A bit of a gripe

[Coby]

Hi All,

On another thread I mentioned the fact that I changed the ECU on a KLX250, now the difference it made was incredible; the bike as standard could do 65mph top end and the fuel consumption was at best 60mpg!
Once I'd changed the ECU (and the, sorry I can't remember whether it was the rectifier or something else beginning with 'R') the top end increased to 95mph and the fuel consumption went up to 90mpg!

Therefore can someone explain to me how reducing my fuel consumption by 33% can possibly be helping to save the planet?
Let alone preserve the words natural resources.

It means that in order to reduce emissions, we presently have to use 33% more fuel than we need to, to cover any given distance!
Surely the collective emissions from all of the fuel used, will presently be greater than they would be if you simply left things as they were before!


Things are bad enough in my own industry; the so called 'Electrical Engineers' controlling the Electrical/Fire Alarm Industries are so stupid/corrupt that they have tried to re-write two British Standards (BS7671 & BS5839-1) without even bothering to pick up an Electrical Engineering Dictionary!
I wonder if something similar has happened here, after all petrol companies will not be complaining about a 33% increase in the use of their product!

[MarJay]

You've got it wrong. You're confusing smog/air pollution with CO2. They are almost mutually exclusive. If you tune an engine for good fuel efficiency and low CO2 it puts out more NOx and CO which are local air pollutants.

The US and EU regs have limits on nitrous oxides and CO in exhaust emissions (as well as particulates) which mean that engines are less efficient than they might otherwise be.

So the question you have to ask yourself is, would you rather risk climate change or low level air pollution/smog?
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.

[Coby]

OK,
But you are using 33% more of it, therefore producing 33% more of everything for the same mileage covered!

Who do you work for?

[MarJay]

[kramdra]

If the old ecu was power restricted, I assume you are on L plates? It will not be able to use the engine in its most effiecient range.

[Bhud]

Just speculating, but maybe in standard form it runs rich as a way to comply with Euro standard limits on NOx output.

[Coby]

[kawashima]

Bit off topic but I checked KLX250 specs.
KLX250 carb(JP):29PS/9000rpm -> FI(JP)(2008-2016):24PS/9000rpm in order to cope with H19(2007) emission
(changed from hot start into cold start for 250cc too) = euro3
KLX250 UK model(-2016):22PS/7500rpm
Japan model dropped -5PS from 2008 to cope with 2007 emission=euro3
And UK model(2016) was -2PS less than JP FI model.(to cope with euro4?)
I think KLX power was much lowered only to cope with emission.

If not such emission, power would have been as higher as previous carb model.
I think higher power (by this) means better combustion and mpg too.
*emission : must reduce HC/THC/NOx etc as explained above.
____________________
2020 Touring Serow 250
,past 2012 YB125SP, 2008 TDM900 2005 W650, [url=d], 2002 LS125R, 2002 CB400SF, NS50F, C50 / Trip to UK(2009), Hokkaido touring(2013)

[Coby]

Again, 33% more fuel for the same distance covered!


How ever much you reduce what comes out of your exhaust you are still producing 33% more of it for the same mileage!

[MarJay]

[Coby]

How much lower?


If you work for BP then people may not be so inclined to find you credible.

[Coby]

You'll still be producing 33% more 'particulates for the mileage covered!

[Mr Hammers]

[kawashima]

JP FI owners are saying mpg is around 30km/L(85mpg), max 35km/L(99mpg) which are much higher than carb model(around 25km/L(71mpg), max 28km/L(79mpg)).
UK FI model may have different mpg but have you checked average mpg of KLX250 UK models? Wasn't yours before ecu mod having something wrong?
____________________
2020 Touring Serow 250
,past 2012 YB125SP, 2008 TDM900 2005 W650, [url=d], 2002 LS125R, 2002 CB400SF, NS50F, C50 / Trip to UK(2009), Hokkaido touring(2013)

[P.]

You are retarded, HTH.

It isn't about planet saving, its about regs, and pretty much no one gives a shit.

It isn't 33% either. You are just seriously dumb.

[MarJay]

[Coby]

Look this isn't rocket science.

There was nothing wrong with a brand new KLX 250, with the original ECU the tank range was 60miles.
I changed the ECU & Rectifier and the tank range was 90miles.

The tank held about a gallon.

Sorry if I've upset anyone, but it's the truth.

Now an increase of 33% in petrol usage, will inevitably cause an increase of 33% in the emissions from petrol usage. Fact!

David Beckam could understand that!

[Nobby the Bastard]

That's an increase of 50% of mileage. The efficiency of the usage makes a difference.

Richer is cooler (better for the engine) but not as much power from the engine.

Leaner is hotter (potential to melt the piston) but much more powerful Nd thus greater speed.

Leaner normally means cleaner as well.

Are you related to donk?
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050

[Riejufixing]

This is one reason I get pissed off with these forums. People see crap where there isn't any, or not much, and start waving their effing little cocks about instead as if that means something instead of of just SFTUing. Performing a "donk" summoning ritual isn't helpful either.

[Nobby the Bastard]

Tbh if you are looking for insightful conversation bcf isnt the place to go.
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050

[MarJay]

So, back to the whole "30% increase in fuel consumption results in a 30% increase in emissions".

Yes, in the most simplistic way, but I am and was differentiating between low level pollutants (IE ones that make granny cough in Central London smog) vs Carbon Dioxide which is a greenhouse gas. It's perfectly possible for emissions controls that reduce particulates, CO and NOx to increase fuel consumption by 30%. But the particulates, CO and NOx are reduced to near zero. You're increasing CO2 emissions, but reducing CO and NOx and particulates.

How hard is that to understand? Even David Beckham could understand that! Sheesh.
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.

[Riejufixing]

[Riejufixing]

[P.]

[bhinso]

NOx consists of NO or NO2, although NO tends to oxidise to NO2 in the atmosphere.
It is toxic and and a major ingredient of photochemical smog.

CO is a result of incomplete combustion. The mechanism for CO creation is slow but independent of temperature. The CO-CO2 mechanism is fast but strongly temperature dependent. Hence CO hangs around if temperatures are not sufficient to oxidise it to CO2.

I'm sure you know how dangerous CO is, being a similar density to air it just hangs around, and is odourless and colourless.