Ouch....
Never seen this "Formal" part before...
- Thread starter commando1
- Start date
Ouch....
livininharrow
Senior Member
lmfaoSteve's brain visualized.
Not Steve, but it "burns" the hydrocarbons(fuel) and carbon monoxide(incompletely burned fuel) into carbon dioxide which is/was an acceptable emission. That's why they run so hot.
The other type that would be on a newer model would be a reduction catalyst. Those strip apart oxides of nitrogen pollutants that your EGR or variable cam timing couldn't prevent. The 2 types are used in combinations that may be in separate or shard housings.
Without any moving parts, the converters on a car are actually highly engineered to be able to properly work with the engine management system of the car they were meant for. It's a big, huge, giant no-no to fool with them, and if you did the car would certainly produce more pollution during some phase of operation.
Old ones like this would be filled with pellets and are pretty restrictive to flow, newer ones are a monolith design and should flow as good as their inlet/outlet pipes.
You may actually be right... love to hear what Steve says...
I have to say it....when do you sleep...
...it's 03:30 your time...
...it's 03:30 your time...
Just woke up... I get to bed early, and then sometime between 2am and the alarm at 3:30 I get a very large cat's *** in my face while he purrs at full volume and bothers the human who will feed him(not me).I have to say it....when do you sleep...
Once in a while, if nobody responds fast enough, the other little creep starts nibbling my toes... she has become very good at dodging the involuntary "punt" reflex this bring out in me... it's a fun game for one of us.
I found many years ago, if I don't have a couple hours to get a little quality sleep in, I may as well start my day. I generally keep my sleep pattern the same if I have to be at work at 6am or whatever schedule they give me.
cm23uoc
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 8,368
- Reaction score
- 3,445
Us old farts Need no sleep. Although right now over here it's two hours til Schnitzel lunch.
78Brougham
"Chump"
I'll have to look if my 78 NYB has that...I don't remember. But it'll have to wait till spring as it's tucked in for the winter.
Funny how it's the animals we have keeping us up....15 year old Cocker Spaniel with a weak bladder was my reason for middle of the night prowling. Nothing like getting out of a warm bed to take an animal for a walk at -24C....
And to top it off no schnitzel..
cm23uoc
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 8,368
- Reaction score
- 3,445
16 year old lab here, plus a two year old lab mix.
I plan to sleep again in the early 2030s.
Just around -5 and that's already pretty cold in my neck of the Woods.
One Schnitzel is left over (for the Moment).
I plan to sleep again in the early 2030s.
Just around -5 and that's already pretty cold in my neck of the Woods.
One Schnitzel is left over (for the Moment).
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
So they are a second chanc trap to burn the unburned gasses before they go in and spike the catalytic converter. Thank God for engineers that chased combustion chamber shape and turbulence.
Would be interesting to figure out if yours is a California or High Altitude car. I thought we talked a little bit about that last year at Carlisle? I don't remember...talked to so many people...LOL!
We can probably figure it out by the emission package you have....like N95 or N96, etc. Should have a sticker on the core support or fan shroud... or the the underside of the hood. Do you have the build sheet?
There was a much larger downstream catalytic converter also, again only an oxidation one, on both federal and California cars (no reduction one that controls nitrogen oxide emissions like cantflip said - those came in later years) that was used to control most of the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions released from the engine during the combustion process. The downstream converters did most of the clean up work during warmed up driving conditions. The upstream smaller oxidation catalyst was there to warm up fast since it was closer to the engine (and smaller) and it was very effective in reducing cold start HC and CO emissions when those emissions are really high compared to warmed up operation. California standards were much tougher than federal standards, and adding just this upstream oxidation catalyst to a regular federal emission package and adding an air pump would allow these cars to pass the California requirements. There was no intent to do anything to use it to pass an inspection when the car was in customers' hands during an idle test.
These early oxidation only catalysts (they were generally introduced in nearly all 1975 vehicles sold in the U.S. although Chrysler also tried some lean burn approaches instead to reduce HC and CO emissons that were a disaster) were not very robust compared to today's catalysts, so they didn't last all that long in customer service when close coupled to the engine. Today, things are much different, and catalysts are all close coupled to the engine for faster lightoff in reducing emissions, and they generally go the life of the vehicle - and cars no longer use air pumps.
