View Poll Results: Knackers to global warming and your children's lungs
I've illegally taken out the bits that reduce pollution
98
78.40%
I'm happy with about 220 bhp
27
21.60%
Voters: 125. You may not vote on this poll
Raping the planet for a few extra bhp
04 January 2005, 04:40 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 8,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
open loop/closed loop switching systems....
Point 1) Cats only work when the mixture is correct.
When the scoob is cruising aroung, using light throttle or at idle then the lambda sensor reports back to the ecu and the ecu tries to modfiy the fuelling to hit "stoichmetric mixture", that is, a perfect mixture where all the constituents are fully burned.
Great, the cat then works.
(although strictly speaking the ecu cant get the mixture dead right, so it skips back and forth to get the best average as seen on afr meters with the dancing LED's)
However, if yours is a weekend car/track weapon/etc etc or you spend most of your time under load/on boost etc then your cat is doing Sweet FA.
The afr LED's show very rich, ie the car is not searching for stoich.
I thought that I spent more time hooning about than not, but John Banks has datalogged a run to work and found that 95% of the time he was using the lambda/hitting stoich
Point 1) Cats only work when the mixture is correct.
When the scoob is cruising aroung, using light throttle or at idle then the lambda sensor reports back to the ecu and the ecu tries to modfiy the fuelling to hit "stoichmetric mixture", that is, a perfect mixture where all the constituents are fully burned.
Great, the cat then works.
(although strictly speaking the ecu cant get the mixture dead right, so it skips back and forth to get the best average as seen on afr meters with the dancing LED's)
However, if yours is a weekend car/track weapon/etc etc or you spend most of your time under load/on boost etc then your cat is doing Sweet FA.
The afr LED's show very rich, ie the car is not searching for stoich.
I thought that I spent more time hooning about than not, but John Banks has datalogged a run to work and found that 95% of the time he was using the lambda/hitting stoich
05 January 2005, 10:09 PM
#32
Originally Posted by hugo
There's a taller tree to bark up than the one with the few decat enthusiasts in it. Most lung problems are caused by particulates. The king of particulate production is the ever popular diesel motor. They produce huge quantities as a primary product of combustion (as we all see when driving behind one) and finer secondary particulates from the various chemical reactions in volving nitrogen oxides). I would reckon that there are a lot more wheezy kids out there climbing into diesel 4x4's and being driven to Tesco's by their Mum (who's filling the car with secondary *** smoke) than there are with a Dad with a decat. Have a look at this text borrowed from the American Lung Association:
WHY IS DIESEL EXHAUST AN AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM?
Diesel exhaust is a mixture containing over 450 different components, including vapors and fine particles. Over 40 chemicals in diesel exhaust are considered toxic air contaminants by the State of California. Exposure to this mixture may result in cancer, exacerbation of asthma, and other health problems.
For the same load and engine conditions, diesel engines spew out 100 times more sooty particles than gasoline engines. As a result, diesel engines account for an estimated 26 percent of the total hazardous particulate pollution (PM10) from fuel combustion sources in our air, and 66 percent of the particulate pollution from on-road sources. Diesel engines also produce nearly 20 percent of the total nitrogen oxides (NOx) in outdoor air and 26 percent of the total NOx from on-road sources. Nitrogen oxides are a major contributor to ozone production and smog.
WHAT ARE THE HEALTH EFFECTS?
Diesel exhaust has been linked in numerous scientific studies to cancer, the exacerbation of asthma and other respiratory diseases. A draft report released by the US EPA in February 1998 indicated that exposure to even low levels of diesel exhaust is likely to pose a risk of lung cancer and respiratory impairment. And in August 1998, the State of California decided that there was enough evidence to list the particulate matter in diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant - a probable carcinogen requiring action to reduce public exposure and risk.
Dozens of studies link airborne fine particle, such as those in diesel exhaust, to increased hospital admissions for respiratory diseases, chronic obstructive lung disease, pneumonia, heart disease and up to 60,000 premature deaths annually in the US.
