A lot of well-intentioned people have hopped on to motorcycles and scooters recently in an effort to do their part to help out the environment. Sadly, they’re actually polluting a lot more on even the smallest of scooters than they would be driving a car. It seems counter-intuitive because there are so many reasons why two wheels should be better than four:
- Scooters and motorcycles get better gas mileage
- They’re smaller, so they use less materials to produce and ship
- They’re extremely popular in European countries and Japan, which are more eco-friendly than the US
While these things are true and often advertised, they don’t quite paint the whole picture when it comes to the environmental impact of 2-wheeled, motorized transportation.
Scooters and motorcycles can pollute 90 times as much as SUVs
Yes, you read correctly. It doesn’t seem to make sense because of the wildly different sizes and fuel consumption of the two vehicles. In fact, it was the EPA that tested a Yamaha YZR R6 and found that it emitted 90 times more hydrocarbons than a Dodge Durango SUV. Hydrocarbons are the pollutants responsible for forming ozone and smog, which is both a serious health risk as well as an extreme eyesore.
The reason why scooters and motorcycles pollute so much more is because there is much less regulation when it comes to these vehicles. Technical and market restrictions have made it difficult to pass legislation cleaning up motorcycle tailpipes for years. For example, because most motorcycles and scooters are smaller and cheaper than cars, adding modern catalytic converters and emissions systems would add a tremendous amount of weight and cost to most 2-wheeled vehicles. This means that, unlike cars’, motorcycle and scooter exhaust is heavily polluted.
Another consideration is the large amount of two-strokes that are still used and sold. Many manufacturers, like Honda, have made plans to completely phase out the use of two-strokes, but because they are cheaper they will continue to be sold in quantity until legislation can be passed banning them from use. Two-strokes pollute so much more because they run on a gas/oil mix, meaning that every combustion cycle is burning motor oil as well as gasoline. Similarly, the engine’s design allows unburnt fuel to escape through the exhaust and into the air.
Many wealthier nations are starting to place tighter restrictions on motorcycles and scooters as the technology becomes cheaper and their emissions make up a greater percent of total vehicle emissions. However, in countries like Canada new 2-wheeled vehicles can still pollute up to 14 times as much as automobiles, so there still is no perfect solution.
To scoot or not to scoot: a balancing act
If you’re a diehard environmentalist you’re going to want to stay away from scooters. I know from my time as a Honda Metropolitan owner that most riders would get between 90-110 mpg, but I also know that they exhaust was pretty smelly, even though it was a four-stroke Honda.
On the other hand, however, you’d be getting 2-4 times the fuel economy and emitting fewer green house gases. However, the magnitude that these are reduced is tremendously outweighed by the magnitude that smog-forming pollutants are increased. Nevertheless, you will save money on gas, but riding a scooter isn’t quite as safe or air-conditioned as a car.
Personally, I ditched the scooter in favor of my bike for shorter trips and a car with good fuel economy for longer ones. You’ll have to make your own choice, but make no mistake, scooters and motorcycles are not the most environmentally sound transportation choice.
For more on the issue, check out this LATimes article.
EDIT: Thanks for the heads up from a commenter, because I obviously didn’t make my intention clear enough. As the commenter points out, there are clearly more ecofriendly scooters out there than others, just as there is a huge variety in cars. Hell, you can even get electric scooters (just as you can get electric cars), so it’s not that 2-wheels is evil.
Rather, I wanted to point out that emissions regulations are clearly lagging and that, in studies, 2-wheeled transport contributes more smog-forming pollution than it’s share of actual vehicle miles traveled because the average motorcycle/scoot has worse emissions than the average car.
If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.
If you want to get automatic updates, subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
© 2008 EcoModder.com Taken from Think Motorcycles and Scooters are Great for the Environment? Wrong!.More sweet posts from EcoModder:
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 66 comments… read them below or add one }
Don’t look now but your over-generalizations are showing.
My Piaggio X9 boasts an on-board computer, fuel injection, and a “multivalve advanced super torque engine.” It makes 39 horses at 460 cc, and has a catalytic converter. It’s the most powerful and environmentally friendly scooter engine Piaggio has ever made… and they’ve been making some extremely green machines since 1996.
Don’t confuse today’s thoroughly-engineered scoots with yesterday’s two-strokes, or cheap Chinese knockoffs. You’ll just embarrass yourself.
Congratulations! You have one of the rare scooters with a catalytics converter! That doesn’t make the average scooter better than the average car by any means. If you want to compare the cleanest scooter you can find to the cleanest car, you’ll still be sad.
Your scoot meets Euro 2 standards according to online dealerships. Still looks pretty sad compared to where the cars are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Cycle_beating
I’m so embarassed! You missed the obvious point of the article that regulation allows scooters to pollute heavily and that perceptions of the vehicles are generally wrong. There will always be outliers…
I don’t know how rare my scooter is… there’s a goodly number of scoots with two-, or three- stage catalytic converters. Consider the Aprilia Scarabeo 500 and Scarabeo 50, the Piaggio BV 500, and the Vespa LX 50, LX125, PX, S50, GT60, GT200, GT250, GTV/LXV, and Grantourismo. I believe that the Honda Silverwing 600, the Suzuki Bergman 650 and 400, the Yamaha Majesty 400, and Yamaha Morphous 250 are all fuel injected and I think most (if not all) have catalytic converters. Of course, *all* of these are four-strokes. And by your definition, outliers.
