Has anyone tried making/using a catalytic converter warmer?

[roflwaffle]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[dremd]

I have been around a BMW 5 from the 90's that was California Spec that had an electric heater for the First Catalytic converter. Also had a second battery.

If I remember correctly it was a 1 year only thing and I am 99% sure it was California only.

If anybody is interested I can ask the BMW tech that was working on it at the time to dig up more info.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Christ

I'd much rather spend it on tuning the car so I didn't need the cat to pass emissions testing.

I would be blown away to find any cars (other than maybe the early cat adopters ie 75-77) that can be "tuned" to pass emissions without a cat that they were designed to pass with.

The auto industry is ABSOLUTELY INFAMOUS in saving 50 cents here, two dollars there on components that were useful or had value to the public. They are not going to put on $100 on precious metals into a device that a % of the public has never seen or even know what it does if they can get away without it.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by Duffman

I would be blown away to find any cars (other than maybe the early cat adopters ie 75-77) that can be "tuned" to pass emissions without a cat that they were designed to pass with.

The auto industry is ABSOLUTELY INFAMOUS in saving 50 cents here, two dollars there on components that were useful or had value to the public. They are not going to put on $100 on precious metals into a device that a % of the public has never seen or even know what it does if they can get away without it.

You're confusing their want to save a penny with the law, here. They put them on there because they don't have a choice, and their vehicles need to be able to cover a wide range of uses. For the individual, a vehicle can be tuned to cover the very limited range of duty that vehicle will see without having to have a catalytic converter to stay within emissions limits.

That doesn't mean it will pass visual testing, but I've already done tuning on vehicles to pass "sniffer" tests without cats on them. Ya know, you can pay emissions testing facilities to run your vehicle without inspection being done.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Christ

You're confusing their want to save a penny with the law, here. They put them on there because they don't have a choice,

You are wrong, the manufacturers (at least in the early years) were not mandated what equipment they were required to run, only how clean the tailpipe needed to be, it was the manufacturers responsibility to find the best way to achieve the regulation themselves.

[Christ]

Considering that federal law in the US requires that any car post 1972 (I think that's the correct year) have a catalytic converter (installed as original equipment) to pass emissions (excepting those with special permissions, which only include special use vehicles and those which obviously have no need for one), I think you need to check into that before you go calling me wrong.

[Duffman]

I dont need to "GO" check into anything, I've been reading anything I can get my hands on for the last 15+ years, not to come off as arrogant but I do know what I am talking about. Cats entered mainsteam use in 1975, but you can find manufacturers that managed without for quite a while.

Maybe before you "think about the correct year", you should check up on the regs.

[Christ]

California required pollution-reducing catalytic converters in 1975, General Motors Vice President Earnest Starkman told Congress that “It is conceivable that complete stoppage of the entire production (line) could occur….” Ford President Lee Iacocca claimed that the rule would “cause Ford to shut down.”

^^ PDF file explaining the EPA vs CARB issues involving legal testimony on both sides.

Good gods, I was off by 3 years... and the EPA began requiring them in 1975 on imported cars, at least. OF course, it would be hypocritical to require that they be installed on imported cars and not on domestics, so that would obviously mean they were a requirement on domestics as well. The US Automakers did not have a choice in the matter, in fact, several of them opposed it as laid out in the testimony above.

I said nothing of your arrogant tone, either. I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about, I'm saying that before you affirm someone as being "wrong", you should make sure you're totally right. In this case, you're not.

Second reference:

Working Catalysts Required on Imported Cars | EPA History | US EPA

Regulations governing the importation of motor vehicles currently require labels on the vehicles signaling that they meet EPA emission requirements for the year that they were manufactured. However, if a car was not built to meet emission standards, it will not have an EPA label and must be bonded. The importer is required to post bond equal to the value of the vehicle, plus duty, and have the vehicle modified so that it meets Federal requirements. EPA must approve the modification and issue a statement that the vehicle has been brought into conformity with emission requirements before the Customs bond can be released and the vehicle granted final admission into this country.[...]

[Duffman]

CVCC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not sure if it was built in the U.S.A or not but it violates your claim to "Must have a cat" past 75.

Regardless, what I said was, it was not mandated what equipment was required, it was the manufacturers reponsibility to meet the standards of tailpipe cleanlyness the best way they could.

Also, I was not accusing you of calling me arrogant, it is arrogant to say "I am right" as I did, but in this case I am.

[Clev]

Originally Posted by Duffman

CVCC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not sure if it was built in the U.S.A or not but it violates your claim to "Must have a cat" past 75.

Regardless, what I said was, it was not mandated what equipment was required, it was the manufacturers reponsibility to meet the standards of tailpipe cleanlyness the best way they could.

Also, I was not accusing you of calling me arrogant, it is arrogant to say "I am right" as I did, but in this case I am.

My '80 Accord, a California-emissions car, did not have a cat. (Label says "Non-catalyst.")