| Author | Message | ||
     Stretchman |
Ok, I think I understand the new EPA regs. NOT! They say that bikes that burn more fuel ( lower MPG ) can produce less emissions than a bike with a higher MPG? How is that possible? Do they check the bikes over the entire RPM range, or do they simply check them at idle, like the old vehicle inspections used to do? What else do they regulate? The exhaust noise, or emissions, or what? Can you swap exhausts, and go to something like the drummer, and not get beaten up by the EPA thugs? People who have switched have commented that their gas mileage improves along with the ponys. It burns dirtier to do that? Scratchin my head.... Stretch | ||
| Ryker77 |
I think your confusing EPA manufactor testing and approval with local state emmsion and saftey checks. | ||
| Stretchman |
There are no local checks anymore in Florida. But I am wondering why the EPA is coming down so heavy on us for having a bike that gets twice the mileage of a Busa. Can't see how a Buell pollutes more is all... Stretch | ||
| Anonymous |
There is truth in that good fuel mileage and good emissions are not always linked. However, the emissions levels on the Buells are so good that they pass '08 CA regulations right now, let alone EPA, which has looser regulations. If anyone says a Buell has worse emissions than other bikes, they are flat lying. | ||
| Buellisti |
The XB12's are the only big bore sportbikes on the market that meet emissions without a catalytic convertr. The motor is efficient and clean. Due in large part to a very well designed and executed FI system. | ||
| Jlnance |
They say that bikes that burn more fuel (lower MPG ) can produce less emissions than a bike with a higher MPG? How is that possible? I'm not familiar with the regs, but I think I can answer your question. The emissions the EPA is concerned with are carbon monoxide and Nitrous Oxides. Carbon monoxide is created when gasoline burns with out sufficient oxygen or sufficient heat. This happens when your mixture is too rich, but it will also happen for other reasons. The amount of carbon monoxide the EPA allows you to emit is small compared to the amount of gasoline that your burn. So even if you are burning less gas, you are still burning enough to produce more polution if you wanted to. Nitrous oxides are formed when you get air too hot, and the nitrogen, which makes up 80% of air, burns. Hotter engines are more efficient than cooler engines. So if you are improving the mileage by doing something that raises the temprature (rasing the compression ratio for example), that the Nitrous emissions will go up as well. | ||
| Ryker77 |
Which is why big brother won't allow German car makers to import diesel cars that can get well over 40mpgs.. minus VW's Golf,Jetta, Bettle, Passats. VW has sold for many years a car that gets 60-70mpg, the Lupo. But current EPA regs and poor diesel fuel in the US doesn't allow it. But I can go buy a 10mpgs 4 door 4wheel drive dually diesel truck. Just another one of the things that could have and should have been fixed, since the republicans has controlled the government for some time now. NOT political since I doubt the other side or any side really cares. I doubt any polticians cares whats best for the little guy. | ||
| Stretchman |
Well, I for one, would much rather breathe in Nitrous Oxide than carbon monoxide any day. (LOL)  Stretch | ||
| Cataract2 |
Gotta agree with you Ryker. I would rather drive a diesel than unleaded. (Message edited by cataract2 on February 19, 2006) | ||
| Diablobrian |
Unfortunately the average person cannot understand the difference between a diesel exhaust and a gasoline engine exhaust. They get all worked up about the relatively harmless carbon from the diesel and proclaim it dirty without checking the facts. Truck drivers have fought this battle for decades. Direct injection holds a lot of promise, but not if the uninformed continue to make the laws about such things. Before I get flamed remember that diesel engines are less than 5% of motor vehicles here in the States. Many of these have been converted by municipalities to run on natural gas to clean up that nasty smoke. Which is fine in urban areas, but we could really use the more economical diesel motors in the rest of the country. | ||
| Dmextreme |
another anon | ||
| Blake |
Yes. Another anon who is 100% correct. Is that a problem? | ||
| Diablobrian |
people need to get over this anonymous poster thing. It's getting tiresome. | ||
| Brucelee |
As much as I am a fan of diesel tech, and agree with the issue of promoting of high mileage cars like them, it is fair to say that the diesels in Europe have some challenges. As I have read it, there is a significant pollutant problem related to diesel emissions in Europe that has the EU changing its standards. As I recall it, this pollutant among other things eats away at the edifice of a building and apparently, the lining of the lungs. Since Europe is so big into diesels, they are in a quandry. Personally, I think this issue can be solved with synfuels but the Germans are looking at things like direct injection gas engines and exhaust scrubbers. Last point, as I understand it, the diesel auto issue is largely driven by California and Massachusetts emissions standards and NOT by Washington. It seems that if the Germans can't sell their auto diesels in these two states, it does not make economic sense to import them. So, we can blame these two BLUE states for the issue. You can buy a VW diesel in Nevada and register it here in CA if it is NOT new. Go figure. | ||
| Benm2 |
The UK reeks of Diesel fuel. Its better mileage in that area (where fuel costs 3-4 times what it does here) dictates its use by practical necessity. (supply & demand) The stench has been noticed, and tighter regulations ARE being put in place, both in the EU & the US. The dreaded catalytic converter & electronic engine management combination will progress further into diesel engines, and their emissions performance will improve. As these systems are implemented in the US, there will be great, vast articles about lousy performance, reliability issues, anecdotal horror stories, increased complexity and increased cost. They will eventually subside, and the exhaust will be cleaner, and the environment will be better for it. The regulations put in place to tighten the emissions were functions of A government, red or blue. The manufacturers did NOT do this on their own. Battery & electric motor technology are the things to watch now. There are ways to build a "practical" electric car now, but they are still impractically expensive. I expect that to change with time. | ||
| Ralf |
I agree with get over the anonymous. Emissions is defined differently for different applications. Diesels are exempted from certain emissions standards. If they had to meet the particulate and aldehyde (the stuff that makes them smell like a bus) levels of a XB Buell, there would be no way. Emissions for cars, and I assume bikes are in ppm, the concentration of the CO,HC, and NOx in the exhaust. Equally efficient or clean engines that got different mileage, for example a bike vs an SUV might produce the same concentration in ppm. If the bike gets 50 miles to the gallon, and the SUV gets 10, then in terms of "polutants per mile" the SUV makes 5 times as much of the bad stuff, just diluted with that huge volume of gases. If you compare a pre emissions musclecar to the same SUV with modern catalytic converters, the SUV might make less polution than the car, even though the car actually gets much better mileags. The difference is in the catalytic converter which really does reduce the emissions significantly. I doubt that the emissions levels from even a Buell are as good as from a catalyst equipped car. Pass emissions standards without converter maybe. However, on a tons of polutants per zillion miles basis, or what ever California regulates next, the vehicle with the BEST mileage polutes less. I ramble. So sorry. | ||
| Josh_ |
>If anyone says a Buell has worse emissions than other bikes, they are flat lying. My two favorite anti-HD/Buell lines: The Air-cooled motors are not emissions friendly. HD/Buell still don't need any tricks to pass EPA/CARB guidelines. inline-4s have required cats for years. The HD/Buell vtwin is inherantly unstable thus the vibrations. Buell and many? HDs still don't run balancers while the inline 4s have to have them - and still buzz. My FJR has 2 balancers and puts my hands to sleep. (Yeah, ok the BigTwins got balancers a couple years back.) | ||
| Davegess |
<I assume bikes are in ppm> Actually everything is now measured in Grams per Mile so better gas milage may help you. Testing at your local station may still be parts per million but they are changing those over to GPM. The EPA test the manufactures must pass involves running a "typical" urban loop including a cold start and I think a hot start. It includes low speed and freeway speeds. A pretty reasonable test when all is said and done. The air cooled engine fares well because it warms up much faster than a liquid cooled engine and can thus be operating efficently for a greater percentage of the test cycle. Since IC engines are hugely dirty when cold the AC engine has an edge in this very important area. | ||
| Ralf |
Thanks. If the measure is grams per mile, then a relatively "dirty" high mileage vehicle uh I mean vehicle that gets high mileage with a very small engine will produce less emissions than a relatively clean SUV with a huge engine that gets lousy mileage. When the standard is changed over to GPM the days of big cars and big power will disappear. Too bad. Ralfy | ||
| Davegess |
Ralf it is now GPM. Lower fuel milage produces less than higher and there are a few cases that you can find in some of the literature that shows that quite clearly. I don't have time to dig for them right now. The current technolgy and standards allows low MPG vehicles to pass but they require more antipollution stuff to pass. | ||
| Blake |
Ralf, Catalytic converters already take care of the really nasty stuff (hydrocarbons and NOx). No worries.  Dave, I think you meant "Higher" fuel mileage engines produce less pollutants? | ||
| Adrenaline_junkie |
Blake - Are you sure Automotive Catalytic Converters remove NOx? I'm not saying they don't, but the catalysts we use to remove NOx from the smoke at the power plant require the addition of ammonia gas up stream from the cat. I know cars don't have this feature or we would have to stop and fill the ammonia tank from time to time. Are cars using a different unobtanium on their cats? | ||
| Blake |
| ||
| Kootenay |
As I understand it, the major problem with diesel engine emissions (relative to otto engine emissions) is that the higher combustion chamber temperatures allow the formation of nitrogen compounds (and sulphur compounds, if sulphur is present--which it is in North American diesel fuel). These compounds don't form as readily in the lower temperatures present in otto cycle (gasoline) engines. There's a lab at UBC in Vancouver working on practical application of propane injection into diesel engines (only a small amount, in addition to diesel fuel). The propane cools the combustion process, thus reducing the amount of noxious exhaust gasses--but there is a corresponding reduction in power. I'm a big fan of diesels myself, and my "other" vehicle is a Dodge diesel truck. I'm waiting for Toyota to introduce their diesel-powered Tundra to North America, supposedly in 2007, before looking for another vehicle (the diesel Toyota is getting good reviews in Europe and Australia, where it has been available for a while). | ||
| Ryker77 |
Car--- talk Hybrid tech has been proven to be not effective in real world driving. Numeruous news postings on hybrid owner NOT getting great MPG's. I once owned a Honda Insight. I "could" get 80-90mpgs but that required CONSTANT attention to the instant MPG display, road conditions, elevation, traffic and signals. Plus limited use of AC no cruise control, reduced speed. NOT FUN TO DO. Average MPG for the the 40k miles i owend the car was 53. well below the 70 listed. Now my VW with a TDI engine, upgraded larger turbo,, race ECM, huge injectors 140hp and over 300ft/lbs of torque. Larger car, I can use cruise control and drive like a teenager.. I still get 43-46mpgs. And I use 20% Biodiesel which is made in my area from chicken fat! -- As much as I hate to say it. TAXES are the answer. Increase fuel tax or some type of road useage tax. IE vehicule weight x MPGS to get a yearly cost. This would force people to choose to live near there work place and reduce urban sprawl and cummuting. Or force people to buy cars the either get better MPGs, weigh less or have reduced emmisions. Right now its just too easy to buy a house 40-60 miles from work (to save money) and drive a SUV to work each day. | ||
| Brucelee |
"As much as I hate to say it. TAXES are the answer. Increase fuel tax or some type of road useage tax. IE vehicule weight x MPGS to get a yearly cost. This would force people to choose to live near there work place and reduce urban sprawl and cummuting. Or force people to buy cars the either get better MPGs, weigh less or have reduced emmisions." Ryker, what is the ultimate outcome you envision here? Cleaner air, eneregy independence, etc.? | ||
| Davegess |
Ryker, as much as I dislike taxes I have to agree with you. This has happend now 3 times. The oil cartel gets us by the short hairs becuase of the life style we chooose based on cheap oil and then they sitck us. We of course respond by dropping consumption and prices come back down. Before this latest round gas at 1.35 a gallon was (adjusted for inflation) as cheap as it had been in a very long time. Now we are crying, scrambing to get smaller caras etc. As soon as the price goes down we go back to the cheap oil behavoir. The Europeans essentially have neveer had any oil so they have always taxed the daylights out of it to keep consumtion down. They don't want to be dependent on a very erratic supplier. I think we would be wise to do the same. | ||
