New generation KDX (2004)
- Thread starter sluggerjoe
- Start date
I must once again reply to the 4stroke vrs 2stroke issue.
First and formost, EPA 2006 regulations can, will and have been met with 2-strokes. It is done with something called digital fuel injection. It has been done on all of the major marine engine manufactures larger two strokes. The crankcase is dry (oil only) and the fuel is injected directly into the combustion chamber. This greatly reduces the raw fuel passing from the exhaust ports as the fuel charge can be tailored much more closly. Of couse oil is still used to lubricate the engine internals, and some of this wil be burned, and that requires a cleaner synthetic oil. The engine will run fine without a throttle plate as the entire engine speed is controlled by the computer. (simular to a diesel, VW develped this technology in the mid 80's)
Now for the negative. This is not inexpensive. It adds weight and complexity. But none more than going to a four stroke engine. Can you imagine changing the engine oil after each run on a four stroke? What about that wasted oil, where is it ending up? Even re-refined it takes a certain amount of energy to reformulate the oil, as well as create & add the chemical additive package.
And, not done yet. Probably the biggest problem with all of this is a simple, but at the same time complex issue. It is the human issue. How many of us has taken the time and researched the issue? How many of us have spoken up when some of us have made the blanket statement about two strokes being polluters? How many of us have questioned the EPA and their "smear campain"?
Please let it be known that I have no large desire to populate the world with two strokes. No, there is a place for all types out there, but ban something for a logical and constructive reason rather than.... "just because"
Final thought.. remember this. The first "emmision control device" came out in 1962 in CA (PVC valve) and the first "emmision controled" two strokes came out in 1998. Where would would two strokes be at today with over fourty years of "emmision control work"
It is funny, but the first emmisions controls
First and formost, EPA 2006 regulations can, will and have been met with 2-strokes. It is done with something called digital fuel injection. It has been done on all of the major marine engine manufactures larger two strokes. The crankcase is dry (oil only) and the fuel is injected directly into the combustion chamber. This greatly reduces the raw fuel passing from the exhaust ports as the fuel charge can be tailored much more closly. Of couse oil is still used to lubricate the engine internals, and some of this wil be burned, and that requires a cleaner synthetic oil. The engine will run fine without a throttle plate as the entire engine speed is controlled by the computer. (simular to a diesel, VW develped this technology in the mid 80's)
Now for the negative. This is not inexpensive. It adds weight and complexity. But none more than going to a four stroke engine. Can you imagine changing the engine oil after each run on a four stroke? What about that wasted oil, where is it ending up? Even re-refined it takes a certain amount of energy to reformulate the oil, as well as create & add the chemical additive package.
And, not done yet. Probably the biggest problem with all of this is a simple, but at the same time complex issue. It is the human issue. How many of us has taken the time and researched the issue? How many of us have spoken up when some of us have made the blanket statement about two strokes being polluters? How many of us have questioned the EPA and their "smear campain"?
Please let it be known that I have no large desire to populate the world with two strokes. No, there is a place for all types out there, but ban something for a logical and constructive reason rather than.... "just because"
Final thought.. remember this. The first "emmision control device" came out in 1962 in CA (PVC valve) and the first "emmision controled" two strokes came out in 1998. Where would would two strokes be at today with over fourty years of "emmision control work"
It is funny, but the first emmisions controls
Kawierider
Member
- Jun 7, 2001
- 281
- 0
What if it was for Closed course riding or riding on private property?
I was under the impression that it was then exempt.
Tim
I was under the impression that it was then exempt.
Tim
- Nov 1, 2002
- 141
- 1
The article about new EPA regulations in American Motorcyclist magazine states that new cleaner burning two-strokes would be allowed, however the catch is any manufacturer that wants to go that way would be required make their motocross models meet the new standards also. If Kawasaki dropped the KDX models then they would not be required to make their motocross models meet the new standards. The big question is, Will Kawasaki want to add the cost and weight to their motocross lineup just to save the KDX? Adding the new emissions standards to the motocross models would make it difficult for Kawasaki to compete against other manufactures who don't add the new emission controls to their motocross models. If you look at the current Kawasaki model lineup, you may notice that one four-stroke model "Super Sherpa" is not available in California. My guess is that this model does not meet California emissions standards. It seems like Kawasaki would prefer to drop models that don't meet EPA standards. If you want to save the KDX, I suggest people write to Kawasaki and tell them how you feel about this issue. One thing is certain, The KDX is going to change or disappear. Buy them wile you still can, or take good care of the one you already have.
