Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat
I think the point that she missed, was that NOx and CO emitted by pre catalyst vehicles, are both toxic gasses that posed a significant risk to human health, N2 and CO2 don't.
You're not thinking about in the context of the time.
At that time, Rover had implemented a lean burn engine running at 22:1 ( the K series ). Peugeot were also doing similar things.
The introduction of catalytic converters actually made the K series pollute more than it did when running lean burn*.
MT and others wanted the EU to go for lean burn with the intention of eventually developing it further to the 24:1 ratio. At 24:1 the only emission from a petrol engine is water. Nothing else.
Mercedes however didn't want to licence Rover/Peugeot technology or invest in the technology themselves**. They knew some form of pollution control was going to happen so they backed catalytic converters as it was cheap for them. They had the political clout and we got catalysts. If the EU had gone the right way, we'd now all be running lean burn, polluting less and getting a lot more MPG. Thanks Mercedes. We may even have achieved the goal of 24:1 and cars wouldn't pollute at all.
MT didn't 'miss' anything about NOx or CO.
* There was even a documentary on TV where David Vizard ( of Mini tuning fame ) took two Metros out for a real world test. The cars were identical except one was running lean burn as designed and one with catalytic converters. Guess which one polluted less and burned less fuel.
** And they're still doing it with their pathetic claims about R1234yf. The reality is they don't want to pay for R1234yf. Just like they didn't want to pay for lean burn.