Each of these, I believe, meets California emission standards as well as EPA standards; not just Euro2.
Maybe the point you *wanted* to make was that that emissions regulations for scooters are behind the game, which would be a fair cop. But the point you made — and flat-out stated — was, “If you’re a diehard environmentalist you’re going to want to stay away from scooters.” Which is nonsense, and flies in the face of the facts: modern four-stroke scooters are excellent choices for environmentally minded commuters.
Fair enough! I didn’t mean to sound overly rude. I should’ve made my intentions more clear.
When I was a big scooter nerd I never looked at anything too pricey and could never find any with a cat (my car cost less than a third of your scooter, I just couldn’t afford that).
Anyway, I will add a note to clarify that there are great scooter options and my intentions. Thanks for the comment.
Good on you!
Ah. This concept that scooters pollute more than SUV’s is based on a pretty basic mistake.
Im going to use the numbers off this website: http://wweek.com/editorial/3240/7867
For an average sounding scooter, they derived 1,100 ppm of unburned hydrocarbons and 7.1 percent CO2. Their test SUV produced 10 ppm of hydrocarbons and 1 percent CO2.
Now, there are a few deceptive things here. Firstly, there’s an assumption that SUV engines are inefficient, which they are not. They are over sized, and the vehicles do not get good gas mileage, but their engines are well tuned and efficient. They also feature all sorts of emissions control parts including catalytic converters.
More importantly though, the emissions ratings they gave are in percent of gas expelled from the car. I have a Fifty CC motor scooter, and the SUV they tested has a 3600 CC motor.
So, the engine on the SUV is flowing roughly 72 times as much air as the scooter is. This means that the amount of emiisions for a given percentage is 72 times higher on the truck.
The numbers would then be 1100 vs 720ppm and 7.1% CO2 vs 7.2% CO2. So, while the scooter does produce 50% more hydrocarbons, it produces slightly less CO2 in a proper comparison.
There’s no good way to decrease CO2 output because its a natural byproduct of burning gasoline, but the hydrocarbon output is easily fixed by a better tuned engine and a catalytic converter.
Not trying to break down your thorough statement deCadmus, but I think the more accurate point he was trying to get across was to the people who think ‘motorcycles and scooters are great for the environment’ as the title states.
He does show that to the diehard environmentalists that maybe the average scooter/moto isn’t as good to the environment as they might’ve thought. And to me, the only flawed point there, is that being environmentally friendly right now is often pretty costly (solar panels, buying recycled goods, buying healthier foods that are raised more humane, etc.) And if they are actual “diehards” they probably have enough money to afford a nice, and probably electric, scooter as the extra heads up said.
The brand new Yahama vehicle pictured here is a fuel cell vehicle, and therefore a bit deceptive. The implication of this premise might be correct in general, but I suspect it is not thoroughly researched. Given that most travel is over short distances, I find it hard to believe that overall a 4 wheel vehicle a better choice. The amount resources to create and maintain a 4 wheel vehicle should outstrip the poor emissions quality of 2 wheeled vehicles. The study states that motorcycles “can” be up to 90 times more polluting. Depending on what variables? I suspect that many of the newer models are cleaner than previous models.
I don’t know where you get your info from but you should probably rethink it. The Yamaha YZF R6( not YZR) produces no where near the same HC nor Co levels as a car. Just the other day I brought in a stock 08 and it was only puttin out 130ppm HC and 2.4%CO. That is nowhere near a lot. 10 years ago that bike wouldn’t have ran because so LITTLE fuel is being used. Plus it has a catalytic converter on it, actually I believe there are 2. Your scooter theory is equally wrong. If you take a look at California emissions laws governing motorcycles you will realize that they have far more regulations on them then any car. And you may make the argument that that’s only one state, but that one state now sets the standards for the rest of the country, not because we won’t them to but because the Japanese talk to them about what can be imported.
Continuing on that, 2 strokes did put out a lot of HCs and Co. But KTM has in the past 2 years been putting out 2 strokes that run more efficiently and cleaner than 4 strokes. Honda has also come up with the tech to do it but because the American government is phasing out the production of them (thank to California) they aren’t going to use it. So no offense to your entire theory but it’s wrong. And by the way, I’m a technician for Yamaha Motorsports, I know what we put out.
The Yamaha YZR R6 is definitely not a scooter but an actual racing motorcycle. They are saying that they used a Ferrari to test for gas consumption of compact cars.
Scooters are more fuel efficient, as long as you understand what a scooter is.
I don’t believe you. Where did you find your information? It seems that you are drawing great big conclusions from very few sources. Additionally, there are plenty of motorcycles out there that have systems that measure emissions. Mine does. It’s built right into the exhaust system.
The motorcycle you reference at the beginning of your argument - it’s a Yamaha YZF R6, not YZR R6, by the way (ouch! not good for your credibility) - is a sport bike. A crotch rocket. It is made for speed, not economy or eco-friendliness, and therefore not the best test subject. Clearly, the study done by the EPA had an unfair bias for this reason. That’s only one make and model in a myriad of other types of bikes meant for different purposes that probably do a better job at keeping their emissions low (like mine). Just because the emissions standards aren’t as strict for motorcycles as they are for cars doesn’t mean that motorcycle manufacturers are lacking in that regard.
I’m familiar with many, many different types of motorcycles made by different manufacturers and I have yet to see one with a two-stroke engine.
I appreciate your edit, but even in that, you’re making generalizations. You talk about studies, but as far as I can tell, you only reference one, maybe two, and I’ve already told you why one of them is bollocks.
Your intentions were good, but you made bad information… Are you a suv-owner, aren’t you??
1) 4 strokes engines ARE NOT like 2 strokes engines, and now almost all scooter and motorbikes you can buy are 4 strokes!
2) You right, law in Europe permits to sell motorbikes still Euro 2 and cars from Euro 4. And surely Euro 2 emissions per liter are much than Euro 4… but how much liter do you need to do the same road by scooter and how much if you choose your SUV?!?
3) I go to my office with my motorbike, I take 20 minutes. I go to my office by car, I take 1 hour. Considering that in the same time of engine working my car uses much more gas than my motorbike, repeat me which is the less polluting!
Enjoy your SUV…
…but never think to clean your consciousness whit these ambiguos thoughts!
I hate it when people call all scooters dirty. Yes 2 strokes are horrible and i would never buy one. But if you compare a new scooter to an 80’s car that is still on the road(there are alot more 80’s cars than new scooters on the road) you will find that many new scooters are cleaner. Are they cleaner than a brand new car, no because cars NOW have srticter standards. Also many of the scooters that are out now were designed years ago before stricter emissions standards started being enacted. But now there are many cleaner alternatives. There are many scooters that achieve ratings well above euro 3 standards. Also you use less gas and create much less c02. Yes standards need to be stricter. I hate seeing 2 plus liter harleys with no emissions equipment. But i also hate seeing big trucks with straight through piping and seventies cars that were made before they even thought about emissions. I know the g/km rating for emissions from my scooter and the only thing kind of high is hc as you said, but mine is a california model and has an evaporative system with a charcoal canister. So do not try and turn off everyone to means of transportation that put out less emissions than their old car. Articles like this just fuel the postings about how an h1 hummer is cleaner than a scooter, it’s only true for a 2-stroke. Do your research on newer scooters and you will see they are better than late 80’s early 90’s cars that alot of people on this site are driving.
Oh well…
Listen, I never said all scooters or motorcycles were evil. I even amended my post to say there were many that were better than cars, and that I was talking about averages.
Does anyone read anything besides the titles anymore?
Just for clarity’s sake, I used to own a 2003 Honda Metropolitan. It was fun, but not useful since I have a long highway commute. I drive a Honda CRX now. Which is about the furthest you can get from an SUV on four wheels.
Sorry if I offended anyone, but try to read more carefully before you get upset about things…
It is cheaper to clean up a scooter sized engine, and regulations will likely appear as popularity increases! I like the plug-in battery scooters, and will lobby for free plug in points through out my area before giving up this great way to get off of oil and away from
the black mailing OPEC pirates. They have hi-jacked the last U.S. economy! We must beat these miserable parasites back into the deserts where they came from!
We must take back our high standard of living. We must stand shoulder to shoulder and stop sending our boys to fight their dirty little Sunni war! It is time for change! Our government cannot remain beholden to the oil nations. Wake up America! the V-8 engine is dead, along with heavy steel car bodies! Go electric or go to an Arab hell! Keep America for Americans. Save our society for us, do not make a mistake, these people are certainly out for their own well being, not yours, they laugh at how easily we are ensnared in the evil consumerism trap and are major shareholders in our Big Three car companies and vote against any improvements that would cause better mileage, because they sell us gas, and want every cent they can get! We are in an economic war we cannot afford to lose! Time to kick Ass America!
While this is an interesting read, I do believe there are some mistakes in it. I would agree with the majority of the article when related to older bike (2004 or earlier) it doesn’t reflect currently produced motorcycles.
The large majority of import motorcycle companies (the Japanese and European ones) are now designing their bikes to meet Euro 3 homologation, even to the point where Aprilia has a 125cc 2-stroke street bike that meets Euro 3 standards (the RS 125).
While it might be true that some bikes or scooters pollute more than a car or SUV they are a minority when it comes to the actual contribution to the environment. I would personally be more interested in finding out how bad all the non regulated small engines out there are polluting (i.e. lawn mowers, snow blowers and such).
I believe all motorcycles sold in California in 2008 require catalytic converters.
My 2004 Honda VFR 800 has one.
I use a Vespa 250GT to get around Washington DC. It has a 4-stroke engine, a catalytic converter, and is fuel injected. Plus, I save 10 minutes of driving every trip because I don’t have to hunt for a parking spot and can just park it on the sidewalk.
Who cares as long as you save gas….
pollutants, as you refer to them, doesn’t include the carbon dioxide output for the vehicle. Such output is currently the cause of global warming. Such problems as refinement of exhaust I understand as reasonable issues with small engined vehicles, but such phrases as “90 times less pollution” just isn’t true. You only measured one aspect of the pollutants, hydrocarbons. As far as carbon dioxide output is concerned, the output of the vehicle is directly dependent on gas mileage.
Lets not forget the amount of space a motorized bike requires compared to cars or even SUV’s. There is an economic, and environmental burden when one considers the amount of space used for parking lots and other impervious surfaces that larger vehicles require.
There are more implications -which are negative to the environment- that are associated with larger vehicles than just their own emissions. What about emmisions for shipping or used in the production of each new car as compared to a motorized bike?
It would seem that the analysis made in this article has been skewed to provide an argument for the author; bad journalist - no biscuit.
