the 350 i recently bought has no catalytic convrter in it. I just want to know if the absence of the converter good or bad for the engine itself? a mechanic told me its better not to have it so that the smoke easily exits the system.

 

I don't think its going to help or hurt your motor much. Every car has one. I had no cats, just test pipes and it sounded like crap and made the back of the car dirty as hell.

 

What smoke?

 

from the exhast system

 

lol

 

You need to go to that mechanic and slap him into next week. No cat is better for performance, bad for emissions, especially if you are in an area that does emissions checks. The presence or absence of a cat has no bearing whatsoever on the health or reliability of the engine.

 

my thoughts exactly.

 

i think the brain surgeon was trying to say with less backpressure the car should make more power(up top at least) Either that or hes just a ****ing idiot. SO the smoke can easily leave the system lol?

 

The only purpose of a catalytic converter is to convert harmful exhaust gases into non-harmful ones. Yes, without one your exhaust will be more free flowing. You'll probably pick up a few hp.

Phoenix and Escobar - the OP was saying that the cat HURTS the flow, not helps it.

 

no cat=bad for emissions
cat=better exhaust sound as rasp is eliminated, produces a deeper tone(with my single at least)

 

i remember i had a 3" turbo back on my 99 GSX with no cat no mufflers, you could smell the difference out of the tailpipe and i think it made the car run richer and my back bumper was always covered in soot too. no cat = FTL

 

I like that the title is asking if a Cat is bad, but the poll is asking if I have one, lol.

I would argue that anything holding back exhaust is "bad" for the engine. It will certainly damage it over time. However it may only make a difference if you run it out 500k miles over 30 years