Approval Details

Valid E.O.


This Executive Order approved the specified parts on on June 22, 1983.
As of Wednesday, July 17th, 2019 this Executive Order has not been overturned or superceeded.

Approved Parts

Part NumberModels
Model B1983 and older model-year gasoline vehicles with either three-way catalyst with feed-back controls or oxidation catalyst emission controls.

This Executive Order may be listed as:
  • C.A.R.B.E.O. D-69-2
  • Executive Order 69-2 / D69-2
  • ARB # D-69-2
  • Executive Order No: D-69-2
  • C.A.R.B. No. D-69-2
  • Resolution D-69-2
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-69-2 PDF

D-69-2 Document:

                                                        (Page 1 of 2)
                             State of California
                             AIR RESOURCES BOARD

                           EXECUTIVE ORDER D—69—2
                 Relating to Exemptions under Section 27156
                            of the Vehicle Code

                              CONDENSATOR, INC.
                    Condensator Supplementary Carburetor
                               Modelis B and C

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Air Resources Board by Sect1on
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;              c

IT IS ORDERED AND RESOLYED: That the installation of the Condensator
Supplementary Carburetor Models B and C manufactured by Condensator, Inc.
has been found not to reduce the effectiveness of required motor vehicle
pollution control devices and, therefore, is exempt from the prohibitions
gf]Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code for the vehicles, by model, listed

Model B
    i)    1983 and older model—year gasoline powered motor vehicles equipped
          with either three—way catalyst with feed—back controls or
          oxidation catalyst emission controls.

Model C
   ii)    1983 and older model—year motor vehicies.

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

Changes made to the design or operating conditions of the device, as
exempted by the Air Resources Board, that adversely affect the performance
of a vehicle‘s pollution control system shall invalidate this Executive

Market1ng 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.    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 individual device.

CONDENSATOR, INC.                                  EXECUTIVE ORDER D—69—2
                                                   (Page 2 of 2)

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.

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 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 polliution
    control device as a certified device which, in fact, is not a certified
    device.   Any violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor."

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

Executed at E1 Monte, California, this
                                           22    day of June, 1983.

                                         f(/; DBrachand, Chief
                                         Mobile Source Control Division

                    STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                    AIR RESOURCES BOARD



               OF VEHICLE CODE SECTION 27156

                         MAY, 1983

                            STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                            AIR RESOURCES BOARD

       Evaluation of Condensator, Inc.‘s Models B and C Condensator
       Supplementary Carburetor for Exemption from the Prohibitions
                       of Vehicle Code Section 27156

                      Mobile Source Control Division

                            State of California

                            Air Resources Board
                            9528 Telstar Avenue
                            El Monte, CA 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
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources
Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use. )

    Condensator, Inc. has requested that their 1978 Executive Order

D—69—1 be updated to include 1983 and older model—year vehicles and that

their new Model C device receive limited exemption.

     The Board performed comparative exhaust emission tests on the Model

B device and an engineering evaluation of the Model C device and

determined that neither device would reduce the effectiveness of the

engine‘s emission control components for the vehicle models as requested.

     The staff, therefore, recommends that the requested exemptions be

granted and that Executive Order D—69—2 be adopted.


                                       Page Number

SUMMARY                                     i
CONTENTS                                   i1







                                 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                 AIR RESOURCES BOARD

      Evaluation of Condensator, Inc.‘s Models B and C Condensator
Supplementary Carburetor for Exemption from the Prohibitions of Vehicle Code
Section 27156


        Condensator, Inc., 2010 Trimble Way, Sacramento, CA 95825, has applied

for update exemption for Model B and Model C Condensator Supplementary

Carburetor.      Exemption is sought for use of these devices on the vehicles, by

model, listed below:

Model B

        i)     1983 and older model—year gasoline powered motor vehicles equipped

              with either three—way catalyst with feed—back controls or oxidation

               catalyst emission controls.

Model C

      11)      1983 and older model—year motor vehicles.

        The two models differ slightly in that the Model B is a combination air

bleed and oil separator while the Model C is an oil separator only.

        The Board performed comparative exhaust emissions tests on the Model B

device and evaluated the operating principles of the Model C device.      This

report describes the test results and evaluation of both devices.


        The results of the Board‘s comparative exhaust emission tests revealed

that no significant emissions increase was found with the use of the Model B

device.      Testing was performed on a vehicle equipped with three—way catalyst

and feed—back controls which could be sensitive to the effects of the device.

The Model C device was found, through an engineering evaluation, not to reduce

the effectiveness of the poliution control devices found on vehicies in which

the Model B is not applicable.


       Based on no adverse emissions impact with the use of either Model B or

Model C Condensator Supplementary Carburetor, the staff recommends that

Condensator, Inc., be granted exemption from the prohibitions in Yehicle Code

Section 27156     for the vehicles as requested and that Executive Order B—69—2

be adopted.


