| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
|
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
On 3/6/2012 8:44 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 3/5/2012 5:12 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:14:47 -0500, X ` Man wrote: A few of the camping forum guys recommend getting the smog crap off the engine. But, they don't get specific enough. You mean, break the law? "Take the smog crap off" worked in the 70s when emission control was a clumsy add on to a conventional engine. These days the computer is your smog control. You can certainly tune the computer for more power and less for economy but the most efficient burn will usually also give you the least emissions. I bet a new NASCAR racer would pass the 1975 emission controls at anything but idle speed. Fuel consumption is important to them too. No way... It's important but there is no way they get that good of a burn without a catalytic converter... They sure will! They've been completely engineered to operate as efficiently as possible from conception on up, without a need for a catalytic converter. Need or not, they wouldn't run a cat... These are race cars. I still don't buy them passing emissions now. I know how fuel moves through an engine, I don't care how many computers you have. Heads are heads, valves are valves, and pistons are still pistons... |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
In article , says...
On 3/6/2012 8:44 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 3/5/2012 5:12 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:14:47 -0500, X ` Man wrote: A few of the camping forum guys recommend getting the smog crap off the engine. But, they don't get specific enough. You mean, break the law? "Take the smog crap off" worked in the 70s when emission control was a clumsy add on to a conventional engine. These days the computer is your smog control. You can certainly tune the computer for more power and less for economy but the most efficient burn will usually also give you the least emissions. I bet a new NASCAR racer would pass the 1975 emission controls at anything but idle speed. Fuel consumption is important to them too. No way... It's important but there is no way they get that good of a burn without a catalytic converter... They sure will! They've been completely engineered to operate as efficiently as possible from conception on up, without a need for a catalytic converter. Need or not, they wouldn't run a cat... These are race cars. I still don't buy them passing emissions now. I know how fuel moves through an engine, I don't care how many computers you have. Heads are heads, valves are valves, and pistons are still pistons... What you are not understanding is that the OP said that the NASCAR engines would pass *1975* era emissions requirements, and I'll bet that's true. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
On 3/5/2012 9:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:33:50 -0500, wrote: On 3/5/2012 5:12 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:14:47 -0500, X ` Man wrote: A few of the camping forum guys recommend getting the smog crap off the engine. But, they don't get specific enough. You mean, break the law? "Take the smog crap off" worked in the 70s when emission control was a clumsy add on to a conventional engine. These days the computer is your smog control. You can certainly tune the computer for more power and less for economy but the most efficient burn will usually also give you the least emissions. I bet a new NASCAR racer would pass the 1975 emission controls at anything but idle speed. Fuel consumption is important to them too. No way... It's important but there is no way they get that good of a burn without a catalytic converter... If the engine was designed with a catalytic converter, you will have problems if you take it off. I'm pretty sure NASCAR doesn't run Cats, and he said NASCAR.. I wasn't trying to be an ass, but I don't see NASCAR passing Emissions here in CT anyway. Too much unburned gasoline at any RPM. And yes, I actually posted this knowing it was Greg and if I am wrong, I will see a cite fairly quickly  |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
In article , says...
On 3/5/2012 9:33 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:33:50 -0500, wrote: On 3/5/2012 5:12 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:14:47 -0500, X ` Man wrote: A few of the camping forum guys recommend getting the smog crap off the engine. But, they don't get specific enough. You mean, break the law? "Take the smog crap off" worked in the 70s when emission control was a clumsy add on to a conventional engine. These days the computer is your smog control. You can certainly tune the computer for more power and less for economy but the most efficient burn will usually also give you the least emissions. I bet a new NASCAR racer would pass the 1975 emission controls at anything but idle speed. Fuel consumption is important to them too. No way... It's important but there is no way they get that good of a burn without a catalytic converter... If the engine was designed with a catalytic converter, you will have problems if you take it off. I'm pretty sure NASCAR doesn't run Cats, and he said NASCAR.. I wasn't trying to be an ass, but I don't see NASCAR passing Emissions here in CT anyway. Too much unburned gasoline at any RPM. And yes, I actually posted this knowing it was Greg and if I am wrong, I will see a cite fairly quickly The OP said 1975 emissions. |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
On 3/6/2012 8:45 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 3/5/2012 9:33 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:33:50 -0500, wrote: On 3/5/2012 5:12 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:14:47 -0500, X ` Man wrote: A few of the camping forum guys recommend getting the smog crap off the engine. But, they don't get specific enough. You mean, break the law? "Take the smog crap off" worked in the 70s when emission control was a clumsy add on to a conventional engine. These days the computer is your smog control. You can certainly tune the computer for more power and less for economy but the most efficient burn will usually also give you the least emissions. I bet a new NASCAR racer would pass the 1975 emission controls at anything but idle speed. Fuel consumption is important to them too. No way... It's important but there is no way they get that good of a burn without a catalytic converter... If the engine was designed with a catalytic converter, you will have problems if you take it off. I'm pretty sure NASCAR doesn't run Cats, and he said NASCAR.. I wasn't trying to be an ass, but I don't see NASCAR passing Emissions here in CT anyway. Too much unburned gasoline at any RPM. And yes, I actually posted this knowing it was Greg and if I am wrong, I will see a cite fairly quickly The OP said 1975 emissions. 1975 emissions? Didn't even know there were regs on tail pipe emissions then.. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
In article , says...
