500 ppm diesel still readily available......

No, you didn't miss anything. And yet, just yesterday, I kept hearing people (who live in the US and presumably SHOULD know the facts) calling into a radio show that was discussing global warming talking about how "the US just HAS to start cleaning up the mess we've made."

Uh... exSCUSE me!!! Who led the world in auto emission controls beginning in the mid 1960s when US cars had PCV and vapor control systems and the rest of the world still had crankcase draft tubes?

WHO led in the elimination of leaded fuel and addition of catalytic convertors to reduce NOx and CO in 1975 while oh-so-responsible European countries had leaded fuel into the NINETIES!!!

Who led the way in cutting back (and ultimately eliminating) the use of CFCs in air conditiners and manufacturing?

Sure as hell not Europe, Asia, Central America, South America, or Mexcico... Hmmm. that leaves (wait for it....) The United States!

I'm sick and tired of hearing people bellyache about the US "not cleaning up" or not signing Kyoto when we're ALREADY cleaner than Kyoto requires countries like China and India to be. Kyoto is a crock. And its incumbent on the REST of the frickin' world to catch up to what the US has done before they start throwing stones. We're waiting.

Sorry. Pet peeve of mine.

Reply to
Steve
Loading thread data ...

I got a friend who has a 1969 Camero SS. His father got it new in Califorina shortly returning from Vietnam. It originally had a smog pump and cat on them.

Reply to
GeekBoy

and your reputable source is? come on I gave mine.

Reply to
Chris Thompson

NOT! Homework assignment for you: Find out what year the Camaro first got a catalytic converter. I'll give you a hint. It starts with 19 and ends with

75.
Reply to
Nosey

A pump maybe, but a cat in 1969. Where was it mounted?

Reply to
Roy

You're right, Kalifornia might have gotten EGR a year earlier than the rest of us but unleaded gas, needed for converters didn't hit until 1975. We had low and SOME no lead but not much.

Reply to
BigIronRam

"Cat" is an abbreviation for "catalytic converter". Palladiam covered ceramic beads act as a catylist to convert pollutants to, uh, less polluting pollutants.

Reference? Hahahah. Try google.

Reply to
Richard Sexton

Buwhahahaha! Was seeing if anyone was paying attention and knew their stuff ;-)

Reply to
GeekBoy

GM does it that way. Chrysler did theirs that look like honeycomb, but instead triangle shaped. I should know. I saw some pieces of it on my driveway after I put some racing fuel into my junker '79 Cordoba :-P

Reply to
GeekBoy

You just showed that you don't.

Reply to
Roy

you seem to miss the point of my asking him for a reliable ref. he's claiming that diesels don't use Catalytic Converters instead use some sort of thermal reactor that isn't a catalyst, my argument is that they do use them, and even the manufactures call them such. if I am so wrong in this, as SnoMan states that I am, then he should have no problem providing me with documentation contrary to what I have said. follow back in my thread I have suggested to him to do that very google search you suggest I do. I have already done it. thus the links that and clips I have previously posted. this is a discussion me and him have had before and I continue only as a warning to anyone who may listen to his missinformation about diesel emissions that he is flawed in his information. he will claim that the Cummins engine is about to have a bunch of stuff added to it to make it pass emissions for 2010 but Cummins sates that the 6.7 already passes the 2010 requirements as it sits 3 years early. I suggest that you read closely into what he's posting and then do the very research I have been suggesting that he should do to verify or debunk my information. if I am mistaken in any point I have made then I will gladly admit to my error. but I do not believe on this point that I have made one.

so once again its on SnoMan, if I'm wrong provide the online documentation so that I may examine it myself. (please reputable sources)

Reply to
Chris Thompson

SnoMan:

It's not what you know that hurts you, it's what you think you know that ain't so is what gets you in trouble. On the '04 DR with Cummins ETO, refer to P/N 52018191AC (see your Dodge dealer for help on this), this part is a catalytic converter.... end of story.

Mike

Reply to
Mike Simmons

You find mis-use of semi-technical terms a lot in stuff published for the masses. Two examples that come to mind (certainly there are others): (1) The engine coolant outlet housing on the Chrysler LH vehicles is exactly where traditionally the thermostat is on most engines, but the thermostat on the LH's is on the inlet side of the engine (located low on the block on the driver's side). But people are alwyas referring to the outlest housing as the thermostat housing - even the Chrysler FSM erroneously refers to it as the thermostat housing in at least two places. (2) The cushioning devices used in valve trains were traditionally in line with the valve stem actuation (typicaly push rods) - and were called valve lifters. Now, more often than not, they are on the opposite side of a rocker - not directly in series with the valve actuation, and they are more accurately referred to as valve lash adjusters. Yet on the street and on car forums, and even among highly qualified mechanics - no doubt even in technical articles, they will be incorrectly referred to as valve lifters.

So, though I have no horse in this race, I can buy SnoMan's argument that even the technical gurus may refer to something that technically is not a catalytic converter as a catalyitc converter. All that means is you can't believe everything you read - even by the "experts" - if you're doing so with an eye for technical accuracy.

So - if you have to get a bigger engine to recover the power lost to improved emissions, will there in fact be no net gain in the emissions? IOW - you can fool yourself with percentages if you turn a blind eye to the total *quantity* of emissions if you're using bigger engines to make up for lost power in meeting the new regs. I.E., unintnded consequences (or pretended ignorance by those who may understand this but don't want to bring this to the public's attention, which wouldn't matter anyway due to it's short attention span and inability to ever peel more than two layers off the onion on any given subject).

Reply to
Bill Putney

Feel better, Steve? :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

As I said - I have no horse in this race. There's a simple answer to this by answering this question: Does this "thermo reactor" have a chemical in it that acts as a true catalyst (i.e., some element or compound that enables or facilitates a desired chemical reaction and that returns to its original state after the reaction is complete) in it? If the answer is 'yes', then this thing can technically be called a catalytic converter even if it doesn't quite fit the mold of a traditional automotve catalytic converter. If it doesn't have a catalyst in it, then you can't correctly refer to it as a catalytic converter.

I don't know the answer - I just posed the question to settle this.

Bottom line: If it has a chemical that acts as a catalyst (as a chemist would define a catalyst) used in some process of converting something into something else, then it could be called a catalytic converter. If not, then it can't correctly be.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

That's too technical a term for most people. :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

It all boils down to "Does the thermal reactor have a chemical that behaves as what a chemist would consider a catalyst does". If the answer is 'no', then you are right, if 'yes', then he is right. (I don't know the answer.)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

In this case, the DC documentation could be correct, but it doesn't

*prove* anything. DC official documentation also refers to the LH car coolant outlet housing as a thermostat housing when the thermostat is not within 2 feet of it. :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

Smog pump: YES Cat? Not in '69.

Reply to
Steve

Also, catcons weren't mandatory in '75, if a car could meet the required emission levels without one, it didn't have to have one. But *most* vehicles needed catcons to meet '75 (and later) emissions. Light trucks had a different standard, and many got away without catcons for a few more years. That's why a 1978 Dodge Little Red Express was quicker than a '78 Chevy Corvette (well, ONE of the reasons). The '78 LRE didn't need cats and used a true dual exhaust, the 'vette being a car had to meet tighter emissions. By '79, the requirements had tightened so that the

1979 Dodge LRE truck did have catcons. The '78s are now much more desirable as collector vehicles.
Reply to
Steve

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.