Chevy Volt Hybrid Concept

[Exodus]

I'll be really impressed when the Camaro becomes hybrid w/ 450 hp and goes 50 mpg

[GregFarz78]

Originally Posted by Panacea

It's the EPA's fault we have crappy fuel mileage. Why is it that back in the 70's we had cars that got 30-40+ MPG but now they're hard to come by? Seems like the more emissions crap you put on the car the more gas you burn!

what tanks...I mean cars in the 70s got 30-40mpg? there is too much emissions crap on cars now a days though

[crazypontiac03]

Originally Posted by GregFarz78

what tanks...I mean cars in the 70s got 30-40mpg? there is too much emissions crap on cars now a days though

True That, "Its to protect the earth" atleast that is the EPA's tree hugger comment.

[Ajaxus]

Please, don't start that bull**** in this thread, if you want to start it, go to AAG..

[Panacea]

Originally Posted by Exodus

Is that true?

My fiance's dad used to work at a Volvo/maybe Saab dealership and he told me that back in the 70's the Saab's were getting around 36mpg, but when the EPA made them put catalytic converter's on the cars they would throw lights or something and the fix was putting a new computer. Afterwards they were getting around 26mpg...

Don't quote me on the year or what exactly needed to be done, but he said something about having to adjust the fuel ratio/timing or something in order to get the catalytic converts to warm up to their optimum temps. or something like that...

I do know that if you look in Europe (where there arent' very strick emission standards, and where converters aren't required) their cars get considerably better fuel economy.

I do know that I've read online about people talking about cars in the 70's and 80's (generally foreign cars, and even some domestics) would get 30+ miles per gallon. Up until the past 10 years or so, that was unheard of.


I don't like using this site for research purposes, but at least it gives an argument... Notice specifically that the engines must run RICH in order to achieve the stoichiometric point... Meaning more fuel is consumed in order to make the Catalytic converter, and the EPA happy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter

"Catalytic converters have proven to be reliable devices and have been successful in reducing noxious tailpipe emissions. However, they may have some adverse environmental impacts in use:
The requirement for a rich burn engine to run at the stoichiometric point means it uses more fuel than a "lean burn" engine running at a mixture of 20:1 or less. This increases the amount of fossil fuel consumed and the carbon dioxide emissions of the vehicle. However NOx control on lean burn engines is problematic at best, and many Lean Burn engine manufacturers are considering rich burn variations. Another solution is to increase the amount of biofuels used - if 100% biofuel was used the engines would be CO2 neutral.
Catalytic converters are "estimated" to account for 50% of total nitrous oxide (dinitrogen oxide, 'laughing gas') emissions to atmosphere. While N2O emissions in these concentrations are not harmful to human health, it is a potent greenhouse gas, accounting for around 7% of the overall greenhouse effect despite its small concentration in the atmosphere. The California Air Resources Board is investigating this issue, and will introduce legislation to address it if necessary.
The manufacturing of catalytic converters requires palladium and/or platinum; a portion of the world supply of these precious metals is produced near the Russian city of Norilsk (about 15%), with significant negative environmental effects due to the lack of environmental protection legislation. [1]

It can be argued that catalytic converters have reduced toxic emissions and smog at the expense of increased greenhouse gases, however anyone making this argument should consider the California Air Resources Board reports on improvements in Air Quality that have been achieved over the last 30 years."