2 stroke / 4 stroke advice

Matt:

I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a
link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced
fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe?
Sounds interesting.

Thanks

-Maxime Camirand


Matt Colie wrote:
> KLC,
>
> I don't like the thought of spills either, but three Canadian companies
> have a total of 450+ wells for both oil and natural gas in Lake Erie
> alone. They seem to manage just fine (with gear and technology from
> American suppliers).
>
> Recently, I was told by someone that has studied these problems for many
> years that most of the oil on Lake Erie comes from untrapped storm
> drains. The last big one was the Rouge River about three years ago.
>
> We have the opportunity to correct a lot of problems if we pick the real
> ones instead of the "politically correct" ones.
>
> This has been my problem with the "evironmental movement" since they
> forced cars to get much reduced fuel economy in favor of maginally
> reduced tailpipe emissions. Remember the early cat cars of the mid
> seventies?
>
> Matt
>
>
> KLC Lewis wrote:
> > "Matt Colie" <nobody DeleteThis @netspam.net> wrote in message
> > news:_Omah.51$gS6.18@newsfe07.lga...
> >
> >>Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody
> >>go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we
> >>aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill
> >>under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.)
> >>
> >>Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our
> > Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad
> > enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous.
> >
> >
 >> Stay informed about: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice 

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:24:08 +0000, James Sweet wrote:

>> There is no oil drilling in the Chesapeake bay and it has plenty of
>> oil pollution, largely from the same source. People flushing used oil
>> down the toilet is another problem.

> People flush used oil down the toilet? That must make an awful mess of
> the toilet, I've never heard of such a thing.

Toilet, sink, it's all the same sewer.

Plenty more washes in from streets, etc., and groundwater from
people pouring it into their yards or wherever.

But oil from 2-stroke outboards, especially older ones, is still a major
source of pollution.

Believe it or not, there's serious science behind this. Armies of PhD's
labor for years to identify the most significant sources of pollution, and
then to find the most cost-effective ways of addressing the problems.
The trouble is, too many people still don't want to hear the answers.

Matt O.
 >> Stay informed about: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice 

On 28 Nov 2006 13:08:05 -0800, in message
<1164748085.124151.63580.DeleteThis@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com>
"max camirand" <maxcamirand.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>Matt:
>
>I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a
>link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced
>fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe?
>Sounds interesting.

In the sixties cars ran at fairly high compression ratios thanks to
high octane gasoline spiked with tetra ethyl lead. Lead poisoning was
an issue and the higher temperatures produced at high compression
ratios lead to more oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust, a major
contributor to the photo-chemical smog that plagued Los Angeles and
other places. High compression engines are inherently more efficient
due to the thermodynamics involved.

Besides being dangerous, lead poisons the catalyst in catalytic
converters, so there was a triple whammy when it was removed, lower
octane because other additives had not been fully developed, thus
lower compression, lower compression still to cut NOx, and
inefficiently designed catalytic converter systems. Then came the oil
embargo that drove the price of gas up high enough that North
Americans had to care. The results were much better for smog in Los
Angeles, but there was strong sentiment that everybody was paying a
price that didn't make much difference in most locations.

Given time, automotive engineers and fuel specialists have advanced
the state of the art and current vehicles are both more efficient and
much cleaner than those of the 60s, but it took time to figure it out,
and not much attention was given to the problem until government
regulations required it. The result was a few years of absolutely
dismal fuel economy in the seventies.

Ryk
 >> Stay informed about: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice 

Matt O'Toole <mattotoole DeleteThis @letterboxes.org> wrote in
news:pan.2006.11.28.20.57.41.824737@letterboxes.org:

> Armies of PhD's
> labor for years to identify the most significant sources of pollution,
> and then to find the most cost-effective ways of addressing the
> problems.
>

Wanna bet "armies of PhD's" driving their Escalades to the university and
the armies of bureaucrats administering the programs the PhD's are milking
for tax dollars causes FAR more pollution than all the 2-stroke engines
that have been dipped in a lake since 1900?.....

We just can't help ourselves.....It is inevitable.

