Decatting- just slightly immoral?
Discussion
A number of owners have de-catted their cars, more would like to and quite a lot reckon it's desirable if you can be bothered.
Please don't think I'm sitting in judgement as I have a pre-cat V8S (although that was not really a selling point in my eyes), but I do not understand the reasoning behind removing a major form of environmental protection that works all the time to benefit everyone, just to gain a few BHP and decibels that you won't use every second you're driving.
It just seems, well, callous to be honest. Surely if you have a car that has cats fitted, you should pat yourself on the back and applaud the fact that at least ONE Government reg is trying to reduce pollution even if most of the other regs and Government actions encourage yet more.
Perhaps I misunderstand their use or consequences, but I for one wouldn't want a local power station to remove their own filters because they thought their exhaust wasn't a cool enough colour.
Just seems a step back.
I wondered if anyone thought likewise.
Please don't think I'm sitting in judgement as I have a pre-cat V8S (although that was not really a selling point in my eyes), but I do not understand the reasoning behind removing a major form of environmental protection that works all the time to benefit everyone, just to gain a few BHP and decibels that you won't use every second you're driving.
It just seems, well, callous to be honest. Surely if you have a car that has cats fitted, you should pat yourself on the back and applaud the fact that at least ONE Government reg is trying to reduce pollution even if most of the other regs and Government actions encourage yet more.
Perhaps I misunderstand their use or consequences, but I for one wouldn't want a local power station to remove their own filters because they thought their exhaust wasn't a cool enough colour.
Just seems a step back.
I wondered if anyone thought likewise.
Didn't the CAT become compulsory under the Tories?
I have a 999cc Fiesta with a CAT that I use far more often than the 3.2l Porka that doesn't.
Y'know, I find nothing finer than 200 tonnes of Bullied Pacific + train blatting through pristine countryside belching it's politically incorrect fug everywhere.
A big steam engine working VERY hard, sounds far better than any internal combustion engine ever could. It's primeaval, mind over matter.
I wouldn't want to travel to work behind a steam engine every day. It's smelly dirty, slow and expensive. That's why we have electric trains.
I have a 999cc Fiesta with a CAT that I use far more often than the 3.2l Porka that doesn't.
Y'know, I find nothing finer than 200 tonnes of Bullied Pacific + train blatting through pristine countryside belching it's politically incorrect fug everywhere.
A big steam engine working VERY hard, sounds far better than any internal combustion engine ever could. It's primeaval, mind over matter.
I wouldn't want to travel to work behind a steam engine every day. It's smelly dirty, slow and expensive. That's why we have electric trains.
Well, I do use the extra noise all the time, and no extra power in my case!
It's safer, as pedestrians can hear me coming.
Enviromentally, the car is more economical without the pre-cats, so I use less fossil fuels and emit less co2 for a given journey.
The car is still within the emission guidelines for the MOT.
And isn't there some issue with cats actually giving out poisons as they reach the end of their life?
No you're right, I'm totally shelfish, I just thought it would sound great and never considered emissions. And the "improved economy" just means I can drive it further! Hope this helps...
It's safer, as pedestrians can hear me coming.
Enviromentally, the car is more economical without the pre-cats, so I use less fossil fuels and emit less co2 for a given journey.
The car is still within the emission guidelines for the MOT.
And isn't there some issue with cats actually giving out poisons as they reach the end of their life?
No you're right, I'm totally shelfish, I just thought it would sound great and never considered emissions. And the "improved economy" just means I can drive it further! Hope this helps...
I had mine decatted when the cats melted blocking the exhaust. It wasn't really a choice thing and the cost of replacing them is prohibitive. Might do it soon though. Oddly I feel more guilty about driving a petrol guzzling 4 litre car and I've been thinking of going green. I've heard the Government is actually cutting subsidies for hybrid and LPG cars which combined with their lazy attitude towards renewable energy shows what a mess the whole environmental policy is.
monkeypilot said:
I had mine decatted when the cats melted blocking the exhaust.
Me too, and to be honest I don't give 2 hoots about the whole pollution issue, the muck we in the 'developed' countrys kick out is going to seem like an annoying fart when the developing countrys get up to speed, and everyone in India, China, and the rest of Asia get off their pushbikes and start driving 'de-cated' Allegros made under licence in Bombay
The precusor being an assumption that you buy into cars exhausts harming on a planentary scale theory 
, agree they may harm those closest, if they happen to have their nose up your pipe at the time 
.
Try standing down wind of a volcano
see how long you last, aparrently more pollution than man has created since the year dot is generated in one belch . I beleive that Nature is a lot cleverer and varied than we give it credit for i.e. we overstate our importance in the grand scheme of things.
More to the point though, I beleive that the processes in creating and sourcing the materials for Cats' is more harmful to the environment than the output of the cars they clag onto, that doesn't yet include of how you have to disapose and reclaim them aftrerwards. Engine design and efficiency is the answer IMHO.
You may gather I'm not convinced on this front yet.
Probably no fact in what I said above but I feel better for it
. Also the fact most of the 'green facts' are spouted by left wing zealouts with an agenda (not saying you are her though) in the first instance puts me on my guard a tad too.
Harry
PS must remember to cancel my subscription to the green party
, agree they may harm those closest, if they happen to have their nose up your pipe at the time . Try standing down wind of a volcano
see how long you last, aparrently more pollution than man has created since the year dot is generated in one belch . I beleive that Nature is a lot cleverer and varied than we give it credit for i.e. we overstate our importance in the grand scheme of things. More to the point though, I beleive that the processes in creating and sourcing the materials for Cats' is more harmful to the environment than the output of the cars they clag onto, that doesn't yet include of how you have to disapose and reclaim them aftrerwards
. Engine design and efficiency is the answer IMHO. You may gather I'm not convinced on this front yet
. Probably no fact in what I said above but I feel better for it
. Also the fact most of the 'green facts' are spouted by left wing zealouts with an agenda (not saying you are her though) in the first instance puts me on my guard a tad too. Harry
PS must remember to cancel my subscription to the green party
are Cats not designed to turn carbon monixide in to carbon dioxide. ie ozone into a known greenhouse gas??
Cats are not required by law, but the car MUST pass the "advanced emmissions test" from what I recall its not the CATS being tested but the emmisisons, its not a "Cat Test"
but I could be wrong,
The precats on a griff and chim are not required for ANY part of the test. they are there to meet the legistations of the EU (or sommit) that a car must meet an emisions level after a set period of time, from cold, no such test is required as part of the MOT...
>> Edited by pebbledash on Wednesday 26th January 16:34
Cats are not required by law, but the car MUST pass the "advanced emmissions test" from what I recall its not the CATS being tested but the emmisisons, its not a "Cat Test"
but I could be wrong,
The precats on a griff and chim are not required for ANY part of the test. they are there to meet the legistations of the EU (or sommit) that a car must meet an emisions level after a set period of time, from cold, no such test is required as part of the MOT...
>> Edited by pebbledash on Wednesday 26th January 16:34
pebbledash said:
Cats are not required by law, but the car MUST pass the "advanced emmissions test" from what I recall its not the CATS being tested but the emmisisons, its not a "Cat Test"
Wish that was true, then we wouldn't have had to toss BL's world-leading lean burn technology in the bin twenty years ago and stick cats on all modern cars, with all the expense, loss of power and reduced fuel efficiency that entails. Not that I'm bitter ...
stone said:
Bearing in mind that many cars if properly warmed up can pass the emmissions test de-catted (I believe JSG has recently in his Tuscan)
Flew straight through without the cats in. Will post up what the emissions readings were at some point tonight, but it was WAY better than the Cerb with cats. Guess you've also got to consider how good for the environment manufacturing and disposing of cats is, too...
J_S_G said:
stone said:
Bearing in mind that many cars if properly warmed up can pass the emmissions test de-catted (I believe JSG has recently in his Tuscan)
Guess you've also got to consider how good for the environment manufacturing and disposing of cats is, too...
Old defunct cats are not generally disposed of as they still hold a value (Currently £8 per can)Just for interests sake for a manufacturer to purchase the cat core (Can) currently costs about £30 a unit - add pipework and flog on
About time the retail price of cats fell a bit. Unfortunately the retailers are still sitting on their healthy margins 
>> Edited by stone on Wednesday 26th January 17:09
GreenV8S said:
pebbledash said:
Cats are not required by law, but the car MUST pass the "advanced emmissions test" from what I recall its not the CATS being tested but the emmisisons, its not a "Cat Test"
Wish that was true, then we wouldn't have had to toss BL's world-leading lean burn technology in the bin twenty years ago and stick cats on all modern cars, with all the expense, loss of power and reduced fuel efficiency that entails. Not that I'm bitter ...
Trying to read the law and all its amendments is a complete arse, but the way i read it, is that to comply with the law all manufactures are required to fit CATs (part of type aproval I think) but then after that, I don't think there is a legal requirement for them to be on the car, but it MUST pass the "advanced emmisions test" if the age of the car requires it to.
have a read here...he seems to know what he is talking about..
www.bobmckay.co.uk/emission.html
detailed here
www.bobmckay.co.uk/cattest.html
Quote:-
One important issue must be cleared up straight away. There is no requirement for a catalytic converter to be fitted to any vehicle, regardless of its age. It is however the most popular way of ensuring engines meet the emission legislation. The MOT test is testing the emissions from the tailpipe and if those emissions meet the standard then the vehicle passes. The term 'cat' test is inappropriate, the correct term is 'advanced emission test'. Its not the 'cat' that's being tested. There are a number of vehicles which are subject to the 'advanced emission test' but are capable of meeting the requirements without the use of a catalytic converter.
>> Edited by pebbledash on Wednesday 26th January 17:26
Cats. were designed to remove CO, Sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and unburnt fuel. There is now no sulphur in petrol and modern engines are so well tuned and designed so that they burn just the correct amount of fuel with just the correct amount of air with very little CO and Unburnt fuel exhausted. So their only purpose is to remove the oxides of nitrogen, not sure how much of that there is in exhausts or if it is checked in the MOT test.
Incidentally Lead was removed so as not to poison the catalyst.
Incidentally Lead was removed so as not to poison the catalyst.
furrydice said:
On noise side of things, is there a legal maximum noise level for cars. I believe there is for motorcyles. Anyone know?
Gary
I'd like to know this too. As far as I know, they dont test 'decibals' at the MOT test centres. So I would think its a subjective thing... but if some tight-up plod pulls you over and says you're noise polluting, in theory you can be done for that... But I dont think many cars can compete with likes of Harley fat-boys pistons banging through the exhausts... mmmm....
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff