Approval Details

Valid E.O.

Validity

This Executive Order approved the specified parts on on August 1, 1974.
As of Monday, September 23rd, 2019 this Executive Order has not been overturned or superceeded.

Approved Parts

Models
1974 and older vehicles

This Executive Order may be listed as:
  • C.A.R.B.E.O. D-35
  • Executive Order 35 / D35
  • ARB # D-35
  • Executive Order No: D-35
  • C.A.R.B. No. D-35
  • Resolution D-35
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-35 PDF

D-35 Document:



a‘


                             State of California
                             AIR RESOURCES BOARD

                             EXECUTIVE ORDER D—35
                   Relating to Exemptions under Section 27156
                               of the Vehicle Code


                          HYDRO—CATALYST CORPORATION
                  "PRECOMBUSTION CATALYST—CALIFORNIA DESIGN"


     Pursuant to the authority vested in the Air Resources Board by Section
     27156 of the Yehicle Code; and

     Pursuant to the authority vested in the undersigned by Section 39023 of
     the Health and Safety Code;

     WHEREAS: It has been found that the "Precombustion Catalyst—California
     Besign" device has no statistically significant effects on exhaust emissions;

     IT IS ORDERED AMND RESOLVED: That the installation of the "Precombustion
     Catalyst—California Design" device manufactured by the Hydro—Catalyst
     Corporation has been found to not reduce the effectiveness of required
     motor vehicle pollution control devices and, therefore, is exempt from
     the prohibitions of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code for 1974 and older
     model—year vehicles.

     The device consists of two formed screens made of fine mesh wire cloth
     mounted under each carburetor barrel.    The upstream screen is plated with
     cadmium and the downstream screen with nickel.

     This Executive Order is valid provided that installation instructions
     for this device will not recommend tuning the vehicle to specifications
     different than those listed by the vehicle manufacturer.

     Changes made to the design or operating conditions of the device as
     submitted to the Air Resources Board for evaluation that adversely
     affect the performance of the vehicle‘s poliution control devices
     shall invalidate this Executive 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 prohibited unless
     prior approval is obtained from the Air Resources Board.

     This Executive Order does not constitute any opinion as to the effect
     that the use of this device may have on any warranty either expressed or
     implied by the vehicle manufacturer.


 "Precombustion Catalyst—California Design"                    Executive Order D—35




 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
 ALLEGED BENEFITS OF THE "PRECOMBUSTION CATALYST—CALIFORNIA DESIGN" DEVICE.

 No claim of any kind, such as "Approved 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 unlawful, untrue
  or misleading advertising, and Section 17534 makes violation punishable as
  a misdemeanor.

 Sections 39130 and 39184 of the Healith and Safety Code provide as follows:

      "39130.   No person shall install, sell, offer for sale, or advertise,
      or, except in an application to the board for certification of a
      device, represent, any device as a motor vehicle pollution control
      device unless that device has been certified by the 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 section is
      a misdemeanor."

      "39184. (a) No person shall install, sell, offer for sale, or adver—
      tise, or, except in an application to the board for accreditation 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
      accredited by the board. No person shall sell, offer for sale, adver—
      tise, or represent any motor vehicle pollution control device as an
      accredited device which, in fact, is not an accredited device. Any
      violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor."

 On the basis of its evaluation of the "Precombustion Catalyst—California
 Design" device, the Air Resources Board has determined that the "Precombus—
 tion Catalyst—California Design" device does not have a beneficial effect
 on gasoline mileage or exhaust emissions.

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




 Executed at Sacramento, California, this     [      day of.      y, 1974.




                                   WILLIAM SIMMONS
                                   Executive Officer


                           State of California

                           AIR RESOURCES BOARD

                              July 23, 1974

                               Staff Report

               Evaluation of Hydro—Catalyst Corporation
                     "Precombustion Catalyst—California
                    Design" Device for Compliance with
                   the Requirements of Section 27156 of
                             the Vehicle Code

  . Introduction

   On January 4, 1974, Hydro—Catalyst Corporation requested an exemption from

   the prohibitions of Vehicle Code Section 27156 for its "Precombustion"

   catalytic device.     The staff reported its evaluation of the device to

   the Executive Officer on June 11, 1974 with the recommendation to deny

   Hydro—Catalyst Corporation‘s request for an exemption from the requirements

   of Section 27156.     The recommendation was based on significant increases

   in hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen pfoduced by the device measured

   during emission testing at the Air Resources Board Laboratory.     On June 18,

   1974, the Executive Officer notified the Hydro—Catalyst Corporation of

   his denial of its application.     On July 9, 1974, the Hydro—Catalyst

   Corporation submitted an application for a re—evaluation of a modified

   device relative to the requirements of Section 27156.     This device has been

   identified as the "Precombustion Catalyst—California Design" device.


