high nox- won't pass 1988 240

Hi, Anyone have any ideas, I have a new MAS, had the the intake side
cleaned by a knowledgeable volvo guy, the cat is relatively new, as is
the O2 sensor, the CO and HC are as low as could be for that car. The
car runs great (only 74,000 miles) Any thoughts would be greatfully
appreciated.

thanks

 

I've heard a rumor from a mechanic buddy of mine that some people have
had to install a second cat to get NOX down.

-K

 

Does that model have the Chrysler knock generator on it?
If so, google it... there are ways to make it pass.

 

If the vacuum hose to the vcuum transducer on the side of the ignition
control unit is plugged the the unit is forced to go to a conventional
advance curve. The NOx will be greatly reduced.

On a similar note--exhaust emissions arer modified in two ways via
catalytic conversion. The first stage of conversion is the oxidation
stage where HC and CO are oxidized to form CO2 and water. The second
stage or reduction stage is designed to pull O off the NOx radicals to
form N2 and O2. Volvo has done this for years with a three way catalyst
built on a single monolithic honeycomb substrate inside the converter
housing. By its design in 1978, the reduction of NOx is less than
efficient, however it more than met the standards of the time that were
primarily concerned with CO and HC emission reduction. As time passsed
the NOx component got more and more regulation attention and the
standards tightened pushing the design to its limits. By the end of the
red motor run as much tinkering with the rare earth metals plated to the
substrate had reached its absolute limit. Consequently the later you get
in the production run the more likely you will encounter NOx emissions
failures during testing. The best strategy is to make sure the oil in
the motor is fresh and the converter is good and hot (run for 30 minutes
or more in mixed traffic conditions) before any emissions test is run.

Bob

 

Well it has the chrysler ecu so I will assume it has their knock
sensor....

 

Bob, excellent information, thank you. This is what I've done already:
It failed on the first test (29.usd) I got one free retest, so I got
it up on the highway, drove around town a bit, took it in and got it
down to 3.65 grams per mile-- unfortunately the limit is 3.00, that
failed me, put a can of "guaranted to pass" and a couple of tanks of
premium did the same routine and got it down to 3.05 that cost 29.usd,
had the mechanic do the aforementioned, (75.usd) and just drove it
from his place to the emissions tester and it was up to 4.10 gpm
another 29. usd, the same thing happened at the last testing and the
garage put a new cat in it..... that was only 15,000 miles ago, this is
ridiculous.

ed

 

Well then, just put something solid in the vacuum hose going to the
vacuum capsule to stop it up, reconnect it so that it looks correct and
retest. We don't use the I/M 240 test here, but the two speed dyno test
for preOBDII cars like yours generate %CO, HC ppm and NOx ppm. Typically
on a 240 in good operating condition you would see CO% ~0.1%, HC 20-30
ppm and NOx arouund 1200ppm. After changing the advance curve by
plugging the vacuum tube thereby restricting ignition advance to about
33*BTDC max, the NOx falls to 400-600ppm depending on the condition of
the converter. The fail spec for NOx differs for each year here but
hovers right around the 1100-1400ppm range. I would assume that your
results should a similar percentage reduction in gms/mile.

The only way to reduce NOx formation is to cool the combustion
temperature. The two methods most commonly used are to reintroduce
exhaust gas (EGR) or to retard the ignition timing.With the Chrysler/MPG
system, as the car starts to move, first retartds the timing to 5*BTDC
and then rapidly advances the timing to a maximum of 52*BTDC and retards
the timing across the board in 19* steps per engine revolution once the
knock sensor "hears" a ping. Once the ping stops it advances the timing
again in 2* increments per revolution until it reoccurs, then repaeats
the process. Consequently the ignition advance and combustion
temperature remain artificially high, the motor wrings out marginal
extra HP from the gasoline and just pukes NOx. If you were to side by
side test a 1982 with Bosch ignition (standard advace curve) with your
car the '82 with higher compression and much less efficient fuel
injection, would have slightly higher CO and HC numbers but even with
essentially the same converter as yours had originally would produce
passing NOx numbers.

Bob

 

fyi, if you choose to 'experiment' by *temporarily* plugging the line
(because we all know that to operate the vehicle when modified that way
is illegal in many states;') be sure the plug seals completely. I
'tested' this once and the plug leaked. Darn near rattled the pistons
out of it...