       The Condensator Supplementary Carburetor Models B and C are similar in

appearance.     Both have a metal body with three internal passages leading

through an absorbant separator containing small beads retained by wire mesh to

an enclosed collector.      Two of the passages allow for a series connection to

the vacuum hose of the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system between the

PCY valve and intake manifold.     The third passage is vented to the atmosphere

and has a 0.040 inch fixed orifice.      The collector is a one quart glass jJar

with a threaded mouth which screws onto the bottom of the metal body.      The

external opening of each passage is threaded to accept a fitting.      The Model C

maintains the same two connections to the PCV system but seals the third

passage to the air bleed vent.

       In operation, blow—by gases from the crankcase which normally are pulled

into the intake manifold are routed through the device.      The crankcase gases

combined with suspended oil particles are separated as they circulate in the

device.     The entrapped oil fs accumulated at the bottom of the jar while the

gases proceeds to the intake manifold.      The manifold vacuum aiso pulls air

into the device through the device‘s air bleed vent.     The incoming air

combines with the crankcases gases and dilutes them.     The diluted blow—by

gases is then mixed with the fresh air/fuel mixture in the intake manifold and

is subsequently burned during combustion in the cylinders.


     Two test vehicles were selected for the evaluation of the Condensator

Model B device.     Each vehicle was chosen from local rental fleets and is

described in Table 1.     Comparative CVS—75 tests were run, two tests without

the device (baseline) and two tests with the device, for direct comparison.

All tests were performed according to the procedures as given in the Code of

Federal Regulations Part 86:00.

     The averaged comparative exhaust emission and fuel economy results are

found in Table 2.    All tests were performed at the Board‘s Haagen—Smit

Laboratory in El Monte, California.

                                      Table 1

                                   Vehicle I. D.

Description                         Vehicle # 1               Vehicle # 2

Year                                1982                      1982
Make                                Ford                      Chevrolet
Model                               Fairmont                  Chevette
Engine Size                         200 CID                   98 CID
Engine Family                       CFMM3. 3VIGXCG6           C1G1.6VZNEAX
Emission Controls                  AIR, EGR, TWC              AIR, EGR, TWC/CL
Transmission Type                  A—3                        A—3
Odometer Mileage                   20K                        10K

                                        Table 2

                                Averaged CVS—75 Results

               Exhaust Emissions in gm/mi                 Fuel Economy in mi/gal

                 HG        CO          NOx                City           Hi ghway
Vehicle #1                                                               oT
Baseline        0.41       3.8         0.64               17.4            24.0
Device          0.42       3.5         1.26               17.9            24.3

Yehicle #2
Baseline        0.24       1.1         0. 56              26.2                 36.6
Device          0.22       1.5         0. 65              25.7                 35.9


        The Board has evaluated Condensator devices since their inception in

1976.    The earliest Condensator device, the Model A, is similar to the

present Model B device except that it uses a 0.060 inch orifice air bleed

vent.    The size of the orifice used in the Condensator devices is of

concern.     Late model—year vehicles are calibrated to operate on precise

adjustments of the engine‘s emission controlling components.         The addition

of an air bleed vent may upset the designed function of these components

and may cause emissions to increase.       Such was the case for Vehicle #1 when

tested with the device, its comparative NOx emissions increased.         The

probable reason for the NOx increase is the resulting leaner air/fuel ratio

as evident from the decrease in CO emissions, and the effect it had on the

performance of the three—way catalyst.         The comparative emissions of

Vehicle #2 were not adversely affected with the use of the device.            This,

possibly is due to the feed—back controls which compensate, within their

limit of authority, for the changes in air/fuel ratio caused by the device.

      Since it was found through this evaluation that the device adversely

affects some vehicles and does not affect others, the application of the

device was subsequently changed from the original request.   The revised

application requests that the Model B be used only on vehicles which have

compensating feed—back controls (like Vehicle #2) and ones not equipped

with TWC only (like Vehicle #1) while the Model C device be used on all

other vehicles.   _
      The Model C is a simple ol separator.    The oil separator portion of

the device has been appraised by staff not to reduce the effectiveness of

the PCY system and therefore does not cause an adverse emissions impact.

The applicant‘s claimed benefit for the device is to prevent engine oil
from reaching the cylinders and forming carbon deposits.

      During the Board‘s evaluation of the Model B device which accumulated

approximately 100 miles of use on each vehicle, the collectors were

inspected for oil deposits.   One vehicle was found to have a trace of oil

in the collector while the other had none.    There seems no short term

benefit of removing oil from tfie crankcase gases as apparent from the

comparative exhaust emissions or the fuel economy results.    It is not

known, however, from this evaluation if long term benefits could be

obtained with the device.

Document Created: 2005-09-01 12:40:39
Document Modified: 2005-09-01 12:40:39

Previous E.O. D-69-1 | Previous E.O. D-68 | Next E.O. D-69-3 | Next E.O. D-70