S2000 Under The Hood S2000 Technical and Mechanical discussions.

Passed Emissions Test

Thread Tools
 
Old Aug 18, 2005 | 02:09 PM
  #11  
Silver9k's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 6
From: DFW, TX
Default

Like I said before guys...I used to have an Eclipse...I put it on a sniffer...at 3krpms and at idle all values were considered passing.

This is with a LARGE list of mods.

No reason why an S2k shouldn't pass without a cat...the cat just makes it cleaner and better. Making the public think that Honda is so great with all their LEV, ULEV, and SULEV vehichles.

And as the above post mentioned, yes Oxides of Nitrogen probably would be a little high in the S, but, I doubt they'd be high enough to bump it out of passing
Old Aug 18, 2005 | 02:13 PM
  #12  
jasonw's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 16,702
Likes: 0
From: █ SF, CA █
Default

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD,Aug 18 2005, 03:06 PM
If a car with a cat is driven for 12X as much than the one without it will actually release more toxic gases into the atmosphere than the one without the cat.
That doesn't really matter unless you start driving even less after taking off the cat to compensate...not likely.
Old Aug 18, 2005 | 03:57 PM
  #13  
WVtwisties's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,861
Likes: 0
From: PA
Default

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD,Aug 18 2005, 02:06 PM
Execpt that depending upon the circumstances it's not worse on the environment. Even if it puts out 10X the emmisions as one with a cat(it's not that bad). If a car with a cat is driven for 12X as much than the one without it will actually release more toxic gases into the atmosphere than the one without the cat.

Good/bad for the enviroment is all relative. The more you drive the worse you are for the environment. Removing the cat just increases the scale. However if it is a low use car then you can't really make the claim that you're hurting the environment more than the guy driving his SUV 50miles a day.
yeah like i said and still say....no matter what your reasoning or justification, the test pipe is bad for the environment. SUV's aren't putting them on and pointing the finger at racecars.

I'd never run one. there are too many other ways to improve your car that have no effect on the quality of air we breath.

As a convertible driver you should understand the unpleasantness of a smelly exhaust.
Old Aug 18, 2005 | 04:01 PM
  #14  
Ro_Ja Boy's Avatar
Thread Starter
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,281
Likes: 9
From: Vegas
Default

I dont have a convertible. And to tell you the truth, I dont feel any remorse running a testpipe. My thread was not started to ask nature lovers if you like me for running a testpipe.

Ryan
Old Aug 18, 2005 | 04:08 PM
  #15  
fperra's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,178
Likes: 0
From: Washington State
Default

Originally Posted by jasonw,Aug 18 2005, 03:33 PM
Actually, no cat = more carbon monoxide(a poisonous gas), more volatile organic compounds(a major component of smog), and more nitrogen oxides(contributes to smog and acid rain, and also causes irritation to human mucus membranes).
Yeah, and so does one brush fire, and one cigarette, not to mention one volcano. And think of all the methane one fart puts into the atmosphere. Its been going on long before dinosaurs and the ecosystem is still here. How about that.
Old Aug 18, 2005 | 04:17 PM
  #16  
jasonw's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 16,702
Likes: 0
From: █ SF, CA █
Default

Originally Posted by fperra,Aug 18 2005, 05:08 PM
Yeah, and so does one brush fire, and one cigarette, not to mention one volcano. And think of all the methane one fart puts into the atmosphere. Its been going on long before dinosaurs and the ecosystem is still here. How about that.
Well you can only be responsible for the things in your control. That does not include volcanoes but does include cigarette started fires and test pipes. I'm not trying to make this into a clean air debate but, let's just be honest with ourselves and not try to pretend a catalytic converter doesn't do any good by reducing emissions.
Old Aug 18, 2005 | 04:25 PM
  #17  
Silver9k's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 6
From: DFW, TX
Default

Lets turn this into a global warming debate and find out how many people actually believe in that nonsense the media creates
Old Aug 18, 2005 | 04:26 PM
  #18  
fperra's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,178
Likes: 0
From: Washington State
Default

And my point is, in the grand scheme of things, Ro_Ja Boy taking his CAT off won't make one bit of difference.
Old Aug 18, 2005 | 04:29 PM
  #19  
jasonw's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 16,702
Likes: 0
From: █ SF, CA █
Default

Originally Posted by Silver9k,Aug 18 2005, 05:25 PM
Lets turn this into a global warming debate and find out how many people actually believe in that nonsense the media creates
I say stick to the facts for UTH:

FACT: Catalytic converter reduces carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides. It's up to you to decide how much more should be in the air.

FACT: No peer reviewed science study has done anything but confirm global warming. Only (industry-employed)biostitutes call it nonsense.
Old Aug 18, 2005 | 04:31 PM
  #20  
jasonw's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 16,702
Likes: 0
From: █ SF, CA █
Default

Originally Posted by fperra,Aug 18 2005, 05:26 PM
And my point is, in the grand scheme of things, Ro_Ja Boy taking his CAT off won't make one bit of difference.
How can you say this without comparing tailpipe readouts? If the cat didn't do anything, replacing it with a test-pipe wouldn't improve performance.



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:10 AM.