# 42dd turbo back, race or street?



## corey_melton (Jan 29, 2013)

going to buy a turbo back exhaust for my quattro 225. not sure if i need race or street. says the race has a test pipe with no catalytic converter. and is an extra 75 for the street the the catalytic converter. wich is best?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

What's your use for the car and how is your State with inspections?


----------



## corey_melton (Jan 29, 2013)

its my daily driver, plan on getting a stage 2 ecu upgrade and im in oregon im pretty sure there isnt any restrictions


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Your daily driver, then there's no need for a catless exhaust. The penalty to cabin comfort isn't worth the power advantage in your application.


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

what is the penalty?


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Krissrock said:


> what is the penalty?


 Killing the environment. Is 2 or 3 hp worth it?


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

he said the penalty "to cabin comfort"


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Krissrock said:


> he said the penalty "to cabin comfort"


 The guilt you feel while cruising in the cabin of a raw exhaust powered vehicle. :laugh: He would mean the smells that permeate the cabin when stopped with the engine running if the HVAC isn't on recirculate.


----------



## Don Neri (Feb 18, 2011)

20v master said:


> Killing the environment. Is 2 or 3 hp worth it?


 Yes 

The whole environment excuse is a crock of ****


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Don Neri said:


> Yes
> 
> The whole environment excuse is a crock of ****


 Agreed. I see much worse offenders ALL the time.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Don Neri said:


> Yes
> 
> The whole environment excuse is a crock of ****


 No, no it's not. N0x's produced by internal combustion are what brought about the ozone scare back in the 80's/90's. The catalytic converter brought about the end of that. The big offenders are ATV's/motorcycles/lawn mowers/blowers/all other gas powered small engines, which don't have cats and still affect the environment. 



warranty225cpe said:


> Agreed. I see much worse offenders ALL the time.


 So if someone else is doing something bad, it definitely makes it okay for you to do it too!


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

20v master said:


> No, no it's not. N0x's produced by internal combustion are what brought about the ozone scare back in the 80's/90's. The catalytic converter brought about the end of that. The big offenders are ATV's/motorcycles/lawn mowers/blowers/all other gas powered small engines, which don't have cats and still affect the environment.
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone else is doing something bad, it definitely makes it okay for you to do it too!


 [email protected] off dude. Go polish your halo


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

warranty225cpe said:


> [email protected] off dude. Go polish your halo


 :laugh:


----------



## corey_melton (Jan 29, 2013)

Ok then, looks like I'm getting the street. Lol unless all of you suggest the race.


----------



## H3NTA1 (Nov 25, 2010)

just go for race bro, i got one for my 180. I also purchased an o2 simulator as well. no cel since installed(3 yrs now)


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

Get the race one! I run cat-less. No big deal. If you dont mind the gassy smell when you're stopped go for it. If the engine is tuned correctly and running fine, even without the cat your emissions are little to harm the environment. 

Anyways, there really are MUCH BIGGER offenders.


----------



## luchos (Feb 23, 2012)

H3NTA1 said:


> just go for race bro, i got one for my 180. I also purchased an o2 simulator as well. no cel since installed(3 yrs now)


 I had the race 42dd for a while, it does not smell and there was not much drone... I'm running a pagparts dp and 42dd catback now and it still is not too loud. I can pass emissions fine with the tune i have, just make sure that whichever tune you chose supports emission delete. When i was stage 2 i was surprised after the fact that Unitronic did not have a stage 2 file for my perticular ecu, so i drove around with a CEL for a while.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Your daily driver, then there's no need for a catless exhaust..


 Yup


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

i have had BOTH. 

the cat quiets it down a bit more. without the cat I thought it was too loud, drone. 

i would consider the cat just another muffler...


----------



## Don Neri (Feb 18, 2011)

20v master said:


> No, no it's not. N0x's produced by internal combustion are what brought about the ozone scare back in the 80's/90's. The catalytic converter brought about the end of that. The big offenders are ATV's/motorcycles/lawn mowers/blowers/all other gas powered small engines, which don't have cats and still affect the environment.
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone else is doing something bad, it definitely makes it okay for you to do it too!


 Volcanoes erupting heal the ozone layer, and climate gate proved it was bs manipulation of data to get the results they wanted 

You seriously don't believe in the lies do ya? 

op, go catless, that's what I plan to do


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

H3NTA1 said:


> just go for race bro, i got one for my 180. I also purchased an o2 simulator as well. no cel since installed(3 yrs now)


 ...and we got another "just go for race bro" advise. I'm glad you enjoy the big boost in power output that the catless setup was able to get you over a high flow cat. Unlike you, maybe the OP has no use in the street for the "because race car" logic.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Don Neri said:


> Volcanoes erupting heal the ozone layer, and climate gate proved it was bs manipulation of data to get the results they wanted
> 
> You seriously don't believe in the lies do ya?
> 
> op, go catless, that's what I plan to do


 No, I believe in the chemistry of internal combustion. If you'd be so kind as to indulge me, what was the desired result that was obtained by fooling us all? You think we should be running leaded gas too, don't you? :laugh: 

I've posted this before, but it usually gets dismissed. The OEM FWD 1.8T cat tapers on both ends, and can be cut to be a true 3" in/out setup, and flows quite well. When you go to a 3" DP, that cat can be welded in, and you don't have to deal with o2 spacers, software deletes, obnoxious fumes, etc etc. Best of all, your butt dyno isn't sensitive enough to detect the 2-3hp you lost from running with a cat.


----------



## chadd! (Apr 16, 2012)

You can always just buy the race and get the cat section later if you don't like it... It's only six bolts to swap it out. I bought the street then bought the test pipe section later, I haven't had any issues with the smell inside the car, outside is a different story.


----------



## Don Neri (Feb 18, 2011)

20v master said:


> No, I believe in the chemistry of internal combustion. If you'd be so kind as to indulge me, what was the desired result that was obtained by fooling us all? You think we should be running leaded gas too, don't you? :laugh:
> 
> I've posted this before, but it usually gets dismissed. The OEM FWD 1.8T cat tapers on both ends, and can be cut to be a true 3" in/out setup, and flows quite well. When you go to a 3" DP, that cat can be welded in, and you don't have to deal with o2 spacers, software deletes, obnoxious fumes, etc etc. Best of all, your butt dyno isn't sensitive enough to detect the 2-3hp you lost from running with a cat.


 Just don't believe we're screwing up the environment or whatnot. As for the reason they'd lie, politics 

Love the fumes, and its worth the hassle, plus why not get those extra ponies


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Don Neri said:


> Just don't believe we're screwing up the environment or whatnot. As for the reason they'd lie, politics
> 
> Love the fumes, and its worth the hassle, plus *why not get those extra ponies*


 ...because I'd wager you aren't competitively racing, and that you couldn't tell the difference performance wise like I already said. I don't believe in global warming, but if you don't think free radicals like NOx's do harm to our breathing source much less our bodies, then I can't help you.


----------



## 180dan (Apr 4, 2011)

20v master said:


> No, I believe in the chemistry of internal combustion. If you'd be so kind as to indulge me, what was the desired result that was obtained by fooling us all? You think we should be running leaded gas too, don't you? :laugh:
> 
> I've posted this before, but it usually gets dismissed. The OEM FWD 1.8T cat tapers on both ends, and can be cut to be a true 3" in/out setup, and flows quite well. When you go to a 3" DP, that cat can be welded in, and you don't have to deal with o2 spacers, software deletes, obnoxious fumes, etc etc. Best of all, your butt dyno isn't sensitive enough to detect the 2-3hp you lost from running with a cat.


 I use this exact setup with the stock cat at 3" on the DP and 2.5" cat back. It doesn't make sense for a daily to go catless for 2-3 or even 5hp. If you want to switch it out on track day and pull the cat on and off, fine. But going catless 24/7 is just plain bad for the enviroment. So what if other people are doing worse things. It doesn't make it right. I'm not gonna rag on anyone who's running a straight pipe. It's not that big a deal. But don't try to defend why it's ok to do it. It's wrong, but it's not the end of the world. At least not in our lifetime right....


----------



## corey_melton (Jan 29, 2013)

well the plan is to be going stage 2 tune. does it matter if i have the cat on? i just want to make sure i get the right thing for my tune. im not really sure who im gonna go with, unitron or revo


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

corey_melton said:


> well the plan is to be going stage 2 tune. does it matter if i have the cat on? i just want to make sure i get the right thing for my tune. im not really sure who im gonna go with, unitron or revo


 Just make sure whichever software you get if you decide to cat-less that it supports It and handles the CEL. Revo stage 2 does it well, which is what I have, it's a pretty aggressive tune if that's what you're looking for. I got tuned around 90k miles and I am currently at 112k. No major issues. 

Have fun and enjoy it! After 6 months you'll want more power, but that's almost inevitable. I want to big turbo stage 3 mine..


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2009)

corey_melton said:


> well the plan is to be going stage 2 tune. does it matter if i have the cat on? i just want to make sure i get the right thing for my tune. im not really sure who im gonna go with, unitron or revo


 It will not matter. Unless your running 500whp and have lots of back pressure issues with some wild setup you will be fine. :beer:

Cat's prevent you from getting heavy fines or failing emissions. The emissions laws have been changing over the past couple years where write outs and o2 sensor spacers will no longer get you a pass. Complying with local and federal laws when it comes to emissions components will make your life easier in the end. Should you sell the car it can pose a big problem of getting everything back together so it complies with the CARB/EPA regulations.

