If one can remove the carb and install a throttle body with the injector mounted in it as well as the throttle position sensor, then drill a hole in the exhaust - say 4-6" from the head, clamp on an O2 sensor into that hole, then mount the ecm and plug in wires.. I think it'd work.

Question is.. would there be any demand for it?

I am truely tempted now.

 

Think I left out a fuel pump up there ^.

Still has my attention though.

 

Note: I work for the EPA and would like to point out that we are not a bunch of "tree huggers" as we get the rap for being. We are a government funded research institute designed to assess problems with environmental issues, determine their origin and suggest remediation. Our research is neutral toward politics and any political ideas resulting from EPA research is solely from the use of such research by outside groups/individuals.

That said, in the report: "Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from Unregulated Nonroad Engines" (Report # EPA/420/R-02/022[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img], which is the report being used widely by politicians to call for a ban of two stroke engines due to unprocessed hydrocarbon emissions, a major recomendation was for the movement of small engines (including four wheelers) to fuel injection. Keep in mind that this was merely a recommendation for remediation of polution but this could be one way for the atv industry to win some environmentalist's favor. Fuel injected engines burn much cleaner and are more "environmentally sound" than carbureted engines. This might at least be one reason for manufacturers to be looking in that direction.

Deuce:

I am afraid it will take much more than EFI to make two strokes acceptable to the upcoming regulations. The burning of oil resulting from two strokes simply emits too many unprocessed hydrocarbons. Sadly, until they find a lubricant that burns as clean as a fuel, we will not soon see any two strokes able to please environmentalists.

~HoundDog

 

Thanks hounddog , This leads me to the question of why 2 strokes dont go to a oil filled crankcase that separates the lube from the combustion process. The best example is the detroit diesel 2 strokes that had incredible power for thier size but required a supercharger to force air into the engine to take the place of reed or piston port systems. Sure it would cost more but the two stroke power and decent emmisions would be possible.

 

I have been trying to put on my friendly holiday hat but, DOG. . . Common. . .

Please, Don't expect any LOVE from me! The tax man is the one that steels my money and the environmentalists are the ones trying to steel my rights (very simple terms.) I won't go any further than that because I can type pretty fast and I don't think the right (or should I say "Left") people would be the ones reading it anyways.

 

Dune,

I made no arguement for or against the environmentalists. This is exactly what I am talking about. As a research group and personally, as a scientist, I and the foundation I work for are NEUTRAL on this issue. I have no side. I realize the impact that two strokes make but I also realize the right to free choice and privacy. Please don't do as I have complained and automatically confuse neutrality for opposition.

With my "friendly holiday hat" on...

~HoundDog

 

Hounddog, sorry, but SOMEONE had to commission your studies. SOMEONE says, lets do a study to determine how much off road engines pullute. They then go through the process of requesting the MONEY that pays you guys to do your study. The EPA may attempt to be nuetral, but you guys dont come up with all the ideas for research. Someone with an AGENDA does, and that group is loud enough to get the money released to do so.

 

Did somneone say not have to rejet?...I think i would sell my beartracker just to buy an EFI for my warrior.

 

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]Go to www.thunderproducts.com and order a dial a jet. Be done with jetting!!!!!!!!!!

 

Trapland,

I am afraid you have failed to even make an arguement. Sure, a member of congress, presidential cabinet, etc... did first come up with the petition to investigate nonregulated engine pollution but this does not even mean that they were skewed toward abolishing two strokes or any such idea. The fact is, two strokes pollute more than four strokes. Four stroke nonregulated engines pollute more than regulated four strokes (cars). The report released by the EPA merely suggested that measures could be taken to lessen the impact of such engines on the environment. It said nothing of abolishing two strokes, choking four strokes, etc... That is the call from legislators. You see, this is exactly the problem we face. We (EPA) turn out a report detailing the impacts, big or small, with no real influence over policy making and then congress twists our research to make a case for a piece of legislature they want pushed through and had been working on to begin with. If our report doesn't show what they were hoping, they will find one that will or hire a couple of corrupt scientists to do their own report under the political payroll to say exactly what the politician was hoping. Please, don't confuse good unbiased research with political policymaking. They are totally seperate. We are out to protect the environment while leaving the public to their own devices as much as possible. It is the legislature who favors overregulation to back their campaign to get reelected.

~HoundDog