I1. Device Description
   The modified device incorporates a screen array of the same design as

   the device that was initially submitted for evaluation.     It consists of a

   pair of formed fine mesh wire cloth installed below {downstream) each


"Precombustion Catalyst—California Design"                 July 23, 1974




     carburetor barrel.       The screens are held in place by typical mounting

   . gaskets.     Devices are avaiiable for 1—, 2— and 4—barrel carburetor

     installations.       For a more detailed description of the screen design

     and device function, see Appendix 1, the staff report entitled "Evaluation

     of Hydro—Catalyst Corporation ‘Pre—Combustion‘ Catalytic Device for

   — Compliance with the Requirements of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code",

     dated June 11, 1974.


    The modified device does not employ initial Hydro—Catalyst device modifica—

     tions to the OEM engine settings whereas the initial Hydro-?ata1yst device

     did.     In addition, the California Design device incorporate% changes to    >     x

     the gasket for six—cylinder Chrysler Product applications to conform with

    OEM one—barrel carburetors.


III. Device Evaluation

    A.      Applicant‘s Test Data

            The applicant submitted emission test data performed by Scott Laboratories

            on a 1972 Oldsmobi]e,v455 CID, 4—barrel carburetor and automatic

            transmission.    These data were extracted from test results of a series |

            of tests performed on this vehicle to determine the emission effects of
            the screen device in combination with various changes in OEM engine

            settings.


            The submitted data are intended to show the effects of the screen device

            without any chariges to OEM engines settings as éompared to the baseline

            vehicle.    Several factors preclude the possibility of directly comparing


"Precombustion Catalyst—California Design"                   July 23, 1974




         the two sets of data.       First, the device test was performed

         abproximately one month and 3,000 vehicle miles after the baseline

         tests.   Second, the baseline test was performed acéording t6>the

         cold—start CVS test procedure and the device test was performed

         éccording to the hot—start CVS test procedure.           Therefore, no conclu—

         sion can be made from these data.         The submitted data are shown in

         Appendix II.       The following is a summary of these data:

                                                            Exhaust Emissions
                        °         Device       Type of         Grams/Mi le
             Vehicle             Installed       Test       HCG       cCO       NOx

         1972 Oldsmobile            No         Cold CVS     1.39     17.59    6.67
                                   Yes         Hot CVS      1.24     13.57    4.70


         Air Resources Board Test Data

         Emission tests were performed at the Air Resources Laboratory on the

         following vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions :

             1972 Dodge Pick—up, 225 CID engine with T—barrel carburetor.

             1972 Dodge Pick—up, 318 CID engine with 2—barrel carburetor.

             1974 Chevrolet Pick—up, 350 CID engine with 4—barrel carburetor.


        A series of three baseline and three device hot—start CVS tests were

         performed on each vehicle.        The tests were designed to statistically

         nest and balance the data obtained from the tests of the three vehicles.
        The vehicles were each adjusted to the vehicle manufacturer'$ engine

         settings for all tests.         The following are the results of the emission

         tests:


                        "Precombustion Catalyst—California Design"                        July 23, 1974




                                                                        Hot—Start CVS                      Fuel
                                                Device                 Avg. Grams/Mile                    Economy
                             Vehicle            Installed     Ht         ~COo      0X         C02           MPG
                        1972 Dodge 225—1V          No        2.09     45.14       3.30       541.9        14.3
                                                  Yes        2.28     42.31       3.48       535.5        14.6
                           Percent Change                    {9.1)     (—6.3)     (5.4)      (—1.0)        {2.0)

                        1972 Dodge 318—2V          No        1.74      16.85      3.26       614.3         13.7
                                                  Yes        1.86      15.69      3.16       623.1         13.5
                           Percent Change                    (6.9)     (—6.9)     (—3.1)     (1.4)        (—1.5)
                        1974 Chevrolet 350—4V      No        1.90       $.39      1.71       744.9         11.6
                                                  Yes        1.94       9.83      1.69       728.3         11.8
                           Percent Change                    (2.1)     {4.7)      (—1.2)     (—2.2)        {1.7)