It wont surprise me when more states start following California and Massachusetts emissions testing. Write outs do not work under this system.

:thumbup:


----------



## corey_melton (Jan 29, 2013)

ss94 said:


> Just make sure whichever software you get if you decide to cat-less that it supports It and handles the CEL. Revo stage 2 does it well, which is what I have, it's a pretty aggressive tune if that's what you're looking for. I got tuned around 90k miles and I am currently at 112k. No major issues.
> 
> Have fun and enjoy it! After 6 months you'll want more power, but that's almost inevitable. I want to big turbo stage 3 mine..


 Well i think that answers my question. I'll go with the street just to be safe and then call up revo to see what it takes to get the stage 2. What else will I need to buy for the stage 2?


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

corey_melton said:


> Well i think that answers my question. I'll go with the street just to be safe and then call up revo to see what it takes to get the stage 2. What else will I need to buy for the stage 2?


 Stage 2 for me was a full 3" exhaust (I chose to go cat-less), BFI motor mounts, modshack air intake and stainless MAF, forge turbo inlet silicone hose, 4 bar FPR, Forge Diverter, and the tune. I have some other small mods. 

Without going big turbo realistically I don't think it's much of a difference. I just chose to go catless, there was no reason stopping me since emissions are easy to pass since they only plug into the obd2 port. Either way you'll enjoy it.


----------



## corey_melton (Jan 29, 2013)

ss94 said:


> Stage 2 for me was a full 3" exhaust (I chose to go cat-less), BFI motor mounts, modshack air intake and stainless MAF, forge turbo inlet silicone hose, 4 bar FPR, Forge Diverter, and the tune. I have some other small mods.
> 
> Without going big turbo realistically I don't think it's much of a difference. I just chose to go catless, there was no reason stopping me since emissions are easy to pass since they only plug into the obd2 port. Either way you'll enjoy it.


 ok, yeah ill just go with the cat since it really isnt a big difference. thanks for the list too. im still very new to this car and with modding, this being my first "project" i just got the 42dd intake. whats the stainless maf? and the 4 bar fpr? i was looking into diverter valves and was looking at the DV/BOV. herd BOV are no good, but it the forge hybrid alright?


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

corey_melton said:


> ok, yeah ill just go with the cat since it really isnt a big difference. thanks for the list too. im still very new to this car and with modding, this being my first "project" i just got the 42dd intake. whats the stainless maf? and the 4 bar fpr? i was looking into diverter valves and was looking at the DV/BOV. herd BOV are no good, but it the forge hybrid alright?


 I don't know if he still makes 'em but search for modshack audi tt. He makes a couple things that some of use have really taken a liking to. And I think he has numbers for hp increases too, atleast I think so... BOV is no good. I have the hybrid one, but I leave it on full recirculation. Depending if your 180hp or 225hp you change the FPR (fuel pressure regulator). Some places sell em for $20 some places sell em for $80 it just depends. Whoever does your tuning will tell you what you need specifically and should be able to point you in the right direction.


----------



## corey_melton (Jan 29, 2013)

ss94 said:


> I don't know if he still makes 'em but search for modshack audi tt. He makes a couple things that some of use have really taken a liking to. And I think he has numbers for hp increases too, atleast I think so... BOV is no good. I have the hybrid one, but I leave it on full recirculation. Depending if your 180hp or 225hp you change the FPR (fuel pressure regulator). Some places sell em for $20 some places sell em for $80 it just depends. Whoever does your tuning will tell you what you need specifically and should be able to point you in the right direction.


 who is he lol. but ok when it comes to it, ill get the hybrid. after i get my exhaust. i have a 225hp. just looked up gonzo. and they look really good with the stage 2. ill let you know how the exhaust go


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

corey_melton said:


> who is he lol. but ok when it comes to it, ill get the hybrid. after i get my exhaust. i have a 225hp. just looked up gonzo. and they look really good with the stage 2. ill let you know how the exhaust go


 I don't believe the 225 needs the 4 bar. I could be wrong, it's been a while since I looked at the requirements. I forget what his name is but he makes the modschack intakes and stuff that alot of TT guys have. http://www.modshack.info/bamm.htm 

That's his website. Contact him for more information. It's quite pricey if I remember but so are the carbonio intakes that APR makes. Just personal preference I think. 

Have fun.


----------



## Don Neri (Feb 18, 2011)

20v master said:


> ...because I'd wager you aren't competitively racing, and that you couldn't tell the difference performance wise like I already said. I don't believe in global warming, but if you don't think free radicals like NOx's do harm to our breathing source much less our bodies, then I can't help you.