 

If the plug leaks then it works ;ike the delay valve that was initially
put in the line. If the engine rattled then you had either poor fuel
delivery from the injectors or the engine was running at too high a
temperature while the knock sensor was not sending the proper signal to
the fuel control unit. Plugging the advance signal hose does nothing
more than force the control unit to behave as it it were a later EZK
system minus the fancy individual cylinder retard control.

Bob

 

Heh Bob, I did your fix, you're a genius, it worked like a charm.

 

Well, follow the steps I took to reach my conclusion then tell me it's
fuel delivery or temp related:

Car is running normal... typical rattle at cruse. Squeeze the throttle a
bit, no pinging.

Stick the plug in, reconnect the vacuum line to the valve, and head over
to the fwy to see if it pings at cruse.

Run it up the on-ramp and the pistons are trying to swap holes.
Undrivable...

Pull over on the ramp, unplug the hose from the valve, continue on up
the ramp and down the fwy with no pinging.

Remove mickey mouse plug, reconnect vacuum line and car runs normal.

Insert proper sealing plug and test, car runs normal.

Near as I can figure (and I haven't tested it to prove it) if a vacuum
is pulled past the plug but not allowed to equalize (ala a one way check
valve), it holds the delay valve in whatever position the vacuum put it
and doesn't allow it to close, or open, or whatever it does when no (or
less, or more) vacuum is present.

Whatever the cause, a loose fitting 'plug' makes my '83 245 rattle like
crazy on mild acceleration. No plug, or a plug that seals, and it runs
normal...
Also makes me wonder what would happen if you went up into the
mountains or atmospheric pressure changed significantly (hurricane coming?)
Since we now have a sealed air space between the plug and (I assume) a
diaphragm of some sort, if the relative pressure changes, is the delay
valve going to change (or change position)?

ymmv.

 

This is guaranteed to pass your emission test.
http://www.rxp-gas-kicker.com
It has even been verified by the DOT, military, etc...

 

Googling "rxp gas kicker" is not very encouraging. There is a Findlaw entry
for a breach of contract case against RXP: http://tinyurl.com/ngcwu

Even more ominous is that nearly all the entries are for posts just like
this - and the links for test results just point to their own website.
Hmmmm...

Mike

 

Try this, the pdf is documentation straight from the Florida DOT.
65 pages if you want to read it.
http://www.rxp.com/dot_test.pdf

That law entery has nothing to do with the product working or not, it
was a
dispute against some company that wanted to distribute it.

 

That is not straight from the Florida DOT, but from RXP (www.rxp...). There
is no reason to believe it's official and I read enough of it to see it told
me nothing useful. If you have a link to a Florida DOT website where those
raw numbers are certified and evaluated, that would be something else.

For me, the red flag was the explanation of "how it works"
http://www.rxp.com/how.htm Beyond the mumbo-jumbo about "RxP is formulated
to attach all the different molecules in the fuel together during
combustion" it focuses on de-carbonization. Since carbon deposits are not a
significant issue in NOx formation or any other pollutant, there is no
reason to believe it will improve emissions. I could always be wrong, but it
has all the markings of snake oil.

Here's the low-down on NOx, which was the original complaint.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/fnoxdoc.pdf
Notice that none of the methods for controlling NOx from internal combustion
engines involves fuel additives.

Mike

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
.... For me, the red flag was the explanation of "how it works"

I'm in total agreement with your snake oil analysis.

However, carbon buildup in the combustion chamber can raise the
compression, and reduce heat transfer to the head. Both of which can
cause 'pinging' which typically leads to higher NOx.
Don't need no snake oil to fix that though. A good ol' "Italian Tuneup"
(Run it hard up a couple hills) will rattle the carbon out...

 

You both want to prove the earth is flat.

Contact Florida DOT and verify the test is real, I did, but I don't
think
you have what it takes to take it upon yourself to do that, just bitch
and
gripe about how you think it "should be" not how it is.

 

Do your due dilligence and verify the below, you will see the truth.

IT REDUCES NOX EMISSIONS AND WORKS AS CLAIMED

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alton Southern Railroad Test Results Confirm RxP Eliminates Black Smoke
Emission

EAST ST. LOUIS, IL, June 27, 2002 -- Alton Southern Railroad today
announced the completion of a three-month test of RxP, a fuel additive
marketed by RxP Products, Inc. The purpose of the test was to determine
fuel economy and particulate emissions in locomotive engines.

