OK. I admit it... I dig green technology. Well I dig all technology, but I digress...

I'm curious how emissions vs. gas mileage balance out. For example:

My '88 FJ62 gets about 12 MPG on a good day, but has F.I., Catalytic Converters, and all that good stuff. My 914 gets over 2X that, but has no emissions equipment at all. I'm curious at where the tipping point is:

2 stroke scooter vs. compact car
4 stroke scooter vs. compact car
etc...

I'm even considering trying to build a junkyard/STF electric motorcycle. I'm poor, but have plenty of time and creativity!

Comments?

-Aaron

depending on what your vehicle needs are:

efficiency/design + less weight + aerodynamics = green

adjust variables acordingly

just my o2

mike

Carbon In = Carbon Out so better fuel economy = less carbon released to the atmosphere. Your 914 wins the carbon contest.

3-way catalysts have pretty much set all cars up to be pretty clean as far as all the other stuff is concerned. Your 914 loses the "other pollutant" contest by a lot.

FWIW , 4-stroke is better than 2-stroke by a long shot ...especially when no catalyst is involved.

All bets are off if you have an old Saab 95 (me loves the 3 cylinder 2 Stroke): you're single-handedly killing the planet with that!

After driving behind a pack of them (in my wife's prius) I can tell you that the 914 is pretty damn far from green, no matter what the MPG they get.

At one point, I started getting a buzz from all the crap air I was getting as the last car in a 10 car caravan.

Zach

Get a Honda. They are cheap enough that you can't go wrong with the green and efficient. I was getting 31in town and 37 on the highway with my turbo car and it got 37in town and 42-45 on the highway without the turbo. I bet I can get the on highway mileage back up to 40 with the turbo.

The 914 engine is very thermodynamically inefficient as well as having very poor combustion dynamics. Part of that comes from the low compression ratio, part of it is the aircooled problem, and the other part is the basic engine architecture.

While good for performance short stroke big bore motors suck as far as energy and emissions efficiency goes. The camshaft design is also far from one needed for good emissions.

Green. I get it. But, I am confused.
I don't understand why hybrids get about 50mpg or less at this point in time.

The new Subaru diesel Legacy claims 60+ mpg in Europe trim.
My aunts car (skoda) gets about 45 mpg on diesel and I think it is 10 years old.
If I put a suby diesel in a 914, it should see about 70mpg with an effective range of almost 1000 miles per tank or at $4 a gallon for Diesel, .07 a mile.

While it may be true that you could possibly get 70 mpg from a subaru diesel in a 914, your math is wrong.

Factor in the cost of the motor (10k at least) and the conversion (another 5k) and your price per mile is not so attractive.

Go get a VW diesel golf/jetta/beetle.
They all get 45 mpg and they currently (used) cost less that the subaru motor would cost.

Rich

Back to the topic... What I'm really interested in is where is the trade off in C02 emissions and fuel mileage. I see plenty of sites touting that scooters are good for the environment and am conflicted.

On one hand they have excellent gas mileage, but on the other they have almost no modern emissions equipment. The head of the EV Club here at Caltech said in passing he thinks a modern car or even an SUV is *better* for the environment than a scooter.

Discuss...

While I am not sure what a scooter gets for gas mileage, I would look at the entire lifecycle carbon footprint of a modern SUV versus a scooter.

Ask your EV expert that question.

How much fuel is burned to manufacture, deliver and maintain an SUV over its 20 year lifespan (average)
Plus, add in how much fuel is burned by the SUV.

then look at a scooter...the small amount of materials to build it, transport it, store it, and finally run it.

If you look at the overall lifecycle of any product, that is the total carbon footprint, and total emmissions output of that product. Its not a simple question to calculate.

this same arguement applies to EV technology.
Batteries are manufactured and thus create waste, emmisions, and toxic chemicals.

Solar PV panels just now, 30 years after the first panel was made, finally made it to a positive carbon footprint...that is the PV panel creates more energy than it takes to produce the panel over its entire lifespan.

EV cars are the same way...did you save enough carbon over the course of the three year battery life to justify TWO sets of batteries.
Look at the EV over the entire lifecycle and you will see that Gasoline is a strong leader in this space.
It just takes alot of energy to create batteries, and they produce alot of waste.

I am not saying that EV is not overall a better way to go, but you cant compare it to gasoline without factoring in the entire lifecycle when you look at the carbon footprint of any item.
Rich

Good points...

I use to always talk about life cycle when people were deciding whether to fix up their old cars or buy new ones. Mopeds typically get above 60MPG for this debate. Many are in the 75MPG+ arena.

-Aaron

What the moped puts out is dirtier per volume. But it's putting out a whole lot less volume.

Also, the car getting better MPG is cycling less carbon from the ground into the atmosphere--but the one with modern emissions controls is putting less harmful forms of carbon out.

There'll be lots more unburned HCs in a 914 exhaust than an Escallade, for example, but lots more CO2 in the modern vehicle's exhaust.

--DD

It really depends if you think CO2 is pollution -I don't. A scooter (or a lawn mower) has vastly more 'real pollution' (such as unburned hydrocarbons this is the typical stench of an older car than any newer car or truck.) A modern car or truck has almost no emissions of the classic auto pollution. Some new cars have cleaner exhaust than LA air on a bad day (base model Ford focus.)

However, Carbon In still equals Carbon Out and a True Treehugger would consider all carbon moved from solid/liquid to gaseous form bad.

It's just a matter of time before scooters have to have catalytic converters on them (ssst OW!)

Looking at the whole lifecycle, the best green strategy is to restore an old 914
and then drive it every day. This way, the resources originally used to build
the 914 in the 70s are continuing to be amortized over the years you drive it.

It takes far fewer resources and produces far less CO2 to restore an existing
car than to build a new one that is marginally more efficient. Throwing away
a decent car that could still be used is very wasteful in terms of the total
lifecycle.

There is a practical part of carbon reduction that needs to be factored. Not every part of the US or the world lends itself to EV's, bikes or scooters. When the temps fall here, you would have to be nuts to think your battery life won't be effected. The cold grease in wheel bearing alone will shorten the cycle and distance, lack of heat (no heater core or electric heating element) will cause your windows to frost. You will become a traffic hazard and likely die.

But I guess you could try to ride a bike like my youngest son. (Mr. Green...) His cold brakes failed and he was involved in a traffic accident and has compromised his ability to play his Bass and put his college music career is in jepardy. All for the sake of carbon credits. Do you think he'd learn about practical limits?

Scooters?... fogedaboutit! It's like riding in the back of a pick up. There ain't no way to do it and still look cool.



My spin on this is, think green but know your practical limits. Don't be foolish in your pursuit of the green. Don't legislate a blank across the country that can't be complied with or implimented.

If you want to be as green as you can be, sell your cars and scooters and use public transportation and your bicycle.
For that to be affective you need to move to a city.

Rich

So, the whole life cycle thing is interesting, but the way I understand it is that newer emissions standards are what allowed Los Angeles to clean up it's air. With recycling and the like most of the old car can be made new again.

I'm curious what the world would look like today if we all had hung on to our 70's cars and kept them going...

Couple of points.

LA air quality is not clean...
cleaner, maybe, but not clean.

What the constant production of automobiles does is contain the pollution to the factories and foundries.
The cleaner running autos are certainly producing less emmisions, no question, but at what cost.

For a proper analysis of any pollutant you MUST discuss it in terms of lifecycle.
It is a fake arguement to look at it any other way.

While you may find it interesting, it is the main statistic that is used and discussed in any relevant discussion of pollution.

Feel free to speculate and talk about if a scooter makes more emmisions than an SUV, but it really, without considering the manufacturing and disposal, has no full lifecycle considerations.

Rich

no worrys, it looks like we won't have any new car u.s. automakers around soon, even the japenese are stressing...

I'm having lunch today with Caltech's EV Club. They have several cars that I can check out and drive at will. Pretty exciting!

Earlier in the week I got to see a Honda Fuel Cell Vehicle.

-Aaron

Probably bad for the environment, but it gets you 1/4-mile pretty quick (see the white zombie)

Plasma Boy Racing

If you really want to be green,

Put a plastic bag over your head and tie it tight.

That should stop your CO2 breath pollution AND stop you from driving your car to produce additional gasoline generated CO2.

Kennybeingpracticalwithgreensuggestionsandalwaysdrivingsmallenginedhighmileageca
rs

The Ultimate Solution



















...but wrong on soooo many levels!