 Don't bother, I wouldn't listen. We're all gonna die one day, might as well enjoy yourself


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

and slowly kill everything else at the same time:thumbdown:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Dumb Neri said:


> Don't bother, I wouldn't listen. We're all gonna die one day, might as well enjoy yourself


 It's like the heavily smoking father that does it around his kids. He has the right to enjoy himself and poison his lungs in the process because "we're all gonna die one day"... but his kids may not be into second hand smoke (although they will also die one day). We share our planet with others, and when we selfish bastards are gone, future generations have no choice but to deal with what we left for them. 

I'd be the first one to say that I've ran without a cat, but I know that doing it on a completely street car is wrong, and selfish (making lame excuses to justify it is low IMO).


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> It's like the heavily smoking father that does it around his kids. He has the right to enjoy himself and poison his lungs in the process because "we're all gonna die one day"... but his kids may not be into second hand smoke (although they will also die one day). We share our planet with others, and when we selfish bastards are gone, future generations have no choice but to deal with what we left for them.
> 
> I'd be the first one to say that I've ran without a cat, but I know that doing it on a completely street car is wrong, and selfish (making lame excuses to justify it is low IMO).


 I have to agree. If I still daily drove my TT I would want all the emissions requirements on. If there was no need for cats then why would they ever make them?


----------



## Don Neri (Feb 18, 2011)

If you tools believe that ****, then be my guest 

One car catless in nj ain't gonna make a difference and if it does, good


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Dumb Neri said:


> If you tools believe that ****, then be my guest
> 
> One car catless in nj ain't gonna make a difference and if it does, good


 Yes, but when all your peer tools are doing it, what do you think happens? Did your father by any chance smoke heavily around you, and made you his little toddler-helper when he was repainting the house with lead paint? You really act like he did! :wave:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Yes, but when all your peer tools are doing it, what do you think happens? Did your father by any chance smoke heavily around you, and made you his little toddler-helper when he was repainting the house with lead paint? You really act like he did! :wave:


 lol, sitting in the back of a station wagon while pops chain smokes with the windows up :laugh:


----------



## Don Neri (Feb 18, 2011)

Look, bottom line is this; I ain't changing your minds and vice versa 

We can fight about whose opinions are right or wrong or we can agree to disagree and move on. Quite frankly, I said my piece and I'm done, you wanna keep going, be my guests. 

Anyway, goodluck op


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

Global warming by the affect of humans is zilch compared to natural causes.. The Earth has been warming up and cooling down for millions of years before we started all the air "pollution" etc... Our impact is little compared to what has already been happening. 

The fact is global warming is a "sellable" issue. There are billions of dollars to be made. Don't for a second think there is any other reason there is so much hype by the governments and other regulatory statutes for giving it so much consideration. They are manipulating the data they choose to collect and spread to the public and leaving out certain information. Like the fact I statedabove..


----------



## Don Neri (Feb 18, 2011)

ss94 said:


> Global warming by the affect of humans is zilch compared to natural causes.. The Earth has been warming up and cooling down for millions of years before we started all the air "pollution" etc... Our impact is little compared to what has already been happening.
> 
> The fact is global warming is a "sellable" issue. There are billions of dollars to be made. Don't for a second think there is any other reason there is so much hype by the governments and other regulatory statutes for giving it so much consideration. They are manipulating the data they choose to collect and spread to the public and leaving out certain information. Like the fact I statedabove..


 Finally, someone else who knows the truth! 

Appreciate the input bro


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

Don Neri said:


> Finally, someone else who knows the truth!
> 
> Appreciate the input bro


 Haha :beer: :thumbup: 

I can't stand people who are Hell bent over this issue... Sure we have some responsibility, like don't cut down all the damn trees that are giving us oxygen haha.. But as far as emissions, carbons, co2s, etc.... The earth has its own way of finding balance and has been doing it long before any of us were ever here.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

ss94 said:


> Global warming by the affect of humans is zilch compared to natural causes.. The Earth has been warming up and cooling down for millions of years before we started all the air "pollution" etc... Our impact is little compared to what has already been happening.
> 
> The fact is global warming is a "sellable" issue. There are billions of dollars to be made. Don't for a second think there is any other reason there is so much hype by the governments and other regulatory statutes for giving it so much consideration. They are manipulating the data they choose to collect and spread to the public and leaving out certain information. Like the fact I statedabove..


 I totally agree when it comes to human's involvement in the "global warming" phenomenon. If there is some, it's not the driving factor by any mean. We've had cycling warming and cooling periods before, and haven't been keeping accurate temperature records for long enough to know if what we're seeing now is natural or not. I'm still with you there! 

