I frequently read about RX8 owners here removing air quality emissions equipment. Why should we breath air even more poluted and an Ozone layer more depleted so a priviliged few can have a moderate increase in HP?

Normally I'd say to each their own, but we are all breathing the same air and absorbing the same UVs. Think responsibly when upgrading a street machine...

What do you think?

I actually agree--I don't think its worth it honestly--I'd rather get the power from elsewhere--plus the noise increase and smell is enough already. The way I look at it--I use to have an FD--now I have an RX8 auto; even the RX8 6spd or 350Z are not as fast as my FD was even if they have straight exhaust without cats. Its not worth it--and it is very socially irresponsible.

Regardless of what your opinion is.. in most states it's illegal... so that should be enough reason to not do it. However, some people like to do it to get the small HP gain it offers.

To each their own I guess....

With a high flow CAT you get the best possible comprimise...better performance...and an environmentally friendly exaust emission

First of all, the CAT is largely a Band-Aid for bad tuning.
My Miata is cleaner than the legal limit without a CAT and was tested for such at a state run emissions station. This is because I have tuned it carefully and I maintain the vehicle equally carefully.
Second, the state allows construction vehicles to evade the emissions laws. You would have to remove the CAT from 3 or 4 normal, modern passenger cars before you would match the emissions output of a single International dump truck and that doesn't even count particulate which isn't regulated at all. Ever been behind a bus?
Third, a single volcanic eruption in the northern hemisphere produces more "green house" gasses than those produced by mankind in his entire history on earth.
Think Mount St. Helen
Fourth, the ozone layer is most depleted in areas that don't traditionally produce much if any ozone depleting materials.
Think Australia or Antarctica.

Consensus is not science.

I love the environment. You should too. Spend your energies on stopping manufacturing, mining and refining in places where they have no regulation.
The Chinese put a bigger ding in the atmosphere per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world and they have 4 times our population. Are you going to put the same sort of emotion into regulating them as you would the mere 100 million vehicle owners in this country?
Absurd and illogical reasoning based on the emotional pleas of "environmentalists" makes me ill. And I'm a liberal!
There are too many good and practical ways we can protect and preserve our environment to waste time on the ploys foisted on us by big industry as a distraction.

BTW - your "poll" is a loaded question. No one should participate in such logical fallacies.

Regardless of what your opinion is.. in most states it's illegal... so that should be enough reason to not do it. However, some people like to do it to get the small HP gain it offers.

To each their own I guess....

There are actually Federal regulations and it is a felony.

I'd agree w/ you normally about each his own, but not when it's my air that's being polluted.

Consensus is not science.



Neither is your opinion. Justifying negative actions by pointing out larger negative issues is the epitome of "logical fallacy."

It is quite possible to tune a vehicle to run without a catalytic converter and still meet all federally madated emissions requirements. My Camaro met and exceeded all requirements with a built engine and no cats (and that's with a big "gas-guzzling" V-8, that got better mileage than my 8 and some performance 4 and 6 cylinders (as long as I kept my foot out of it)). Catalytic converters are the easy way out. So I'm in agreement with MM, fix the other problems and leave me alone. I don't know if you could ever meet emissions on a gasoline powered rotary without cats though.

What do you think?I think you have a heavy bias regarding this issue that makes objective discussion difficult. It's sorta like asking, "Do you deny beating your wife?"

If environmental protection is your main concern then the real question is where's the low-hanging fruit? What gives you the biggest bang for buck in reducing total pollutants regardless of their source? Applying the question only to automobiles already narrows the field considerably and speaking only about cat vs. no cat makes it such a small impact that you might as well be discussing the weather.

You want to reduce total automobile emissions? Then advocate smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles and propose economic deterrents against single drivers. I'm not even talking about single drivers in SUVs because while there are a fair number of them out there, single drivers alone is a much bigger issue. What you're talking about here is truly piddly compared to that.

Oh, and just to repeat myself for emphasis: this is not a matter of "trying to justify a negative action with a larger negative action." This is me saying if you really want to improve the situation then try devoting your resources to an area that will actually have an impact. Otherwise this thread belongs in the lounge area.
________
Pain management forums (http://www.health-forums.org/pain-management/)

Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

I think so.

So does Mr. Spock!

Neither is your opinion. Justifying negative actions by pointing out larger negative issues is the epitome of "logical fallacy."
Actually, I was simply pointing out the red herring of your argument.
There is no justification necessary. I completely dismissed your primary premise out of hand.

Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?
There is no such thing as "needs of the many".
There are only individuals acting as part of an autonomous collective.
We only have the direct ability to change ourselves. Everything else stems from that.

Aren't all three choices the same????

Aren't all three choices the same????
Yes. That is the problem. It is a loaded question.
This is a not-so-subtle use of the logical fallacy of "False Dilemma".

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm

There is no such thing as "needs of the many".
There are only individuals acting as part of an autonomous collective.
We only have the direct ability to change ourselves. Everything else stems from that.

Sorry about that. I meant to say...

Do the needs of the autonomous collective outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

I believe they do.

So does Mr. Spock (if we can get the writers to change the script).

^^ Still missing the point.
The "need" of a group do not exist.

Just because something passes an emissions test is not too convincing for me. I had a 1990 DSM that burned a quart of oil every 750 miles and it still managed to pass emissions in VA (back in 2000). Those tests are to get the seriously messed up cars off the road or fixed, they aren't a benchmark for declaring something "clean." A new car will put out only a fraction of the emissions that are allowable under those emissions tests. I remember with my next car, a '97 Honda Prelude (not even an LEV vehicle), after 100,000 miles, it only put out 1% of the allowable amount of one of the categories and the others were within 10%. And according to the EPA, the RX-8 is far cleaner than a new '97 Prelude was.

