Community Forums

JCM · 02-28-2005, 07:17 AM

Has anyone noticed a change in their mileage afyer having the converter recall done?
I was just woundering if the new converters restrict or free the exhaust.
Thanks

JCM · 02-28-2005, 07:17 AM

Has anyone noticed a change in their mileage afyer having the converter recall done?
I was just woundering if the new converters restrict or free the exhaust.
Thanks

Geechee · 03-05-2005, 05:16 PM

I am a mechanical engineer and therefore anal when it comes to tracking my MH's engine performance. For the 9791.9 miles and the original Cat the average was 7.06253MPG. Since the installation of the new Cat, I have driven 2381 miles and obtained 6.79296 MPG. I try to maintain my engine speed at about 2050 RPM's (62) MPH as this seems to be the best range for fuel efficiency.

"007" · 03-06-2005, 12:40 AM

Will that improve any or will it stay at that poor level?

Maybe I'll think about the change out now. Does any others feel the same? Gas is going up an goverment needs more "TAX"

revenue. Maybe its time to consider a Banks sys. "NOT".

--"007"

DriVer · 03-06-2005, 04:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by "007":
Will that improve any or will it stay at that poor level? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Although Geeche has documented his average MPGs there isn't enough data at this point to point to the replacement CATs as being gas hungry. Having a 9700 mile run with the replacement CATs would yield more accurate data.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe its time to consider a Banks sys </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We have already read in the threads that considering BANKS as a solution to improve mileage will not yield the improvement that may be hoped for.

Geechee · 03-06-2005, 09:44 AM

While I understand DriVer's point, based on the current sample the -4% is statistically valid. If I compared to the 7.22223 mpg for the first 2247.5 miles (our MH had 1500+ miles on it when we took delivery so that has to be added to obtain the actual total odometer reading) we drove in our MH the difference is greater (-0.42927 vs. -0.26957 mpg). As the parts wear in, I would expect mileage to improve after the first 10,000 or so miles. Therefore, all things being equal this sample is a good indication that my mpg after the recall have decreased. I am sure that the reason for the recall was that Workhorse decided to use a Cat that GM had not had certified by the EPA. The cost to run new EPA certification versus replacing the Cats with the approved ones had to be less costly and time consuming. I have some experience with emissions certification and it is a very costly process.

DriVer · 03-06-2005, 02:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Geeche:
The cost to run new EPA certification versus replacing the Cats with the approved ones had to be less costly and time consuming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I would say, "Give the man a cigar!"

WCC got the best CATs it could when they were buying CATs. GM on the other hand had gotten a certification for the 8.1 using a lesser CAT. Since both CAT and certification have to be in lock-step The CATs have to be replaced to meet the DOT certification.

edgray · 03-06-2005, 06:43 PM

soooo, maybe I'm a little "slow" here,

but if the replacement cats are certified, but are also less fuel efficient, why do I want to go have the original "better" cats removed????????? Does ANYONE actually believe the statement "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you"

DriVer · 03-07-2005, 03:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by edgray:
.. but if the replacement cats are certified, but are also less fuel efficient, why do I want to go have the original "better" cats removed????????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well about that let me say this, "It's a voluntary recall". Some of us should just get T-Shirts that say, "They can have my original CATs when they pry them from my cold dead fingers"

Megawatt · 03-07-2005, 06:33 AM

Driver,
Is there any downside to not having my cats replaced? Will it void my warranty? Will it damage my engine in any way? If not - then I want one of those t-shirts.
Thanks,
Megawatt

Geechee · 03-07-2005, 08:42 AM

If you don't have to answer to the EPA, DOT or CARB

then there is little risk. I only wish I had the benefit of someone else's doing so before I had mine exchanged. It's only a way for Workhorse to avoid penalties and/or the cost of certifing the Cat they used in place of the one GM certified the engines with.

DriVer · 03-07-2005, 01:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megawatt: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is there any downside to not having my cats replaced? If you live in CA there may be. We have seen where this is a voluntary recall so I would say there is little to no downside.

Will it void my warranty? If you are concerned about this call WCC Customer Services. They will have the best answer for you. I would say "No".

Will it damage my engine in any way? The CATs are better than required however they are not the CATs that were used to certify GM's engine.

If not - then I want one of those t-shirts.

Now you got the idea.