Will LC & FP pass emission test?

[sifan]

I just ordered each one of them and plan to use them on my wife's '97 Toyota Previa minivan equipped with a super charged 4 cylinder engine. The minivan has been driven mainly with short trips. I hope to use both products to clean up some deposites in the engine. However, the Q&A at the FP web site indicates the product is not EPA approved. Here in Maryland a vehicle has to pass state emission test every two years. My question is: Will these two products stop my minivan from passing the emission test?

The minivan has never failed a single test so far.

 

[sifan]

By the way I have religeously taken the minivan to dealer/garage for routine maintenance every 15K miles ever since I bought it.

 

[dkcase]

quote:

---

Will these two products stop my minivan from passing the emission test?

---

I used FP for the purpose of passing the emissions test with my daughter's car. I suspected poorly performing injectors because UOA showed fuel in the oil.

Illinois, 94 Chevy Cavalier, 4-cyl.
Passed OK. Whether it would have passed without any attention, I can't say, but the FP certainly didn't hurt emissions.

 

[STSinNYC]

I have been using both LC and FP. Our 2002 Honda Accord V6 was tested for emissions just yesterday. Was well under the NYS allowable limit on HC and CO and emitted very little NO, barely registered. I would say that if your engine and catalytic converter are in good condition/tune, you will be fine using LC an d FP.

 

[LCD]

Using FP and LC has been proven for over 40 years to reduce harmful emmissions. NOx readings well below standards.

Jeff

 

[oldman]

Sifan, I have to take my work trucks through md emissions the next two months. What do FP and LC abbrevations mean?

Thanks

 

[LCD]

oldman,

FP = Fuel Power
LC = Lube Control

Banner at top of the page or www.lubecontrol.com, these 2 products will reduce emmissions by removing carbon and varnish and allowing your engine to run much more cleaner and more efficient.

We will be posting emissions test on the bulletin board at www.lubecontrol.com soon.

Jeff

 

[oldman]

Thanks Jeff, I normally don't have problems, I change the oil prior to going to the emissions testing and go through without any problems.

 

[VaderSS]

I ran my Festiva with AutoRx just long enough to get all the HLA working and then got it emmisions tested. At 224k, it barely passed. The inspector told me he was suprised it passed and that it would probably fail the next time. He also said it was burning oil. It does not use a drop...

I have been running Fuel Power for the past 2000 miles and have just started running Lube Control in the oil. I have a feeling it will pass the next inspection with flying colors, as it is running MUCH better than it did when the inspection was done.

 

[VaderSS]

I'll be getting the emissions checked in a couple of months out of curiosity...

I'll certainly let you know the results. I'll have detailed before and after results.

 

[LCD]

VaderSS,

Please keep us updated and see if you can get a detailed emissions reading on your next inspection.

Jeff

 

[VaderSS]

Well, I failed my emissions this time around. I did not have FP in the tank. I wanted to see what result it would have from having run it for the past 12k, and basically it had none, either way. I'll post the details tommorrow, as I left them at work, but the Nox, which was very borderline passing last time, just barely failed this time.

This is not at all meant to be derogatory against FP. The fact is, it, along with ARx and LC, restored HP and made the engine run better. The tech commented on how quiet and smooth the engine was.

The tech feels the cat is gone. I went ahead and ordered one as they are only $78 and it does have 248k on the factory stocker. I'm not so sure, because it passed the HC and CO by a wide margin, about 50% of scale in the case of the HC, and 30% of scale for the CO. I am wondering if Nox is reduced with FP in the tank. If it is, I'd be willing to give it another shot, but I only get one freebie. After that, I have to pay another $40.

 

[DJ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sifan:
However, the Q&A at the FP web site indicates the product is not EPA approved.

---

This basically means they have not payed the rediculous prices to cut through all the burocracy to get approval, it does not mean that the EPA activly diapproves of them beyond the lack of approval. Sort of like aftermarket performance parts that say "offroad use only" it is not that they hurt emmisions frankly they often help by improving efficiency to gain more power but the manufacturere didn't spend the tens of thousands of dollars to get approval because of what it would make them do to the price of the product to recoup those costs.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

I am wondering if Nox is reduced with FP in the tank.

---

Nox typically isn't a major function of the cat. That's a function of EGR in most ..and, in some MOPARS, ignition timing. If you're passing CO and HC, I would think that your cat is functioning. FP may improve NOX emissions (I dunno) ..but I don't see your cat doing it, normally.

Some (not here) have asserted that some of the newer cats (and I don't remember the element mentioned) do have some impact on NOX emissions.

 

[VaderSS]

This engine has no EGR. Cam timing overlap takes care of it. Timing, I'll have to check that. Have not had a car I could set the timing on in many years. Forgot all about it... Modern cats do have an effect on NOx.

 

[andyd]

uhmn, is the O2 sensor working?

 

[Terry]

Vader, I have observed FP reduce NOx in testing of FP and LC used in cars being emissions testing to include the highway and city EPA required emissions and MPG tests. With a damaged CAT it may not help especially if the catalyst is shot or clogged.

There may soon be money from the government through a grant to test LC/FP for just the EPA approved testing screens/protocals needed to be listed by the EPA. I have spoken to the EPA lab "listing" rep and he was not very helpful.

As I have mentioned here before the Mexican government tested the products a few years back and the drops in emissions was 20% across the board. They then attempted to steal the formula and failed to reverse engineer properly and destroyed numerous engines in gas and diesel applications in Mexico City. Mentiroso !

The possibility of a grant through the Texas equivalent of the EPA with Federal funding. Very exciting for LC/FP !

Terry

 

[VaderSS]

O2 sensor has 10k on it. Replacing it had no effect on driveability or fuel economy. New rotor, cap, wires, and plugs were put in before first test. This car gets 36 city. I think it's in good tune...

Terry, that sounds great. I hope it does work out. I know this is a great product.


1990 Ford Festiva 5spd

Here are the numbers;
First set is from 5/24/04 224491 miles. Second Set is from 5/09/05 239622 miles. 3rd set are limits if applicable. Test was performed by the same person, using the same machine;

code:

---

High Speed 25 mph 1954 rpm 2115 rpm

>

HC 94 103 239 ppm

CO .32 .36 1.54 %

CO2 14.3 13.8 %

02 0.9 0.6 %

NOX 1346 1764 1774 ppm

Dilution 14.7 14.2 >6.0%

>

Low Speed 15 mph 1808 rpm 2077 rpm

>

HC 142 99 246 ppm

CO .37 .36 1.39 %

CO2 14.4 13.8 %

02 1.0 0.6 %

NOX 1924 2011 1944 ppm

Dilution 14.7 14.2 >6.0%

---

I'm certainly no expert. Does this look like cat failure?

[ May 10, 2005, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: VaderSS ]

 

[Gary Allan]

I can't see how you can get CO that low with a shot cat. That's it's primary function.

I don't have an EGR in my 3.0 Mitsu Caravan. It too uses cam overlap to leave enough spent material in the combustion chamber to cool the process. Every year I have to retard the timing to pass NOX. CO and the rest of the spec's are substantially below the limits. Original cat @ 170k.

Do you even have a distributor that you can move (I don't know this engine)??

 

[VaderSS]

Yes, the timing is adjustable.

If FP would knock it down 20% in this case, it would easily pass.

What was the dosing used in the Mexico tests?

[ May 10, 2005, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: VaderSS ]