×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

(OP)
Hey guys,

I am wondering on whether anyone here has any ballpark figure in terms of HC+CO emissions or catalyst lightoff difference between close coupled catalyst and underfloor one?

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

Your best bet is probably to search SAE technical papers. This goes back around 20 years, so the most useful information may be from the 90's.

"Schiefgehen will, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

Modern engines normally use close-coupled catalysts. The under-floor catalyst is, for the most part, old-skool.

The modern engines emit an order of magnitude less HC/CO/NOx than what they did prior, but for sure, not all of this is from simply relocating the catalyst. I don't know of an engine family that came with both arrangements in which the repositioning of the catalyst didn't also come along with a whole bunch of other changes that make direct comparisons futile.

Powertrain engineers are applying every trick in the book to reduce emissions, particularly cold-start emissions, and bringing the catalyst close to the engine is one of them.

Mazda's Skyactiv system is a notable modern-day exception in which they had to move the catalyst out in order to accommodate a long-tube header design. But that engine uses a lot of other emission-control trickery.

Perhaps it will help to know why you are asking the question.

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

(OP)
Hi Brian,

Nowadays, the use of turbocharger will push away the catalytic converter from the exhaust port similar to the old days naturally aspirated engines. In my view, I am questioning on how much works have been done in the past to make underfloor catalyst to still achieve the Federal -7C NMOG. Furthermore, the amount of fuel enrichment at WOT to protect the closed coupled cat is just ridiculous, I dont recall having this much of fuel enrichment in the old days.

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

The current trend is to build the exhaust manifold integral to the cylinder head, which allows coolant passages around it, to control the peak thermal load situations at least to some extent.

As for the fuel enrichment ... the official EPA test doesn't require full throttle operation, so it never happens during the EPA test procedure, so it doesn't affect the EPA numbers!

Maybe that's why various production cars with turbo gasoline engines aren't living up to their EPA estimates ...

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

(OP)
The integrated manifold does not come free as well. The heat that should be rejected to the exhaust tailpipe will now have to be cooled by the coolant and rejected to a bigger coolant pump and radiator. There are also patent royalties that automakers have to pay.

This goes back to my earlier question, have we exhausted the solutions to make underfloor catalyst to work for the current legislations?

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

Nobody is worrying about the current regulations.

They must be going out of their minds trying to deal with the next generation of legislative scientific extrapolation.

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

(OP)
HC and CO limits for EURO 5 and 6 are the same thus the aftertreatment solution now for HC and CO will still be valid few months from now. However, that is still not my question, I am more interested on whether there is still potential of using underfloor nowadays?

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

If I had to guess, I'd expect the catalyst to move in the other direction, i.e. into the combustion chamber or the exhaust manifold.

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

I.e., if you just bought an underfloor converter factory, your investment is at risk.

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

(OP)
Mike,

There are so many turbo engines and the catalyst is placed right after the turbine. This is where I am wondering on whether underfloor can still be used for naturally aspirated

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

Depends on the configuration of the engine. A V8 engine would need to locate the catalyst downstream of where the two exhaust systems merge. For the NOx function of the converter to be effective, the catalyst bed needs to be at a certain minimum temperature. The further away the catalyst bed is from the exhaust ports, the less effective it performs with NOx reduction. For HC and CO reduction, the catalyst temperatures required are not as high.

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

Whatever happened to SAAB's bag idea for storing startup emissions? Nice bit of lateral thinking, even if it didn't get out of the lab. Or maybe it did?

- Steve

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

A lot of production V-configuration engines have a separate close-coupled catalyst per bank complete with its own oxygen sensors and its own separate air/fuel ratio control logic for each bank. Minor poking around on Google Images reveals that the GM LS7 is like that, and the Chrysler Pentastar is like that.

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

1 Cat per bank goes back at least to the early-mid 90s, GM LT1 being a case in point.

"Schiefgehen will, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

(OP)
There are supporting technologies like electrically heated catalyst and secondary air, have we tried all these?

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

Lots of cars have secondary air injection; mine does.

NOT having to electrically heat a catalyst is a good thing. Less to go wrong. If it were a choice between a close-coupled but not electrically heated catalyst, and an under-floor but heated catalyst, I would take the close-coupled catalyst.

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

(OP)
how about combining secondary air and electric heater?

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

Minimum effort and complexity to meet local legs. Any more is going to be expensive to produce and maintain. Probably a good thing if you are a tier 1, making this stuff. Not so good if you are a car user and need to replace expensive bits every time a sensor goes out of range or some other black box component stops doing its job.

It's a shame that my next car choice will probably be based on what emissions control tech it doesn't have.

- Steve

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

(OP)
too much backpressure, too much overfuelling to keep the catalyst temperature down, bigger capacity fuel injector and pump required, too many bricks required, no more exhaust tuning opportunity with the runner joined together, too many lambda sensors required, etc. The list is too long for people who works in a major automaker 8 to 7 everyday.

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

(OP)
Greg Locock,

Your comments seem to suggest that you know about engine aftertreatment. What is your solution to the problems that I have posted yesterday?

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

(OP)
Greg,

For the integrated manifold, I dont fancy the sound. Have you done any noise comparison comparing integrated manifold with the old school individual runners with underfloor catalyst? I feel that at certain frequencies, integrated manifold give strange noise

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

Any change in the layout of exhaust components will affect the sound. By the time the NVH guys get involved, packaging and basic layout of active components is defined. NVH is very unlikely to influence or reverse these decisions.

- Steve

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

(OP)
Steve,

From my standpoint, I had enough of all the negative points that come with close coupled catalyst. While it is true that by the time NVH come there is not much we can do about it, however things may change if we have a better solution in advance.

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

"not much we can do about it"

I didn't say that. I said that the basic configuration is a fixed constraint (as is base engine calibration). NVH engineers work (very well normally) within these constraints, but cannot change them. A close-coupled cat does not directly lead to poor noise quality. There are many other ways (within the constraints) to mess that up.

- Steve

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

Also, it's a whole lot easier to comply with legal noise level limits than it is to comply with the emission limits, so if the engineers responsible for emission control say "we need this" then NVH is not going to change it.

The Mazda Skyactiv system uses a long-tube header with the catalyst at the end of it ...

RE: Close coupled catalyst vs underfloor

arrgh, can't edit. Mazda's catalyst is not "underfloor". The exhaust manifold wraps around and the catalyst is still tied to the engine. It's as close to the engine as they can get it without interfering with the exhaust manifold tuning requirements.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources