Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

MPG question

  • 23-11-2010 11:45pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,985 ✭✭✭✭


    Simple realy, which has better mpg, cat or decat? Too many people say one or the other, need this cleared up for once and for all!


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,727 ✭✭✭Midnight_EG


    dgt wrote: »
    Simple realy, which has better mpg, cat or decat? Too many people say one or the other, need this cleared up for once and for all!

    I can honestly say I've noticed no difference in economy in my EG Civic since I put the decat in in May... just louder is all. Can't comment on my EK Civic as I haven't driven it with the car in just yet, will be soon for the NCT :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,800 ✭✭✭Senna


    I heard a few people on the Toyota UK forums say it makes no difference to MPG. They are putting on/taking off cat yearly for MOT.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,985 ✭✭✭✭dgt


    Thanks for the replies, ive noticed no significant difference in the mpgs (slightly harder at the mo but it changes) other differences are the car revs up cleaner and faster and theres that good old smell of burnt petrol fumes :D thanks again!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,718 ✭✭✭Matt Simis


    dgt wrote: »
    Thanks for the replies, ive noticed no significant difference in the mpgs (slightly harder at the mo but it changes) other differences are the car revs up cleaner and faster and theres that good old smell of burnt petrol fumes :D thanks again!

    On bigger engines Ive noticed a slight MPG improvement.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭shedweller


    But what about the resulting increase in emissions?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,718 ✭✭✭Matt Simis


    shedweller wrote: »
    But what about the resulting increase in emissions?

    Lol, yeah I dont sleep at night now. Im quite into the "Energy scene" and can assure you the odd enthusiast car emitting more emissions isnt much compared to the unregulated Shipping world where tankers emit 1000x more pollution than a Coal power plant does.

    If you mean for NCT, I dont need one, car is 1993. Others just pop back in the Cat for the test. You dont need a Cat for the NCT, just low enough Emissions, so technically a Cat-less E85 fueled car could pass (mine didnt though).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,801 ✭✭✭✭Gary ITR


    I noticed a slight drop but I added a higher flow header and exhaust along with a higher flow airbox, depends on your car really


Advertisement