Max,
As much as I would like to do just that, those files got dumped
(litterally) two moves ago.

In a nut shell, the automotive industry was working very hard to clean
up its act starting in the sixties because new EPA regulations and clear
data. We were actually making very nice progress both in tailpipe and
fuel economy, but then came the election of '72. Senator Muskie decided
to make a name for himself, so he ramrodded regulations through that
reduced the exiting standards for allowable emissions by 90%. This was
a real problem because we were on a track to reduce the fleet emissions
by 80% from the unregulated in five years. This cut the time table by
three years and made the new target a 98% reduction.

This left us with two difficulties:
There was no current technology to do this reliably.
There were no instruments available that could even confirm that were we
meeting these new standards.

Catalyst development went into high gear. The original systems were so
valuable that when a milage accumulation vehicle was damaged at that the
proving ground we did not dare risk moving it back to the garage, we
rolled it over in place and the technicians removed the exhaust system.
The exhaust system went back to the garage on a flat bed and they
rolled the now totaled test vehicle up and hauled it back with a wrecker.

Beckman was the first company to come up with instruments the could
measure these things and the Horiba was slitghly later, but nobody's was
reliable and calibration was a crap-shoot.

It was discovered that the catalyst did not like exhaust from an engine
running a stoichiometric (ideal) air/fuel (something we had been
working toward for years now), but rather favored and engine that ran
badly such that the mixture varied from rich to lean so the cat got a
shot of HC then a shot of O2 to keep the fire going. It was clean after
the catalyst (for about 50k when it went down the tube), but a car that
used
to run in the high 20's was now lucky to get to 20. The engines that
had been historically good, now ran like so much crap. This was
essentialy the end of the good running engine until the computer
controlled port fuel systems came on line.

That was only compounded by the elimination of lead (not a bad thing
IMHO). The lead had to be eliminated from the refineries altogether
because any lead would contaminate the cat (and later the O2 sensor).
This lead reduced the cylinder flame temperature and also lubricated the
exhaust valve seats. Without it, exhaust valves became a warranty
nightmare (so the big three shortened the warranty).

Big cars faired better than the smaller because they could give away
more engine performance the meet the tailpipe.

The came the oil embargo of '74. . . .

I hope you enjoyed my recount.

Matt


max camirand wrote:
Matt:

I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a
link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced
fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe?
Sounds interesting.

Thanks

-Maxime Camirand


Matt Colie wrote:

KLC,

I don't like the thought of spills either, but three Canadian companies
have a total of 450+ wells for both oil and natural gas in Lake Erie
alone. They seem to manage just fine (with gear and technology from
American suppliers).

Recently, I was told by someone that has studied these problems for many
years that most of the oil on Lake Erie comes from untrapped storm
drains. The last big one was the Rouge River about three years ago.

We have the opportunity to correct a lot of problems if we pick the real
ones instead of the "politically correct" ones.

This has been my problem with the "evironmental movement" since they
forced cars to get much reduced fuel economy in favor of maginally
reduced tailpipe emissions. Remember the early cat cars of the mid
seventies?

Matt


KLC Lewis wrote:

"Matt Colie" wrote in message
...


Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody
go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we
aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill
under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.)

Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic




I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our
Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad
enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous.