The Future of 2 Strokes Once And For All

This doesn't have anything to do with anything, but your LEV statement got me thinking... My current pickup is an LEV, or so says the sticker in the window. It is a 2002 Ford 4.2 V6, F150 ext cab, 6' bed. I had a 92 F150 with the 302, reg cab, 8' bed. Both trucks have almost identical HP numbers, towing capacities, etc. One glaring difference is the 2002 version gets 50% better gas mileage than the 92 version. 22 vs 14 mpg. I'm all for that.

Comparing gas mileage of a 4.2L V6 to a 5.0L V8? Here are three "newer" examples of trucks both I and my friends have:

Mine - 1999 F150, X-cab, 5.4L (330 cid), 2wd = 15 mpg like a rock. No better, no worse.
Friend A - 1998 F150 X-cab 4.6L (280 cid) 4wd = 14 mpg tops.
Friend B - 2002 F150 X-cab 5.4L, 4wd = 14 mpg like a rock.

Not to get too sidetracked, but things ain't changed -that- much. That 4.2L might make the same peak HP, but I'm sure it's well under 300ft-lbs which is at least where your 302 was rated. Meaning the extra payload comes from gearing which I assume your truck has 3.73's from the factory. Not to mention the 4.2L is a manual tranny vs. the AOD slushbox 302 tranny right? There's a solid few mpg's in efficiency right there.

Micah

Nope, it's an auto. I think it's the 3.73 rear end though. I also drive very conservatively, but I drove the same way with the 302.

biglou said:

. . . I also drive very conservatively . . .

Click to expand...

Like an old lady, or so I hear :rotfl:

The reality of the situation is that the WHERE of the pollution is much more important than the amount of the pollution.
I am sure that the cord of wood i burned this winter will make more pollution than my 250 will make it's entire lifetime.

However, i live in a rural area and nobody is effected by the pollution.
Same thing with dirtbikes.... they dont add to urban pollution because there is nowhere to ride them in urban areas!

GOVT agencies are monsters that gain a life of their own and will do anything to grow bigger and EAT more taxpayer dollars.

john3_16 said:

The emissions argument isn't pointless....The issue is that the EPA is trying cut cut emissions and public riding areas are being shut left and right and the "cleaner burning" 4 stroke is being pushed....The AMA and the manufacturers are going right along with the EPA....Trust me, the EPA does not like 2 stroke vehicles, in their mind it's a bigger polluter (we're not talking just CO2 alone here). The idea that the current 4 stroke craze isn't related to an EPA push toward an agenda would prove to be a fatal mistake for offroad riding.

Click to expand...

I do not know 'the future of 2 strokes once and for all', but I can say this much with certainty:

1. I may not watch the time honored Father's Day National at Budds this year because it was just too darn LOUD last year. I'm sure dirt bikers have way more to fear from track closures due to noise than from public land restrictions due to EPA regulations.

2. I always jump my 2 stroke a gear higher with little or less throttle. Didn't know I was doing it the wrong way till now!

MotoGP switched to 4-strokes at the manufacturers request since the knowledge they gained with the 500s is useless since there are no production two-stroke streetbikes. Moreover, development of the 500s had stopped years ago. The change had absolutely nothing to do with emissions regulations. It had everything to do with the manufacturers not wanting to pour millions of dollars into obsolete technology (from a production standpoint).

Click to expand...

And why do you think that there are no production 2 stroke streetbikes ?

It has nothing to do with emission regulations ?

It has everything to do with emissions.

It's not because the manufacturers didn't want to pour millions into obsolete technology....The 4 stroke has been around for ages.

If the EPA got everything it wanted we'd all be riding bicycles to work.

The whole 4 stroke move has nothing to do with some manufacturer techno craze...Of course they've got to use lots of tech to make them competitive with 2 strokes but they are being forced to comply with regulations that are coming down the pipeline.

Auto manufacturers are also forced to meet EPA guidelines for emissions...Motorcycle manufacturers are no different..Check out all the green sticker stuff going on in California.


What bothers me about this whole move is that riding areas are being shut down and costs are going up, and will continue to go up if 2 strokes are discontinued....

I can remember as a kid when we had puplic riding areas that were free....Can't find them anymore..We had a long time track that held lots of major amateur races and GNC events forced to shut down just recently...

