


                                 Hot—Start HFET Test


             Test          Exhaust Emissions, gm/mi      Egg;omy
           Condition*       HC          CQO      NOx     _MPG_
           Baseline 1      0.05        0.06      0.16      36.60

           Baseline 2      0.05        0.10      0.16      34.00

           Baseline 3      0.04        0.22      0.19      35.20

           Average         0.05        0.13      0. 17     35.27

                A

           Device Test 1   0.05        0.07      0.21      33.60
           Device Test 2   0.05        0.07      0.18     33.70

           Device Test 3   0.05        0.06      0.19      33.90
           Device Test 4   0.08        0.09      0.15      34.90

           Average         0.06        0.07      0.18     34.03

                B
           Device Test 1   0.11        0.12      0.13      33.80
           Device Test 2   O0.11       0.11      0.36       ——

           Device Test 3   0.06        0.10      0.15     34.50

           Average         0.09        0.11      0.21     34.15


* Test Condition:

  A — Device flow control knob completely closed (passed zero on the dial).

  B — Device flow control knob fully open (more than three complete turns).


                                       Table 4

                                  1983 Chevy Caprice

                             Cold—Start CVS—75 Test




             Test          Exhaust Emissions, gm/mi      ' Egg;omy
           Condition*      HC           CO       NQx        MPG
           Baseline 1      0.28        4.50       0.50       15.80

           Baseline 2      0.23        4 .44      0.50       15.60

           Baseline 3      0.36        6.60       0.42       15.40
           BaseTine 4      0.35        5.68       0.51       15.60

           Average         0.31         5.31      0.48       15.60

                A
           Device Test 1   0.25        4.13       0.45       15. 10
           Device Test 2   0.33        5.49       0.49       15.30

           Device Test 3   0.35        4.96       0.43       15.20

           Average         0.31        4.86       0.46       15.20
                B

           Device Test 1   0.25        4.97       0.47      15.40
           Device Test 2   0.35        5.75      0.44       15.20

           Device Test 3   0.30        5.41       0.45      15. 50

           Average         0.30        5.38      0.45       15.37



* Test Condition:

  Aq— Device flow control knob set to #2 (plus) position.

  B — Device flow control knob fully open (more than three complete turns).


                                Hot—Start HFET Test



                                                        Fuel

             Test          Exhaust Emissions, gm/mi     Economy
           Condition*      HC          CO       NOx         MPG

           Baseline 1      0.03       1.36      0.14        ‘25.40

           Baseline 2      0.04       1.72      0.20        25,.00
           Baseline 3      0.04       1.60      0.14        25.20

           Baseline 4      0.05       2.26      0.21        25.10

          . Average        0.04       1.74      0.17        25.18

                A
           Device Test 1   0.05       2.02      0.26        24.40

           Device Test 2   0.07       2.27      0.44        25.00

           Device Test 3   0.06       2.08      0.39        25.20

           Average         0.06       2.12      0.36        24.87

                B
           Device Test 1   0.07       1.98      0.36        25.10

           Device Test 2   0.06       2.20      0.39        25.20

           Device Test 3   0.12       1.90      0.26        25.20

           Average         0.08       2.03      0.34        25.17


* Test Condition:

  A1— Device flow control knob set to #2 (plus) position.

  B — Device flow control knob fully open (more than three complete turns).




                                        10.


      VII.   DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS
m C          The applicant submitted several customer testimonials; however, no

      laboratory emission and fuel economy test data were submitted for evaluation.

             The results of the first test series on the Ford Fairmont showed an
      increase in HC emissions with the use of the device.     However, since the

      with—device test data were from only one valid test, while the baseline data

      were averages from two (2) tests, the comparison was not conclusive.     A second

      test series using a second car, a 1981 Monte Carlo, was therefore performed.

             Although the results from the second test series showed minimum effect

      on emissions, the manner in which the water flow of this device is regulated

      caused concerns.     There is a tendency that the flow adjustment knob may become

      loose or be adjusted to allow excess water flow into the engine.     To simulate

      this worst case situation, a third test series was performed using two test
      vehicles, a 1982 Chevette with a 98 CID engine and a 1983 Caprice with a 305

      CID engine.

             In the third test series with the device set according to the
      manufacturer‘s specifications, the test data show no adverse effects on

      emission.     The increase of average HC emission by 0.05 g/mi for the Chevrolet

      Chevette may be considered insignificant.

             The worst case test results from the Chevrolet Caprice with a large—size

      engine (305 CID) showed minimum effect on emissions with the use of the

      device.     The results from the Chevrolet Chevette with a small—size engine (98

      CID}, however, indicated an increase in HC emissions.    To avoid excess flow of

      water into the vehicle engine (for small—size engine application), the

      applicant agreed and modified the control head.    A sample of the modified




                                              11.


APPENDIX




  13.


                                                                                      Pa%Rongc             | .
                                                                        .              P. O. Bex 1741
                     *                                                                 1700 Waurika:
                  .l I     l.                                                        Elkhart,lN46516
                                                                                     (219} 295——4494
      HYDROPOWER WATER INJECTION SYSTEM DEVICE
              INSTALLATION DLAGRAM

                                                 L        .
T \                                                  BSEND:1E) varer RESERVOIR
                                                           18— CONTROL PANEL
                                                                                                        DIAGRAM




                                                              116—PLASTIC TEE
                                                              118—PLASTIC HOSE 3/16 IN. DIAMETER
                                                              112—PLASTIC HOSE 3/8 IN. DIAMETER



Document Created: 2005-09-01 12:42:49
Document Modified: 2005-09-01 12:42:49

| Previous E.O. D-124 | Next E.O. D-125-1 | Next E.O. D-126