Guest

Just thought this would be beneficial (from a legal standpoint), and realized how misinformed some people are on the topic. I'm surprised there isn't some sort of sticky on this by now with all the threads out there!

According to Title II of the EPA Clean Air Act (Enacted Jan 1 1988) there are multiple regulations concerning the use or misuse of aftermarket catalytic converters, or the removal and/or modification of a stock catalytic converter. According to various parts of Section 203, all aftermarket catalytic converters must be EPA certified, and your car must have a gas conversion device of some manner. If not, both you and the installer are punishable of a Federal Offense by Section 205 (a). The operator's fine can be no more than $2,500 and the installation agency no more than $25,000.

It is also important to note the 1988 establishment of this statute, which could probably be your best legal defense to anyone operating a pre-1988 vehicle with street-illegal equipment. It is in the courts' hands to prove your system was installed post-1988 beyond a shadow of a doubt, as they cannot try you ex post facto. This would at least be helpful in any sort of plea-bargaining.

Now, in reality, most states do not run thorough emission control programs and some of those that do are loosely enforced. More than likely, most local offenses (on the off chance you are caught during a routine traffic stop) would be swept under the table and marked as some sort of equipment violation, because this is how the local ordinances make money. Its much more beneficial to police to fine you locally (as they will actually see that money) as opposed to reporting you in violation of a federal statute, as they will probably see none of that money come back to their area. Besides, the federal government has better things to do with their time.

I don't really have much of an opinion on this issue; I am all for emission control, but I am all for people having the liberty to rip their catalytic converters out as well (hypocritical, I know). And whether you like it or not, making an educated decision is important before you take any sort of risk.

Here is the origin of my information, if you so choose to learn more about this subject and similar others:
http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/title2.html

1bad91Z

iTrader: (1)

That's why I'm just gonna park my car until it becomes a classic/antique vehicle. But, by then we probably wont have gasoline anymore!

The solution is to move to a state that doesn't require emissions testing, then run the primaries of your lontube headers up through the hood like velocity stacks...... we'll all roast hot-dogs to the sound of my small block chevy.

Yee-Haw!

Guest

I take it no one found this interesting?

Kevin91Z

iTrader: (1)

Or they dont want to read it because they think you can gain 1000 more horsepower by removing your cat and ignoring how illegal it is.

Jix01

86camaro383

iTrader: (3)

or because noone gives a s(it. Technically speaking, almost aftermarket that will increase performance is illegal.

Guest

Yeah, a lot of stuff that does increase performance is illegal.

But thats because its intended for "off-road" use. Not because it is "polluting" like some ridiculous federal agency is saying here, but because it is "not intended for street use." Thats why when you buy things for your car it says "legal in 50 states" (or 49 sometimes because California laws suck) or "for off-road use only" to help people determine the difference between the two.

If everything that made your car faster/perform better was illegal, there would never be any cars worth driving on the road.

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

Well, for those that are scared of getting cought from removal, the answer is to gut the cat. There is no way to tell it was altered, even if there was a way to tell, who is to say the converter did not just get old and he internals broke up and slowly were blown out the exhaust?


Verry interesting info though, thanks. Now if i buy a 88 and older car, i have a better chance of avoiding any fines.

91 RS Drop Top

Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to post the info. I always like to know exactly what the law says.

As for my 2 cents, as someone said before, people throw all kinds of stuff that is of questionable legality (anything labeled "off-road use only") on there cars yet still get worked up about cats and smog pumps. My point is only that if someone wants to enforce one regulation they need to comply with all of them, even to the point of not putting unapproved air filters on their cars if they live in states like california.

As for me, high flow cats are expensive (to me anyway), and anything I can do to make my car simpler to work on/less cluttered under the hood (AIR, EGR) is good.

So as soon as the EPA buys me a good cat I will shell out the money to have it installed. My car will get a cat someday, but not today.

Thanks again for the good info though.

slow_90firebird

I just wanna gut the cat because I love the smell of un-catalyzed exhaust. Even if you are driving behind a newer car with EFI, the hollow cat still makes it smell like you are driving behind a 57 chevy or a big block stingray or something.

Kevin91Z

iTrader: (1)

What you think smells good, to the soccer mom or hippie behind you smells like crap. And those soccer moms and hippies vote to put more anti-modification laws against us hot rodders. Which makes it tougher for us to make our cars better and faster, and tougher for auto companies to come out with awesome cars like the Corvette Z06/ZR1, or the new Camaro, Mustang, and Charger.

I'm guessing this is aimed towards me? Yes I get worked up about catalytic converters and air pumps because you can SEE them, they are external engine parts. And any clueless idiot on the street can see them as well, or see that you are missing them. What goes on inside my engine, such as the cylinder heads or the camshaft, is nobody's business but mine, as long as it sounds like a Compucam 2032 (which is the biggest 50-state legal cam) and it blows clean out the tailpipe. You can call it a double-standard, but I call it out-smarting the system. You cannot remove a cat or an AIR pump without being obviously illegal. I can install a camshaft and call it a Compucam 2032 and nobody knows but me.
When you remove your "smog crap" and gain so much more horsepower you blow me in the weeds, then we'll talk. In the meantime, I'll be over here in the Communist state of California, putting down 355 RWHP, getting 25 MPG on the highway, and passing the emissions test as clean as stock with everything still hooked up.

RacerX13

I just KNEW you were a hypocrite!

You're wasting your effort trying to keep the hippies and the soccer moms happy because they will hate us NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. I doesn't matter whether the car burns clean or not, or whether it passes a visual inspection or not to them. As far as they are concerned there is no acceptable reason for us to have, or want, or like, or enjoy our cars, or any cars. We can show them proof that our cars burn clean, we can even show them proof that our cars burn cleaner than theirs, and get better mileage than theirs and it won't sway their opinion one bit. Trust me on this-I have to deal with these type of people more than I'd like and it's not what we do and have that they want to take away-it's our freedom of choice that they're after.

The ONLY thing that should matter is how clean the car burns-PERIOD! The CARB "visual inspection" rule is a stupid as stupid gets. It's illegal to put a 5.3LS motor out of a brand new pickup in our cars that burns cleaner and gets better mileage because it won't pass the visual and that's proof that it's all just B.S. And you can't fight BS with more BS-it just doesn't work. And I'm sorry that you're jealous of all of us that don't live in California and don't have to put up with all the B.S. inspections and such that you do. We are jealous of your perfectly rust free cars and perfect weather year round. We have our own problems to deal with and for some that is just putting gas in the tank. If cutting off the worn out 20 year old cat makes somebody get better gas mileage then they are using less fuel and they ARE being a more responsible hot rodder! I see you scold everybody that mentions pulling the cat or the air pump or the egr and trying to lay some big guilt trip on them but never a word on the "true dual" threads, or the LT header threads. If you really believe your own bs then be consistent and scold everybody. If you really want to make a real-world difference then put that effort into urging people to tune the car up-replace the O2 sensor. Spending $200 there would be a bigger improvement in reducing emissions than putting a new cat on a bad running car. Enough with your dubious statistics that are bent to support your agenda. Share the knowledge you have to help people make their cars run as well as possible whether they still have a cat or not. That is how you could be a responsible hot rodder.

91 RS Drop Top

Kevin, this was not aimed towards you at all. You are always helpful on here, and your position is well known. It was a general statement that yes I think if anyone wants to insist we comply with one law then they should support complying with the others too. In many parts of the country there is absolutely no testing, and in others there is absolutely no visual inspection. So for those of us in places like GA, what is under our hoods is every bit as invisible as what cam you have. So I would say that what goes on under my hood is "nobody's business but mine." Its exactly the same situation, but with another part. Those of you in California have figured out exactly what you can do with absolutely no chance of it being seen by inspectors, and so have we. I have never even heard of anyone who has heard of cops checking under hoods in this part of the country. I want my AIR pump gone becuase it is a pain to work under the hood with all that crap, not because I think it will make me go faster.

No hard feelings though, kevin, and I was being sincere when I thanked the original poster for the info.

Guest

The whole issue is quite interesting to me, as a law student. And it is a particularly controversial issue on this forum, which is another reason I was surprised to see no sort of sticky on the actual legality of the issue, since so many people ask about hacking their cat out and many seem to be interested in exactly what the problem is.

Likewise, its a perfect example of the intricacies of law, and just how un-enforced most regulations are as well as how difficult it is to properly enforce them. Its kind of embarassing for the government when you think about it, considering it takes about a whole two seconds worth of experience and even less time to see if a car has a cat at all. And probably not a whole lot more to see if the cat is just gutted.

But yes, as many have already said, depending on where you live, we all know the little (and big) things that we can get away with that may not exactly be the most legal modification for our cars. And just because what is strictly enforced in one state is not strictly enforced in another is not a reason to be upset that someone else gets to have something on their car that you can't.

In fact, if you want to get into the pollution part of the argument, the use of catalytic converters has had adverse effects as well. The platinum and palladium used as the chemical catalyst in the cats is concentrated largely in a particular city of Russia, which has suffered greatly due to increased demand for these precious metals as a result of the requirement for catalytic converters. In fact, the city (Norilsk) is now amongst the top ten most polluted cities in the world as a result of the increased mining. All for Americans to feel the more-direct sensation of saving the environment by converting the small amount of toxic fumes coming out of their tailpipe into what has been known as 'less-toxic' fumes; both of which have no impact on immediate environmental problems such as Golbal Warming (and don't tell me Global Warming is b.s. because I did two years of physics and physics research as an undergraduate before changing to law, so trust me, its not and you're not going to change my mind). That problem is cause by carbon dioxide, and there no magic tube we can put on our cars to stop that.

Guest

Law student eh? Keep digging. Removal of any federally mandatated and/or approved pollution control devices, of any sort, was a federal violation way prior to the Clean Air Act of 1990. There were provisions for this dating back at least to 1972.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Man-caused global warming is BS. If you're too closed minded and unscientific to see that, it's even more of a shame that you went into law, because you can probably do even more damage there.

When anyone, Al Gore included, can explain how the temperature of Mars rising along with the temperature of earth are both man-caused, then I'll listen.

Guest

Its actually the Clean Air Act of 1963 (originally), so yes there were provisions prior to 1990.
Many provisions, I suppose (Including a failed one in 1955). But... I never said there weren't. (???)
In fact, the CAA been amended several times: in 1970, 1977, and 1990. And, I wouldn't be surprised if it was amended again sometime soon.

The Title I was refering to (I believe I'm correct but I could be wrong) was considered law in 1990. Sorry, I do have 1988 but that was wrong (and I can't change it now), I dunno why the heck I put that. Either way, the 1990 amendments greatly changed the way the system worked: it made the federal government more invovled and responsible for the mentioned wrong-doings, more able to enforce them, and reformed the emissions check system as we know it today.

Just because I say something that doesn't mean it is 100% true. Especially when it comes to finding a law that is not necessarily easily accessible and has been amended several times. It's up to each car owner to be responsible.

Here:
http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/caa_history.html

Guest

F.Y.I.:

The research I did was a transit-method extra-solar planetary search. That was in the field of astrophysics. I know quite a bit about planetary atmospheres, as they are an important component in the secondary verification of planetary candidates outside of our solar system. I also spent a semester as a teaching assistant for our university's introductory astronomy course.

The atmosphere on Mars is approximately 95% carbon dioxide (the same gas supposedly causing global warming here on Earth), and temperatures on Mars can vary from -220F at night in winter to 50F during day in the summer. Likewise, most of Mars' atmosphere was lost some 4 billion years ago due to the low gravity on Mars. Mars is approximately .5 Earth radii in diameter, and since gravity scales as a function of the radius of a planet, the lighter elements like hydrogen and oxygen have escaped due the planets low gravitational pull leaving behind the particularly dense gases, like CO2. Anyhow, that is all beside the point.

Mars warming is particularly a hoax. And this is according to a Ph. D. Astrophysicist who I contacted to double check as a result of reading this ridiculous statement. Yes, there is minor warming when compared to surveys of previous global temperatures. Is it due to global warming as we know it? No. There has been a substantial increase in storms on the planet's surface. Other planets have weather too. This caused the general atmosphere to become darker and thicker, thus more efficiently absorbing the suns rays and keeping the infrared radiation 'in.' To say this is a steady increase in temperature would be like saying the city of New Orleans has always been a destroyed wasteland. Taking a snapshot of a particular item in time and generalizing it into an entire history is a gross perversion of what science actually is. Science IS inductive, but not that inductive.

So as for Mars' global warming, it doesnt exist. Just because you read it on Wikipedia, or the National Enquirer doesn't make it true. If you want real information on topics such as this, look toward credible national physics journals like "astro-ph."

As for Earth's global warming, thats left for you to decide. Using Science.



As for Al Gore, I'm a liberal, and I think he's an idiot. All he has been successful in doing is pissing off republicans and people who think dinosaurs never existed or the world was created 6000 years ago and making them less interested in taking steps to solve global warming.