The health risk from diesel exposure is greatest for children, the elderly, people who have respiratory problems or who smoke, people who regularly strenuously exercise in diesel-polluted areas, and people who work or live near diesel exhaust sources. Studies have shown that the proximity of a child's residence to major roads is linked to hospital admissions for asthma, and there is a positive relationship between school proximity to freeways and asthma occurrence. Truck and traffic intensity and exhaust measured in schools were significantly associated with chronic respiratory symptoms.
WHY IS DIESEL EXHAUST AN AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM?
Diesel exhaust is a mixture containing over 450 different components, including vapors and fine particles. Over 40 chemicals in diesel exhaust are considered toxic air contaminants by the State of California. Exposure to this mixture may result in cancer, exacerbation of asthma, and other health problems.
For the same load and engine conditions, diesel engines spew out 100 times more sooty particles than gasoline engines. As a result, diesel engines account for an estimated 26 percent of the total hazardous particulate pollution (PM10) from fuel combustion sources in our air, and 66 percent of the particulate pollution from on-road sources. Diesel engines also produce nearly 20 percent of the total nitrogen oxides (NOx) in outdoor air and 26 percent of the total NOx from on-road sources. Nitrogen oxides are a major contributor to ozone production and smog.
WHAT ARE THE HEALTH EFFECTS?
Diesel exhaust has been linked in numerous scientific studies to cancer, the exacerbation of asthma and other respiratory diseases. A draft report released by the US EPA in February 1998 indicated that exposure to even low levels of diesel exhaust is likely to pose a risk of lung cancer and respiratory impairment. And in August 1998, the State of California decided that there was enough evidence to list the particulate matter in diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant - a probable carcinogen requiring action to reduce public exposure and risk.
Dozens of studies link airborne fine particle, such as those in diesel exhaust, to increased hospital admissions for respiratory diseases, chronic obstructive lung disease, pneumonia, heart disease and up to 60,000 premature deaths annually in the US.
The health risk from diesel exposure is greatest for children, the elderly, people who have respiratory problems or who smoke, people who regularly strenuously exercise in diesel-polluted areas, and people who work or live near diesel exhaust sources. Studies have shown that the proximity of a child's residence to major roads is linked to hospital admissions for asthma, and there is a positive relationship between school proximity to freeways and asthma occurrence. Truck and traffic intensity and exhaust measured in schools were significantly associated with chronic respiratory symptoms.
Also I heard something on a TV programme where Aircraft are predicited to be the major contributors not far down the line! - Not surprising I suppose with such cheap fares now...
Dividing the emissions of public transport vehicles by the number of occupants may be valid - but not by the number of seats! - certainly not oop North - most buses i see run virtually empty!
Mick
06 January 2005, 01:24 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by johnfelstead
The Prius is less fuel efficient than a Turbo Diesel, this technology is not up to spec yet.
[/url]
[/url]
Having said which, the forthcoming Lexus hybrid SUV (clean, AWD and decent performance it is rumoured) looks rather interesting too.
Each to his/her own.
Cheers
06 January 2005, 04:09 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point about the low compression engine.
I have a Legacy B4 and I'm told it runs stupidly high compression and fires at 50 degrees BTDC. Anyone got any proper figures for this engine as I'm pondering a decat anyway.
Oh and according to the ABD who somehow managed to crossreference bus polution with number of bus journeys, the bus puts out more polution per person travelling a kilometer than the car.
Whoever said that most busses run on LPG is, imo, talking bollocks, maybe they do in their home town (which I presume is somewhere like Oxford) but most of the busses here in Liverpool are clapped out 15 year old monstrosities that look like they're from the same era as the old-shape London taxis.
I have a Legacy B4 and I'm told it runs stupidly high compression and fires at 50 degrees BTDC. Anyone got any proper figures for this engine as I'm pondering a decat anyway.
Oh and according to the ABD who somehow managed to crossreference bus polution with number of bus journeys, the bus puts out more polution per person travelling a kilometer than the car.
Whoever said that most busses run on LPG is, imo, talking bollocks, maybe they do in their home town (which I presume is somewhere like Oxford) but most of the busses here in Liverpool are clapped out 15 year old monstrosities that look like they're from the same era as the old-shape London taxis.
