[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Clogged cat?

John, and whoever else,
    I do not claim to be an expert in this field. However, I just wanted to
clarify a couple of things.
    I do not think that a catalytic converter is just a particulate trap. I
think that the temperatures reached in the interior of a catalytic
converter cause two things to happen: one, particulates burn/vaporize. two,
largish amounts of SO3 (I think... or is it NO3... I'm not a chemist, and
maybe not qualified to even be saying anything about this), which, when it
floats up to the ozone layer, combines with ozone to create acid rain.
    I also know that every car that I have taken the cat off has created a
noticeable change in:
    high-end power
    throttle response
    cool sound (IMHO)
    gas mileage
    From personal experience, I find find it beneficial, wise, and even
enviro-friendly to remove the catalytic converter from my personal
automobiles. Therefore, I do so. However, I don't condone everybody doing
it and I'm not saying that you should do it to your car. In the state I
live in, it's perfectly legal to remove the cat from any car manufactured
before '85. For instance, my GTI.

John Larson wrote:

> Josiah Erikson's description of the function of the Cat is Waaaaay off
> base. The Catalyst in it's earliest form was used primarily to reduce
> hydrocarbons and some of the CO, and the later three way catalysts help
> reduce NOX as well. It is NOT a screen to remove particulates. Some MBZ
> diesels had a particulate trap. Some late model Volvos actually produce
> air which is cleaner at the tailpipe than it was when it entered the
> inlet. Running without a converter in a modern motor vehicle is against
> Federal law, and derives little, if any, HP benefit, and the argument
> that such a practices reduces greenhouse damaging gasses is probably
> fallacious.
> John