Chasing a slightly lumpy idle...still

[mocambique-amazone]

I do use a cat from BMW E30 normally. Hughes enough at a B230F, no restriction and will last forever. At the TÜV/ MOT station they are surprised every time about the result. They even did checked if the sniffer is still inside the exhaust. And the testing machine startet a protest with my B230FT: can't be with pollution low as this:-)

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by mocambique-amazone

At the TÜV/ MOT station they are surprised every time about the result. They even did checked if the sniffer is still inside the exhaust. And the testing machine startet a protest with my B230FT: can't be with pollution low as this:-)

I know the feeling! Except i don't have a cat on mine!

Also cats produce highly toxic and very unpleasant smelling H2S gas which when absorbed into the atmosphere, creates acid rain.

If you want a really clean exhaust emissions result, remove the cat, soak it overnight in hot water and 6-7 dishwasher tablets, shaking it very so often over the time it is soaking.
Remove, flush through with clean water in the reverse direction of flow then the correct direction of flow, dry with compressed air (optional) and refit.

The results are as good, if not better than a new cat! It can cause the MoT tester to wander around sniffing the air and commenting "Strange smell of lemons from somewhere" during the emissions test!

[Stephen Edwin]

Originally Posted by mocambique-amazone

Swap to a cat made of metal and there is zero difference in power between without and with cat.
Measured
B200E and B200F ate totally different in fuel supply.

And with cat you are friendly to the world, without cat you should be ashamed of yourself.
The catalyst they did use in the "great again " (dreamer) Staates are a pile of s h i t.
It is easy to gain power if the starting point is worse.
5.7l V8 with less than 100HP, yes they did this and not 100 years ago, only thirty.

A turbo engine is something different, and still you will find a cat with no restrictions to the power, meaw.

I use the same injectors on a B230F with great results ;-)
Regards, Kay

I do not pretend to fully understand those technicalities.

I do very seriously respect the environment. I am so not convinced about "de-catting".

[Stephen Edwin]

Originally Posted by mocambique-amazone

I do use a cat from BMW E30 normally. Hughes enough at a B230F, no restriction and will last forever. At the TÜV/ MOT station they are surprised every time about the result. They even did checked if the sniffer is still inside the exhaust. And the testing machine startet a protest with my B230FT: can't be with pollution low as this:-)

Interesting. My B200F with Volvo cat gave zero CO on MOT test yesterday. The tester did not seem cautious about it.

[GreenBrick]

Converting to LPG is a good way to pass emissions, as it is cleaner.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

If memory serves correctly the B200E is 121bhp and the B200F is 112bhp so about 9-10% increase without the cat but they are different injection systems.

Originally Posted by mocambique-amazone

B200E and B200F ate totally different in fuel supply.

And with cat you are friendly to the world, without cat you should be ashamed of yourself.

As i said, the B200E and B200F are different injection systems.

As for running with a cat, H2S is also emitted from the tailpipe. This is Hydrogen Sulphide gas (the smell of rotten eggs when the cat is working correctly) which becomes H2SO4 or Sulphuric aka battery acid when in solution with water (rain) so being friendly to the world is pouring battery acid over it?

Whichever way you look at it, nothing that smells that bad can be any good for you! Drive round the M25 at 3am (about the only time it's possible to drive at a reasonable speed consistently all the way round) and you can tell where the traffic jams have been. There's a fog of H2S gas and as you drive through it, your throat gets dry, itchy and sore and so do your eyes. As you drive out of where the traffic jam has been, your eyes and throat ease and you can breathe easier again.

First they brought in unleaded petrol to stop children being poisoned by the lead in the fuel. They still made us use lead pencils at school though. However, lead was only added to petrol as an anti-knock measure during the war when fuel quality was poor. For some reason, it remained.

I've never been convinced by catalytic converters and i doubt i ever will be, the same as i've never been convinced about the "green credentials" of diesel fuel. Thirty years ago, i said diesels weren't healthy and i've now been proved right, time will tell whether my views on cats will be proved right.
Meanwhile, i'm just glad i don't have a cat on my Volvo and the one on my Rover will be coming off soon.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by GreenBrick

Converting to LPG is a good way to pass emissions, as it is cleaner.

Also a legal way to decat your car!

[Stephen Edwin]

Originally Posted by GreenBrick

Converting to LPG is a good way to pass emissions, as it is cleaner.

I do believe in the environment. it puzzles me why people with descendants show so little regard for the planet.

(I have no children that I admit to ... sorry ... bad joke.)

I drive less than 1,000 mile per year. I do not fly.

I think the pressures of my life are more than the benefit of converting to LPG. Take me back in my age yes. I would investigate that option very seriously. Very seriously indeed.

I do walk and ride a bicycle.... not in Cambridge, so far .....


.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Stephen Edwin

I drive less than 1,000 mile per year. I do not fly.

I think the pressures of my life are more than the benefit of converting to LPG.

Don't get me started on Freddie laker! He was responsible for cheap airline tickets in the mid-late 70s when everyone suddenly "discovered" air travel. Since then our weather patterns have been unpredictable to say the least (just ask Michael Fish about 1987) with no discernable seasons anymore.

Strange though it may sound, Carbon Monoxide (CO) is good for things like trees, hedges, plants etc in general as it aids photosynthesis in the flora and oxygen is the by product.

I could normally make a case for converting to LPG, even done on a secondhand basis using a simple single-point system on your B200F but to be fair, even a secondhand set up would take about 2 years payback time!

That said, 50-60p/L isn't to be sniffed at! Especially when it has stenching agent in!

[AllHailKingVolvo]

Well, the controversial (as it turns out!) Cat-gutting procedure has, after 3hrs of driving in the last two days to reset fuel trims etc, totally transformed the car.

The hesitation under power is gone, the engine is strong and smooth and by my calculations I’ve gained just under 5mpg on a run. I don’t have to rev the balls off the engine to pull the car up an incline, and can cruise along at 40 in 5th without having to be on high alert for any kind of hill or dale to require a rapid downshift.

What this indicates to me is that when the MOT is due (in 6wks) I need to analyse the emissions data and, if necessary, fit a higher flow cat as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

If it’s well within emissions tolerances, maybe not. Let’s see.

I’m far from ignorant about environmental concerns-my Sister in law is part of the FSC and I have worked for a long time to push guitar manufacturers (I’m a musician and former Gibson endorsee artist) to move to sustainable resources for instruments across the board. This has borne fruit in the shape of Gibson using Richlite as an Ebony substitute and extensively working with Walnut, a sustainable and great sounding tonewood. Another artist I have extensive connections with recently launched his signature model Martin acoustic guitar, which is the first ever acoustic instrument to have full FSC approval and certification, which was borne of many years of pushing and prodding and cajoling of these big dinosaur guitar manufacturers, and is great news.

My question is that if removing the Cat means my car uses less fuel, requires less time on-throttle and gets me to my destination quicker, what exactly is the offset between the environmental benefits of that, and the (potentially) detrimental change in emissions?

Over 30,000 miles (my annual mileage), my 744 at the previous 29mpg would use 1034 gallons of fuel. At 34.8 which I averaged yesterday, it would use 862 gallons. That is, of course, 172 gallons less fossil fuel burned, 172 gallons less fuel delivered by tanker, 172 gallons less fuel through the refinery, and 172 gallons less fuel pulled from the Earth...and so on.

I have no idea how cat vs decat emissions relate to or offset this, but I’d be interested to know...