Does your vehicle violate the Clean Air Act?

I'm sure if i ran the factory cat on the Miata, i'd probably lose 40whp, a ton of spool time, and the car would just generally run like ass.

In reply to Cotton:

It was part of an exhaust study on a Miata.

Very few modern cars would see a significant benefit.

But it's laughably funny to me that a bike would. Their rules are so incredibly easy to meet, and they still have problems? Geez.. what an industry.

What kind of power are you getting? For a 1300 bike, 5-6hp would be 1) within a test to test error, and 2) less than enough that it would be noticeable (which is usually 10%).

spitfirebill wrote:

alfadriver wrote: for anyone who is happy and proud to be a gross emitter, is it ok that I drop my oil off in your veggie garden? I need a place to put it, and it would keep the dust down.

Don't get yer panties too too wadded up. That was a legitmate means of disposal at one time (which I suppose you are referring too?). We were also allowed to spray leftover experimental pesticides in dirt roads (or so I was told).

So I can go ahead and pollute your yard then? I'm sure I can dump some paint, too.

It used to be ok to not have emission controls too.

I guess I'm stunned that people are ok with having crappy air to breathe, to the point of contributing proudly to it. Blows me away.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to Cotton: It was part of an exhaust study on a Miata. Very few modern cars would see a significant benefit. But it's laughably funny to me that a bike would. Their rules are so incredibly easy to meet, and they still have problems? Geez.. what an industry. What kind of power are you getting? For a 1300 bike, 5-6hp would be 1) within a test to test error, and 2) less than enough that it would be noticeable (which is usually 10%).

Stock at 500 miles it put down 146.2HP, so hopefully this will get me in the low 150s. I'll dyno in the next week or two and find out for sure. I'm doing everything one mod at a time with a dyno after each so, pipe, filters, tune is about it for those bikes while keeping the warranty.

They can't seem to get the fueling right either. The bikes sure don't seem to get near the R&D the cars do.

SVreX wrote: Off-road and recreational vehicles now have emissions requirements- not clear if this includes race vehicles.

interesting … how would that be enforced … most race cars are trailer to events, so not reg. with the state

here, to get your yearly tag, you have to have passed either safety inspection, or safety and emissions inspection … but for a car that isn't getting a tag, no reg required

Massachusetts has very stringent exhaust emissions testing, equal to those in California. My relatively new Mustang passes beautifully every time as does my Mercury Grand Marquis.

My Austin A35 is a 1958 and is too old to requite testing. As a "sometimes" car, it won't have much impact on my carbon footprint. I work at home and only put about two thousand miles a year on The Mustang, my wife does around three thousand on the Mercury.

I have confidence that we're both going straight to Emissions Heaven when we expire, unless the larger manufacturers begin buying "carbon credits" from individuals, then were selling out and headed to Emissions Hell, but will be eating a lot better and taking lavish vacations in the mean time.

Since the only car that may violate the Clean Air Act is registered in a city that does not require testing, I'd have to say no.

All other vehicles are stock and pass SMOG every two years.

FYI - the OE tests (and the California ones) are so strict that a lot of new cars are borderline. In fact, I'm pretty sure a stock 2014 Miata would fail a full California test. I'm not sure we could get an EO for an unmodified car. We're having to make our superchargers run cleaner than stock to pass.

Sniffers are pretty simple by comparison.

You do have to wonder where the point of diminishing returns is, though. How much money and effort for how little gain? How much is spent on testing to catch a small minority of vehicles? The move to OBD-II plug-in testing only is a big step in the right direction, as it's maximizing the return on the money and effort being spent. Putting every vehicle on rollers every year is a bit ridiculous. I think it would be worthwhile to have a low mileage registration for cars that see little to no street use every year. They might put out more parts per million, but very few millions of parts. Then interesting cars like my Mini would be allowed to coexist with Suburbans that are racking up 30,000 miles per year.

BTW, the self-tests that some vehicles perform are pretty wild, including middle of the night testing when you think it's just sleeping in the garage.

alfadriver wrote: I guess I'm stunned that people are ok with having crappy air to breathe, to the point of contributing proudly to it. Blows me away.

Agreed. I would say proudly removing your cat(s) on your street vehicle is no better than proudly "rolling coal" in your diesel.

In reply to Keith Tanner:

CA does not require SMOG on vehicles purchased new for 4-6 years, unless it's sold (transfer of title). I would also add new(er) cars pass the test with flying colors. Any time I have had to SMOG one of my vehicles that were 2004 or newer, they barely even registered on the sniffer test.