"We did a baseline test in April," said Bob Cizek, Vice President of
Industrial Sales for RxP Products, Inc. "Then we ran the engine with
fuel containing RxP for a couple of months, then retested. The test
showed an overall reduction in particulates of 26%, which backs up
tests we did earlier with Terminal Railroad and Metro East Industries.
This indicates a more efficient burn and is directly related to fuel
economy improvement."

Cizek said fuel economy improvement "under load" was approximately
2.56%, which would result in a considerable savings to the railroad.

"You could just see there was no black smoke coming out of the
locomotive when it was working the hump [making up a new train]," said
Dennis Korando, Mechanical Foreman of Alton Southern Railroad in East
St. Louis. Korando was involved in the three-month test.

Fuel economy tests on locomotive engines usually focus on engines that
are under load at different notches (RPM settings). The fuel is weighed
at each notch with and without the additive to determine the true fuel
economy. A 2.56% savings is approximately one gallon saved for every
thirty-nine used. However, locomotive engines that work in a switchyard
spend much of their time idling.

"There is much more to fuel economy than just the amount of fuel that
can be saved when the engine is under load," explained RxP Products,
Inc. President, Don Woodward. "Only a small percent of the fuel is used
to provide the power to overcome inertia, air drag, friction and
rolling resistance, which are the forces that work against motion.

"Our technology works by increasing the thermal value of the fuel being
used," explained Woodward. "We call this the theory of radiant
containment. Based on a recent test we know that RxP will increase the
thermal value of biomass, which is about as basic a fuel as you can
get, by 13.2%."

Breaking it down to its very basics, fuel is converted into heat to
power the engine. Almost 70% of this energy is lost to the mechanical
process of operating the engine. Another 17% is wasted when the engine
is idling. This leaves only 13% to actually run the engine.

"When an engine is idling, it is getting zero miles per gallon.
However, if you increase the thermal value of the fuel by 13.2% you are
actually using less fuel even when the engine is not moving. In other
words you can sit there longer while idling. I think we can safely say
that if we apply this 13.2% increase in thermal value to the 30% of the
fuel that is used for power or wasted when idling you can say that RxP
will increase the overall fuel economy by approximately 4%. This is a
significant savings over the cost of using our additive and not related
to restoring efficiency lost to an aging engine," says Woodward.

Woodward also said that an undetermined amount of fuel is saved by the
process of radiant containment on that part of the fuel that is wasted
to the mechanical process of the internal combustion engine. If the
theory is correct, the flame made during combustion is hotter inside
and cooler outside. This provides more kinetic energy, used to actually
push the piston down and create power, and less radiant energy, which
is lost as heat penetrating the cylinder walls, etc. The engine runs
cooler and the process of a more complete combustion eliminates carbon
buildup inside the combustion chamber and exhaust system.

Decarbonization of the engine is the key factor in maintaining good
fuel economy and RxP certainly does that, but this only restores the
engine to its original efficiency. It is the increase in thermal value
that actually increases fuel economy above what the engine would get
burning fuel that does not contain RxP.

While the opacity tests were being conducted at Alton Southern,
Intertek Testing Services Caleb Brett labs in Tampa, Florida analyzed a
sample of diesel fuel. The analysis showed that RxP did not change the
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard for diesel
fuel, meaning it would not affect an engine manufacturer warranty.

"Seeing is believing," said Korando. "When you look in the stacks of
the engine, the interiors are completely white. Also, I inspected the
injectors. They were white and clean. This can only be attributed to
the use of the additive."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TERMINAL RAILROAD REDUCES SMOKE FROM LOCOMOTIVE ENGINES

St. Louis, MO, September 6, 2001 -- The Terminal Railroad Association
of St. Louis has undertaken a project to reduce pollution by using a
combustion enhancer fuel additive to help clean the air in St. Louis,
according to Terminal President, W. D. Spencer.

According to Spencer, since treatment began in June tests have shown
that pollution (soot) emitted from the locomotive stacks has been
reduced by forty to ninety-two percent. In addition to the locomotive
engines, railroad equipment such as graders and cranes have been tested
with the same combustion enhancer and shown reductions of carbon
monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the
range of fifty to seventy-two percent.

"We have a responsibility to our community to do our share to reduce
pollution" said Mr. Spencer. "Not only have we reduced air pollution,
but because our engines are burning cleaner and more efficiently, we
are realizing a net fuel savings of approximately $110,000 annually
thanks to this combustion enhancer - RxP."

