My daughter needs some tech info.

She needs to calc the following:

So what do you know about catalytic converters? I am calculating GHG emissions for a limo company. Some examples of their vehicles are Cadillac Deville, Chevy Suburban, but mostly Lincoln Towncars. Most are 2006 or 2007. Now to calculate the lbs of CO2, CH4, and N2O released, I have to multiply an emission factor (lb/gal or lb/mile) by the fuel usage and/or mileage.

My issue is that I have to pick the type of emission control technology to get the emission factor. My options are advanced 3-way catalyst, early 3-way catalyst, or oxidation catalyst. I have no clue which of these is the right control technology for these vehicles. I called the manufacturer of two of them and this is what they told me. I am still confused and since this is their major source of emissions, it kinda has to be accurate. Any input? The owner said that the vehicles are not changed when stretched. They just cut out the center and plug in a seating piece.

Year Make Model Device
2003 Cadillac Deville PCV (valve to engine), ERG (valve to engine), catalytic converter, evaporative system
2006 Cadillac Deville evaporation, exhaust gas recirculation, positive crank case ventilation, air injection reaction
2007 Chevy Suburban catalytic converter, four O2 sensors, power control module, evaporative system

Thanks in advance if anyone can help.

Ronny

 

Ronny

I am not emissions engineer but I happened to live in Eco-**** state of Kalifornia. Some of the information you are looking for is available from C.A.R.B.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/.../2003/2003.php

//RF

 

Thanks. I let you know how this is working out.

 

The emissions you list are strange... They may be Green House Gases, but are not the typical concern.

The cat will never really have an effect on CO2. You could argue that they actually increase CO2, or that some techniques in engine management that are used to reduce smog type emissions actually increase CO2 (anything that decreases efficiency - such as spark retard during cold warmup, air pumps, catalyst restrictions).

CH4 is methane, and is typically ignored (because farts have CH4). NMHC's are the usual HC's measured. A cat will still work on these HCs, I think.

N2O, hmmm. Think it goes UP in a catalyst...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...f054462cf4a11b

http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/articl...02A0039369.php

An oxidation cat is just for finishing off CO and HC. Will not have any direct effect on NOx, other than that when they are used, the engine is run richer, and has air injection. The richer will reduce NOx, but not down to levels of 2003 by any means at all.

The advanced 3-way cats are probably the new normal cat. They would be close mounted, and require strict air fuel ratio control to work, and when they work, they work well.

http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514269543/html/index.html

I see no way for a cat to fix all of GHG emissions you listed, basically. But, they probably are not out of spec, even with a heavier vehicle. The CO2 is definitely going to go UP with a heavier vehicle, unless you install some brake energy recovery system to make it hybrid, which won't happen, I'm sure. The CH4 and N2O will probably be relatively close (but higher) to the stock values, which are probably well below any FTP standard. Now, if you're calculating this stuff to see how "green" you are, the best way would be to divide by the number of passengers!! Otherwise, you're sol, I think.

Good luck!

 

Sorry, but this post isn't about DIY Prom. It looks more like an Exhaust type post (or possibly Tech/General). I'll move it to Exhaust Board instead.

 

What, no 3rd gen limos????

 

Isnt this post already in the Exhaust area....jw

 

Don't you mean anything that INcreases efficiency ?
The "perfect burn" produces CO2 and water, leaves nitrogen unchanged, and contains nothing else.
That won't happen, of course....

 

When I say efficiency, it can pretty much be directly converted to fuel economy. All the fuel will eventually be converted to CO2 and H2O. If it's less efficient, it consumes more fuel for the job at hand, thus more CO2.