[Funkycheeze]

Here is a thread with some nice data showing the boost loss and then getting pretty much all the power back when raising the boost back to the pre cat level. Obviously they did run out of flow on the top end but the solution for that should be a higher flowing (bigger?) cat, not it's removal.

Test Pipe VS 130 cell MS high-flow cat - EvolutionM - Mitsubishi Lancer and Lancer Evolution Community

Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain - Test Pipe VS 130 cell MS high-flow cat - A Evo came in today to switch from a test pipe to a 130 cell metal substrate high-flow cat because he wanted to get rid of a little stink and make the car a little quieter. A 130 cell metal substrate is much more...

www.evolutionm.net

That is a 130 cell spun metal cat they are using of unknown diameter, maybe 2.5"?

obviously the OEM style ones aren't great. I use a magnaflow 59929 which is metal spun and I believe 100 cell.

 

[toyonda]

The cat wasn’t damaged it was brand new. The trick was removing the obstruction. I’ve seen tuned cars with cats gain power throughout the band, and better throttle response after removal.

you can site as many articles as you want. I’ve seen it first hand. I’m still not putting a cat on my toy car. Nor will I tell anyone to take theirs off or to put one on

 

[Funkycheeze]

Love the 'I don't care to learn instead I'll just stick with my incorrect assumptions' argument. Go ahead and drive your pollution mobile around, spewing toxic gas into the environment - your preconceived notions a will help you sleep tight!

 

[Funkycheeze]

Also you seem to have changed your tune from 'built an exhaust with no cat' to 'removed a high flow cat and gained power' - perhaps you have a dyno plot to share? Or is it the infamous 'butt dyno'??

 

[SDSUsnowboards]

I don't know anything about what you guys are talking about, but I do know that if you aren't a recognized expert in your field who has published papers on the subject matter being discussed, then you probably shouldn't cite your education or your profession and expect it to serve as persuasive evidence behind your position.

Also, don't stop now. 🍿

 

[Funkycheeze]

Nah, I'm done here. I promised myself years ago not to argue with the wilfully ignorant.

 

[toyonda]

Love the 'I don't care to learn instead I'll just stick with my incorrect assumptions' argument. Go ahead and drive your pollution mobile around, spewing toxic gas into the environment - your preconceived notions a will help you sleep tight!

you are an odd one. A catalytic converter is an obstruction in the exhaust system plain and simple. If you get butt hurt that I don’t have a cat on my car that’s your personal problem little fella.

my “tune” is still the same but my reference to my 3” exhaust is on my mrs. I have built and dyno’d hundreds of cars.

The novelty of a dyno graph wore off about 15 years ago, I don’t take pictures of them. They are saved on the dyno computer.

Just for you though, I’ll go throw some leaded 110 octane in the car and go do a nice smokey burnout with my toxic R compound tires

 

[turbo_jimbo]

Meh, I don't think not having a cat on the few cars owned by enthusiasts that hardly drive them really counts as pollution. Spilling drops of gasoline, being irresponsible with trash, volcanoes, and electric vehicles are a much bigger issue.

 

[turbo_jimbo]

Also, California and other Socialists.

 

[FormInFunction]

I think the issue is where do you draw the line on a no brainer environmental move like having a catalytic converter on a daily driven vehicle? Is me pouring my used oil down a sewer drain just one vehicle so who cares? Was the Exxon Valdez just one tanker spill, the Deepwater Horizon just one drilling accident? Chernobyl just one reactor meltdown? Not only do little things add up but people that cross lines & get away with it will always make miles out of those initial inches. We could apply the same principles of this conversation to deforestation, whaling, or any number of global issues but much of what has been written above proves it would be an even greater waste of time.

I think the real issue is when one can choose to improve the world for little to no effort/negative impact yet actively choose not to. Lastly, I do find it ironic that most people that use the term socialists would call themself conservative, yet oppose environmental conservation...that said, I agree those socialist commies running California infringe too far on the rights of individuals, even for me.

 

[turbo_jimbo]

Where I live, there is an option for 20+ year old cars to not have emissions checks and no emissions equipment as long as you don't drive more than 5,000 miles a year. In every other county of this state, there is no emissions testing for anyone. I draw the line with cars that aren't driven much have little to no impact. It's ok to be passionate, but reason needs to apply too. The potential damage is nothing close to a nuclear melt down, or what electric / hybrid cars do in normal service.

