Talk:Vehicle emissions control
| WikiProject Automobiles | (Rated Start-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Environment | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of emissions-related problems with particular cars. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Vehicle emissions control at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. |
Contents |
[edit] Improvement needed
I've noticed that "1.1 Increasing engine efficiency" is blank. If no one is willing to write paragraphs on engine efficiency, putting some links should be a good placeholder until someone writes something. Links such as:
-
- Linking to the ECU article is a good idea, but catalytic converters do not increase engine efficiency, so it should not go under that heading. Shawn D. 12:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Catalytic converters definitely improve engine efficiency, they just do so indirectly. 1975 cars with catcons got better fuel economy than comparable 1974 models without catcons, because of the "strangulation" de-tuning required to squeak the '74s past the Federal emission certification tests. The exhaust cleanup done by the catcon gave back some room to tune the engine for optimal efficiency. The same thing happened when 3-way catcons replaced 2-way — close control of fuel mixture was required to make the 3-way catcon work; side benefits included better economy and driveability. —Scheinwerfermann T·C21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. The Corvette of today is far more powerful than earlier Corvettes. Today's engines are more efficient, and more reliable. I'm sure that those who are my age can remember having to adjust the points and carb every month. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Catalytic converters definitely improve engine efficiency, they just do so indirectly. 1975 cars with catcons got better fuel economy than comparable 1974 models without catcons, because of the "strangulation" de-tuning required to squeak the '74s past the Federal emission certification tests. The exhaust cleanup done by the catcon gave back some room to tune the engine for optimal efficiency. The same thing happened when 3-way catcons replaced 2-way — close control of fuel mixture was required to make the 3-way catcon work; side benefits included better economy and driveability. —Scheinwerfermann T·C21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
-
[edit] missing buzzwords
- "sniff test" --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Article name
I just moved the article from "Automobile emissions control" to "Vehicle emissions control". Furthermore, the article may be suitable to be moved to "Engine emissions control" since it is also relevant to machinery which are not necessary vehicles, but are still powered by internal combustion engines (chainsaws and lawnmowers come to mind). --uKER (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- It should be under Internal Combustion Engine Emission Control to be precise. Comments? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Too American?
The article, particularly the "History" section, seems very focused on an American viewpoint and pays little attention to the emissions effort in other countries. Had it not been for me adding the section on the EU and the UK a while back, there would be mention of other perspectives amounting to around 2 lines. Since article isn't "Vehicle emissions control in the United States" I feel this could be changed. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- That is probably because the North American emission control industry is the most advanced. Emission control systems were first fitted to North American vehicles, and North American standards are still the most stringent. Also a lot of us have worked in the industry, and know where to find citations on this side of the pond. Please add more information on the situation in Europe. We need that information to make this a world class article. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Catalytic Converters - The Book
Since my body won't let me work any more, and I've now been out of the business for over two years, I'm going to write a book on Catalytic Converters. I'm one of the few people who isn't in the business who qualifies as an expert, understands the chemistry, the physics, and how engines work. Because I worked in the business for over ten years, I have names in my rolodex for people who work at every company, to help me fill in the blanks.
Besides, after seeing some of the stuff that has happened on this page over the years, well you folks need a reference that you can use that is reliable. I'm posting this here because I know what I think should be in the book, but I don't know what you think should be there. What questions would you like to see answered? Let me know on my talk page. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Where is the diesel emissions section
Diesel vehicles also release emissions. They are not even mentioned in this article. They are not referred to in any of the connected articles. Someone should get on this...
Avram Primack (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're right. Be bold and get to it! —Scheinwerfermann T·C20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