However, I don't think anyone that had their brain developed without heavy lead exposure (like that other tool posting) can argue the pollution aspect of what we do. Tell me you honnestly believe that life on earth, the last time there was a natural warming cycle, had to deal with the pollution and resulting smog that often forms over heavily industrialized and populated cities (those are not politics are they?). And if you do, you'd the polar opposite of Al Gore and I'd have to defer to the quotation in my sig. :beer:


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

All these experts on global warming, any of you actually biologists? :laugh:


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Thing is about global warming is yes there are millions of years we look back on and can tell that the earth goes through it cycles. We are currently (as we all know) going through a stage of the earth warming up again after the last ice age. We can predict models of how the earth will continue along it's path of hot and cold cycles, the issue where all the "hype" is a matter of fact pure uncertainty. You can believe it will all be fine and dandy and we aren't affecting a damn thing. The issue arises where we are entering the hot cycle faster then any pervious cycle. 
Think of it as a wave, hot cycles being the crest and cold being the trough. This wave will continue on forever as long as the earth continues to exist. Now the length of the wave is where global warming comes from. Models suggest that this current one is shorter meaning the earth is heating up faster then normal. At the point in time right now scientists aren't sure if the amplitude will remain the same and we will fall back into the regular cycle or if we will continue on and heat up more than in the past. Truth is only time will tell once we reach the projected peak of the cycle. Oh and I may not be a biologist, but I did have to prove this very real world problem before spring break on a midterm:laugh:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

18T_BT said:


> All these experts on global warming, any of you actually biologists? :laugh:


 I'm definitely not an expert by any stretch of the word Val - however, I do take pride into having decent expertise in using some common sense (at least most of the time). :laugh:


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I totally agree when it comes to human's involvement in the "global warming" phenomenon. If there is some, it's not the driving factor by any mean. We've had cycling warming and cooling periods before, and haven't been keeping accurate temperature records for long enough to know if what we're seeing now is natural or not. I'm still with you there!
> 
> However, I don't think anyone that had their brain developed without heavy lead exposure (like that other tool posting) can argue the pollution aspect of what we do. Tell me you honnestly believe that life on earth, the last time there was a natural warming cycle, had to deal with the pollution and resulting smog that often forms over heavily industrialized and populated cities (those are not politics are they?). And if you do, you'd the polar opposite of Al Gore and I'd have to defer to the quotation in my sig. :beer:


 
I'll admit that the resulting pollution/smog that humans have created were not here the last cycle. However, many of the pollutants have existed naturally long prior. The only case to be made is that we are increasing the amount of which these pollutants have existed naturally. Which would only speed up the warming process. In any case, the warming and cooling cycles happen regardless. There's no changing that. 

Another good point, the amount of naturally occurring CO2 vs CO2 created by humans (burning fuels etc..) is a tiny percentage of the whole... 

And don't even bring Al Gore into this.. His hyprocritical ass is one of the worst polluting offenders. His private jet, mansion, etc.. Creates a much larger fossil fuel footprint..


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

PLAYED TT said:


> Thing is about global warming is yes there are millions of years we look back on and can tell that the earth goes through it cycles. We are currently (as we all know) going through a stage of the earth warming up again after the last ice age. We can predict models of how the earth will continue along it's path of hot and cold cycles, the issue where all the "hype" is a matter of fact pure uncertainty. You can believe it will all be fine and dandy and we aren't affecting a damn thing. The issue arises where we are entering the hot cycle faster then any pervious cycle.
> Think of it as a wave, hot cycles being the crest and cold being the trough. This wave will continue on forever as long as the earth continues to exist. Now the length of the wave is where global warming comes from. Models suggest that this current one is shorter meaning the earth is heating up faster then normal. At the point in time right now scientists aren't sure if the amplitude will remain the same and we will fall back into the regular cycle or if we will continue on and heat up more than in the past. Truth is only time will tell once we reach the projected peak of the cycle. Oh and I may not be a biologist, but I did have to prove this very real world problem before spring break on a midterm:laugh:


 Can we speculate if there was a passing grade on that midterm... or not? :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Can we speculate if there was a passing grade on that midterm... or not? :laugh: :laugh:


 Lol!


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I'm definitely not an expert by any stretch of the word Val - however, I do take pride into having decent expertise in using some common sense (at least most of the time). :laugh:


 
Neither am I. Although, I consider global warming predictions to be on par with our weather system :thumbup:


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Can we speculate if there was a passing grade on that midterm... or not? :laugh: :laugh:


 Yes. I got a P for passing. Of course passing could be a 60.01%


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

ss94 said:


> And don't even bring Al Gore into this.. His hyprocritical ass is one of the worst polluting offenders. His private jet, mansion, etc.. Creates a much larger fossil fuel footprint..


 You two seem equally vocal on the topic though. Polar similarities can be quite striking!  

As long as you're smarter than the other guy to realize that we have some undeniable effect in polluting the air, we're good. He can have his catless beast and race all the minivans his heart desires, but for the rest of us with mature, fully developed brains, purposely running catless when there is no usable advantage to it, is pointless. On the same wave length?


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> You two seem equally vocal on the topic though. Polar similarities can be quite striking!
> 
> As long as you're smarter than the other guy to realize that we have some undeniable effect in polluting the air, we're good. He can have his catless beast and race all the minivans his heart desires, but for the rest of us with mature, fully developed brains, purposely running catless when there is no usable advantage to it, is pointless. On the same wave length?


 We're sort of on the same page if that's whats you meant. 

Lol. I run cat-less and I don't have any shame in it. For the little effects it provides me and the unnoticeable difference in pollution It will not affect anyone in any major way. 

Like mentioned on the first page somewhere, there are bigger fish to fry. 

Have a good day. :beer:


----------



## corey_melton (Jan 29, 2013)

Guys, I plan on getting it catted so Cali your tits Lol. And I'm sure if I didn't, it wouldn't effect any of you anyways.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

So I like how we took this to the extreme. Just like every other thread :laugh:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

PLAYED TT said:


> So I like how we took this to the extreme. Just like every other thread :laugh:


 Was just thinking the same thing. Sounds like some people need a nap :laugh:


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

Try doing a 2 step with a CAT, now do it a couple of times :laugh:


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

PLAYED TT said:


> So I like how we took this to the extreme. Just like every other thread :laugh:


  :thumbup: 

Good times


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2009)

PLAYED TT said:


> Yes. I got a P for passing. Of course passing could be a 60.01%





PLAYED TT said:


> So I like how we took this to the extreme. Just like every other thread :laugh:


 One step closer to a Vortex Degree :thumbup:



corey_melton said:


> Guys, I plan on getting it catted so Cali your tits Lol. And I'm sure if I didn't, it wouldn't effect any of you anyways.


 :beer: Cali tits are normally pretty nice....



ss94 said:


> We're sort of on the same page if that's whats you meant.
> 
> Lol. I run cat-less and I don't have any shame in it. For the little effects it provides me and the unnoticeable difference in pollution It will not affect anyone in any major way.
> 
> ...


 
Well I am all for global warming and getting some free ocean front property....but I think it would be easier and faster to move down from the mountains .....I am sick of this snow already


----------



## Don Neri (Feb 18, 2011)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> You two seem equally vocal on the topic though. Polar similarities can be quite striking!
> 
> As long as you're smarter than the other guy to realize that we have some undeniable effect in polluting the air, we're good. He can have his catless beast and race all the minivans his heart desires, but for the rest of us with mature, fully developed brains, purposely running catless when there is no usable advantage to it, is pointless. On the same wave length?


 Don't assume I'm an idiot boy racer, i just hate all the annoying environmentalists and they're phony agenda (not the misguided people who try to do the right thing). That said, its not really to metaphorically flip them off, just prefer to be catless 

I know what my car could emit and I know it's a minor gain, just my choice. As I see it though, what harm could 1 car do compared to thousands of others with cats? If I were in an area with major pollution problems, might think twice, but my home ain't got nothing to worry about. 

Minivans? How lame, I'd go to Raceway Park. Live close by and wanna have fun without the fear of cops or hurting innocents 

Now then, you still wanna talk smack, be my guest, but think I explained myself better


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> One step closer to a Vortex Degree :thumbup:


 Pfft at this rate I'm going for my Vortex Doctorate


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

basically you've made it clear from prior posts that you only care about things that affect you. 
since you running clatless isn't gong to affect you since you're gonna die anyway, who cares how it affect everyone else..because it's only 1 right. 

either way, if global warming exist or not.... who wouldn't want to error on the side of caution. 

even if global warming is completely bogus, what harm is done by reducing emissions? 

what happened to the hole in the hoe-zone?


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

Krissrock said:


> basically you've made it clear from prior posts that you only care about things that affect you.
> since you running clatless isn't gong to affect you since you're gonna die anyway, who cares how it affect everyone else..because it's only 1 right.
> 
> either way, if global warming exist or not.... who wouldn't want to error on the side of caution.
> ...


 Woa now.. Global warming is not even close to bogus. Most of us I think have agreed that it is proven that the earth has cycles of warming and cooling. It just so happens that we are in a warming phase. In a warming phase the term global warming is correct. The argument is about the effect of pollution in relation to global warming.


