Date:         Thu, 15 Jul 1999 09:56:25 -0600
Reply-To:     Fred Porter <fporter@MICRON.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Fred Porter <fporter@MICRON.NET>
Subject:      Re: Gas versis catalytic converter
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Tyrone, there are more reasons than bureaucracy to have a catalytic converter,
namely pollution reduction.  Besides, wouldn't it make more sense for William to
fix the problem that is causing the cats to deteriorate?  This may be a problem
that leads to other problems.  $60 saved by not using a cat isn't going to pay for
repair of an engine problem that has gotten worse.

later,
Fred




Tyrone L. Greene wrote:

> William,
>
> I have no idea where in the world or the US you are but, if your in an area
> that is not so tightly controlled by so called air standards that require you
> to have a Cat. and to have a probe inserted within your Vanagon's rear end
> every year, you might consider getting a Cat. replacer pipe. The pipe is
> flanged just like the Cat. Only thing is is that you need to drill it and
> somehow mount a OX sensor on it. This item can be bought from at least one of
> the List's vendors that I know of for less than $30 compared to the $99+ for a
> new Cat. You should be able to see a little bit aof an increase in both usable
> hp and gas mileage, I would think.
>
> Tyrone
> Big Pine Key, FL
>
> 87 GL Syncro
> 85 Westy
> etc....
>
> Greenamyer, William L wrote:
>
> > I have a 1984 Vanagon Waterboxer that seems to be eating catalytic
> > converters in less than a year.  I have been told several different stories
> > about what could be the problem.  Injector pattern not right, wrong mix,
> > air-fuel ratio wrong, etc but most of this should manifest itself in some
> > other symptom.  The latest from a mechanic is that I should be using premium
> > gas in the van (octane 92) rather than octane 87.  I am just at a loss right
> > now.  The van gets 20MPG which includes some distance going up a 6 degree
> > grade with the air conditioning on and the still being able to acclerate on
> > the freeway going 70 MPH.  The 1900 engine has been replaced with a 2100
> > (two years and many miles ago).  I am looking for inputs as to what could be
> > the real problem.  Also, at idle, the engine seeks a lot of the time.  By
> > that I mean it revs up a little and then settles back down to normal.
> >
> > William