At 02:43 PM 9/29/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I agree. If you're running on the street, you won't *really* need that
>extra flow, and since cats do catch more unburnt gas and reduce
>emmisions, you're doing the environment a favor. In addition, if you
>move, or if your local laws change, you won't have to do more work
>putting a cat back in. From what I hear, today's high-perf cats are
>really good.
>
>Bogart
>
Here's an interesting little tidbit...
In the latest Car & Driver, there's a little sidebar or somethin'
about a study that was done which revealed that cats release N2O as
a by-product, (Yep, nitrous oxide) which is supposedly really crappy for
the environment. I don't think the article said which is worse, the
original hydrocarbons or the nitrous oxide, but its interesting
nonetheless. Ever get the feeling that the lights are on but nobody's
home? :-)
<vent mode>
IMHO, (and ITHO of thousands of scientists), cars don't pose an
emissions risk to the environment in the first place. I forget the
exact statistics, but they go something like one volcano eruption
emits more hydrocarbons and "bad stuff" than man has, EVER. There's
also evidence that was discovered (accidentally) that the oceans
release huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere during
hurricanes. These EPA weenies have no idea what they're talking about,
but they don't hesitate to pass legislation to restrict our rights
based on their whims and power games. :-P
Sorry, </vent mode> :-)
I apologize if I offended any EPA weenies. ;-)
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu ------------------------------------.
| Affiliations: DoD, EAA, MP Race Team, NMA, SPA, USUA. RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT CC (14.77@92.97), '96 Kolb FireFly 447 |
`----------------------- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:10:10 EDT