 | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |
 | This is not a forum for general discussion of emissions-related problems with particular cars. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Automobile emissions control at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. |
[edit] Improvement needed
I've noticed that "1.1 Increasing engine efficiency" is blank. If no one is willing to write paragraphs on engine efficiency, putting some links should be a good placeholder until someone writes something. Links such as:
- Excellent idea. Be bold -- do it! —Morven 06:42, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Linking to the ECU article is a good idea, but catalytic converters do not increase engine efficiency, so it should not go under that heading. Shawn D. 12:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Catalytic converters definitely improve engine efficiency, they just do so indirectly. 1975 cars with catcons got better fuel economy than comparable 1974 models without catcons, because of the "strangulation" de-tuning required to squeak the '74s past the Federal emission certification tests. The exhaust cleanup done by the catcon gave back some room to tune the engine for optimal efficiency. The same thing happened when 3-way catcons replaced 2-way — close control of fuel mixture was required to make the 3-way catcon work; side benefits included better economy and driveability. —Scheinwerfermann T·C21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] missing buzzwords
