Well guys/gals i do not intend to offend anyone by any means but i am, along with alot of folks am sick of hearing arguments about removing your cat. converter/converters and how it is so wrong, against the law etc. I really wanted to make this thread because i am highly FOR removing your cat. and let people discuss why they think they are for it or against it instead of people making threads about removing it and being flamed with ITS AGAINST THE LAW! No matter what forum, section or even website on cars for that matter theres always a thread about a guy asking about removing it and a bunch of people lecturing him on laws and all that junk. Now i am for removing your cats. and them not evening being on cars why? Heres why...

Think about all the materials it gos into making a cat. converter. First off the plant that its being made in was built from raw materials by machines that used diesel/gas. Next is the machines used to make the cat. converters which were made by other factorys that used eletricity, coal, diesel or gas to power there machines. Now the chain gos on and on and on for that but lets just stick with the factory making them... Now onto the raw materials to actually make the cat. converter they must be mined by machines that use fuel, then transported by machines that need fuel. Now you finally get it to the plant and it takes more energy to actually create the cat. converter. Now by the time all that gets done it produces ALOT more emissions doing all that per cat. then a car would ever put out without having a cat. converter.


Now onto a different argument point... Freeing up your exhaust gets you better gas mileage, now if vehicles came from the factory without all these cat. converters most cars have 2 or more now you could see about 1-2 mpg better give or take. Now by getting better gas mileage your using less fuel per mile which means you are going further per gallon and using less fuel then you would with a cat. now add up those extra miles over a few years and see how many gallons of gas you saved. Burning less gas equals less emissions so by the large amount of gas you didnt burn you would more then make for not having a cat. Now what do i mean? It takes alot of energy/resources to create and transport gas/diesel. Now again the factorys/sites that get the resources/create gas/diesel and then transport it have far less strict emissions. So if every car didnt come with a cat. and at the cost of producing more emissions got a bit better gas mileage. We would use less gallons of fuel in our vehicles which would make the amount of gallons needed go down. Now by not needing more gallons the factorys/sites which used fuel to make fuel would use less, so that cuts down on the amount of fuel used. Then the machines that factorys/sites use that have far less strict emission standerds dont produce as much emissions. Now i dont know the exact numbers but if you have a brain you can figure it out


Now my last/ and finally arguement point i could use (or think of at the moment ) is for the people that say ITS AGAINST THE LAW!!!!! Now for the folks that know how corrupt and stupid the people are in our government you will understand this... for the folks that dont please go rent Matt Damons movie called the "Inside Job" and you will understand after. The only reason a the government passes a law is it benefits them in some way. Now they will advertise a part of the law they think people will love and want passed but what you dont see is the fine print under the fine print. So just because the governemt says its illegal to go to the bathroom from 1pm-5pm are you not going to go to the bathroom? Of course you will if you have to go. Just because the government has some stupid part of a law passed because they think its right even though the people would never pass it doesn't mean its right. Theres alot of really stupid laws out there that got "sneaked" in past the people and a perfect example is the crash of the stock market and the current reccesion. Now what dos this have to do with cat. converters? There is a HUGE fine to anyone or even larger fine for a shop that removes a cat. and dos not replace it with another. Which means more $ for the federal government sense its a federal law and not state. Thats just part of the cookie so to speak and somebody that has more political knowledge please be free to add. Also all the emissions tests and federal regulations charge you to get them done which is also a large amount of $ that go to them. I cant think of anything else at the moment. Please keep the argument "educated" and make sure you explain what your postion is so others can understand

Edit: The reason this thread came to mind is i was talking to a fellow Ford Ranger owner and he recently took his in for some trans. work and got lectured by the shop owner on how he shouldnt have removed his cat. converters... He just told me the story today and really made me laugh and ticked me off at the same time.

 

Amen buddy!! totally agree....

 

One of the great advantages of living in the USA is our freedom of speech and the right to express one's opinion. The poster expressed his opinion - that's his right.

Now I'll express mine - I disagree. That's my right.

 

Now some places there is the annual yearly emission inspections and for that reason alone you cant remove your cat if you want to pass it !

 

I did not read the post by the OP...I have read it all before.........I am a libertarian by nature,,,,,,,,however I understand I need to follow the rules of society or else I will have to pay the consequences........it is against the law to remove, alter etc a CAT.........some states have emissions test that are required to Inspect the car......understand the consequences and then ...........you should do whatever you want...........

 

A libertarian in Boston, wow. Not disagreeing with you. However, I have found that many libertarians have a do whatever you want attitude. I too am a registered member of the Libertarian party. However, I feel that if you repeatedly break the rules that are established, you are destroying your own credibility (again, one of the consequences). Follow the rules, and if you feel they are unjust or unconstitutional, then work to change them.

I would definitely concede that while this is a federal law, that state laws should supersede them. However most states and local authorities have no laws that contradict the federal law, which makes the federal law stand. I will also concede that the EPA laws for the most part were never put in place or approved by elected officials. This I do agree is unconstitutional. I think every law proposed by a bureaucracy should still have to be approved by an appropriate elected official. This war needs to be fought on the political stage, not in a forum.

For those who started this topic, let me get this straight. You dislike that every time someone comes on this forum and asks how to do something of questionable legality that the law is brought up and the obstacles that need to be overcome in order to make it work. Well maybe I dislike the sound of saxophones. So does that give me the right to tell saxophone players not to play? People are going to express their opinions whether you like it or not.

The members here are required to comply with the forum host's guidelines, it is part of the requirements for membership. While the forum has allowed discussion on both sides, and has not interfered, I can tell you from talking to their representatives directly they are very uncomfortable with their members discussing how to perform illegal modifications to their vehicles.

On another note. Every one of us has a drivers license. Note the key word, "license". All too often we treat driving like it is our right. Yet every municipality, state, federal, local, recognizes that driving is not a right, it is a privilege granted to us by our governments. We agree to follow the rules of the road. While this is my opinion, should this not also apply to our vehicles, that we drive the vehicle in accordance with the greater laws of the land?

What we need to recognize is that every action has consequences, and often those consequences affect other people. Vehicle emissions are harmful. In remote country areas, the consequences are usually ignorable. But we have people around us that may have health problems for example. When you remove the converter from your vehicle, does it cross your mind that little Timmy might be having an asthma attack, and that perhaps he is sensitive to vehicle emissions? Again, maybe in some areas thats not a big issue. But here is an interesting fact to consider. In the United States, there are over 2000 deaths per year by carbon monoxide poisoning, and over 40,000 reported cases of carbon monoxide poisoning. While this comes from many sources, over a quarter of the deaths, and the vast majority of the reported cases are unintentional, and at least half of those contrary to popular belief, come from vehicles as opposed to faulty heating devices. Vehicles with catalytic converters produce almost no carbon monoxide, so the majority of vehicle caused carbon monoxide poisonings would be from vehicles that had been tampered with or improperly maintained.

Am I just blowing smoke? I used to own a 1990 Mazda B2600i pickup truck. For a while my brother was driving it every day. It had a properly functioning converter, but it had a crack in the exhaust manifold. This crack allowed raw exhaust gases to seep out. While it wouldn't seem like much, and it wouldn't seem that much could get inside the vehicle, my brother after a few days began showing the trademark signs of carbon monoxide poisoning. If this doesn't illustrate just how deadly this stuff is. Carbon monoxide has no smell, though you could occasionally get a whiff of other exhaust smells inside the cab. This same vehicle without a converter could have produces far greater amounts of this deadly gas. While most of it would have safely exited the tailpipe, all it would take to make a disaster is for it to seep into a basement, or be allowed to run somewhere that had less than ideal ventilation. Since the gas is a true poison, it accumulates in the body, so the effects don't go away as soon as you get away from the source.

On this forum we all have our right to express our views and opinions. If other members don't like that, tough. If its not the answer you wanted or expected, such is the way of a forum. The moment I post something and everyone else on the forum agrees completely, and there is no discussion is the day I had better find a new forum.

 

I would remove it just because I would get great satisfaction in offending those that are all RAAR GLOBAL WARMING and such.

 

No you won't. Catalytic converters are neutral in the global warming war. Sorry to burst your bubble, but global warming is neither fixed or caused by catalytic converters.

If the tree huggers are offended, it will only be because they are misinformed. Catalytic converters greatest strength is not with "protecting nature", but rather in "protecting the urban environment".

