My wife's car (she loves it) is a 1990 Volvo 240, California version, so it has EGR. The EGR is fairly early in its technology--there is a vacuum controller, but no temperature sensor on the EGR. I have recently cleaned the EGR valve, so I believe it to be operational. Car runs fine if you like slow, 114 HP, 136 ft-lbs. Here are the EPA fuel efficiency ratings:
Regular, non-EGR, city, combined, hwy: 18, 20, 23
EGR: 17, 19, 21
I understand the EGR lowers combustion temperature in the engine to reduce NOx production, however the EGR is worse with fuel efficiency.
So, over a 10 year period of time, say 10,000 miles per year, which is worse for the environment (amount of pollutants)? Please include the energy and emissions to produce the gasoline, and whatever else I'm missing in my thoughts about emissions.
And, yes, I agree that a newer, fuel-efficient vehicle would be best, but let's stick to the question. Thanks.
Regular, non-EGR, city, combined, hwy: 18, 20, 23
EGR: 17, 19, 21
I understand the EGR lowers combustion temperature in the engine to reduce NOx production, however the EGR is worse with fuel efficiency.
So, over a 10 year period of time, say 10,000 miles per year, which is worse for the environment (amount of pollutants)? Please include the energy and emissions to produce the gasoline, and whatever else I'm missing in my thoughts about emissions.
And, yes, I agree that a newer, fuel-efficient vehicle would be best, but let's stick to the question. Thanks.