Tegger's new cat

"Tegger" > wrote in message
...
> A long time ago (in Internet terms) I posted saying my cat was rusty and I
> needed a new one.
>
> Well here it is.
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/new_cat.jpg
>
> Ugly bugger, isn't it? It's a Walker. And I'm not impressed.
>
> My original rusty cat (with almost 300K on it) was still hotter on output
> than input at extended idle when measured with an infrared thermometer.
> This thing is COOLER on output at extended idle. Bad, BAD sign. It /is/
> about 100 degrees hotter on output after extensive driving though, so I
> know just what to do come smog-check time...

What happened to your original cat?
I have heard you are not supposed to need a replacement, ever...

Pszemol wrote:
> "Tegger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> A long time ago (in Internet terms) I posted saying my cat was rusty
>> and I
>> needed a new one.
>>
>> Well here it is.
>> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/new_cat.jpg
>>
>> Ugly bugger, isn't it? It's a Walker. And I'm not impressed.
>>
>> My original rusty cat (with almost 300K on it) was still hotter on output
>> than input at extended idle when measured with an infrared thermometer.
>> This thing is COOLER on output at extended idle. Bad, BAD sign. It /is/
>> about 100 degrees hotter on output after extensive driving though, so I
>> know just what to do come smog-check time...
>
> What happened to your original cat?

GOOGLE. USE IT FOR THIS GROUP.


> I have heard you are not supposed to need a replacement, ever...

oh, please...

Tegger wrote:
> "Elle" > wrote in news:crWzk.11671$rV4.3648
> @newsfe03.iad:
>
>> "Tegger" > wrote
>>> You're lucky! And even luckier that they're still selling
>>> cats for your
>>> '91!
>> I am indeed getting worried about this. Some online OEM
>> sites do not sell all the parts for my 91. But my old Honda
>> has now returned to fantastic fuel mileage rates, so
>> forward.
>>
>> My new aftermarket cat should be an interesting experience.
>> I do not really see reports of the things failing quickly.
>> Either way, a two year life is reasonable for what I paid
>> for it.
>
> That's one way to look at it, and it seems to be how most people see it.
>
> My approach is that I'd prefer to pay more up front, then never have to
> look at the problem again, ever. In that, I seem to be very much in the
> minority, otherwise there would be suppliers willing to give that to me.
>
>> My 91 did not have holes rusted in it the way your 91's did,
>> maybe because about half of my 91 Civic's life was in the
>> mid-U.S., with less snow and salt.
>
> That's likely. The North-east is absolutely devastating to cars.
>
>> Did you try to peer through your old cat? One of the UK
>> site's manuals says this is a valid way to inspect the
>> thing.
>
> I didn't get a chance. By the time I went to pick up my car from the
> garage the old cat had been sold and delivered. Too bad, too. I'd only
> ever seen it from the rear, up to that point. And from there it looked
> brand-new.
>
>>> My '91 'Teg's cats were $1100 a few years ago when still
>>> made of platinum,
>>> palladium and rhodium, but are now made of pure
>>> unobtainium and not
>>> available at any price. :^(
>> Ha, I trust "unobtainium" has a Tegger copyright. :-)
>
> I wish. I read that term somewhere years ago, so I can't claim coinage
> of it.

I first heard Mark Donohue use the term in the early to mid 70's when he
was driving Porsches for Roger Penske.

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

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...
> Pszemol wrote:
>> "Tegger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> A long time ago (in Internet terms) I posted saying my cat was rusty and
>>> I
>>> needed a new one.
>>>
>>> Well here it is.
>>> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/new_cat.jpg
>>>
>>> Ugly bugger, isn't it? It's a Walker. And I'm not impressed.
>>>
>>> My original rusty cat (with almost 300K on it) was still hotter on
>>> output
>>> than input at extended idle when measured with an infrared thermometer.
>>> This thing is COOLER on output at extended idle. Bad, BAD sign. It /is/
>>> about 100 degrees hotter on output after extensive driving though, so I
>>> know just what to do come smog-check time...
>>
>> What happened to your original cat?
>
> GOOGLE. USE IT FOR THIS GROUP.

Pay attention, Jimmy, this question was NOT for you!

I am sure Tegger can speak for himself
and does not need your services as his advocate...

"Pszemol" > wrote in :

> "Tegger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> A long time ago (in Internet terms) I posted saying my cat was rusty
>> and I needed a new one.
>>
>> Well here it is.
>> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/new_cat.jpg
>>
>> Ugly bugger, isn't it? It's a Walker. And I'm not impressed.
>>
>> My original rusty cat (with almost 300K on it) was still hotter on
>> output than input at extended idle when measured with an infrared
>> thermometer. This thing is COOLER on output at extended idle. Bad,
>> BAD sign. It /is/ about 100 degrees hotter on output after extensive
>> driving though, so I know just what to do come smog-check time...
>
> What happened to your original cat?
> I have heard you are not supposed to need a replacement, ever...
>


It rusted out.

I started a new thread on this because the old thread got
too old to be worth reviving.

