So far, I have managed to avoid buying a car fitted with a catalyser but I have a nasty feeling this will be unavoidable very soon.
My reasoning:- They are horrendously expensive to replace, and seem to be a bit 'fragile' to go by various comments. Plus, I always bear in mind the statements like 'they don't work very well in the UK because of low ambient temperatures' and 'for this reason, they cause more pollution than a non-cat exhaust'.
Your experiences, opinions, and even hard facts will be appreciated.
|
|
I've never had a problem with cats. They are expensive but usually very reliable ,unless you use leaded fuel! Anyway after aug 92(k reg) you have no choice.
|
I used to worry about them, but I've had a couple of cat-equipped cars now and they don't frighten me any more. Cats are a lot cheaper than they used to be, and they seem robust enough in everyday use. The best thing about them is that they need a proper electronic fuel injection system to work properly, so no more messing about with choke controls, rough running and stalling when cold, having to adjust the mixture and idle speed at each service, etc etc.
Richard Hall
bangernomics.tripod.com
|
Low ambient temperature in the UK is only relative. Some parts of Europe and North America have much colder weather. Cat'ed cars produce much less pollution than non-cat'ed, indeed they also help to clean up the incoming air quality, slightly!
The reduced maintenance and longer engine life of cat'ed cars more than outweighs the rare cat failure.
|
|
|
My 3yr old A4 blew its cat (known problem) Audi paid 3/4 of the £500 bill.
|
|
|
|
|
Short stop-start journeys where the car never gets properly hot are cat killers. Also physical knocks and misfires and oil burning.
In the US cats must be guaranteed for 100k by law.
I used to worry, but my 6yr old Rover has 120k up and the cat is still fine. However my regular journey to work is 16 miles. They are much cheaper to replace these days and many exhaust centres can do them. Even so, I deliberately bought one of the very last Rover Metro 1.1's built that had a carb and no cat because my wife does many short journeys, albeit interspersed with longer ones - we intend to get the best possible life out of it before we have to buy her a cat'd car.
If you do lots of short stop-start journeys and very few longer ones then a Kenlowe Hotstart would be a good investment. It would cut the amount of unburnt fuel being chucked down the exhaust at each start up, saving you money on cat replacement and fuel economy. Make your winter journeys much less of a chore too.
You could always contact one of the many tuning outlets and get an anti-cat pipe. It's not legal, but you'll never burn your cat out (you'll have to fit it back on each year for the MoT).
|
|
Modern Euro cats will be running efficiently less than 3 minutes after starting;low ambients-you have to go well below zero to have any effect-that will only be on cold start and will just mean another minute or so to reach full efficiency.
|
This is all very reassuring - I'd been wondering if it was really worth the trouble of strapping my cat to the car's exhaust system
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't fit an illegal de-cat pipe, but if I did, I wonder whether the fuelling might be upset if the electronics are set up on the assumption that there will be a cat in there. Or am I worrying unnecessarily.
|
|
Late model vehicles with EOBD(european on-board diagnostics)have a second Lambda sensor after the Cat to monitor cat efficiency;this would certainly show up and would illuminate the MIL(malfunction indicator light).
|
|
|
|
|
Hope Cats have improved (re hydrogen sulphide) since the days of my Volvo V40. My wife was embarrassed almost to the point of refusing to travel with me, except when in the open air and a strong breeze.
|
|
Oz, it was the fuel causing the smell, not the cats: but it only happened on cat'ed cars. Modern low sulphur fuel minimises the problem.
|
|
|
|