The last production two-stroke streetbike in the USA was in 1985, the Yamaha RZ350, and the 84-85 RZ350 was an anacronism when it was built since two-strokes had been out of the marketplace for about five years when it came out. It also had a catylitic converter in the expansion chamber, which was known to plug up and render the bike nonfunctional. That's why every RZ350 quickly got a set of Spec-II (or other brand) pipes on it.

So yes, you could say that the switch was due to emissions regulations. However, the regulations in question were the ones made in the 1970s, not the most recent round of BS to come spewing from the EPA and their ilk. Those had nothing at all to do with the switch in MotoGP. That corpse was already dead and buried. Putting another few feet of dirt over top of the grave doesn't make the occupant freshly dead again.

Two-strokes street machines have been dead for a long, long time, and that is worldwide, not just in the USA. Given that fact, the manufacturers had no desire to continue to pour money into two-stroke development as there was NO return on that investment. So they wanted MotoGP to move to four-strokes so they could get some ROI on all that money they spend racing. Saying that MotoGP moved to four-strokes because of the EPA is one big stretch since it was the entire world market, not just the US market, that drove it. Like it or not, burning premix (oil injection is nothing but premix on the fly) results in huge amounts of hydrocarbon emissions. That has been deemed unacceptable in most any developed nation on the planet. You only see street two-strokes in third world nations.

For the record, the California "sticker" stuff has NOTHING to do with the EPA. That's a product of the California Air Resources Board, aka CARB, and the best thing the Governator could do for that state is eliminate that bunch of idiots from state government. These same geniuses gave us the zero emissions vehicle mandate. More importantly, these morons think that an electric car is zero emissions. I guess they figure that plug on the wall magically generates electricity, rather than being connected to a powerplant somewhere. They've never seen a law of physics that they didn't think they couldn't violate by bureaucratic mandate.

mtk said:

These same geniuses gave us the zero emissions vehicle mandate. More importantly, these morons think that an electric car is zero emissions. I guess they figure that plug on the wall magically generates electricity, rather than being connected to a powerplant somewhere. They've never seen a law of physics that they didn't think they couldn't violate by bureaucratic mandate.

Click to expand...

:rotfl:

I don't have the specifics, and it was posted here at DRN a while back, but I seem to recall CARB mandating a particular formulation for fuel because it produced 5% fewer emissions per gallon burned. It was later reversed when they determined that it also resulted in a 10% loss of MPG. So yeah, you're dealing with real genius out there.

Good write MTK! Unless we voluntarily quiet down our 4str's someone may decide to do it for us. The current crop of 4str are just plain loud in stock form. Even our YZ426-F with the FMF Q-silencer the bike is still just plain louder then our Q equipped 2str's. It worries me. Besides that I went out this past Sunday on the 426 and was reminded why I love my KX250. Now if only we could aim all of this b!tch'in and moaning at that right sources and we all might actually get some where...

Has anyone even touched on deisel rigs in this thread? What is the difference in pollution (hydrocarbons?) between burning premix in a two stroke vs. burning crude deisel fuel? It would be interesting to see if there are any similarities. Just from looking at them, I can't image big black plumes of smoke being good for the environment.

Consequently....Illinois just introduced legislation to limit the amount of idle time rigs can experience. So they can't camp out at rest stops, truck stops, etc... and keep those motors churning.

Micahdawg said:

Consequently....Illinois just introduced legislation to limit the amount of idle time rigs can experience. So they can't camp out at rest stops, truck stops, etc... and keep those motors churning.

Click to expand...

I've heard of this before from talking to some truck drivers who deliver supplies and equipment to my jobsites. Some trucks have a device built in that shuts down the engine after 30 or so minutes unless the driver pushes in the clutch, then the clock resets. So the drivers usually just jump in the truck and hit the clutch every once in a while to keep the motor running.

Back on topic. What alot of people forget(I believe this was touched on earlier) is that in The People's Republic of California, YZF's, RMZ's, KXF's, and CRF's(excluding the X's and rebadged XR's) recieve a red sticker too(not sure about the SXF's)- just like their two-stroke counterparts. Of course it's entirely possible for the factories to make the racing four-strokes meet the 2006 CARB requirements for a green sticker, but they might have to put out corked up CRF's that have the power of CRF-X's(not a good thing). Then everyone will just uncork their bikes as soon as they get them home(like most people do with their WR's now)immediately rendering them technically ineligible for a green sticker(although I believe green stickers are handed out based on factory equipment and bikes are not tested as ridden) . So emissions will not go down at all. The only difference is that you'll have to pay extra for the emissions equipment you're going to remove as soon as you get the bike home anyway.