^^ However, that is the standard by which the emissions equipment is measured.

Just face it everyone. We bought the wrong car to help the environment.

Seriously, 12-14 MPG in the city, 2-3 Qt.s of oil for every 3,000 miles, a set of tires every 18,000-20,000 miles, and I'm gonna feel better about the environment because of emissions. This car is in no way a planet saver...it's a consumer on par with all those giant SUVs at about one half to one third the weight and ten times the fun (fun factor is subjective your results may vary).

Want to save the planet? Then trade up for a Prius or some other environmentally friendly vehicle.

Actually, if you want to make a real dent, stop using anything electrical and get everyone you know to do the same.
Unless you live in a place where 100% hydro-electric power is practical, every 40 kilowatts you consume produces as much polution as every mile you drive.
Nothing is free.
Even hydro-electrical impacts the environment.
For that matter, even solar-electric is polluting because the process to manufacture the cells produces some serious chemical leftovers that have no practical disposal method.

^^ So become Amish? That's a truly simple solution. Horses and buggys for everyone.

Seriously, 12-14 MPG in the city, 2-3 Qt.s of oil for every 3,000 milesIf that's what you are getting, then there's something wrong with your car or are driving in a way that will result in those numbers.

I guess I'm irresponsible and a part of the problem with my RX-7's. They pass the one day a year that they need to. As long as I get my sticker, that's all that really matters to me. I don't drive them very much though so my Honda Civic with it's much lower emissions is actually responsible for polluting the air more than my RX-7's are since it is on the road so much more. Emissions standards only test the amount of hydrocarbons, etc as a percentage of the total leaving the exhaust pipe. I guarantee that my friend's 11 mpg Lincoln Navigator is putting out far more pollutants per amount of time than my little rotary is. He drives that big thing 30,000+ miles a year too. My '84 RX-7 went about 1000 miles last year. Who's really doing the harm?

If that's what you are getting, then there's something wrong with your car or are driving in a way that will result in those numbers.

Not a thing wrong with the car. My lowest MPG around town was 10. I'm actually getting into the 13s and 14s now so I'm fairly pleased. In the words of my service rep "...So you're driving the car the way it was intended to be driven and I've got no problem with that." (Comment made when he noticed I needed four new tires at my 18,000 mile service)

I enjoy driving and the car seems to enjoy being driven.

I do get 21-23 MPG on the highway at steady speeds between 80-90 MPH so there really is nothing wrong with the car.

Your oil consumption is high.
You should be seeing about 1/2 a quart every 3000 miles.

^^ However, that is the standard by which the emissions equipment is measured.

But the original question was is it "okay," in our opinion, to remove emissions equipment, not if it was legal or "would it pass emissions tests with proper tuning." Emissions tests merely say a car is legal to be on the road- it passed. A D- in school is passing too, but it is not particularly good. I merely wanted to point out that there is a huge variation between barely passing and passing with flying colors (which most new cars do).

I doubt enough people will do it to make much of a difference, though, so I'm not too worried.

Your oil consumption is high.
You should be seeing about 1/2 a quart every 3000 miles.

Previously I was consuming about Qt every 3,000 miles. This last oil change had me putting in a Qt every 1,000 miles. I'm guessing it's because I didn't have any trips over 15-20 miles between this change and the last (I work maybe three miles from where I live) on all the previous changes I had several trips that were 100+ miles (also the car has hit 127 a few times [top of 4th] and then 135 [in 5th] on this change).

That is not normal oil consumption. Sorry.

agreed. if you believe mazda, the renesis is supposed to consume 1qt/10k miles. seems a bit optimistic to me, but far from 1qt/1k miles.

dude, get a prius and go hug a tree

It is possible to get higher than expected oil consumption depending on how you drive it. If you cruise around and just use your car for transportation, oil consumption should be normal. If you are driving it hard and are stayling at high rpms all the time (it sounds like it from the 13-14 mpg admission) then of course more oil is being consumed. The engine gets different amounts of oil injected into not only based on rpms but also on load. If you are always under load at higher rpms, you are going to get alot mor oil consumption than the person who stays at low loads and rpm's. Average for me with my RX-7's (yes I know it's a different car) is about 1 qt for every 1500 miles. That's with mechanical injection which is only rpm dependent. If I just put around town the consumption is not nearly that high. It is still higher than the RX-8 regardless though.

I spend a lot of time at high RPMs and my foot is in it constantly.
I consume about 1/2 quart every 3k miles.

Anaheim Mazda consistently overfills my oil and it's still full 3000 miles later. I rarely add any extra.

Keep the cat on. You don't want all those unburnt hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide going into the air you breath. I don't particularly care to breath your crap either. Just because heavy equipment is improperly regulated doesn't justify you being equally evil. If you need a car with more hp, BUY one in the first place with more hp.

But the original question was is it "okay," in our opinion, to remove emissions equipment, not if it was legal or "would it pass emissions tests with proper tuning." Emissions tests merely say a car is legal to be on the road- it passed. A D- in school is passing too, but it is not particularly good. I merely wanted to point out that there is a huge variation between barely passing and passing with flying colors (which most new cars do).

I do doubt that the average 8 passes with flying colors. Not with the black soot that accumulates on my (and most everyone's) exhaust tips.

I'll assume the 8 gets a B. I get 18 mpg avg, city+highway. So take a car that gets a C (maybe a older diesel for example), and gets 36 mpg...Which one pollutes more? I'll never remove the cat completely on my 8 simply because it's too loud. A high flow cat with a couple resonators, may be in my future, if I ever go supercharged (if a supercharger ever makes it to market :) ).

I HATE THE EPA!!!!!

There, I said it, now let the flames begin.

Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

I think so.

So does Mr. Spock!
So does Karl Marx, rest his soul....