Quote History Quoted:
That's what I figured, but wouldn't a non-ca converter be better than a bypassed, plugged up converter? Buy one from the free world.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You will lose a little bit of MPG by losing the ability of the O2 sensors to make the engine run lean when more fuel is not required. Upping octane won't really have any effect, plus I think that engine is only like 9.7:1 or so, so should be fine on 87 without detonation.
This. It should run rich. A lean engine is more likely to detonate, which is what higher octane fuel is meant to prevent. You would be throwing money away, and probably giving up power, and making your mileage worse.
Why would it cost $1000?
California have very strict emissions standards. They have a more platinum than catalytic converters in the other 49 states.
Go to autobarn.com and type in a catalytic converter. You can get one for $150 but it will say not for sale in California.
Democrats...
That's what I figured, but wouldn't a non-ca converter be better than a bypassed, plugged up converter? Buy one from the free world.
It would, you’re correct but I’d have to switch it every other year with the old one to pass SMOG.
Also, nobody will sell me an out of state converter. I’d have to drive out of state to pick one up.
The $5 bypass is fine, at a loss of 1-2 mpg.
I know in time I’d save more by buying the catalytic converter but I’ll be in a new vehicle in 3 years and I don’t drive it enough to warrant that choice.
Doing some quick calculations, @ 9,000 mi a year and 12mpg vs 14mpg it would take 5-6 years to break even.