So, on behalf of the other 49 states, I'd just like to thank the PRC for helping to screw us all again. :moon: After all, the EPA seems to take alot of it's queue's from the numbskulls at CARB. :|

Those black Diesel plumes are particulate emissions, specifically soot. Hydrocarbon emissions are invisible.

biglou said:

I don't have the specifics, and it was posted here at DRN a while back, but I seem to recall CARB mandating a particular formulation for fuel because it produced 5% fewer emissions per gallon burned. It was later reversed when they determined that it also resulted in a 10% loss of MPG. So yeah, you're dealing with real genius out there.

Click to expand...

Yes, that would be oxygenated gasolines. The idea being that you add oxygen bearing compounds to the fuel to reduce emissions at the tailpipe.

Alas, the rocket scientists at CARB don't understand that the function of the oxygen sensor in the car is to force the engine to run at a particular air-to-fuel ratio based upon oxygen in the exhaust stream. They also don't grasp the fact that when you have a fuel with 10% less energy content (while being purported to produce 10% less emissions) you have to burn 10% more fuel to get your vehicle to travel the same distance. They also didn't bother to mention that their most favorate oxygenate, MTBE, is highly toxic to humans and is now showing up in the water supply. But rather than take blame for it, they blame those bad old oil companies.

Even better, the reformulated gasoline regulations have lead to something like 15 different blends of fuel, nationwide, which means that you can no longer use fuel from anywhere to balance out spikes in demand. This results in elevated prices for everyone since you can no longer effectively use refinery capacity.

Speaking of refineries, the EPA has made it virtually impossible to build a new refinery in the USA, so increases in demand cannot be met with increases in supply. That pesky "Supply/Demand" law of Economics can't be ignored, so we pay higher prices.

I swear, if you put these folks in charge of wet dreams, they'd have an image of your mother appear right before the "good part."

:think:

Micahdawg said:

Illinois just introduced legislation to limit the amount of idle time rigs can experience. So they can't camp out at rest stops, truck stops, etc... and keep those motors churning.

Click to expand...

new jersey has a law against it too. no car or truck can idle for longer than a certain amount of time. there are signs on convienent stores saying the fine for leaving your car running is $3000.

Two-strokes street machines have been dead for a long, long time, and that is worldwide, not just in the USA. Given that fact, the manufacturers had no desire to continue to pour money into two-stroke development as there was NO return on that investment. So they wanted MotoGP to move to four-strokes so they could get some ROI on all that money they spend racing. Saying that MotoGP moved to four-strokes because of the EPA is one big stretch since it was the entire world market, not just the US market, that drove it. Like it or not, burning premix (oil injection is nothing but premix on the fly) results in huge amounts of hydrocarbon emissions. That has been deemed unacceptable in most any developed nation on the planet. You only see street two-strokes in third world nations.

Click to expand...

Again, why are the 2 stroke street bikes dead ? There's no ROI right ? Why are there no production 2 stroke streetbikes ? because of emissions right ? And why would the manufacturers not want to pour money into technology that wouldn't make it to the street ? Because there are no 2 stroke streetbikes....Right ? And why are there no production 2 stroke streetbikes ? EPA ?

The manufactuers don't want to continue racing Moto GP because it doesn't make sense racing the 2 stroke sense they can't make it to the street because of ? ...........drum roll...................EPA regulations.

Unfortunately, it has everything to do with emissions.

Saying that MotoGP moved to four-strokes because of the EPA is one big stretch since it was the entire world market, not just the US market, that drove it.

Click to expand...

In case you haven't noticed, the move toward tighter emissions is a worldwide effort. Ever heard of the Kyoto treaty ? Russia recently signed it and it went into effect on February 16th I think..The goal is to reduce emissions 5 % below 1990 levels and if a country goes above that level they pay fines and the money goes to underdevloped nations...Fortunately the U.S. didn't sign the treaty but almost every major nation in the world did...Just do a search on google and type in Kyoto treaty and you'll see what I'm talking about...This is a big deal.

Isn't it interesting that the move to 4 strokes Moto GP also coincided with the 4 stroke movenment in motocross ?

blah blah blah, stick a fork in this one.

and, for the final word . . .

2 strokes still sucks :) and I love you all.

and for the final word.......................2 strokes rule :nener: