The engineering team at a mid-sized electronics manufacturer faced their usual challenge after the housing of a new industrial controller cracked during the previous quarterly drop tests. The team chose ABS material because it provided lower expenses. The material could withstand bench testing but it failed to meet the client requirements for 1.5-meter concrete drop tests needed for field equipment certification. The solution to the impact problem requires switching to polycarbonate material but what expenses will this decision create. The redesign of the mold will they need to complete.
The engineering departments experience this situation as a daily occurrence. The two most frequently used engineering thermoplastics for enclosure and housing and structural component applications are ABS and polycarbonate. The two materials provide excellent processability together with good surface finish and broad application capabilities. When your application tests the extreme limits of impact resistance and thermal load and optical clarity the two materials demonstrate different performance results.
The guide presents a detailed comparison between ABS and polycarbonate that examines their property differences and processing methods and actual usage scenarios. The grade information for CHIMEI POLYLAC PA-757 and Covestro Makrolon 2805 is included with full Certificate of Analysis documentation for Yifuhui stocks. You will learn to use a decision framework that helps you choose the best material for your needs, and you will discover the times when using one supplier for both materials will benefit your supply chain process.
At-a-Glance: ABS vs Polycarbonate Comparison Table
Quick Properties Reference
| Property | ABS (CHIMEI PA-757) | PC (Covestro Makrolon 2805) | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tensile Strength | 48 MPa | 65-70 MPa | PC |
| Impact Strength (Izod, notched) | 20-25 kJ/m² | 65-85 kJ/m² | PC |
| Heat Deflection Temperature | 88°C | 125°C | PC |
| Transparency | Opaque | Transparent (88-90%) | PC |
| Density | 1.05 g/cm³ | 1.20 g/cm³ | ABS |
| Cost (approximate per kg) | $1.90-2.20 | $2.80-3.50 | ABS |
| Processability | Excellent | Good | ABS |
| Chemical Resistance (oils/fuels) | Good | Moderate | ABS |
The table demonstrates that polycarbonate materials exhibit higher mechanical strength and impact resistance and better thermal performance than ABS materials. The ABS material provides lower production costs and lighter weight components and simpler manufacturing procedures. The PC material requires approximately 40-60% additional material expenses to deliver 40% stronger tensile strength and 3-4 times better impact protection.
The numbers create an initial discussion point. The material selection decision needs evaluation of how properties match application needs and whether performance benefits justify increased expenses.
Application Priority Matrix
| Application Requirement | Recommended Material | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum impact resistance | PC | 3-4x higher Izod impact strength |
| High heat (>100°C continuous) | PC | HDT 125°C vs 88°C for ABS |
| Optical clarity required | PC | 88-90% light transmission |
| Cost-sensitive high volume | ABS | 40-60% lower material cost |
| Complex thin-wall geometries | ABS | Lower viscosity, better flow |
| Fuel/oil contact | ABS | Better chemical resistance to hydrocarbons |
| UV exposure without coating | Neither (use UV-stabilized grades) | Both require stabilization |
Chemical Composition and Structure
ABS: The Terpolymer Architecture
ABS is a terpolymer synthesized from three monomers: acrylonitrile (A), butadiene (B), and styrene (S). Each contributes distinct properties to the final material:
- Acrylonitrile provides chemical resistance, heat stability, and mechanical strength
- Butadiene delivers the rubber toughening that gives ABS its impact resistance
- Styrene contributes processability, surface gloss, and rigidity
The butadiene rubber particles which are spread throughout the styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN) matrix form a two-phase system which deforms to absorb impact energy. This is why ABS achieves respectable impact strength without the density and cost of engineering polymers like PC.
The terpolymer structure also explains ABS’s processing advantages. The material flows well at relatively low temperatures (220-260°C melt range), fills complex molds with less injection pressure, and cools faster than PC which results in shorter cycle times during high-volume production.
Polycarbonate: The Polyester Backbone
Polycarbonate is a polyester formed from bisphenol A and phosgene (or carbonate ester in non-phosgene processes). The carbonate groups (-O-CO-O-) link aromatic rings in a rigid chain structure that resists deformation under load and heat.