RxP is the only product known to reduce CO, HC and NOx emissions,
according to Don Woodward, President of RxP Products, Inc. and supplier
of the combustion-enhancing additive.

"They don't smoke like they use to," says Terminal Manager of
Locomotives, Phil Daley. "After we started using RxP the yardmen
couldn't tell when the engines were running by just looking at the
stacks."

Every locomotive that is fueled at the St. Louis site is now being
treated with RxP according to Spencer.

"We are supplying Terminal with the most advanced combustion technology
on the market," says Woodward. "This technology works in all fuels;
gasoline, ethanol, diesel, jet fuel, biodiesel, natural gas, coal or
any other hydrocarbon fuel."

Fuel consumption tests monitored and administered by Metro East
Industries and the opacity tests showing the reduction in pollution,
verify that Terminal Railroad is helping to clean up the air in St.
Louis.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RxP Products Announces Combustion Technology Reduces Oxides Of Nitrogen
Emissions In Biodiesel; Supreme Oil Chosen to Market Technology

St. Petersburg, Florida, June 26 -- RxP Products, Inc.
(http://www.rxp.com) President Don Woodward announced today that
Arizona based Supreme Oil has been chosen to market technology used to
reduce carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from
biodiesel.

Tests conducted June 13, 2001 on a boiler at St. Mary's Medical Center
in Long Beach by World Environmental, a laboratory approved by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District, showed a significant
decrease in CO and NOx emissions when biodiesel treated with an
additive supplied by RxP was used.

"The allowable limits were 40 parts per million (ppm) of NOx and 400
ppm of CO," said Chris Sellars, a representative from Supreme Oil's
Long Beach, California office who was present for the tests.

"The CO readings were seventy-four percent (74%) below the requirements
and the NOx readings were thirty percent (30%) under," said Sellars.
"This boidiesel blend also surpassed earlier results on natural gas."

"We assume many people from the biodiesel industry will be interested
in this technology," says Woodward. "Although biodiesel is a much
cleaner burning fuel than petrodiesel, sales of this new alternative
fuel have been hampered by the NOx problem."

Woodward maintains the addition of this technology to biodiesel will
not significantly impact the selling price of biodiesel.

"We presently sell additives for gasoline and diesel engines through
leading retailers like Wal-Mart and AutoZone Auto Parts Stores," says
Woodward. "Our technology has been field tested by hundreds of
thousands of real users over millions of miles of normal driving
conditions. We also supply products used in locomotive and marine
engines. Our technology works in all hydrocarbon combustion."

"We will have our skeptics, and should," says Woodward, "and we expect
testing to be an ongoing and day-to-day activity in this field of
study. But to my knowledge, we have the only technology around that
will reduce NOx and CO emissions in biodiesel. Others are welcomed to
try."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TERMINAL RAILROAD BEGINS USING CLEANER BURNING FUEL

St. Petersburg, Florida, 4/3/01 -- RxP Products, Inc. President Don
Woodward announced today that Terminal Railroad Association of St.
Louis would begin using fuel treated with RxP, an emissions-reducing
fuels technology.

Terminal Railroad Association President W. D. Spencer said, "It is
everyone's responsibility to improve our environment. Beginning in May
all locomotives fueled at our facility will be treated with RxP. Our
goal is to help St. Louis improve air quality."

The Terminal Railroad Association consists of two major railroad
companies: Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Norfolk Southern. They use
approximately 700,000 gallons of fuel monthly. All thirty-four of the
locomotives used daily by Terminal, plus all the on-line engines that
pass through the switch yard, will be using the RxP treated fuel.

"We made the decision to utilize fuel treated with RxP technology after
tests indicated significant reductions in exhaust emissions, while
simultaneously providing cost savings," Spencer said.

According to Woodward, tests were conducted on locomotive engines over
a two-year period. "We worked very closely with the railroads and will
continue to perform tests and monitor the equipment in order to advance
our knowledge of the combustion process and to keep track of the
emissions reductions."

RxP is sold nationwide as an over-the-counter fuel additive in auto
parts stores like AutoZone and Discount Auto Parts as well as Wal-Mart.


"Air pollution is a serious and growing problem in this nation and in
the world," says Woodward. "RxP is an economical solution, but not one
necessarily favored by the oil companies who shun technology that
reduces the amount of fuel used. However, with participation from
business and industry we can make a significant difference in air
quality."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLORIDA COMPANY HAS STAKE IN CLEAN AIR

Byline: Ongoing research into emissions reduction shows promise.