Someone else already mentioned this, but it bears repeating. If you commute in a densely populated urban area, riding a motorcycle or scooter can reduce your time spent on the road by a considerable amount.
For example, I commute from Oakland to San Francisco by bike and it takes around 20 minutes from door to door. If I drove a car, it would take anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours depending on traffic.
I think any discussion of motorcycle/scooter eco-friendliness should at least try to take into account all the time and emissions saved by lane-splitting through traffic jams instead of sitting still with the engine running.
Great eye opener article, good on ya!
Oh dear! we are back to this myth about catalytic converters being cleaner. Which completely ignores the environmental issues of making and disposing of the cat itself (which is not inconsiderable) and the extra fuel used because of the drop in efficiency that the cat causes. The lean burn engine technology was a much better way to go because it used less of everything, but big business got in the way of that bit of sense!
You are correct that two strokes are bad polluters but I have not seen a street legal two stroke in many many years in my area, maybe there are places in the world where they are commonly sold but it is not anywhere near my neck of the woods. This article is grossly misrepresenting the average modern motorcycle or scooter’s impact. It is not NOT more environmentally friendly to drive an SUV than a modern scooter, sportbike or even one of those big cruisers.
Most modern motorcycle engines are some of the most efficient and low emissions engines in existence. Misinformation like this IS bad for the environment!
I honestly can not begin to argue your points sir. You may be making valid arguments here but you do not cite any sources and the links you provide are to other “internet” articles that similarly do not cite actual sources (EPA studies, publication dates etc) . And to be honest with you, if its from the internet who has any idea if it is true or made up with out providing some validity to your argument with sources. For example, the motorcycle you mention, the YZF R6 as of 2006 (I believe) came standard with a catalytic converter—this is a HUGE BLOW to your credibility. I know you’re running a blog here and not Time magazine, but if you are going to present yourself as a source of information and for your readers to make informed decisions you have a responsibility to due a diligent job in constructing your argument and presenting your information. Right now, your article has no credibility at all.
Hope I didn’t offend you.
~Nick
Is it feasible to have an old Vespa converted to electric?
I agree with the first post, deCadmus. I have a Vespa GT 200 (also made by Piaggio) with the L.E.A.D.E.R. engine (which is 4 stroke) and a catalytic converter. I paid good money for mine after much research, it’s WAY greener than you imply. Thank you for making the generalization easy for the general public, because now I get to defend myself once more for getting 70 mpg and achieving 75 mph.
Um, people don’t ride scooters to be green. They ride scooters because their cars guzzle fuel.
I have a 550cc bike (~50MPG), which gets much better mileage than my pickup (toyota tacoma; 25MPG). Bikes are more fun to ride, and with the gas benefit - hey - I’ll take it.
First, I have not seen a street-legal motorcycle powered by a two-stroke engine in several years; I guess there might be one out there somewhere, but I haven’t seen one in the past 4 or 5 years. I own two BMW motorcycles, both of which meet CA emissions standards and both of which come standard with catalytic converters. As one earlier commenter mentioned, contrary to your article, a significant number of motorcycles have computerized fuel injection, charcoal canisters, catalytic converters, and extremely lean injection mapping. My wife’s 650cc motorcycle gets around 70mpg at highway speeds. Did you interview anyone who knows anything about motorcycles?
Regarding a motorcycle or scooter not being as safe as a car, maybe if we could get rid of the soccer moms driving solo in the Ford Expeditions while babbling endlessly on their cell phones, maybe we could improve everyone’s safety?
It seems silly to base an entire argument on a 2-stroke motorcycle that is not even legal for registration in any state in the USA. 2-strokes are effectively illegal — not in fact, but none can pass smog and so can’t be registered and plated.
Plus I think you were confusing the old YZR 2-strokes with the modern 4-stroke ones. Does anyone even manufacture a big 2-stroke anymore? I don’t know, but I do know they don’t sell them in the USA.
You should be comparing cars to motorcycles and scooters that are actually legally available. Nearly every motorcycle and scooter you see is a 4-stroke — just like a car — and they all have a Catalytic Converter — just like a car.
Man, I’m not even sure if little 50cc 2-stroke scooters are being sold in the USA anymore! I think even the small ones are 4-stroke.
However… I’m sure if you do a little research you will find that the cleanest 4-stroke motorcycles are not quite as clean as some of the cleanest cars available. But the average motorcycle certainly gets FAR better gas mileage than the average car. Even performance bikes get close to the mileage that economy cars get.
I’d like to point out that you should do more research before making blog posts about how much pollutants 2-wheeled vehicles make. Thankfully you corrected the oversight of electric scooters and the like, but you failed to mention how your sole piece of reference information, the Yamaha R6 test, compares to the rest of the field.
A Yamaha R6 is a very highly-tuned motorcycle in what is called the supersport category of bikes. This is the group of the fastest bikes a particular manufacturer makes - in Yamaha’s case, the only faster bike they produce is the R1, a motorcycle only 400cc larger.
Citing this motorcycle as the basis for your article is analogous to comparing a Ferrari to a Corolla. When Yamaha is producing the R6, there is no attention paid to fuel efficiency or pollution; their low amounts are just a side effect of making the vehicle as light and aerodynamic as possible.