                        Fleet Avg. Percent Change            {6.1)     {—5.0)     (0.7)      (—0.8 )       {0.8)

                                 An analysis of variance statistical test with nested classification

                                 was used to evaluate these data.        See Tables 1 through 4 for the

                                 statistical summaries.     The analysis of variance shows no statistical

                                 difference between the emissions obtafined with and without the device

                                 at the 95% confidence level.        Also, no significant difference was

                                 found in fuel economy at the 95% confidence level with and without
                                 the device.    Although a 9.1% increase in HC and 5.4% increase in NOx was

                                 noted with the one—barrel carburetor, this effect was believed to be

                                 adversely influenced by intermittant operation of the vacuum spark

                                 advance temperature control unit on the vehicle.


                            C.   Durability Evaluation

                                 The 1—, 2— and 4—barrel carburetor devices were examined after the

                                 hot~start CVS test series.     The wire cloths of all of the devices

                                 were relatively clean and undamaged.           The 1—barrel carburetor device
unci cconiitincecs ‘~




                                 after testing is shown in Figure 1.


"Precombustion Catalyst—California Design"                       July 23, 1974




         After compléting the hot—start CVS test series, the vehicle with the

         4—barrel device accumulated approximately 2,000 miles of service.       The

        wire cloth is coated with a residue probably composed of the dyes and

        additives found in the gasoline.     The residue pattern appears to be

        briented according to the fuel passages.     See Figure 1.   The residue

         thickness would be expected to reach an equilibrium value which would

        not restrict air flow sufficiently to cafise an adverse effect on
        emissions due to the gasoline‘s solvent action.     No other long term

         problems would be anticipated based on engineering jJudgment.


         Installation Instructions

        The Staff has verified that the suBmitted device installation instruc—

        tions reflect the proper OEM or exhaust retrofit device manufacturer‘s
        settings for idle speed and mixture ratio.    The installation instructions

        do not contain any statements relative to ignition timing settings.

        Other items which the Staff required in the installation instructions were:

         (1)   more specific instructions relating to any required choke adjust—

        ments; (2)    the speéified torgue values corrected to show proper units

         {foot—pounds or inch—pounds); (3) clarify when the original carburetor

        mounting gaskets may be used or replaced; and (4) replace the carburetor

        mounting studs with longer ones when necessary rather than backing out

        the original studs from their mounting holes for adequate length.


        The applicant has satisfied all these installation instruction require~

        ments.


"Precombustion Catalyst—California Design"            July 23, 1974




 IV. Conclusions and Recormmendations

     It is the Staff opinion that Hydro—Catalyst Corporations "Precombustion

    Catalyst—California Design" device has neither a statistically significant

     effect on exhaust emissions nor fuel economy.


     It is recommended that Hydro—Catalyst Corporation be granted an exemption

     from the prohibitions of Vehicle Code Section 27156 for its "Precombustion

    Catalyst—California Design" device for use on 1974 and older model—year

     vehicles.


                                            TABLE 1

                                            Hydrocarbons

                           Hot—Start CVS—1 Exhaust Emission Tests
                                         Device:      Hydro—Catalyst
                                     Yehicle #1:      1972 Dodge 318 CID, ¥—8, 2—barrel
                                     Vehicle #2:1     1974 Chev. P.U. 350 CID, ¥—8, 4—barrei
                                     Vehicle #3:      1972 Chev. P.U. 225 CID, 6—Cy1., l—barrel


                  — Vehicle #1                        Vehicle #2                             Vehicle #3

Status     Baseline        w/Device         Bas:line             w/Device          Baseline        w/Device
Test

  1        1.88312         1.66092      ~ 1.96654                1.97853           2.22454         2.11763

  2       ~1.71762         2.01534          1.86974              1.89728           2.05281         2. 34564

  3        1.653249        1.91268          1.85081              1,.94325          2.00821         2. 36244

           X (baseline) = 1.91176                                X (w/device) = 2.02597

                                     Analysis of Variance


                                   Sum of                    ‘            Mean          Computed
Source of Estimate                Squares             D.F.               Squares        F—VYalue

Between Vehicles                  0.46023              2                 0.23012        15.91425
Between Devices                                                      |
within Vehicles                   0.07262             3                  0.02421         167402
between Tests within
Vehictes and Device               0.17352    >   . 42               _ 0.01446



Critical F (3.12)      = 3.4903             {95% confidence level)
Not significant upon 95% confidence level.