The key structural feature is the bisphenol A moiety, two phenyl rings connected by a central carbon. These bulky aromatic rings restrict molecular mobility, producing:
- High glass transition temperature (Tg ~150°C)
- Excellent dimensional stability under load
- High optical clarity (amorphous structure with no crystalline regions to scatter light)
- Inherent toughness from the ability of carbonate groups to absorb impact energy through molecular rearrangement
The trade-off for these properties is processing complexity. PC requires higher melt temperatures (280-320°C), more precise drying (moisture content must be below 0.02%), and longer cycle times due to higher mold temperature requirements.
Mechanical Properties: Detailed Comparison
Tensile and Flexural Strength
When your design involves structural load-bearing components, the strength differential between ABS and PC becomes significant:
| Property | CHIMEI PA-757 (ABS) | Covestro Makrolon 2805 (PC) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tensile Strength | 48 MPa | 65-70 MPa | PC +35-45% |
| Flexural Strength | 70 MPa | 90-95 MPa | PC +30-35% |
| Flexural Modulus | 2,200 MPa | 2,300-2,400 MPa | Comparable |
The flexural modulus values are surprisingly close, meaning both materials offer similar stiffness in bending applications. The advantage for PC appears when loads approach the material’s yield point. PC’s higher tensile strength provides a larger safety margin before permanent deformation occurs.
Marcus used finite element analysis to demonstrate his redesigned industrial controller housing had an ABS version which operated at 85% of yield stress during maximum load conditions. The PC version operated at just 60% of yield, providing the safety margin his client’s certification required.
Impact Resistance: The Critical Differentiator
If there is one property that drives material selection decisions between ABS and PC, it is impact resistance. The difference is substantial:
| Impact Test | CHIMEI PA-757 (ABS) | Covestro Makrolon 2805 (PC) | PC Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Izod Impact (notched, 23°C) | 20-25 kJ/m² | 65-85 kJ/m² | 3-4x higher |
| Izod Impact (notched, -30°C) | 12-15 kJ/m² | 15-20 kJ/m² | Still higher |
| Charpy Impact (notched) | 18-22 kJ/m² | 60-75 kJ/m² | 3x higher |
PC’s exceptional impact resistance stems from its molecular structure. When struck, the carbonate groups in the polymer chain can rotate and absorb energy without chain breakage. This mechanism allows PC to withstand impacts that would crack or shatter ABS.
This property makes PC the default choice for:
- Safety equipment (face shields, protective goggles)
- High-drop-risk consumer electronics (laptop housings, tablet enclosures)
- Automotive lighting lenses
- Any application where impact failure creates liability risk
However, ABS impact resistance is adequate for many applications. Desk phones, monitor housings, and office equipment enclosures rarely experience the impact loads that would challenge ABS. Specifying PC for these applications adds cost without functional benefit.
Hardness and Scratch Resistance
Surface durability matters for consumer-facing products:
| Hardness Test | ABS | PC |
|---|---|---|
| Rockwell Hardness | R 100-110 | R 115-125 |
| Shore D Hardness | 75-80 | 80-85 |
| Pencil Hardness | 2B-HB | H-2H |
PC’s higher surface hardness provides better scratch resistance in use. However, both materials benefit from surface coatings or texturing for high-wear applications. For applications requiring exceptional scratch resistance, neither material matches glass-filled grades or surface-coated alternatives.
Thermal Properties Comparison
Heat Deflection Temperature (HDT)
The heat deflection temperature under load represents the temperature at which a material deforms 0.25 mm under specified flexural stress. It is a critical parameter for applications with thermal exposure:
| Load Condition | CHIMEI PA-757 (ABS) | Covestro Makrolon 2805 (PC) |
|---|---|---|
| HDT at 0.45 MPa | 98°C | 137°C |
| HDT at 1.8 MPa | 88°C | 125°C |
The 35-40°C advantage for PC opens application spaces that ABS cannot access. Automotive underhood components and high-power electronics enclosures and appliance parts near heating elements all exceed ABS thermal limits.
A small appliance manufacturer presents their 2023 experience. The coffee maker housing which they specified in ABS started showing heat distortion when the internal boiler reached its operating temperature. PC eliminated the warping issue but the mold design needed changes because of PC’s unique shrinkage and gate design requirements. The redesign cost was recovered through reduced warranty claims within eight months.
Continuous Service Temperature
| Material | Min Temp | Max Temp (unstressed) | Max Temp (under load) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABS | -40°C | 85°C | 70-75°C |
| PC | -40°C | 115°C | 100-105°C |
Both materials maintain toughness at low temperatures, making them suitable for cold-climate applications. The upper limit differential is where PC justifies its premium for thermal performance.
Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion (CLTE)
| Material | CLTE (μm/m·K) | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| ABS | 90-110 | Higher expansion, larger gaps needed |
| PC | 65-70 | Lower expansion, tighter tolerances possible |
PC’s lower thermal expansion enables tighter-tolerance assemblies and reduces the risk of binding or interference fits across temperature ranges. For precision mechanisms or snap-fits in thermally variable environments, this property can be decisive.
Optical and Aesthetic Properties
Transparency and Light Transmission
The optical clarity differential is absolute:
| Property | ABS | PC |
|---|---|---|
| Light Transmission | 0% (opaque) | 88-90% |
| Haze | N/A | <1% |
| Refractive Index | N/A | 1.58 |
PC serves as the primary option for applications that require transparent materials. The optical characteristics of PC materials are required for lenses light guides display covers and sight glasses. The transparent ABS product MABS (methyl methacrylate-acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene) provides 80-85% transmission through its transparent form but costs more and delivers lower mechanical performance than traditional ABS.
Surface Finish and Gloss
ABS offers exceptional surface aesthetics:
- Gloss Level: High-gloss finishes achievable directly from polished molds
- Plating Compatibility: Excellent adhesion for chrome plating (automotive trim, decorative handles)
- Paint Adhesion: Good surface energy for coating without extensive surface preparation
- Texture Replication: Fine surface textures reproduce faithfully
PC can achieve high gloss but is more prone to flow marks and requires more precise processing control. For painted or plated applications, ABS generally provides more forgiving processing and better finish quality.
UV Stability Considerations
Neither material is suitable for prolonged UV exposure without stabilization:
- ABS: Yellows and becomes brittle with UV exposure; requires UV stabilizer additives or protective coatings for outdoor use
- PC: Yellows with UV exposure; UV-stabilized grades (Covestro Makrolon 2407) offer improved weathering performance
For outdoor applications, consider:
- UV-stabilized PC grades (Makrolon 2407, Makrolon UV grades)
- ASA (acrylonitrile styrene acrylate) as an ABS alternative with better UV resistance
- Protective coatings or overmolding with UV-stable materials
Chemical Resistance Comparison
Hydrocarbons and Oils
ABS demonstrates superior resistance to aliphatic hydrocarbons, mineral oils, and petroleum products:
| Chemical | ABS Resistance | PC Resistance |
|---|---|---|
| Gasoline (automotive) | Good | Fair (swelling) |
| Diesel fuel | Good | Fair |
| Motor oil | Good | Good |
| Hydraulic fluids | Good | Fair |
This property makes ABS preferred for automotive interior components, fuel system enclosures, and industrial equipment exposed to lubricants. PC’s susceptibility to swelling in aromatic hydrocarbons limits its use in fuel-contact applications.
Acids and Bases
| Chemical | ABS Resistance | PC Resistance |
|---|---|---|
| Dilute acids | Good | Good |
| Concentrated acids | Fair to poor | Poor |
| Dilute alkalis | Good | Poor |
| Concentrated alkalis | Poor | Poor |
PC’s vulnerability to alkaline attack is a significant limitation. Cleaning solutions, concrete exposure, and certain industrial environments can degrade PC. ABS offers broader chemical resistance for general industrial applications.
Solvents and Cleaning Agents
Both materials require careful solvent selection:
| Solvent Type | ABS | PC |
|---|---|---|
| Ketones (MEK, acetone) | Attacked | Resistant |
| Esters | Attacked | Resistant |
| Alcohols | Resistant | Attacked |
| Aromatic hydrocarbons | Attacked | Swelled/attacked |
The solvent sensitivity of both materials influences adhesive selection and cleaning protocol development. For applications requiring solvent welding or aggressive cleaning, material selection must account for these limitations.
Processing Comparison
Injection Molding Parameters
Successful processing requires understanding the different thermal windows:
| Parameter | CHIMEI PA-757 (ABS) | Covestro Makrolon 2805 (PC) |
|---|---|---|
| Melt Temperature | 220-260°C | 280-320°C |
| Mold Temperature | 50-70°C | 80-120°C |
| Drying Temperature | 80-90°C | 120°C |
| Drying Time | 2-4 hours | 3-4 hours |
| Target Moisture Content | <0.2% | <0.02% |
PC processing requirements become more demanding for all of its operational aspects. The elevated melting point requires stronger heating elements and lengthier heating periods. The mold temperature differential is particularly significant; PC requires heated molds (80-120°C) while ABS processes well at lower temperatures (50-70°C).
The drying requirement is critical. PC exhibits hygroscopic behavior and absorbs moisture from its surroundings. Processing PC with moisture content above 0.02% results in hydrolysis which degrades molecular weight and mechanical strength and creates surface defects (splay marks, bubbles). ABS offers better flexibility because its drying process needs to be followed but short contact with damp air after drying and before processing will not cause major problems.
Cycle Time and Productivity
ABS generally offers faster cycle times:
| Factor | ABS | PC |
|---|---|---|
| Cooling time | Shorter (lower mold temp) | Longer (higher mold temp) |
| Fill pressure | Lower | Higher |
| Screw speed | Faster | Moderate |
| Overall cycle | 15-30% faster | Slower |
For high-volume applications where machine-hour rates dominate part cost, ABS’s processing efficiency can offset some of the material cost differential. A 20-second cycle time difference at high volume represents significant annual production capacity.
Secondary Operations
Machining: Standard carbide tooling enables efficient machining of both materials. The production of stringy chips by PC requires chip management solutions while ABS chips break more easily.
Painting and Coating: ABS provides better paint adhesion through its surface properties which require minimal preparation. The painting process needs both flame treatment and primer application to achieve dependable paint adhesion which results in extra operational expenses for PC.
Plating: ABS serves as the industry benchmark for electroplated plastic components used in automotive trim and decorative handles. The butadiene phase can be etched to create mechanical bonding sites for the metal layer. PC plating exists as an option but it requires more processing efforts which makes it uncommon.
Welding: Both materials achieve successful outcomes through ultrasonic welding methods. The PC welding process needs temperature adjustments because it operates at higher melting points. Vibration and hot plate welding are both suitable for both materials after their welding processes have been optimized.
Application-Specific Recommendations
Automotive Interior Components
ABS Preferred:
- Dashboard trim panels
- Door panels and interior handles
- Non-structural decorative components
- Cost-sensitive large parts
PC Preferred:
- Instrument cluster lenses
- Headlight and taillight lenses
- Interior light diffusers
- Safety-critical visible components
Decision Factors: Heat exposure, impact requirements, optical needs, surface finish specifications
Electronics and Electrical Enclosures
ABS Applications:
- Consumer electronics housings (TVs, monitors, printers)
- Computer peripheral enclosures
- Low-heat electrical junction boxes
- Cost-optimized consumer goods
PC Applications:
- High-temperature electronics (power supplies, industrial controllers)
- Transparent covers and indicators
- UL94 V-0 flame-retardant housings (Covestro Makrolon 6555/6557)
- Medical device enclosures requiring sterilization
When Sarah’s team at a medical device startup selected housing material for their new diagnostic instrument, they initially specified ABS for cost reasons. The requirement for autoclave sterilization at 121°C steam exposure prevented the use of ABS materials which they had chosen. The team tested Covestro Makrolon 2805 at 25 kg trial quantity through Yifuhui to validate the sterilization cycle before they started production with PC. The device cost increased by 45% because of material expenses, but hospitals would purchase the device because it could be sterilized.