If you were to test a tiny 50cc Vespa I would guarantee you the results would be staggeringly different.
articles like this are comparing “pollution” measured in “parts per million,” so even if a scooter’s exhaust contains 90 times more of a bad thing per liter OF exhaust, if the car is putting out 100 times as much EXHAUST then the scooter is still putting less pollution in the air
Well, AK47 said it, you’re saving gas, so…
I live in IN where vehicles do not have to be “smogged.” If you can get it on the road, you can drive it there. They do, in fact, still make and sell 2 stroke motors. Not only do they make them, but you don’t even have to mix the gas and oil, they’re injected, both from a separate tank.
The basis of this story that “well intentioned” people are hopping on motorcycles and scooters to be environment friendly is incorrect. People are hopping on motorcycles and scooters because they can’t afford the price of that Prius and they can’t afford gas at $4 a gallon. Perhaps the author should check to see exactly how many people’s incomes allow them the luxury of a high priced high gas mileage automobile. A class in economics wouldn’t hurt either.
Great job spreading the LA Times misinformation. My Yamaha and my Vespa both have catalytic converters and meet Euro III standards. My motorcycle does too. The next time they test a sport bike against an SUV, tell them not to pick one with an aftermarket exhaust and cat removed. And btw…aftermarket exhausts and cat eliminators are put on cars too.
I think the increased fuel economy and smaller packaging greatly outweigh the increased pollutants. Air can be cleaned, but there is only so much oil/gasoline.
A couple of other little points on here…
2 Strokes are still legal in most of the United States. They are not inherently dirtier by concept, but are usually dirtier by design.
Also, to whoever said that Catalytic converters aren’t really cleaner: They are. Without catalytic converts, greenhouse gases would be the least of our issues. Also worth noting, Catalytic converters no longer have a sizable impact on the performance of an engine. Almost all catalytic converters are recycled, and their impact on the environment is negligible. They do not cause a drop in efficiency.
The lean burn approach is fine, but ill fated, as it is much harder on the engine, and produces a large amount of very interesting (read dangerous) emissions that would fill our air without the use of catalytic converters.
I just wanted to say that I think it’s a good article. It’s time to stop being quite so critical, when he’s already amended his statements.
Sure the *90x* statement is a bit inflammatory, but get over it.
The majority of small bikes and scooters on the road around the world are older, inefficient, polluting bikes.
The majority of cars around the world are older cars.
Cars have been heavily regulated in most countries for decades, while scooters were not popular enough to be a real problem.
Of course scooters are worse in some ways than cars.
Obviously, “green” scooters aren’t going to be bad. They’re made not to be. So shut the hell up about them. You knew DAMN WELL reading the argument that he didn’t mean those bikes.
Everyone needs to calm down. In half a century, combustion will be gone.
Just have a little patience and do your best to make sensible decisions.
I think the writer means to say that motorbikes, even with all the fanciest, eco-friendliest, gadgetry on it that passes all the strictest regulations in any country , are polluting more than the cars with all the fanciest eco-friendliest gadgetry PERCENTAGE wise. Like if you could take the exhaust from both and put them in an invisible box of the same size the bike is going to have more crap in its box than a car/truck/whatever has in its box of the same size.
The point of the story isnt concerned with the costs, comfort, reliability, aesthetic, or even how much exhaust is being put out. The volumes are different, but its whats in the exaust of each one thats what matters.
The point is to show that the percent of crap that is in each same volume is different.
Bike system that puts out not so much exhuast with mostly junk in it compared to car system that puts out alot more exhaust with not so much junk in it. Thats it…
Scale a car system down to the same size as a scooter system, the car is going to win the benchmark of least crap in the exhaust of equal volume.
Now if a bike could put out the same amount of exhaust it does already, with less crap coming out, say the same percentages as a cars, that would be even better than any car or bike that we have today.
two-strokes polutte more than four-strokes. The small scooters are made of four-strokes.
use MORE (gasoline) to pollute less!
see the logic!
Sadly, this, like so many articles of it’s related nature takes a very small portion of the picture to make a case to support a preconceived opinion.
First, yes, a scooter engine, even one of the modern EFI Catalyzed 4-strokes, puts out more polutants per gallon of gas than even the worst offenders on the roads. I don’t think anyone that knows anything about modern motorcycles and scooters would argue that point. I would love to see some number reflecting the modern 2-strokes with synthetic oils, I’d bet even they are not as bad as we would like to assume.
But see, those numbers are largely irrelevant, because it isn’t per gallon that is the issue. The number that we should care about is the pollutants per mile traveled, factoring in the costs of manufacturing and disposal into the pollutants per mile equation. Once you start doing that, then we start to get a better understanding. Since we can’t we have to extrapolate a little.
That’s where things get confusing. See, the Dodge Durango SUV used in the associated article gets about 13.9 mpg (or at least that’s the average the on board computer for my wife’s indicates over the last 68k miles). The average 150cc scooter gets upwards of 80mpg. I personally average about 63mpg on my 500cc scooter (which is using Piaggio’s cleanest engine to date, the MASTER). But I’m also using a vehicle that accounts for a total of 400lbs of raw materials versus nearly 6000lbs of raw materials in the Durango. It uses tires (rubber is a high cost of pollutants to produce and dispose of) that are 1/2 the size and 1/3 the mass of the Durango tires at a rate of 3 tires every 12k miles. An oil change happens every 3k miles, but unlike the 6-8 quarts required by most SUV’s, it takes less than 2.
But you see, the big picture is hard to grasp, it is much easier to write a story about a small part of the picture to support an opinion than it is to really take in the big picture.
