Quote:
Originally Posted by hackish
Trying not to sound like a total ass here but a bunch of guys making suggestions and trying to justify their opinions about the pollution increases from their mods is not what I would consider informed.
There is lots of peer reviewed and published research on pollution and managing cat temp. Carmakers also spend millions on fuel economy and meeting EPA targets. That is well informed info. Unfortunately much of what is known is proprietary and specific to a platform.
If you would like to do some of your own study then install an egt probe in the cat. Sadly 5 gas analyzers are expensive. I paid almost 5k for mine. This is going to be a good solid feedback source as to how you are really doing. Without this stuff you may as well be shooting in the dark and theorizing about if you hit the target or not.
|
Nah. You don't sound like an ass at all. It's just a debate. I think you missed part of what I was saying. My claim was that the total pollution is more complicated than your first post, and that my total pollution profile for transportation should be more broadly considered than the narrower focus of the EPA's estimates. I'm not suggesting that a car burning fuel through an unlit, cold CAT is by some magic less polluting. I've been driving this same car since 2001, a timeframe in which most Americans would have replaced the vehicle how many times? What's the pollution profile of the production of a new car and its transportation to market? But you're right, P&G can burn fuel in a more polluting manner. So, I try to warm my engine quickly when first started, to get the CAT lit. With my grill blocking, and given the short duration of my EOC cycles, and the location of my cat attached to the exhaust manifold, I am not persuaded there are relevant studies from which I should conclude that I'm doing pulse and pollute at something like 10x the normal emissions, as you say. Especially given the wider transportation pollution context I am considering. Yes, I am theorizing. But theorizing on a known context is a part of empirical inquirytoo and should 't be dismissed so readily. Yes, testing the theory would be best. But I don't have access to the equipment you suggest, and can't afford it as you might guess. Results from that equipment would be interesting, but it would not tell the whole, relevant story. BTW, you reference an arsenal of peer-reviewed studies... if you can get access to some of them, I love to see 'em.
Thanks,
James