St. Petersburg, Florida, 04/18/00 - RxP Products, Inc. President, Don
Woodward, reports tests conducted by the U.S. Air Force show
significant reduction in particulate emissions using technology his
company bottles and sells as a fuel additive.

Particulate emissions are a toxic air contaminant. Such emissions from
diesel and jet engines contain minute particles that adhere to the
lining of the lungs. These tiny particles are difficult to expel and
can lead to serious health effects, including cancer and other
respiratory diseases.

A fuel additive sold under the brand name, RxP, could significantly
reduce these dangerous pollutants according to recent findings.

"Tests conducted by the AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY showed a
fifty-two percent (52%) reduction in particulates at cruise power,"
says inventor Dean F. Johnson. "These tests were conducted using an
advanced combustor simulator."

Since jet engines spend ninety percent (90%) of their time at cruise
the reductions in particulates in the atmosphere is notable.

Captain Rob Mantz, who oversaw the tests at the Air Force test
facilities at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, points
out that the reduction in particulates is interesting as the jet engine
is already quite clean compared to other engines.

According to Johnson, the Air Force test coincides with tests conducted
on railroad engines last year that showed a seventy-one percent (71%)
reduction in particulates and a sixty-five percent (65%) reduction in
oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The reduction in NOx emissions has a direct
effect on cleaning up air pollution. The effects of sunlight
interacting with NOx in the atmosphere causes the formation of smog.

"When the funding becomes available the Air Force plans to conduct
further tests on RxP," says Johnson.

Ongoing tests being conducted by a retired naval office, Mark Sherman,
now president of the Classic Jet Aircraft Association (CJAA), have also
been positive.

"In an F104 with a J79 engine we have eliminated smoking and recorded
an average eight percent (8%) savings in fuel. This is a significant
savings in a jet engine," says Sherman.

RxP Gas Kicker, which is made using the same technology, is sold at two
of the nation's largest auto parts chains - AutoZone Auto Parts
Stores and Florida based Discount Auto Parts, according to Woodward.

"RxP has gained a reputation with the consumer, not only as a way to
pass a mandatory emissions test," says Woodward, "but also to clean out
a dirty engine. Each bottle we sell helps clean the air." Johnson and
Woodward say the goal is to put the technology in every gallon of fuel
used in the world.

Johnson also claims the technology would make a viable replacement for
MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), the fuel additive mandated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that was touted to significantly
reduce automobile emissions. The EPA recently announced that MTBE would
be phased out over concerns of contaminating water supplies around the
country.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but there is nothing to lead me to believe
the test is real and a lot of indicators in the RXP website to make me
believe the product is bogus - or at least based on bogus claims. As an
engineer, the mumbo-jumbo in http://www.rxp.com/scientific.htm and "The
dramatic results were achieved through RxP's unique use of "Radiant
Containment Technology" increasing the thermal value of the fuel" clinched
it for me.

If you think it this is the real deal and that Florida DOT had supporting
data, come up with something that is from Florida DOT, not from RXP. If the
claims are true, RXP will claim they are true and say the test is from
Florida DOT. If the claims are false, RXP will claim they are true and say
the test is from Florida DOT. That's how snake oil works.

Mike

 

None of that is very encouraging - it doesn't even *begin* to meet the
requirements of controlled tests or scientific reporting. Googling "radiant
containment" also produces nothing to make me think that theory has any
merit. In fact, RxP has complained to the EPA that they were not being
hailed as the heroes they claim to be:
http://www.deantec.net/letter_to_epa.htm That letter was dated April of
last year, and yet the EPA has not embraced RxP. Maybe it's because RxP is
declared to be a hydrocarbon fuel oil. The MSDS reveals it to have a flash
point of 140F, similar to the flash point of #2 diesel (roughly 130F). Since
both are petroleum hydrocarbons, the major component of RxP can be assumed
to be very much like #2 diesel.

Here's the bottom line: If refiners really believed they could get more fuel
economy or lower emissions by adding their other distillation products to
gasoline - they make the stuff in mind-boggling quantities, you know - they
would have been doing it already and selling it at a premium the public
would clamor to pay. Their R&D budget is certainly more than RxP could dream
of and there are no patent restrictions on refinery operation.

Say - have you tried acetone? Maybe fuel line magnets, spinning thingies in
the intake, or pyramids? Those have even more supporters and all sorts of
testimonials.

Mike