After all, look at all the people buying Hybrids to be green. Guess no one is talking about the costs associated with those batteries, or the fact that in terms of pollutants, 90% of the paint being done on those cars is still spray and not powder coating.
Talking about pollutants is such a quagmire, because the cars pollute in so many more ways than at the exhaust pipe.
One issue that has not been mentioned is that scooters are smaller than cars, so 500 people on scooters take up less space on the road than 500 people in cars. The end result of that would be less stop and go traffic, which is the most wasteful kind. It also greatly improves the parking situation.
A disingenuous assessment. The main problem arises because your post, and the linked referenced article, say motorcycles and scooters emit “more pollution” but then proceed to only measure one particular aspect of ‘pollution’ (NO2x and unburnt hydrocarbons) and completely ignore the other aspect of the ‘pollution’ the CO2 Emissions. It is not NO2 or unburnt hydrocarbons that people are worried about destroying the planet right now, it’s the CO2 emissions and subsequent oceanic acidification and global warming.
The articles would have been much more accurate if they were titled “Motorcycles and Scooters emit more of some kinds of pollution than SUV’s and cars” But that of course would not have gotten the same attention.
You are scaring people away from 2 wheeled vehicles on the premise that they are ‘more polluting’ than cars, when in reality, in the most important areas they are far less polluting (CO2) and in less important areas they are more polluting.
“Does anyone read anything besides the titles anymore?”
Not when the titles are so inflammatory or misleading.
“Electric” scoots, while touted as being “zero emissions” and eco-friendly, are not.
First, a scoot like the Vectric, contains a lot of nickel metal hydride batteries. The nickel for those batteries, as well as for other ‘eco frendly’ cars and hybrids, is mined in Canada, where the environment is the last concern in that area. Then the nickel has to be SHIPPED (ie, more use of fossil fuels) to be processed to be put into the batteries, and so on and so forth, until ultimately, it has to be shipped to China to actually be made into batteries, then they get shipped here. These new ‘eco friendly’ scoots are made of up lots of plastic, and the copper for the electronics has to be noted as well.
Now, one scoot plugged into the power grid at night won’t ‘pollute much’. But emissions from mostly coal-burning plants does pollute. What if millions of electric scoots or hybrids or electric cars are plugged into the grid? What does that do to cost of electricity? Can the grid support it? Will emissions increase out the smokestack instead of tail pipe?
I never bought my ‘06 Suzuki Burgman 650 with the intention of bein ‘eco friendly’. I wanted to triple my fuel economy over my pickup truck. Bottom line is economy and my Suzuki DOES have, as others have pointed out, an on board computer, o2 sensor, and fuel injection…….and I’m smiling…
An environmental impact study of say for example a coke can takes up a three inch high pile of the old concertina type computer paper, because it lists everything used in its manufacture from the trucks mining the aluminium ore to the pigments used in colouring its surface to disposal. I shudder to think what it would be for a CAT! ( or all the extra things used on a the Dodge (for example over a motorbike) mentioned in the sensible, logical post no.47)
So to the chap that refuted my first argument re. that CATS are not cleaner! They are NOT cleaner overall. There are a lot of people making a lot of money out of CATS, not least the fuel companies. To say: “Catalytic converters no longer have a sizable impact on the performance of an engine.” Is utter rot, as the very nature of the way they work causes drag to the airflow in the exhaust pipe and requires extra fuel to overcome, not to mention the extra mass that needs to be accelerated/decelerated and lifted over every hill for the lifetime of the vehicle so I am afraid you are completely wrong, as THEY DO CAUSE A DROP IN EFFICIENCY, this is physics not an opinion. In Europe it was big business that got the legislation passed for CATS because some of the biggest players had invested heavily in that technology and had the political clout to effect legislation, coupled with the fact that most people were ill informed (as usual) and thought as you did that CATS were cleaner and so were happy to see it passed. It is however a no brainer to realise that using less of everything (true lean burn cannot be used with cats as it destroys them because they effectively need a small amount of pollutant to work properly) should have been the way to go, and the noxious emmissions from true lean burn engines is not nearly as bad as the pro CAT lobby would have people believe. And as to Lean burn being harder on the engine, Let me give you an example of a very famous and excellent one that was a quantum leap in performance and set standards that every other manufacturer raced to copy: the Kawasaki GPZ 900 R was (certainly in Europe) a lean burn engine, and designed as such.
My Honda ST1300 met CARB 2008 standards when it was introduced…
…in 2003.
Another problem with the catalytic converter is the heavy metal compunds released as vapors when they get hot. Eventually they lose too much and the matrix breaks down, then the cat has to be replaced.
This problem doesn’t apply to the stratified combustion engines like the Honda CVCC. It might apply to the CRX, which has been out of production since ‘91, so it’s probably a pretty dirty engine by modern standards.
So what’s the difference in total emmisions by weight per mile, rather than parts per million? I push a lot fewer millions than a Hummer.
Honda’s GX35 and GX50, 4-stroke engines, reduce hydrocarbon emissions to 1/7 those of typical 2-strokes. At work in a motorized bicycle (not a moped or scooter) this incredibly efficient and ultimately cleaner engine can deliver both rider and payload. The future of commuting deserves practical designs that strive for optimal efficiency. That’s why I’m building-out an Electra Townie, stretched with the ExtraCycle, driven by the Honda GX35 to a NuVinci CVP Hub.
Most catylitic converters are now straight through pipes, and on cars with 200 horsepower, cost only 2 horsepower to have in place.
When they first made their way into cars, the exhaust had to push through a mesh of catalyst, which caused a huge increase in back pressure. Now catalytic converter technology has evolved to the point where it has -minimal- (not non existent) impact on performance. Performance in this regard can be directly related to economy, so lets say it has a grand impact of 1%.
As for weight, a series of catalytic converters weighs at most 50 pounds, which would have very minimal impact in an average 3000 pound vehicle.
As for emissions from catalytic converts, the catalyst does slowly exit the tailpipe to some degree, but not in the form of noxious gases. There have actually been organizations who go to road ways to harvest the expelled platinum from peoples tail pipes.
In regard to lean burning cars, there are stumbling blocks to them, but not ones that can’t be overcome. Also, their is no reason that Catalytic converters for lean burning engines could not be developed.
Anyway, I stand by the fact that a Catylitic Converter does not make a -sizable- impact in performance, and that with the engines companies are running today, they are well worth the very, and unnoticeable small drop in economy.
Moderator , my sincere apologies I have noticed another mistake, this will be my last attempt to get this post right. (please remove this paragraph!)
Re. Catalytic converters. Cats are only straight through pipes if you consider a ‘honeycomb’ of pipes, straight through? This honeycomb massively increases the amount of surface area in contact with the gasses with a concomitant rise in drag (see the Coanda effect and fluid shear) This also completely ignores the fact that it is given a rough coating to further increase surface area which then also produces turbulence with a proportional rise in drag. This honeycomb also has a deleterious effect on the standing wave and other useful harmonics in the exhaust pipe which would otherwise be tuned to more effectively scavenge exhaust gasses at the most useful engine RPMs and reduce the work imparted by the flywheel thereby freeing more energy available at the crank for propulsion.
THE INTERESTING BIT
But anyway let’s take your optimistic, 2 horsepower 1% figure on your 200hp family? car, Average mileage 12000 miles per annum at an optimistic 40mpg this works out at an extra 3 gallons a year burnt just because of the drop in engine efficiency (there is more loss I’ll get to) so with America as an example having: 62 million registered vehicles and 6.4 million unregistered functioning vehicles (total 68.4 million) ok, you see where this is going? Let’s be really conservative and half this number to 34 million and multiply by our three gallons we get 102 million gallons burnt just BECAUSE OF CATS in the US alone (remember we have been conservative every where here).
Now your 50lb cat on your 3000lb vehicle equates to one and a half percent of the vehicle’s weight (rounded considerably down) and if you ever watch your economy meter in instantaneous mode, cruising at constant speed on the flat gives say 100mpg, due to wind resistance and friction, so our 40mpg average is due to acceleration of the vehicle mass, in other words 60% of the fuel is used for acceleration, so on our 12000 mile 40 mpg car (300gall/year) 60% goes on acceleration (180gall) and 1.5% of this is a further 2.7 gall. So let’s say 2.5 gall times our super conservative 34 million vehicles is a further 85 million gallons just because of the weight of the cat. We now have a super conservative ABSOLUTE MINIMUM 187 Million Gallons of fuel burnt in the US alone JUST BECAUSE OF CATS!!!!!!!!
This does not take into account manufacturing and disposing of the cats (remember the environmental study mentioned in my previous post?) so this figure is almost certainly higher in reality and could be several times higher???
There are also all sorts of other polluting issues with cats due to how they work and the metals used, which if you like we can go into on another occasion? As I am sure you are wearying of this as am I.
Any way do you still think cats are better than going lean burn and less of everything (only if you profit from cats you do!) As I said in my previous post cats are to do with big business and profit, and nothing to do with environmental issues, this is merely the lie used to sell them because superficially they can easily be made to sound good and it is difficult to explain why they don’t really work!
Neil,
This is really becoming an interesting conversation, but I think its getting out of hand for a board like this. I’d rather not post an email here, but its my name at gmail. I wouldn’t mind turning this into an article.
Anyway, here are a few other things to think about. Firstly, think about the junk that people tend to carry in their cars, the extra 20 pounds around the waist, the stereo systems, the air conditioners, the 6 way climate control. All of these have considerably more impact on both weight and fuel consumption that a catalytic converter system.
As for exhaust inefficiencies, although high performance exhausts are nice, smooth, free flowing pipes, average automobiles are not equipped as such, and the straight through (though still slightly drag inducing) cat is the least of their worries. A new muffler would have far greater impact.
Also, unfortunately very few vehicles get 100 miles to the gallon out on the open road, or even 40 for that matter. Having driven many different cars at constant highway speed for hours at a time, lets say a 40mpg car would get 50mpg out on the highway, and for the whole trip might average 48mpg. But that’s just an aside.
Now as for lean burn tech. Again, it’s great, I’m not knocking it. But something I find very ironic is that lean burn engines, while they take less fuel to operate, produce far more NOX emissions, and require more complicated catalytic converter systems than regular engines to operate with similar emissions.
The other thing I find interesting, though I’m speculating here, is that I would imagine that a lean burn system, while being more efficient and using less gas for a given output, would require a larger engine for a similar amount of power to be produced. That may be a non issue with regard to the benefits, but it would certainly mean more weight to carry around in the vehicle.
