exhaust question

[t12tninja]

cant i just bust the cat out of my exhaust to gain horses?

[cre]

Unless it's clogged you won't gain anything really.

[btwilson86]

The short and long answer.... No. Besides, it's illegal...

Personally (as far as N/A's are concerned) the car is more enjoyable to drive with a catalytic converter. It creates a much smoother transition through the powerband of the engine, whereas without the cat it's fairly uneven.

[Grandavi]

Depending where you live it is illegal. I personally think that cats are a waste and whats inside them is more toxic than what passes through them (Rhodium?)
but.. thats a different argument.

[t12tninja]

well i think it is a waste of space honest but i dont know

[cre]

A waste of space? Are you F'ing kidding?


As for toxic..... you're not breathing the cat. ...


wow, IQ's have really jumped in the past couple months....

[Grandavi]

currently research is underway by the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) in the United States in response to fears that catalytic converters may actually rearrange nitrogen-oxygen compounds and form harmful compounds like laughing gas, nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is especially dangerous with respect to global warming as it is “…300 times more potent than carbon dioxide…”[1]. A study by the E.P.A. has also shown that unlike most gases, the emissions of nitrous oxide are increasing rapidly each year. “The increase in nitrous oxide…stems from the growth in the number of miles travelled by cars that have catalytic converters.”[2] As the efficiency of catalytic converters in dealing with smog increase, the production of nitrous oxide increases.

Im not a scientist.. and like I said.. its another argument. (not interested myself.. because I dont need to have one.. I just do.)

Oh yeah.. answering the OP... in a very old car with a Cat (the first ones) you may get more HP.. today's cars (even our MKIII's) will not benefit from it if I understand it correctly. The only reason to leave out a Catalytic converter is to save $$ or if you have come to the conclusion that it does more harm then good.. (back to the argument.. lol)

[cre]

All exhaust from hyrdocarbon fueled engines contains pollutants. I wasn't debating that... I was questioning your concern about children chewing on the innards of a cat versus inhaling a pack of cigarettes worth of carbon monoxide with the bonus unspent hydrocarbons in a couple days of driving around on errands with mom in the minivan.

As for that essay, do you have anything with actual citations? Not too surprising that a kid's essay (hich school) refers only to its own text in the citations. Can't seem to find if that school is still around either, seems they gave up on the internet in 2004, a LOT has been learned since then. Post up some more recent material on the matter if you can find some. The EPA study in question would be cool.

Cat's aren't all good but they aren't all evil... There is a lot of effort put into ensuring that the proper mixtures are maintained.... just because that gets thrown out the window when some redneck pulls sensors for mo powah (sensors which aren't even monitored at high output) and because my sister can't be bothered to find out why the check engine light has been on for FOUR YEARS it doesn't mean the controls are a wasted effort and it definitely doesn't mean that the worst case scenario being discussed here is happening in every car across the planet. A LOT has been done to control these things (ever wonder why the Cali spec MKIII had another OX sensor AFTER the cat? ). The people building these devices and vehicles are less ignorant than you seem to want to believe... they generally do have a clue and fortunately they usually have enough backbone to not bend entirely under the pressure of politicians with pockets heavy with special interest cash.




EDIT: I'm not ragging on the essay because it was written by someone in high school.... or 7 years or more ago.... I'm just pointing out that if the EPA is working on such a critical study and it's public enough to have made it to an Irish school kid (or possibly a teacher there) that it should be published by now (at least an initial findings) so let's get to the meat. And I really was curious as to the history of the school... I'd like to know more about the author.

[cre]

Originally Posted by Grandavi

today's cars (even our MKIII's) will not benefit from it if I understand it correctly.

Not true. There were certain markets without a cat and they made no more power despite the lack of lambda controls and cat.... much like the JDM 7M's make no more power without the EGR. [This is from a few owners from markets where the MKIII wasn't equipped with a cat, EGR or lambda controls. There was some very limited discussion about it on SM or SF. According to Toyota there was no difference in any of the 7M variants due to these changes from one market to the next (and if there was a difference, you bet they'd post it, always good for sales in the higher powered markets).]

[Grandavi]

Pretty sure I agreed with you regarding no real power gains in dropping the cat. In Alberta, they are not illegal to take out... however, there is a debate going on right now about the "Air-care" that BC has being moved into Alberta meaning our cars would also have to pass the emissions test as does a lot of the states and some provinces in Canada.

I wont argue the catalytic converter benefits because I am not knowledgeable enough about them (as for benefits and faults) same as I keep quiet on the ozone layer (seeing as the sun creates ozone .. its hard for me to imagine it actually depleting or becoming extinct.. physics say that would be very near impossible.. but.. I am not a scientist)

Basically, I keep my cat on because Yoda put it there. Therefore, I keep it. If they had neglected to, I wouldnt put it on unless the govt bullied me into it.

If your worried about the environment side of it.. you have to be aware that over 75% of the pollutants happen while the car is idling. Stop the traffic jams.. and you solved the whole problem. Thats why the electric cars are a good idea (the ones that only use gas to accelerate, turn off the gas engine while cruising and then stop both engines at a red light). Us driving is not doing enough damage to the environment to worry about, sitting at a red light or in heavy traffic is a different issue altogether. Blame the traffic designers (dont know how traffic is where you live, but here (and we only have a million people in Calgary) the road systems are built to go North and South.. East and West is stupidly designed. We have about 8-9 hours a day where cars are doing massive start/stop situations.

I work from home because of it. My contribution to the environment.