Quote:
Originally Posted by dichotomous
never said proven cleaner, said proven clean, as in passed emissions tests in new york. how is someone using a very similar exhaust setup with the same cat having their car pass emissions in the state next to mine (NOT cali) NOT proof of it being clean?
|
I never said it wasn't clean enough to pass emissions. Hell, someone could probably rig it to run such that it would pass w/o a cat given the test. Like I said before, my point wasn't that it wouldn't pass emissions, but that it may be dirtier than stock. Again, I never said it wasn't clean according to the emissions requirements of whatever state you're talking about, just that it may not be as clean as the stock setup was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dichotomous
I wont name names because I didnt ask permission, but you can go and look around on EPHATCH if you like. the exhaust gasses leaving the vehicle are cleaner than they would be with my old cat with holes, or with no cat as current, is this hard to understand?
|
I never said they wouldn't be cleaner, just that it may not be as clean as a stock setup. Is this hard to understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dichotomous
the high flow cat is a smaller cat, much smaller, so in theory it would heat up quicker because there is physically less to heat up.
|
Not necessarily. A big reason why newer cats are smaller and also cheaper is because the method/s of catalyst application are much more advanced and manufacturers can get away w/ using less in the way of pricey PMs (precious metals), which makes for a cheaper cat that may be able to meet the state's maximum allowable emissions on a properly functioning vehicle of whatever year. On the downside, fewer PMs means that the cat is more easily damaged (wrt emissions) when it gets too hot because it does not have as many PMs and warping the honeycomb is more likely to result in suboptimal catalyst exposure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dichotomous
I really dont feel like gathering up all kinds of irefutable data to prove my "cats pollute more through their creation than cars would over the life of a cat" theory, especially not to prove it to a forum.
|
You don't feel like it, you can't and were just running on about things you don't know w/ much certainty, there really ain't much of a difference from the POV of the rest of us. Besides, no one's forcing ya to prove anything so get ta unbunchin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dichotomous
logic can work well here, mining and smelting and processing of precious metals is a very dirty process to the environment, it might not make the road you live on smell nasty like a car will, but it will destroy a lot of land and create unlivable conditions for a large area around it. uncatylised cars just shift the pollution to where most of us americans live instead of somewhere else, so we choose the later. if you would like to look into it more then go ahead, I dont feel like pulling together a research paper for you
|
You don't have to put together a research paper. Odds are if it's true someone's already done the work for you and/or the figures are out there on the interwebz. If ya don't feel like backing up what you say w/ facts and figures, and you haven't so far, that's fine by me.