Larry
--
If we eliminate religion, will they stop murdering each other?
 >> Stay informed about: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice 

Garland Gray II wrote:
> Exactly. You can't force technology faster just to meet an arbitrary goal
> dreamed up by a beaurocrat.
> And the sick thing about it is that whoever dreamed up those regs goes to
> bed thinking "I saved the world again today".
>
>

Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double
the fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions,
and many are far more powerful too.
 >> Stay informed about: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice 

max camirand wrote:
> Matt:
>
> I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a
> link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced
> fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe?
> Sounds interesting.
>
> Thanks
>
> -Maxime Camirand
>

Remember the seventies??
With tacky polyester clothing, platform shoes, God awful big hunk of
s*it cars and disco.... who'd want to remember.
Now the 60's...that was a time to remember!
 >> Stay informed about: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice 

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:24:02 +0000, Don White wrote:

> Remember the seventies??
<evil><unclean> >disco.... </evil></unclean>
shudder....
 >> Stay informed about: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice 

"James Sweet" <jamessweet.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ah1bh.10103$7a2.1829@trndny06...
> Garland Gray II wrote:
>> Exactly. You can't force technology faster just to meet an arbitrary goal
>> dreamed up by a beaurocrat.
>> And the sick thing about it is that whoever dreamed up those regs goes to
>> bed thinking "I saved the world again today".
>>
>
> Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double the
> fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions, and many
> are far more powerful too.

The more economy is mostly from smaller cars. My 1964 300 hp 327 Impala SS
got about 16.5 mpg on average. City and highway. My slightly heavier, way
more technology 1999 Expedition got 14.5 mpg average. But MTBE cost about
10% milage, while reducing air pollution about 6%. Not a large combined
number. while at the same time, causing mass ground water pollution.
 >> Stay informed about: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice 

That's my point. It was misguided --inefficient-- to force manufacturers to
meet standards before the technology was developed. And I don't think for a
moment that the stiff initial regs caused the technology to be developed any
sooner.
Furthermore, it was counterproductive to prevent (which the feds did) the
major car makers from pooling their resources to develop this technology.
Anti trust laws, you know.

"James Sweet" <jamessweet RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ah1bh.10103$7a2.1829@trndny06...

>>
>
> Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double the
> fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions, and many
> are far more powerful too.
 >> Stay informed about: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice 

Oh - Charlie,

This is great view of the mistaken common mythology. There were a huge
number of individual vehicle that did just that and as early as 1970. I
had two in my own lab.

I drove and tested that car and the CVCC Vega too. The Nova was not
production feasable at that time (the opinion of a famous think tank),
and Honda would license the CVCC design for about ~100$/per vehicle (not
including the increased manufacturing cost (remember - this was a 2k$
base vehicle).

There were two stoppers.
Reliability was a big issue. This was the time when California was also
instituting legislation that no vehicle could require maintenance other
than lubrication at less than 50k miles. (We had one vehicle - a joke -
with the hood BOLTED down and the sticker off the back of a television
that said "No User Servicable Parts Inside".)
Manufacturability was another serious issue. Variations that the
assembly lines produced in those days was a problem. A family of I4
engines was bad enough that, though rated and sold as 90+hp actually
were anywhere between 85 and 98 as measured.

Everybody tends to forget that Germany and Japan both had all brand new
factories that (by enlarge) we paid for in the late fourties, but the US
plants all got seriously beat up making the hardware to win that war.

The thing that really gave the american market away was shortsighted
corporate management. For reasons I will not expand, I grew up with
little European cars. Whe the US tried to get into this market they
decided that little cars were inexpesive cars and inexpensive cars could
be cheap - not just cost, but quality as well. I bought my first new
American Car in 1973 and was treated so badly when I complained about
the shabby quality (not quite a quote - You bought a cheap car, What did
you expect?) I have never purchased another car from that manufacturer.





Charlie Morgan wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:43:21 -0500, "Garland Gray II" <ggray DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>That's my point. It was misguided --inefficient-- to force manufacturers to
>>meet standards before the technology was developed. And I don't think for a
>>moment that the stiff initial regs caused the technology to be developed any
>>sooner.
>>Furthermore, it was counterproductive to prevent (which the feds did) the
>>major car makers from pooling their resources to develop this technology.
>>Anti trust laws, you know.
>>
>
>
> In the early 70's, US automakers whined that the proposed government timetable
> was too short, and the standards too high. They complained they would need at
> least 7 years to create the technology to meet the proposed standards. Honda of
> Japan bought a brand new Chevy Nova off of a dealers lot, shipped it to Japan,
> and 6 months later delivered it to Washington, DC, modified to EXCEED the
> proposed standards.
>
> CWM
>
>
>>"James Sweet" <jamessweet DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ah1bh.10103$7a2.1829@trndny06...
>>
>>
>>>Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double the
>>>fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions, and many
>>>are far more powerful too.
>>
>
 >> Stay informed about: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice 

But fellows ... it's not about air quality, it's about DOMINANCE!

