Re: Crazy idea...
Posted by 55PackardGuy On 2011/12/5 14:19:23
Quote:
The other thing that torqued me off about the fight against NOx was that it was achieved by methods that were completely counter to efficiency and power. One was to knock down compression ratio, and the other was to "mess with the timing" as you say. Your reference to the vacuum "advance" reminds me of the dual vacuum hoses connected to the diaphragm on my '73 Opel Manta. The second hose was for vacuum spark "retard"! The advance hose, much smaller, had to pull against this other one, which, needless to say, was most frequently disconnected and plugged.
I don't know much about the air pump, but I do believe it was a way to lower emissions without too much loss of mileage or performance. Its main detriment to the engine was, I think, parasitic drag. Otherwise, I believe it just pumped air into the exhaust to help burn off excess hydrocarbons.
So, crazy factory idea, in general, was to lower emissions at the cost of efficiency and power. So my question always was, "What was the net gain of ppm of pollutants if a car was using 1/3 more gas to travel the same distance, and burning that much more fuel?" If, for instance, the drop in emissions was 1/3 lower per gallon of fuel, it would be a wash-- except for the oil companies, where it would be a definite gain! And yet, no one ever seemed to have those numbers.
HH56 wrote:
It wasn't an air pump but was for the nitrogen oxides. Don't remember all the details but the main piece was a small module a few inches square that had a second vacuum connection as well as having the existing vacuum advance connection go thru it. Also had an electrical connection. All I remember is it changed the timing with the results mentioned. Once it was taken off and car was back to normal.
No EGR on that car that I remember although I did have a Mazda pickup and the blasted valve would stick partially open causing it to run like crap with the check engine light on.
The other thing that torqued me off about the fight against NOx was that it was achieved by methods that were completely counter to efficiency and power. One was to knock down compression ratio, and the other was to "mess with the timing" as you say. Your reference to the vacuum "advance" reminds me of the dual vacuum hoses connected to the diaphragm on my '73 Opel Manta. The second hose was for vacuum spark "retard"! The advance hose, much smaller, had to pull against this other one, which, needless to say, was most frequently disconnected and plugged.
I don't know much about the air pump, but I do believe it was a way to lower emissions without too much loss of mileage or performance. Its main detriment to the engine was, I think, parasitic drag. Otherwise, I believe it just pumped air into the exhaust to help burn off excess hydrocarbons.
So, crazy factory idea, in general, was to lower emissions at the cost of efficiency and power. So my question always was, "What was the net gain of ppm of pollutants if a car was using 1/3 more gas to travel the same distance, and burning that much more fuel?" If, for instance, the drop in emissions was 1/3 lower per gallon of fuel, it would be a wash-- except for the oil companies, where it would be a definite gain! And yet, no one ever seemed to have those numbers.
This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=90762