Scroll to the very top of this page to start from the beginning:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda/browse_thread/thread/c3bfa0df3f34603a/003eb888bc7d567f?lnk=st&q=#003eb888bc7d567f>



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

"Tegger" > wrote in message
...
> "Pszemol" > wrote in :
>
>> "Tegger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> A long time ago (in Internet terms) I posted saying my cat was rusty
>>> and I needed a new one.
>>>
>>> Well here it is.
>>> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/new_cat.jpg
>>>
>>> Ugly bugger, isn't it? It's a Walker. And I'm not impressed.
>>>
>>> My original rusty cat (with almost 300K on it) was still hotter on
>>> output than input at extended idle when measured with an infrared
>>> thermometer. This thing is COOLER on output at extended idle. Bad,
>>> BAD sign. It /is/ about 100 degrees hotter on output after extensive
>>> driving though, so I know just what to do come smog-check time...
>>
>> What happened to your original cat?
>> I have heard you are not supposed to need a replacement, ever...
>
> It rusted out.
>
> I started a new thread on this because the old thread got
> too old to be worth reviving.
>
> Scroll to the very top of this page to start from the beginning:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda/browse_thread/thread/c3bfa0df3f34603a/003eb888bc7d567f?lnk=st&q=#003eb888bc7d567f>

Thanks Tegger!

Tegger ) writes:
> "Elle" > wrote in news:sdyzk.271$PS3.77
> @newsfe06.iad:
>
>> Coincidentally about three weeks ago my 1991 Honda Civic
>> (manual tranny) failed the NOx part of my local emissions
>> test. It failed the NOx by being 2.4% higher than the
>> allowed limit. From googling, the most likely culprits we
>
>
>
> One more possible culprit: A glitch at the emissions station. This is
> why I keep track of our cars' emissions results, so I can spot any
> trends.
>
> Both of our vehicles (and a few of acquaintances of mine) have had years
> where there was an unaccountable spike in NO, a spike that ended up not
> being repeated ever again. My general advice to people in this situation
> is to do nothing but book another test at a later date. If it fails the
> second test with similar numbers, then you start troubleshooting.
>
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/...emissions.html
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/misc/...emissions.html
> The year the Tercel had its spike, it would actually have failed the
> test. The only reason it passed was because, for some odd reason, the
> car had been placed into a lighter weight category, which entitled it to
> higher permissible emissions. The very next time the numbers were back
> to normal, but the car is still in that new lighter weight class..
>
>
>

Mr. Tegger. Check out this calculator at the Province of British
Columbia's emissions testing web site (AirCare). The year of the car,
engine size, and curb weight is entered. It then calculates the CO, NOx,
and HC limits for B.C..

The weight part is a bit sticky. B.C. uses "Curb Weight". The Ontario
DriveClean program uses "ETW" (Estimated Test Weight). The ETW on my
DriveClean printout is like 200 Kg over the curb weight listed in my
manual. As the weight goes up, the limits become stricter in Ontario (and
B.C.).

The surprise that I had was how loose the B.C. limits were for a 1987 car
compared to the Ontario limits. A failing 1987 car in Ontario would pass
in B.C.! B.C. limits (using Ont.'s ETW!) appear to be 50% to 100% higher
for a 1987 car, compared to the limits in Ontario. And the gov. of Ont.
said they were going to be easy on the old cars when they brought in the
Ont. DriveClean Emissions testing at the end of the 1990's.

this is the page

http://www.aircare.ca/index.php?inspinfo-standards.php

The main page is

http://www.aircare.ca

At main page use the "Inspection Info" drop down menu, then select
"Inspection Standards".



> <snip>
>
>>
>> So was the problem most likely a clogged catalytic
>> converter? If so, how did it get clogged?
>
>
>
>
> More likely one that had lost much of its surface area (known as
> "sintering"). Apparently that's the most common reason cats fail, and
> it's due to inadequate ignition maintenance.
>
> A clogged cat is due to ignition maintenance problems as well as leaking
> valve guide oil seals (the puff of smoke on startup). But when this
> happens you will suffer loss of power and poor mileage in addition to
> higher emissions. In other words, you'll be able to visually see the
> clogging, and it won't be a slight neckdown either.
>
> One of my sisters once had a Mazda GLC that had a clogged cat. The front
> end looked like somebody had poured oily sand into it. It was basically
> plugged solid except for a ring around the perimeter of the element. It
> was that ring of open pores that allowed the car to idle and run at all
> (and poorly).
>
>
>
>> I can say that,
>> upon visual inspection, the new cat was much easier to look
>> through than the old one. But cats are not supposed to get
>> blocked, right, unless one is using bad gas or is not
>> maintaining the engine well? Typically web sites on cats say
>> they last the life of the car So I take this to mean they
>> will not last forever, but they should last way long. Is 17
>> years beyond 'way long'?
>
>
>
> The "last forever" thing is for OEM cats. Automakers are required by US
> law to warrant cats for at least 8 years and 80K miles. Somebody pays
> for that reliability, and that's you, in the purchase cost of OEM.
>
> My own OEM cat was still functional after 17 years and 300,000 miles.
> That should tell you something right there about why they cost $1100
> new.
>
> Aftermarket is not bound to any such warranty, so they can build as
> cheaply as they can get away with.
>
>
>>
>> At any rate, I will continue to watch the mileage and see
>> what happens.
>>
>> I am not sweating the aftermarket converter. Chatter at
>> honda-tech.com suggests my cheap-o aftermarket may not last
>> as long as OEM, but it should be fine. It is easy to
>> replace. I can buy four aftermarket cats for one OEM cat, so
>> I think it is worth the gamble.
>>
>> I will watch for your updates on how your car does when its
>> emissions are checked, Tegger.
>
>
> That will be next spring. I usually go in May.
>
> I've had a very knowledgeable mechanic tell me aftermarket cats are
> usually good for about two years (which is one smog test, for me). We'll
> see.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Tegger
>
> The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
> www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

