triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Emission Control

To: triumphs@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: Emission Control
From: "Jim Muller" <jimmuller@pop.mail.rcn.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:29:54 -0500
Organization: Southern Rail
References: <004a01c292f9$02ddaf70$68a869ce@UPSTAIRSOFFICE>
On 23 Nov 2002 at 8:09, Eric Conrad wrote:
> I have disabled my air pump by removing the belt...
And Hugh Fader asked:
> Does [the air pump] increase exhaust backpressure?

Here is another data point and opinion.  As with the TR6, the 
Spitfire's air pump is driven by a single-purpose belt which can be 
removed easily.  On many cars, the pump is siezed so you either 
remove the belt or spend big bucks on a new pump.  If you're going to 
remove the belt, you might as well remove the pump to save its weight 
and plug the injector tubes with the appropriate bolts (or weld (or 
braze or whatever) them closed), easier to do wih everything 
disassembled.

As for its contribution to cleaner emissions, its purpose was to 
provide oxygen for the catalyst.  But the catalyst is not likely to 
be chemically functional after all this time.  By today's standards 
these cars weren't especially clean anyway.  The engineers were 
scratching to get what they could and their target was to meet the 
federal specs for idle.  The big problem was that low CO and low NOx 
were conflicting requirements.  Unless you have all of the original 
pieces and settings in place, including gas composition and EGR and 
PCV stuff, you won't meet those specs.  Even so, the big win was 
while idling in urban traffic, something I'll bet you don't do much.  
If you're really worried about air quality you shouldn't be driving a 
25 year old TR in the first place!

As for performance, I can speak only from memory of prevailing 
opinion "back then" and from general principles of what "should" 
happen.  The air pump did rob a lot of power but mainly due to its 
mechanical load, a bigger deal on smaller engines like the Spitfire 
than on the TR6.  Exhaust backpressure shouldn't be affected much 
because the amount of air it moves is quite small compared to the 
exhaust itself.  Manifold temperatures were higher than pre-emission 
controls, but this is partly due to the leaner mixture and other 
tuning details.  (High catalyst temps were a big problem.  I was 
flagging a race at VIR once when things had to be stopped briefly 
while the fire crew put out a grass fire caused by the catalyst on a 
Peugeot parked by a spectator in the infield.)  The catalyst itself 
was a also big restrictor in the exhaust system.  Finally, overall 
power loss could be attributed to the fact that the presence of the 
catalyst upset the traditional exhaust system tuning.

The bottom line would seem to be that the AP isn't a big win today, 
except in originality points. :-)

Just another opinion.
-- 
Jim Muller
jimmuller@pop.rcn.com
'80 Spitfire, '70 GT6+

///  triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
///  or try  http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///  Archives at http://www.team.net/archive


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>