                                                   TABLE 2

                                             Carbon_Monoxide
                                 Hot—Start CVS—1 Exhaust Emission Tests

                                             Device:     Hydro—Cat alyst
                                         Vehicle #1:     1972 Dodge 318 CID, ¥—8, 2—barrei
                                         Vehicle #2:     1974 Chey. P.U. 350 CID, ¥—8, 4—barrel
                                         Vehicle #3:     1972 Chev. P.U. 225 CID, 6—cy1., l—barrei


                          Yehicle #1                    Vehicle #2                     ¥ehicle #3

Status             Baseline      w/Bevice      Baseline          w/Device        Baseline        w/Device
Tests.
     1         |   17.48377      16.84050      9.13490           ?0.02090        48.12819        42.98754

 _2        ‘       17.09191      15. 10659     9.77309            8.76980        45,82496        42.61895

     3 |           15. 96081     15,12254      9.26830           10.72427        41,45636        41.41458

                   X (baseline) = 23.79137                       X (w/device) = 22.61174


                                          Analysis of Variance

                                         Sum of                        Mean           Computed
Source of Estimate                       Squares         D.F.         Squares         F—Yalue

Between Vehictes                       3922.47750            2      1961.23875        794.51190
Between Device
within Yehicles                         14.31080             3        4.77027           1.93247

Between Tests within
Vehicies and Device                     29.62179         12           2.46828


Critical F (3,12) = 3.4903                   (95% confidence level)

No       significant difference upon 95% confidence level.


                                                TABLE 3


                                           Oxides of Hfitrogen

                             Hot—Start CVS—1 Exhaust Emission Tests

                                              Device:    Hydro—Catalyst                     .
                                        VYehicle #1:     1972 Dodge 318 CI0, Y—8, 2—barrel
                                        Vehicle #21:     1974 Chey. P.U. 350 CID, V—8, 4—barrel >
                                        Vehicle #3:      1972 Chey. P.U. 225 CID, 6—cy1, l—barrel


                   Yehicle #1                           Vehicle #2                   Vehicle _#3

Status      Baseline          w/Device          Baseline       . w/Device    Baseline           w/Device
Test 0 —    _        —                   ol
  1         3.28011           3.05696 t 71.67738                1. 72541     3.92070            2.94271

  2         3.28557           3.27417          1.76230          1.60365      3.03460            3.77239
  3         3.20463           3.16331          1.69848          1.74240      2.95532            3.72594

            K (baseline) = 2.75768                             Y (w/device) = 2.77855

                                        Analysis of Variance


                                    Sum of                          Mean      _     Computed
Source of Estimate       ©         Squares              D.F.       Squares        . _F—Value

Between Vehicles                  10.3178                2         5.15889         58.93710

‘Between Device                                                       t
within Vehicles                    0. 06032              3         0.02011         , 0.22930
Between Tests within                                                n
Vehicles and Device                1.05218          142            ©.08768


Critical F (3, 12) = 3.4903 (95% confidence level)

Not significant upon 95% confidence level.


                                                        TABLE 4


                                                       EuelEconomy
                         Hot—Start CVS—1 Exhaust Emission Tests

                                           Device:              Hydro—Catalyst
                                      Vehicle #1:               1972 Dodge 318 CID, V—8, 2—barrel
                                      Vehicle #2:               1974 Chev. P.U. 350 CID, ¥—~8, 4—barrei
                                      VYehicle #3:              1972 Chev. P.U. 225 CID, 6—cy1l., l—barrel
                                                  £1

                    vehicle‘ #1                                Yehicle #2                Yehicle #3
Status       Daseline          w/Device                Baseline        w/Device    Baseline        w/Device
Tests _                    .                  .
  K          13.68247          13.73410                11.49567        11.62937    14.38756   _    14.46170

  2          13.70908          13.52329                11.59403        12.12500    14.19325        14.44727
  3      .   13. 82234         13.36659                11.69480        11.77532    14.41829        14.81784

             X (baseline) = 13.22228                                   X (w/device) = 13.32005


                                      Analysis of Variance

                                          Sum of                            Mean        Computed
Source of Estimate                   Squares                   O0.F.     Squares        F—Value

Between Vehicles                    23.65917                      2     11.82959        408. 93742

between Device                                                            —
within Vehicles                      0.23807                      3      0.07936          2.74325

between Tests within                      °
Vehicles and Device                  0. 34713                  12        0.02893


Critical F (3, 12) = 3.4903                            (95% confidence level)

Not significant upon 95% confidence level.




                                                          10


           FIGURE 1
 Photograph of Hydro—Catalyst
 Corporation‘s "Precombustion
Device—California Design" Device




              1.


                                                             APPENDIX 1

                            State of California

                            AIR RESOURCES BOARD
                                 June 11, 1974

                                     Staff . Report

                   Evaluation of Hydro—Catalyst Corporation
                      "Pre—Combustion" Catalytic Device for
                       Compliance with the Requirements of
                         Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code


T.     Introduction
       The Hydro—Catalyst Corporation, Holmdel, New Jersey has applied

       for an exemption from the prohib}tions of Section 27156 the

       Vehicle Code for'its "Pre—Combustion" catalytic device.        Section

       27156 prohibits the advertising, sale or installation of any

       device which reduces the effectiveness of motor véhicie emission

       control systems.    Thg applicant is requesting that fhe.exemption

       be granted for 1974 and older model—year vehicles.


I1.    Defiice Description and Function

       The Hydro—Catalyst Corporation‘s "Pre—Combustion" device is designed

       to position a pair of formed screens under {downstream) each carburetor

       barrel.   The applicant produces devices to fit engines with 1—, 2—

      . and 4— barrel carburetors.      See Figure 1.   The screens are made of

     — fine mesh wire cloth and formed into conical and parabolic shapes.

       The upstream screen is plated with cadmium and the downstream screen

       with nickel.    The screens are mated in assembly by a mounting gasket


                                                                          APPENDIX 1 —




                         with approximately 1/8 inch space between the screens,          The applicant

                         states that physical contact between the screens will destroy the

                         device‘s catalytic effect.


                         The mounting gasket is of typical laminated gasket material, f.e.,

                         nitrile rubber with asbestos fiber filler.       _A    coating of an

                         electrolytic material is applied between the laminations.          Grounding

                        _ _tabs protrude from the electrolytic coating.


                         In addition to the installation of the device, it is required that

                         the vehicle‘s OEM engine settings be modified.        The installation

                         instructions specify advancing the initial timing up to an additional

                         six degrees.   The idle CO is adjusted by leaning the mixtfire to a

                         constant misfire conditfon and then enrichening the mixture until

                         only occasional misfires occur.

                         The applicant states that through catalytic action the device will

                        ~ precondition the air—fuel mixture in such a manner as to promote

                         more efficient combustion.     It is claimed that this enhancement is

                         acfiié&ed by a precursory effect induced by the device to influence

                         combustion and to lower the vehicle‘s fuel octane requireméent.          Removal

                         of engine carbon deposits,     reduced air pollution     and improved vehicle

                         performance a;e also claimed.     The staff evaluation concerns itself

                         with only the effects of the device on exhaust emissions.
fak n mewnnaon aunens




                                                  13.


                                                                                            APPENDIX 1


                   .        III. Emission Testing

                   ‘          The applicant submitted data obtained from a number of exhaust

                                   emission tests.       However, the only data which compare the effects

                                   of the device with engine adjustments to a baseline vehicle are

                                   céntained in Scott Research Laboratories‘ reports SRL 1420 01 0174

                              . and ~SRL 1420 02 0374.           The following are the results of baseline

                               and device cold CVS tests performed on a 1973 Ford Mustang with

                               .a 2—barrel carburetor and automatic transmission using Indolene 30

                                   as the test fuel:


                                                                                  _ cord cCVs

                        e                             Baseline                 246        35.66000   3.07
               ©       2s           No        s       Device     _           <op.56     ; 19.50          3.34
                        ~      >        100C‘ (Aug. 2 Tests)
                                        ~          C‘ Percent Change           (3.66)    (—45.32)    (8.79)
                                   Additiona]bcqnfirmatory tests were performed at the Air Resources

                                   Board Laboratory to provide a better understanding of the device‘s

                                   effects.       The following vehicles with automatic transmissions were used

                                   for the ARB tests:


                                              . '1972 Dodge Pick—up, 225 CID engine with 1—bb1 carburetor

                                                   1974 Dodge Pick—up, 318 CID engine with 2—bb1 carburetor

                                                  1974 Chevrolet Pick§up, 350 CID engine with 4—bb1 carburetor
sheas s se NM«—'




                                                                       14.


