Todays Cars Are Really Clean Running!

[George7941]

Here are the emssions test results for my Sierra

And, for comparison, here are the results from my last truck, a propane powered 1986 F250

Remember, propane powered engines are supposed to be clean running!

Automakers have made great strides in cleaning up emissions. Kudos to them.

Nitrous oxides are realy difficult to control, anytime you have combustion in the presence of nitrogen, some nitrous oxides will be formed. So, unfortunately, my truck has not reached zero emissions yet. And shame on those people who feel that emissions controls are a hoax perpetrated on motorists.

 

[Chris142]

Maybe the engine is actully pretty dirty but the Catalytic converter is doing an execelant job of cleaning the exhaust up before it goes out the pipe?

 

[Steve S]

lets see what the Sierra puts out when it is 30 years old. Besides the 6 cyl isn'r the most up top date combustion chamber design. It is a great motor though. Propane is cleaner than if you ran gasoline . Does the F250 have a 3 way cat con?

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: Chris142
Maybe the engine is actully pretty dirty but the Catalytic converter is doing an execelant job of cleaning the exhaust up before it goes out the pipe?
Chris you are too fast for me.

 

[George7941]

Originally Posted By: Chris142
Maybe the engine is actully pretty dirty but the Catalytic converter is doing an execelant job of cleaning the exhaust up before it goes out the pipe?



True, the cat is cleaning up the exhaust somewhat, to what extent I don't know.

The F250 did not have any cat, let alone a 3-way cat.It definitely would have been cleaner with a cat. The truck was scrapped in 2006.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: George7941
Originally Posted By: Chris142
Maybe the engine is actully pretty dirty but the Catalytic converter is doing an execelant job of cleaning the exhaust up before it goes out the pipe?



True, the cat is cleaning up the exhaust somewhat, to what extent I don't know.

The F250 did not have any cat, let alone a 3-way cat.It definitely would have been cleaner with a cat. The truck was scrapped in 2006.


The lack of a cat on the F-250 would definitely make a big difference.

It would be interesting to see a test of trucks with comparable emissions equipment, but from different years. For example, a 1980s TBI 4.3 with factory cats, vs. your 2006 4.3...or a Ford EFI 5.0 vs. a 4.6L.

I'm sure there would still be a very noticeable difference, but maybe not nearly as bad.

Honestly I think it's pretty good a 20 year old truck with no cat could pass an emissions test. They did away with tailpipe testing here a few years ago. Our emissions inspection only applies to 1996+ vehicles now.

 

[George7941]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
They did away with tailpipe testing here a few years ago. Our emissions inspection only applies to 1996+ vehicles now.


So now they only hook up to the ECM/PCM to see how the engine is running?

 

[Rick in PA]

Yes they are! I pumped gas back in the late '70s. Eyes watering? Running too lean. Getting dizzy? Running too rich. There were some real stinkers back then.

I also remember the early days of the cat converter. There were some real stinkers then too. I suppose they stank when they were being over-worked.

I don't notice car odors much these days. I believe they're actually running fairly clean and the cat just tidies up whats left.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: George7941
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
They did away with tailpipe testing here a few years ago. Our emissions inspection only applies to 1996+ vehicles now.


So now they only hook up to the ECM/PCM to see how the engine is running?


Yep, the entire emissions test is done by a computer plugged into the OBDII port.

 

[JHZR2]

My 91 BMW gives similar numbers, even lower on the NOX.

But Ive noticed that there is a difference at cold start between my 91 BMW, the 04 saab, the 08 rabbit (PZEV) and the 11 135i. At full cold start, they rank in "smellable" emissions by age!

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

But Ive noticed that there is a difference at cold start between my 91 BMW, the 04 saab, the 08 rabbit (PZEV) and the 11 135i. At full cold start, they rank in "smellable" emissions by age!


I noticed that too.

I can smell more of a chemical smell in the Duratec on a cold start. My older cars I could smell unburned gasoline. I thought it was just the formulation of the gasoline had changed.

 

[tonycarguy]

Here in Calif we're required to do smog checks frequently. I saved all my results for the past 15 years, and I can tell you even cars from the early 90s were very clean. For comparison, cars in the 1950s put out over 1000ppm HC. My early 90s Acura put out 2 ppm.