While its another topic, global warming is a political agenda coined by those who control the energy stocks, designed to increase the value of those stocks by creating a falsified scarcity of normally abundant resources. Global warming is caused by natural phenomenon that are outside the influence of mankind. It is easy for people who are effective speakers and well known authors to create a phenomenon that people will believe by finding evidence to support their claims while suppressing or debunking evidence to the contrary.

Urban warming on the other, which often conveniently supports global warming arguments, does exist. Its natural that if you build enough homes, asphalt roads, buildings, etc, and eliminate enough trees, that you will create a localized heating phenomenon which can then be used to convince people that this is happening on the entire planet.

If you really want to get the satisfaction of irritating some tree huggers, go build a shopping mall outside a national park or pour oil all over some endangered species of fern. I hear that some people consider sagebrush to be endangered. Destroying some of that would give me the double satisfaction of not having sagebrush and irritating some socialists.

 

"Global Warming" as it's called these days is a fictional issue. If you believe that it exists, then removal of my catalytic converter would likely offend you, on general principle. That would be my point.

 

I do not believe a properly functioning modern cat. converter offers enough restriction in the exhaust to justify removing it. Not sure how much it truly helps on a modern computer controled vehicle either.

However I feel the ones from the 70's and 80's did offer quite a bit of a restriction in exhaust flow. This is my personal opinion. I have nothing to really back this statement up.

The emission testing, however is total B.S. in my opinion-but let's not get sidetracked.

Allegheny County PA. has emission testing that goes something like this: (pre OBD II) less than 5000 miles per year-visual check only, over that and visual +sniffer.

1976 Cutlass- many years ago, I removed all emission junk and single exhaust. Added duals and headers. Knew someone who would pass it. Motor blew and was off the road for a while. Got it fixed and waited until emission was due and it went in. Some dummy gave it the full test and it failed visual and almost passed the sniffer (had to go to a different place-1st guy went out of business). Made up some stuff for under the hood and installed new dual exhaust with 2 universal "high flow" cat converters (illegal by my understanding of the law). It passed, and most importantly, felt no loss of power.

1991 Jeep Wrangler- cat converter #4 (yes #4 but it might be #5- it has 110,000 miles on it) broke apart internally and could not be driven very fast due to restriction. It lives in Butler Pa where there is no emission test (yet). I installed a new cat converter (just to make things easy on myself) and a performance cat back exhaust. The performance increase was almost as good as removing the stock exhaust and manifolds and adding headers and duals on my cutlass. Keep in mind the cat was junk.

1993 Ranger- really needed the original exhaust replaced. installed aftermarket exhaust ( 3"kit called a muffler back system. Mandrell bent exhaust with some turbo muffler I have never heard of before). Kept the cat on. On the highway I can stay in 5th longer before downshifting and I can go up hills and not downshift as much as before. Don't know if there is a increase in fuel economy as I am having too much fun with the new power.

These are my personal experiences and why I feel removing a properly functioning cat is not needed.

Truth of the matter, it's your ride, do what you want.

 

Everyone is making good postions and like i said its nice to have a thread like this so people can rant like me and express there opinion so people can understand why some people take them off or leave them on. Now for example i believe all 98 and newer rangers came with at least 2 cat. converters if i am correct? Now the problem i see is car manufacturers are being severely pressed for lower emissions yet the government and or the EPA dos not try to do much of anything on factory's or lawn equipment which are much larger polluters then vehicles. Now i do understand the fact that not having a cat. converter on your car will cause it to put harmful chemicals like Co2 into the air but my main argument is think about how much chemicals were put into the making of that cat. converter? Now most cars have 2 or more vehicles makes like Mercedes have alot more some having 6 or more, and a Cadillac Esclade has i believe something up around that number. Now all those cat. converters all to control the emissions on one car. It would be different if it was just one on every car but now its out of control. So i believe all the fuel/energy/materials being used to create a cat. converter and the emissions being put out with the making of that cat. converter far exceeds the emissions a car would put out in its life not to mention there adding more and more of them to vehicles. Now what cracks me up is the folks that drive the hybrids... now you may not be burning gas half the time or even all the time but where do they think there getting the majority of there energy? Most energy comes from coal plants/factory's which have less strict emissions polices. So the question is are they really that more green then just burning fuel? maybe but even lets say you get your energy from a dam or whatever those wind things are called how do you think those were created? by factory's producing more emissions. Now over time this would probably be a cleaner option but inless it takes over producing the majority of electricity i doubt its going to do much. Now removing just one cat. converter may not do a whole lot but overtime it will add up. I do live outside the city limits but this county you have to get a emissions test every year which is a visual inspection which includes looking under the car to make sure you have a cat. and a sniffer test. My 95 f150 without a cat. converter and a muffler for that matter just full on pipe from the manifolds back passed the sniffer test. And the guy didnt even do the visual inspection so i passed that. Now i doubt he cared because probably not alot of people take them off but i believe that if they do have to come factory with a cat. converter it should be legal to remove it or them if you would like. Majority of people probably wont remove it/them so no big deal. IMO its stupid to have something made illegal like this when there is much bigger problems in this world then worrying about every car having a cat. converter. Like i said to satisfy both partys so to speak have them come from the factory with them and make it legal to remove them if you want.

 

for the most part, if your engine is in good shape (not burning oil, fuel mixture correct, engine running at proper temp, ect) its not going to be polluting that badly anyways. my '93 has a gutted converter and runs no diffently than before i gutted it out. i have had a converter plug up before. ('82 faimont 200-6) a few jabs with a fencepost to breakup the honeycomb catalyst and it was back going like normal again. the newer stuff is harder to do that with, sensors mid-cat and post-cat require something to trick the system into getting proper information. i have no inspections where i live and i think it would be darn funny if a theif went to the trouble of trying to remove my cat only to discover its a empty chamber. theres alot of "mandated" equipment i dont like, air bags for one, seat belt lights/buzzers, the brake/park interlock on auto trans shifters. most things can be modified to my liking. ive been wanting to convert the steering wheel in the wifes S-blazer to a non-airbag wheel because of the excessive dish the airbag wheel has, i may have to swap out the whole steering coulmn to do that though. it still has a converter, but you can bet the momet i have issues with it, it will be a empty shell as well. i think ive gutted almost every converter of every vehicle ive ever owned. it would be neat to do before/after dyno checks to see if i did gain any power from it. but knowing its empty means knowing it will never give me a problem. and since i have no noticeable effects on performance or fuel milage, i dont feel a bit bad about it.

 

That is true, many cars do have too many converters. one converter on each bank is a fine number. Sometimes multiple converters are used because there is insufficient room for one larger converter, and larger converters have proven quite unreliable. Take the Jeeps and Dodges through the 80's and 90's. Their converters were free flowing and quite large, but their size created a large differential in the expansion and contraction of the substrate and the case. This allowed the substrate to loosen a little when the system heated up, then as the case cooled if the substrate had turned slightly, the case would crush it as it contracted. Ford torpedo style cats found on the larger trucks like F250s and the big cats found on GM 2500 and larger also had the same issues. This was not because the bigger vehicles put more strain on them. 1996-2000 VW Jettas had a single large cat. All of these vehicles had problems with the cats coming apart inside. So sometimes using multiple smaller cats can give you the same results and meet EPA requirements. What I do dislike is when they only monitor the front cat or the front brick in the front cat. To me that is excessive, and is only done to make it easier to fail the system by making it more sensitive.

If the vehicle really needs two cats on each bank to meet guidelines, why not monitor both cats to make sure they are both working? I would agree that on many of these vehicle that have an unmonitored second cat, there is probably no real harm in removing it, and it should almost be done to spite the EPA for not having it setup up the monitor the whole system. I also dislike that several really new cars now have multiple catalyst monitors on the same bank. The Civic Hybrid has sensors after the first cat, and in the middle of the second cat. The Fusion has a sensor in the middle of the cat and behind the cat. To me that is total BS crap because all it can do is increase the likelihood that your car will have an emissions problem. They are supposed to be making cars more reliable, not more likely to have an issue because they have become more complicated.

 

2 cats on a single exhaust pipe are necessary to control emissions over a varied heat range.
One cat cannot perform at 100%, 100% of the time.
When 2 cats are installed, the first cat works on the emissions when the engine is first started and considered cold. Once the car reaches operating temp, the second cat now is essentially taking over and performing at 100% in that heat range. One cat cannot be designed to run effectively over the entire heat range. As the standards for emissions control increase so has the number of cats. Maybe next year there will be 3

 

I have an '89 Plymouth Gran Fury (Police) that has 3 cats - 1 bolted to each exhaust manifold and 1 further back on the pipe. I had wondered why they did this until I read your post above - makes sense, I suppose...