View Poll Results: What do you think about cats ?
Voters: 130. You may not vote on this poll
Debate: Cats or no cats ? LOOK
07-21-2004, 02:37 PM
#1
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hwy 39, CA
Posts: 1,639
Car Info: Stage 4+ Bugeye
Debate: Cats or no cats ? LOOK
Hey guys,
I was thinking about this the other day, do you think running completely catless is OK ? We have made leaps and bounds towards saving the ozone and cleaning the air in our wonderful country and for 10-15 horsepower some of us are willing to throw that all away.
On the other hand you may think that some of our catyletic convertor laws are totally extreme and can be cut down on. You may think that a few 'race' cars running around catless is not that big of a deal.
I myself have a catless up-pipe, and stock downpipe/mid-pipe. In my opinon there are a lot of other very reliable ways to extract horsepower from your engine and there is no need to take the risk of getting caught by the cops for having a catless exhaust.
Tell me what you think, this is meant to be a debate, I know there are some of us who think that the law is too strict, and I know there are a lot of guys who think that the cats are there for a reason.
WRX Rush
Austin
I was thinking about this the other day, do you think running completely catless is OK ? We have made leaps and bounds towards saving the ozone and cleaning the air in our wonderful country and for 10-15 horsepower some of us are willing to throw that all away.
On the other hand you may think that some of our catyletic convertor laws are totally extreme and can be cut down on. You may think that a few 'race' cars running around catless is not that big of a deal.
I myself have a catless up-pipe, and stock downpipe/mid-pipe. In my opinon there are a lot of other very reliable ways to extract horsepower from your engine and there is no need to take the risk of getting caught by the cops for having a catless exhaust.
Tell me what you think, this is meant to be a debate, I know there are some of us who think that the law is too strict, and I know there are a lot of guys who think that the cats are there for a reason.
WRX Rush
Austin
07-21-2004, 02:41 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The Hunted Forest
Posts: 720
Car Info: Mazda Protege '02 (Wishing protege has AWD and a H6 twin turbo)
All in all its starting up the cars that do the most damage to the ozone nowadays.
See starting up a cold car produces a gas called Nitrous Oxide (NO2) , no not NOS.
This gas is 300 times more powerfull than Carbon Monoxide as a greenhouse gas. So cats it seems produce more pollution in the first few seconds than a car running without them for hours
Just my .02
See starting up a cold car produces a gas called Nitrous Oxide (NO2) , no not NOS.
This gas is 300 times more powerfull than Carbon Monoxide as a greenhouse gas. So cats it seems produce more pollution in the first few seconds than a car running without them for hours
Just my .02
07-21-2004, 06:22 PM
#4
VIP Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Are you too one of the few still living the past? Well I can change that! With a simple wicket. Yes, my friend, a wicket. PM for details.
Posts: 1,684
Car Info: No car right now....sob.
I chose option number two. Average Joe does not care if he loses 10-15 horsies, but for those of us with tuning in mind, we should be able to go with out them. Maybe like, a special permit, first 1,000 people in a state that apply can run catless, or something like that.
07-21-2004, 07:16 PM
#5
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 660
Car Info: TXS tbe, perrin goodies, v7 sti struts...bla bla bla lots of stuff!
I'm catless.... I look at ALL the crappy rust buckets that are on the streets that are from the 70's-80's then look at my car that's an 03' and running catless and I can almost gaurentee my car is not putting out as much polution as those cars are....
-Nigel
-Nigel
07-21-2004, 11:46 PM
#6
VIP Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,023
Car Info: Subaru Impreza WRX 2002
This won't be a popular opinion, but I don't think anyone who is not regularly tracking their car with sponsorship backing should be running catless. If you take the time to read through this extensive and amazing FAQ, all the reasons are blatantly clear:
http://www.turborick.com/gsxr1127/gasoline.html
Here's a little sample, from a study that was done in Provo, Utah:
If you are comfortable living with the label of "gross polluter," then by all means remove those cats.
OH, I should add a "NSFW" warning; the site that hosts that FAQ uses **** ads at the root level of the site. Just go straight to the FAQ and you should be safe.
http://www.turborick.com/gsxr1127/gasoline.html
Here's a little sample, from a study that was done in Provo, Utah:
As observed elsewhere, over half the CO was emitted by about 10% of the vehicles. If the 47 worst polluting vehicles were removed, that achieves more than removing the 2,500 lowest emitting vehicles from the total tested fleet.
