Motorcycle emissions limits and fuel economy estimates

Discussion in 'Articles' started by xcel, Aug 3, 2008.

  1. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi JCP:

    The WR, KLX and CRF were fully CARB citified as were the F 800 GS and 1200 GS. All supplied spectacular FE while also supplying boat loads of fun. 100 + mpg for the 250's, almost 70 mpg for the 800 and 57 mpg for the 1200 while still besting the most stringent emissions standards in the world. This is not an issue about pocket book as the cost for the CA emissions equipped bikes were either the same or just $50 higher IIRC in the case of the KLX.

    Good Luck

  2. southerncannuck

    southerncannuck Well-Known Member

    I guess that it's all a moot point anyhow. Carbs are a thing of the past. Manufacturers that can't build a reliable system will go the way of the dodo.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2010
  3. jcp123

    jcp123 Caliente!

    Yeah, I suppose it is a moot point. I like physics to take care of my fuel delivery, not some computer, that's all :)
  4. az_r2d1

    az_r2d1 New Member

    we've had emission checks in AZ, maricopa county for motorcycles for years. If you ask me it's a big racket.
    It has to be checked once a year (vs every 2 years on older cars) , costs about 20 bucks.
    I think the benefit of this doesn't outweigh the overhead. The amount of motorcycles vs cars makes it insignificant. Most motorcycles are used recreational and add very few miles. Add the overhead (they need to check it with an actual exhaust reading vs a computer check on cars 1996 and newer) and I doubt it does anything other than keeping some people employed by big brother.
  5. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi Az_r2d1:

    Very good point and I wish for your sale the locals would back off on the test requirements if not eliminate them altogether.

    What do they do, shove the probe down the tail pipe and say get it up to 3K RPM or something?

  6. jcp123

    jcp123 Caliente!

    I've made that argument before, the reply always being, "but motorcycles put out a disproportionate amount of pollutants!". Motorcycles are low-hanging fruit, IMHO. Many bikes are now being equipped with catalytic converters, closed-loop injection systems, and even vapor recovery systems (California Harleys, for instance, have all three, 49-state models have the cat and closed-loop FI), which IMHO makes the testing unnecessary.

    Also keep in mind that much more so than cars, bikes are very susceptible to wind resistance. A windshield or set of saddlebags will make a noticible dent in your FE. Since rarely are any two bikes modified identically, your real-world FE tends to vary a lot more than you might be used to in a car. When I mounted a windshield to my Nightster, I took an instant nosedive to sub-50mpg highway. If you can keep your gear directly behind you on a luggage rack as opposed to side-mount saddlebags, you take advantage of the sunken cost of your body or windshield breaking the wind first. I sometimes keep an old .50BMG ammo can on the luggage rack behind me for small items.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2012
  7. Jordan

    Jordan New Member

    They should focus there efforts at trucks. They run our roads 247. 10k per week. And some have no emissions at all.

    My diesel F350. Has NO emissions. No even a cat. Spend a second at that tailpipe.. And it will be your last.. .

    Leave the motorcycles alone.

    Sure a MPG rating will always be a pissing contest between company's. Let them have that. Don't force expensive equipment.

    CA. To pass diesel emission s. The system costs 10-20k. 1/4 to a 1/3 of the truck. Most guys I know living thee. Register there vehicles out of state.

Share This Page