Consumer Goods and Appliances
ABS Dominates:
- Refrigerator liners and appliance housings
- Vacuum cleaner components
- Toys (LEGO bricks are injection-molded ABS)
- Luggage shells
PC Dominates:
- Safety equipment (goggles, face shields)
- Water bottles and food containers (BPA-free grades)
- Premium luggage (impact-resistant shells)
- Lighting fixtures
3D Printing Considerations
Both materials are popular in additive manufacturing, with different trade-offs:
ABS (FDM/FFF):
- Requires heated bed (90-110°C)
- Prone to warping and delamination
- Acetone vapor smoothing possible
- Lower material cost
PC (FDM/FFF):
- Requires higher temperatures (bed 110-130°C, nozzle 260-300°C)
- Excellent layer adhesion when processed correctly
- Significantly stronger printed parts
- More demanding printer requirements
Cost Analysis
Raw Material Cost Comparison (2024 Market)
| Material | Price Range (USD/kg) | Relative Cost |
|---|---|---|
| ABS (CHIMEI PA-757) | $1.90-2.20 | Baseline (100%) |
| PC (Covestro Makrolon 2805) | $2.80-3.50 | 140-160% |
| PC/ABS Blend | $2.40-2.80 | 120-130% |
The raw material cost premium for PC is substantial: 40-60% higher than ABS at current market pricing. However, total part cost depends on multiple factors beyond material price per kilogram.
Total Cost of Ownership Factors
| Cost Factor | ABS | PC | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Material cost per part | Lower | Higher | 40-60% premium for PC |
| Processing cycle time | Faster | Slower | ABS 15-30% faster |
| Energy consumption | Lower | Higher | PC higher melt temps |
| Scrap/rework rate | Lower | Higher | PC more moisture-sensitive |
| Part thickness for equivalent stiffness | Thicker | Thinner | PC higher modulus allows design optimization |
| Warranty/field failure cost | Higher | Lower | PC superior durability |
The material and processing costs of ABS materials for high-volume non-critical consumer products1)B2)B2)The safety requirements of high-temperature and high-impact applications make PC technology vendors responsible for maintaining the system’s operational capacity through warranty-based material costs which exceed standard expenses.
Grade-Specific Data: Yifuhui Stocked Grades
CHIMEI POLYLAC PA-757 (ABS)
Material Specifications:
- Type: High-impact, high-gloss general-purpose ABS
- Melt Flow Index: 1.8 g/10 min (200°C/5 kg)
- Tensile Strength: 48 MPa
- Flexural Strength: 70 MPa
- Heat Deflection Temperature: 88°C (1.8 MPa)
- Density: 1.05 g/cm³
- Notched Izod Impact: 20-25 kJ/m²
Applications: Appliance housings, consumer electronics, automotive interior components, toys, luggage shells
Processing Notes: Dries at 80-90°C for 2-4 hours. Processes well at 220-260°C melt temperature. Excellent surface gloss from polished molds. Good paint and plate adhesion without extensive surface preparation.
Covestro Makrolon 2805 (PC)
Material Specifications:
- Type: General-purpose injection molding grade
- Melt Volume Rate (MVR): 10 cm³/10 min (300°C/1.2 kg)
- Tensile Strength: 65-70 MPa
- Flexural Strength: 90-95 MPa
- Heat Deflection Temperature: 125°C (1.8 MPa)
- Density: 1.20 g/cm³
- Light Transmission: 88-90%
Applications: Electronics enclosures, automotive lighting, medical devices, safety equipment, transparent covers, high-impact housings
Processing Notes: Requires critical drying at 120°C for 3-4 hours to achieve <0.02% moisture. Melt temperature 280-320°C. Mold temperature 80-120°C for optimal properties. Higher injection pressures than ABS. Sensitive to moisture-induced degradation if improperly dried.
Covestro Makrolon 2407 (UV-Stabilized PC)
For outdoor or UV-exposed applications, Makrolon 2407 provides UV stabilization without sacrificing the mechanical properties of 2805:
- MVR: 9 cm³/10 min
- Tensile Strength: 65 MPa
- HDT: 120°C (1.8 MPa)
- Enhanced UV resistance for extended outdoor service
Flame-Retardant Alternatives
For electronics applications requiring UL94 compliance:
CHIMEI POLYLAC PA-765A: UL94 V-0 rated ABS for electronics housings. Maintains good processability with flame-retardant additives.
Covestro Makrolon 6555/6557: UL94 V-0 rated PC grades for electrical enclosures. 6555 is general V-0; 6557 offers improved flow for thin-wall applications.
Sourcing Both Materials from China
Dual-Material Procurement Advantages
Engineers and procurement managers often face projects requiring both ABS and PC components. Sourcing both materials from a single supplier offers operational benefits:
Consolidated Documentation: One supplier relationship means consistent COA format, unified documentation standards, and a single point of contact for quality inquiries.