Surveys of vehicle populations have demonstrated that emissions systems had been tampered with on over 40% of the gross polluters, and an additional 20% had defective emission control equipment [64]. No matter what changes are made to gasoline, if owners "tune" their engines for power, then the majority of such "tuned" vehicle will become gross polluters. Professional repairs to gross polluters usually improves fuel consumption, resulting in a low cost to owners ( $32/pa/Ton CO year ). The removal of CO in the Provo example above was costed at $200/Ton CO, compared to Inspection and Maintenance programs ($780/Ton CO ), and oxygenates ( $1034-$1264/Ton CO in Colorado 1991-2 ), and UNOCALs vehicle scrapping programme ( $1025/Ton of all pollutants ).
Thus, identifying and repairing or removing gross polluters can be far more cost-effective than playing around with reformulated gasolines and oxygenates.
Surveys of vehicle populations have demonstrated that emissions systems had been tampered with on over 40% of the gross polluters, and an additional 20% had defective emission control equipment [64]. No matter what changes are made to gasoline, if owners "tune" their engines for power, then the majority of such "tuned" vehicle will become gross polluters. Professional repairs to gross polluters usually improves fuel consumption, resulting in a low cost to owners ( $32/pa/Ton CO year ). The removal of CO in the Provo example above was costed at $200/Ton CO, compared to Inspection and Maintenance programs ($780/Ton CO ), and oxygenates ( $1034-$1264/Ton CO in Colorado 1991-2 ), and UNOCALs vehicle scrapping programme ( $1025/Ton of all pollutants ).
Thus, identifying and repairing or removing gross polluters can be far more cost-effective than playing around with reformulated gasolines and oxygenates.
OH, I should add a "NSFW" warning; the site that hosts that FAQ uses **** ads at the root level of the site. Just go straight to the FAQ and you should be safe.
Last edited by meilers; 07-21-2004 at 11:49 PM.
07-22-2004, 12:14 AM
#7
this is a question of equity. since we can squeeze an extra 10-15hp by running catless, why doesn't the state open the exception up to all other car clubs?
i have all my cats b/c i don't want to be bothered by the police.
i have all my cats b/c i don't want to be bothered by the police.
07-22-2004, 12:41 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Foster City, CA
Posts: 92
Car Info: sonic yellow 03 WRX sedan
Polluters don't care because they are not responsible for the cost of cleaning up the crap. It's a benefit for them personally, but the net result is negative for everyone. I think it's unfortunate we don't have precise ways to measure one's contribution to pollution so he/she maybe charged accordingly. For certain people, only economic incentive works.
Email spammers play a similar game.
Email spammers play a similar game.
07-22-2004, 02:07 PM
#10
^ again, that is a question of equity. i'm sure other cars running catless would produce the same amount of emissions are our wrx's do, especially taking into account the fuel consumption of our cars. you can try taking this to the proper authorities and draft an anti-SUV/truck bill. running catless with the mindset that our catless cars produce as much pollution as a hummer does is irresponsible.
but hey, that's just my opinion.
but hey, that's just my opinion.
07-22-2004, 03:02 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'd say removal of some but not all cats would be the best way to go. CLearly the cats are there for a reason, clearly the laws exist for a reason, BUT the laws ARE a bit too strict in most places. This is, of course, my opinion, but I really do think that auto emissions have cleaned up GREATLY over the past 2 decades. We need to continue to be concious of it, but at the same time, we do KNOW that cars just don't emit the same CRAP they used to. Gain some power by removing a cat or two, but catless is somewhat irresponsible if you ask me. Catless is for cars that are strictly off-road/track cars that are NOT daily drivers.
07-22-2004, 04:30 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
The catalytic converter is a way to perform a chemical tradeoff. Unburnt fuel is converted into carbon dioxide, thus adding to the overall CO2 emissions of the car and removing some of the more "harmful" chemicals. They do not make anything magically disappear. Catalytic converters were made mandatory in response to the dangerous amounts of other chemicals being put into the air at the cost of increased CO2 production. My contention is that some cars are fine running catless because they actually produce less of the greenhouse gas, CO2, at the expense of some chemicals that have impacts in other areas. It's really all a balance. Sometimes the pendulum swing too far the other way, just like this anti-smoking craze and not enough people look at the hard science. Don't let emotion sway your viewpoint on this issue.
07-22-2004, 04:45 PM
#13
Originally Posted by fusionsr
just like this anti-smoking craze and not enough people look at the hard science. Don't let emotion sway your viewpoint on this issue.
07-22-2004, 08:38 PM
#15
Angry Dan
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: www.turboculture.com
Posts: 7,183
Car Info: 05 Evo VIII
Originally Posted by WRX Rush
I was thinking about this the other day, do you think running completely catless is OK ? We have made leaps and bounds towards saving the ozone and cleaning the air in our wonderful country and for 10-15 horsepower some of us are willing to throw that all away.
I felt bad being catless for about 2 seconds....Have you seen the exhaust that comes out of big rig trucks??? Big black clouds of crap....catless you still can't even see my exhaust.