Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:40:58 -0500
Reply-To: mcneely4@COX.NET
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
In-Reply-To: <E77A7F1F-D37D-4341-86AD-83BFCCA108B8@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
---- OlRivrRat <OlRivrRat@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> Dennis
>
> Thanks for that info ~ I was actually suspecting that something like
> that
>
> might be the case. I had just pulled out my report from the
> ABQSmogTester to
>
> see what the numbers might be indicating & had noticed that there are
> not any
>
> results for NOx. It does say " Catalytic Converter - passed" but as
> you pointed
>
> out it is a "no load" test so not necessarily the whole truth. I am
> running dual
>
> O2Sensors ~ 1 up' & 1 downstream ~ and the ECU is not complaining
> about the
>
> work that the Cat' is doing but again I suspect that may not be the
> whole truth
>
> & probably not good enough to make everybody happy.
>
> Does anyone know if there are any places around NM that require the
> Dyno
you might check on Las Cruces, which is hub up to El Paso. El Paso, because of the combination of industry, a twin city across the river in Mexico, and the mountain/valley configuration of the terrain, has some of the dirtiest air in the U.S. I have seen some pretty brown air at Las Cruces. mcneely
>
> SmogTest? If I ever I get to someplace that does I might just get the
> test done
>
> as long as it is not outrageously priced.
>
> ORR ~ DeanB
>
> On 20 Mar , 2012, at 6:19 PM, Dennis Haynes wrote:
>
> > I looked up the information on the Albuquerque NM emissions test
> > program.
> > They are only looking for visible smoke, carbon monoxide and unburned
> > hydrocarbons. The emissions are checked at high and low speed but
> > not under
> > actual load. CO is mixture related and a properly working O2 sensor
> > system
> > will keep that near .5% before the Catalyst. Unburned HC would only
> > exist if
> > you have a miss fire, valve, or other engine problem. Again should
> > be well
> > under 50 ppm even before the cat. So your nonpolluting test results
> > do not
> > confirm your cat is actually working. You would need to check before
> > and
> > after the cat to see if you are getting any reduction. Now where we
> > need to
> > get the cats to really work is under load, changing loads where the
> > engine
> > management can't always provide perfect mixture. Also, a major job
> > of the 3
> > way catalyst is to reduce the oxides of nitrogen, (NOx). NOx is
> > produced
> > mostly at the pressure temperature peak of the combustion cycle and
> > mostly
> > happens under load. The higher the load, pressure, peak flame
> > temperature
> > the more NOx produced. In order to test this part of the catalyst or
> > other
> > factors (ignition timing, EGR).that affect or control this the test
> > has to
> > be done with the engine loaded. This is why many emissions programs
> > required the dynamometer testing, (IM240). This is where the cheap
> > cats
> > fail.
> > Since we had this test in NY until recently factors that often
> > caused test
> > failures were bad cats, oversized tires, especially on automatics,
> > over
> > advanced ignition timing, and on the air cooled engines the missing
> > EGR
> > systems.
> >
> > BTW the EPA requires replacement Cats to be warrantied for 5 years
> > or 50K
> > also. Keep the paperwork. The real issue will be to prove the
> > failure was
> > not caused by something else.
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On
> > Behalf Of
> > OlRivrRat
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:57 AM
> > To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> > Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > I'm very proud of you that you have an important job to do &
> > are
> > trying to do it well, but again ~ according to a recent Albuquerque,
> > NM smog
> > test (which, by the way, I had done voluntarily as I'm not required
> > to have
> > one in the county where I live) & my EJ25s ECU ~ My VDUBARUs EJ25 &
> > its
> > attached ExhaustSystem are not polluting.
> > Having said that ~ being the InfoHaulic that I am ~ I would
> > like to
> > be informed about what pollutants my cars might be spewing into the
> > environment that the ABQ SmogGuys don't seem to care about so any
> > wisdom
> > that you might have & would care to share in that regard would be
> > appreciated.
> >
> > ORR ~ DeanB
> >
> > On 20 Mar , 2012, at 1:13 AM, Jeff wrote:
> >
> >> Well. sit right back and I'll tell you a little story. Perhaps my
> >> "ABSURD" feeling, as you like to call it, comes from a little bit
> >> (perhaps a lot) more experience than yours? I happen to be a
> >> Registered Importer and part of my job is to make imported vehicles
> >> legal for the USA. Your "$100 Cat" will not pass any of the EPA lab
> >> tests even when new. The $200 cats will not pass the EPA lab tests
> >> when new. Only the OE $500 cat will pass the EPA lab test. The most
> >> glaring failure of the "non-ABSURD" cats is that they do not come up
> >> to operating temperature quickly enough to be effective for short
> >> drives. Other problems have to do with comparison testing and how
> >> quickly they lose their effectiveness.
> >>
> >> Now let's just forget about the whole fancy EPA lab testing stuff and
> >> concentrate on everyday experience with plenty of customer's cars
> >> here
> >> in California. I can't keep track of the number of 2 year old "$100
> >> Cats" that failed their 2nd smog test. It sort of became a running
> >> joke in CA Vanagon land about replacing your cat every two years to
> >> pass smog. Lots of people bitched and moaned when CA put in their
> >> new
> >> cat replacement laws a few years back, but it sure got rid of the 2
> >> year cat syndrome.
> >>
> >> So. I'm sorry if the facts seems "ABSURD" to you, but in reality, you
> >> do get what you pay for when it comes to a catalytic converter.
> >>
> >> Happy smogging.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >> From: OlRivrRat [mailto:OlRivrRat@comcast.net]
> >> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 7:56 PM
> >> To: Jeff Schwaia
> >> Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> My "$100 Cat" (which actually only cost me $87.95 back in
> >> '07) is 5yrs old & has 62000mis on it
> >>
> >> ( 2yrs8mos/26Kmis+H2OBxr & 2yrs4mos/36Kmis+EJ25 ) & according to a
> >> recent smog test & my EJ25
> >>
> >> ECU, it is doing a darn fine job. So it would seem to me that an
> >> "ABSURD" might be in order in regards
> >>
> >> to feelings about your need to spend $500 on a OE Cat. Here again is
> >> the link to the one I use & highly
> >>
> >> recommend.
> >>
> >> http://www.summitracing.com/parts/MPE-22918/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >> ORR ~ DeanB
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 19 Mar , 2012, at 7:14 PM, Jeff Schwaia wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> A $100 cat is effective for less than 2 years and is nowhere near as
> >> efficient as an OE cat.
> >>
> >> If you really want to do it right, buy a cat that meets OE specs...
> >> about
> >> $500.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On
> >> Behalf Of den jolliffe
> >> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 5:46 PM
> >> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> >> Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >>
> >> Aren't we talking about a $100 part that helps emissions and the air
> >> we all breath. Say it lasts as long as the original or less (20
> >> years)...that's $5 a year...less than a pack of smokes or a gallon of
> >> gas A YEAR.
> >>
> >> It's a no brainer for me...NAPA has them.
> >>
> >> Dennis2
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
> >> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> >> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 6:38:50 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >>
> >> David, that is true. Some folks try to do something about, others
> >> rail that it is too much to bear to clean up the act.
> >>
> >>
> >> It is true that transportation is the single largest polluter,
> >> however, and the only way to control that is to make sure that each
> >> vehicle complies with standard.
> >>
> >>
> >> We all pay, but then we all should.
> >>
> >> mcneely
> >>
> >> ---- David M <covrambles@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> >> Meanwhile US industry pumps out millions of tons of pollutants every
> >> year while us poor suckers pay over $1000 to get thru the emissions
> >> test (happened to me twice).
> >>
> >> If you look at the statistics you will be shocked at what goes into
> >> the air every year.
> >>
> >>
> >> -David, 1987 Wolfsburg
> >>
> >> --- On Sun, 3/18/12, Dennis Haynes <d23haynes57@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Dennis Haynes <d23haynes57@HOTMAIL.COM>
> >> Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> >> Date: Sunday, March 18, 2012, 6:14 PM
> >>
> >>
> >> Luckily for many the federal government relies on the states for
> >> enforcement. However the general requirements start at the federal
> >> level (EPA),especially for the design, maintenance, and operation of
> >> motor vehicles. Disabling or removing parts of the emission control
> >> system are federal violations. Engine upgrades are also regulated
> >> with
> >> the major requirements being that the replacement be same year or
> >> later and all of the emissions equipment that goes with that engine
> >> goes with it. This can include all the controls, exhaust after
> >> treatment, and fuel tank vapor recovery systems and maybe even the
> >> transmission/drivelien. All the state emissions programs require that
> >> all the original equipment is there. Keep in mind that depending on
> >> use, (load, time under load, accelerating curves, etc.), a more
> >> efficient engine may not mean a cleaner engine. Some states actually
> >> operate these programs as private shops can both look the other way
> >> or
> >> take advantage and abuse customers. As for just relying on tailpipe
> >> tests, they are just too limited in scope and function. They can only
> >> look at percentages or parts per million (ppm), not actual pollutants
> >> per mile especially under different conditions. Again they are
> >> designed to identify "gross" polluters, not certify your vehicle
> >> works
> >> perfectly.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dennis
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On
> >> Behalf Of Scott Daniel - Turbovans
> >> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 3:27 PM
> >> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> >> Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >>
> >> what does that mean 'move issue up to the Fed level ' ?
> >> there are no Fed smog stations.
> >> I'm sure there is conflict between state's rights to set there own
> >> emissions requirements and what the Feds want.
> >>
> >> I think it's interesting that where smog is not an issue locally ..
> >> say where ocean air blows emissions inland ..
> >> ( not talking about Ca. )
> >> there can be no local smog checks at all, yet the cars are still
> >> emitting, it's just blowing somewhere else.
> >>
> >> fortunately for many of us smogs checks are not required.
> >> I would be in favor of basic tail pipe checks..
> >>
> >> and an example of how silly the whole thing is ..
> >> in Ca ...
> >> officially, they will not allow people to put newer more fuel
> >> efficient, less polluting engines into their older vans.
> >> Pretty stupid.
> >> They could/should PAY people for putting in a late model less
> >> polluting and more fuel efficient engine into our old beaties.
> >> But then anyway ...'logical/practical' and 'government' have never
> >> been known to coincide. Durn shame.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/18/2012 9:36 AM, Dennis Haynes wrote:
> >> It will run just fine with the guts removed. There may be a very
> >> slight performance penalty as the gasses bounce around in the hollow
> >> cat. Not having a local emissions testing/enforcement program just
> >> moves the issue up to the federal level.
> >>
> >> Dennis
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On
> >> Behalf Of marc rose
> >> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 11:54 AM
> >> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> >> Subject: Catalytic Converter???? Anyone go without it???
> >>
> >> I went to change out my worn out and rusted muffler on my 90 Carat
> >> "Rosie"
> >>
> >> yesterday and noticed that the converter was all busted up and the
> >> ceramic is all but gone. I live in an area that has no enforced
> >> emission tests or anything like that. My question is can i can safely
> >> run without the convertor. I was going to just bust out the rest of
> >> the ceramic and reinstall but was not sure how it would affect the
> >> overall operation of the engine.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts??
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Marc
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> David McNeely
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
--
David McNeely
| 