You will do what I tell you because I said so!

Roger
derbyrm.RemoveThis@NOSPAMinsightbbNOSPAM.com
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm

"Matt Colie" <nobody.RemoveThis@netspam.net> wrote in message
news:_Omah.51$gS6.18@newsfe07.lga...
> Larry,
> I guess that you have not noticed that:
> A-Logic has little to do with environmental regulations.
> B-Much of the world is trying anything they can to shut down the best
> economy in the history of the world.
>
> The old 2 strokes were dirty engines. (I did some of the testing.) Their
> hydrocarbon emissions were outrageous. Anything that gets lubricated like
> an old 2-stroke won't wear out any time soon, but I have been on a could
> of mountain lakes that had an oil slick the likes of a tanker spill.
> For calibration, when I was working in one of those labs, the crew that
> was doing the evaporative emissions testing put the office Christmas tree
> into one of the evap sheds - It Didn't Pass -
>
> Many of the world's vocal liberals are very down on the good old USofA
> because we have something like 10% of the population and use 30% of the
> fossil fuel. They don't happen to notice that this produces 40+% of the
> worlds productivity and 15% of the worlds pollution*. (*Not including CO2)
> (The quoted statistics are close but not exact.)
>
> China has not been asked to reduce anything and they are still running
> wood fired steam locomotives and have the fastest declining air quality in
> the world. It is so bad that some coaches are expecting to have to shut
> some of the events at the next Olympics down because of the pollution.
>
> Why do you think Motorcycles are now required to have catalytic
> converters?
>
> Why do liberals think that a Hybrid vehicle is a better answer than a
> diesel?
>
> Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody
> go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we
> aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill
> under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.)
>
> Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic
>
>
> Larry wrote:
>> Linkd.RemoveThis@mindspring.com wrote in news:fufim2het1capo2e7k4p6kitgmq7vhtc3b@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>Oh by the way the EPA problem with 2 strokes is
>>>not so much the oil in the water but in the air.
>>
>>
>> I wonder how that works?? Oil doesn't evaporate so it's not vapor
>> pollution. I suppose the tiny bit of smoke trailing an outboard motor is
>> pollution, probably .00000001% of what pours out of a single smoke stack
>> at your electric plant, 24/7/365.
>>
>> Dead out on the river, 20 miles from the trailer, I want the simplest 2-
>> stroke outboard with the fewest failing parts that a guy standing in the
>> mud behind it along the banks can figure out what's wrong and patch it up
>> to get home. No valves, no belts, minimal pumps, simple carburetion,
>> hand startable (if necessary)....the motor with the fewest failure modes
>> almost anyone with any sense can get running. A 2-stroke needs:
>> A - Fuel
>> B - Spark
>> C - Cooling
>> D - Prop
>>
>> Everything else is fluff.
>>
>> Every one of them needs a primer bulb, a fantastic troubleshooting tool
>> for the fuel system and emergency fuel pump if the diaphram fails in
>> their pulse pump. It amazes me the number of people who just sit there
>> staring into it and don't THINK about what that little bulb can tell them
>> if they'd just pump it and think about what is happening. I've helped
>> lots of stranded boaters with it. "Pump the bulb for me.", I ask. "It
>> squeezes but doesn't come back out.", he says. "Turn on the fuel shutoff
>> valve.", I say...and away they go. "It pumps real easy.", he says.
>> "Here, let me loan you some gas.", I respond. "It pumps and I see gas in
>> the water behind the motor.", he says. "Your fuel pump diaphram has a
>> hole in it pumping gas into one cylinder, flooding it....or the carb
>> float is stuck. Pull the cover and we'll bypass the pump. You can
>> squeeze the bulb while running it home." So easy....even on a carb'd 4-
>> stroker. Impossible to fix on fuel injection and other high tech
>> nonsense....
>>
>> Larry
 >> Stay informed about: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 2 stroke / 4 stroke advice