Our initial testing of FP60 and LC were limited by Odis's ability to pay for the labs and depth of testing. The Mola paper and background oil analysis was the product.
From our continued testing ( not funded by LCD) we consistantly see FP60 and LC drop nitration levels in the range of 30%. Oxidation can drop 20+%.
The limitations of FP60 are not completely known.
I am hoping to see some testing that is done by a major independent test facility accepted by both the regulators and auto manufacturers that may gain more acceptance for these unique chemistries.
IF the ford mentioned above was perfectly maintained and FP60 corrected or reinvigorated the CAT function, wonderful. In a well maintained engine the level of FP60 getting to the CAT would be small.
I suspect the maintenance of the Krul ford was not perfect and if raw FP60 was getting to the CAT then maybe it cleaned years of debris and deposits . It was not designed to do that as far as I know. Would it, IMO, yes !
FP Revives Dead Cats?
- Thread starter kruL
- Start date
- Status
I consider the advice I give to be solutions-based. The OP's friends cat is in marginal condition for reasons we can't figure: The car is well maintained and just tuned up.
I apologize for diverting the discussion away from FP60 cleaning cats; I am interested as well for "geriatric" cases of 15 year old cars with 200k miles. That is what I consider "typical service life" beyond which I wouldn't mind "limping" a car along with special fuel additives, etc.
But this Ford is (IMO) under-engineered. If they added more expensive metal (palladium, rhodium?) to the cat and gave it more surface area on the grid it would probably have lasted longer. The OP should NOT have to spend $25 on a jug of specialized additives few have ever heard of to keep the car in adequate running condition to stay on the road legally. 87 octane from the wholesale club should suffice. Having Ford pick up the tab on a new cat (if possible) will teach their bean counters to let the engineers use better parts.
Don't get me wrong, fuel power is good stuff for a lot of people who are getting better MPG than the EPA rating, much lower emissions than they are allowed, etc. That's great. Exceeding the averages is how everything gets better. But their cars were running well as competently designed and built to begin with.
If someone were to post about how great bar's leak is for radiators, and I heard about a silent warranty on radiators for that particular car, I would share that info just in case the OP hadn't heard it before. (The EPA cat warranty is mentioned in the way-back of the owner's manual where they hope you don't see it.) And I would not consider myself out of line for suggesting it get fixed with new parts.
/soapbox
Update:
While the humor and direction that my post took didn’t bother me a bit, I am considering trying the Wendy's Red Wine Vinaigrette in my gas. ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif)
I figured that no one here really knows the FP combustion process well enough to make a likely determination of whether it revived a dead cat, cleaned a dirty cat, or covered for a cat just begining to fail by helping to reduce the overall emissions. At least based on the limited data provided second hand by me.
I did get the facts a little mixed up; please let me restate them from notes I made (to help my CRS which is acting up again). Maybe this will helps shed some more light...
The car actually has 135K miles. The previous owner had to have the cats replaced under warranty at 50K due to the brick breaking loose and rattling around inside (a mecahnical failure probably not emissions related).
So that puts 85K on this set of converters. The car is maintained rather well with regular oil changes, coolant flush injector service, etc…
As far as the computers response to FP goes:
The light went out half way through first tank of gas with FP and stayed out for 2 complete tanks using FP. The third tank FP was not added, light stayed out. 16 gal tank, 12gal on top of 4 remaining gal with FP.
The next fill up was without FP too, however, within 20 or so miles of this fill up the light came on. Checked code with scanner and verified it was the original code (p0430) cat efficiency bank 2. He did 3 tanks of gas without FP (from the same station) and the light stayed on.
Now he added FP again and the above sequence of events repeated exactly.
He went through this cycle 4 times and it was consistent. He even took the car in and had the emissions inspected and it passed.
Because there was no solid information provided by anyone anywhere that the cat would not eventually fail despite the use of FP, he replaced the cat pipe assembly this past weekend. He said he did not want a "band aid" repair that could cause problems later. "You can pay me now or you can pay me later" is how he sized up the situation based on the lack of any substantial information otherwise.
He is currently NOT running FP to insure nothing skews the information read by the 02’s and computer. This is to test the new cats with normal operation on regular gas.
When he is convinced the problem is fixed, he plans to resume the use of FP, hoping it will lengthen the life cycle of the new cat assembly.
85k miles for a $400-$800 worth of odd-ball Tarus only, no generic substitutes will fit, cat assembly is not a very good deal IMHO. ![[Frown]](images/icons/frown.gif)
I figured that no one here really knows the FP combustion process well enough to make a likely determination of whether it revived a dead cat, cleaned a dirty cat, or covered for a cat just begining to fail by helping to reduce the overall emissions. At least based on the limited data provided second hand by me.
I did get the facts a little mixed up; please let me restate them from notes I made (to help my CRS which is acting up again). Maybe this will helps shed some more light...
The car actually has 135K miles. The previous owner had to have the cats replaced under warranty at 50K due to the brick breaking loose and rattling around inside (a mecahnical failure probably not emissions related).
So that puts 85K on this set of converters. The car is maintained rather well with regular oil changes, coolant flush injector service, etc…
As far as the computers response to FP goes:
The light went out half way through first tank of gas with FP and stayed out for 2 complete tanks using FP. The third tank FP was not added, light stayed out. 16 gal tank, 12gal on top of 4 remaining gal with FP.
The next fill up was without FP too, however, within 20 or so miles of this fill up the light came on. Checked code with scanner and verified it was the original code (p0430) cat efficiency bank 2. He did 3 tanks of gas without FP (from the same station) and the light stayed on.
Now he added FP again and the above sequence of events repeated exactly.
He went through this cycle 4 times and it was consistent. He even took the car in and had the emissions inspected and it passed.
Because there was no solid information provided by anyone anywhere that the cat would not eventually fail despite the use of FP, he replaced the cat pipe assembly this past weekend. He said he did not want a "band aid" repair that could cause problems later. "You can pay me now or you can pay me later" is how he sized up the situation based on the lack of any substantial information otherwise.
He is currently NOT running FP to insure nothing skews the information read by the 02’s and computer. This is to test the new cats with normal operation on regular gas.
When he is convinced the problem is fixed, he plans to resume the use of FP, hoping it will lengthen the life cycle of the new cat assembly.
85k miles for a $400-$800 worth of odd-ball Tarus only, no generic substitutes will fit, cat assembly is not a very good deal IMHO. - Status