Thanks: 0
The CX500 / 650 are amazing machines. About 10 years ago a friend got one with 52K miles on it and with some tuning road the daylights out of it. San Diego to Texas several times. Had various issues due to age but overall very reliable. I drove it around the block and it was smooth with a pleasant sort of v-twin rumble. Very simple clean design and NO oil leaks - not bad for 30 year old bike with 50K on it.Originally Posted by LeeInMpls
Fortunately (?), Europe is such an important part of the motorcycle market that the Euro emissions standards are met even on bikes sold in the US (though sometimes delayed as the manufacturers use up old stockpiles of parts, etc.—possibly why the NC750X, et al, took its sweet time coming to America). As of 2016, EURO 4 requirements for CO were roughly one-tenth the US EPA ones, for example.
Last edited by Dellaster; 19th November 2019 at 04:32.
—Ted | 2013 BMW F700GS | 2012 Kawasaki KLX250S
So millionares and their Private jets, McMansions, India and all their cars and motor driven cycles, China and its smog ALL are worse than any car or bike in the US and Canada.
But lets fight over carbon emissions, it fun!
I signed up to the NT Forum. It seems ideal. The forum feels something like the CX500 forum. (except for young riders wanting to "Cafe" their find.) Maybe because it is a discontinued model. I wonder if they will start making something like the NT again. I know there are a few models Honda dropped only to start them up again after a few years.
If you want a middleweight shaft drive, 50mpg tourer check out a Honda NT700V. You can pick up a 2010-2011 w/ABS, saddle bags, fairing (all factory OEM) for about $2,500-$3,500. A nice little twin but a bit heavier than the NC and (obviously) an older design.
Thanks!
Last edited by LeeInMpls; 19th November 2019 at 10:13.
Lee in Minneapols, Minnesota '82 GL500
My original mention was not about emissions but rather, spending as little as possible on gasoline.
The 3rd world's best chance is similar to how cellular made wired phone and internet infrastructure unnecessary there, to go right to the less complicated electric vehicle and decentralized solar and wind.
Lee in Minneapols, Minnesota '82 GL500
I love these engines. Mine has only 7,500 miles on it. Barely broken in. I just need to replace 37 year old rubber. Going to put collector plates on her.The CX500 / 650 are amazing machines. About 10 years ago a friend got one with 52K miles on it and with some tuning road the daylights out of it. San Diego to Texas several times. Had various issues due to age but overall very reliable. I drove it around the block and it was smooth with a pleasant sort of v-twin rumble. Very simple clean design and NO oil leaks - not bad for 30 year old bike with 50K on it.
I have an oil leak at the front of the motor, on the right side. Either tachometer seal, front camshaft seal or gasket, or front cover gasket. It is impossible to see exactly without taking the radiator off. I'll probably replace all four when the riding season is over.
They use these engines in Morgan replicas:
Last edited by LeeInMpls; 19th November 2019 at 10:31.
Lee in Minneapols, Minnesota '82 GL500
There are always rumors to go along with wishes. See here: Rumour: Honda is bringing back the Deauville - Adventure Rider
I guess the NT did not sell well in the US, so it went away. Even though I think the NT is a cool bike, it's hard to imagine why it would come back. Even the ST1300 apparently couldn't sell well enough to stick around. The way Honda models appear, then disappear, it's a wonder the NCX is entering it's 9th model year
Last edited by 670cc; 19th November 2019 at 11:45.
Greg
GWRRA Member
AMA Life Member
"Quarter Million Mile Club"
NanCyX . . . . . . . . . . The 250
Carbon emissions (how much C comes out of the tailpipe) is different from "pollutants".
Every gallon of gasoline contains 5.5 lbs of carbon (out of 6.3 lbs total) so every gallon burned is 5.5 lbs of carbon released.... mostly as CO2, some of it as CO and maybe some of it as a CxHx for unburned fuel...
Regardless of how it's released, that is what defines the carbon release.
The emissions guidelines focus on the CO, NOx, SOx as oppose to the CO2.
The only C that gets put into the engine comes from the gasoline, the more you put in the more comes out, none of the C turns into anything different at an atomic level, though it does let go of the hydrogen and bind to the oxygen instead.
5.5lbs of carbon per gallon, 60 miles per gallon ~0.092 lbs of carbon released per mile.
Understood....
That is why the EPA doesn't regulate the amount of Carbon that comes out your tailpipe. It isn't a pollutant. Carbon is harmless. It is used to filter air and water. I have a carbon filter under my sink ;-)
But, I do have seven (7) CO detectors hard wired in a rental condo that I own ;-)
The EPA doesn't care about the emission of carbon.
Neither should we ;-)
What they do care about (and measure) is the CO...and a motorcycle produces more of it than any car, light truck, or large SUV....In some cases by a factor of 4 and in others (pre 2010 motorcycles) by a factor of 10 (!).
As you state, there is X amount of Carbon in every gallon. No tailpipe measurements are needed. I'm guessing here, but there is likely a correlation between grams of carbon/km and grams of CO/km. But why not just measure the CO directly? That is what the EPA decided to do, for a lot of reasons including accuracy and to lessen the chance of some engineering sleight of hand (like the VW diesel fiasco) influencing the readings.
CO is determined by measuring how complete the combustion is. The less "efficient" the combustion, the more CO molecules are coming out of the tailpipe. Other factors being equal, combustion efficiency can also be "guesstimated" by the amount of fuel you need to travel a particular distance. Think MPGs ;-)
Now, consider a 670cc engine that gets 50 mpg in a motorcycle weighing only 700lbs. Compare that to a 3,000 lb car that also gets 50 mpg but using an engine with twice the displacement (!). Both are using a gallon of gas. Each is burning 114,000 BTUs (energy). Yet the car at 4x the weight and twice the displacement gets equal mileage. Guess which engine is most likely burning fuel more efficiently and as a result creating less pollution in the process?...
Yes, that would be the car. The car obviously has some other advantages to help it reach that amazing mileage figure but still.....There is a huge difference in engine efficiency (and resultant pollution) between the two powerplants.
The math says (if MPGs are the same) both motorcycle and car are spitting out the same amount of those (harmless) carbon atoms.
And, it is correct to say that a 30 mpg car will emit twice the number of carbon atoms that a 60 mpg motorcycle would emit.
But, that is pretty useless info (that is why nobody measures it).
CO though? Well, that can kill you and creates clouds of dark brown smog ( I know smog, lived in Phoenix 20 years ago. AKA "The Valley of The Scum").
The important thing is that the motorcycle will have 4x the poisonous CO molecules coming out of its muffler compared to the car.
In a discussion about pollution and "carbon footprints" I think it is reasonable and logical to conclude that grams of CO per mile is more relevant than harmless grams of carbon per mile. Remarkably, this demonstrates (perhaps counter-intuitively) a vehicle's MPG rating/engine size/gross weight/and carbon grams per mile are not reliable indicators of its pollution or carbon footprint.
There are lots of great reasons to ride a motorcycle, but doing so and thinking it is good for the environment because they get "ok" mileage is simply not supported by the facts, despite what we might hope.
Last edited by ld_rider; 19th November 2019 at 19:22.
Rob in New England
IBA# 540
On my last trip to Michigan, my '98 Civic got 42mpg.
I refuse to own a Motorcycle that gets less.
Littlewing. I wiped down the gas tank but hadn't hosed her yet
14 years of dust on the engine:
After a hosing:
Lee in Minneapols, Minnesota '82 GL500
Posting Permissions
Likes: 
Reply With Quote