On 3/6/2012 8:45 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 3/5/2012 9:33 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:33:50 -0500, wrote: On 3/5/2012 5:12 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:14:47 -0500, X ` Man wrote: A few of the camping forum guys recommend getting the smog crap off the engine. But, they don't get specific enough. You mean, break the law? "Take the smog crap off" worked in the 70s when emission control was a clumsy add on to a conventional engine. These days the computer is your smog control. You can certainly tune the computer for more power and less for economy but the most efficient burn will usually also give you the least emissions. I bet a new NASCAR racer would pass the 1975 emission controls at anything but idle speed. Fuel consumption is important to them too. No way... It's important but there is no way they get that good of a burn without a catalytic converter... If the engine was designed with a catalytic converter, you will have problems if you take it off. I'm pretty sure NASCAR doesn't run Cats, and he said NASCAR.. I wasn't trying to be an ass, but I don't see NASCAR passing Emissions here in CT anyway. Too much unburned gasoline at any RPM. And yes, I actually posted this knowing it was Greg and if I am wrong, I will see a cite fairly quickly The OP said 1975 emissions. 1975 emissions? Didn't even know there were regs on tail pipe emissions then.. Yep, there were. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/12-miles.pdf |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
On 3/6/2012 2:10 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:49:23 -0500, wrote: On 3/5/2012 9:33 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:33:50 -0500, wrote: On 3/5/2012 5:12 PM, wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:14:47 -0500, X ` Man wrote: A few of the camping forum guys recommend getting the smog crap off the engine. But, they don't get specific enough. You mean, break the law? "Take the smog crap off" worked in the 70s when emission control was a clumsy add on to a conventional engine. These days the computer is your smog control. You can certainly tune the computer for more power and less for economy but the most efficient burn will usually also give you the least emissions. I bet a new NASCAR racer would pass the 1975 emission controls at anything but idle speed. Fuel consumption is important to them too. No way... It's important but there is no way they get that good of a burn without a catalytic converter... If the engine was designed with a catalytic converter, you will have problems if you take it off. I'm pretty sure NASCAR doesn't run Cats, and he said NASCAR.. I wasn't trying to be an ass, but I don't see NASCAR passing Emissions here in CT anyway. Too much unburned gasoline at any RPM. And yes, I actually posted this knowing it was Greg and if I am wrong, I will see a cite fairly quickly They have ECUs running NASCAR cars and I bet they run a lot leaner than they used to. That and the fact that they are running on ethanol makes these as clean as the standard was in the 70s (my original claim) I am not sure how but my Monza passed the 75 level test in about 1980 (whenever Md started testing) without a cat. It was just the empty can. It's not pure ethanol, and I still doubt it would pass... You just can't move that much material through a cylinder at that speed without a lot of unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust, even at idle... As to your Monza, try running it with open headers and see how it does |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Charging 24 volt trolling batteries with a 12 volt system. | General | |||
| Dead Catch Capt Phil Dead | Cruising | |||
| The Best Way to Provide 24-volt for a 24-volt Trolling Motor? | General | |||
| Our Hero is Dead, Dead, Dead | General | |||
| Is it ok to run a 24 volt trolling motor on a 12 volt battery to test the motor to see if it actually runs? | General | |||
![JustWait[_2_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Hybrid Mode
