| From | Message |
jon
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/05/2005
22:27:38
|
 Subject: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
i have a 99 v6 3.9 with no cat (i bouht it like that) and i got dual flows and an intake. should i get a high flow cat put on or leave it? and what are the advatages and disadvatages to that?
|
Sam
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/05/2005
23:04:37
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
Passing emissions is the only advantage. The only disadvantage would be cost. A high flow cat wont impede exhuast flow enough to make a difference.
|
02daksxt
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/07/2005
13:09:19
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
how do you get around the sensors when you take the cat off so that the check engine light doesn't come on?
|
Bob Lincoln
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/07/2005
14:57:56
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
You leave the cat on and performance is the same, and you avoid a criminal record.
|
Sam
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/07/2005
15:35:21
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
Some people get away with just slapping the o2 sensor on the side of the frame. If the check engine light comes on you can get an o2 sensor simulator.
|
Craig
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/07/2005
17:53:11
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
You might be surprised at how little the Cat really restricts your exhaust flow, even a factory one these days. I would say keep the cat, or if you must, high performance cat. Generally you're not going to feel a whole lot of difference.
|
jon
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/08/2005
21:07:13
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
mines straight piped so would it be worth it to get a high flow cat?
|
Craig
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/08/2005
22:18:00
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
straight as in it currently has the factory cats on it, or straight as in no cats no mufflers?
That's kind of a personal opinion question whether or not to keep the cat or loose it. It is in violation of federal emissions code to loose it, but if that doesn't bother you, as it doesn't bother me, who cares? So long as the truck is running OK and you're not getting the persistant check engine light, I don't think there's anything wrong with NOT having a cat.
Personally I think it also depends on how much you rely on the truck too- I don't know how much faith I would put in an 02 simulator.
|
iLUVfatCHICKS
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/09/2005
00:01:15
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
my fat chick has a cat...
|
Bob Lincoln
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/09/2005
08:35:21
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
"but if that doesn't bother you, as it doesn't bother me, who cares? So long as the truck is running OK and you're not getting the persistant check engine light, I don't think there's anything wrong with NOT having a cat."
I breathe, therefore I care.
Running with no cat raises HC emissions by 10x, and causes more smog, which causes asthma attacks for my wife, and the 10% of our population who have asthma.
|
Craig
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/09/2005
15:06:45
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
Bob, no offense but you need something better to do than worry about what the guy next to you drives.
It's amazing people didn't die 50 years ago when there was nothing on cars, and we used *gasp* leaded fuel. Of course airplanes use leaded fuel and a practically straight piped exhaust. Now the federal government wants to ram an emissions probe up my ass.
I feel bad for your wife, B-Linc, because I have close friends who suffer from asthma, but you can't blame that on somebody somwhere without a cat.
|
Bob Lincoln
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/12/2005
08:09:43
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
"It's amazing people didn't die 50 years ago when there was nothing on cars, and we used *gasp* leaded fuel." AH, but they did. Why do you think smog was a huge problem up to 1970, and has receded dramatically? And the number one cause for lead poisoning in children was car exhaust, not lead paint. We are making strides, and thoughtless idiots are reversing them.
|
Craig
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/12/2005
17:57:39
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
I garuntee you it wasn't car emissions. The insignifcant pollutants belched from our cars are laughable in the face of large scale refineries and manufacturing plants, and they have been cleaned up significantly since the 70s as well. Lead exposure is also one of the most overblown problems ever seen by mankind.
Ask just about any chemical engineer. They'll tell you the same thing I did.
|
Bob Lincoln
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/13/2005
08:51:05
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
I doubt that. I work with chemical engineers and they laugh at your ignorance. Auto emissions account for half of the pollutants in this nation, even today. As far as power plants being cleaner, another joke. The Mirant power plant in Sandwich, MA has been cited for Clean Air Act violations more than 1,000 times in the last 15 years. A visible brown smear extends cross the sky on any given day over Cape Cod. Cars within a mile of it are showing sulfuric acid damage to their paint, and clothes hung on the line show chemical attack within a few washings. The next nearest fossil fuel plant, Brayton Point in Somerset, MA, has also been cited numerous times for violation of both the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Finally, I worked for 16 years at a process control company that designs and sells equipment to these plants, and I can guarantee you, they are still filthy and so corrosive we had to use exotic materials to prevent the equipment from corroding away in a few months. Your argument has no credibility.
For the truth on lead exposure, and not uneducated brushoffs, go to http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/lead/index.html
It's amazing that mankind is the only creature that attacks himself, fouls his own air and water deliberately. The silliest thing about your argument is that you breathe the same air as everyone, so you participate in harming yourself.
|
Craig
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/13/2005
17:48:06
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
I will not to endeavour to hijeck this post, but suffice it to say you're wrong about a lot of stuff.
|
Bob Lincoln
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/13/2005
22:36:19
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
..but you can't say what about. Hmm....everything in my last post is documented.
|
Craig
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/13/2005
22:58:38
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
I think my last post was worded too harshly.
To be more plite, we should not have this discussion on Jon's post, it's very rude to Jon here. Post on the off topic board if you like and I'd be happy to discuss the issue there, but not here where it does not belong.
I still disagre about the cat- it doesn't matter in the long run. You're still wrong about 50% of emissions comming from cars.
Again, I'd be more than happy to discuss in the off topic board. I'm sure it would be an interesting topic.
|
Bob Lincoln
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/14/2005
08:38:17
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
"You're still wrong about 50% of emissions comming from cars." Head in the sand.
http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/takingtoxics/p1.html#3
|
Craig
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/14/2005
17:18:46
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
and he still doesn't take the hint. I will not further debate you here, stop trying to make me. It's rude.
|
DennisO
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/14/2005
21:49:58
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
Its ok Craig. Bob has always been the Forum NAZI on the clean air subject. I doubt you or anyone else will win any argument with him about cat or no cat. Just let him think he is making a difference and maybe he will lay off (probably not though. Bob does need to realize though that until every last drop of fossil fuels are used pollution will not decrease cat or no cat.
|
ewraven
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/15/2005
02:32:57
| RE: no cat or cat
IP: Logged
Message:
To Jon, the original poster,
Whether you have inspections in your area or not, a catalytic converter is still required by law. If you are written up for no cat, you are not looking at dealing with the local municipalities for that fine. That's a Federal EPA thing. And according to the majority of Americans and the rest of the government, the EPA is always right.
If you or anyone else wants to risk getting stuck with three thousand+ dollar fines; hey, it's your money and it's going to the government, that's a good thing in my book.
I am a person who prides himself on following what common sense would dictate. My common sense just tells me it would be stupid to blatantly drive around with no cat. Maybe it's because I am not a man who gambles, I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me.
People will of course say that you'll never get caught driving around with no cat. I promise you, the EPA has agents out in the field tasked with just these sorts of things. And not to mention, all it takes is one cop looking up under the car during a traffic stop. Or for that matter, one anal mechanic noticing the lack of a catalytic converter when working on said vehicle while it is up on a lift.
If you still want to run without a cat, buy one and then hollow it out. That would cut down on 80 percent of the risks right there.
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
