Precat Deletes for Pilot 05+

[stillhere153]

it is not my product... the website belongs to a member on v6performance.net

... I joined to make those aware like me who are coo coo and would run catless (on the track of course) that the product exists...

not spamming at all... spammers don't come back and discuss products now do they?

ps. I own an 07 Acura TL Type S

[whizmo]

Originally posted by macphanatic
Dyno test was done in accordance with PA Emissions testing requirements. IIRC, it requires a warm up and is done at specific rpm's. While it may not be perfect, the test raised questions as to the worth of the cats.

Oh please. This is like wondering if cigarette smoking really causes cancer or driving at high speed really lowers fuel mileage. The science and efficacy of catalytic converters is well proven and not some conspiracy. Do you also believe the oil companies are keeping us from 140 mpg carburetor?

You can sometimes remove cats and get some cars past state emissions tests, but that's because the tests are not very stringent - they're designed to weed out the "monsters" that have 100x normal emissions, but they will let cars past that have 2x or 5x normal emissions.

- Mark

[macphanatic]

Well proven by whom? By the same people that believe that ethanol is a viable fuel solution?

As an engineer that has had to deal with government agencies and some of their requirements, I don't believe everything they tell us or some of the data they cite. Most of them don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. All I really would like to see is an unbiased test of the benefit of catalytic converters. If they reduce emissions by 5%, but create a fuel inefficiency of 20%, are they really helping the environment?

[stillhere153]

I am not a big mac guy... but macphanatic does prove a point... if they "convert" the knox yet result in wasted fuel doing so, the amount of fuel needed to compensate the waste will cancel out the "good" cats do...

so in actuality it is like

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by macphanatic
Well proven by whom? By the same people that believe that ethanol is a viable fuel solution?

As an engineer that has had to deal with government agencies and some of their requirements, I don't believe everything they tell us or some of the data they cite. Most of them don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. All I really would like to see is an unbiased test of the benefit of catalytic converters. If they reduce emissions by 5%, but create a fuel inefficiency of 20%, are they really helping the environment?

Hu?

You don't think Cats help emissions at almost no loss of efficiancy?

Based on?

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by stillhere153
I am not a big mac guy... but macphanatic does prove a point... if they "convert" the knox yet result in wasted fuel doing so, the amount of fuel needed to compensate the waste will cancel out the "good" cats do...

so in actuality it is like

Where do you get the idea they waste fuel?

[whizmo]

Originally posted by macphanatic
Well proven by whom? By the same people that believe that ethanol is a viable fuel solution?

Again, you're asking if the world is really round. Basic catalytic converter technology was developed in the mid-70's and has proven over the years to be reliable and very effective. It would not be remotely possible to reach the current level of emissions in today's cars without this technology.

Now, you sound like you're into the whole "government and regulation generally sucks" mode, so I'd just as soon not get into the discussion of whether catalytic converters are overall cost effective or whether we need emissions controls on cars in general. That's a political discussion.

What is germane to this discussion is what happens if you remove the cats from a modern three-way catalytic converter equipped car designed to use cats. And what happens is the emissions increase quite dramatically with either a loss or no change in fuel economy. So other than minuscule weight savings, the ability to use leaded fuel, and, of course, avoiding the expense of the converter at replacement time, there is no advantages whatsoever to taking the converter off a modern car.

Now if you could re-engineer the car's fuel injection and emissions controls systems with the assumption there would be no converter, you could potentially make it slightly more fuel efficient and offer slightly better performance. Catalytic converters to have a small cost in efficiency in return for their ability to reduce emissions to a vanishingly small levels. But this is an effort well outside abilities of a home mechanic.

- Mark