                                                                                                APPENDIX I



                          A series of three baseline and three deQice hot CVS tests were

                          performed on each vehicle.              Thé vehicles were adjusted to the

                          applicant‘s engine setting for the device tests.                           Indolene 30

                          .wgs used as the test fuel.             The following are the results of
                          the emission tests:

                     n                 -            .   Device
                                                                              '   '        Ave.
                                                                                                  HotC  VS
                                                                                                   grams/mile
                          Yehicle                       Installed                       fl_(;___g_@__— NOx,
                         1972 Dodge 225—IV               No                              2.35        32.1        4.34
                                                        Yes           _               C277           .100        4.06
                                     Percent Change _                                 {17.9)        (28.0)      (—6.5)
                          1972 Dodge 318—2V              No                   o orM                  dh2k . 349
                             ‘                  "        Yes                          CopmM           62530      0003.90,
                                     Percent Change           '           j            {10.9)      (—57.0)      (22.3)
              <. +        1974 Chev. 350—4V              Ho                              1.56         9.95       1.60.
                                 ‘                       Yes                             3.29          7.820     2.07
                                     Percent Change                  <u               (1Mo.0}       (f—a1.4)    (29.4)
                          The inconsistent results obtained with the 225 CID Dodge in comparison
                          with data from the other vehicles                   were determined by a subsequent

 —                        investigation to be the result of a malfunctioning carburetor.                                 Con—
<1                   —    sequently, the data obtained from tests of this vehicle are not conclusive.




     [o   —                                 O             215.


                                                       APPENDIX I


   The data obtained from the other tests indicate that the device

    adversely affects HC and NOx emissions and beheficially affects CO

    emissfions.   These results can be expected as a consequence of advancing

    the spark timing and excessively leaning the idle mixture ratio.


IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
   The staff conciudes that the timing and idle CO adjustments required

   with the installation of the Hydro—Catalyst device adversely affect

   HC and NOx emissions.     The leaning of the air—fuel mixture also

  : substantially reduces CC emissions.    No emission related éffects

   attributed to the catalyst could be determined in the evaluation.


   It is the staff recommendation the Hydro—Catalyst Corporation be

  — denfed an exemption to Vehicle Code Section 27156 for its "Pre—

  vvCombustion" device for installation on‘ 1974 and older model—year

   vehicles.




                                  16.


                                          wok   +o


        |                                                          APPENDIX 1 —

.            ‘              O           Figure 1                              nb remmevess, .
©   |
                                 ‘
                           Hydro—Catalyst Corporation‘s
                                                           |
                           "Pre—Combustion" Device For
                                A one—Barrel Carburetor
                                     Installation.
                                         a




                                                                         5.               >




                                                                                       Grounding Tabs
                                                                                       .{Typ. 2 Places

                                                                     Cadmium Plated |
                                                                     Wire Cloth



                    Nfcke1 Plated
                   ‘ Wire Cloth




            Nn e       e Ne o
                           se




                                      ~* . Direction of
                                                Flow




                                      7.               '       _               .


                                                                                                         APPENDIX II                         *
                         sCOTT               RE SEARCH                              LABORATORIES                                    INC._
                        A    5 U B S i D i A R         Y        O Fo   A M OE      RoG C A No           B i O C U L T U    R oE ,       1N C .




                                                                                                           PLUMSTEADVILLE, PENNA, 18949
                                                                                                           PHONE 215 766—8861




                                                    TABLE 3 — 1972 EPA HOT START,

                                                                 A
                                                    EXHAUST EXMISSION DATA SHEET

                                                                                                                                             uw
 Vehicle         1972 Olds CustomCruiser                        Odome ter                                      Date         4/3/72            __
 Liconse         V{__lgy__gfi                                    Finish              7100 .7                    Progcct__12_302.
 Trans.          Automatic                                      Start               7093. 1                    Run
 Carb.           6N         bbols.                              Miles               7.6                        Device     Carb Catgllyt
 Engine          v8         CID        455                                               o                     Dyn. Load Hflf_épLual
                                                                                                                         14.2
 IGle X          600 (Prive)                                    BIT                 8"       @ 1100 RPM        Dyn. Inertia          5500#          ___
 Ahnalyst ___RrS                                                Drivexr       DG                               Calculator           RS

 Dry Bulb 9           ; F            56.5                                          Baromatric Press., mm Hg                 747.87
 Wet Gulb Temp., P                   78.5                                     CVS Pump Pross., mm Hg                        —11.97
 Gr. Watar/Ll. Dry Air               32                    *              (P) Sample Pross., mm Hg                          735
                                                                                                                             35.90                   _
    () Pactor_                       8319              M                  (V) CVS Pusp Disp., CFR                           13760
                                                                                                                                ~—~                 _
‘ SanpleTcn'z 1 0R _579.7                                                 (N)      CVS. Punp Revolutions                    24,689



                                               DILUTE EXHAUST NEASUKEMENTS

            compoxeNnt +                                       PVR/T                                FACTOR      >          GRAMS/HILE

 ppm NC dil.            89.93                                                                                        *
 ppm HC air            9.41
 ppin JC exh.          80. 52                              10217                                 11513 x 1075               1.24         _         nc
 ppm CO exh.           435                                             e                         3.054 x 106                13.57                  co
 ppn RO                                                                                             *
.ppm RO,
 ppm NOy,               110. 33
 (ppm xo) (®)          __91.78                             10217                                 5.017 x 10~C               4 .70                  RO,



 NOTES :    1.   Lead free Indolene Casoline.
            2.   Factory idle mixture (4% turns from closed)




©

                       PLOLibefeaSIh hB bry,                                                                                    L   ;
                                               +0    fan||! I!NI\R(NNOtl\\ lr                ®    Manihoniurtsibt, iob

                                                                          &


                                                                                          — APPENDIX II
             —        3COTT                RESEARCH                          LABORATORIES                             INC.
            C
            hal_.
                     A    5 U B § i    D   l A R    Y    O PA M OE          Roi C A N    B 1 0 C U L T U R     oE ,       1   N C .



©
                                                                                             PLUMSTEADVILLE, PENNA. 18949
                                                                                             PHONE 215 766—8061



  REFoRE TEest—Aso BeromRe ENoNE pEPosiT NoRmauzamponN
                                                TABLE 1 — 1972 EPA COLD START
                                                           1
                                                EXHAUST EMISSION DATA SHEET


 Vehicle _1972 OldsmoblleCustom CruiseDdometor                                                    pate          2/22/72
 License __NJ _YQ\L_EEC;_                                Finish             4186.7                Project       1283—00
 Trans. Automatic                                        Start              4179.0                Run        #1
 Cark.            bbls . _4                              Miles                 7.7                Dovice     None_
 Engine           CID       55                                                 6                  Dyn. Load _14.2_~BHP C 50 mpl
             Dr.,11
 ldle KPH _600     1100  Neutral                         BIP                8.5 _BIDC             pyn. Inertia 5500 7# L__
 hnalyst W                                               Driver             DG                    Calculator DC

 Dry Bulb Fomp., F _____75                                                  Barometric Press., mm Hg  7&8:27                          _
 vet Bulb Temp., P 5_/_4__                                        >         CVS Pump Pross., mm Hg |____12.34                         _
 Gr. Water/Lib. bDry Air 40                                           (P) Sample Pross., mm Hg            23663.
  ) Factor_                   8587                                    {V) CVS Fump Disp., CFR                   3290____
“ Sample Tomp., .R ___579.7                                           (N) CVS Pump Revolutions                 24615


                                               DILUTE EXNMUSYT MEASUREMENTS

            COKPONENT                                   PN/TI                           FACTOR                GRAMS/HILE

 ppm HC ail. _105.89             ___
 pma HC air         15.95
 pya HC exh.        89.94                          10197                            1.513 x 107C                 38              _ ne
 pyie CO exh.       565                            10197                            3.054 x 10~9                 7.59                 co
 ppin NO _               L
 pym NOp            22222222222
                    151.72                                                                                            L
 ppa HO,,
 (ppm xoJ (k)       130.3                          10197                            5.017 3 19~C               6.67              L.. NO,




                                                                      19.
                     eWns hig diimihh i iote   s   KAN NERNARDINO, CALIF,       *    MADISON HPIQHTS, MECHL



Document Created: 2005-09-01 12:41:54
Document Modified: 2005-09-01 12:41:54

| Previous E.O. D-34 | Next E.O. D-35-1 | Next E.O. D-36