Potshot to Big Oil/Government: Catalytic converters not needed in modern vehicle
 

I did a thorough search, and was a bit surprised that this one hasn't come up on Revscene that I can see. A lengthy essay but we should all be aware of this.

If you drive a domestic automobile of a later year than 1975, which should be about everyone in North America, it has a catalytic converter. Unless it's older than 1984 in which case you can pitch it. The "cat" for short was first thought of in the early 1950s by a French engineer living in L.A. named Eugene Houdry. He was tired of all the smog, and worked in catalytic oil refining. The first production cats weren't introduced until 1973 when lead was taken out of gasoline as an anti-knock agent, and some other guys fussed around with the design, and improved it. Lead gunked up the converter. By 1975 all vehicles had to have a cat from the factory, and by 1985 it was a big no-no to take it off your vehicle if it was built in that year, or later.

The idea behind the cat is to burn unburned hydrocarbons(fuel molecules) left over from the combustion cycle. It wasn't really too bad of an idea for the time because cars were carbureted then, and the fuel mix ratio was just set to the best compromise for most conditions. If it got cold, or you had a big drop in altitude it would be a little lean, if it got hot, or you went up into the mountains it would be a little rich. Most of them were set on the rich side because a spark ignition engine runs better a little rich than it does too lean. So this meant unburned fuel coming out the tail pipe. The cat was supposed to burn this extra gas and clean up the emissions. Good idea right?

Maybe sort of at first. The biggest problem with early converters is that they took a long time to get hot, and they had a problem staying hot enough to burn the fuel all the time because the carburetor wasn't always that far off, and sometimes was too lean to keep the cat hot, but rich enough to still waste some gas. Enter the smog pump. It blew air into the cat like a blast on a furnace to keep it hot, and the carburetors were intentionally set even richer to make sure they wasted enough fuel to keep the cat hot. Plus the smog pump pulled about 5 horsepower. So now we are wasting fuel to support a device to catch wasted fuel.. Now I'm sure all the oil companies were just licking their chops on the prospect that EVERY SINGLE CAR ON THE ROAD WAS GOING TO HAVE TO CONSUME 30% MORE FUEL(est.) to catch any incidental unburned fuel that might escape due to the carburetion system.

Then in the mid 80s we started getting good at fuel injection, and now we can control how much fuel the engine gets at any time. Coincidentally about the same time the feds mandate the catalytic converter to be on all engines about 25HP all the time, for all time, and with no exceptions, EVER. A little convenient? Seeing as there should be very little waste fuel now that we can accurately meter the fuel to the engine's needs. Your modern vehicle's computer is now so sophisticated that it can vary the pulse of every injector by 1/100th of a gram every single rotation of the engine. There is absolutely NO reason whatsoever for a modern vehicle to have a catalytic converter. Accept that it takes about 15%-20% more of your fuel(read money) to keep it hot, and running. Better than the 30% or more from days of yore, but still very wasteful. Not to mention the less than beneficial side effects produced by the cat. Like acid rain from hydrogen sulfide.

Anyone with a moderate understanding of combustion theory, and an understanding of engine control systems knows that a properly electronically tuned engine burns many times cleaner than the federally mandated system. Some european contries won't even allow california smog equipped vehicles in their country because they are so dirty. At our current level of technology it is abundantly apparent that it has nothing to do with clean air, and everything to do with more money in the "system".


(Flame suit on)

yes it is a lot cleaner with EFI now and emission recycling but there's the big problem of whether or not the combustion is complete by the time it made it to the cat entrance....Efficiency in air intake and filling of the combustion cylinder is not really ideal even at this time and age (direct injection is supposed to fix that, but it's still not perfect)

the cat is there to make sure anything that still hasn't been burnt when it gets there gets combined with O2 so it becomes less harmful gases (CO2) instead of released into the atmosphere as CO. In fact trees will uptake CO or CO2 just the same so if there's enough green to offset CO2 emission there isn't really much of a problem...

But then in my mind, any CO in the air will eventually combine with O2 and become CO2, it's just a matter of the fact that CO is less stable than CO2 by far.....so a cat doesn't do much when the gas is released into an open environment.

CO2, however, as you say, cannot be avoided in the combustion of fossil fuels, and it's "said to be" the major contribution to global warming (tho scientists already said time and time over it's probably more to do with the sun being "hotter" in these years) so it's the new "hype". Think of the carbon tax and road congestion tax (in UK) are all targeted at CO2

but once you burn fossil fuel there is no avoiding releasing CO2......so the only root solution to this is to not burn fossil fuel altogether. At the current technology level it is going to have to be either electric or hydrogen

but the production of either electricity of hydrogen came from fossil fuel burning anyway, so I don't think that's a real solution at all, just a relocation of the burn process... Unless somehow we can make so much electricity out of wind/solar/water/geothermo power to operate every single car on the road (that are in theory now running on electricity or hydrogen) this is not a real solution. Well you can probably do nuclear generation of electricity but that's not 100% waste-free either.

I took mine off :)

LOL you think that 15-20% of the fuel you burn goes to the cat?

The same advanced engine control systems you think don't need cats, have front and rear oxygen sensors so that they can monitor catalyst efficiency. If the difference pre cat to post cat was indeed negligible, they wouldn't/couldn't do that. But even the latest most efficient versions of Motronic for example are fully capable of sensing when a catalyst is not working correctly. They are able to do this because the catalyst is indeed converting a significant amount of NoX, Co2, and HC and oxygen is used in that process.

The bottom line is an engine's tune is always a compromise that result sin emissions one way or the other, and catalytic converters deal with that. Even with perfectly metered fuel, there are plenty of emissions.

It would appear you have no idea how and engine works...

I think Jeremy Clarkson got into him haha. JC is ranting about this stuff recently too.

i dont have cats in my car

you know how sickening that smell is? lol imagine every car on the road didn't have cats.

kids would be falling over and birds would be falling out of the sky and nailing your windows and vinyl covered roofs

That is the biggest load of crap I've ever read. The author obviously has absolutely no understanding of the ic engine, the laws of thermodynamics, or even basic physics. Usually controversial articles like this have some grain of truth, but this is just complete garbage, not a single point or reasoning is correct. Where did you find this? Just curious.

Luckily the Island doesn't have aircare like the mainland. So many people would be screwed if they brought in vehicle emissions laws.

http://i50.tinypic.com/b805k2.jpg

cats what ? :D:D:D:D

straight pipe FTW!! i like volvo-brickster's idea :D
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._5788531_n.jpg

unburnt gasoline smells good

It's dumb fucks like the OP that keep plastering those shitty "911 was an inside job" stickers all over the place.

Get a fucking life.

Take a course in Thermo/IC engines. Or read about them.

i miss my test pipe

No, I think that there, Could, be a 15-20% savings if the PCM is tuned properly without a cat.


Im not an expert by any means but I am in deep with the approach Im taking. :thumbsup:

I dont thinks so. Im just following my instincts and trying to set a new paradigm. The only problem is its gonna be expensive.

What the fuck are you trying to say? :haha:

Now.. grab a brain and try and understand what we're trying to tell you, instead of posting garbage you copied & pasted off some conspiracy theory site....

If there's a way to improve vehicle fuel efficiency... the automakers are already doing it. They've been doing it since the oil embargo crisis of the 1970's. Look it up. You just don't remember because YOU WEREN'T BORN YET. That's why we don't have carbs anymore... there isn't 15% of anything to be gained by tuning a PCM. You're fucking dreaming!!! :D

CAFE standards have me thinking nightmare.
You see, that's why I have a flame suit on.
Posted via RS Mobile

are you sure that they aren't in cahoots with the oil industries...;)

I swear after the olympics i'm noticing alot more of those "9/11" was an inside job stickers posted around town. I'm going to get some that say NO ONE CARES.

OK, just to make it clear... it is impossible to have a 'clean' combustion engine. I've been involved with hydrogen in both fuel cells providing electricity to electric motors and more affordable internal combustion engines.

You can't find a cleaner fuel to burn than hydrogen. When you combust it in an engine you get practically zero CO2, near zero CO, but the nitrogen based emissions go crazy. The engines ran without cats and were so clean, basically blowing out steam. However the nitrogen emissions were worse than the stock setup on gasoline. They had to detune (lower HP and fuel efficiency) to run very lean in order to keep the nitrogen emissions at the stock level. Nitrogen emissions are estimated as 300 times worse a greenhouse gas than CO2 pound for pound. If you want to read more on it: http://www.ecotalityna.com/hydrogen_...conversion.php

To clarify, pure nitrogen is inert, I'm referring to nitrous oxide (N2O).

Anyway, that was a bit of a rant, and it may not have directly addressed the argument. The idea that car manufacturers would willingly add on expensive equipment that doesn't help sell the car is ridiculous. If they could prove they didn't need cats, they would. I could believe that some car companies would take 'the bribe'; but it's hard to believe that all car companies would, when they're in fierce competition.

I love my test pipe. :thumbsup:

yea, who needs cats?
http://www.motordyneengineering.com/...rge_RTTP-4.jpg

There ya go with more conspiracy theories!

MAN! You should add a whistle make it go WoooWOOOOO!!!!