blacksunshine'91

iTrader: (10)

Car Craft had an article a while back that demonstrated the difference between a stock cat and several aftermarket cats along with no cat at all. They measured the hp difference along with the effectiveness of the cats. Many of the cheaper replacements did inhibit hp slightly but did not do as well as the stock cat on reducing emissions. The best one they rated was the one from Random Technologies. With that one, they lost less than 3% hp vs. having no cat, if I remember correctly. The Random Tech cats were also nearly as effective on reducing emissions as the stock cats were. Just like Kevin, I live in CA so I have to have cats on my car. My car came with the dual cat exhaust, so when I replaced my exhaust during my engine swap I installed the Random Tech cats. With that setup, my engine actually burns cleaner than it did with the stock setup while my hp increased by 120hp. Not bad.

As for the other two in your little squabble. Neither one of you is going to convince the other. Give up already. I'm sure I speak for the rest of us when I say we are tired of it. Also, anyone who's been to college (especially a law student) knows that unless you list your references, your "facts" are useless and/or borderline plagerism.

Reid Fleming

iTrader: (2)

As far as "for off road use only" goes, that stuff is trivial. An adjustable fuel pressure regulator is for off road use only. Lame.

I really don't care if people take their AIR tubes off. Especially in hot climates where the engine is up to temp in 1 block of driving anyways. AIR tubes in Miami is as useful as an engine block heater.

Cats are another story. Since they do about 98% of the pollution removal on our cars, I say you might as well keep them in there. Especially if it's a daily driver. I live in Houston, TX. It's been the #1 polluted city many years. But I doubt it's from vehicles. Everything I see on the roads here is new. And we have yearly emissions tests. And we have countless factories. Having said that, when I am stuck in a traffic jam, it's nice to not have some pig rich no cat car in front of me.

I have seen LS1's that have passed emissions tests with no cats. No $$$ payoff, they're just a clean vehicle. But those days have come and gone. Back when 220 ppm was the HC limit, you could slide them through that window without a cat.

If a Z06 can run 500 HP and pass emissions tests, we should have no problem with our cars at the 350 HP and below mark.

Rayzor32

iTrader: (1)

yeah the pollutions not from those thousands of jacked up f350s idling in traffic for 90 minutes with one person in the vehicle

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

To Part 1 of that, I've looked over your original post, and beyond, and don't see any question you're asking. To Part 2, you're living proof.

You sure acted like you had the solution. Your spouting the stuff about global warming not being BS was not thought-provoking, merely inflammatory.
Just like Al Gore says. But you said he's an idiot. Small minds think alike.

John Coleman was the founder of The Weather Channel. Now, that may not make him a qualified "expert" in your eyes, but he seems to have data-based opinions on all this that counters your two years worth of "study". http://media.kusi.clickability.com/d...+Warming02.pdf Pardon me, but I'll have to side with John Coleman's analyses.

For the record, I have nothing against reducing pollutants from automobile exhaust. Therefore, I don't take all that kindly to your original premise. I do take issue with CO2 being considered a "pollutant", which you clearly buy into. Furthermore, these global warming fraud merchants, along with the earth worshipers, with whom you have taken up residence, through their influence and drum-beating have by their actions driven up gasoline prices that each of has to pay each day, refusing sane remedies for decades; which will take decades to reverse (assuming we can recover). So, you end up on the wrong side on all counts.

Any lawyer jokes come to mind???

Jason1313

iTrader: (3)

This is one of the most entertaining posts I've read in awhile, keep up the good work.

stroked_n_blown

iTrader: (3)

Catalytic converters must make good money at salvage, they get stolen like crazy here. A buddy of mines wife is the senior adjuster for Nationwide here, and everyday she is doing adjustments at dealerships for stolen cats. THe kids come in at night, flip the cars on their sides and cut the cats off. They usually nab about 4-8 and then head out. Hmm, at $ 90 a pop, I think I might need to change jobs and start stealing cats myself..nab about 10 a night; be able to retire in a few years Or at least afford the 5th gen Camaro when it comes out.

91 RS Drop Top

I'm guessing 120hp was a typo? I would like to know what your hp increase was. I'm not familiar with random tech cats so it would be good to know.

91 RS Drop Top

You couldn't be more right, Kid. I can't remember who I first heard this from, but I have taken to calling the people who buy this crap the "Flat-Earth Society," because thats what it is-the modern day equivalent of the belief in a flat earth, and the refusal to consider evidence to the contrary. In time global warming will be looked upon like the belief in a flat earth, an earth-centric universe and all the other "undisputable truths" that people were burned alive for challenging.

I'm all for clean air, but global warming is a joke for so many scientific reasons, yet has become a holy sacrement to the left, and an unquestioned truth to many well meaning, intelligent people who have more important things to do than review the scientific data for themselves. Making the argument that putting unapproved components on your car kills polar bears and cased Hurricane Katrina makes people so disgusted with the whole idea of air pollution control that they don't even care to tune up their car. And when it comes to Global Warming they have thrown out all the basic scientific principles, namely keeping open mind. Professors who even question aspects of GW get fired, and researchers who draw conclusions that contradict or even minimize the mainstream conclusion can expect to have their funding for future research dry up.

So put a cat on your car if you can afford to, and if you really want to do something about air pollution, vote for politicians who support nuclear power so we can stop burning oil for electricity. That will help gas prices AND HC emmissions.

91 RS Drop Top

This doesn't surprise me but I must say I'm curious as to 1. how they are flipping the cars (carrying a huge jack, 4-5 people on 1 honda civic), 2. how they are flipping cars without creating a huge racket and attracting attention, and 3. why not just steal the cats off cars with more ground clearance so you don't have to flip them?

XxXChrisGXxX

iTrader: (1)

I have an 88 firebird with a clogged cat, i don't have 150 bucks as of now (2 weeks) and my power is super low, if i gut it will it pop or do anything bad? and if i wanted to run a pipe inside the cat which size does anyone know? is the cat 2 1/4? meaning the pipe would have to be smaller correct?

Or can i just gut it and it'll be good for 2-3 weeks.

91 RS Drop Top

If you're just gonna temp fix it buy a pipe at autozone or oriely with a flared ends and stick it on with band clamps. That may well be less trouble than gutting the cat.

XxXChrisGXxX

iTrader: (1)

I don't know the sizes and i dont think they sell pipe that long, on top of which i don't have a welder, so how would i get something to fit the flanged side of the cat?

Guro 305

What I find amusing is that the same people preaching to us about global warming now, were the same people back in the '60's who told us that the "glaciers were coming" by the early to mid-80's!!!!

1bdbrd

iTrader: (1)

I'm sorry but I am not paying almost $300 for something that is only required because the right people got the right amount of money in their pockets. I mean never mind what people that actually know a thing or two about weather and weather patterns have to say about the situation. No, we have to listen to 1 politician that has a house in Tn that uses more electricity than the surrounding cities in his area. Or another politician that drives around in Hummers and 425hp sports cars instead of "green cars".

Step back and look at the picture. Global warming is not happening like the paid off government officials want you to think it is. I mean never mind the fact that places like Southern California, or IRAQ got snow this past year...Yes, the world is getting hotter..

Rayzor32

iTrader: (1)

our winters are nothing like how they used to be, not saying i believe global warming is the cause, just stating.

91formulaSS

are we worried about errosion now?????? becasue that why we are losing beach front.

Your comments go to show what a modern "higher" education is worth. And you prove your own point that the US (or maybe just U) lacks in scientific understanding. Which is a BS statement at face value. tell me which country has advanced modern science more than the US? how do you think you are able to live the comfortable life you do. BTW. don't call me old... I'm only 26. Don't call me a hillbilly....I live in Massachusetts. and I didn't hear any one say they dont believe in dinosaurs.

......and I might be mistaken but doesn't a properly functioning catalitic converter INCREASE the amount of CO2 exiting you tail pipe - it decreases NOX and CO and converts them to the "less harmfull" CO2.

FWIW. I failed numerous emissions tests because NOX and CO were above the legal limit. BUT my CO2 output was very low. so I threw on a new cat. NOX and CO went down below the legal limit and CO2 went through the roof. and guess what.......I passed.

so the power of deduction leaves me to believe that.....IF (a big if) you believe that CO2 is the reason for global warming...or climate change....or.....weather (as we used to call it) then.......a properly functioning catalitic converter which increases CO2 is actually contributing to global warming more that a car which failed numerous emissions test for high NOX and CO but had very very low levels on CO2 exiting the tailpipe. huh.....makes you wonder??????? if your into that kind of thing, which by judging from the responses you've given, you're not.

91formulaSS

When you have the time, this long article demolishes claims of man-made global warming pretty thoroughly.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

This is one pretty interesting fact:

"Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

...


We've decided to be exceptionally generous to all concerned in the debate and look at the worst-case scenario, where we'll say that all of the available heat in the CO2 absorption spectrum is actually captured. We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024. And remember that 8% figure was actually larger than reality, since the two side peaks don't have much energy to capture.


This is also interesting, explaining why it is that while increasing CO2 and increasing warmth are linked in the historical record, it's actually the increased warmth that comes first, then the increase in CO2:

CO2 is by far the heaviest of the major constituents, and the law of gravity applies to it as well. It sinks to the ground.. in fact, into the ground, and into the oceans, as well, because CO2 is very water-soluble and that's what puts the fizz in Ginger Ale.
This doesn't happen overnight. In fact, the winds and convection currents and such keep the air stirred up constantly, so it may take 100-150 years for the CO2 you are exhaling right now to make it back into mother earth, where most of it is currently locked up.


Now our puzzle is complete, and we can visualize the whole thing.

1. The sun heats the earth, repository of most of the CO2 on the planet.

2. Some stored CO2 comes out by a process known as outgassing ( from the soil ) and the champagne effect ( from the oceans ). The oceans are by far the largest source.

3. Sloppy "scientists" see the warming, and the CO2, but overlook the changes in the sun, don't see the fine differences in timing... and proceed to blame the increasing temperature on CO2 and mankind as the culprit in a classic knee-jerk reaction.