Keith Tanner wrote: FYI - the OE tests (and the California ones) are so strict that a lot of new cars are borderline. In fact, I'm pretty sure a stock 2014 Miata would fail a full California test. I'm not sure we could get an EO for an unmodified car. We're having to make our superchargers run cleaner than stock to pass. BTW, the self-tests that some vehicles perform are pretty wild, including middle of the night testing when you think it's just sleeping in the garage.

Just the tail pipe tests, there are: FTP 75 @ 70F (3 bag test, the original)
Highway @ 70F (original highway testing)
US06 w/warmup @ 70F (higher speed, agressive driving)
SC03 @90F (that's the a/c test)
FTP75 @ 50F
FTP75 @ 20F.

There are a bunch of tests to prove OBDII- and the intention is to have the car tell you it's problems instead of expensive testing.

And there are a bunch of tests to measure evaporative emissions- 2 day and 3 day, with some variable temperatures. Those systems are pretty much "0" emitters now. Pretty amazing. You can fill up the tank, and all of the fumes will be recycled back into the engine- better for the environment AND is a better use of the fuel that you paid for.

For sure, one can argue diminishing returns. But as OEM's learn more, we also learn how to do it with less stuff and for less money. And that's a very interesting area to work in. But that also alters the diminishing return calculation- if you can prove it's "free"- then you can make it cleaner for free.

Aftermarket testing is an animal that I only kinda know.

alfadriver wrote:

chiodos wrote: Being a Mississippian, any car I've ever had that was emissions compliant was quickly decatted. But currently I drive a 1.6 miata and b230 volvo. Only the miata has a muffler much less a cat haha

Why? What do you gain by taking the catalyst out? Really? GRM did a dyno study showing that it does not help power by taking it out. It would be good to understand what people are gaining. Or think they are gaining.

Documented 17 hp on a 240 hp Colorado, and that was only one of the cats removed. It may not make much difference in some applications, but in some instances, the difference is substantial.

In reply to Zomby Woof:

17 out of 240 is 7%. 10% is what people can tell the difference of. A really good person would be able to tell 7%, but mostly that would be good for just bragging.

7% isn't substantial. Might even not be statistically different (have to check the measurement and conditions). But it is twice as much as cotton's bike.

Substantial would be 15%, or 34hp in the VW.

edit- context would be good, too- what was the car used for? Going to the track every weekend or going to work every day? Even if one could notice 7%, would it be actually useful?

alfadriver wrote: 7% isn't substantial.

I'm not condoning cat removal, but I'm going to disagree with this statement right here. You're talking to a bunch of people that race cars. Anything can be substantial. 1% on a Spec Miata may make the difference between making the pass on the straight or not.

Most exhausts don't net 7%. Or intakes. Or tunes. Etc. But when you add it all up on an ST car and dyno 20% higher than stock, its a big difference. Or say 40% on a DSP car.

In reply to ProDarwin:

There's a difference between a SM driver and a DD driver for one thing. Although 1% more power would result in lowered lap times of how much? Especially when one factors in variablity of a driver on a track. One would have to be really good to really take advantage of 1%.

Second, most of the personal preception data I see is 10% is noticeable for most people. So 7% may be noticeable here. That's fine. Noticeable isn't really substantial.

But in context of how it's used is still important.

20% is a lot. 40% is huge. very true.

But I still bet that a TON of money is spent on preception that isn't real. That's a different thread.

ProDarwin wrote: I'm not condoning cat removal, but I'm going to disagree with this statement right here. You're talking to a bunch of people that race cars. *Anything* can be substantial. 1% on a Spec Miata may make the difference between making the pass on the straight or not. Most exhausts don't net 7%. Or intakes. Or tunes. Etc. But when you add it all up on an ST car and dyno 20% higher than stock, its a big difference. Or say 40% on a DSP car.

No E36 M3. If you can't feel 17 hp on a 240 hp motor, you're brain dead. I used to be in the "it doesn't make much, if any difference" camp, but in every case where I have either removed, or added a cat, it was very noticeable.

god bless detroit

All of my cars pass ODBII plug in tests. That's about all I have to worry about- I'll let the OEMs worry about if they are CARB compliant or not.

Cone_Junkie wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: CA does not require SMOG on vehicles purchased new for 4-6 years, unless it's sold (transfer of title). I would also add new(er) cars pass the test with flying colors. Any time I have had to SMOG one of my vehicles that were 2004 or newer, they barely even registered on the sniffer test.

I'm not talking about consumer tests, I'm talking about OE level tests. Sniffers are easy to pass, especially since you're starting with a nice warm car.