And as for the term "man-made" it is self-contradictory. Man is a part of nature, and so is the atmosphere. All of the interactions are natural. There are no aliens or anything. Whether we did it, or cow's farts did it (yes, that is a theory) there is a lot of evidence that points to it existing, and its definitely worth looking into whether you believe it or not. Better safe than sorry they say.

As for open-mindedness, I have majored (for part of my education) and done research in physics, nearly completed a math minor during that time, changed my focus, finished both ethics and political science minors, and a major in philosophy.

I didn't intend a simple post about a catalytic converter law to become an attack on the ideologies of you, myself, or anyone else on this forum. I figured that people would like to know the particulars before making a decision, but I was wrong and had forgotten that any half-wit with an internet connection can get on a forum and state their business.

Guest

Check the case history. There were prosecutions prior to 1990, so it 'was law' prior to 1990. Its fairly well documented that tampering with emissions control devices (first use I can think of offhand of is 1963) is and has been violation of federal law for some time. Trying to circumvent that over stating the law wasnt passed until 1988 is dangerous and as it turns out not legal either. As the OP and law student, you should have searched a little further before making a post claiming it could be legal with a possible defense of such actions. I know for fact you can dupe uninformed DA's with dates of law passage and requiring them to provide proof of past existence of a device prior to that date on that vehicle as I have done exactly that in a court, but it doesnt make it legal to do so... in my case it was just a simple way to get out of a citation.

As far as global warming, and the key term 5-7 mentioned about "manmade" global warming, the issue is the terms used. Now its "Climate Change" and often preceded by "Manmade" which has absolutely zero connection to any science because the data being used to calculate the change is garbage. Case in point, research about the 'wrong' data from the 70's and 80's that supposedly had a time clock error that has been 'corrected' by an amount more than the amount of change they're talking about. Doesnt that clue you in to anything? Talking about astrophysics, surely you learned a little about data and confidence intervals. Also this so-called piece of junk climate model they're using isn't worth the drive its stored on either. Plug in up to 1950 and we're supposed to be at like 150 degrees F right now, and we're not. Garbage in truly = Garbage out and thats what we've got right now. Thats totally aside of the fact there's no engineering or scientific correlation between co2 increase and temperature increase. And since you're throwing your stuff down on the floor like background gives you any more credibility I actually took courses and did study in air pollution, and you did not, being in physics. So now who's word is better than the other? Maybe the one that doesn't rely on junk data ground through a junk program to make lousy future projections. And you're right, just because you or anyone else says it doesnt make it true, leaving the false claims of MANMADE global warming totally unproven and unsubstansiated. At least if you're not listening to cash cow carbon credits selling Al Gore.

Lock?

Guest

Saying there is "case histroy" with no proof and restating everything I just said really doesnt change the situation. I'm wandering if you read my post or just looked at the first half a dozen or so words and then clicked "Quote." You're essentially taking things I didn't say, implying them through their absence, then accusing me of being wrong. I feel like I'm arguing with an ex-girlfriend.

And again, with the manmade. Manmade is a made-up, politically oriented and charged term. And saying there is no connection? I suppose you're one of those people who thinks there's no correlation between tobacco use and types of cancer; or maybe you're still living in as far back as the turn of the 20th century, and there is no link between radiation and cancer or genetic mutation.

Discounting the importance of any sort of impending doom on mankind with even discrete amounts of something that resembles scientific evidence that doesnt involve the rapture is asinine. I'm ashamed if you are a scientist, are going to be a scientist, or were trained by real scientists, because this kind of unparalleled apathy is the kind of stuff that is going to put Florida and California under water in 50 years. It's no wonder America is rated amongst the worst scientifically educated countries in the entire world.

Y2K wasn't even this significant or threatening and look how much time people put into solving that ridiculous problem, and the way the entire world was in panic. I'd say for as much money as we spend on other ridiculous government programs, it wouldnt be a big deal to shell out some more money just to be safe.

Lock this thing if you want, its obvious where its headed. I don't know what I was thinking when I thought I would get simple thank you's and respectful discourse on an interesting topic (the original topic, if you forgot, was catalytic converters).

There are forums for actual informed open-minded and intelligent debate. This isn't one of them.

1bdbrd

iTrader: (1)

Emissions has little to do with how fast factory production cars are today. Even our low emissions econoboxes are faster than some of the family sedans of yesteryear. The biggest threat to factory performance will be the stupidity of buyers. Period. Soccer moms have little to do with the overall picture of it, and I promise you that the exhaust smell has little to do with the way the car community is viewed. Rather, sound and the driving habits of "car enthusiasts" are more closely scrutinized.

Furthermore, I have seen no proof that emissions devices do anything to help the atmosphere "problems" (and I use that term as loose as I possibly can, because there's no scientific PROOF of that either, just speculation and theories); rather they do nothing but pad the pockets of politicians. Poorly maintained cars, diesel powered semis and trains, and the biggest polluter, FACTORIES are bigger problems than a few cars here and there without emissions equipment.

Finally, until global warming is scientifically proven to be 100% correct in both cause AND effect, then I will continue to drive my car sans emissions devices. However, the biggest difference between my car and some slack jawed local is that mine will be properly tuned to produce as little extra as possible. NOT because of the atmosphere effects, but rather I feel that negatively effects gas mileage.

Guest

Thank you 1bdbrd for getting back on topic.

Saber

iTrader: (2)

I fail to see why everyone is arguing on when the Clean Air Act was first put into effects, and why were all arguing about global warming and what causes it. The way i see it, i will run a cat on my exhaust because i have to pass a visual inspection for New Hampshire, i do not run an AIR pump or the tubes and i have called 3 different mechanics and my car is emissions exempt, they said as long as i have a Cat and muffler, than i will pass fine. My car is plenty loud enough for me and my exhaust is free flowing enough for my car, Cat and all. Cats and the clean air act have been around for along time, as a matter of fact when cats were originally put on cars, which i believe to be sometime during the second gen of camaros, the sales of camaros and firebirds struggled because cats were a new technology and they did not fully learn how to make a performance car with low emissions, thats what i recall reading about somewhere. Now, that doesnt seem to be much of a problem, but the main fact is the revisions current, its the same law, its the Clean Air Act, its just been revised to meet 1990 standards.

To be honest, ill do what i have too, and what is advised, I was not told it was illegal to put headers on my car with no air tubes, or told it was illegal to remove my smog pump, which was done by a mechanic in New Hampshire, And according to what was posted, it is illegal to modify an exhaust and smog pump under the Clean Air Act, which i previously did not know, but i called some mechanics and inquired if my car would pass inspection without a smog pump and they said i would. Im very straight foreward with my car, I feel that as long as you know the laws, and you yourself can make an educated decision on weather or not to abide by them, thats your choice and i doubt anyone can force anybody else to run a cat or not run a cat, its their personal choice, this thread is very informative on the Law though, i must admit it had me running scared on weather or not i would pass inspection this year.

Guest

That is pretty much what I have been saying all along, saber, and I definitely agree! There is a HUUUGGEEE difference between what the law says and what actually happens or is even considered legal in each persons neck of the woods.

But again, you are right. Being forward and honest with your inspectors and mechanic is always the best choice. No one is ever going to report you to any federal agency without giving you a chance to fix what is wrong first.

Guest

Rather than reading more of your drivel, I will just start from the bottom.

You're right, this isn't an intelligent debate and you are the reason for it. By your own admission, the revision of existing law in 1990 (not 1988) did nothing to change the fact that removing any devices prior to the 1990 or 1988 model year is and was and likely always will be a violation of federal law. Your original post suggests that you could use the passing of what you incorrectly assumed was a new law in 1988 as a defense for existence of an originally installed device on vehicles constructed prior to 1988 leaving the burden of proof on the court. I think we've established here that you were dead wrong, and that you cannot use that as a defense. As an attorney, you would have failed. Thats why you are still in school, and not practicing law. Will the EPA cops come to get you if you remove your catalytic converter from your car? I too think that ranks about up there with the chances of getting struck by lightning. The fact remains that it is a violation of federal laws that have been in place for a long time. There's no circumventing it with misunderstanding of written code. I actually posted up the correct information YEARS ago, and if you search you might find the pertinent information in a sticky post.

I dont see much point in arguing anything else with someone that is clearly unarmed. Well, I suppose I could diverge from the original post like you first did even though you seem to think someone else brought up the global warming thing, and post a graph created from NOAA and EPA data charting questionable global temperature data vs questionable global co2 emissions and questionable global atmospheric co2 content with links to the data to show how there is no correlation, but I'm sure you'd start calling me your girlfriend again when the facts are laid down and you still want to claim foul.

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

I've always been of the belief that....

If CLEAN AIR is really the goal, then why bother with visual? Stick the sniffer in the tail pipe, run the test. Cat or no cat, smog pump or no smog pump, AIR tubes or not....Who cares? Pass or fail should be based on the results, not HOW you got the results.

The visual portion should be thrown out.

I've passed the last 2 sniffer tests without a smog pump. I have a cat, and the AIR tubes are on my manifolds (for visual), but my cat doesn't even have an emissions tube on it. Never did.

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

Oh yeah....

Just because the car hits 23 years (the cut-off here for testing) desn't mean you can remove everything. It only means no more testing. You still hafta pass visual, which includes everything still on thecar.

So, for those who think they can just pull everything off, after they hit the "classic" mark...Your wrong. No equipment still equals no pass.

Saber

iTrader: (2)

I fail to see why we are all still so hostile, forgive the man, he must have made the simple mistake of thinking that the law, which carries the date tag of 1990 was first thought up in 1990. Shoot him for being a little misinformed, there is no need to fight among each other, we will each do to our cars what we want, and nobody can prove global warming or that cats and such actually help the air, after all cats have been around for a long time and global warming is not getting any better is it? and FYI according to New Hampshire State law, which im assuming is based off the clean air act, cars less than 20 years old have to have all stock emissions equipment in place, if they are older than 20, they become exempt from any and all emissions, and visual inspection of emissions control devices. That is what was told to me by my mechanic yesterday, so in defense of the thread you two are arguing about, i believe that if you had a 1985 car with no cats and got in trouble for it, it would mean nothing, or at least as much as i can gather, but im no law student, or judge. If everyone wants to get real technical, Emissions testing should be nation wide, but its not thank god, its left up to a state by state basis.

chesterfield

I'd love to see a believer in the CO2 global warming hoax actually behave like they believe it. people who believe in the rapture generally behave like they believe it. But the Global warming alarmists can't seem to stop themselves from enjoying the very activities they claim will bring doom. They drive cars, they log onto the internet and chit chat with others, they watch tv and take hot showers. They drive to the theatre to sit in air conditioned confort to watch "An Inconvenient Truth". Etc, etc. I'd just like to see one, just one of them start living the lifestyle they claim is needed to save the planet.

Guest

"Rather than reading more of your drivel I'll start from the bottom.." ???
I figured you couldn't read (like I already said).
And apparently making a simple typo is a major party foul now?



Dude, you are either one of two things:
1. Around when they wrote the law in 1963 and still pissed about it.
2. A worthless piece of **** who has over 8500 posts over the span of 9 years that has nothing better to do with their time than write rebuttals to college students on the internet in between their shifts at K-Mart and Giant Eagle.

I made this account to ask one simple question about my car (which no one ever even answered right because most of the people, like you, on here are old dickbags who know nothing about cars and can barely even type well enough to provide a coherent and reasonable answer), but forgot again, any half-wit with an internet connection can get on here and state their business.

There are some really good guys on here, who are really knowledgeable, and provide some really helpful information on this era of cars. You are not one of these people. You're just some ***** with a hardon for showing everyone how persistent you can be in typing the same thing over and over again. A lot like Bill O'Reilly, repeating something over and over again or saying it louder doesn't make you any more right.

**** your rambling.
**** your repeating information like its going to help you if you say it one more time.

If you're so knowledgeable on the law and global warming why dont you do both of the following:
1. Post the supposed information you have been repetitively citing and posted 'years' ago
2. Write a book, make a movie, or do something like testify in front of congress and educate them on how global warming is just a big ol' hoax so you can help them solve the world's probelms and then maybe you can be famous and win the nobel prize and stop wasting your time ignorantly arguing arguing about bullshit.

I claim to have no solution about anything. I am trying to offer discussion on though-provoking topics about cars. (Not politics, like you once again brought up like a dumbass.)

I'm done with your inbred hillbilly 'scientists made up the dinosaur bones' bullshit.

Is there a ban for stupid and ignorant? Because if you haven't got it yet, you deserve it now.

And, please, don't bother posting back because I won't respond, you're obviously a idiot. You don't even warrant a response from me anymore.

Guest

Okay I don't even know where you're comin from. Air conditioning, hot showers, tv and the internet aren't the causes of global warming, or the cause of CO2 thats causing it.

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

If ya'll kids wanna fight, take it to PMs....All your accomplishing is getting the thread locked.

RacerX13

This could have been a civil and productive discussion if you hadn't made it political yourself with this statement-

Global warming-it's validity, and it's causes are debatable and a hot button issue among most groups of people, especially the group of people that congregate here, since they stand to lose something they enjoy and care about as a result of the actions that might be taken on this issue. I feel sorry for you son-I think they may have brainwashed you in college(lots of that going on). From your statements here it looks like they made you closed minded, arrogant, and elitist too. Here's a tip-if you want to convince people of the validity of your position then you need to provide evidence to support it, and overcome their objections-not just give up and call them *******s, or tell them that they are just too stupid to understand you. That's not the way to win people to your side-it's a cop out on your part.

"Okay I don't even know where you're comin from. Air conditioning, hot showers, tv and the internet aren't the causes of global warming, or the cause of CO2 thats causing it."

This shows how much you have to learn(or proof that you have been sold a bill of goods). The primary source of greenhouse gasses are power plants. We don't use much nuclear here, so most of our power production comes from coal or gas fired boilers. Hot showers, air conditioning, the internet, cars, toilet paper, and well stocked grocery stores all require WATTS. And that mostly requires you to burn something to make heat. They are all responsible. There are some hippies out there that think that getting all of our energy needs from the power plant somehow makes it non-polluting and it just isn't so-power plants aren't full of unicorns that fart electricity, they're just like cars only bigger. It's all the same.

Lighten up. Listen to everything that's being said on the subject-even the stuff you don't like. Especially the stuff that makes you question what you already take as fact. I find that people tend to get the angriest when they have to question what they were sure of-that's when they get really viscous. Listen to those *******s and Bush lovers-they have valid points also even if they are mostly wrong. You need to-for your own good.

Guest

Wow the truth really burns doesnt it? Did you find my sticky? Engine Swap board. I even linked the pdf file of memorandum 1A that makes removing a cat illegal because it was passed in 72 and cats appeared in 76. Sorry I was not cordial but I expect those who claim to be overeducated and want to flaunt it as if it makes them inherently more intelligent or educated as being able to click the search button. But in that respect, I usually bring out the best in people and I'm probably a few paragraphs from being told to be nice. The next step is generally the accusation that I claim to be all knowing, when in fact no such claim was ever made nor will you find one and its something I will always disagree with if its suggested. There are just some things that are easily shown as fact, fact is Kevin was the first to say its illegal and as I expected since Kevin doesnt have PHD attached to his user ID you totally ignored that and continued on. Anger is usually the first step for those who have finished learning it all, and have been shown otherwise. Also bringing up my post count really doesnt mean a whole lot, it just means I've been here a long time and its been more than 9 years. I offer advice where I can, and dont where I cant. So the presumption that the elders and those that have a lot of posts know it all, is far from true. Some do, some dont. Sometimes those with only 19 posts and who are still dripping behind the ears throw a monkey wrench into the room and surprise everyone. You just never know, but this isnt the case here today. I just spent the last week listening to the otherworldly and complete knowledge of a 15 year old last week who had learned everything and knew everything, and I learned that I never realized how dumb I was at 15 because I thought I knew it all. And as much as he did not know, as is typical, he knew things I did not. Its not upsetting to me, its proof that you can only learn when you realize you dont know a thing.

As far as your request, I suppose I could go to the extent of reading your entire post word for word and make a point by point rebuttal but you already know more than me and I'm wrong so there isnt much point in that not to mention it just strays from your original post even more. Suffice it to say that in case anyone missed it in all this useless banter:

Unfortunately, you cannot use the clean air act of 1990 as your defense for removing a catalytic converter on a 1989 vehicle unless you like paying fines.

I could care less about a typo of 88 or 90, you arent getting it. You posted this up as if you're the legal genius that figured out the perfect way to circumvent the EPA. I did not throw my credentials down first, you did as if it makes you smarter. You go on to presume those who disagree with you are uneducated fools. I wonder where the real truth lies. Here's some life lesson:

You get a bachelor degree when they think you think you know everything.
You get a masters degree when they think you realize you dont know everything.
You get a doctorate when they know you realize you dont know anything at all.

You have a long way to the doctorate. Let me know when you think you caught up.

Oh and calm down a little. Its just an internet message board where you realized some people know things you dont.

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

Ya'll wanna make the biggest impact on greenhouse gas reduction? Kill all the cows & stop eating beef. Cow manure is the #1 producer of greenhouse gas.

No....I'm not a vegetarian, nor do I wanna give up beef & go soy...

Guest

Make a contribution, kill yourself. Think of all the hot air that will no longer be released. I probably count for 2 people full of hot air, myself.

Guest

Actually, anger is what I get when I realize this whole country, let alone world, is fu cked because of dumb fu cks like you that think they've read an article and time magazine and know everything thing there is to know about everything without ever considering any other possibilities.

It's ashame the same beaches I roamed won't be around for my grandchildren to enjoy.

And as for your little bachelors, masters, phd horseshit, thats cute. Did you copy and paste that from some 19 year old sorority sisters myspace?

If you only give advice where you can, than stop posting here, because I think we've already established that you're useless and have only been interested since your first post in seeing how big of an ******* you can be.

DJP87Z28

Not as big a A-hole that you are after that rant.

Saber

iTrader: (2)

Well, most not, if all of the intelligent info in this thread has not come up in any of the last 3 posts by either of you two, bottom line is, its illegal to tamper with stock emissions systems under federal law, who cares when it was first passed or when it was last amended, if you can get away with it in your state, than thats your choice, and global warming, as of now can not be proven or disproven to the best of my knowledge. Car emissions would have cured the problem if it was the biggest part of it but they didnt, global warming is like cancer there is no cure yet, but who knows in 20 years there could be, which would probably be a good thing for the next couple generations of people to live.

gcgarner

From Western PA, eh? Nobody else knows about Giant Eagle.

Rayzor32

iTrader: (1)

time and time again this comes up, i will continue to rip catalytic converters out and enjoy free hp, better sounding/smelling exhaust and lots of scrap money. **** the epa, federal law and emissions testing.

Saber

iTrader: (2)

How much HP would you actually free up from removing a cat? if any at all? Im curious to know, i always hear that as the main argument against them, but nobody throws numbers out there, kind of like the arguments for why we should keep them, people always say they are good for the enviornment but they never show any actual numbers.

Rayzor32

iTrader: (1)

the difference between a modern aftermarket cat and a straight pipe is marginal even I will admit you might lose 3hp. But a 20 year old factory cat over a straight pipe is a lot more I have no dyno numbers to prove it, but it WILL be more free flowing, my guess is 10hp. Besides hp, the monetary gains alone are worth it, I got 90 dollars EACH when i took off my dual cats for scrap and ran straight 3". And the butt dyno confirmed it was a hell of a lot faster than before (granted i also put on headers) the exhaust was way way louder and smelled great.

chesterfield

I don't know where you live but here in CA 57% of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuel. Seeing as how there are no more rivers we can dam for hydro electric plants and no more nuclear plants are going online, any increase in demand for electricity will increase co2. I'll bet where ever you live the situation is similar.
You've used the scientific term "asinine" to describe those who don't buy into the manmade global warming predictions. Is it any less asinine to bemoan the "impending doom on mankind", and then continue the activities that you believe will cause that doom?
Remember, only you can prevent global warming. Everytime you surf the internet you kill another polar bear.

Rayzor32

iTrader: (1)

Saber

iTrader: (2)

Thank you for that laugh, it just got me about 10 glances at the office. lol. I would say my office has killed about 100 of them today by the looks of it.

91 RS Drop Top

Right on!. Where did you take them to sell for scrap? I dind't think scrap metal was typically worth that much, and I know a junk yard isn't paying that much for them. Please tell us all!

I was removing my cat because it is 18 years old and factory, and I was not replacing it at the moment because I have more important things to spend 200 bucks on, like tires, a new PS pump and tune-up parts, not because I think I will gain power. If I can get $90 for it, all the more reason to do so!!

Rayzor32

iTrader: (1)

well im fortunate enough to have 4 junkyards and 3 scrap yards down the street from me. I took it to diamond herwitz recycling on william st. You have to shop around at the scrap yards for the best price, scrap metal = money, i know people that make their living just driving around a pickup garbage picking once a week. They weigh the cat and see what kind it is determines the price. If you ever see any of those window a/c units out with the garbage stop and grab it, if you rip out all the copper and aluminum in the inside its like 40-70 bucks.

Kevin91Z

iTrader: (1)

And I'll continue to steal your newspaper and take a crap on your front porch. I need to stay up to date on the news, and I think my poop smells like roses, so I know you wont mind.

Rayzor32

iTrader: (1)

so your the one thats been doing that mother****er!!!