The new bike they used at the end with the shell they said did have all the emissions devices. It still gave off more gases than the cars. I've gotta say, I didn't like the outcome of that episode :-/
-Kyle On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Allen Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > My VFR has a cat, and a pair of O2 sensors that it uses for the fuel > mapping after the throttle stays stationary for a second. Runs lean as hell > when it is running off O2 sensors. > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > ------------------------------ > *From: * James O'Gorman <[email protected]> > *Sender: * [email protected] > *Date: *Wed, 5 Oct 2011 20:43:07 -0700 > *To: *<[email protected]> > *ReplyTo: * [email protected] > *Subject: *[Nighthawk Lovers] emissions - Motorcycle versus car > > 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.
