catalytic converter delete?

playa wrote:

Ummm.... If you eliminate the cat, what will all the meth-heads steal?

ahahahahah! Too funny

mark wrote:
and you would prefer acid rain instead?
the beautiful back country roads,adjacent to sprawling farms that run through the country side,give us the fruits and vegetables we need to live happily,organic and other. both consume the fallout produced by the modern combustion engine. as far as acid rain...the human body gets more pollutants from the jets that criss cross the skies than the automobiles that run the roads.....fuels have come a long way since the 50s &70s,oxygenated fuels and other, make todays fuels cleaner burning than yesterdays. hence my "cow"consumption. cows produce 14% of the worlds greenhouse gasses,which is 24 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide.so....spare us your propensity for tree hugging. wanna save our planet? go on a "carnivore"killing spree,and as youre running along naked, toss out "GO VEGAN" pamphlets...

We all (should) know the real risk of deleting a cat converter: an actual $ fine in a couple states (i.e. CA), but a fix-it ticket in most situations. The rumored $1500-10k penalty was intended to discourage shops from performing cat removal, although many shops are more than willing to take the risk.

I do not suggest people pull off their functioning cat converters for power gains (I don't think I said that). If the cat still works, leave it on. What I'm saying is when your converter splits down the middle at 85k miles as mine did, and it starts making a loud drone that is likewise illegal, and polluting, what are the options?

In the above situation we have a choice to replace with OEM converter for a few hundred dollars, use a cheaper 'high-flow race' unit (not as effective at converting), or you can weld in a piece of pipe for almost no cost, knowing you have improved exhaust gas flow, even if only a small amount. Yes, this is 'technically' illegal. So is speeding 5 mph over the limit, not using a front license plate, so is having a couple drinks before driving home, or adding any exhaust part labeled "for off-road use only" (as all aftermarket exhaust headers are clearly marked). There are also laws prohibiting hunting, racing, sporting events, and sales of cars or alcohol on Sundays. These are all examples of things technically illegal, yet ethically not unsound, depending on who you talk to. Point: illegal does not always mean wrong in every case to everyone. We all choose to break some laws.

When we say things like "there is a reason it's illegal to remove it", or "it's not worth introducing pollutants into the air", I grow concerned about the generic nature of these statements. Not any real substance to back up what's being said. They may be absolutely true, or they could be entirely false. We really don't know for sure. One example I read in a car forum, posted in 2000 on the same subject:

"Too cheap to spend the $52 on a high flow cat? You'd rather replace it with a straight pipe that screws over our environment? Some people never cease to amaze me with their ignorance...."

To me the above statement is the definition of ignorance regarding the matter. It's a position so many people will take because it makes them feel better about being an 'eco friendly' person, even though they really don't have a clue what they are saying. It's an easy route for people who like to go with the flow (ha-ha), criticizing others on something they have no knowledge about other than its technically illegal.

I am pretty sure the above quote is by someone who really doesn't know that “high flow” converters with low price tags (most of them) aren't really any higher flowing. Additionally, if a converter is installed on a type of vehicle for which it wasn't designed (most cases), it may not be very effective at controlling emissions. (from Clay Ingram of Random Technology) I would also say the poster of the above quote doesn't actually know how harmful a straight pipe is to the environment vs. a cat converter - they're only guessing based on what they think sounds right, or what the law says, or what they consider the normal response should be. And they follow up their statement with a condescending remark in an attempt to substantiate their own ignorant viewpoint.

I like to ask: what makes something 'wrong' vs. illegal? To be able to answer this, we should be asking real questions about the technology, such as:

• Specifically what is the exact reason why it is illegal to remove cat converters? How old is this law, and what are it's origins?

• Has the law ever been enforced on individuals? If so, what was the penalty in each case?

• What specifically is going into the air that makes a cat converter necessary? What does a catalytic converter introduce into the air as a byproduct of the 'give & take' rule?

• How much fuel could be saved if lean-burn engines were introduced, and would this outweigh benefits of cat converters?

• What are the environmental impacts of mining for platinum & palladium, required for cat converter construction?

These are questions I think should be answered before we decide something is actually 'wrong' to do. Otherwise, we are just doing something just because... we really don't know why, we just assume. I would rather make a decision based on factual research vs. a widely accepted assumption. But I understand not everyone agrees with this point of view.

7901mark wrote:

Hometown Hero wrote:

7901mark wrote:

SCbuick010 wrote:

cat delete

why

Umm, you gain around 5hp and save around 10-15lbs of weight... that seems like a good enuff reason.

Really? 5hp for introducing those awful gases into the environment?? Awesome, thats really smart.

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread... if we were all so concerned about the environment we would all be driving smart cars, riding bicycles, or walking from point A to point B. The fact that you drive an automobile, and own a computer, among all other creature comforts (unless they're powered entirely by flowers), shows your really no more concerned or environmentally conservative than the rest of us.

But hey, feel free to cast stones.
P.S. I eat alot of Alberta beef, so I keep the methane lvls down. Unless I eat Ribs, they give me the "ITIS"!

You can remove your cat converter and still be an environmentally conscious person. Clean is not the same as green.

By removing your cat-con, your engine will introduce about equal the CO2 and much less N2O into the air. The EPA has this to say about cat converters:

"Catalytic converters are a significant and growing cause of global warming, due to their release of nitrous oxide (N2O)"

"Nitrous oxide now comprises about 7.2 percent of the gases that cause global warming. Cars and trucks, most fitted with catalytic converters, produce nearly half of that nitrous oxide."

"The increase in nitrous oxide stems from the growth in the number of miles traveled by cars that have catalytic converters. And the problem has worsened as improvements in catalytic converters, changes that have eliminated more of the nitrogen-oxygen compounds that cause smog, have conversely produced more nitrous oxide."

According to experts, nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas, more than 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Nitrous oxide, or N2O, is not regulated because the Clean Air Act was written in 1970 to control smog, not global warming. And no regulations exist to control gases that are believed to cause global warming.

Now that we have some facts on the matter, it would seem that there is some possibility that cars with catalytic converters contribute to global warming more than cars without them. As I said earlier, you can't get something for nothing. We decided to have cleaner air in the '70s. The consequence of that decision could be increased global warming in the new millennium. CFC concentrations have decreased dramatically over the past 25 years, whereas N2O has continued at a steady climb.

I found a site that quotes all you're quoting Aaron, and I don't consider it a reliable source. Also, when I read all the way to the bottom, they reminded people that water vapor is THE most potent greenhouse gas, and was not included in that 7.2% figure. But Al, who is now living in a separate energy-guzzling mansion from Tipper, can't regulate and profit from water vapor...

More to the point, not only is Nitrogen Oxide a far more hazardous chemical than Nitrous Oxide, I found three sites that specify that a reduction catalyst reduces NOx to nitrogen and oxygen, not Nitrous Oxide.

Finally, 14.7:1 wasn't established solely for the cat... It is the stoiciometric ratio for gasoline combustion. Even without the cat, such as with Robo's smog test, the feedback A/F tuning makes for the most perfect combustion, which of course produces only CO2 and H2O. As for "lean-burn", that invariably increases the NOx, which requires even more after-treatment...

The source was the New York Times, which I usually consider reliable. However, I do see the recall at the bottom of that article, which I didn't see before. Nice catch.

But even if N2O has been downgraded to a less significant greenhouse gas, it is still a greenhouse gas nonetheless, and cat cons do produce more of it. Also, cat converters do nothing to suppress CO2 emissions. CO2 is ranked #2 by contribution to the greenhouse effect, at 9–26%. My point that cat converters are intended for cleaner air, not a greener outlook, is still valid. Interesting fact: unburnt hydrocarbons are converted by cat converters into CO2 and water vapor, the #1 contributor to the greenhouse effect.

As for the 14.7:1 A/F mix - it may not have been established solely for cat con use, but using cats doesn't allow that number to change, because the converter's operation depends heavily on that specific ratio. Honda has developed lean-burn engines that operate up to 22:1 A/F ratio, and one of the required changes is the implementation of a special lean-burn catalyst to convert the NOx.

