Forums
Forum Tools
|
 |
06:20:05 - 04/20/2024
Dakota Performance
| From | Message |
Bill9000
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/19/2004
15:05:24
|
 Subject: RE: CAT/sound
IP: Logged
Message:
notice a typo in my last message, meant 99% would NOT remove a cat...
|
Bob Lincoln
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/19/2004
21:18:33
|  RE: CAT/sound
IP: Logged
Message:
Actually, wrong, the emissions tests do plenty to get people to tune up their cars regularly, replace failed emissions controls, and keep the air far cleaner. Most people wouldn't do any maintenance if they didn't have to. With or without controls, people would still let their cars deteriorate, so you would be even worse off than the smog of the 70s, with twice as many cars on the road these days.
I don't know why you guys bitch so much about controls. I have 240K miles on my car, and the O2 sensor failed at 190K; EGR at 130K miles, and MAP at about 100K miles. I have the original catcon, still passes emissions easily. The car gets 36 mpg, and the controls cause no grief. Likewise, my Dakota has only had the catcon and EGR replaced (just before I bought it); all other controls original and working fine.
You'd think you were constantly maintaining these things, they almost never need attention.
|
Bill9000
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/20/2004
13:33:58
|  RE: CAT/sound
IP: Logged
Message:
Well Bob, here's the reason I don't like cat's:
Plain and simple.
(1) another item acting as a muffler, the engins has to force the exhaust through it, which is a restriction. (Think of blowing air through a pipe, then covering half of the other end, and note that blowing is harder)
(2) Due to the restriction, these things happen: Loss of Power, Loss of Gas mileage, Much Quieter Sound, and less engine life, since the engine has to work harder to force the exhaust out, that wears things out more.
You are correct Bob, about people not maintaining things, which further proves that most people would not remove the cat, only someone like me who realizez what exactly they do.
Now, here's a scenario...
Your cat goes bad, they do that sometimes... you could (a) replace it. (which sot a good amount of money, several hundred dolalrs in some cases) and therefore you are funding a decrease in mileage, a decrease in power, etc.
The money spent to fund that could have been spent on many other things, maybe a chip to make it have more power instead of less.
|
Joey
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/20/2004
15:36:51
| RE: CAT/sound
IP: Logged
Message:
thats exactly right. u can spend the money u would spend on a new cat for some expensive platinum spark plugs and a hot ignition system which will give u more power and reduce emmissions. BAMMM. wat now bitch.
|
Bob Lincoln
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/21/2004
13:31:57
| RE: CAT/sound
IP: Logged
Message:
Loss of power and gas mileage is total BS. They are not enough of a restriction even to worry about. As for gas mileage, compare:
1972 Dodge Dart slant-6 3-speed auto - 24 mpg with no catcon.
1979 Dodge Aspen slant-6 3-speed auto - 30 mpg with catcon.
"Now, here's a scenario...
Your cat goes bad, they do that sometimes... you could (a) replace it. (which sot a good amount of money, several hundred dolalrs in some cases) and therefore you are funding a decrease in mileage, a decrease in power, etc.
The money spent to fund that could have been spent on many other things, maybe a chip to make it have more power instead of less."
Actually, the money you "save" by not spending for a new cat will be more than offset by higher health care costs from the added pollution. The best investment and best payoff overall comes from protecting your health.
BTW, many if not most of the posts by people wanting to replace or remove catcons come from people whose catcons are still within warranty. They would get free replacement if faulty.
|
Soul
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/21/2004
13:53:20
| RE: CAT/sound
IP: Logged
Message:
Just let this thread die!! There are people from both sides of the fence on this and they'll never agree. Unfortunately, what you all are missing is it is against the law to remove the cats and whether you get caught or not by police is not the issue. There are much bigger things at stake than the pansy $2,500 fine. Good luck, I hope the noise is worth it to you.
|
Bill9000
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/21/2004
15:22:07
| RE: CAT/sound
IP: Logged
Message:
Mr. Lincoln,
in the respect of maintaining a "debate" without becoming an argument...
