0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
As I see it, CATS are self defeating. They increase fuel consumption and don't actually reduce the hideous output of the engine, merely trap it. It is still there and needs to be dealt with. Lean burn seems a far better solution to the problem.
Is this the reason for catalytic converters?
The Honda engine is nifty, but I am very curious about how all the emission standards work. A well set up 1.5 liter 4 cylinder can be easily set up to get 45 mpg[US]
[GM's Hummer] only relationship to a military Humvee, was its general appearance.
...because the US manufacturers negotiated the actual pollutant levels, I wonder if the allowed mix is also somehow biased to favor the big cars.
For example, my Dodge truck has a 5.7L V8, but on a long journey it consumes (lowest octane) fuel at 21 miles per US gallon. That's actually the same as the Volvo wagon I had which had a 2.4L in-line 5 banger plus turbo. And, the Volvo didn't like lowest octane gas!
Wouldn't you say that 'long journey' is key phrase though, Geezer?This statement is only comparing one quite narrow aspect of engines with completely different characteristics.Both the truck and the Volvo, I would hazard a guess, spend much less time near their peak efficiency during the driving-cycle than a small Euro-box Diesel would.