Hollow/punched Out Cat

[mad082]

Is it true pre 1985 vehicles don't require a cat to meet emissions laws?

also they have a higher noise limit too. its about 96db vs 91db for newer cars.

[Cool Hand Luke]

The way i see it is there is no way to prove you gutted your cat unless they actually see you do it and fit it to your car. Seeing as though they deteriorate over time, and fall apart, you can just plead (dunno if thats spelt correctly) ingorance and your free. If you have a piped cat, again (like any offence) you can plead ignroance and say the exhaust has been untouched since you bought it, and you never knew. All they can really make you do is fit a new one. If you have a gutted/piped cat, just keep a working stocker and if you are sent to the pits, swap them over... problem solved.

Also in regards to the environment comment, i agree, and im sure its not the best.... however in the end it is a performance car, not overly economical even from the factory, and to be honest i can hardly see it making a real difference. If you think it does, then go tell everyone who farts, produces a smokey burnout, or smokes cigarettes to stop..

Edited August 28, 2006 by Cool Hand Luke

[Busky2k]

Well outta interest one day, I compared my Catco 'high flow' cat to my stock cat and its basically identical to except the Catco has 3" flanges instead. The honeycomb density is identical. The Catco's body is actually a tad smaller. I fail to see how its a 'high flow' cat at all!!! 3" flanges vs 2.5" doesn't make it 'high flow' IMHO.

Needless to say as an experiment I put a straight pipe in its place. Haven't looked back. A couple of dB more noise but definitely better performance. Here in SA every second car is a rusted POS/carby powered car so one more car with no cat makes no difference (only gets driven twice a month). Yes I'll be buying a Metal Cat in the very near future so save the flamage.

Edited August 28, 2006 by Busky2k

[NateR31]

i have a high flow cat

gutterd gut with a pipe welded in the middle to give it that solid sound when tapped...

[rb26s13]

$9000 + gst fine

but. i have seen legitamate cars literaly hollowing out the cat themselves.

ps.. have fun trying to gut the 4x versions (stainless core)

haha yes they are very f*kn strong those stainless cores

Isn't the average effective life of any cat converter only about 5 years......

from memory every 40000 k's is the due date to be changed when serviced at the dealerships.. varys on some cars

[Guilt-Toy]

I have heard of someone getting the 9k fine a few years ago... they made him drive from newcastle to the rta check station on the freeway to get it tested and they fined him.

He was driving a very modified car

[mad082]

what a pain, all of my posts from today have been deleted.

anyway.....

3" flanges vs 2.5" doesn't make it 'high flow' IMHO

a 3 inch hole has a surface area of 45.7cm2

a 2.5" hole has a surface area of 31.7cm2

thats an increase of 44%, so if you have hollowed out the stock cat, you would be better off hollowing out a 3" cat as the stock cat will still be the biggest restriction in the exhaust if you have 3" before and after it.

[Abo Bob]

Annoying.

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...c=42940&hl=

can't be bothered typing everythin out.

penalty unit does = $110

"Ok, if your car is registered then it has to have a cat. You can't take it out to race or light your cigarettes or anything.

I've spoken with the guy who actually drafts the legislation for the Parliamentry Counsels office when they are too lazy to do it themselves (well, budget cutbacks you know...).

$300 to $22,000 fines set by the court. You can get $300 on the spot from the coppers but if you get a summons then the court will probably **** you up. I asked if the $22,000 was more likely to be aimed at businesses that 'flout the law' but was told that no, they can cop $44,000."

[walkoau]

This is posted all the time.

No one has evidence, or knows anyone that has been done for it...

Just weld a pipe through your cat

My mrs works for the EPA (DEC) she says that $10000 fine sounds about right, she does work in a diferent section but says the automotive guys can do an emissions test on the spot or local rta to tell if you have a legal cat or not.

[mad082]

My mrs works for the EPA (DEC) she says that $10000 fine sounds about right, she does work in a diferent section but says the automotive guys can do an emissions test on the spot or local rta to tell if you have a legal cat or not.

can you get her to find this out, or see if they have a website with it listed.

[Bl4cK32]

My mrs works for the EPA (DEC) she says that $10000 fine sounds about right, she does work in a diferent section but says the automotive guys can do an emissions test on the spot or local rta to tell if you have a legal cat or not.

ask her how many people have been fined then....and what amount is the average.