Have you ever looked into a cat? you cannot even see through it, looks like a honeycomb inside, solid... how is it possible for it to NOT restrict flow? and if they dont restrict flow, then why is it that they make the vehicle so much quieter than without???
"1972 Dodge Dart slant-6 3-speed auto - 24 mpg with no catcon.
1979 Dodge Aspen slant-6 3-speed auto - 30 mpg with catcon. "
how can you compare gas mileage on two DIFFERENT vehicles, and claim the cat doesnt make a diff.
Now, I'll give you the fact of a warranty replacing it... that's reasonable. and most likely true.
But when you talk about higher health costs due to pollution, that's going to a radical extreme - it would take thousands of vehicles in the same city without cats, and running poorly and smoking, to cause a noticeable damage. One newer vehicle running no cat isn't gonna make a bit of difference. And for pollution, I don't know where you live, but I live in a town of 20,000 people, there's no pollution here, we don't even have smog checks or requirements.
Yes, I am aware, that it's not legal for a muffler shop to remove a cat, they can be fined for doing it, I'm aware of all those things, but that still doesnt change my opinion regarding MY vehicle, see I am not going to live with a less-performing vehicle, that's quiet, just because someone in some other town somewhere feels it'll kill them with smog.
My GT mustang running true duals, one chamber flowmasters and no cats doesnt smell bad or smoke, and that's even if I stand behind it... so someone in another city, or ever more than 10 feet from the car is never gonna notice anything, any "pollution" coming from it would dissipate looooong before reaching anyone.
B
|
Soul
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/21/2004
15:45:16
| RE: CAT/sound
IP: Logged
Message:
Same arguments as when we were 6 years old, just different topics.
Pathetic.
|
Bob Lincoln
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/21/2004
22:16:14
| RE: CAT/sound
IP: Logged
Message:
Yes, it is pathetic that someone purports to put forth an intelligent argument for which there is no defense.
CO gas doesn't smell bad or smoke, but it will kill you faster than you know. Go ahead and breathe that.
I can see light through brand new cats, they are not as solid as you claim, unless plugged.
Those two vehicles have the same weight, same gearing, same engine, same profile. Both had electronic ignition, same 1-bbl carb - it is entirely fair to compare them. Catcons do NOT hurt gas mileage.
Your smog doesn't stay in your town. Ours comes from Ohio as well as local generation. Where do you THINK it goes when it "dissipates"?
It's not radical at all to say that even one catcon missing makes a difference. Example:
My car tested 0.71 grams per mile of HC emissions last time. My Dak tested 0.69 gpm. I drive about 23,000 miles a year. So my driving releases over 16 kg, or 35.4 pounds of HC, into the air. 35 pounds! That's 5 gallons of gasoline completely vaporized.
Now without the catcon, it would be 10x higher. So I'd be releasing 354 pounds, or about 50 gallons of gasoline into the air.
The effect on just one vehicle is to vaporize 45 more gallons per year into the air. Think of the size of that vapor cloud. That's an explosive force of nearly a ton of dynamite. Enough to blow up a 5000 sq ft building (an arsonist actually did this once, the rubble burned 13 hours).
Now multiply that amount times the number of people who really remove the catcons, it has a huge harmful effect. It's no mystery that childhood asthma affects over 20 percent of kids. When I was a kid, virtually no one in my town did.
You just can't justify it. It only hurts us all.
|
Snake
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/22/2004
09:18:28
| RE: CAT/sound
IP: Logged
Message:
I wholeheartedly agree with Bob. While it is fairly certain no one will find out if you removed your cat in an area that doesn't do smog checks, it does hurt us all in the end. Afterall, we all breathe the same air.
