Anyone have some facts about the efficiency of a metallic core vs cermaic core catayltic converter? I am looking for the cleaning efficiency (for emissions) of the two substrates and not the flow capability.
Hmmm... Search. I think it was here that there was a very detailed thread about cat. converters, and which ones did what the best. Thought I bookmarked it, but guess not...
And pollute mother earth? Umm, No. Besides, Vic likes to be a good samaratin, and all of us roll that way in T.O
Anyway Vic, the difference is basically Metallic is more efficient. I wish i could tell you about the science behind it but i know stainless is the way to go now. Audi uses it, Porsche, new Toyota's as well.
No shit! I would not waste one dollar or second messing with some crappy mandated smog junk that I could replace cheaper and better with something as simple as a testpipe.
The only time I think about my cat is every two years when I put it back on for my smog test (along with a bunch of other mandated crap).
What IJ said. All things equal ceramic is better but it has little to do with efficiency. That's dependent on the quality of the wash coat, surface area, and how close the mixture is to stoich. A ceramic substrate is also better from a corrosion standpoint should the wash coat become damaged.
When you consider the byproducts and energy expended when manufacturing a cat, and then whats left over after it becomes useless and has to be recycled or landfilled, one can't help but wonder how environmentally friendly they really are.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.