HI-Flow Catalytic converter question...

[tranjq]

I need some help concerning catalytic converts. I'm try to "pass" smog, so I'm in the market for a catalytic converter because my old one is dead (I think). I'm looking for a metallic cat that is obviously HI-flow AND HI-filtration and low on price.

As far as intake and exhaust systems, I've got a 91' MKIII 1JZ with a HKS intake, stock 1JZ, 24X9X3 innercooler with 2.5 in piping (don't know if this is necessary), 3" Driftmotion downpipe, old (and dead?) Random Technologies Hi-Flow cat, and a Apexi N1 Exhaust.

Currently, my exhaust does have a pretty noticable fuel smell.

I read up on the Random Technologies Hi-Flow Metallic Substrate Catalytic Converter from Supra Sport.com:

http://www.suprasport.com/Catylitic-Convertors_c_54-1.html

and it sounds good but I like to keep my options open so...

1. Do any you guys/gals have any input on what else is great on flow, great on filtration, great on price, is metallic, and is made by a reputable company?

2. Also, anyone have this Random Tech HI-Flow, metallic substrate catalytic converter?

Thanks for all of your help in advance,

John
Orange County, CA

 

[cruzinbill]

im running a 3" Magnaflow cat, it cost like 80 bucks. I dont have emmisons here tho so not sure on that part. Just tryn to help a little bit at least

 

[supraman7mgte]

A muffler shop can tell you if the cat is shot. They'll basically put a hole in it and wiggle a welding rod around in it to see if there is any resistance,then weld the hole up if its good. I would possibly look upstream to see if anything could have made the cat go bad in the first place.

 

[figgie]

I need some help concerning catalytic converts. I'm try to "pass" smog, so I'm in the market for a catalytic converter because my old one is dead (I think). I'm looking for a metallic cat that is obviously HI-flow AND HI-filtration and low on price.

As far as intake and exhaust systems, I've got a 91' MKIII 1JZ with a HKS intake, stock 1JZ, 24X9X3 innercooler with 2.5 in piping (don't know if this is necessary), 3" Driftmotion downpipe, old (and dead?) Random Technologies Hi-Flow cat, and a Apexi N1 Exhaust.

Currently, my exhaust does have a pretty noticable fuel smell.

I read up on the Random Technologies Hi-Flow Metallic Substrate Catalytic Converter from Supra Sport.com:

http://www.suprasport.com/Catylitic-Convertors_c_54-1.html

and it sounds good but I like to keep my options open so...

1. Do any you guys/gals have any input on what else is great on flow, great on filtration, great on price, is metallic, and is made by a reputable company?

2. Also, anyone have this Random Tech HI-Flow, metallic substrate catalytic converter?

Thanks for all of your help in advance,

John
Orange County, CA

Orange County CA?

1jz?
Not going to happen. ON the low perhaps but not on the legit. Even if the emissions was roses, and smelled accordingly. That engine won't pass smog or ref.

I used to run the random tech metal substrate 3" cat. Worked well, flowed great. But Minnesota does not have emissions any more.

 

[tranjq]

Orange County CA?

1jz?
Not going to happen. ON the low perhaps but not on the legit. Even if the emissions was roses, and smelled accordingly. That engine won't pass smog or ref.

I used to run the random tech metal substrate 3" cat. Worked well, flowed great. But Minnesota does not have emissions any more.

I know it won't pass ref or smog "legally" I just wanted to know if the Random Tech metal substrate 3" cat works well for the purpose of performance and catalyzing. Do you have a 1jz as well?

 

[carguy34]

The random tech works great. I have the same cat, but I welded mine into my 3" DP. I nearly passed emissions with one on my 1JZ yesterday. I was at 0.52 (limit 2.5) for HC, 0.8951 (limit 20.0) for CO, and 5.57 (limit 4.0) for NOx. I have a 1JZ with a SAFC2, but there was not any correction from the AFC. BTW, I passed everything on the visual and evap, the only part I failed was NOx. This was in Denver, CO. Good luck.

 

[sctwinturbo]

carguy34 you miss emissions by just a little bit
put a 1/4 tank of gas and (PM me)
it should cost you less then $4.00 to pass

 

[YotaRob]

carguy34 you miss emissions by just a little bit
put a 1/4 tank of gas and (PM me)
it should cost you less then $4.00 to pass

Care to elaborate?

 

[sctwinturbo]

i dont what the big deal is but everyone that knows this trick about emissions tells me not to tell anyone
i dont want to post it so i told carguy34 so let him post it

 

[carguy34]

It's no big deal really. The suggestion was to use a higher ratio of alcohol (ethanol) to lower emissions. The problem is that I failed NOx, not HC or CO. Most people pass NOx and fail the other two, but my car runs lean instead of rich. If I were to use a higher ethanol concentration my NOx would actually be higher and HC and CO would be lower (if that is possible). I really need to find someplace that sells non ethanol (race fuel maybe?) but that is a bit of a challenge since I live in CO were all the station are required to sell "up to" 10% blended fuel.

 

[YotaRob]

I wonder if going back to two cats will improve this.
edit:higher percentage of ethonal is because it burns at a lower temp so it lowers the combustion temp which lowers NOX.

 

[carguy34]

I wonder if going back to two cats will improve this.
edit:higher percentage of ethonal is because it burns at a lower temp so it lowers the combustion temp which lowers NOX.

I think you may be backwards on this.......

"Ethanol blends increase NOx emissions but significantly decrease carbon monoxide emissions. A 10 percent ethanol blend contains 3.5 percent oxygen, which reduces carbon monoxide emissions by 15 percent or more." By using a 10% ethanol blend instead of gas without any ethanol NOx emissions will increase approximately 4.6%.

I pulled that from this link.....http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/..._Gasoline_Crisis_Speeding_Up_the_Shift_Fr.htm

I also found numerous other sources that stated a higher concentration of ethanol will lower HC and CO, but will raise NOx emissions.

 

[carguy34]

On the idea of two cats, I have also wondered about this. Before I purchased the random tech cat that I have the rep suggested that I go with the 5" body instead of the 4" body if I had room under the car because it would do a better job of cleaning the exhaust. I still went with the 4" and welded it into the downpipe. Since I did that I have a test pipe where I could put a stock sized cat if someone had one available. I would be really interested in seeing the results of that test.

 

[figgie]

I think you may be backwards on this.......

"Ethanol blends increase NOx emissions but significantly decrease carbon monoxide emissions. A 10 percent ethanol blend contains 3.5 percent oxygen, which reduces carbon monoxide emissions by 15 percent or more." By using a 10% ethanol blend instead of gas without any ethanol NOx emissions will increase approximately 4.6%.

I pulled that from this link.....http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/..._Gasoline_Crisis_Speeding_Up_the_Shift_Fr.htm

I also found numerous other sources that stated a higher concentration of ethanol will lower HC and CO, but will raise NOx emissions.

lol

Seems like chemistry is lacking for them.

They have it backwards

Ethanol reduces NOx. It has to. The bound oxygen in ethanol serves no purpose from an energy perspective (ie adding O into the equation). Ethanol reduces NOx by the sheer latent heat of vaporization. NOx production is only possible in very high combustion chamber tempratures.

On the same breath ethanol WILL increase CO2 output by a significant margin.

But that is why we have trees on this planet (photosynthesis, look it up).

 

[YotaRob]

I think two cats is the answer, we get MK3 supras in the shop from time to time not to mention the 3 owned buy employees and the turbo ones with two cats always have the best numbers, even my 90 with original stock cats and original engine with 217xxx miles on it passed with flying colors, I bet the tailpipe is cleaner than L.A. smoggy air! The NA cars on the other hand usualy need some TLC to get them to pass. The trees and the ozone just like two cats.:icon_bigg
NOX is a by product of high combustion temps, ethonal will help all the numbers thats why its in all the gas pumps these days.

 

[carguy34]

lol

Seems like chemistry is lacking for them.

They have it backwards

Ethanol reduces NOx. It has to. The bound oxygen in ethanol serves no purpose from an energy perspective (ie adding O into the equation). Ethanol reduces NOx by the sheer latent heat of vaporization. NOx production is only possible in very high combustion chamber tempratures.

On the same breath ethanol WILL increase CO2 output by a significant margin.

But that is why we have trees on this planet (photosynthesis, look it up).

Thanks for the info. I am in no way a chemist, in fact most of it doesn't make much sense to me anymore. However, the articles I have been able to find with actual data are showing that CO and HC are reduced but NOx increases. The sites that I have found without any numbers have said that it will be reduced, but they don't say how much. It makes it really confusing. Here is another one that I just found after searching again....

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/publications/review-vehicle-fleet/index.html

I think that I will try to find someone that has an extra cat that I can test with and try it. It'll take a couple weeks since I won't be home again for two more weeks, but I will post results after I get them.

 

[YotaRob]

all that says is about a 20% blend which we do not use. The higher the blend the more the ecu logic is out of tune which causes the engine to lean out and thus raise combustion temps and creating higher NoX.