BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

JustWait[_2_]

On 3/6/2012 2:10 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:49:23 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/5/2012 9:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:33:50 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/5/2012 5:12 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:14:47 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

A few of the camping forum guys recommend getting the smog crap off the engine. But, they don't get
specific enough.

You mean, break the law?

"Take the smog crap off" worked in the 70s when emission control was a
clumsy add on to a conventional engine. These days the computer is
your smog control. You can certainly tune the computer for more power
and less for economy but the most efficient burn will usually also
give you the least emissions. I bet a new NASCAR racer would pass the
1975 emission controls at anything but idle speed. Fuel consumption is
important to them too.

No way... It's important but there is no way they get that good of a
burn without a catalytic converter...

If the engine was designed with a catalytic converter, you will have
problems if you take it off.

I'm pretty sure NASCAR doesn't run Cats, and he said NASCAR.. I wasn't
trying to be an ass, but I don't see NASCAR passing Emissions here in CT
anyway. Too much unburned gasoline at any RPM. And yes, I actually
posted this knowing it was Greg and if I am wrong, I will see a cite
fairly quickly

They have ECUs running NASCAR cars and I bet they run a lot leaner
than they used to. That and the fact that they are running on ethanol
makes these as clean as the standard was in the 70s (my original
claim)
I am not sure how but my Monza passed the 75 level test in about 1980
(whenever Md started testing) without a cat. It was just the empty
can.

It's not pure ethanol, and I still doubt it would pass... You just can't
move that much material through a cylinder at that speed without a lot
of unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust, even at idle... As to your
Monza, try running it with open headers and see how it does