I just caught an interesting Mythbusters episode where they compare the emissions of motorcycles versus cars. They got a car and a bike from each of three decades - 80's, 90's, and 00's. Each was driven around a set course for 1/2 an hour with both city and highway in the mix.
Here's what I got from the results: - Yes, (predictably) Motorcycles use less fuel than cars (in this case grams per mile). - Carbon dioxide as well, produced fewer grams per mile than cars. however - Motorcycles produced a lot more Hydrocarbon grams per mile than cars (.3 g/mi in a car, 1.3 g/mi in the best of the three bikes) - Motorcycles produced a lot more nitrogen oxide grams per mile (best car was 0.000something versus best bike of 0.6 grams per mile) - Motorcycles produced a lot more carbon monoxide grams per mile than cars (best car was 0.1 g/mi versus best bike of 4.4 g/mi) They summarized that "at best motorcycle are just as bad to the environment than cars. At worse; they're far worse" http://news.discovery.com/earth/mythbusters-motorcycles-vs-cars-which-is-better-for-the-environment-110928.html (can't find a link to video) So, I guess that they are much easier on your wallet, but mile-to-mile against cars, they end up putting up more bad stuff in the air. I would have to assume that due to lack of a catalyst (catalytic converter) and just general inefficient burning of fuel, they didn't fare well in this test. I don't have the models of cars and models of bikes as that obviously plays a large factor, as well as exact vintage and general condition of each vehicle. What do you guys think? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Nighthawk Motorcycle Lovers!" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nighthawk_lovers?hl=en.