In the '70s Honda actually designed a lean-burn production engine that passed U.S. emissions standards without using a cat converter. The concept was a 2-stage combustion process that resulted in a more complete burn of CO and hydrocarbons. The engine had a design flaw in the valvetrain that was later fixed, but it affected the success of the engine in a bad way. Honda is currently developing a new version of this technology that is supposed to boost MPG significantly.

AA wrote:

But even if N2O has been downgraded to a less significant greenhouse gas, it is still a greenhouse gas nonetheless

Interesting fact: unburnt hydrocarbons are converted by cat converters into CO2 and water vapor, the #1 contributor to the greenhouse effect.

In the '70s Honda actually designed a lean-burn production engine that passed U.S. emissions standards without using a cat converter.

Well, the NYT is only slightly to the right of Keith Olbermann, but more civilized...

- My point was that the reduction cat doesn't create N20, but rather Oxygen & Nitrogen.

- Again, CO2 & water are the results of perfect combustion of any hydrocarbon. The simpler the hydrocarbon (like natural gas,) external combustion vs. internal combustion, and steady-state vs. accel & decel, the 'cleaner' the exhaust. The cat doesn't make any more of these gasses than the engine otherwise would, it just cleans up 'sloppy' engines. Core design & the injection/ignition systems are most important, which is why Robo could pass his smog test. Also, many carbureted BOP engines could pass the emissions requirements for many years without an air pump, while the 'venerated' small-block Chevy has always needed one... with that damned external plumbing.

- Definitely, the stratified-charge CVCC engines. And the problem with the 3rd valve wasn't that bad, it was a cheap & easy fix. The standards just kept tightening beyond the point that it could still pass without a cat...

I am not so sure about the N2O claim. Although N2O levels are down since the '90s, partly a result of better cat con technology, the #2 source for N2O still comes from mobile combustion through catalytic converters. #1 is agricultural soil management. From U.S. EPA, published 2010:

"Catalytic converters can promote the formation of N2O, although the latest technical modifications to converters are addressing this problem."

"N2O and NOx emissions from mobile combustion are closely related to fuel characteristics, air-fuel mixes, combustion temperatures, and the use of pollution control equipment. N2O from mobile sources, in particular, can be formed by the catalytic processes used to control NOx, CO, and hydrocarbon emissions."

So, it is acknowledged by the EPA that cat converters do contribute to formations of N2O. That was part of my point.

However, the EPA also states:

"Earlier generation control technologies initially resulted in higher N2O emissions, causing a 26 percent increase in N2O emissions from mobile sources between 1990 and 1998. Improvements in later-generation emission control technologies have reduced N2O output, resulting in a 53 percent decrease in mobile source N2O emissions from 1998 to 2008."

This is great news, but unfortunately our Rivieras did not come equipped with cat converters manufactured before 1998. This was the other part of my point - our OEM cat converters are the bad ones.

robotennis61 wrote:

.spare us your propensity for tree hugging.

intelligent response!!....lol

AA wrote:

I do not suggest people pull off their functioning cat converters for power gains (I don't think I said that). If the cat still works, leave it on.

pretty much exactly what I was referring to originally to the poster who said they removed it.

why....

I think some young adults are under the impression this is a must do....when in fact, you will gain almost nothing...and depending on the engine, some cars prefer a bit of "back pressure" and removing a cat will reduce power.

Hometown Hero wrote:

7901mark wrote:

Hometown Hero wrote:

7901mark wrote:

SCbuick010 wrote:

cat delete

why

Umm, you gain around 5hp and save around 10-15lbs of weight... that seems like a good enuff reason.

Really? 5hp for introducing those awful gases into the environment?? Awesome, thats really smart.

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread... if we were all so concerned about the environment we would all be driving smart cars, riding bicycles, or walking from point A to point B.

I'm concerned, been able to reduce my driving to 200 miles per month....but whatever.....not looking for kudos.

I will bet you, that I do less than half the driving with my cat deleted Rive than you drive your Riv per month. My daily driver is outfitted with the "precious" cat con, and the town I live in has a overall population of 5200. I can walk anywhere in town in 15 minutes. My riv comes out on weekends if it nice outside, then the Riv sits all winter long (Canadian Winters), so plz spare me.

Frankly, I am extremely confident that my overall carbon footprint is smaller than yours! At least we can all sleep tonight knowing the world is a greener place cuz you drive 200 less miles a month.

