Some of you know about the issues that some of the 94005, 94065, 94006 and 94066 Carsound cats had with broken bricks. The bricks broke because the matting that was between the brick and casing blow out and allowed the brick to rattle and then subsequently break apart. I personally don't use any of the above cats anymore. I've gone to the heavy duty 93505 or 93506 Carsound and have only been inform of 1 failure in over 2 years. The 935** series bricks have more surface area than the 940** series cat, so flow should be a little better since the holes are the same size in the bricks of both cats. So reliability and most likely flow are improved with the 935** cats.

So this leads to my next question, is there anything better than the Carsound 935** series cats? Some say the renault will be but I haven't seen any back to back dyno tests or flow tests to verify that statement.

This week I received a new test cat which will be used on my beater (https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1011071).

This cat has a brick that is made by Corning (where I used to work) and has larger holes than the standard bricks like those used in the Carsound 935** cats. This heavy duty version also uses stainless steel mesh to protect the matting from blow out. So theoretically, these cats should flow better and last longer than the smaller holed and exposed matting cats.

I just sent this new 2-1/4" cat and one of the Carsound 93505 cats down to Don at DFE Enterprises to perform flow tests, so we should have some numbers next week. I realized that most of you guys use 2-1/2" cats but if the new 2-1/4" cat out flows the 2-1/4" carsound it should be safe to say so will the 2-1/2" versions.

The comparisons

Carsound left side, challenger right side


Carsound Close Up


Challenger Close Up

 

looking forward to your testing. let us know.

 

thanks for letting us in on the tests


that one looks to be built alot better than the carsound. whats the price differences?

 

Awsome. Very interested in the results. Also whats he difference in price between the 2 cats if any?

 

Thansk SMSP Looks like quality stuff. Hopefully it will match/outflow the carsound.

1.7na

 

yeah..whats the price difference?

 

This couldn't have come at a better time since I might be getting a new cat tomarrow to replace my current "marble can" cat.

 

cant go off on smsp respected man in the community but can you take pictures around the same distance the picture of the new cat is closer making the hole seem bigger. i dunno but imo if you could that would be cool.

 

Will you start selling these?

 

carsound


other



Both cats are about the same height so you can also counts the holes.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GOLDBERG &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yeah..whats the price difference? </TD></TR></TABLE>

 

How does Random Technologies compare to these? I haven't really done much research on cats.

 

yup yea know i can see you can tell. roch from wut i remmeber the carsound had beter flow numbers than the random technology but the carsound do **** on u pretty quick from wut i c. ill try to post the flow nubmer later.

heres the flowrates courtesty of the articles in team-integra by the mighty Delaney which quotes mighty smsp.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Dave Stadulis of SMS Products

I just wanted to post a little info for all to review on the Car Sound Cats. There always seems to be a debate on which hi flow cat is the best, just like the great header debate. Below are flow numbers for various cats and test pipes. This test was supposed to have been performed by Comptech at 28" of vacuum. (Test info was pulled from the net, so I can only assume it is correct).

Stock NSX 242.1 cfm
Stock Type R 223.6 cfm
Stock Integra 218.3 cfm


Catco (metal core) 2.25" 223.8 cfm
Catco (metal core) 2.5" 271.9 cfm

Random Tech 2.25" 297.1 cfm

Catco (std. core) 2.25" 338.2 cfm
Catco (std. core) 2.5" 388.0 cfm

Car Sound 2.25" 342.7 cfm

Test Pipe 2.25" 407.1 cfm

cfm = flow capacity in cubic feet per minute

Unfortunately, the 2.5" Car Sound Cat and 2.5" test pipe was not measured. I've read that folks have had some problems with the Random Tech Cat. I sell the Car Sound Cat, frankly because Larry Widmer of Endyn runs it on his beast (3" version), he has had no problems with it over 3 years and has recommended to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modified by zad5 at 8:35 AM 10/9/2004


Modified by zad5 at 8:35 AM 10/9/2004

 

Good ****.<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by johnzm &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> whats the price differences?</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

SMSP...any updates yet?

I'm in the market for a new cat, so flow test results on this new model vs. the Carsound 935* series cats would be very helpfull. Also pricing. Thanks.

 

Don should have the flow rates very soon.

 

have any of you looked into the metal substrate cats, they flow more that a ceramic cat for a given size. Their outside dimensions are quite a bit smaller also. The bigest drawback is the fact that they have a round body, not a clamshell like the above cats. Within the gammit (sp?) of Steel cats (metal substrate), there are different levels of mesh compactness, these are rated by the number of passages inside the cat.

Just a thought, sorry for the hi-jack.

Brian

 

carsound look better cuz of it diameter up and down, and diameter from left to right are higher and longer....higher and longer filtration = air flow thro out

challenger much smaller...i guess it sux

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by yeegsr &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">carsound look better cuz of it diameter up and down, and diameter from left to right are higher and longer....higher and longer filtration = air flow thro out

challenger much smaller...i guess it sux</TD></TR></TABLE>

Challenger is bigger (wider and about the same height)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SMSP &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Challenger is bigger (wider and about the same height)</TD></TR></TABLE>

enable your Honda Tech messenger......well it's hard to tell from look at the internal of the cat..you should ask the company about cfm of the cat (2.5 or watever) of your that is the only way to tell accurately....cuz most of the time different company using different filtration materials...


you know the cfm of carsound and catco....some guy possted for you....so call up Challenger...no big deal...

 

As stated in the begining of this thread, we are doing our own flow testing on this cat, the carsound and also some straight tubing as a reference.

Please email me with any questions.

 

any updates? i'm in need of a new cat...

 

looking forward to the results of this test!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hybrid_vtec &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">looking forward to the results of this test!</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

bump