27 May 2006, 12:34 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul_M
I don't know the figures, but I've been previously led to believe that the pollution produced per mile by a 500 passenger aeroplane is far, far more than 500 times that of a car.
Can anyone confirm or deny?
Can anyone confirm or deny?
The least poluting way to travel but the do-gooder environmentalists who exagerate, talk a load of sh1te and like the sound of their own voices will tell you differently.
27 May 2006, 09:47 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lincoln, Yes I know it's Pink
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did my bit for the enviroment today, we did a 320 mile round trip , mostly on dual carriage ways and motorways. Instead of taking the scoob, which I most probably would of had to fill up once to be safe. I decided that we would use the missuses cleaner and lighter 1.2 clio. It had nothing to do with the fact that I had spent 3 hrs yesterday cleaning and polishing the scoob. And wanted it to look it`s best for tommorow's meet.
And saved meself a few quid aswell as the clio used around 30 quids worth of 95 ron unleaded, instead of 50 quids worth of optimax.
Jase
And saved meself a few quid aswell as the clio used around 30 quids worth of 95 ron unleaded, instead of 50 quids worth of optimax.
Jase
28 May 2006, 08:24 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest it pretty much matters chuff all what we do in the UK, we are a tiny country. If you think about the state of the pollution in places like India and China which each have a billion people each you realise that what we do here is going to make very little difference. When I went on holiday in Kenya and saw all the 1950s Leyland trucks spewing out crap everywhere it really emphasised what the pollution must be like in probably 50% of the world.
28 May 2006, 08:33 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Location: MY00,MY01,RX-8, Alfa 147 & Focus ST :-)
Posts: 10,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by johnfelstead
The Prius is less fuel efficient than a Turbo Diesel, this technology is not up to spec yet.
The train is now less energy eficienet and more poluting than the average car. http://www.guardian.co.uk/waste/stor...148613,00.html
The train is now less energy eficienet and more poluting than the average car. http://www.guardian.co.uk/waste/stor...148613,00.html
Good point John - also worth mentioning that there is only a life expectancy of 5 - 7 years for the batteries and they will cost you a fortune to replace. So what's going to happen to all these cars when they reach this age?
On the catalyst question - also remember that the active ingredient is platinum - one of the rarest metals on earth. Hardly the easiest metal to get out either. So factor in the pollution caused from mining platinum and the benefits are less clear.
In my experience, the cities that I've visited with the worst pollution problems (Jakarta, Cairo etc) all have one thing in common - huge numbers of knackered old diesels!
28 May 2006, 07:48 PM
#48
Originally Posted by Chris L
Good point John - also worth mentioning that there is only a life expectancy of 5 - 7 years for the batteries and they will cost you a fortune to replace. So what's going to happen to all these cars when they reach this age?
On the catalyst question - also remember that the active ingredient is platinum - one of the rarest metals on earth. Hardly the easiest metal to get out either. So factor in the pollution caused from mining platinum and the benefits are less clear.
In my experience, the cities that I've visited with the worst pollution problems (Jakarta, Cairo etc) all have one thing in common - huge numbers of knackered old diesels!
On the catalyst question - also remember that the active ingredient is platinum - one of the rarest metals on earth. Hardly the easiest metal to get out either. So factor in the pollution caused from mining platinum and the benefits are less clear.
In my experience, the cities that I've visited with the worst pollution problems (Jakarta, Cairo etc) all have one thing in common - huge numbers of knackered old diesels!
Then also the environmental impact of the increased number of cars scrapped due to them being beyond econmical repair. This isn't just the prius. Modern cars having so much critical electroinic control systems to function also means that cost of repair if they do go wrong can outweigh the car's worth. Meaning a car with a blown ABS ECU (cars fitted with ABS must have it functioning to pass MOT) could well make it scrap.
The most polluted place I've been to was Bangkok. The place was full of 2 stroke tuk tuks, where the drivers like to add extra oil to the fuel mix in an attempt to make the engines last longer
Also the river boats all using Nissan 6pot Diesels, which leaked everywhere making the Chao Phraya River nothing but an oil slick.
Last edited by ALi-B; 28 May 2006 at 07:50 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post