Ok, I have to put my opinion in, both as an young hot rodder taught old school, and a closed minded redneck (check the sig, yo!)

ah hem!



When you block off the EGR you are sending cold, dense, clean air into the intake. This on its own should have a cooling effect, not to mention a significant performance gain. Any hot rodder knows that power=fuel+air, got it? Now, when you block that dude off, you are adding more air, therefore more power right? Well, in a word, yes. However, adding air without fuel can create a very lean fuel mix. This is good as for as making peak power, but also creats more heat... possibly a burnt valve, but I doubt it. So, in theory (and assuming the EGR moves enough air to make a difference) you could run into a lean fuel mix problem, especially on a */C engine, where high boost creats a lean mix anyway. Big deal, time to compenste with more fuel. It'* my opinion that removing EGR will not shorten the life of the engine.

As for the catlylitic converter... junk! This nasty bastard severly hinders exhaust flow, clogs up with carbon (dolefuly put there courtesy of your EGR system) and generally does not make a significant difference and a motor that is not either burning oil or running rich. My '93 F-150 passed emissions here in MD (2nd only to Cali in regaurds to anal retentive emmisions standards) with over 220,000 miles, without cats! This was after it failed with clogged up stock cats. By removing them I leaned out the fuel mixture and the damn thing passed. It'* been my experience that they need to be replaced after less than 50,000 miles... so that brand new clean running car has good cats, while the older one has clogged up cats. All three of my Pontiacs run sans EGR and Cats.

P.*. Hyrocarbons are good for you I hate a car thats smarter than I am, all that damn computer needs to know is how much air is being taken in, and how much fuel to mix with it.

I agree with just about all you said EXCEPT:
An EGRless engine will have a shortened life span! I've proved it with my 92 SE EGRless NA 3800! In 1992, GM decided to NOT INSTALL an EGR Valve (due to the engine met emission standards w/o it). What happened? This engine is plagued with Premature Burnt Exhaust Valves & Cracked Exhaust Manifolds! Because of these problems, GM rethought it'* "cost saving" solution & re-installed the EGR Valve in 1993 regardless of whether the engine met emission standards with or without the EGR Valve.

It doesn't make sense how a cleaner intake charge would shorten the life of a motor, unless it was creating a lean fuel mix in the combustion chamber. I doubt GM would let it out of the factory running lean, but hey, it'* GM we're talking about... they do some dumb ****

As for me, I'll take the clean cold air as opposed to the exhaust gasses that the EPA says my motor should run on

I have my EGR blocked off (removed) in my GTP and will always have it blocked off.
I have 5k miles w/o it and my engine runs cooler, more power, and cleaner.

I recently removed the heads for some PnP work and there was NO problems. I garantee that my heads look better than anyone with the EGR in place.

Please explain this to me:

*/Ced car compresses the air 3x what the intake air is, so then you add 800* exhaust temps to that (no matter how minute).

80* at IAT
+800*exhaust temps

what atleast 110* going into */C.

*3 = 330* going into cylinders
VS.
240* w/o the EGR


How does that burn valves and cause other problems?
I'm not taking in any air from the EGR or a filter from the removal. So with my air temps being cooler-how does this hurt me again? The EGR is a total waste of space, weight, engine maintenance, and money! at least for a modded L67 IMHO

From another source:
And as we all know in this community, it also causes burnt valves and probably shorter spark plug life. This problem isn't very well known in the GP community, if at all, because the GP never saw the Series 1 motor, especially the EGR-less NA 1992. It took a few years for the failures to really appear, as our members can attest to, so I'm assuming GM did some extensive testing on the 92 and found the problem early enough to correct it.

The bottom line is that you WILL have problems down the road, and you are damaging your engine. Your engine may be running cooler, but from other mods, not this one. I challenge anyone with an EGR-less 92 SE or SSE to compare wet and dry compression checks with an EGR-equipped 92 SSEi. Both cars were an 8.5:1 compression ratio, and I'd be willing to bet the results of this check would back up what Al, Don, and I are all trying to tell you.

I can explain this in one sentence!
The Valves are made from different materials!
Just like in the Propane engines, Pistons & Valves are swapped for components that CAN handle the higher produced. Now, unless you're gonna change your "stock" valves & pistons for "RACE" versions that CAN handle the higher heat, engine life will be shortened. Remember it took 165,000 KMs before my 92 SE EGRless failed too! But when an engine should last at least TWICE that in my books, that'* premature failure!

I guess "IF" I would ever have a problem, it gives me a good reason to put bigger/better valves in. And have more extensive headwork done.

One more question:

INTERCOOLER?

No EGR would be needed then right?



-J

How would an intercooler affect necessity of an EGR? The EGR is used to keep combustion chamber temps down, it'* proven. It doesn't get any horsepower really either, sucking colder air into the engine when the EGR is activated will only cause it to run leaner.

Do you think that sending cold air instead of normal EGR exhaust air into it will burn dirtier then burning leaner like that?

My understanding is the "rad" on the intercooler will gum up with the egr left in place, thats why its removed to keep the intake clean. Would the effects of the intercooler reduce the effects of the removed egr?

The intercooler would make the air denser, and unless the computer was adjusted properly for it, would cause it to run lean.