or some genius comes up with the 1 stroke ~.^ until that day, it's 2 strokes all the way!

 

About the closest thing to a 1 stroke would be a rotary engine. A single rotar rotary actually fires 3x per revolution. 3/4 of each revolution is under power. Whereas a 2-stroke is 1/2 of each revolution and a 4-stroke gets by with 1 power stroke per 2 revolutions.

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

diesel motors just produce a lot of tourque

 

thats true about the 2 stroke and 4 stroke fumes, cars give out carbon monoxide. many, probobly hundreds even thousands die from that each year. hear of anybody dieing from 2 stroke fumes latley? im sure not even close to how many people die from 4 stroke fumes. besides dont u just love the smell of a 2 stroke.

 

Wow where did you get that formula? You make it so much eaiser to compare 4-strokes to 2-strokes now. Now I can prove someone they are wrong in saying a 400 4-stroke has as much power as a 200 2-stroke.

 

I'm not sure if you are being facietious or not. But I came up with that formula based on the fact that 250cc 2-stroke and 440-450cc 4-strokes run together in racing. It seems to hold true.

I have an '03 Warrior (350 4-stroke) which should supposedly beat (assuming all things equal, rider, un-modified, etc.) a Blaster 200cc 2-stroke. Now, I get my butt handed to me by a rider weighing slightly less than me on his g/fs 240 Blaster. That or he's got someone with a tractor beam that turns on when I hit about 3rd gear. Note, said Blaster which was incredibly reliable for its entire life ('96) is now very finicky and sometimes can be a PITA to start. But when it runs, [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img].

Now class, get out your calculators (Start -> Programs -> Accessories):

We'll use my formula of 2-stroke dispacement times the multiplier (1.76-1.8). 1.76 = 250 vs. 440. 1.8 = 250 vs. 450.
200 x 1.76 = 352. So at 348cc in the Warrior I'm pretty damn close. I would hazard a guess anything within about 10ccs of my equation either way would be a toss up. Owing to gearing, powerbands, race lengths, surfaces, etc.

240 x 1.76 = 422.4

You are kidding right? You honestly believe that a 2-stroke produces less emissions than a 4-stroke? And carbon monoxide (CO) can be a byproduct in the combustion of any hydrocarbon. Well, probably any combustion of anything that has carbon in it and oxygen. A completely clean full burn of a hydrocarbon (i.e. gasoline) should produce Water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). CO is produced when there isn't enough oxygen getting into the combustion process. Thus, the combustion process would be running rich. Too much fuel. It either needs to have the fuel delivery reduced, or the charge air increased.

You are close on the deaths caused by CO Poisoning. Now, this is total deaths from all sources.
Deaths Attributed to CO Poisoning:
"Carbon monoxide poisoning kills almost 300 people in the United States each year." http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/welco...poisoning.html

"Death and mortality statistics for Carbon monoxide poisoning: Deaths from Carbon monoxide poisoning: 50 deaths annually in the UK" http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/carb...ning/stats.htm

Cases of CO Poisoning:
"Incidence (annual) of Carbon monoxide poisoning: 25,000 annual cases of home exposure in the UK
Incidence Rate: approx 1 in 2,400 or 0.04% or 113,333 people in USA" http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/carb...prevalence.htm

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that most people who die from CO poisoning from automotive sources are do to bad vehicle design (leaking cabins), leaking exhaust sytems, or some other malfuntion. It used to be common for poisonings to happen when parents would put their chilcren in the truck camper shells. It's very easy for CO to become trapped in a camper shell.

I would guess that most CO poisonings currently taking place are either self-induced (suicide) or from faulty gas appliances in homes or people who decide to use outdoor gas fired appliances inside. A correctly burning gas should be blue in color with no orange.

I believe one of the biggest reasons for 2-strokes being so dirty is the way they run. I'm taking this based off of what I've read on the net and it seems to make since. Take a look at a 2-stroke exhaust system. Now look at a 4-stroke exhaust system. Something should stand out as a big difference. I don't know the technical name for this, I'm sure there is one, but I'll call it the "stomach" since it kinda looks like one. When a 2-stroke takes in it's fuel-air charge some of it will actually flow completely through the cylinder and out the exhaust port. IIRC, the exhaust port will actually close (well, be covered by the piston) after the intake port. I'm taking a guess that the exhaust gasses rushing out of the exhaust create a suction and pull that charge into the exhaust.

The shape and design of the "stomach" causes a pulse that is released from the previous stroke to actually reflect back to the port and push the escaping unburned charge back into the cylinder. Kinda like a mini supercharger. I believe tuned length intake runners actually work off this same idea, but actually harness the shockwave created by the intake valves closing. If not all of the charge is pushed back into the cylinder, then some of the unburned charge will push out into the atmosphere, creating pollution.

I've found this to be one of the most interesting articles on 2-stroke's possible future: Vespa ET2

So, 2-stroke technology in and of itself is not dirty. So I'll take a slight backtrack. But, as 2-strokes are currently designed, built and used in the ATV and small engine (chainsaw, weedwackers, etc.) industries, they are dirty. They are designed to be cheap, power dense motors. Their effect on the environment was a complete afterthought, if it was ever a thought at all.

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

I'm really saying that I'm glad there's a formula that makes sense. IMO BlackandRedWarrior is probably the most informative poster here.

 

long posts blow

 

Long posts do not blow as long as they are informed and not just a long drawn out tirade that makes no point or sense.

Often time when I post on a topic if it isn't just real quick and to the point, I will set about researching the topic. I'm sure if I actually has the scoring turned on a few people would have tanked my ranking. I prefer to make correct statements, at least to my knowledge. For example, that long post from last night was formulated over a 2+ hour period. I started writing it, then went on to research some stuff, find some stuff that I had already read and take a break so I could come back and look back at what I had already written. I'd hazard a guess that most posts to boards on the Internet are just thrown up. Not a lot a thought goes into them.

I was told by a college teacher that I have a gift for writing formal research papers. I always made it a habbit of thouroughly documenting my sources.

Amongst my riding pals I'm known for researching my posts to a group board. Someone will post an idea about where to ride or just go for a non-riding trip and then someone will usually chime in with the fact that my next response will be rather full of information on the destination. I often will include maps, or give specific information about creating a map (Mapquest is my favorite.)

I take a middle of the road stance on environmental issues. Yes, we need to protect the environment. But sometimes things are taken to the extreme. We need to strike a balance. I believe there should be areas that are set aside for non-vehicular use, but also areas that are usuable for vehicles. I'd like to see areas for riding expanded.

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

All I have to say is speak on!!! LOL. Like I said earlier, your posts are very much appreciated.