Discussion
I await the wrath of a few people calling me tree huggers and similar, but it's struck me over the last few months about the total disregard that people have for the world we live in for the sake of a "few" bhp....
Many many people say "I've just removed the cat" and how it gave them a massive 1% improvement on bhp (which I can't believe is actually noticable apart from the noise and placebo effect), but it seems very very sad to me that people would rather spew into the air all sorts of nasty by-products into the air for the sake of such a miserly performance gain.
What also amazes me is these same people go to all the trouble of keeping the cat so they can put it back "for the MOT" - surely this is just bonkers that if an emissions test is there for a reason why for 364 days do you purposly make the car fail it??
I've often thought about replacing the Quattro due to it not having a cat, but always thought that by not replacing a car "just for the sake of it", at least I have saved the massive amount of pollution that is created by just the process of making a car.
What do people think? Am I just a silly old tree hugger, or do I have a point?
J
Many many people say "I've just removed the cat" and how it gave them a massive 1% improvement on bhp (which I can't believe is actually noticable apart from the noise and placebo effect), but it seems very very sad to me that people would rather spew into the air all sorts of nasty by-products into the air for the sake of such a miserly performance gain.
What also amazes me is these same people go to all the trouble of keeping the cat so they can put it back "for the MOT" - surely this is just bonkers that if an emissions test is there for a reason why for 364 days do you purposly make the car fail it??
I've often thought about replacing the Quattro due to it not having a cat, but always thought that by not replacing a car "just for the sake of it", at least I have saved the massive amount of pollution that is created by just the process of making a car.
What do people think? Am I just a silly old tree hugger, or do I have a point?
J
Fair point, although with some exhaust systems removing the cat's can have a more significant effect on increasing power than 1%.
Putting things into perspective, however, modern cars contribute such a fractional amount to the total amount of airborne pollution (not sure of the figures). Every day on the roads I pass lorries and buses belching out black soot - does anyone give an fcuk about those?
Putting things into perspective, however, modern cars contribute such a fractional amount to the total amount of airborne pollution (not sure of the figures). Every day on the roads I pass lorries and buses belching out black soot - does anyone give an fcuk about those?
I think you are worrying unecessarily here Joust. Even given the relatively short period cats have been required by law, the proportion of cars on the road without them has dropped significantly. Also, a great many of those cars without them are either shortly to be scrapped or driven relatively few miles a year. I'm guessing your Quattro is on a limited mileage policy - if it isn't, then most non-cat classics are. And, unless you destroy the Quattro, you'd just be moving the problem on to salve your own concience... 
Whipping the cats out of a Quat 20valve is said to give an extra 20bhp - mine were long gone when I bought the car.
Whipping the cats out of a Quat 20valve is said to give an extra 20bhp - mine were long gone when I bought the car.
Hmm. Particulate traps are now standard (and required AFAIK), but it seems companies change buses/lorries far less frequently than the masses change cars, so I assume it will take longer.
shok said: Fair point, although with some exhaust systems removing the cat's can have a more significant effect on increasing power than 1%.
Putting things into perspective, however, modern cars contribute such a fractional amount to the total amount of airborne pollution (not sure of the figures). Every day on the roads I pass lorries and buses belching out black soot - does anyone give an fcuk about those?
However, I do worry about the "well, other people are doing it so why shouldn't I", or "my bit is so small in the scheme of things it doesn't matter" - unfortunatly if a small minority that thinks that turns into a larger minority, then it suddenly does start to matter.....
J
True - my Ur is on a limited milage policy, but I'm not really confortable with the "well normal cars have cats, so I don't need to worry" (see the posting above) - surely beltching out unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides isn't really a responsible thing to do in the quest for a few more (OK - I take the point about 10-20 increases - but it's still <10%...) horses?
J
J
What about the pollusion that the factories produce that make the cats in the fist place there chimnies do not have cats on them nore do power stations burning coal oil etc.
I heard say once that it produces more pollution to make one cat than it will save on the car it is fitted to, in is normal life.
My Westfield does not have one but the Focus has, if I build another kit car with a Duratec engine it will need a cat for SVA but not for MOT as its amature built from parts. Vis smoke only silly but true at the moment.
Paul.
I heard say once that it produces more pollution to make one cat than it will save on the car it is fitted to, in is normal life.
My Westfield does not have one but the Focus has, if I build another kit car with a Duratec engine it will need a cat for SVA but not for MOT as its amature built from parts. Vis smoke only silly but true at the moment.
Paul.
Cats are also the most inefficient way to clean exhaust emmissions.
Rover group had a head start on lean burn technology but the tree huggers (no disrespect to proper informed conservationists though) out there wanted a quick fix, something had to be seen to be done so cat introduction was the rather short sighted response.
Cats only work in a temperature window of 600-800 C (or thereabouts) .. most cats on cars on short journeys never get hot enough to work, whilst you're stuck in traffic on a cold day they're cooling down and not working, if your lambda sensors develop a fault / become old and lethargic they won't work.
It totally pisses me off when uninformed people spout off about the benefits of cats when in fact the benefits are pitiful in the grand scheme of things.
PSV school run .. no exhaust emissions testing at all on these vehicles.
Diesels .. the worst vehicle poluters on the planet.
Speed humps / traffic calming / etc .. increase the emissions in built up areas.
Only when a modern car is in top condition and at full operating temp does it actually bring a benefit.
Makes me angry.
Rover group had a head start on lean burn technology but the tree huggers (no disrespect to proper informed conservationists though) out there wanted a quick fix, something had to be seen to be done so cat introduction was the rather short sighted response.
Cats only work in a temperature window of 600-800 C (or thereabouts) .. most cats on cars on short journeys never get hot enough to work, whilst you're stuck in traffic on a cold day they're cooling down and not working, if your lambda sensors develop a fault / become old and lethargic they won't work.
It totally pisses me off when uninformed people spout off about the benefits of cats when in fact the benefits are pitiful in the grand scheme of things.
PSV school run .. no exhaust emissions testing at all on these vehicles.
Diesels .. the worst vehicle poluters on the planet.
Speed humps / traffic calming / etc .. increase the emissions in built up areas.
Only when a modern car is in top condition and at full operating temp does it actually bring a benefit.
Makes me angry.
You're right - it's not a responsible thing to do but you could level the charge that owning any kind of inefficient performance car is environmentally irresponsible.
I suspect it's a quite rapidly decreasing minority of people who are driving cat-less cars. Very few people, on an absolute scale, have the inclination to replace their cats just at MOT time.
You worry too much.
>> Edited by Yertis on Saturday 1st February 13:13
I suspect it's a quite rapidly decreasing minority of people who are driving cat-less cars. Very few people, on an absolute scale, have the inclination to replace their cats just at MOT time.
You worry too much.
>> Edited by Yertis on Saturday 1st February 13:13
Hmmm..
AECC has a somewhat different view to those points.
www.aecc.be/en/aecc.htm
Now - whilst it's a trade organisation, and so has an immediate conflict of interest - I'm not sure it's so clear cut.
As I also typically do long journeys (given I get the train into work every day and hence only drive at the weekends / on client meetings) that doesn't apply to me.
I also can't agree with your "trucks/vans/buses do the damage - so I'm alright jack" view!
J
AECC has a somewhat different view to those points.
www.aecc.be/en/aecc.htm
Now - whilst it's a trade organisation, and so has an immediate conflict of interest - I'm not sure it's so clear cut.
As I also typically do long journeys (given I get the train into work every day and hence only drive at the weekends / on client meetings) that doesn't apply to me.
I also can't agree with your "trucks/vans/buses do the damage - so I'm alright jack" view!
J
joust said:
As I also typically do long journeys (given I get the train into work every day and hence only drive at the weekends / on client meetings) that doesn't apply to me.
J
Surely you don't use the quattro for these long journeys? Sounds like it's time to sell the Quattro then. How much you looking for?
>> Edited by Yertis on Saturday 1st February 12:19
Joust - I wasn't try to paint an "im alright jack picture". My main point is that the automotive industry, cars and light vans in particular, is having to spend millions on reducing emissions. Not a bad thing in itself, if only due to the amount of engineering jobs it creates. Are other for industries coming under the same pressure? I think not.
As an example take evaporative emissions (emissions caused by fuel vapour loss from fuel tanks). The US laws are now so strict on evap emissions that car tyres are actually releasing more "harmful emittants" into the atmosphere than fuel tanks. This is requiring the tyre manufacturers to spend millions on tyre technology. Who is paying for all this development - the end customer?
When you consider that the US is the most polluting country on the planet, mainly due to heavy industry, it doesn't make too much sense to me. Especially when you consider that they have the toughest automotive emission laws. Dont get me wrong, Im all in favour of tightening up on emissions to protect the environment, but it needs to be done effectively. Personally I believe that governments/regulatory bodies hit the automotive industry so hard because, politically, it makes them look like they are concerned about the environment; we all own cars so vehicle emissions are high profile. I would have thought an effective transport policy which got people out of their cars would be more effctive.
As an example take evaporative emissions (emissions caused by fuel vapour loss from fuel tanks). The US laws are now so strict on evap emissions that car tyres are actually releasing more "harmful emittants" into the atmosphere than fuel tanks. This is requiring the tyre manufacturers to spend millions on tyre technology. Who is paying for all this development - the end customer?
When you consider that the US is the most polluting country on the planet, mainly due to heavy industry, it doesn't make too much sense to me. Especially when you consider that they have the toughest automotive emission laws. Dont get me wrong, Im all in favour of tightening up on emissions to protect the environment, but it needs to be done effectively. Personally I believe that governments/regulatory bodies hit the automotive industry so hard because, politically, it makes them look like they are concerned about the environment; we all own cars so vehicle emissions are high profile. I would have thought an effective transport policy which got people out of their cars would be more effctive.
Well, I suspect this thread has been a reaction of the decat a 355 thread (sorry don't believe in coincidences). In all honesty, I don't know you enough to know what you are thinking, but if its sincerely to save the environment, then you are a hypocrite. We all are. The best way to stop emissions is to stop driving full stop. But even then, you are not considering other factors that cause harmful gases, including even natural causes.
Also, as Joospeed says, I read an article once where Honda had developed something that was more effective than the catalytic converter. Thing is the big yanky companies had not been able to get their engines to the same spec, and so the Honda could not be the standard. Cats were rushed into use without any regards for the side effects that they have.
Also, many cars will pass the emissions tests without the cats, so I guess even according to your reasoning that is not a bad thing to do (drop the cats).
Also, as Joospeed says, I read an article once where Honda had developed something that was more effective than the catalytic converter. Thing is the big yanky companies had not been able to get their engines to the same spec, and so the Honda could not be the standard. Cats were rushed into use without any regards for the side effects that they have.
Also, many cars will pass the emissions tests without the cats, so I guess even according to your reasoning that is not a bad thing to do (drop the cats).
Yes - I admit I bought a car (ok - yes - it is the dogs bolloxs 
) that does 25mpg (see my profile) which spookily is better than a lot of other "normal" cars, and a darn site better that a lot of other Sport cars, but it still has a cat on it, and so potentially is a lot better than non-cat cars.....
As for buying frugal cars - what on earth do you thinkt the Elise is????!!!! It's the lowest CO2 bracket sports car (and lower in CO2 than a Mondeo 1.6), and does 45mpg - actually better than a 1.2l Ford Fiesta!
.
I also bought the smallest engine X5 available! (err - OK - that's streaching it a bit)
But, my point was should one remove the cat? I'm having more than one thought about it, and hence the thread where it seems that everyone else is doing it (and no ninga - it wasn't only your thread that did it).
With the cat on my Noble I know it's a lot "better" for the environment than the Quattro - hence I'm in a total quandry really!
J
Finger trouble today!
>> Edited by joust on Saturday 1st February 14:02
>> Edited by joust on Saturday 1st February 14:03
) that does 25mpg (see my profile) which spookily is better than a lot of other "normal" cars, and a darn site better that a lot of other Sport cars, but it still has a cat on it, and so potentially is a lot better than non-cat cars..... As for buying frugal cars - what on earth do you thinkt the Elise is????!!!! It's the lowest CO2 bracket sports car (and lower in CO2 than a Mondeo 1.6), and does 45mpg - actually better than a 1.2l Ford Fiesta!
. I also bought the smallest engine X5 available! (err - OK - that's streaching it a bit
) But, my point was should one remove the cat? I'm having more than one thought about it, and hence the thread where it seems that everyone else is doing it (and no ninga - it wasn't only your thread that did it).
With the cat on my Noble I know it's a lot "better" for the environment than the Quattro - hence I'm in a total quandry really!
J
Finger trouble today!
>> Edited by joust on Saturday 1st February 14:02
>> Edited by joust on Saturday 1st February 14:03
There are a couple of potential problems with Cats.
They are very expensive and have a relatively short lifespan, so taking it out can save one hell of a lot of money.
There is also a problem with heavy metal emissions from Cat equipped cars. A study a couple of years ago (I cant recall the source, pretty sure it was new scientist) showed that the levels of palladium deposits in the streets of london were climbing rapidly.
Palladium isnt he only heavy metal used in Cats, IIRC there are a variety of others. Heavy metal contaminiation is not a good thing from a health perspective and every cat equipped car kicks out trace amounts. With a lot of cat equipped cars, over the long term this may be a real danger.
They are very expensive and have a relatively short lifespan, so taking it out can save one hell of a lot of money.
There is also a problem with heavy metal emissions from Cat equipped cars. A study a couple of years ago (I cant recall the source, pretty sure it was new scientist) showed that the levels of palladium deposits in the streets of london were climbing rapidly.
Palladium isnt he only heavy metal used in Cats, IIRC there are a variety of others. Heavy metal contaminiation is not a good thing from a health perspective and every cat equipped car kicks out trace amounts. With a lot of cat equipped cars, over the long term this may be a real danger.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff