Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
Aiden wrote, but the DP munged the attributions:
catalytic converters, the only time I heard her speak sense. A more
cost-effective method of reducing emissions was the lean-burn engine,
which was both more efficient and less polluting that an un-catted
engine. I believe Rover had done much development on the lean-burn
technology, but that seems to have been scuttled after BMW's brief
period at the helm.

"Europe" followed legislation implemented in California, to
cause a horrendous own-goal re. environmental impact. Catalytic
converters have little place in motoring in the UK.

Yes they do - as anyone who walks close to town traffic will know. You can
instantly tell an older non cat equipped car by the smell. And it's not
pleasant.

This is rubbish. Most cars are used for short journeys, during
which their catalytic converters do not work properly. There's
also another potential health problem in that masses of finely-
divided platinum is now being deposited all over the place.


CO2 may be bad for global warming, but CO, NOX and hydrocarbons
aren't pleasant at the point of emission.

What does a catalytic converter spit out then it's not yet
functioning well?

Perhaps you'd like to transfer this (or x-psot) to a relevant
car-related NG.