In some regards, all these cat removals and emissions control disabling only accelerates the inevitable pollution, but Bill9000 you must have some moral/ethical hangup or this thread wouldn't have lasted so long.
The 'dissipates' argument shows the selfishness of one person. Do you dump your used motor oil in the stream, since once it's out of your yard who cares? Do you throw your trash out the window to get it out of YOUR car? Throwing your unchecked exhaust gases out in the air is the same thing as littering, you just can't see it.
|
fastyz400
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/22/2004
12:49:45
| RE: CAT/sound
IP: Logged
Message:
I have to agree with Snake and Bob. Have you ever gone to a country that does not require Catcon? Like China or Mexico.
Try picking your nose after a day out in the city. Believe me, your golden nuggest are as black as coal.
You can still have your cake and eat it too. Here's a little story from Random Technology. Comparing HP with a cat and without a cat.
"maximum air flow capacity"
But another factor, and one that’s often overlooked, is brick length - longer bricks offer higher flow resistance. On the other hand, if a brick is too short, it won’t offer sufficient area to effectively control exhaust pollutants. Converter manufacturers use different precious metal loadings of washcoats and vary them according to brick length and density. Brand notes, "Most converters currently being produced utilize bricks that are between three and four inches in length. This configuration allows lighter wash coat loadings and trades air flow efficiency for cost. Random Technology converters are specifically designed for maximum air flow capacity and our converters contain bricks with heavier washcoat loadings that are only two inches long. The combination of this brick technology and special case construction makes for maximum air flow - and maximum horsepower."
Dyno testing has proven that to be true. According to engine builder Mike Osucha, (MORE Performance, Charlotte, NC) "We recently built a 396-cubic inch LT1 engine that produced 455 horsepower with an open exhaust system. When we installed two Random Tech converters, the engine produced 458 horsepower. When you look at the complete test results, you see that at some points the engine makes more power without converters than with them. And vice versa. I think the bottom line is that there's a tuning effect when a slight restriction is placed in an exhaust system. But the real point is that with the right catalytic converters, you don't have to sacrifice any horsepower to make an engine emissions legal."
Since all catalytic converters must meet standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) their efficiency in controlling pollutants is a given - provided a particular converter is installed on the type of vehicle for which it was designed. Longevity is also comparable from brand to brand because EPA mandates require the converter case to be warranted for 50,000 miles and the bricks for 25,000 miles. That leaves flow - and horsepower - as the only major characteristic that varies to a considerable degree.
|
Bill9000
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/22/2004
14:37:19
| RE: CAT/sound
IP: Logged
Message:
Definitely, I can agree with Fastyz400 that there are many vairables, and in some cases slightly more restriction can produce better numbers, but the real bottom line and the reason I asked the original question are:
(1) I was asking in regards to sound mostly, I like the sound of flowmasters with no other restrictions. My mustang with flowmasters sounded okay, but not great, not great until I put an H-pipe in and removed all the cats...
(2) I was never intending on starting a big argument with anyone, everyone has thier own opinion and they are entitled to it. My opinion, is that agencies like the EPA, and government-type agencies that make "rules" that all the people are supposed to follow like Lemmings... well last time I checked, this is a free country, and I will not let some agency determine how my vehicle will sound, they are human beings just like you and me, and they are not God, they are no better than I, so for them to tell me what to do with the vehicle that I worked for and paid for and own, they can stick it.
I apologize to everyone who feels differently, and I have no use for an argument with anyone, so have a nice day, and we will all go our own direction, and everyone can do thier own thing with thier own vehicle.
Bill
|
deerridge
GenIII
10/23/2004
11:45:55
| RE: CAT/sound
IP: Logged
Message:
It seems to me the cat should be combined with the muffler. I would think a minor design change could accomplish that. Then you would only have one restriction instead of two and reduce the cost of manufacting by $50 or so.
Real Horsepower
|
| | <<Oringinal Post <<Previous Page P 2 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
|