| Imonabuss |
Ryker, Not a bad idea, except that the taxes would be apportioned to some whining constituency or pork barrel project, and then become another "entitlement". If the taxes actually went to something aimed at the future good, like advanced technology, then it might work. A better idea might be to force the oil companies to invest a greater portion of their profits into new energy sources. Maybe one of the media groups like a 60 Minutes program, (but one that told the truth) could go into the books of the oil companies and tell the truth about where the money is going? Then tell folks to buy from the companies that were thinking of our future? What am I thinking, though, media that tells the truth? If I believe that, I might as well go buy a Fish carburetor. | ||
| Brucelee |
I will go back to my original question. What is the ultimate outcome that these policy recommendations are seeking to produce? Be careful what you wish for! | ||
| Bomber |
folks will not limit their use of oil until it hurts enough -- seem obvious, but it's a concept that has had washington running from the idea of taxing enegy like, well, a congressman running from rational debate -- where the taxes go is an important issue, certainly -- but until the real price of oil gets beyond a threashold that has a real impact on folks, Hummers will continue to see, I won't be able to buy a midsized deisel truck, and what used to be called limo-liberals will continue to wring their hands -- auditing the oil companies' books would accomplaish little wrt this country's limiting it's oil dependance -- it may result in some more data to use when deciding where to fill up, but not alot more than that -- oil companies are not in business to "think of our future," they are in business to pay a return on investments, just like any other business -- finances, on the other hand, will impact our oil consunmption | ||
| Sarodude |
For anyone who doubts the effects of diesel emissions on health... Try living with someone with some serious lung issues. It doesn't really bother me - other than being a nusance. However, it causes my partner in life some serious asthmatic reactions. I'm not arguing for or against deisels. Just saying that the soot from those exhausts does indeed hurt some people - and in this case, someone I care for dearly. -Saro | ||
| Benm2 |
Soot is not a requirement in Diesel exhaust. It IS being eliminated, by law & plan, right now. | ||
| Blake |
Clarification: Hybrids with braking power recovery systems provide improved efficiency only in stop and go city driving. On the highway, they are no more efficient than a standard automobile, probably less so. | ||
| 2k4xb12 |
But I can go buy a 10mpgs 4 door 4wheel drive dually diesel truck. Hmmm, the only 4 door 4WD trucks getting that poor a mileage would be burning gas. A diesel in that configuration would get much better than that. Off the showroom floor, they would get closer to 18-22 MPG. My F-350 crew cab dually diesel weighs in at 8,500 pounds and has many performance mods. Even in my configuration, it gets 15+ MPG. On the other hand, a similarly equipped gasoline pickup would be down around 8 - 12 MPG. Unfortunately, I don't drive it as much as I used to because of the obscenely high price of diesel fuel compared to gasoline. | ||
| Road_thing |
If you're interested in energy, here's a couple of books you ought to read: The End Of Oil, by Paul Roberts, and Twilight in the Desert, by Matthew Simmons. Both talk about world energy supply and demand trends, especially as regards crude oil. rt | ||
| Honu |
Big Oil Money Reinvested.  | ||
| Honu |
One More.  | ||
| Ryker77 |
Ryker, what is the ultimate outcome you envision here? Cleaner air, eneregy independence, etc.? 1. less urban sprawl 2. less traffic 3. decreased emissions 4. increase family time 5. less dependance on arab oil 6. more effective lifestyle 7. more energy effecient homes 8. less road accidents 9. less traffic deaths 10. cops could do real work instead of traffic wrecks Tax revenue could be used to create a nice effective mass transit system. Or to pay for the 300 BILLION dollar Iraq "war". Or to pay back in the Social Security system. Or to reduce federal debt. | ||
| Buelluk |
Craig, I hope all is well at PA What are Valero putting up in Port Arthur now..I don't work for VLO any longer as i got RIFd with Premcor but keep those profits coming for my stock. Do you know if Maes on the Bayou survived Katrina. |
