Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Smog-control affect on performance
powerisfun
Member Posts: 358
in General
First question:
Could someone explain all the ways (or at least as
many ways that you can think of) that pollution
control devices have hurt performance. I know that
engines are smaller, and the catalytic converter
corks up the exhaust flow, but that's about all I
really understand. Can someone elaborate for me?
Second question:
I've heard that you can't compare the
horsepower/torque ratings for the old muscle cars
with those of today. Something about they use
different standards. Can someone explain that?
Thanks.
-powerisfun
Could someone explain all the ways (or at least as
many ways that you can think of) that pollution
control devices have hurt performance. I know that
engines are smaller, and the catalytic converter
corks up the exhaust flow, but that's about all I
really understand. Can someone elaborate for me?
Second question:
I've heard that you can't compare the
horsepower/torque ratings for the old muscle cars
with those of today. Something about they use
different standards. Can someone explain that?
Thanks.
-powerisfun
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
WAY BACK WHEN, when the state of California was demanding emissions controls and Detroit thumbed their noses (and then the Feds stepped in and made Detroit suffer for their arrogance), back then (early 70s through mid 1980s), emission controls indirectly hurt performance because there were no powerplants that were both powerful and clean.
But now we have engines that can put out over 100 HP per liter while you can practically inhale from the tailpipe.
To give you an idea of how clean engines are today, I have a videotape that shows a new Saab's air filter hooked directly into the tailpipe of an old Saab two-stroke (gas-oil mix)...so the new Saab actually is cleaning the exhaust of the old Saab...AND...when the new Saab's tailpipe emissions were tested, the air coming out was CLEANER than the ambient air of downtown London, where the test was performed (a pretty dirty city, it's true). Amazing, huh?
Which leads to the second question.
WAY BACK WHEN, in the days when cars were called 'muscle cars" and men ate red meat unabashedly (1960s), Detroit often LIED (well knock me over with a feather!) about the horsepower ratings of their cars, since the US government was putting pressure on US companies to downplay their involvement in racing. Keep in mind that this was the time when over 50,000 Americans were dying each year on public roads. ANYWAY, since they fibbed on horsepower ratings, the real HP of some of the bigger=engined cars of the 60s is probably underrated.
But the way one measures HP is the same today as back then...well, basically the same. It may seem like today's single horsepower is a bigger horse than the old ones, but that's because those older cars carried a lot more weight and because today's engines are so much better and more efficient....to put it in perspective, take something like the monster Buick GS455...that's 455 cubic inches, and 510 ft lbs of torque at 2800 rpms? And the 0-60 time is "only" 6 seconds...an old Nissan 300ZX Turbo V-6 could beat it.
Wow! Under-rating horsepower? Today, I think just the opposite is true (to some extent). Thanks again for the informative reply.
-powerisfun
Having so much computer controlled stuff scares me.
How do you know that the signals which the computer receives are correct?
Like computers are: garbage in, garbage out.
How many sensors do new vehicles have?
The computer is good to find a totally bad sensor but I doubt that they can detect when a sensor starts to get flaky. ie:temperature or even moisture related problems.
How can a person check sensors manually?
Had a 1983 Ford LTD station wagon and you could not even check the timing with a timing light.
Still miss my old 1963 Ford Falcon, even with the old ignition system, condenser,points,etc, it ran like a champ, never left me stranded. Can't say that about the newer vehicles I have had.
Usually the tools required were a basic tool set and feeler gauges to tune up the old cars.
Now the shops need extremely expensive and sophisticated computer analyzers just for a simple tune up.
It annoys me when I read in the posts when a mechanic says "the computer says there is nothing wrong... sorry but I can't help you further".
Seems they use the computer readout to support their "denial-fest", when actually there still is a problem.
What ever happened to good old troubleshooting?
I still prefer the old cars for relatively problem free performance and ease of working on.
new cars seem overly computerized to me.
I think you could still find an expert troubleshooter today, but he or she would be so smart they'd probably be doing something else for a living. Very few greasy geniuses left in America...we're in a clean-hands technological era.
I agree about the greasy geniuses. Most of them are smart enough to have moved up to a position out of the garage. Can't say I blame them. I love working on my vehicles, but I'd hate working on Joe Public's car. I have a feeling that's how most mechanics feel.
-powerisfun
Modern electronic controls more than make up for any losses related to smog controls these days, which primarily consists of a catalytic converter. Everything else mostly is designed to make the engine more efficient, which is a good thing.
IMHO, one of the biggest differences is modern tires. Always wanted to see test results of a '60s Vette with the steamroller tires of a modern one vs. a '90s Vette wearing skinny little bias ply tires.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.