(Micheal C. Jordan) wrote in
:


>
> Mr. Tegger. Check out this calculator at the Province of British
> Columbia's emissions testing web site (AirCare). The year of the car,
> engine size, and curb weight is entered. It then calculates the CO,
> NOx, and HC limits for B.C..
>
> The weight part is a bit sticky. B.C. uses "Curb Weight". The Ontario
> DriveClean program uses "ETW" (Estimated Test Weight).



No, it's "Equivalent Test Weight". Look at the DriveClean printout.

This figure bears no relation to gross weight, curb weight, dry weight,
your hat size, the phase of the moon, or anything else that exists in the
real world. It's a weasel number used by the government to shuffle cars
around so the ones they don't like are given a hard time while others get a
free ride, all without needing to change the schedules themselves.



> The ETW on my
> DriveClean printout is like 200 Kg over the curb weight listed in my
> manual. As the weight goes up, the limits become stricter in Ontario
> (and B.C.).
>
> The surprise that I had was how loose the B.C. limits were for a 1987
> car compared to the Ontario limits. A failing 1987 car in Ontario
> would pass in B.C.! B.C. limits (using Ont.'s ETW!) appear to be 50%
> to 100% higher for a 1987 car, compared to the limits in Ontario. And
> the gov. of Ont. said they were going to be easy on the old cars when
> they brought in the Ont. DriveClean Emissions testing at the end of
> the 1990's.



It was the previous Premier whose government said (and did) just that.

The new Premier (the Communist Dalton McGuinty, who looks exactly like
Lee Harvey Oswald) made a lot of changes to DriveClean that ended up
making things more expensive and far more difficult.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Tegger wrote:
> (Micheal C. Jordan) wrote in
> :
>
>
>
>>Mr. Tegger. Check out this calculator at the Province of British
>>Columbia's emissions testing web site (AirCare). The year of the car,
>>engine size, and curb weight is entered. It then calculates the CO,
>>NOx, and HC limits for B.C..
>>
>>The weight part is a bit sticky. B.C. uses "Curb Weight". The Ontario
>>DriveClean program uses "ETW" (Estimated Test Weight).
>
>
>
>
> No, it's "Equivalent Test Weight". Look at the DriveClean printout.
>
> This figure bears no relation to gross weight, curb weight, dry weight,
> your hat size, the phase of the moon, or anything else that exists in the
> real world. It's a weasel number used by the government to shuffle cars
> around so the ones they don't like are given a hard time while others get a
> free ride, all without needing to change the schedules themselves.

So... When are youse guys gonna revolt?


>>The ETW on my
>>DriveClean printout is like 200 Kg over the curb weight listed in my
>>manual. As the weight goes up, the limits become stricter in Ontario
>>(and B.C.).
>>
>>The surprise that I had was how loose the B.C. limits were for a 1987
>>car compared to the Ontario limits. A failing 1987 car in Ontario
>>would pass in B.C.! B.C. limits (using Ont.'s ETW!) appear to be 50%
>>to 100% higher for a 1987 car, compared to the limits in Ontario. And
>>the gov. of Ont. said they were going to be easy on the old cars when
>>they brought in the Ont. DriveClean Emissions testing at the end of
>>the 1990's.
>
>
>
>
> It was the previous Premier whose government said (and did) just that.
>
> The new Premier (the Communist Dalton McGuinty, who looks exactly like
> Lee Harvey Oswald) made a lot of changes to DriveClean that ended up
> making things more expensive and far more difficult.

Perhaps the citizenry should ensure that the same fate befalls McGuinty
as did Oswald...

<G>

JT

"Elle" > wrote
Re explaining why her car failed NOx on a recent emissions
test:
> 2.
> Carbon deposits in cylinders, especially for older, high
> mileage cars. (Solution: The beamer's and others' Italian
> tuneup. Ran at high speed on long, steep hill for about an
> hour. Revved some to red line.)


Add another anecdote: Today on Car Talk, Tom and Ray
dismissed the Italian tuneup as unnecessary on today's fuel
injected car. They said newer cars do not experience carbon
build up on pistons and cylinders. (Presumably they meant
the carbon build up is insignificant compared to that from
the old carbureted cars.)