Canadian Emissions Control

PeugFra

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2018
Messages
1,147
Reaction score
874
Location
Italy
In the 70s in Canada the introduction of emissions control regulation lagged somewhat behind the US developments. How did this work out for the equipment of C-body cars produced for the Canadian market?

Did they come without catalyst and Lean Burn, for instance? And was there a difference between the equipment of 360s, 400s and 440s?
 
This all depends on the year of manufacture
I recall working on the lean burn systems late in the 70’s
Earlier it was air pumps and cats only
 
Would that mean that already in 1973 you had air pumps and catalysts installed on Canadian C-bodies? As far as the cat is concerned, that would even be earlier than the US, where they appeared on the 1975 Formals.
 
From and SAE Transaction paper I found, where Chrysler presented their Clean Air System, which was "engine tuning" rather than "add-ons", starting in about 1966, then used a learner carb calibration, for normal driving rpms (WOT was allegedly not affected as the only emissions measurements were for what became known as "I/M 240", based on Los Angeles commuter traffic route), a slightly higher idle rpm and 14.2 air fuel ratio. Chrysler got their engines to pass with these fine-tuning issues, plus a few other little pieces of equipment in the mix. GM and Ford were using the Air Injection Reaction Pump system of adding extra air to the exhaust gasses to keep them burning longer (in the exhaust manifold). The AIR system needed a pump, hoses, check valves, and a switching valve to work. MORE expensive than the Chrysler system, which made the GM accountants mad, big time, so the story gores. It was mentioned that Chrysler's better combustion chamber design allowed Chrysler to do what they did, compared to what GM and Ford typically had.

'73 Chrysler products, in some cases, needed the AIR pumps, finally, as the regulations got tighter. Evap emission canisters had happened in '72. The "floor jet" EGR system was also in '73. The first thermo-vacuum switch operated EGR valves were in '74. "Hot Air" air cleaners, with the temp controlled flapper door, started in about '69 on most makes, which is also when Chrysler's air cleaners started having different designs than in the past.

The '75 B/RB engines with air pumps also used the short oil filter, rather than the prior long filter. The air pump belt necessitated that change.

Except for the 360 HO 4bbl, 400 HO 4bbl, and 440HO 4bbl all still had full dual exhausts, NO cats, in '75 and '76. Basically, the law enforcement "fleet" engines, plus a 381 2bbl non-cat motor. All could still use low-lead fuel, if available. Initially, cat-equipped cars weren't allowed on some federal lands due to the hot exhaust and potential for grass fires. Chrysler's converters had "environmental heat shields" hanging below them. The bottom of the GM converters had some sort of heat insulation in them, with only underbody floorpan heat shields. All cat converter cars had those underbody shields from the converter forward, or "muffler forward".

The Lean Burn 400s came out in '76 mid-year, I believe. Non HO engines, but non-cat single exhausts. Back then, near the door latch on the lh frt door, there was a sticker "CAT" or "NON CAT" to designate what the car was supposed to have. Different colors, as I recall. Seems that like the Cordobas I saw that way, the words had a Maple Leaf surrounding them, as they were built in Windsor, for the USA market?

But by '77 MY, the USA emissions standards had tightened enough that cat converters and AIR pumps were on everything. The police-spec dual exhaust engines were REAL dual exhausts with dual cat converters. Unlike what GM did with a single converter that split into a "dual outlet" single exhaust (as the '77+ Z/28s were).

The various engines might have had some similar equipment on them, but it was not "identical-spec" equipment in all cases. What was on a 360 might be similar to what was on a 400 or 440, but with parts calibrated for those particular engine sizes. "Application specific".

In the USA, there were "Federal" specs (which was the "normal" stuff), "CA spec", which was unique to California, but could be special ordered for delivery/sale in other states, and "High Altitude", which was related to states like Colorado. All unique carb/ignition calibrations.

I have no specific knowledge of what Canadian emission specs might have been back then, but considering the nearness to the USA, I suspect the Canadian emissions specs might have mirrored the USA "Federal" specs. Just my suspicion. This would be for "passenger car" applications.

