Approval Details

Valid E.O.

Validity

This Executive Order approved the specified parts on on October 15, 1983.
As of Tuesday, June 25th, 2019 this Executive Order has not been overturned or superceeded.

Approved Parts

Models
1983 and older gasoline vehicles

This Executive Order may be listed as:
  • C.A.R.B.E.O. D-121-1
  • Executive Order 121-1 / D121-1
  • ARB # D-121-1
  • Executive Order No: D-121-1
  • C.A.R.B. No. D-121-1
  • Resolution D-121-1
For Free CARB Executive Order Status verification, email an image of the device Executive Order label as well as the Year/Make/Model and Test Group # of the vehicle to [email protected]

Download: Executive Order D-121-1 PDF

D-121-1 Document:



                                                              (Page 1 of 2)

                                   State of California
                                   AIR RESOURCES BOARD
                                 EXECUTIVE ORDER D—121—1
                       Relating to Exemptions under Section 27156
                                   of the Vehicle Code


                              LINDBERG INTERNATIONAL CORP.
                           LINDBERG—COMBUSTION CONTROL SYSTEM


      Pursuant to the authority vested inbthe Air Resources: Board by Section
      27156 of the Vehicle Code; and

      Pursuant to the authority vested in the undersigned by Sections 39515 and
      39516 of the Health and Safety Code. and Executive Order G—45—5;

.—     IT IS ORDERED AND RESOLVED: That the installation of the Lindberg         .
      Combustion Control System manufactyred by the Lindberg International Corp.,
       Berkeley, California has been found not to reduce the effectiveness of
      —required motor vehicle poliution coritrol devices and, therefore, is exenmpt —
       from the prohibitions of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code for 1983 and
      older mode]-year gasoline fueled motor. vehicles.

      This Executive Order is valid provided that 1nsta11at10n instructions for
      this device on all 1983 and older modeT—year vehicles will not allow tuning
      the engine to specifications different from those of the original
      engine/vehicle manufacturers.                          .

      Changes made to the design oroperat1ng cond1t1ons of the dev1ce, as         ©~   .
     _‘exempted bythe Air Resources Board, that adversely affect the performance
      of a vehicle‘s po]]ut1on contro] system shall fnvaTlTidate this Execut1ve            '
      Order.                                                              .

      Marketing of this device using an identification other than that shown in
     ~this Executive Order or marketing of this device for an application other .
      than those listed in this Executive Order shall be prohibitedcunless pr1or
      approval is obtained from the Air Resources Board.. Exemption of a kit—
      shall not be construed —as an exemption to sell, offer for sale, or >
       advertise any component of a kit as an 1ndividUa1 ‘device.

      This Executive Order does not const1tute any op1n1on as to the effect that
      the use of this device may have on any : warranty either expressed or implied
      by the veh1c1e manufacturer.

       THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CERTIFICATION, ACCREDITATION,
      _APPROVAL, OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENDORSEMENT BY THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD oF
     : ANY CLAIMS OF. THE APPLICANT CONCERNING ANTI—POLLUTION BENEFITS OR ANY
       ALLEGEDBENEFITS OF THE LINDBERG COMBUSTION—CONTROL sysTEM.


LfNDBERG‘INTERNATIONAL CORP. ..                  EXECUTIVE: ORDER D—121—1
L INDBERG COMBUSTION CONTROL SYSTEM                    (Page 2 of 2)




No claim of any kind, such: a§{"ļ¬pproved‘by Air Resources Board" may be made
with respect to the action taken herein in any advertising or other oral or.
written communication.

Section 17500 of the Business and Professions Code makes untrue or
misleading advertising unlawful,— and Section 17534 makes violation
punishable as a misdemeanor.
Section 43644 of the Health and Safety Code provides as follows:

    "43644. (a). No person shall install, sell, offer for sale, or
    advertise, or, except in an application to the state board for >
    certification of a device, represent, any device as a motor vehicle
    pollution control device for use on any used motor vehicle unless that
    device has been certified by the state board. No person shall sell,
    offer for sale, advertise, or represent any motor vehicle pollution
    control device as—a certified device which, in fact, is not a certified
    device.   Any violation of this<subdivision is a misdemeanor."

Any apparent violation of the conditions of this Executive Order will be
submitted to the—Attorney General—of California for such action as he deems
advisable.


Executed at El Monte, Ca11forn1a, th1s
                                     ay of October, 1983.



