high nox- won't pass 1988 240

[User]

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.

Reading the MSDS at first glance my take was that it was kerosene with a
touch of butyl acetate as a strong detergent and octane improver.

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

Exactly. Name brand fuels are all slightly overdoped when the trucks
leave the tank farm. The noname fuels are doped to the minimum
requirements. If the FL DOT reports are to be believed then by using
fleet gas (for the most part, some receipts named general gas station
brands in a few instances) supplied by the lowest bidder, then any
concentrated detergent package would clean up the fuel system and make
it run better. Furthermore, domestic engines are a lot "looser" in order
to accomodate the typical lax maintainence they experience.

A well maintained motor will pass almost any emissons test currently in
use it's only the ill maintained beasts that benefit from a cleaning
anyway. As far as Volvo's go I've had enough engines apart to know that
most suffer no appreciable valve head deposits, minimal carbon build up
on the pistons and as long as the owners use the recommended grade of
gasoline no appreciable injector restriction. Consequently all the
cleaning in the world will have very little to no effect on NOx
production. There are many compounds that do indeed modify the the smoke
and soot creation in diesel fuels that as a side effect reduce NOx
creation by providing extra oxygen during combustion and simultaneously
lowering the flame temperature. But from what I've researched no such
chemistry exists for the shorter hotter burn time of gasoline
combustion. The reality is that any attempt to reduce a pollutant
measures at a fraction factored by 10**3 ppm would require an addition
of some unknown noncataltyic reactant in approximately the same range in
order to effect a reduction in the emissions produced by combustion.
4000 ppm over an unknown time slice is what I see in test results from
240s that have had the converter punched out. So if a converter's
reduction section drops the results to under 1700 ppm during the same
test then a 57% reduction is a big deal. To get the same result
chemically by doping the gas so that the NOx emission would be reduced
continuously then I expect the added cost to gasoline would be far in
excess of what a converter would cost over say 100K mile lifetime.

Bob

 

[Frederico Alfonso de Nurk]

Reading the MSDS at first glance my take was that it was kerosene with a
touch of butyl acetate as a strong detergent and octane improver.

So it'd be cheaper to just buy injector cleaner?

 

[qiman13]

RxP does clean the injectors and cleans out the carbon.
The RxP concentrate absorbes a lot of heat into the fuel mixture itself
so less heat makes it to the metal meaning the engine does run cooler
and it does reduce Nox emissions.

For $6.99 + tax, you can buy some RxP at Autozone in your town and just
try it out. It doesn't matter if you have the head of the Florida DOT
come to
your house and tell you the test is valid because the skeptics (in
reality
cynics) will just find something to complain about.

The ONLY way you will know if it works is by using it. Anyone here that

thinks they can debunk it with rhetoric should just buy a few little
bottles
and try it out on a few tanks in a row and give it an honest test.
$6.99
won't break you but you just might find out that it really does work.
Anyone
that wants to take the time to try and pick apart documentation should
be open minded enough to go try it themselves, based on the opinions
here
of what it is, it is obvious it definitely won't damage anything. Lets
see just
how open-minded the thoughtful ones are by trying it themselves and
posting
the results here.

 

[Michael Pardee]

RxP does clean the injectors and cleans out the carbon.
The RxP concentrate absorbes a lot of heat into the fuel mixture itself
so less heat makes it to the metal meaning the engine does run cooler
and it does reduce Nox emissions.

You insult our collective intelligence.

For $6.99 + tax, you can buy some RxP at Autozone in your town and just
try it out. It doesn't matter if you have the head of the Florida DOT
come to
your house and tell you the test is valid because the skeptics (in
reality
cynics) will just find something to complain about.

The ONLY way you will know if it works is by using it. Anyone here that

thinks they can debunk it with rhetoric should just buy a few little
bottles
and try it out on a few tanks in a row and give it an honest test.
$6.99
won't break you but you just might find out that it really does work.
Anyone
that wants to take the time to try and pick apart documentation should
be open minded enough to go try it themselves, based on the opinions
here
of what it is, it is obvious it definitely won't damage anything. Lets
see just
how open-minded the thoughtful ones are by trying it themselves and
posting
the results here.

Fair enough. It doesn't seem dangerous to the engine or fuel system, like
the acetone hoax can be. If people want to spend $7 on RxP I don't see the
harm.

Mike

 

[Clay]

...
Fair enough. It doesn't seem dangerous to the engine or fuel system, like
the acetone hoax can be. If people want to spend $7 on RxP I don't see the
harm.

Well, be sure to run a couple tanks through after you've tried it if
you're taking it in for a smog test.
The (CA) sniffers react badly to fuel additives. Good way to fail a test
for sure.

 

[Michael Pardee]

Well, be sure to run a couple tanks through after you've tried it if
you're taking it in for a smog test.
The (CA) sniffers react badly to fuel additives. Good way to fail a test
for sure.

Being a grump, I am certain the NOx will not be improved. The on-line
literature describes the NOx benefits as coming from decarbonizing, although
I have never known decarbonizing to be a fix for failing NOx emissions in
any car... and I've been DIYing since before any NOx controls or testing
were implemented in the US.

Indeed, the unorthodox theory of "radiation containment" would ensure a
*higher* NOx if it actually worked as described; the higher combustion
temperatures would mandate more NOx formation. I canna change the laws of
physics....

Mike

 

[Clay]

...

Being a grump, I am certain the NOx will not be improved. The on-line
literature describes the NOx benefits as coming from decarbonizing, although
I have never known decarbonizing to be a fix for failing NOx emissions in
any car... and I've been DIYing since before any NOx controls or testing
were implemented in the US.

Indeed, the unorthodox theory of "radiation containment" would ensure a
*higher* NOx if it actually worked as described; the higher combustion
temperatures would mandate more NOx formation. I canna change the laws of
physics....

Mike

I'm just saying, be sure it's all flushed out of the system by running a
couple tanks of 'untreated' gas through it before smog testing the car.

When I had my '83 in for it's first test, it pinged at cruse and failed
because of high NOx.
The tech (who is a pretty sharp guy... I've been back to him several
times in the last 10 years) suggested several fixes including a new cat
and 'decarbonizing' by pulling a vacuum line and sucking some water
through the motor.
I've done this successfully on Detroit iron. Actually, we would run a
hose from the windshield washer (full of /plain/ water) into the
breather. Run it down the highway and give it a couple squirts. Worked
like a charm.
I don't think I'd try it on the Volvo though...

 

[Mike F]

Being a grump, I am certain the NOx will not be improved. The on-line
literature describes the NOx benefits as coming from decarbonizing, although
I have never known decarbonizing to be a fix for failing NOx emissions in
any car... and I've been DIYing since before any NOx controls or testing
were implemented in the US.

Indeed, the unorthodox theory of "radiation containment" would ensure a
*higher* NOx if it actually worked as described; the higher combustion
temperatures would mandate more NOx formation. I canna change the laws of
physics....

Mike

The idea behind decarbonizing is that it reduces the effective
compression ratio, which will lower combustion temperatures, which will
reduce NOx formation. In practice, my uncle once used GM Top End
Cleaner in his '84 240 (among a couple of other things) to pass PA
emissions. (This was before he (and I) knew about disconnection of the
vacuum line going to the ignition computer to reduce NOx.)

This is not to say (in fact quite the opposite) that I believe that the
product under discussion will have any effect on emissions, positive or
negative.

--
Mike F.
Thornhill (near Toronto), Ont.

Replace tt with t (twice!) and remove parentheses to email me directly.
(But I check the newsgroup more often than this email address.)