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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kelsey Cummings wrote:

Does that model have the Chrysler knock generator on it? If so, google it... there are ways to make it pass.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Clay wrote:

Well it has the chrysler ecu so I will assume it has their knock sensor....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com says...

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
--
The goal when driving is to miss the maximum number of objects.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
User wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com says...

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
--
The goal when driving is to miss the maximum number of objects.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
User wrote:

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...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@mation.com says...

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
--
The goal when driving is to miss the maximum number of objects.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Heh Bob, I did your fix, you're a genius, it worked like a charm.
Ed User wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
User wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This is guaranteed to pass your emission test. http://www.rxp-gas-kicker.com It has even been verified by the DOT, military, etc...
Clay wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Michael Pardee wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Clay wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.