James,
Catalytic converters do work well on new engines. But do you remember the
cars of the 70's. Before the grand days of computer controlled engines,
fuel injection
and distributorless ignition, cars were slapped with lean burn carbs, low
compression
and a catalytic converter. They ran terrible, had no power and after
30,000-40,000 miles
were producting emissions just like older cars.
>no idea how catalytic converters work, but they seem to be a
better............
The calalytic converter works on the principle of using Platinum as a
catalyst to burn the
remaining unburned fuel in the exhaust. The modern ones work great and the
cars run fine.
The reason for this is the also mentioned electronic engine aids. A modern
engine basically
uses an O2 sensor downstream from the catalytic converter to "sniff" the
exhaust to determine
the air/fuel ratio and if the mixture is completely burned. The car then
adjusts the fuel/air to
burn competely as possible.
This is almost impossible with an older car and unless you are also fitting
electronic fuel injection
you would just be wasting your time. For cars built in the 70's, where they
are subject to emissions
and won't pass the test, you possibly might consider such modifications.
British Car Magazine
featured an MGB converted to fuel injection and running a cat. But for a
car built in 1963, no
emissions are required. You probably would just make the car run badly, and
worse if you do not
mount the cat. in a proper location, you might set the car on fire from the
heat. Cat. converters glow
red from the chemical reaction and with an improper fuel/air ratio, could
over heat.
No one lowers their compression ratio, retards the ignition, etc... to pass
emissions. These were
the factory methods of trying to meet the requirements back in the 70's.
The resorted to a single
carb and the cat. as the last straw by around 1975.
Dave Herr
----------
> From: James Charles Ruwaldt <jruwaldt@indiana.edu>
no idea how catalytic converters work, but they seem to be a better
> means of reducing emissions than lowering compression ratios, retarding
> ignition, etc. However, I seem to recall that the last time I suggested
> that catalytic converters are good, I was told they rob an engine of more
> power than the aforementioned methods. Perhaps a more modern one is less
> of a problem.
> Jim Ruwaldt
> '72 TR6 CC79338U(being restored)
>
>
> > I hate to ask the question........But why on earth would you want to
> > ruin a perfectly good car with a catalytic converter???
> >
|