Again, it’s not a matter of whether cats hurt fuel economy, they do, but less than under inflating your tires or rolling down your windows would. The question is, for the sake of gas mileage, is it worth it to spew millions of extra tons of toxins into the air? Isn’t a 85% drop in exhaust emmisions worth the little extra gas? (and yes, I am saying that on a grand scale, 187 million gallons of gas a year is “a little” since we use 3.8 billion gallons per -day-. That 1/100th of a percent difference in gas you know )
I think if you like driving an SUV, drive it. If you like riding a scooter, ride it. If you enjoy riding a bicycle, ride it! However, please do not make those choices based on the false impression that you are somehow saving the planet. Global warming is a hoax perpetuated by people like AlGore who fly around in their G5 corporate jet while guilting you to ring your hands over whether you should drive a car, ride a scooter or ride a bike. Go enjoy your life and free yourself from the fantasies of charlatans.
Douglogic,
Global warming is a hoax? Wow. What makes you say that?
Ricky,
You are still missing the point. the cats are burning fuel that does not need to be burnt. and there is the problem of the cats themselves, you keep ignoring the environmental impact of making and disposing of those too, and they by legislation are fitted to every car, your rather facile argument of people carrying an extra 20 lbs of weight around their middle is kind of stupid, as there are a lot of underweight or small people too but besides that the point is the vehicle is their transport, that is what it is for, to carry them and their fat around! then you have the cheek to finish the paragraph saying: “All of these have considerably more impact on both weight and fuel consumption that a catalytic converter system.” Aircon does, 20lb exta weight doesn’t. Aircon although extravagent is there for the comfort of the passengers, which is what the car is there for too, they dont have to have a car, it just makes life so much easier.
As to the high performance exhaust statement, cars are fitted with high performance exhausts because manufacturers are competing against each other for fuel economy and performance, so exhaust systems usually have an expansion box type silencer, which acts almost like the end of the pipe (pressure wave reflecting off free air) this is the same reason that air intake boxes are so big, and the Cat has to be fitted much closer to the engine than the first box is which is another reason it mucks up the resonance.
So Im sorry the new muffler will not have a far bigger impact than a Cat, quite the reverse.
Sorry didn’t understand what you meant when you said very few vehicle get 40 mpg but that it averaged 48?
You keep refering to lean burn, as though it is somehow deficient! The technology already exists fully fledged! and does not require bigger or heavier or noisier or strange engines in any way, it just requires the appropriate legislation.
Re. the Nox emmissions, yes all high temp combustion produces it, are you going to fit Cats to jet engines?(which makes the amount cars use look silly) Also lean burn engines produce negligable amounts of the highly toxic carbon monoxide less carbon dioxide and negligable amounts of unburnt hydrocarbons, so when you tell the whole story, it doesn’t sound quite so ironic does it? Also as I said in a previous post, lean burn engine (NOx) emmissions are not nearly as bad as the pro cat lobby implied. And Cats give off hydrogen sulphide and ammonia amongst other things, so choose your poison, Quite apart from the large list of heavy metals that they contain!
And your final comment about what cats use being a drop in the ocean with the implication so why worry, is exactly the sort of attitude that got the world in the mess it is in, so leave those lightbulbs burning in the rooms you are not in, after all what difference does a 60 watt lightbulb make, I mean, it would have to be on for nearly seventeen hours just to use one unit of electricity, such an insignificant amount?
Hey Neil,
Again, I’d like to continue this, but I think email might be a more appropriate way to do it? If you email me at my name (rickywillems) at google mail then we can continue without highjacking this poor guys post any further.
I think your nuts. Your can’t put all scooters in the same classification. Have you ever heard of a Vectrix Electric Scooters. No exhaust, no oil use, no belts. No hydrocarbons.
I live in Hawaii and 4-stroke scooters are rare. Oddly, the only one I have found for sale was a generic Chinese model. Except for the almost non-existent larger scooter-body motorcycles, all the <50cc scooters here seem to be oil burners (2-stroke) and about half of the thousands of these on the road every day have loud muffler modifications.
Perhaps California has different regulations, but we have thousands of these 2-stroke nightmares here keeping people up at night and stinking up the city.
Perhaps it bears repeating that if we were cut particulate emissions too quickly, it is possible to lose the cushioning effect that global dimming has had. This may eliminate or reduce its estimated climate forcing effect of ~−2.7 ± 0.9 W/m against the Forcing effect of global warming @ ~4.3 ± 0.6 W/m2, or net effect of ~1.6 ± 1.1 W/m2. In layman’s terms, this means a significant loss or reduction in the dimming forces can result in accelerated warming, as those emissions are easier to eliminate than warming forces. I have included a link to article I have based my comments on.
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/26/14778.full
That is a very interesting point, and is born out by the instantaneous temp rise that occurred after 9/11 when the majority of air flight was cut!
Al motorcycles that are sold in Europe have to be EURO3 and from 2010 they have to be EURO4. The Californian emision standards aren’t even EURO2
I didn’t read all 68 replies, so someone may have already pointed it out.
While HC and CO emissions may be higher, because of the lack of a catalytic converter on many models, CO2 (greenhouse gas) emissions, are much lower per mile travelled, as compared to a automobile with a single occupant.
Electric vehicles are the way forward. Okay cars are not there yet, but electric scooters can match their gasoline counterparts. They now go up to 62 miles per hour and have a range of between 30 and 60 miles. I guess what we really need is for ‘battery stations’ where you can swap your dead battery for a live one. They’re already trying this in Denmark and there’s a scheme to be launched in Hawaii.