 

[toyonda]

I live in an area similar to jimbo and agree with everything he just said.

this one is sure to upset the cheese man:
Global warming is fake. It’s a season shift.
emissions regulations on vehicles has always been about money.

I also think every conservative is in agreement that deforestation is a way bigger problem than the production and consumption of fossil fuels will ever be.

 

[Funkycheeze]

I think the real issue is when one can choose to improve the world for little to no effort/negative impact yet actively choose not to.

This is my entire point. Running a high flow cat as opposed to none is such a insignificant performance penalty compared to the drastic reduction in toxic emissions, I just can't see the reason not to. Even more on a turbo car where making up for any power loss is just a tiny boost adjustment away.

 

[Funkycheeze]

this one is sure to upset the cheese man:
Global warming is fake. It’s a season shift.
emissions regulations on vehicles has always been about money.

That doesn't make me mad, it just confirms to me your lack of intelligence and critical thinking skills. Of course a climate change denier would argue against pollution controls. How sad.

But it's all just a huge conspiracy with literally the entire scientific community trying to pull the wool over our eyes of course! Let's bring back coal power and steam engines to stick it to the man!

 

[SDSUsnowboards]

Respectfully, some counter points as devil's advocate.

Was the Exxon Valdez just one tanker spill? Deepwater Horizon just one drilling accident? Chernobyl just one reactor meltdown?

Those were catastrophic events with a significant, measurable long-term impacts on the regions where they occurred. The same is not true of a single car going around catless.

We could apply the same principles of this conversation to deforestation

If we allowed any one person who feels so inclined to chop down one tree in their local vicinity, the world would still be flush with trees.

whaling

If we let any person so inclined to go and hunt a whale, it would probably have little impact on whale populations because so few people would feel so inclined. The same can be said for people who feel inclined to drive a vehicle without a cat.

I think the real issue is when one can choose to improve the world for little to no effort/negative impact yet actively choose not to.

I completely agree that is an issue; however, there is some disagreement about whether it actually takes "little to no effort" to maintain one's emissions equipment. One's financial means and goals with respect to their vehicle would be the determining factors.

Lastly, I do find it ironic that most people that use the term socialists would call themself conservative, yet oppose environmental conservation...that said, I agree those socialist commies running California infringe too far on the rights of individuals, even for me.

The term conservative refers only to conservation of traditional values. In the American context, that means free enterprise, private ownership, and other traditional values, among which environmentalism isn't one of them. But.... wait long enough and maybe it will be!

I agree about California!

 

[SDSUsnowboards]

I live in an area similar to jimbo and agree with everything he just said.

this one is sure to upset the cheese man:
Global warming is fake. It’s a season shift.
emissions regulations on vehicles has always been about money.

I also think every conservative is in agreement that deforestation is a way bigger problem than the production and consumption of fossil fuels will ever be.

I'm not an environmentalist, and I don't care about your cats, feline or otherwise, but you are wrong. Natural global warming and cooling occurs much more slowly than the warming we are seeing now. It's happening faster which means animals and plants will not be able to adapt fast enough to their changing environment to survive. Further, when we reach the apex of the warm period, it will be warmer than would occure naturally. Finally, it will last longer, since the planet's natural mechanisms for obsorbing greenhouse gasses can only work at capacity.

If you want to play the sophisticated woke skeptic, then a better position to take is by asking an environmentalist if anything can realistically be done to stop the man-driven portion of global warming, given than there are well-populated countries that are in the coal-driven industrial stage of their development, and more that have yet to even enter that phase.

 

[FormInFunction]

I think most (all?) states have some sort of exception on “Historical” cars, whether that is 20, 25yrs old, etc. This is understandable, and soon my own car will fall into this category however I’m referring to daily driven cars. I’m not referring to purpose built drag racing cars, road racing, rally cross, etc. The number of cars in this country, in the world, add up to a huge environmental impact, even things that would be individually negligible (for example a 1 mpg difference in fuel economy, cat vs no cat, etc) has enormous effects on the large scale. Ironically the large scale examples I referenced (save Chernobyl) probably have less environmental impact than en masse catalytic converter deletes but my main point is where do we draw the line on the “not my problem” approach?

It’s kinda like the difference between choosing to drive a diesel pickup truck vs choosing to roll coal on any car that pulls up next to you & gets over 30 mpg...one is a reasonable decision & not everyone needs to drive a Prius, the other is a willful act for only negative effect.

I’m not a tree hugger, I’m not a socialist, & I’m not telling you how to live. I’m a simple man that believes in social responsibility. I do believe when it comes to doing the right thing the minimal efforts of the many have, and always will, overcome extremist contributions in either direction.

 

[FormInFunction]

Respectfully, some counter points as devil's advocate.

1. Those were catastrophic events with a significant, measurable long-term impacts on the regions where they occurred. The same is not true of a single car going around catless.

2. If we allowed any one person who feels so inclined to chop down one tree in their local vicinity, the world would still be flush with trees.

3. If we let any person so inclined to go and hunt a whale, it would probably have little impact on whale populations because so few people would feel so inclined. The same can be said for people who feel inclined to drive a vehicle without a cat.

I completely agree that is an issue; however, there is some disagreement about whether it actually takes "little to no effort" to maintain one's emissions equipment. One's financial means and goals with respect to their vehicle would be the determining factors.

The term conservative refers only to conservation of traditional values. In the American context, that means free enterprise, private ownership, and other traditional values, among which environmentalism isn't one of them. But.... wait long enough and maybe it will be!

I agree about California!

I had to number your replies because although the repeated quotes look way better they are way above my pay grade! I appreciate the devil's advocate, I find it is often harder to justify one's position than to simply argue against that of another for good reason.

1. We keep saying a single car but individuals are what make up the masses; trees are what make up forests (or if that drives to close to being a climate jab I can change it to individual fish make up the school). The truth is that if we zoom out our perspective far enough the oil spills & even reactor meltdown have no effect on the planet when you look at the whole. What's decades, or even hundreds of years in Earth's existence? Not even a blip. My point is that these largescale events cause us to make changes in how we do things because the effects are not only so large, but more importantly immediate. Because of this we lose perspective on the eventual cumulative effect of the individually smaller daily contributions. This is without even addressing the difference between these accidents versus purposefully deciding to cause additional pollution.

2. Around 2015 it was estimated there are 3 trillion trees in the world (Nature Journal), just over 420 trees per person living at the time. If we all cut down one tree a year, without replanting (because that is akin to the active decision to remove & not replace a cat) we would have ran out of trees in less time than it took to end slavery in North America. (Yes trees would spontaneously regrow but for the point of simplicity so as not to pull estimates out of my own tailpipe that statement doesn't address this).

3. Whaling is more appalling than trees IMHO because of the happened & has a much slower recovery rate. Estimates went from 200,00 - 300,000 Blue whales in the southern hemisphere from before intense whaling (Mid 1800's - late 1900's) to 2300 in the 90's. Of note that's with the creation of the international whaling commission capping not only Blue whale, but all whaling on an individual country basis for it's members. Whale meat is still considered a delicacy in many parts of the world. If international restrictions on whaling were lifted Great White Sharks would likely be the largest creatures in the ocean within 100 yrs. I would honestly argue that whales would be driven to extinction far quicker than catless cars would render the majority of major cities unlivable, but we aren't a whaling forum....unless....has the site been sold again?

I agree little to no effort is relative. I'm not referring to the single parent that can't afford to replace the catalytic converter some thief cute out of her car, therefore can't get his/her car inspected & is taking 5 buses & 2 trains to work 3 jobs. I'm referring to the person dropping hundreds or thousands of dollars to actively modify their car, but then choose to run no catalytic converter on their daily driven car. I know Reagan is conservative Jesus, but I had the image of Teddy Roosevelt in my head when I made that lighthearted comment. Tbh, I think traditional conservative values are unrecognizable compared to 10 - 15 yrs ago, but then again so is much of the world right now. I hope I didn't bore you too much with my lengthy responses, but sincerely appreciate civil dialogue.

 

[SDSUsnowboards]

I had to number your replies because although the repeated quotes look way better they are way above my pay grade! I appreciate the devil's advocate, I find it is often harder to justify one's position than to simply argue against that of another for good reason.

1. We keep saying a single car but individuals are what make up the masses; trees are what make up forests (or if that drives to close to being a climate jab I can change it to individual fish make up the school). The truth is that if we zoom out our perspective far enough the oil spills & even reactor meltdown have no effect on the planet when you look at the whole. What's decades, or even hundreds of years in Earth's existence? Not even a blip. My point is that these largescale events cause us to make changes in how we do things because the effects are not only so large, but more importantly immediate. Because of this we lose perspective on the eventual cumulative effect of the individually smaller daily contributions. This is without even addressing the difference between these accidents versus purposefully deciding to cause additional pollution.

2. Around 2015 it was estimated there are 3 trillion trees in the world (Nature Journal), just over 420 trees per person living at the time. If we all cut down one tree a year, without replanting (because that is akin to the active decision to remove & not replace a cat) we would have ran out of trees in less time than it took to end slavery in North America. (Yes trees would spontaneously regrow but for the point of simplicity so as not to pull estimates out of my own tailpipe that statement doesn't address this).

3. Whaling is more appalling than trees IMHO because of the happened & has a much slower recovery rate. Estimates went from 200,00 - 300,000 Blue whales in the southern hemisphere from before intense whaling (Mid 1800's - late 1900's) to 2300 in the 90's. Of note that's with the creation of the international whaling commission capping not only Blue whale, but all whaling on an individual country basis for it's members. Whale meat is still considered a delicacy in many parts of the world. If international restrictions on whaling were lifted Great White Sharks would likely be the largest creatures in the ocean within 100 yrs. I would honestly argue that whales would be driven to extinction far quicker than catless cars would render the majority of major cities unlivable, but we aren't a whaling forum....unless....has the site been sold again?

I agree little to no effort is relative. I'm not referring to the single parent that can't afford to replace the catalytic converter some thief cute out of her car, therefore can't get his/her car inspected & is taking 5 buses & 2 trains to work 3 jobs. I'm referring to the person dropping hundreds or thousands of dollars to actively modify their car, but then choose to run no catalytic converter on their daily driven car. I know Reagan is conservative Jesus, but I had the image of Teddy Roosevelt in my head when I made that lighthearted comment. Tbh, I think traditional conservative values are unrecognizable compared to 10 - 15 yrs ago, but then again so is much of the world right now. I hope I didn't bore you too much with my lengthy responses, but sincerely appreciate civil dialogue.

Conservatives are going through an identity crisis right now. Before, their strength was solidarity compared to the Democratic party. Now, both parties are fractured, with fringe extremists placing pressure on the centrists.

Anyway, I appreciate your response which must have taken some time to form, but I think I can reply to each point the same: comparing enthusiasts who delete their cats to mass whaling, mass deforestation, and nuclear meltdows is erroneous because they are not alike. You want to frame an enthusiast taking one car and deleting that cat as the equivalent to chopping down a tree every year, but I find that comparison objectionable. A person can only drive one car at a time, and a cat can only be removed but once. Therefore, removing one tree is the closest analogue. You might argue that said enthusiast drives the car every year, one after the other, and therefore a tree must be removed every year to match, but I think it's more accurate to say the tree they removed will be absent on the year they removed it, and it will continue to be absent each following year, and thus removing a cat and driving that car forever is equivalent to removing a tree but once. Trees grow back again and will replace the tree that was cut down, sure, and so also the planet absorbs greenhouse gasses and pollutants, eventually removing those created by the enthusiast.

Also, it's important to remember we're not talking about a hypothetical where every person with a car is deleting their cat. We're talking about the actual situation where there is a small group of people, enthusiasts, and more particular Petrus on Spyderchat, removing their cat just 'cuz. It is for that reason I used the language "a person so inclined." How many people do you think would be inclined to chop down a tree? Comparing enthusiasts removing cats, who probalby number in the tens of thousands, to 7 billion of people chopping down 7 billion trees is not an accurate comparison.

How many enthusiasts foregoing emissions equipment do you think exist globally? For this I can find no data, so we'll just have to put out a number that feels right. Let's put out what I think is probably an unrealistically high number: 1,000,000 enthusiasts who have a car that came with a cat, and took that cat out just 'cuz. There are nearly 1.5 billion cars being used in the world. 1,000,000 enthusiasts deleting cats amounts to less than .07% of global vehicles. Are you going to tell me those people are going to make a measurable difference in either pollution or greenhouse gasses that can be appreciated outside of an academic context?

Maybe they would, if they were all in the same city. They aren't. They are spread out across the globe. I just don't see how "correcting" the alleged problem of enthusiasts removing cats would create a difference that anyone could observe.

I think our energies and money would be better spent realizing that chasing greenhouse gasses is a losing venture. We're better off doing R&D on geoengineering that will not only reverse the global warming that is man-driven, but also that which occurs naturally. In fact, we already have the technology and wealth to make it happen. For the first time in the history of the universe, the climate of a planet can remain static, but only if we engineer it so.

 

[Funkycheeze]

.07% of global vehicles polluting at some 50 times of normal would comprise some 3.5% of non GHG emissions. Again, just using your numbers - I can tell you it is something regulators are looking at, unfortunately.