Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 21:35:27 -0500
Reply-To: Scot Douglas <sdoug@CONCENTRIC.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From: Scot Douglas <sdoug@CONCENTRIC.NET>
Organization: Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America
Subject: Re: re; smog sympathies
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Ian Cameron wrote:
>
> At 09:40 PM 3/1/98 -0500, Scot Douglas wrote:
> >
> >I appreciate your view on this issue Larry, but I must insist on saying
> >one thing: Every car must be maintained to the original emission
> >specification it is certified as. Period.
> >
> >So the air is cleaner. Smog isn't as bad as it used to be. There's a
> >reason for pollution control devices on vehicles; they fucking work. >>
> Three things. First, I presume this is a family list. I have nothing
> against profanity, but only when it's necessary.
I apologize to everybody for using the all-offending f-word. When do
you deem it necessary? When you find people mis-informing the list?
> Secondly, a fair amount of pollution control doesn't lessen air pollution,
> it just gets around legislation, the best example being the air pump, which
> simply mixes more air with the exhaust. Same amount of smog, but the
> testing devices measure lower. Big advantage.
You are incredibly wrong. Blatantly wrong. The air pump was used in
the days of carbureted engines that always ran just to the rich side of
stoichiometry. They were calibrated rich to keep good driveability to
keep the customer happy. The air pump added extra air (about 19%
oxidizer) to burn the added hydrocarbons from running rich. It is
misinformed opinions like yours and Larry's that warrant my tirades.
This isn't a hobby for me, it's my frigging job. Do you really think a
tiny air pump can dilute the *giant* air pump it's connected to? Think
of the converter as a second engine using the output of the pump and the
extra, unburned fuel coming out of the engine and converting it to heat,
not work.
> Thirdly, there is a trade-off between gas use and pollution control. My
> motorcycle has no smog devices at all, but gets 90 MPG. My van has smog
> stuff coming out of its ears, and gets 18 MPG. Which is harder on
> spaceship earth?
You're really off track with this one. Ever hear of power to weight
ratio? And you may have other motorcycle enthusiasts asking on your 90
mpg claim; mopeds might get that, not a motorcycle. My old 600
Hurricane could get 40mpg in top tune. Your motorcycle is also tuned to
run a bit rich for the best power and throttle response, but emits very
dirty exhaust. FYI, motorcycles are starting to be regulated for
emissions; the new line from BMW is equipped with catalytic converters.
On the topic of your van, it's power to weight ratio again. How much
does it weigh? Is the horsepower around 90? Is it geared so you run
4000 rpm on the highway so you don't have to downshift for the hills?
The root cause of you van's terrible mileage (and 18 mpg doesn't sound
that bad, my EV gets about 20) is that you have to practically floor it
to get it going, you spin tons of rpm on the highway and the vehicle's
aerodynamics aren't optimal.
And which is harder on the earth? It depends on how you look at it.
Emissions output, in good tune, your van wins hands down. On fuel
economy, the 90mpg wonder bike wins for conserving fuel.
But who camps in a bike? Take your family on vacation in anything but a
vanagon?
--
Best Regards,
Scot Douglas
Project Engineer; Chrysler/Mitsubishi Joint Programs
Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America
P: (734) 971-0900 x124
F: (734) 971-0901