The OE tests (alfa has mentioned a few of them) that have to be passed in order to get a CARB EO are a completely different kettle of fish. Basically, to get an EO you have to pass the same tests the OEs do and show that your modifications will not affect the emissions in any way. You, the consumer, don't want to pay for these tests because they take days and involve not only measuring what comes out of the tailpipe, but also evaporative emissions and a wide range of temperatures. Any time the air going INTO the car is a calibrated mix, you know you're into serious stuff.

Anyhow, that's why the CARB EO program exists. The expensive tests are done once on a representative sample, then as long as your car is identical it's given the okay. Heck, that's how the OEs do it as well.

And like I said, I'm pretty sure a stock 2014 Miata would fail them. It's happened before to Mazda, they had to tweak the programming in the 2001 models due to an emissions failure discovered by the aftermarket trying to get through EO testing.

As for power losses for cats, it depends on what the weak point of the system is. On a turbo Miata, the cat will make a much bigger difference than on a stock Miata. The type of cat matters as well - an expensive metal matrix cat will flow almost as well as an empty pipe at higher power levels while a ceramic one will give a restriction. It's also easier to feel a loss in power than a gain.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to Zomby Woof: 17 out of 240 is 7%. 10% is what people can tell the difference of. A really good person would be able to tell 7%, but mostly that would be good for just bragging. 7% isn't substantial. Might even not be statistically different (have to check the measurement and conditions). But it is twice as much as cotton's bike.

For me, it's not about the percentage from JUST the converter removal. The end goal of course is a very nice gain over multiple modifications, but I like to dyno after every mod, so I can judge the success (labor/cost/etc) of each modification.

I still find it amazing that my gas guzzling Disco is a ULEV

Thanks for the addition of sanity to the discussion, alfadriver and Keith.

The bit that I like is, because they are measuring the WHOLE emissions of the car, even the interior and paint count towards the car's emissions, which is why paint went through some periods of crap quality and why new-car smell is so much different than it was 20-30 years ago. New-car smell is plastics and stuff outgassing, and those gases are emissions, and they get tallied up.

Roller tests and plug-in tests are an absolute joke compared to what the OEMs have to do to certify a car. That is WHY it is technically illegal (the best kind of illegal?) to alter seemingly innocuous things as well as tampering with the as-equipped emissions devices. Just because you can disable thermostatic control over vacuum advance (showing age here) and the car will pass a sniffer, does NOT mean that the car is just as clean as it was before. It just means that it passes the sniffer.

Cotton wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

chiodos wrote: Being a Mississippian, any car I've ever had that was emissions compliant was quickly decatted. But currently I drive a 1.6 miata and b230 volvo. Only the miata has a muffler much less a cat haha

Really? GRM did a dyno study showing that it does not help power by taking it out.

What car did they dyno? Of course, not all cars (or converters) are alike, so results will vary. I don't currently have before/after dyno results on any of my cars, but will on the k1300s soon enough. I expect 5-6 RWHP gain by replacing the factory muffler/converter combo on my bike. I've already dynoed it stock, so will dyno it after as well to verify. On a bike that is a noticeable gain. Also, the factory exhaust sounds like ass (imho), so it had to go.

89-95 sho taurii have perhaps one of the worst catalyst designs in history.....and we have consistantly reported 15-20 whp increases by removing them.

Two other things: You'll find that emissions is why everything is plastic lines instead of rubber hose for everything. It's why the fuel filter is often inside the tank, and in some vehicles the fuel pump and filter are sealed inside the tank, when the pump goes bad you replace the tank assembly. No O-ring at the sending unit anymore...

Another interesting thing I found is that the valvetrain in the LS engines is a certain way because of the PCV system... they could have used a better design roller rocker, but it created a tiny bit more oil mist, resulting in a tiny bit more oil being drawn through the PCV, resulting in more oil consumption and shorter catalyst life. And you wonder why you need an EO on roller rockers that are the same ratio as what you just pulled out. Tiny changes make tiny differences and modern emissions are so small that a tiny difference may double actual emissions.

I did the math once, and it worked out to something like 250k miles in a modern car is the hydrocarbon emissions equivalent of how much fuel you spill every summer when you refill your lawnmower. New cars are clean.

wbjones wrote:

SVreX wrote: Off-road and recreational vehicles now have emissions requirements- not clear if this includes race vehicles.

interesting … how would that be enforced … most race cars are trailer to events, so not reg. with the state here, to get your yearly tag, you have to have passed either safety inspection, or safety and emissions inspection … but for a car that isn't getting a tag, no reg required

I agree, but weed eaters and lawn mowers are not exempt. How would they enforce that?