Hometown Hero wrote:

I will bet you, that I do less than half the driving with my cat deleted Rive than you drive your Riv per month. My daily driver is outfitted with the "precious" cat con, and the town I live in has a overall population of 5200. I can walk anywhere in town in 15 minutes. My riv comes out on weekends if it nice outside, then the Riv sits all winter long (Canadian Winters), so plz spare me.

Frankly, I am extremely confident that my overall carbon footprint is smaller than yours! At least we can all sleep tonight knowing the world is a greener place cuz you drive 200 less miles a month.

pretty bold statement considering you know nothing about me. Your ignorance shines through! Dont worry, some day you'll be a better person

You say I know nothing about you, enlighten me. I'm on the edge of my seat with anticipation..really. Prove me wrong champ!

Hometown Hero wrote:

Prove me wrong champ!

You've already proved it!!!

I just see alot of info taken from the internet and other articles. Not your personal knowledge, nor any sort of arguement to backup how eco friendly you are aside from driving 200 less miles a month. 200 less than you normally drive, big deal. maybe your a travelling vacuum cleaner salesman and drive 5000 miles a month. You never stated anything get it...

I explained what I drive and how far, how often, I dont spend my days in traffic cuz there isnt any. Your car probably idles longer at intersections than it takes me to get to werk.
Like I said prove me wrong. Try explaining what your driving routine would be, maybe it is smaller. You may very well drive less, but without presenting any sort of claim, your remarks are without merit.

The house I grew up in has been on solar and wind power for the past 20 years, and we lived with no power for 5 years before that.

Carbon footprint that everyone!

Hometown Hero wrote:

Like I said prove me wrong. Try explaining what your driving routine would be, maybe it is smaller. You may very well drive less, but without presenting any sort of claim, your remarks are without merit.

I could honestly care less, that's the difference between us. I just am amused from your remarks when you have absolutely no clue if you're right or wrong.....but for one Im not going to go rip my cat off for the measly amount of power you think you are gaining.....waste of time.

Karma wrote:

The house I grew up in has been on solar and wind power for the past 20 years, and we lived with no power for 5 years before that.

Carbon footprint that everyone!

Thats great!!

7901mark wrote:

Karma wrote:

The house I grew up in has been on solar and wind power for the past 20 years, and we lived with no power for 5 years before that.

Carbon footprint that everyone!

Thats great!!

It was an adventure thats for sure!

Any way, Just wondering what size the pipe is and if i'd need a O2 sim on my 95 if i did do this, my cat stinks like crazy.

'95 models don't have the after-cat O2 sensor, do they?

The 95 series one l67 doesn't, I haven't a clue about the NA 95.

7901mark wrote:

Hometown Hero wrote:

Like I said prove me wrong. Try explaining what your driving routine would be, maybe it is smaller. You may very well drive less, but without presenting any sort of claim, your remarks are without merit.

I could honestly care less, that's the difference between us. I just am amused from your remarks when you have absolutely no clue if you're right or wrong.....but for one Im not going to go rip my cat off for the measly amount of power you think you are gaining.....waste of time.

So now you could care less?

What happened to the tree hugging hippy that practically told us the world will end sooner if I drive my weekend car w/o a cat con. Did I mention my car has 200,000km on it, surely the original cat must've still been good.

You say I have know clue on if I'm right or wrong? I'm not the 1 basing my knowldge on what I read in magazines published by biased writers. I am capable of forming my own opinions. BTW I never told you to take off your cat, you asked a stimple question, I gave you a simple answer. You made me out to be some G.W. Bushesque environmental nazi, for suggesting against replacing an old cat with something else thats destined to fail.

Based on the knowledge of how much I drive my car and the probably accurate assumption on how much you use yours, I would say that you more likely are harder on the ecosystem than your arch Cat deleting nemesis... moi.

Dunt h8, appreciate, in a sense we're both tree huggin hippies.

Eldo wrote:

'95 models don't have the after-cat O2 sensor, do they?

No they do not have downstream sensors.

But you can buy O2 sensor simulator kits through Grandwest if your car does . Plus they cost alot less than an O2 sensor.