The USA light-duty trucks usually used car-spec engines but didn't need cat converters unless they had a GVW of less than 6100lbs. Above 6100 lbs, no converter and fuel nozzles that would accept non-unleaded gas pump nozzles. Until about 1980 MY. But would still have AIR pumps and EGR valves. Once the GVW got past 8600lbs, that was "HD Emissions" that were exempt from measurement, as I recall, but they still had much of the same 6100lb+ items on the engines.

Hope this might help,
CBODY67
 
Wow...lots of misinformation. I've had Canadian spec Formals just about all my life.

Some broad points:

-No Cats or air pumps on Canadian Formals ever. Cats started in 79 with R bodies. Air pumps arrived in 87 on M bodies.

-74-75 B/RB & 76 440s OSAC valves...also P code 400 to 77.

-76 lo-po 400s. 77 & 78 R/RB Lean Burn.

-Never saw a Lean Burn Slant 6 or LA in Canada until 79.

I drove my 74 Canadian spec Imperial to a show with a friend that had a 75 US Spec (I think California spec- he had the air pump) Imperial...both stock, no cams or upgrades etc. I left him behind like he was parked...way more power.
 
Wow...lots of misinformation. I've had Canadian spec Formals just about all my life.

Some broad points:

-No Cats or air pumps on Canadian Formals ever. Cats started in 79 with R bodies. Air pumps arrived in 87 on M bodies.

-74-75 B/RB & 76 440s OSAC valves...also P code 400 to 77.

-76 lo-po 400s. 77 & 78 R/RB Lean Burn.

-Never saw a Lean Burn Slant 6 or LA in Canada until 79.

I drove my 74 Canadian spec Imperial to a show with a friend that had a 75 US Spec (I think California spec- he had the air pump) Imperial...both stock, no cams or upgrades etc. I left him behind like he was parked...way more power.

My 79 New Yorker had a 360 2bbl with lean burn but no catalytic converter.

Kevin
 
@Mr C
Summing this up for 1977 (which I am concentrating on at the moment) I get for Canada:

360-2 (K): no cat, no ELB, no AIR pump
400-4 (N): no cat, w/ ELB, no AIR pump
440-4 (T): no cat, w/ ELB, no AIR pump

I guess the California/High Altitudes mini-converter was also unheard of in Canada?

But by '77 MY, the USA emissions standards had tightened enough that cat converters and AIR pumps were on everything.

So in 1977 AIR pumps were not restricted to California and High Altitudes cars? In the fender tag thread I found that N21 Air Pump is only mentioned for exactly such cars.

The police-spec dual exhaust engines were REAL dual exhausts with dual cat converters.

Very interesting! Did the P and U code engines differ in other respects as well? Somewhere I read that police cars could get exemptions from emissions regulations. What would that mean equipment-wise? No emissions devices at all or modified devices?

Another question: did the mini-converter also come with an "environmental heat shield"?
 
As I went to sleep last night I reflected on this post and recalled that 76 appears to have been a transition year for Lean Burn as I do recall seeing some 440s with and some without Lean Burn in 76.
 
My 79 New Yorker had a 360 2bbl with lean burn but no catalytic converter.

Kevin
Interesting, my family had many R body Newports (5) and NY(3) that did daily driver duty and I recall some of them (reluctant to say all) having cats...but some were 80 and 81 and they were all 318 or 360 2bbl.
 
In the earlier years of emission controls, law enforcement-ordered vehicles did have the exemption you mention. BUT not for what came from the factory, per se. In the case of the full-size Chevy Impala, it meant you could get a 5.7L V-8 rather than the "civilian" 5.0L V-8, for example. But general, what came out of the factories met existing US emissions standards for where they would be sold. There was ALSO a stipulation (possibly from the OEMs) that the law enforcement-ordered/spec vehicle had to remain in service as such for 6 months before it could be sold. Otherwise, there would have been many "civilian" 5.7L Impalas, I suspect, but supposed to be police cars.

As ALL produced vehicles came under US EPA "non-tampering" regulations, the "law enforcement" clause allowed those vehicles to be "out of compliance" IF the work was done by the particular law enforcement entity. Dual cat'd dual exhausts in place of singles, possibly? Or other "tuning " things from factory spec?

