a few upgrades for the 968.... - Page 3 - Rennlist - Porsche Discussion Forums

Notices
View Poll Results: would you like to see the 993 and 997 style hybrid body panels (page 12, 13) copied ?
yes, would like to see lightweight copies sold by GT Racing or other vendor.
63
62.38%
sounds cool, but not interested in doing this type of update.
38
37.62%
Voters: 101. You may not vote on this poll

a few upgrades for the 968....

Reply

Old 10-30-2010, 03:24 PM
  #31  
JDS968
Bannana Shine
Rennlist Member
 
JDS968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Miami Beach, FL
Posts: 18,622
Default

Originally Posted by FRporscheman View Post
I always use a catalyst because it's the responsible and considerate thing to do. Anyone who fouls the air we breathe just to gain marginal performance is an ***. Sure, I think CA goes overboard with its smog laws, but every car in the world should have a cat. Especially with high-flow cats available, I don't understand how people can just run with no cat.
Go complain about all the people with their old broken down cars leaking unburned fuel, burning oil, and misfiring before you complain about my car just because I don't catalyze the properly combusted exhaust from a well-tuned SEFI engine. Two or three of these cars pollutes the air more than every 968 in North America running properly, but without a cat.

Furthermore, once you've gone on your crusade and repaired all of those beaters, and you're ready to come back to me and complain...riddle me this, Batman: When I used to drive around in a carburetted '76 TR6, I was spewing something on the order of 4000 times as much pollution per mile as a 968 with a cat (so maybe 2000 times as much as a 968 without a cat). So is EVERY driver of any classic car an *** for not crushing it?

I mean driving a mile in, say, an E-type, instead of a Corolla, increases my pollution thousands of times more than taking the cat off a modern car. So if I'm an ***, does that make every 356 driver liable for crimes against humanity?

Originally Posted by odurandina View Post
then there's the trillion big SUVs making tons of carbon. it's ridiculous to attempt to regulate 15 ++ year old sports cars running litle 4 cylinder pee-shooters.
Carbon dioxide (which is what people refer to these days when they incorrectly say "carbon") is not pollution. That's what you get when you drive a big SUV getting poor gas mileage. Pollution is unburned hydrocarbons (fuel), carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulates (soot), etc, which have very little to do with the size of your engine or gas mileage, and everything to do with how cleanly your engine burns fuel, due to design, tuning, and maintenance. A 6.2L Chevy Suburban burns much, much, much cleaner than a 479cc Fiat 500.

Originally Posted by rgs944 View Post
Anyone know if Lexan can be tinted and if it can, does it look as good as glass?
I know that Lexan can be hardcoated to resist scratching, maybe the dye could be mixed into that coating?
JDS968 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 04:15 PM
  #32  
odurandina
Slayer of Economic Optimism

Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
odurandina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: one thousand, five hundred miles north of Ft. Lauderdale for the summer.
Posts: 27,107
Default

Originally Posted by JDS968 View Post

Carbon dioxide (which is what people refer to these days when they incorrectly say "carbon") is not pollution. That's what you get when you drive a big SUV getting poor gas mileage. Pollution is unburned hydrocarbons (fuel), carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulates (soot), etc, which have very little to do with the size of your engine or gas mileage, and everything to do with how cleanly your engine burns fuel, due to design, tuning, and maintenance. A 6.2L Chevy Suburban burns much, much, much cleaner than a 479cc Fiat 500.
sure,

and cats are so controversial that German auto engineers debated whether they were even worth it,

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-42761734.html, since all cats do is make you burn more gas....

and they create an enormous problem once they clog up. sure they clean the air in a properly tuned car, and do it very well when you're putting around town... but 15 year old, well-preserved sports cars are still, more green than building new hybrid SUVs.

rebuilding engines is way greener than building a new car.

the reason we have smog is stagnant air. the reason we have high carbon emmissions and soot, and leech mercury into our waters is because we drive big SUVs and trucks, burn thousands of tons of coal and oil every day for electricity and then we heat our homes with diesel oil and natural gas. --- what we really need to do is die and save the planet.


.

