Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:36:05 -0700
Reply-To: Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Cat Bypass Pipe "pros & cons"
In-Reply-To: <0NMX00B8HR3W9Y60@tmta134045.mailsrvcs.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I do not have actual experience with the WBX engine and catalytic
converters so I am speaking in general terms only. That being said, I'm
pretty certain the WBX was designed before catalytic converters came to be
the mandate. A bandaid fix, to try to help clean up emissions from
internal combustion motors.
It has been the practice of engine builders looking for performance and
efficiency to do everything possible to remove the exhaust gasses as
quickly and completely as possible in order to leave room in the combustion
chambers for fresh combustion gasses. Free flowing exhaust systems do
almost always show rather significant improvement, as verified by dyno
numbers.
As for the environmental ethics of not running a cat.....Ethics seems
to be open to interpretation, especially here in the US....There are whole
industries in blatant violation of clean air standards, putting millions of
tons of pollutants into the environment day after day...and they simply pay
a token fine, as a cost of doing business in the US....sometimes. You
could probably remove the cats from every wbx motor in the whole world and
run them till the Rapture and you would still put out less pollution than
one Dong Feng container ship full of coal headed to China for industrial
use...
If the laws allow, running with no cat should make for noticeably better
efficiency in any motor....unless it was specifically designed and
programmed to run with a cat. as an integral part of the system..
It would be very instructive to get some actual dyno numbers from
someone who'd do a few 'with and without' dyno runs.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:26 PM, PSD <psdooley@verizon.net> wrote:
> I have "direct experience" riding behind vehicles with the cat removed.
> Makes me want to do PIT maneuver on them.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
> Jack Reynaert
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 6:58 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Cat Bypass Pipe "pros & cons"
>
> Has anyone ran a 2.1L WBX with the CAT Bypass Pipe?
> http://www.busdepot.com/039251058
>
>
>
> I've referenced this blog on Samba.
> http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=389018
>
> Can't draw a clear conclusion, looking for input from direct experience.
>
>
>
> Are there any issues which should be considered "pros vs. cons" to running
> a
> 2.1l with a CAT By-pass pipe?
>
>
>
> I know that a Bung will need to be installed in the pipe to accommodate the
> O2 sensor, but will the O2 still send the correct signal to the ECU?
>
>
>
> What has been the experience of the elimination of back-pressure by running
> without a CAT help the HP and MPG?
>
>
>
> Note: the vehicle is not tested for emissions, so this is not an issue in
> our state. realize resale could be impacted (but will keep CAT on hand for
> that)
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Jack
>
| 