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

PLAYED TT said:


> Pfft at this rate I'm going for my Vortex Doctorate


 Gahahaha :laugh:


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

ss94 said:


> Woa now.. Global warming is not even close to bogus. .


 I completely agree...i'm saying even IF it is... taking precautions to reduce emission, toxic gasses and waste don't hurt a damn thing. 

what's I don't get the " its fake so who cares" attitude that some people take. 

that's like saying you wont get into an accident, so why wear a seatbelt


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

How about throwing E85 into the argument..? Still think its necessary to run a cat with E85? I would think A car running a cat and unleaded would pollute more than a catless car with a tank full of corn.. Just a thought


----------



## corey_melton (Jan 29, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> One step closer to a Vortex Degree :thumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

warranty225cpe said:


> How about throwing E85 into the argument..? Still think its necessary to run a cat with E85? I would think A car running a cat and unleaded would pollute more than a catless car with a tank full of corn.. Just a thought


 Depends on what the exhaust gasses consist of. I can tell you from driving behind Doug that a catless car on corn juice smells like rotten burnt pop corn without salt


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

PLAYED TT said:


> Depends on what the exhaust gasses consist of. I can tell you from driving behind Doug that a catless car on corn juice smells like rotten burnt pop corn without salt


 lol. It could smell like dog farts and I wouldnt care. Just wondering how much of a difference there is in terms of pollutants. Interesting argument regardless. 

Interesting info here.. 

"FACT: In 2012, the 13.2 billion gallons of ethanol produced reduced greenhouse gas emissions from on-road vehicles by 33.4 million tons. That's equivalent to removing 5.2 million carsd and pickups (comparable to the number of registered vehicles in the state of Michigan) from the road for one year." 

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/ethanol-facts-environment


----------



## luchos (Feb 23, 2012)

i thought this was a car forum.... :facepalm:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

luchos said:


> i thought this was a car forum.... :facepalm:


 We don't turn down Facebook dropouts, that's why!


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

luchos said:


> i thought this was a car forum.... :facepalm:


 YEah... Thats why were talking about cats and fuel... both are car related :wave:


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

warranty225cpe said:


> lol. It could smell like dog farts and I wouldnt care. Just wondering how much of a difference there is in terms of pollutants. Interesting argument regardless.
> 
> Interesting info here..
> 
> ...


 i wonder if they assume all the ethanol produced was used in a car that would have otherwise been using gas? i also wonder if they include the 10% of ethanol added to fuel for normal gas? lastly, i wonder if they take into account that you need to burn MORE ethanol to get the same millage as gas, or if they consider the millage to be the same?


----------



## luchos (Feb 23, 2012)

speed51133! said:


> i wonder if they assume all the ethanol produced was used in a car that would have otherwise been using gas? i also wonder if they include the 10% of ethanol added to fuel for normal gas? lastly, i wonder if they take into account that you need to burn MORE ethanol to get the same millage as gas, or if they consider the millage to be the same?


 the by-products of burning ethanol is carbon dioxide and water not carbon monoxide... 10 gallons of regular gasoline containing 10% ethanol use 9 gallons of gasoline... 10 gallons using e85 burn only 1.5 gallons of gasoline.... so even if you are using 1.5 times the fuel of e85 to drive the same distance, you produce far less harmful pollutants


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

warranty225cpe said:


> lol. It could smell like dog farts and I wouldnt care. Just wondering how much of a difference there is in terms of pollutants. Interesting argument regardless.
> 
> Interesting info here..
> 
> ...


 This seems to be published by people with special interest in ethanol production for fuel use. Problem with what you posted is that it embellished the E85 emission reduction capability for the U.S quite a bit. Although the 48-52% number is legit, it is for biomass production of corn ethanol. The bulk of our fuel-ethanol isn't biomass produced but from Natural Gas production process. This little bit of information left behind, brings this emission reduction considerably down to about 20%. I'm sure you'll find articles that flashes the high emission reduction (86%) from cellusic ethanol produced by biomass process; the reality is that we produce our ethanol from corn and use natural gas. Don't be fooled, there are very misleading individuals on the "green" side as well. 

With that said, even with the current production process, E85 is a lot better than regular fuel in terms of emission... And I'd even venture to say that an E85-powered car without a cat is "greener" than the average car with a catalytic converter.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> This seems to be published by people with special interest in ethanol production for fuel use. Problem with what you posted is that it embellished the E85 emission reduction capability for the U.S quite a bit. Although the 48-52% number is legit, it is for biomass production of corn ethanol. The bulk of our fuel-ethanol isn't biomass produced but from Natural Gas production process. This little bit of information left behind, brings this emission reduction considerably down to about 20%. I'm sure you'll find articles that flashes the high emission reduction (86%) from cellusic ethanol produced by biomass process; the reality is that we produce our ethanol from corn and use natural gas. Don't be fooled, there are very misleading individuals on the "green" side as well.
> 
> With that said, even with the current production process, E85 is a lot better than regular fuel in terms of emission... And I'd even venture to say that an E85-powered car without a cat is "greener" than the average car with a catalytic converter.


 Is like to see an exhaust sniffer results from testing both. I guess that's the only real way to have a quantitative value. E85 is cool, but as you pointed out, everyone on that side of the fence certainly seems motivated by their agenda.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

I agree with you Max especially re: greener without a cat, but if we look at the bigger picture, it's a lot more effort and in turn emissions to produce ethanol vs gasoline.


----------



## corey_melton (Jan 29, 2013)

$1650 for it shipped and installed. Much my bank.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

18T_BT said:


> I agree with you Max especially re: greener without a cat, but if we look at the bigger picture, it's a lot more effort and in turn emissions to produce ethanol vs gasoline.


It gets complicated at that point to get a good "apple-to-apple" comparison without the big dogs forcing results that are somehow diluted with their agenda (kinda like officials trying to pass sensible gun laws without the NRA breathing down their neck about how doing so would guarantee no re-election for them). It is a complicated task to have data showing true cost (both in dollar and energy) of producing regular fuel. Production is Foreign (can't really tell how much emissions is generated) and then there is transport from the place of production to the U.S shores, then finally to the pumps. 


Here is an extract of an article I posted on QW recently that shows why ethanol is not as evil as it is often painted to be:

_"Myth No. 1: Ethanol requires more energy to make than it yields.

False. Argonne National Laboratory research has shown that corn ethanol delivers a positive energy balance of 8.8 megajoules per liter. The energy balance from second-generation biofuels using cellulosic sources is up to six times better, according to a study published in Biomass and Bioenergy Journal.

There are two key reasons ethanol is no longer net energy negative.

First, corn production efficiency has increased dramatically: Producers now grow 160 bushels per acre today versus the 95 grown in 1980, and corn yield continues to increase.

Second, ethanol production has become more energy-efficient. Today, more than 90 percent of corn used in ethanol production goes through a dry milling process that uses far less energy than the wet milling process used before. The combination of more corn per acre, coupled with a reduction of energy input to process ethanol, has resulted in a favorable energy output. The gallons of ethanol yielded per bushel of corn has also increased by about 50 percent.

Myth No. 2: Ethanol production reduces our food supply.

False. Only 1 percent of all corn grown in this country is eaten by humans. The rest is No. 2 yellow field corn, which is indigestible to humans and used in animal feed, food supplements and ethanol.

Specifically, a bushel of corn used for ethanol produces 1.5 pounds of corn oil, 17.5 pounds of high-protein feed called DDGS, 2.6 pounds of corn meal and 31.5 pounds of starch. The starch can be converted to sweeteners or used to produce 2.8 gallons of ethanol. DDGS displaces whole corn and some soybeans traditionally used in animal feed. The United States is a large exporter of DDGS to China and other countries.

Additionally, the food-versus-fuel debate has spurred significant research and development of second-generation biofuels like cellulosic ethanol that do not use food crops. Cellulosic ethanol is made from the "woody" structural material in plants that is unusable by humans. Unlike food crops, ethanol crops and cellulosic ethanol crops can grow in any soil that will sustain grass.

Researchers, including Argonne, are investigating using marginal land to grow ethanol crops. Studies from the U.S. Department of Energy suggest the United States has enough non-edible biomass to produce approximately 30 percent of our total transportation fuel requirements by 2030. That could go a long way toward easing our reliance on imported petroleum.

Taken together, the increase in crop yield and the use of marginal lands can enable us to produce food and fuels."_


----------



## H3NTA1 (Nov 25, 2010)

ss94 said:


> Stage 2 for me was a full 3" exhaust (I chose to go cat-less), BFI motor mounts, modshack air intake and stainless MAF, forge turbo inlet silicone hose, 4 bar FPR, Forge Diverter, and the tune. I have some other small mods.
> 
> Without going big turbo realistically I don't think it's much of a difference. I just chose to go catless, there was no reason stopping me since emissions are easy to pass since they only plug into the obd2 port. Either way you'll enjoy it.


Speaking of bfi mounts. Don't go stage 2 or higher unless u really get power. It sounds like a Honda exhaust but in ur car...  just a fyi


----------



## ss94 (Nov 16, 2011)

H3NTA1 said:


> Speaking of bfi mounts. Don't go stage 2 or higher unless u really get power. It sounds like a Honda exhaust but in ur car...  just a fyi


Guess I should've mentioned which BFI mounts I got. I have the BFI 1.0 mounts. If I recall they go in increments of .5 right?


----------

