I didn't ask that. I asked if it could be done.

In a racing league, all that has to happen is the league says: "all cars must have stock emissions control". Then there's no competitive disadvantage to keeping it.

If your car was really track-only, as in unlicensed, then I'd say it's between you and your conscience. But if you use the public roads that we all share, I think you should follow the public rules that are supposed to apply to all of us.

 

And what do you think about this?

http://www.junkscience.com/dec98/catcon.html

 

Yes, possibly. Tradeoffs abound. And yet, after considering the tradeoffs, it has been decided that the benefits outweigh the costs.

It would be better if we found some non-carbon source of energy for our personal transportation. But in the meantime... would you rather live in Shanghai, or Mexico City?

 

Everything I've ever seen referenced from "junkscience.com" indicates that the name is about as apt as anything has ever been.

Please find something from a peer-reviewed journal.

 

Mike, swallow your political bias and read the article.

It's the EPA that's questioning the catalytic converter!

 

I don't think you know all that much about me, actually. My interest in this subject has nothing to do with politics.

I skimmed it before I made my comment. And my comment still stands.

 

I have read plenty of your posts Mike, and my comment still stands.

So you don't agree with the EPA?

 

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

The EPA is not advocating removing the cats.

 

Now, now -- let's not make this personal.

No, they are not advocating the removal of catalytic converters.

However they are the very agency that mandated their use in 1975.

Isn't it ironic that they now realize while they improved air quality, they create large volumes of green house gases and thus contribute to "global warming".

Paving the road to hell with good intentions ring a bell?

 

Not to take sides, but wtf does this comment have to do with the argument at hand...?