                                       ///M
                                        . D. Drachand, Chief
                                       Mobile Source Division


                        State of California
                        AIR RESOURCES BOARD




   EVALUATION OF THE LINDBERG INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION‘S LINDBERG
COMBUSTION CONTROL SYSTEM DEVICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
           OF SECTION 27156 OF THE CALIFORNIA VEKHICLE CODE




                          September, 1983


                                                Date: September, 1983



EVALUATION OF THE LINDBERG INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION‘S LINDBERG COMBUSTION
CONTROL SYSTEM DEVICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 27156 OF
THE CALIFORNIA VEKICLE CODE




                                       by
                             Mobile Source Division

                               State of California
                               Air Resources Board
                               9528 Telstar Avenue
                              El Monte, California
                                      91731


(This report has been reviewed by the staff of the California Air Resources
Board and approved for publication.   Approval does not signify that the
content necessarily reflect the view and policies of the Air Resources Board,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation of use.)


                                   SUMMARY


      Lindberg International Corp., Berkeley, California, requested that

the Air Resources Board {ARB) update Executive Order D—121 for exemption

from the prohibitions in Section 27156 of the California Vehicle Code for
their "Lindberg Combustion Control System" (LCSS) device.     The applicant

has requested that the exemption be granted for the installation of this

device on all 1983 and earlier model—year gasoline—fueled vehicles.

      A 1983 Chevrolet Chevette (Vehicle No. 1) with a four—cylinder 98

CID, three—speed automatic transmission and a 1983 Ford LTD (YVehicle No.
2) with a V—8, 302 CID, four—speed automatic transmission, both equipped

with California certified emission control systems, were used for the

evaluation of this device.    The vehicles were tested using back—to—back

(baseline and with device) CVS—75 and Highway Fuel Economy Test {HFET)

procedures.

      The test data showed the following:
      1.      Test results from vehicle No. 1 showed an increase in NOx
emissions, and an increase in fuel economy with the use of the device.

However, these increases (NOx and fuel economy) were due to the

alteration of the original engine manufacturer‘s tune—up specifications

{ignition timing).
      2.      Vehicle No. 2 test results indicate no adverse effect on

emissions by the use of the device.     The comparative fuel economy test

data show that the figures are within laboratory test variability Timits,

indicating that the device has no effect on fuel economy of the test

vehicle.


      The installation instructions were strictly followed for both test

vehicles, however, the applicant decided not to alter the ignition timing

on the No. 2 vehicle.   He explained that since the test vehicle is

equipped with a computer control system, a 5° timing advance is not

necessary.

      The staff, therefore, recommends the issuance of ARB Executive

Order D—121—1, allowing the installation of the LCCS device on all 1983

and older model—year gasoline—fueled motor vehicles provided that the

installation instructions for this device will not allow tuning the

engine to specifications different from those of the original
engine/vehicle manufacturer.




                                    1i


                                    CONTENTS


                                               Page Number



SUMMARY

CONTENTS

1.     INTRODUCTION

II.    CONCLUSION

III.   RECOMMENDATIONS

IV.    SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION

V.     EMISSION AND FUEL ECONOMY TEST
VI.    TEST RESULTS

VII.   DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX
       A.   INSTALLATION DIAGRAM




                                       i1


EVALUATION OF THE LINDBERG INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION‘S LINDBERG
COMBUSTION CONTROL SYSTEM DEVICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SECTION 27156 OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE


I.     INTRODUCTION

       Lindberg International Corporation of 1052 Dwight Way, Berkeley,

California 94710, submitted an application for exemption from the

prohibitions in Section 27156 of the California Vehicle Code for the
company‘s "Lindberg Combustion Control System" (LCCS) device.     Vehicle

Code Section 27156 prohibits the installation of any device or mechanism
which reduces the effectiveness of the required emission control system.

This code also authorizes the Air Resources Board ({ARB) to exempt a

device from this prohibition if it can be demonstrated that the device,

upon installation on the engine, will not adversely affect the

performance of the existing emissions control system.     The applicant has

requested that the exemption be granted for the installation of this
device on 1983 and older model—year gasoline fueled vehicles.
I1I.   CONCLUSION

       The staff evaluated the device and found that the LCCS device will

have a significant adverse effect on emissions (high NOx level) from

motor vehicles as shown by the test results on vehicle No. 1.     The

applicant explained that this emission increase was due to the alteration

of the original engine manufacturer‘s {OEM) ignition timing by applying a

5° timing advance on the No. 1 test vehicle.     The applicant deferred
this timing advance on No. 2 test vehicle.     The test results on the

second vehicle did not show any emissions effect; the test results did

not show any appreciable fuel economy gain either.


III.    RECOMMENDATION

       Based   on test data and the submitted information, the staff
recommends that the ARB exempt the LCCS device from the prohibitions in

Vehicle Code Section 27156.   The staff, therefore, recommends the

adoption of ARB Executive Order D—121—1, allowing the installation of
LCCS device on all 1983 and older model—year gasoline—fueled motor

vehicles provided that the installation instructions for this device will

not allow tuning the engine to specifications different from those of the
original engine/vehicle manufacturer.
IV.    SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION

       The LCCS device (Figure 1 of Appendix) is connected to the engine

intake manifold through the hose Tine between the Positive Crankcase
Ventilation (PCY) valve and the carburetor.   The device consists of: a)

water reservoir made of special plastic material, b) a metering vailve
(magtrol) that controls the amount of water flow under all operating

conditions, c) a reactor, which mixes and proportions exhaust gas, water

and air in varying forms of steam or hot water droplets, d) a tornado

control, which induced turbulent flow and distributes a mixture of air,

exhaust gas, fuel, steam and hot water droplets to the cylinders, and e}

high temperature resistance hoses, to conduct the fluid to each component

of the system, and finally to the intake manifold inlet port on the base

of carburetor.

       The LCCS device responds to the engine‘s power requirements

providing the metered amount of air, hot exhaust gas, crankcase gas,

fuel, water and enhance turbulent flow, depending upon the engine

operating conditions at all times.


         This response is activated by the engine‘s changing needs at

varying dynamic operating and power conditions, causing changes of water

pressure at the reservoir aft—located water outlet, increasing pressure
during acceleration and decreasing pressure in deceleration as applied to

the magtrol inlet and supported by a water section created by exhaust gas

flowing through the reactor and applied to the magtrol outlet.
         During Tow temperatures such as cold soak and cold starting

conditions, the magtrol body, having a greater coefficient of expansion

than the 440 stainless steel ball shrinks, locking the ball and closes

off all water flow until the engine warms the magtrol body to open the

valve.    As soon as enough heat is conducted to the magtrol and the other

components of the system, fluidic conditions arise to counteract the

force of the magnet thus moving the ball away from the magnet and the

ball seat allowing a metered amount of water to enter the reactor.

         The reactor is the heart of this system.   This is where the water,

air and exhaust gas is properly mixed.     The metered water is converted

into steam during low to part—throttle, and to warm water droplets at

full—throttle, by the heat from the exhaust gas and the induction of hot

fresh air into the reactor.     Under high manifold vacuum conditions, such

as part throttle (deceleration)mode, more hot fresh air and less water is

induced into the reactor.     This mixture combined with a predeterm;ned

amount of exhaust gas to produce "high quality" steam.      Under Tow

manifold vacuum conditions, such as full—throttle (acceleration) mode,

larger amount of water is directed into the reactor due to the increased

aspiration effect induced by the entering exhaust gas at a higher

velocity.    The resulting mixture produces a steam of "lower quality".


         The mixture from the reactor is then conveyed to a high velocity

tornado—like mixer called the tornado control which is plumbed into the
PCV line very close to the manifold below the carburetor.     This

high—velocity mixture is introduced into the manifold under the butterfly

valve.     It then combines with the fue] charge and enters directly into
the cylinders through the intake manifold.     The vaporization process of

the wet steam contained in the mixture tends to cool down the fuel charge

temperature this in turn may result in lTower cylinder {combustion)

temperature thus minimizing the pre—ignition tendency and the formation

of NOx emissions.

         The water reservoir acts as a heat storage device and due to its

location keeps the intake manifold warm for a Tong time after shutting
off the engine.     This condition enhances the engine start up in cold
weather.

V.       EMISSION AND FUEL ECONOMY TESf

         The test vehicles were procured and driven by the applicant to the

Haagen—Smit Laboratory.     Upon arrival of the test vehicle, it was
inspected to assure that it is in good operating condition for emission

testing.


       The comparative emissions and fuel economy tests (baseline versus

with—device tests) were conducted in accordance with the cold—start

CVS—75 and Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET} procedures.       The baseline

test was run with vehicle engine set to vehicle manufacturer‘s

specifications.   The with—device test was run with the device installed
and adjusted according to the device manufacturer‘s written instructions.

VI.    TEST RESULTS

       The Air Resources Board first subjected this device to CVS—75 and

HFET procedures using a 1983 Chevrolet Chevette (No. 1) with a

four-cj]inder, 98 CID,three—speed automatic transmission, feed—back

carburetor, closed Toop, exhaust gas recirculation, and equipped with a

three—way catalytic converter.     The test results are shown as follows:

                             Cold—Start CVS—75 Test


                      Exhaust Emissions, gm/mi         Fue!l
Test                                                  Economy
Condition             HC          CQO       NOx         MPG

Baseline              0.15        2.79      0.39      23.16
Device Test           0.13        1.34      0.56      26.60

                              Hot—Start HFET Test

                      Exhaust Emissions, gm/mi         Fuel
Test                                                  Economy
Condition             HC          Co        NOx         MPG
Baseline              0.01        0.79      0.14      29.2
Device Test           0.13        0.04      0.25      34.6


       A second test vehicle, a 1983 Ford LTD (No.2), with a V—8, 302 CID
engine, four—speed automatic transmission, feed—back carburetor, closed

loop, exhaust gas recirculation, and equipped with a three—way catalytic

converter.    The test resulTts are shown belfow:

                               Cold—Start HFET Test
                       Exhaust Emissions, gm/mi          Fuel
Test                                                     Economy
Condition              HC          CO          NOx         MPG

Baseline               0.33        4.95       0.58       16.20
Device Test            0.39        4.83       0.44       15.40

                               Hot~Start HFET Test

                       Exhaust Emissions, gm/mi           Fuel
Test                                                     Economy
Condition     >        HC          CO          NOx         MPG
Baseline                0.17       4.10        0.30      25.20
Device Test             0.08       2.50        0.33      25.30

VIII. DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS

       The applicant submitted several customer testimonials, OTson
Engineering Inc., test report, and the Lindberg International Corporation

test report on é 1983 Ford Ranger.

       The ARB did not accept any of the above document for the following

reasons:     customer testimonials are considered to be very subjective, and

uncontrollable test variables are always present along the test routes.

Olson Engineering, Inc., test data and report, although dated January 19,

1981, were done and obtained on a 1965 Dodge Dart, 225 CID, automatic

transmission; this is not acceptable for the model—year coverage Lindberg

is seeking for exemption coverage.        Even though the applicant submitted

test data on a 1983 Ford Ranger, 2.3 liter engine, the ARB did not accept


them because they were not derived from the CVS—75 test procedures.     The

ARB will only accept the CVS—75 test results as the official emission

test from the properly selected test vehicles, and Highway Fuel Economy
Test (HFET) results for fuel economy evaluation.

      Two 1983 test vehicles were selected and each of them was given an

emissions and fuel economy comparative tests.

      The test results from the test vehicle No. 1, a 1983 Chevrolet

Chevette, showed an increase in NOx emissions, and an increase in fuel

economy with the use of the device.     However, these increases (NOx and

fuel economy), were found to be due to the alteration of the OEM tune—up

specifications (a 5° timing advance).
      The results from the test vehicle No. 2, a 1983 Ford LTD, tested

without alteration to the OEM timing, indicates no adverse effect on

emissions by the use of the device.     The comparative fuel economy test

data show that the figures are within the variability limits of

laboratory test, indicating that the device has no effect on fuel economy
of the test vehicle.


APPENDIX


                                       LINDBERG DEVICE
                                  INSTALLATION _DIAGRAM



RESERVOIR                                                                                       TIC TiR
                                                                                            PLASTIC  TiE

FILTER                                                                                       MAGTROL

BLACK TUBING ——                                                                       BLACK TUBING
318" 1.D.                                                                                        187 L.O.

                                                                                      * sov vaive
                                                                                                  PCV
                                                                                                 KOSE




                                                                                 *         PCV
                                                                                 i. CARSURETOR
                                                                                          PORT
                                                                                            ToOrRNADPC
                                                                                            CONTROL

                                                                                       RED TUBING




                                   ,    \        /..            e
                  1,    CCA             P          ., «& .                ALTEANATIVE _
                  7     MR          bes        .n P                     REACTOR LOCaATion
                  *           0                        go"               (see note below)
                         _                                   R EACTOR
                                                    {PREFERRED LOCATION
                  IW\                            IN FRONT OF EXHAUST PORT
              ~                                     NEAR PCV CARB. PORT)


                                            FIGURE 1



Document Created: 2005-09-01 12:43:32
Document Modified: 2005-09-01 12:43:32

Previous E.O. D-121 | Previous E.O. D-120 | Next E.O. D-121-2 | Next E.O. D-122