I understand your frustration HH56. Those were poor applications of technology that, I have to admit, has done us a lot of good in the long haul. Eventually they worked the bugs out (at great cost to consumers and manufacturers) and things that decreased pollution could even help cars gain some mileage and longevity. Of course, it was the electronics that finally really saved the day.
The early history of "pollution controls" for cars is a checkered one to say the least. If I recall correctly, it really helped out the Japanese imports, which (I think) were exempt from some of the CA standards, and also did a lot of tinkering with the add-on style stuff you mentioned and seemed to get that right sometimes. And they started out with lighter cars and smaller engines, so losses in mileage and performance may not have been so noticeable. If a car that could have gotten 30 mpg got 25 because of the pollution equipment and tuning, it was still perceived as very economical. But the difference in performance and economy was much more noticeable between the American cars from the 60s that we were used to and the new ones in the 70's, which which discouraged and angered a lot of buyers. That's how I see it anyway (but wadda I know?)
Quote:
I'm not sure whether those are crazy ideas or not. Some might have merit if done properly with much testing
Here in the land of the Crazy Ideas thread, we frown on such particulars.
A bit more seriously, the PVC conversion has successfully been done on draft tube equipped cars, and there are even some (shudder) instructions over on the P15 D24 (late 40's Plymouth/Dodge models) website.
This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=90714