mudslinger99
1/2 ton status
I've never heard that before and it does seem odd..dyeager535 said:
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
Cat converter or none?
- Thread starter fourbyfourforfun
- Start date
sled_dog
1 ton status
kwissman said:
less restrictive as well, also perfectly legal. My 1995 K2500 had one of those honeycomb styles on it when I sold it. Passed emissions just fine(sniffer test).
Federal regulation. You can find it over at the EPA if you search hard. I've quoted it on the board before, basically it states you cannot add to or remove whatever number of catalytic converters the vehicle was originally equipped with.
I suspect the reason it was stated like that, and not "cannot remove" is because catalytic converters are sensitive to placement, and adding converters randomly won't have the desired results.
I suspect the reason it was stated like that, and not "cannot remove" is because catalytic converters are sensitive to placement, and adding converters randomly won't have the desired results.
Cars, trucks and SUVs only account for 20% of the nations CO2 pollution!
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/factsheets/BiggestStep_05.pdf
In 1975 unleaded fuel was introduced and by the 1980s came around lead had been removed from all fuels completely. So it is no wonder that in late 1980s lead emissions had decreased. Now they would like you to believe that by adding catalytic converters this was the cause. However Gas companies have decreased the amount of sulpher added to fuel also. This decreased pollutaints too.
So as the newer cars are using less fuel than they used to and as older cars are junked the levels fall. This is due also to newer cars having over drive and 5 speed transmissions. Engines are smaller and more efficient and cars are more aerodynamic. Fuel consumption per mile also fell as miles traveled increased.
In the 1990 there were further reductions in fuel usage per mile therefore the levels of pollutants decreased. Yes the converter helped to some degree. However as some would lead you to believe the car is not the biggest polluter on the planet. It has been shown in various EPA studies that electric generation plants produce the highest levels of CO2 and CO.
Now lets take this tid bit! In 2004 Washington state's biggest polluter was Mount St. Helens
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html
OK I stated my opinion on this matter; showed facts to back up my believes and stand by my opinion. If you run one or not it is up to you. We all can only voice our opinions and fortunately everyone has one. Happy trails mate!
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/factsheets/BiggestStep_05.pdf
In 1975 unleaded fuel was introduced and by the 1980s came around lead had been removed from all fuels completely. So it is no wonder that in late 1980s lead emissions had decreased. Now they would like you to believe that by adding catalytic converters this was the cause. However Gas companies have decreased the amount of sulpher added to fuel also. This decreased pollutaints too.
So as the newer cars are using less fuel than they used to and as older cars are junked the levels fall. This is due also to newer cars having over drive and 5 speed transmissions. Engines are smaller and more efficient and cars are more aerodynamic. Fuel consumption per mile also fell as miles traveled increased.
In the 1990 there were further reductions in fuel usage per mile therefore the levels of pollutants decreased. Yes the converter helped to some degree. However as some would lead you to believe the car is not the biggest polluter on the planet. It has been shown in various EPA studies that electric generation plants produce the highest levels of CO2 and CO.
Now lets take this tid bit! In 2004 Washington state's biggest polluter was Mount St. Helens
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html
OK I stated my opinion on this matter; showed facts to back up my believes and stand by my opinion. If you run one or not it is up to you. We all can only voice our opinions and fortunately everyone has one. Happy trails mate!
I kind of doubt most oil and coal fired power plants are located in heavily populated cities such as New York or LA, where smog is a huge problem. Most of the Northwest is powered by hydroelectric, Seattle has problems at times with air quality!
Those types of figures are absolutely fine for big picture stuff, but just because vehicular emissions are "only 20%" NATIONALLY, doesn't mean say, 100% while your vehicle is idling in your shut garage doesn't matter at all, and doesn't make a difference. Making up a scenario, 80% pollutant emissions in the middle of North Dakota means nothing in the present compared to the 20% in LA. 100% in your garage will kill you.
I have to question those figures anyways...so at this point (didn't read the link, sorry, bedtime) in time, vehicular emissions are 20% of the national numbers. What were the numbers BEFORE catalytic converters, which is what we are really discussing? The numbers could still have been lower, but due to number of autos and distance driven at the time, not converters. Someone might know, but that would have to come from an impartial study, and I'm not sure those (actually impartial studies) exist.
What were emissions per car pre-converter/lower compression/unleaded gas?
And a 1/5 reduction in pollutant release (if possible) would be absolutely huge. I don't think "only" was a very good headline, even if the Sierra Club did write it.
Probably someone writing to justify their gas hog.
Those types of figures are absolutely fine for big picture stuff, but just because vehicular emissions are "only 20%" NATIONALLY, doesn't mean say, 100% while your vehicle is idling in your shut garage doesn't matter at all, and doesn't make a difference. Making up a scenario, 80% pollutant emissions in the middle of North Dakota means nothing in the present compared to the 20% in LA. 100% in your garage will kill you.
I have to question those figures anyways...so at this point (didn't read the link, sorry, bedtime) in time, vehicular emissions are 20% of the national numbers. What were the numbers BEFORE catalytic converters, which is what we are really discussing? The numbers could still have been lower, but due to number of autos and distance driven at the time, not converters. Someone might know, but that would have to come from an impartial study, and I'm not sure those (actually impartial studies) exist.
What were emissions per car pre-converter/lower compression/unleaded gas?And a 1/5 reduction in pollutant release (if possible) would be absolutely huge. I don't think "only" was a very good headline, even if the Sierra Club did write it.
Probably someone writing to justify their gas hog.