Last edited by odurandina; 10-31-2010 at 01:18 AM.
odurandina is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2010, 01:08 AM
  #33  
rgs944
Super User
 
rgs944's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 3,306
Default

"rebuilding engines is way greener than building a new car." The rath of Obama is coming after you on that one!
rgs944 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2010, 01:48 AM
  #34  
JDS968
Bannana Shine
Rennlist Member
 
JDS968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Miami Beach, FL
Posts: 18,622
Default

Originally Posted by odurandina View Post
and cats are so controversial that German auto engineers debated whether they were even worth it
Thing about cats is, as I see it, they're an answer to a question nobody's asking (anymore). Back in the days of carburetors and MFI, sure I guess they made some sense. But today, adaptive sequential electronic fuel injection with closed-loop lambda control makes combustion so precise, there's very little problem with running rich (particulates, carbon monoxide) or lean (oxides of nitrogen).

In fact, they could probably clean up the emissions a bit more simply by integrating wideband lambda control into OEM applications...not only could the engines theoretically run a bit cleaner in closed loop, but they might also be able to reduce or eliminate the time spent running in open loop mode, due to their faster response. It would be cheaper, lighter, and more efficient than catalysts...which is apparently why government regulators prefer cats

Originally Posted by odurandina
the reason we have smog is stagnant air. the reason we have high carbon emmissions and soot, and leech mercury into our waters is because we drive big SUVs and trucks, burn thousands of tons of coal and oil every day for electricity and then we heat our homes with diesel oil and natural gas. --- what we really need to do is die and save the planet.
A lot of the time it REALLY seems like that's what Greenpeace wants
JDS968 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2010, 01:59 AM
  #35  
JDS968
Bannana Shine
Rennlist Member
 
JDS968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Miami Beach, FL
Posts: 18,622
Default

Originally Posted by rgs944 View Post
"rebuilding engines is way greener than building a new car." The rath of Obama is coming after you on that one!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waj2KrKYTZo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD0Pv6yyGek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3qXvDDhUpE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rKYjJXI3GA

It was really the automotive Holocaust. Senseless murder en masse by the order of an evil man who took over a nation by riding a wave of mindless enthusiasm and scapegoating those who were not responsible for the nation's problems. I'm not saying Obama is Hitler, I'm just saying that a StrekStrekStrekStrekton of good cars had to die for our sins.
JDS968 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2010, 02:55 AM
  #36  
odurandina
Slayer of Economic Optimism

Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
odurandina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: one thousand, five hundred miles north of Ft. Lauderdale for the summer.
Posts: 27,107
Default

europe had hitler... i'm convinced that millions of people will die because of this evil fool.
odurandina is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2010, 12:26 PM
  #37  
rgs944
Super User
 
rgs944's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 3,306
Default

"Hitler killed jews and Obama kills cars". Never quite thought of it like that before but that is dead on. Do not want to make this a political page, but you would think if he really cares about poor people he would not have robbed people of so many cheap work and school cars. Sounds like all he cares about is corporate crooks to me.
rgs944 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2010, 05:40 PM
  #38  
JDS968
Bannana Shine
Rennlist Member
 
JDS968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Miami Beach, FL
Posts: 18,622
Default

Originally Posted by rgs944 View Post
"Hitler killed jews and Obama kills cars".
And Russians and Polacks and Gypsies and butt pirates and retards and cripples. He really was bad news...

Don't really want to get into Obama himself, but as for Cash for Clunkers specifically...yeah, any plan to improve an economy by destroying goods is...well...retarded. This plan StrekStrekStrekStreked over poor people, auto enthusiasts, auto mechanics, and taxpayers. You guys ever watch Gearz? Stacy David did a fairly good episode about Cash for Clunkers.
JDS968 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 04:41 PM
  #39  
FRporscheman
Captain Planet
Rennlist Member
 
FRporscheman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Francisco bay area
Posts: 10,921
Default

odurandina, you said you had a bad cat, so you thought the best option was to remove it, but what about replacing the cat with a good one? Did you really just want to save a couple hundred bucks? Just because your car with no cat is better than such-and-such doesn't make it OK.

JDS, don't talk to me about crusades and old muscle cars. Obviously they pollute more than your 968 but nobody is talking about them so don't change the subject. If you don't do your part, you're equally responsible for the damage being caused.

