Pollution from a HT Engine

dwsutton

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
109
I have read from a few different sources about the "carbon footprint" from a 2 cycle engine and Im having a hard time believing that an engine that gets such high mpg could actually pollute as much as a vehicle getting 20 mpg. I have a Ford 7.3l Diesel that gets 14 mpg on a good day. If fitted with a C. Converter is the output as bad as they say ? Does anyone have concrete numbers besides some study in Sweden that is often mentioned but no real numbers given other than " it is worse that a passenger vehicle" Im really having a hard time buying that. I have operated my bike for 300 miles and used less than 2 gallons of mixed fuel - how could that pollute more than the average of vehicles on the road when you factor in trucks like mine and Joe Bob's 1981 Ford pick up ?? How much pollution could be produced from two gallons of fuel ? Im not buying it . Anyone got any real numbers ?


D
 

BoltsMissing

Active Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
897
In layman's terms, the whole picture can be observed.

How much pollution to produce 1 complete truck from raw materials ?
Transporting these materials, manufacture, life of the vehicle and how much fuel it used, then back to the re-cycle process.

And then compare the same process to produce a bicycle, HT, it's total life till it "dies" and back to re-cyclers the same as a truck or even passenger motor car.

If those stats. are ever possible and made available, I don't think ya need to be a rocket scientist for a guess.
 

dwsutton

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
109
wonder how my 90 Ford 7.3 Diesel would fall within that as it doesn't even have to be emission tested ?
 

darwin

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
4,611
Its simple to figure, 2 strokes throw the oil out into the air while 4 strokes keep it in the crankcase.
 

GTscoob

New Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22
Its simple to figure, 2 strokes throw the oil out into the air while 4 strokes keep it in the crankcase.
Ha, ideally. And then there are the cars with worn piston rings and tons of blowby that also burn through 1qt every 3000 miles.

I think if you really were concerned about the environment, get yourself a wideband 02 sensor and exhaust gas temperature gauge. Mount them into your tailpipe and use them to optimize your carb tuning. I'll tell you right now, emissions is less of a matter of the engine and more of how it runs. The fact that these motors are carburated doesnt help either as a carb is really just one massive fuel leak (well fuel/oil on a 2-stroke).

My WRX will pass a sniffer test running catless and will fail an OBDII test but it runs completely clean because its tuned perfectly. Most cars on the road run stupidly rich and will pick up gas mileage and performance if the ECU is reflashed with a solid tune. Keep in mind I mean a real tune, and not just a 'tune-up'.

Emissions in the US are a joke. The CARB is just a buncha of corrupt hippies out in California mandating emissions standards with no regards to design lifespans of vehicles or any knowledge of the auto industry.
 

BoltsMissing

Active Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
897
Again I remind readers, to me I can only observe and say an opinion as layman.
It seems to me no matter what laws,maths, taxes and tweaks are tried and errored, dare I say if you have large manufacturing companies with share holders, and share holders are in it for the math/profit/more profit than the last "record profit", and mathematically speaking, products now cannot be made to last or you'll upset the share holders.

So if let's say Company A manufactures quality spanners that last a life time and the spanner set I purchase today will be passed on to my kids after 35 years of trusted use.

Share holders won't hear of it !

Company B manufactures similar spanner sets and various light, but essential tools but in time they break.
Similar type of tools of an era gone by lasted a couple generations if not more.

We have a vice, the brand name is DAWN, and it was bought in 1963, from Myers. It's still in use today and going strong, and rather heavy.

I just threw out a newer vice bought 5 years ago, the threads stripped, it will not grip.

So, I don't buy this carbon foortprint gas bagging either, it's all too obvious the govs. and big bizines are just too quick to jump on this gravy train once again.
Ofcourse, we are powerless to do much about it, the gluttons with the money and the media occupy the sheeple's minds.

When will it all come to it's senses ?


I posted these pictures to show my observations as stated.
The spanner set, made in some developing nations cost $11.95
The foot pump cost $20.00
I have to spend another $11.95 and another $20.00 top replace the broken and essential tools.
What if these tools were bought at the same price, lasted a couple of generations and the $31.95 was spent elsewhere except back to same company B, owned by share holders.

The entire system of things is a total farce. Make things to last and do the math on that scale to and see what the "carbon footprint" leads to.
 

Attachments

  • tn_broken tools 001.jpg
    tn_broken tools 001.jpg
    8.2 KB · Views: 129
  • tn_broken tools 002.jpg
    tn_broken tools 002.jpg
    6.8 KB · Views: 123
  • tn_broken tools 003.jpg
    tn_broken tools 003.jpg
    16.2 KB · Views: 118

loquin

Active Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,210
two stroke engines, in particular, are bad in hydrocarbon emissions. Older design, 2-stroke engines pump up to 25 percent of the fuel, unburned, right through the engine. (the intake and exhaust ports are opened simultaneously, and a portion of the fuel/air mix short-circuits straight through.) In addition, much of the lubricating oil in the mix remains unburned.

However, modern designs can alleviate some of the issues. Either by the use of improved scavenging, or by the use of catalytic converters, hydrocarbon emissions can be reduced to 5% or less, which will enable 2-stroke engines to meet CARBII emission standards. The Mitsubishi TLE-43, for instance, opens a secondary air port initially, so that air (only) enters the combustion chamber first. Clean air is thus carried out the exhaust port, rather than a fuel-air mix. This allows the TLE-43 to meet CARBII emissions without a catalytic converter.

OK. Since the motor meets CARBII emissions, it should pollute less than a car, right?

"Not so fast, Pilgrim!" CARBII emissions are VERY lax in regards to small engines, as opposed to EPA auto emissions. Computer controlled emissions controls, which aren't feasible for small engines, are MUCH less polluting (per gallon of fuel consumed) than a small engine which meets CARBII emissions standards. And, even though a motorized bike with a CARBII approved engine gets ten times more miles per gallon than an auto, it can still release up to 8 times the emissions of a car, per mile.

Ref http://www.motoredbikes.com/showpost.php?p=98774&postcount=78
 

Skyliner70cc

Active Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
1,344
Yep, two strokes are kinda nasty with respect to emissions.

There was an article several years ago about auto technology which allowed a prototype Honda civic to actually clean the air when driven. It had a special radiator that acted as a catlytic convertor to clean ozone, and NOX, while it was driven. Its net effect was negative pollution (cleaner air) not counting CO2 which isn't a pollutant.
 
Top