Combined Shipping Efficiency: Consolidating ABS and PC shipments reduces freight costs and simplifies import logistics. A single customs entry, single freight forwarder coordination, and unified delivery scheduling streamline procurement operations.
Supplier Qualification Efficiency: Qualifying one supplier for both materials halves the audit and qualification burden compared to managing separate ABS and PC suppliers.
Material Trial Coordination: When evaluating both materials for an application, receiving trial quantities from the same supplier ensures consistent documentation, simultaneous delivery, and comparable lead times for head-to-head testing.
Verifying ABS Certificates of Analysis
A valid COA for CHIMEI POLYLAC PA-757 should include:
- Material designation: “POLYLAC PA-757”
- Manufacturer: CHIMEI Corporation
- Lot number and manufacturing date
- Melt Flow Index: 1.8 ±0.3 g/10 min (200°C/5 kg)
- Tensile strength: 48 ±3 MPa
- Impact strength: 20-25 kJ/m²
- Heat deflection temperature: 88 ±3°C
- Density: 1.05 ±0.01 g/cm³
Cross-reference these values against CHIMEI’s published datasheet. Significant deviations require supplier explanation.
Verifying PC Certificates of Analysis
A valid COA for Covestro Makrolon 2805 should include:
- Material designation: “Makrolon 2805”
- Manufacturer: Covestro AG
- Lot number and manufacturing date
- Melt Volume Rate: 10 ±1.5 cm³/10 min (300°C/1.2 kg)
- Tensile strength: 65-70 MPa
- Light transmission: 88-90%
- Vicat softening temperature: 142-148°C
Note that PC specifications typically use MVR (melt volume rate) rather than MFI. The test conditions differ (300°C/1.2 kg for PC vs 200°C/5 kg for ABS), so direct numerical comparison between MVR and MFI values is not meaningful.
Yifuhui Dual-Material Offering
Yifuhui stocks both CHIMEI POLYLAC PA-757 and Covestro Makrolon grades (2805, 2407, and flame-retardant variants) in our Suzhou warehouse with full manufacturer COA documentation.
Key sourcing parameters:
- Minimum Order Quantity: 25 kg for either material
- Combined shipment: ABS and PC can ship together in one container
- Lead time: 7-14 days to major international ports from Suzhou
- Export terms: FOB Shanghai standard; EXW and CIF available
- Documentation: Manufacturer COA, MSDS, commercial invoice, packing list included
For projects requiring both materials, we can coordinate trial quantities of each grade for comparative evaluation, then scale to production volumes with consistent lot-to-lot documentation.
Decision Framework: Which Material to Choose
Choose ABS When:
- Cost is a primary constraint, The 40-60% material cost savings can be decisive for high-volume consumer goods
- Operating temperature remains below 85°C, ABS handles typical indoor and consumer environments competently
- Opaque finish is acceptable, No transparency requirement
- Complex geometries or thin walls are required, ABS’s superior flow characteristics fill challenging molds more readily
- Chemical exposure involves fuels, oils, or dilute acids, ABS offers better resistance to hydrocarbons
- Painting, plating, or decorative finishing is required, ABS’s surface properties excel for secondary finishing
- Production volume justifies cycle time optimization, ABS’s faster processing improves machine productivity
Choose Polycarbonate When:
- Impact resistance is critical, PC’s 3-4x advantage prevents failure in drop-prone or safety-critical applications
- Operating temperature exceeds 85°C, Automotive underhood, high-power electronics, appliance heating zones
- Optical clarity is required, PC is the default choice for transparent applications
- UL94 V-0 flame rating is mandatory, PC flame-retardant grades meet stringent electronics requirements
- Autoclave or sterilization exposure is expected, PC withstands 121°C steam sterilization; ABS degrades
- Safety and liability concerns dominate, The performance margin justifies premium for critical applications
- Long-term durability offsets material cost, Service life extension justifies higher initial material investment
Consider PC/ABS Alloy When:
PC/ABS blends offer intermediate properties that may suit applications where pure ABS lacks performance but pure PC is unnecessarily costly:
- Heat resistance: 95-110°C (between ABS and PC)
- Impact strength: 40-60 kJ/m² (2-3x ABS, less than PC)
- Processability: Better than PC, approaching ABS
- Cost: 20-30% premium over ABS, 30-40% below PC
Common applications include automotive interior trim (high heat + impact requirements), business equipment housings, and consumer electronics requiring better durability than ABS alone.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which material exhibits greater strength ABS or polycarbonate?