As far as "Lean Burn" went, the only REAL Lean Burns were pre-79, or possibly pre-80 model year. My '80 Newport is "Electronic Spark Control" with "lean burn" references in the service literature or otherwise. There were NO "lean burn specific" carbs in the later years, only on the first couple of years.

The "mini-cat" converters were "fire-off" cats to get the exhaust heated up enough for the rear cat to get to work sooner for better cold-start emissions. Never meant to be the "full meal deal" for cat converters, per se. Cat converter sizing is important for emissions. Easy to put a larger converter under there for long life and good performance, BUT it takes it longer to heat up on a cold start situation, which means more emissions before it actually starts working. Those "mini-cat" converters heated up quickly and filled that gap. Plus, larger engines needed larger capacity converters.

As for what was "required", THAT was determined by the OEMS and their quest to meet the particular emissions regulations. What they pulled out of "their toolbox" to achieve those results could vary, by observation. It was NOT mandated by the particular emissions regulation region.

EGR and AIR pumps, plus leaner carb calibrations, combined with the existing electronic ignition and later electronic timing controls were the main things used. Cat converters came later, as needed.

For the '79 Chrysler Newports/Dodge St. Regis CHP cars, CA did what they could to help the performance of their CHP cars, but NOT to put them out of compliance with CA emissions standards. The cat converter had to stay, but as it also muffled the exhaust, they were able to run (allegedly) straight pipes "cat back" and still meet their state emissions control regulation.

The BEST way to know what each particular vehicle had on it from the factory is the Vacuum Line Diagram that was under the hood, plus the related Tune Up Specs decal. Chrysler had some great vacuum harness stickers, multi-color and all! The Tune-up Specs decal usually had the letter designation of Each of ALL of the emissions control hardware on that particular engine in that particular body vehicle.

There were also some books printed which could be used by state inspectors to visually confirm if all of the needed emissions hardware was actually on the vehicle. Many state inspection activities also included a visual check of underhood equipment, before any "sniffer" tests were put into place, later, in addition to the normal safety inspection. But these were not completely accurate, by observation.

In many cases, the FSM could be a good information source for the normal emissions control for the particular model year, for the particular country (USA, Canada, or Export) of ultimate sale.

Although the anti-tampering provision is written into USA law, with related penalties, the states also had their own regulations. For example, one customer brought their '84 Caprice into the dealership for the yearly state inspection. Our inspector failed it for "no catalytic converter". They challenged that . . . and they were correct. Prior to 1985 (or '86"), in TX, the catalytic converter was considered to be a part of the exhaust system, but in later years, it was considered to be an "emissions control device". I thought that was interesting!

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
As ALL produced vehicles came under US EPA "non-tampering" regulations, the "law enforcement" clause allowed those vehicles to be "out of compliance" IF the work was done by the particular law enforcement entity.

So in the end one couldn't tell how the engine of a police car worked out emissions-wise. Could be factory-spec or lawfully modified.

Tune-Up Specs and FSMs are my next favorite readings then. Thanks for this tsunami of information!
 
So in the end one couldn't tell how the engine of a police car worked out emissions-wise. Could be factory-spec or lawfully modified.

Tune-Up Specs and FSMs are my next favorite readings then. Thanks for this tsunami of information!

If I have paged trough correct information, fleet vehicles vs. civilian models got engines and chassis adjusted differently e.g. cam timing and steering angles such as toe-in/out.
 
So in the end one couldn't tell how the engine of a police car worked out emissions-wise. Could be factory-spec or lawfully modified.

Tune-Up Specs and FSMs are my next favorite readings then. Thanks for this tsunami of information!

I highly suspect that the "lawfully modified" vehicles' modifications would include some "hot rod parts" under the hood, which would obviously be NON-OEM in nature. The most incognito item would have been the Mopar Perf Electronic Ign distributor (with a better advance curve). Other things would have been more obvious.

The law enforcement vs. civilian vehicles, the law enforcement vehicles would have had different chassis "tuning" calibrations. Things as stiffer torsion bars and rear leaf springs. Many with a rear sway bar in the mix, too. The civilian HD Trailer option would have had some similar things, plus the additional coolers (power steering, external transmission fluid cooler, etc.) as the law enforcement vehicles would have. The basic suspension calibrations would be similar to the civilian HD suspension options, but possibly not quite as stiff?

The basic adjustments, suspension toe-in and such would have been the same for all. Tires would have typically been rated for "police use", with higher speed capabilities than normal tires of that time.

Camshaft specs can be problematic, sometimes. After about '71 model year, Chrysler added a bit of additional lift and additional duration, with more valve overlap, in order to make the engine "a better air pump", to help decrease total power losses due to the 8.2 CR of the B/RB motors. So, they acquired timing specs that were a little "more" than the 413/360 cams of old, but not to the level of the earlier 440/375 or 383/335 stock cams. In some cases, if the engine was the HO version, it already had the better cams but with dual exhausts that let it breathe better for better top end performance. I believe you'll also find that to the end, Chrysler was still using double-roller timing chains, "tri-metal" bearings, windage trays, and Chrome-Moly rings, just as they did with the '68 Road Runner 383. That information in the Order Guide's vehicle spec information on those HO B/RB motors. The cam specs, plus the bearing types, would be stated in the FSM for the particular engines and model years. In the "Engine Specs" section.

In my '78 FSM, it also lists factory stall speed specifications. Some were MUCH higher than suspected! In the case of emissions, an automatic trans is easier to certify as the engine is never without "load" on it, unlike a manual transmission as it shifts gears. Similarly, one area where excessive emissions might happen is on coast-down with a closed throttle. A "tight" converter would probably put more "over-run" vacuum into the motor at coast-down with a closed throttle, but not quite as much as a manual trans might. Which is why some carbs had "dashpots" to keep the throttle from closing too fast. So, the apparently-looser converters which Chrysler used would not only help performance, but also possibly assist in helping the engine pass emissions, too? End result, some of the 440HP motors had a factory-rated stall speed of close to 2800rpm, with the STOCK converter! A converter that, I suspect if you back-check the earlier parts applications, were really 318 V-8 torque converters. Just as the original Street Hemi converter was, or the '68 Road Runner torque converter also crossed with a Slant Six 225 727 torque converter. LOTS of little "ins an outs" in the "support mechanisms" of Chrysler's HP/HO engine packages.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
Canadian emissions were lower than the U.S. in the 1970's.

I owned a 1978 Dodge Monaco Brougham 2 door coupe with a 318 V8 with a 4-bbl carb. It was my first, and only, new car. Unlike the 2-bbl 318 V8 Monaco I turned down, the 4-bbl 318 did not have a converter. As it did not have a converter, there were no "Essence Sans Plomb Seulement / Leaded Gasoline Only" stickers on the gas gauge or on the gas fill tube and no nozzle restricter to prevent the use of leaded fuel.

The 318 with 4-bbl was a Canada only engine and it was interesting touring the U.S. as down there all 1978 models burned unleaded fuel and thus had all the above missing equipment. Had problems with some non-self serve stations as the attendants would ask why the nozzle restricter was removed. I would then pull out the 1978 Dodge Monaco brochure and the sheet Chrysler Canada issued about their lead free engines that were available in Canada. Once they saw the "Chrysler Canada Limited" instead of "Chrysler Corporation" - no problems. Never did get around to acquiring the French version of the brochure and related literature.

It also had an air pump.
 
Thanks for that information. I would be curious to see what the carb calibrations (metering rods, jets, etc.) might have been in comparison to similar USA 318-4bbl engines. Which would probably be in a Canadian FSM.

CBODY67
 
"On some 1977 and later models, Chrysler incorporated a small oxidation-type converter, called an underhood unit and was welded into the engine exhaust pipe 150 to 300 mm away from the exhaust manifold," says what-when-how.

Could it be that 440-4 HO engines "with true dual exhaust", had a mini-converter in each exhaust pipe?
 
My 76 RMB is a non LB non cat 400
My owned since new 78 Cordoba 360 had LB and the air diverter and I don’t recall it having a cat. I know there is a Catalyst warning light on the instrument panel but had no bulb/socket
My 79 E58 300 has LB, air pump and a power driver seat and no cats which is a Canadian thing.
 
Back
Top