[Abo Bob]

can you get her to find this out, or see if they have a website with it listed.

Dude the exact legislation has been posted in this thread. How much more proof do you need?

Here it is exactly:

Part 3 >> Division 4 >> Clause 17

Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation 2002

17 Removal or adjustment of anti-pollution devices

(1) The owner of a motor vehicle who uses the motor vehicle, or causes or allows it to be used, is guilty of an offence if:

(a) an anti-pollution device had been fitted to the motor vehicle, and

(b) at the time of that use the device had been:

(i) removed, disconnected or impaired, or

(ii) adjusted or modified and the adjustment or modification results in the emission of excessive air impurities by the motor vehicle.

Maximum penalty: 400 penalty units in the case of a corporation, or 200 penalty units in the case of an individual.

(2) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence under this clause if the defendant proves:

(a) that the removal, disconnection, impairment, adjustment or modification was done:

(i) in order to service, repair or replace the anti-pollution device or to improve its efficiency with respect to minimising air pollution, or

(ii) in order to facilitate the use of a motor vehicle for motor racing or off-road motor sport (being a motor vehicle that immediately before that removal or other action was not registrable under the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997) and that the vehicle is to be used in that condition only in the competition itself, or

(b) that, at the time the offence was committed:

(i) the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe, and did believe, that any anti-pollution device that had been fitted to the motor vehicle continued to be fitted to the motor vehicle, and

(ii) the defendant took all reasonable steps to ensure that the device was properly maintained.

(3) For the purposes of this clause, a motor vehicle emits excessive air impurities if it emits air impurities in the circumstances described in section 154 (2) of the Act.

(4) In this clause, anti-pollution device means a prescribed anti-pollution device within the meaning of section 154 of the Act or any other device that is designed to minimise air pollution.

As mentioned a penalty unit is currently worth $110.

I tried to find some sentencing statistics on this regulation but there wasn't enough cases prosecuted to completion to make any meaningful stats. There was however, some stats on Section 9 of the same regulation and I think that because this is a more general version of the same thing the DPP are using this section to ensure a conviction; ie they don't want people weasling out of section 17 on a technicality.

9 Motor vehicles emitting excessive air impurities

(1) An owner of a motor vehicle is guilty of an offence if the vehicle emits excessive air impurities while being used.

Maximum penalty: 400 penalty units in the case of a corporation, or 200 penalty units in the case of an individual.

(2) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence under this clause if the owner proves that the motor vehicle was at the time of the commission of the offence a stolen motor vehicle or a motor vehicle illegally taken or used.

(3) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence under this clause if the defendant proves that the motor vehicle:

(a) was constructed or has been modified solely for use in motor racing or off-road motor sport, and

(b) was not registrable under the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997.

(4) For the purposes of this clause, a motor vehicle emits excessive air impurities if it emits air impurities in the circumstances described in section 154 (2) of the Act.

Here are the stats. Over 70% of fines issued were for more than $500. 95% of cases got convictions.

Stats_for_vehicle_emit_too_much.pdf

[mad082]

yes but we don't have 100% confirmation of what a penalty unit is. there is some people saying 1 thing, others saying another. here we have a chance to get accurate figures. then this thread can get put to sleep once and for all.

[Abo Bob]

Take my word for it. I work in a Barrister's Chambers. I have looked it up before and it was a pain in the arse to find. Even my Barrister's were amazed how deep it was buried in the legislation.

[Robo's]

In all my years on the road, i've never seen an on the spot EPA check testing for your cat. Do these guys carry the equipment on their cars??? I think not.

However going thru the EPA pits is a different story, you'd be stupid to go thru there with no cat.

[Mr. Keets]

"It's got a cop motor, a 440-cubic-inch plant; it's got cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks. It's a model made before catalytic converters so it'll run good on regular gas. What do you say — is it the new Bluesmobile or what?"

"Fix the cigarette lighter" LOL

[paulr33]

[Guest Mashrock]

Whats a cat?

[4AL2NV]

Well i heard not only is it a fine that you could face jail for it. Also put all that aside the fumes that will be coming out of it is what causes cancer so make sure you dont breathe any of the fumes in.

[Guest Mashrock]

smoking causes cancer. better watch out for them