

| Subject: | Re: Running without a cat |
| From: | Christopher Gronski |
| Date: | Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:11:54 -0400 |
Yeah I am really only kicking the idea around half seriously. This year is my last provincially mandated emission test, as of next year I am exempt as an "antique". Chris On 7/18/05, jimt <camper@tactical-bus.info> wrote: > Note that some states enforce the fed regs which says if shipped with cat > must have a cat. (all passenger vehicles sold in the US and Canada after a > certain year in the 70s) If in an air state you most likely will not pass > test emissions or visual. > jimt > > On 7/18/05 3:05 PM, "John Bange" <jbange@GMAIL.COM> wrote: > > > Performance, same or maybe slightly better. Mileage, probably no > > significant change. For emissions, your NOx and carbon monoxide output > > will go way up. Generally you won't see any significant improvement in > > power when removing the cat unless you also do something that NEEDS > > the extra flow, like porting or bigger valves. > > > > On 7/18/05, Christopher Gronski <gronski@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is an poitically incorrect question but I am going to ask it > >> anyway. What happens if you run your vehicle without a catalytic > >> converter installed? Assuming you had a bypass tube installed would > >> you just install your exhaust sensor there? What would the effect on > >> performance and mileage be? How much would your emissions go up? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Chris > >> > > > > >
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »