Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBoy]

Well, it was required to pass Euro2 emissions, so I guess something was done to still pass the later Euro emission codes.

yep went twin cats and dbw throttle and cpp

None of those would affect emmissions....

Any improvement in emmissions must be done on the management side, though NOX reduced by lower compression ratio (rather than EGR)

[Marks DTM Calib]

AFAIK, at least the 2.2 hasn't got it. I'm a bit curious what replaced it though. Better engine management, or some pre-cat on the down tube or something?

Correct, small pre-cats......these heat up much faster and hence no air injection......just an emission light that comes on when the pre-cats get tired!

[Martin_1962]

And what's wrong about reducing the CO and HC emissions?

At the cost of more pollution making the kit, extra energy to drive it, extra fuel to carry it around - I reckon it is a waste

[Matchless]

afaik, there was a proposal to introduce a new emissions requirement where the total emissions from key-turn through a simulated urban drive was to be capured and measured but pressure from the US got it blocked.

In response, Vx fitted the secondary air injection to the Omega which would reduce HC emissions  by oxidising (burning) unburnt fuel in the manifold and down pipes and help the cats get to operating temperature more quickly.

Ford and Jaguar were both experimenting with massive 3-phase (AC) alternators on engines at Nottingham University, the alternators would put the engines under load to promote rapid warm-up and the electrical power was dumped into oil and water heaters (and on the diseasle Jags they had electric cabin heaters). I think the alternator fitted to the V6 diseasle was 100kW.

[magnul]

And what's wrong about reducing the CO and HC emissions?

At the cost of more pollution making the kit, extra energy to drive it, extra fuel to carry it around - I reckon it is a waste

Can you give a ball park estimate of the extra energy consumption and relate that energy consumption to the benefits of having cleaner air in a city centre? My second car (a mazda 323) doesn't have a secondary air system, and it's a huge difference between the two cars how fast the cats starts working.

[Martin_1962]

And what's wrong about reducing the CO and HC emissions?

At the cost of more pollution making the kit, extra energy to drive it, extra fuel to carry it around - I reckon it is a waste

Can you give a ball park estimate of the extra energy consumption and relate that energy consumption to the benefits of having cleaner air in a city centre? My second car (a mazda 323) doesn't have a secondary air system, and it's a huge difference between the two cars how fast the cats starts working.

My 2.6 doesn't have SAI, I think that says a lot

[magnul]

It says that the SAI's function has been replaced by something else. There's a big difference between replacing and removing.

[Martin_1962]

It says that the SAI's function has been replaced by something else. There's a big difference between replacing and removing.

Nope any effect it had is now managed by the ECU

[magnul]

That's exactly what I meant. So when removing it from a car that had it fitted, the effect is gone->higher emissions.

[Dave-C]

Well, it was required to pass Euro2 emissions, so I guess something was done to still pass the later Euro emission codes.

Our government put the price of fuel up so high that none of us could afford to drive!!!  Less emissions  

Wwll done Mr Brown