I can't speak to what I think of classic car (pre-cat era) owners; it's irrelevant. Your car is not a classic. Why are you so offended, you have nothing to lose (maybe a little money if you need a new cat), while the whole world benefits from cleaner air. I was born without asthma and now I suffer chronically.
FRporscheman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 04:52 PM
  #40  
FRporscheman
Captain Planet
Rennlist Member
 
FRporscheman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Francisco bay area
Posts: 10,921
Default

Obama is not responsible for killing cars. He just offered an incentive to people who could not properly maintain their old cars to get rid of them. The owners of those cars gave them up for cash. Otherwise instead of "cash for clunkers" it would have been "mandatory retirement of clunkers". The only problem I had with that campaign was that instead of killing the cars, they should have contracted dealerships to tune them up and resell them. It would have put more Americans to work instead of boosting Prius sales.
FRporscheman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 04:55 PM
  #41  
959Lover
User
 
959Lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 386
Default

Originally Posted by JDS968 View Post
Go complain about all the people with their old broken down cars leaking unburned fuel, burning oil, and misfiring before you complain about my car just because I don't catalyze the properly combusted exhaust from a well-tuned SEFI engine. Two or three of these cars pollutes the air more than every 968 in North America running properly, but without a cat.

Furthermore, once you've gone on your crusade and repaired all of those beaters, and you're ready to come back to me and complain...riddle me this, Batman: When I used to drive around in a carburetted '76 TR6, I was spewing something on the order of 4000 times as much pollution per mile as a 968 with a cat (so maybe 2000 times as much as a 968 without a cat). So is EVERY driver of any classic car an *** for not crushing it?

I mean driving a mile in, say, an E-type, instead of a Corolla, increases my pollution thousands of times more than taking the cat off a modern car. So if I'm an ***, does that make every 356 driver liable for crimes against humanity?

Carbon dioxide (which is what people refer to these days when they incorrectly say "carbon") is not pollution. That's what you get when you drive a big SUV getting poor gas mileage. Pollution is unburned hydrocarbons (fuel), carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulates (soot), etc, which have very little to do with the size of your engine or gas mileage, and everything to do with how cleanly your engine burns fuel, due to design, tuning, and maintenance. A 6.2L Chevy Suburban burns much, much, much cleaner than a 479cc Fiat 500.
Nobody is comparing your previous cars vs current. WTF does a 6.2L Chevy have to do with a 968? They are different cars and are held to different standards. If your 968 pollutes more than someone elses and you are negligent about improving it, you're an idiot.

The fact of the matter is that you are refusing to realize that there are rules for your 968 to have a cat. If you can't deal, go drive a SEFI POS. Not my fault you chose a car that requires a cat by law.

Originally Posted by odurandina View Post
sure,

and cats are so controversial that German auto engineers debated whether they were even worth it,

and they create an enormous problem once they clog up. sure they clean the air in a properly tuned car, and do it very well when you're putting around town... but 15 year old, well-preserved sports cars are still, more green than building new hybrid SUVs.

rebuilding engines is way greener than building a new car.

the reason we have smog is stagnant air. the reason we have high carbon emmissions and soot, and leech mercury into our waters is because we drive big SUVs and trucks, burn thousands of tons of coal and oil every day for electricity and then we heat our homes with diesel oil and natural gas. --- what we really need to do is die and save the planet.


.
Then have a properly maintained 968 or GTFO. If you can't afford a $200 cat, go ride a bicycle. Furthermore, FFS use proper punctuation; reading your posts is a task and takes more brain power than was put into it.

Originally Posted by JDS968 View Post
It was really the automotive Holocaust. Senseless murder en masse by the order of an evil man who took over a nation by riding a wave of mindless enthusiasm and scapegoating those who were not responsible for the nation's problems. I'm not saying Obama is Hitler, I'm just saying that a StrekStrekStrekStrekton of good cars had to die for our sins.
You just said it yourself: Driving cars that pollute results in the demise of said polluters. Don't pollute with your nice car and you won't be contributing to the onslaught of your car type.
959Lover is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 05:37 PM
  #42  
JDS968
Bannana Shine
Rennlist Member
 
JDS968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Miami Beach, FL
Posts: 18,622
Default

Originally Posted by FRporscheman View Post
JDS, don't talk to me about crusades and old muscle cars. Obviously they pollute more than your 968 but nobody is talking about them so don't change the subject. If you don't do your part, you're equally responsible for the damage being caused.

I can't speak to what I think of classic car (pre-cat era) owners; it's irrelevant.
It isn't irrelevant at all. You're saying I'm an *** for polluting the air. But people driving around in catless carbureted cars create thousands of times as much pollutants per mile. So either you have to decry everybody driving a TR6 or a Challenger or a 600 Grosser as heinous, terrible criminals, or you will have to contradict your own argument.

Originally Posted by FRporscheman
Your car is not a classic.
Mmmm actually now that you mention it, the state of Florida says it's about to be. Barely more than a year to go.

Originally Posted by FRporscheman
Why are you so offended
Because it's none of your damn business how I configure my own car.

Originally Posted by FRporscheman View Post
Obama is not responsible for killing cars.
I'm sorry, was it the dealers' idea to purposely destroy engines in good working condition? They could have been kept in the cars they were already in, which could have been repaired and resold, or they could have been put into other cars needing new engines, or they could have been parted out to repair other engines. No, in fact the dealers did NOT come up with the idea of destroying goods in their possession, it was mandated by law. So okay, maybe Obama isn't directly responsible for killing cars, but only in the sense that he's responsible through Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Originally Posted by FRporscheman
He just offered an incentive to people who could not properly maintain their old cars to get rid of them. The owners of those cars gave them up for cash.
He offered money that was not his to give to people whose cars were worth less than $3500, which included a hell of a lot of perfectly good vehicles in proper running condition, but were simply not worth a lot of cash due to the normal depreciation that comes with age.

Originally Posted by FRporscheman
Otherwise instead of "cash for clunkers" it would have been "mandatory retirement of clunkers".
Not in this country, comrade Lenin. We still have a wisp of property rights left.

Originally Posted by FRporscheman
The only problem I had with that campaign was that instead of killing the cars, they should have contracted dealerships to tune them up and resell them. It would have put more Americans to work instead of boosting Prius sales.
That would have been nice, but it largely misses the point of the program. The more old, cheap cars on the road, the more of a buyer's market it is. Obama wanted a seller's market.

Originally Posted by 959Lover View Post
WTF does a 6.2L Chevy have to do with a 968?
Nothing, and I didn't compare it. Pay closer attention, I was comparing a Chevy Suburban to a Fiat 500 to explain to Odurandina the difference between carbon dioxide emissions, and pollutant emissions.

Originally Posted by 959Lover
If you can't deal, go drive a SEFI POS.
The 968 DOES have SEFI, did you not know this?

Originally Posted by 959Lover
You just said it yourself: Driving cars that pollute results in the demise of said polluters.
I'm sorry...what?? How the hell did you draw THAT conclusion from what I wrote?
JDS968 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 10:44 PM
  #43  
odurandina
Slayer of Economic Optimism

Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
odurandina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: one thousand, five hundred miles north of Ft. Lauderdale for the summer.
Posts: 27,107
Default

who is this guy ??

in Massachusetts, shops replace old dead cats on old cars with new ones. on a few cars they install test pipes as requested, usually for what will likely be odd/non-daily driven cars anyway. these types of cars are usually of the variety that would be kept in very good tune, since they are likely to be "performance" oriented cars... but, there's no inspection for emissions in Massachusetts after 15 years. no visual inspection and no smog check. and what do the feds say ? quite frankly i could give a hoot. the overall % of these types of cars being daily driven on the new england roads or anywhere else, for that matter, past 15 years old has got to be a very small fraction of the total. it's powerplants and homes that are the big polluters, big coal plants, oil petro generating plants, and heating oil in people's homes -- not 15 year old, 4 cylinder P-cars in perfect tune.
odurandina is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 12:47 AM
  #44  
Fox944
User
 
Fox944's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 782
Default

i wonder how many of you guys not running cats on your 968 did before and after dyno's. running a test pipe is hardly worth the air and/or noise pollution.
Fox944 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2010, 01:57 AM
  #45  
JDS968
Bannana Shine
Rennlist Member
 
JDS968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Miami Beach, FL
Posts: 18,622
Default

Originally Posted by odurandina View Post
who is this guy ??
...which guy?

Originally Posted by Fox944 View Post
i wonder how many of you guys not running cats on your 968 did before and after dyno's. running a test pipe is hardly worth the air and/or noise pollution.
Hell, I'd happily do it just to shave a bit of weight.

Also, I reject the entire concept of "noise pollution".
JDS968 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: a few upgrades for the 968....


Contact Us Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: