Not a lot of the new bikes stay that way though. Race pipe and power commanders are the norm around here. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: Kurt Nolte <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 23:49:18 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Nighthawk Lovers] emissions - Motorcycle versus car I watched that episode too. I can almost guarantee that all the cars tested, except possibly the 80s entrant, were fuel injected, and all of them were catalyst equipped. I can also virtually guarantee that all the bikes were carbureted and not a one of them was catalyst equipped. So basically, they were comparing effectively raw emissions to cleaned up and higher tech engines, then painting the broad brush forward to include modern EFI, catalyst equipped bikes. I'd love to see a rematch that involved one of the new FI Honda or otherwise street bikes. Kurt On Oct 5, 2011 11:43 PM, "James O'Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote: 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. -- 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. -- 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.