As for "kudos to the automakers for cleaning up their car emissions", screw them. They only made their cars cleaner because the government forced them to. They fought tooth and nail against the original US emissions requirements of the early 70s and fought each time the state of Calif wanted to toughen the requirements above and beyond the Federal requirements.

 

[tonycarguy]

Engines today are very clean not because of the cat but because they're loaded with sensors and have computers that deliver the precise amount of fuel for the amount of air being breathed by the engine. When you can control the fuel/air ratio very precisely, you'll have a clean running engine. There will be virtually no HC or CO, as those result from unbalanced fuel/air ratios. The cats have little work to do.

In the days of carb cars, that wasn't the case. You couldn't get the fuel/air ratio as precise as with computerized fuel injection, so the cats had more work to do. The 1986 F250 is probably carb right?

 

[George7941]

Originally Posted By: tonycarguy

As for "kudos to the automakers for cleaning up their car emissions", screw them. They only made their cars cleaner because the government forced them to. They fought tooth and nail against the original US emissions requirements of the early 70s and fought each time the state of Calif wanted to toughen the requirements above and beyond the Federal requirements.


You are right, the government forced the automakers to clean up emissions. I just meant that,regardless of their motivation, they have done a good job of cleaning up emissions.

The F250 started out as a carbed gasoline powered truck and was converted over to propane but still carbureted. Now, propane injection systems are used for propane conversions.

 

[eljefino]

The old cats used to be huge. Lots of 80s full size pickups get their cats stolen. Now they're there in case of malfunction upstream, mostly.

An emission test with a warm motor either idling or doing some steady state treadmill is not the whole picture nor 1/100 of what the automakers have to go through to get certified. One often reads of some hot rod mod / random elimination of smog gear having "no effect" because someone still "passed smog" like they're some genius engineer the makers need to hire.

I suspect the US automakers are secretly delighted (even if outwardly anxious) by the high barriers to entry of current safety/emissions laws. Otherwise they'd have to compete with really cool European cars like that VW Polo that does 3l/100km. Mahindra has managed to get a 2 ton one is strictly a business decision.

 

[tonycarguy]

Originally Posted By: eljefino

I suspect the US automakers are secretly delighted (even if outwardly anxious) by the high barriers to entry of current safety/emissions laws. Otherwise they'd have to compete with really cool European cars like that VW Polo that does 3l/100km. Mahindra has managed to get a 2 ton one is strictly a business decision.


Maybe, maybe not. On the one hand, the tough Federal laws prevent certain Asian/European models from entering the US market. On the other hand, if those laws didn't exist, domestic automakers could probably make some cooler cars too. The Ford GT was killed off because Ford didn't want to spend the money needed to make it meet newer safety requirements

 

[paulo57509]

Some old cars run pretty clean too. These results are from my 1987 Acura Legend.

This was right after I replaced the cat.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: tonycarguy
Originally Posted By: eljefino

I suspect the US automakers are secretly delighted (even if outwardly anxious) by the high barriers to entry of current safety/emissions laws. Otherwise they'd have to compete with really cool European cars like that VW Polo that does 3l/100km. Mahindra has managed to get a 2 ton one is strictly a business decision.


Maybe, maybe not. On the one hand, the tough Federal laws prevent certain Asian/European models from entering the US market. On the other hand, if those laws didn't exist, domestic automakers could probably make some cooler cars too. The Ford GT was killed off because Ford didn't want to spend the money needed to make it meet newer safety requirements



Well... "says them"... we'll never know. It was a great halo car. Their competition cut the Camaro and is giving the Viper a rest as well. You don't want supercars to lose their exclusivity by getting long in the tooth.

Ford does not want to offend their fans by saying "we made a business decision to not cut into our profits", so find a detail that they can blame on regulation... everybody's happy.

 

[Falcon_LS]

I would imagine these numbers are greatly influenced by the sulfur content of the gas that is being used?

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS
I would imagine these numbers are greatly influenced by the sulfur content of the gas that is being used?

Very little.