I only know something about this whole subject since during my nearly 11 years working for Chrysler, 8 of those years were working in the fuel systems development department where emission control systems were being engineered for each of the applications. It was a tough time and Chrysler was well behind GM since GM was instrumental in developing the first oxidation catalysts whereas Chrysler was not, and when those catalysts were introduced, Chrysler really didn't know much about how to utilize them in reducing emissions as did GM.
While most people believe emission control systems "hurt" performance, today's emission control systems are so good and so precise that they actually allow gasoline engines to operate in their dirtiest (best performance and fuel economy calibrations) and let the catalysts do all the clean up of emissions. Diesels are still going through emission system development and have come a long way, but there is still a little way to go before they too can run in the best performance/fuel economy mode too.
78Brougham
"Chump"
We chat about it, it's definitely a Ca car. I have a copy of original window sticker. It came from a dealer in Signal Hill? CA. I also have some work orders from the dealer out there. I would imagine the broadcast sheet is still there. I just don't want to pull out the back seat to get it. Seats are too Damn nice, and I don't want to screw them up tryin. I just can't remember seeing that part. Someone may have removed it during an exhaust job. The air pump is long gone too.
Mr C
Senior Member
My friend and I attended Moparfest one year in our Imperials. He had a stock Cali emissions 75 Imperial (air pump and all), and I had my Canadian emissions spec (i.e. no cats single exhaust at the time) 74 Imperial (now Cantflip's car).
The 74 absolutely smoked the 75 in performance/ power. I don't know if the cam spec was different, but those Cali spec cars were just slugs. Early days of emissions just killed what little performance was left after the post muscle de-tuning.
Some pics of the Imperials that day...
The 74 absolutely smoked the 75 in performance/ power. I don't know if the cam spec was different, but those Cali spec cars were just slugs. Early days of emissions just killed what little performance was left after the post muscle de-tuning.
Some pics of the Imperials that day...
Emission standards got a lot tougher in 1975 compared to 1974, and that is why most manufacturers finally made the switch to using catalytic converters in 1975, which cost some extra money. Unfortunately, Chrysler had no experience with them and leaned out the carburetors even more than necessary and still retarded timing excessively which did help reduce HC emissions, but the catalysts were powerful in reducing them as it was, so that all these other unnecessary measures resulted in dogs in terms of performance and driveability. And the California NOx standards resulted in big amounts of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) that didn't help either that the federal cars could avoid (Canadian standards were very lax even compared to the federal standards, much less the California standards).
The biggest hit to fuel economy in those difficult years was due, though, to that little black plastic box with two nipples on it mounted on the passenger side of the firewall that was called an OSAC valve (orifice spark advance control) that delayed any vacuum advance to your engine for 26 seconds when you took off from a stop or took your foot off the throttle even momentarily. With the formals being heavy, and the engines saddled with unnecessary measures, it was a very bad time. It is part of the reason Chrysler didn't make it with the customers. The GM cars weren't great either, but they at least ran smooth and could get out of their own way because they already knew what they could do to utilize the catalyst better.
Ford vehicles were in between, as they didn't have the way too lean carburetor calibrations that Chrysler had that hurt performance and driveability, but they were worse than Chrysler vehicles in terms of complexity of the emission control systems. A ridiculous nightmare of junk and hoses all over the engine comparment.
But after some painful teething, today's gasoline engines emit near zero emissions and have excellent performance and fuel economy. And we have clean air......
Last edited:
If the air pump is gone, I would bet on the mini cat being eliminated too.
Those old cats are very restrictive to exhaust flow. The 4 door is the peppiest of the fleet. Breathing helped her a lot.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Gawd, I miss the smell of rotten eggs on a cold morning.
You know Stan, there is something really wrong when you drive a modern car today and there is nothing to complain about. My daily driver is 20 years old now, and I still love it - it is a perfect machine. There is just nothing to complain about, making life empty and meaningless with nothing to strive for!
Last edited:
I would think you have enough cars that need love and attention that it would be nice to have a reliable driver that needs nothing, waiting for you.You know Stan, there is something really wrong when you drive a modern car today and there is nothing to complain about. My daily driver is 20 years old now, and I still love it - it is a perfect machine. There is just nothing to complain about, making life empty and meaningless with nothing to strive for!
Similar threads
