500 ppm diesel still readily available......

No, you didn't miss anything. And yet, just yesterday, I kept hearing
people (who live in the US and presumably SHOULD know the facts) calling
into a radio show that was discussing global warming talking about how
"the US just HAS to start cleaning up the mess we've made."

Uh... exSCUSE me!!! Who led the world in auto emission controls
beginning in the mid 1960s when US cars had PCV and vapor control
systems and the rest of the world still had crankcase draft tubes?

WHO led in the elimination of leaded fuel and addition of catalytic
convertors to reduce NOx and CO in 1975 while oh-so-responsible European
countries had leaded fuel into the NINETIES!!!

Who led the way in cutting back (and ultimately eliminating) the use of
CFCs in air conditiners and manufacturing?

Sure as hell not Europe, Asia, Central America, South America, or
Mexcico... Hmmm. that leaves (wait for it....) The United States!

I'm sick and tired of hearing people bellyache about the US "not
cleaning up" or not signing Kyoto when we're ALREADY cleaner than Kyoto
requires countries like China and India to be. Kyoto is a crock. And its
incumbent on the REST of the frickin' world to catch up to what the US
has done before they start throwing stones. We're waiting.

Sorry. Pet peeve of mine.

 

I got a friend who has a 1969 Camero SS. His father got it new in Califorina
shortly returning from Vietnam.
It originally had a smog pump and cat on them.

 

<Long winded BS snipped>

and your reputable source is? come on I gave mine.

--
----------------------------
-Chris
05 CTD
06 Liberty CRD

Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs.

 

NOT!
Homework assignment for you: Find out what year the Camaro first got a
catalytic converter. I'll give you a hint. It starts with 19 and ends with
75.

 

A pump maybe, but a cat in 1969. Where was it mounted?

 

You're right, Kalifornia might have gotten EGR a year earlier than the rest
of us but unleaded gas, needed for converters didn't hit until 1975. We had
low and SOME no lead but not much.

 

"Cat" is an abbreviation for "catalytic converter". Palladiam covered
ceramic beads act as a catylist to convert pollutants to, uh, less
polluting pollutants.

Reference? Hahahah. Try google.

 

Buwhahahaha! Was seeing if anyone was paying attention and knew their stuff
;-)

 

GM does it that way. Chrysler did theirs that look like honeycomb, but
instead triangle shaped.
I should know. I saw some pieces of it on my driveway after I put some
racing fuel into my junker '79 Cordoba

 

You just showed that you don't. <G>

 

..

you seem to miss the point of my asking him for a reliable ref. he's
claiming that diesels don't use Catalytic Converters instead use some sort
of thermal reactor that isn't a catalyst, my argument is that they do use
them, and even the manufactures call them such. if I am so wrong in this, as
SnoMan states that I am, then he should have no problem providing me with
documentation contrary to what I have said. follow back in my thread I have
suggested to him to do that very google search you suggest I do. I have
already done it. thus the links that and clips I have previously posted.
this is a discussion me and him have had before and I continue only as a
warning to anyone who may listen to his missinformation about diesel
emissions that he is flawed in his information. he will claim that the
Cummins engine is about to have a bunch of stuff added to it to make it pass
emissions for 2010 but Cummins sates that the 6.7 already passes the 2010
requirements as it sits 3 years early. I suggest that you read closely into
what he's posting and then do the very research I have been suggesting that
he should do to verify or debunk my information. if I am mistaken in any
point I have made then I will gladly admit to my error. but I do not believe
on this point that I have made one.

so once again its on SnoMan, if I'm wrong provide the online documentation
so that I may examine it myself. (please reputable sources)

--
----------------------------
-Chris
05 CTD
06 Liberty CRD

Real Trucks don't NEED spark plugs

 

SnoMan:

It's not what you know that hurts you, it's what you think you know that
ain't so is what gets you in trouble. On the '04 DR with Cummins ETO, refer
to P/N 52018191AC (see your Dodge dealer for help on this), this part is a
catalytic converter.... end of story.

Mike

 

You find mis-use of semi-technical terms a lot in stuff published for
the masses. Two examples that come to mind (certainly there are others):
(1) The engine coolant outlet housing on the Chrysler LH vehicles is
exactly where traditionally the thermostat is on most engines, but the
thermostat on the LH's is on the inlet side of the engine (located low
on the block on the driver's side). But people are alwyas referring to
the outlest housing as the thermostat housing - even the Chrysler FSM
erroneously refers to it as the thermostat housing in at least two places.
(2) The cushioning devices used in valve trains were traditionally in
line with the valve stem actuation (typicaly push rods) - and were
called valve lifters. Now, more often than not, they are on the
opposite side of a rocker - not directly in series with the valve
actuation, and they are more accurately referred to as valve lash
adjusters. Yet on the street and on car forums, and even among highly
qualified mechanics - no doubt even in technical articles, they will be
incorrectly referred to as valve lifters.

So, though I have no horse in this race, I can buy SnoMan's argument
that even the technical gurus may refer to something that technically is
not a catalytic converter as a catalyitc converter. All that means is
you can't believe everything you read - even by the "experts" - if
you're doing so with an eye for technical accuracy.

So - if you have to get a bigger engine to recover the power lost to
improved emissions, will there in fact be no net gain in the emissions?
IOW - you can fool yourself with percentages if you turn a blind eye
to the total *quantity* of emissions if you're using bigger engines to
make up for lost power in meeting the new regs. I.E., unintnded
consequences (or pretended ignorance by those who may understand this
but don't want to bring this to the public's attention, which wouldn't
matter anyway due to it's short attention span and inability to ever
peel more than two layers off the onion on any given subject).

 

Feel better, Steve?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Chris Thompson wrote:

As I said - I have no horse in this race. There's a simple answer to
this by answering this question: Does this "thermo reactor" have a
chemical in it that acts as a true catalyst (i.e., some element or
compound that enables or facilitates a desired chemical reaction and
that returns to its original state after the reaction is complete) in
it? If the answer is 'yes', then this thing can technically be called a
catalytic converter even if it doesn't quite fit the mold of a
traditional automotve catalytic converter. If it doesn't have a
catalyst in it, then you can't correctly refer to it as a catalytic
converter.

I don't know the answer - I just posed the question to settle this.

Bottom line: If it has a chemical that acts as a catalyst (as a chemist
would define a catalyst) used in some process of converting something
into something else, then it could be called a catalytic converter. If
not, then it can't correctly be.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

That's too technical a term for most people.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

It all boils down to "Does the thermal reactor have a chemical that
behaves as what a chemist would consider a catalyst does". If the
answer is 'no', then you are right, if 'yes', then he is right. (I
don't know the answer.)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

In this case, the DC documentation could be correct, but it doesn't
*prove* anything. DC official documentation also refers to the LH car
coolant outlet housing as a thermostat housing when the thermostat is
not within 2 feet of it.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Smog pump: YES
Cat? Not in '69.

 

Also, catcons weren't mandatory in '75, if a car could meet the required
emission levels without one, it didn't have to have one. But *most*
vehicles needed catcons to meet '75 (and later) emissions. Light trucks
had a different standard, and many got away without catcons for a few
more years. That's why a 1978 Dodge Little Red Express was quicker than
a '78 Chevy Corvette (well, ONE of the reasons). The '78 LRE didn't need
cats and used a true dual exhaust, the 'vette being a car had to meet
tighter emissions. By '79, the requirements had tightened so that the
1979 Dodge LRE truck did have catcons. The '78s are now much more
desirable as collector vehicles.