Polycarbonate exhibits superior tensile strength which reaches 65-70 MPa while CHIMEI PA-757 displays 48 MPa and exhibits better impact resistance which reaches 65-85 kJ/m² while CHIMEI PA-757 displays 20-25 kJ/m² Izod notched. The definition of strength varies according to different load types. PC provides better performance than its competitor because it has higher tensile and flexural strength which makes it better for static structural loads. The two materials display equal performance in applications where stiffness (modulus) takes precedence over ultimate strength.
Can I switch from ABS to PC using the same mold?
The process allows for conversion between materials but it requires specific adjustments. PC requires higher mold temperatures (80-120°C vs 50-70°C for ABS) and benefits from optimized gate design. The two materials exhibit identical shrinkage (0.5-0.7%) which means part dimensions must stay within acceptable tolerance limits. The manufacturing process requires heater band upgrades and extended heat-soak durations because of increased processing temperatures. The company needs to conduct process validation tests using trial materials before moving to full production.
Is polycarbonate always more expensive than ABS?
At the material level, the answer is yes. The cost of PC exceeds the cost of ABS by 40-60% which makes PC 40-60% more expensive. The total cost of the part depends on three factors which include processing efficiency and cycle times and failure rates. PC provides lower total ownership costs because its performance prevents warranty claims and field failures, even though its materials cost more than other options.
Which material is better for outdoor use?
Neither ABS nor standard PC is ideal for prolonged UV exposure. Both yellow and degrade without UV stabilization. For outdoor applications:
- Specify UV-stabilized PC (Covestro Makrolon 2407)
- Consider ASA (acrylonitrile styrene acrylate) as an ABS alternative with better weathering
- Apply protective coatings or overmolding
- Design for replacement before UV degradation becomes critical
Can ABS and polycarbonate be bonded together?
The bonding of ABS and polycarbonate requires correct adhesive selection and surface preparation methods. ABS bonds effectively with solvent cements which include MEK and acetone and cyanoacrylates and epoxies. The adhesives for PC require different chemical properties which might need surface treatment. Mixed-material assemblies require mechanical fastening because it better handles thermal expansion differences than adhesive bonding.
What is the shelf life of ABS and PC resin?
Both materials, when properly stored in original packaging, maintain processability for 2-3 years. The moisture sensitivity of PC increases because operators need to reseal opened sample bags immediately or they must redry the material before processing. The user must consult the manufacturer’s published shelf life guidance to determine the specific grades available.
Does PC really require drying?
Yes, absolutely. The processing of PC with moisture content above 0.02% leads to hydrolytic degradation which decreases both molecular weight and mechanical properties. Degradation leads to permanent damage which becomes visible only after components fail their testing. Dry PC at 120°C for 3-4 hours minimum before processing. This requirement stands as essential for maintaining production quality.
Conclusion
The process of selecting between ABS and polycarbonate requires an evaluation of which material properties meet the needs of specific applications because researchers must then assess whether the additional performance benefits will make up for the higher expenses.
The complete value of ABS material shows its best performance in applications that require basic functions and low-cost operations which demand testing in moderate temperature conditions and controlled impact situations. The material serves as the primary resource to produce consumer goods and to create automotive interiors and appliance housings because of its excellent processing abilities and its ability to produce high-quality surfaces and its resistance against fuels and oils.
Polycarbonate earns its premium when applications demand what only PC can deliver: exceptional impact resistance, high-temperature capability, optical clarity, or sterilization compatibility. PC material serves as the exclusive practical option for safety-critical components and high-heat electronics and transparent applications because all other options exceed budget limits.
The optimal approach for many engineering teams is to validate both materials for their specific application. The 25 kg minimum order quantity established by Yifuhui for both CHIMEI POLYLAC PA-757 and Covestro Makrolon grades allows researchers to conduct comparative testing without making substantial material investments. You should trial both materials in your equipment and test the resulting parts through real-world conditions before making your selection based on actual results instead of datasheet information.