This article shows how less polution in the air actually increases temperatures by letting in more sunlight.

http://environment.newscientist.com/...ine-news_rss20

Rayzor32

iTrader: (1)

RacerX13

91FormulaSS- I couldn't find a smiley for applause. Thank you for bringing SCIENCE into the discussion, instead of dogma.

chesterfield

I agree. This thread should be a sticky. Its important for our hobby (and more importantly, our way of life) that this fraud be exposed everywhere it can be. If these global warming chicken littles have their way, all of our cars will be expensive lawn ornaments in a few years.

Guro 305

Wait! You mean, the glaciers are NOT coming????

Guest

TLDR. And besides, it's not credible scientific information. End.

RacerX13

Some people are just too dumb to know when they've been owned.

Guest

TLDR. Besides, it's not a credible source, and he's a weather man. Not a scientist. My friend's father is a local meteorologist and that surely doesn't qualify him as a credible scientific source on anything really, other than what the weather is going to be tomorrow.

I think if you've watched any weather television even once you realize how terribly inaccurate all of that is. It is really guesswork to predict whether it is going to be rainy or not tomorrow.

And as for the question I was asking, it was a different thread.

And my statements weren't inflammatory. At first. It wasn't until this unending perversion of red-state science took place that I changed to inflammatory tactics. If it wasn't an important and thought provoking topic then tell me why there are umpteen random threads about cat-converters already?

chesterfield

How does somebody get into college without knowing that electricity usage contibutes to atmospheric co2?

Must be blue state science.

calamitascamaro

iTrader: (5)

[quote=Z28Zach;3825380]TLDR. Besides, it's not a credible source, and he's a weather man. Not a scientist. My friend's father is a local meteorologist and that surely doesn't qualify him as a credible scientific source on anything really, other than what the weather is going to be tomorrow.

I think if you've watched any weather television even once you realize how terribly inaccurate all of that is. It is really guesswork to predict whether it is going to be rainy or not tomorrow.quote]

So if humanity hasn't mastered guessing what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, then how can you possibly say we have mastered and know what the CLIMATE OF EARTH will be like in say 1-20 years??

speedflea

How long have we been compiling temp data??

I really dont know. lets call it 100 years just to toss a number out there, if you want to call it 200 or 900 thats cool to. If you want to say 50 that works well also.

If we have been compiling temp. data for 100 yrs, how do we know a 100 year old thermometer (200, 900) was accurate enough to plot out a .8 degree temp change? could the accuracy in those century old temperature recording devises possibly explain it by way of margin of error???

50 yr old devises. If you wish to use data from only 50 yrs to attempt to plot a trend does not seem like a large enough statistical sample. the earth is an estimated 4.5 billion years old. hmm.

The earth has been cyclical in its weather trends. That means we have been experiencing GW since the end of the last ice age. And BTW I thought I was the only one that remembered the coming of the next one. What happened did I sleep through it.

I'm not sure that the beaches will be gone. Estimates I have heard are for average global temps to increase by .8 degrees. Average. you mean that in order for the polar Ice caps to MELT they need to warm up nearly 100 degrees. Right now it is -83 degrees at Mcmurdo station. That means that other places on earth will need to cool down by nearly 100 degrees. hmm.

Now I aint no college student, but even I can work averages.

rx7speed

with A/C how are they getting the energy to power and drive the AC unit?
with the hot showers how are they getting the energy to run the heater.
what gives us the power to run a TV or the computer and the internet.
not many forms of energy in use today are not clean forms of energy which I think was his point when he posted that part.




as far as this whole global warming thing though whats the point in debating it. both sides have "proof" hell anyone can get proof of something just look at our media regarding that one.
eitherway global warming or no global warming there are other things to worr yabout. Just taking it by the pollution itself do you guys really think that is healthy? who gives a rats *** if I have ocean front property in 20-30 years as it sits now I look out my window and it's brown, people can't breath, the stuff stinks and it's already known that cars and factories cause this so we already know there is a problem. kinda funny though some people base their excuse as to why they should remove the cat off of their car is fully based upon global warming being a hoax. go to L.A., NY, hell even boise fricken idaho and can you tell me that pollution is a hoax? I sure couldn't say that as I can just sit here and see it.

so yeah the point of this is who cares about global warming. we have a problem now. if we fix the problem we CURRENTLY have that should help out with global warming if it exist. if it doesn't exist oh well we still are not on the loss here.

calamitascamaro

iTrader: (5)

[quote=calamitascamaro;3826404]Love when I say something like this and the number of posts just falls away.

Toehead

Bravo

chesterfield

[QUOTE=calamitascamaro;3830560] I just wish I had said it.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Perhaps a better explanation is people are getting weary of the nonsense.

Personally, I've been traveling, racing, and paying attention to more worthy projects. When I saw the response that a weatherman is not credible source, I just shook my head and went on to other things. My father-in-law was a meteorologist, so I have a pretty good handle on whether or not they think in a scientific fashion (for the record, they do). Al Gore, his man-caused global warming alarmist minions, and a vast majority of the EPA bureaucrats, on the other hand, think only in political and monetary terms.

calamitascamaro

iTrader: (5)