GZ250 (GN250) & TU250 (Qingqi)

I am too lazy to check but the exhaust outputs for the GN250 are in the EPA data and would likely be the same as the Suzuki GZ250 Model. I pointed out earlier that the TU250 Suzuki with a different engine can not be registered in California and the GZ250 can be.

That is an assumption on my part that the GZ250 made in Spain has the same configuration and related exhaust readings as the GN250 model made in China. It also assumes that the TU250 made in Japan would be in the same configuration as the Qingqi 250 made in china. The TU250 has EFI and you would think it would have better emissions…but it is not CARB approved. CARB is the California standard and stricter then the National EPA standard.

The GZ250 (GN250) is CARB approved
The TU250 (Qingqi) is not CARB approved

On the Haojue website http://www.haojue.com/en/profile.jsp, they have the C3 emission standards listed. I am simply to lazy to check the levels and compare them to the levels in the EPA data for the models.

I would also assume that if either is or is not conforming it would be in that, the reading taken on the two models and then do they meet the C3 standards?

Here is the thing though the GZ250 seems to run cleaner with a carburetor then the TU250 with and EFI.
That assumption is on the TU250 not meeting CARB and the GZ250 does.

Is the C3 a stricter standard stricter then CARB? that’s is another bit of research I am too lazy to do. It is all about the output of certain gases and the riding cycle of the engines. The detail or differences can be in that as well that being the testing methods. However the test results can be compared as in apples to apples.

I would say if the GZ250 runs cleaner then that is all about its head and the twin dome combustion chamber with four valves. The TU250 only has two valves and even with EFI it is not cleaner. That may be the reason your not seeing it in china, even with EFI it may not meet the new standard.

The results are all in the EPA data and in multiple fields and I am too lazy to figure out what those all mean and how to compare them to the simple levels listed on the haojue site. The levels are based on CO, HC and NOX, however the cycles add variables…three I think. So you have three test for the three gases and they are likely based on different RPM and related speeds. It would take time to sort all that out and I am too lazy.

MJH,
You sure are lazy.:lol8:
Why the TU250 is not CARB approved is unknown to me. Maybe Suzuki doesn't think it is worth the cost. There are still new 2009 TU250s available from dealers so it is not a big seller. The 2011's are not flying out of the dealerships either. My mega Honda/Suzuki/Yamaha/etc dealer in FL has only sold one in three years. My closest dealer to me here in NC has only sold one also even after heavily discounting the bike.

Most bikers in the USA think a 883 is a girlie bike.

It’s not uncommon to see new motorcycles sit for years….nothing is flying out of dealers since 2008.

The Suzuki VL800, VL800C, VL800T are also not CARB approved.

The Yamaha XVS650, XVS650A, XVS650AT are not CARB approved.
Neither is the XV250

Maybe nobody in California likes the V engines?

Out of 62 certificates that are for engine classes that are not approved for California that is it for the Japanese. The remainder are all Chinese models that include all of the Chinese Yamaha V clones.

I really doubt that the major manufacturers cheap out on CARB approval, but anything is possible. They may cheap out on R&D to get to that level. Assuming the EFI can attain a level may be a panacea if the engine is not an efficient design to begin with. The multi-valves permit better oxidization of the fuel and burn completer.

Another line in the EPA database has the QM250 as approved in all 50 states and under Daifer as the state side entity managing that and Jinan Qingqi as the OEM manufacturer, but that model has a carburetor. Which all looks like a tangled web…that little rinky dink got a certificate that included CARB and they never even imported any of the bikes.

Maybe it is true that Suzuki saved some capital and avoided the CARB fees and then maybe not and maybe the people at Daifer falsified the filing? So then it’s the big guy that is cheap or the little guy is a lier? Cant be both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MJH

I really doubt that the major manufacturers cheap out on CARB approval, but anything is possible. They may cheap out on R&D to get to that level. Assuming the EFI can attain a level may be a panacea if the engine is not an efficient design to begin with. The multi-valves permit better oxidization of the fuel and burn completer.

---

Given the draconian China3 restrictions put into place last year, I doubt that the Chinese manufacturers are just going to sit on their hands. But they seem to work at their own pace. Jialing uses a very nice Bosch fuel injection system, but the word is that they are NOT using the latest algorithms from Bosch. That's because, while these would improve performance and probably reduce emissions, they are subject to increased licensing fees. If they've squeaked by China3 with a less-than-latest algorithm, they won't pony up for the newer version until they have to. Since they are not selling in California, or anywhere else in the US, they are probably OK with things as they are.

Jialing will feel more pressure when their big markets in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere ratchet up their emissions requirements.

I'm speaking mainly about bikes of 250cc and above. The smaller displacement bikes that they sell by the hundreds of thousands in China seem to be subject to less strict requirements, so they can still do well in the home market.

Would love to pin the Jialing and other executives down about this. Perhaps folks attending the big show in Beijing next week can ask some hard questions. Who's going anyway?

cheers

GB14622-2007《摩托车污染物排放限值及测量方法》
GB18176-2007《轻便摩托车污染物排放限值及测量方法》
GB20998-2007《摩托车和轻便摩托车燃油蒸发污染物排放限值及测量方法》

http://www.codeofchina.com/gb/environmental/

The first one is 25,000 words and cost $750.00 dollars.
http://www.codeofchina.com/gb/enviro...6/01-5839.html

http://websearch.mep.gov.cn/was40/se...d=GB14622-2007

The government does not have the information on its website…. they have only 2002 revisions to the regulations.


http://www.haojue.com/images/g3-1-2.jpg

haha I cannot translate inside a jpeg. Are these classifications or do they represent the standards I-III?

California emission standards:

50cc-279
HC –1.0
HC+NOX- .08
CO –12

The HC+NOX can be based on the corporate average.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/...csorectpbw.pdf

TU250X/GZ250

“DF”
CO-1.093/1
NOX- NA/NA
HC -1.257/1.08
NOX+HC-1/1
“UL”
CO-3/7.6
NOX-.01/NA
HC-.23/0.5
NOX+HC-.024/0.51

Certification levels
CO-3/7.6
NOX-NA/NA
HC-.2/.5
NOX+HC-NA/NA

NA represents no data or a blank field

UL Useful life and the DF is a least square calculation of the linear regression of the test data. You have a measurements on UL(18k), MTD(2.5K) and TTD(9K) as mileage that are in km.

DF= D/C = Projected emissions @ UL Mileage/interpolated emissions @ TTD

Here is the 250 JQ readings for 2011

DF
HC-1.465
NOX-1.021
HC+NOX-1.328
CO-1.016

UL-
HC-0.809
NOX-0.257
HC+NOX-1.068
CO-9.057

Certification Level
HC-0.8
NOX-NA
HC+NOX-NA
CO-9

The TU250X EFI version would not meet C3 standards, the existing carburetor version (JQ250) meets all USA standard but does not meet C3. The reading on the GX250 pass all USA standards but would not pass C3 standards.

The GN250 runs cleaner then the JQ250 with a carb, the TU250X EFI is cleaner then the JQ250 but not enough to pass C3.

The C3 standard is higher then the CARB standard.

I would say that Suzuki not offering the TU250X in California may have to do with it using a corporate average on HC+NOX and not wanting that model in the mix.

MJH, damn, you should be flogging your analysis to these manufacturers. Seriously, hang out a shingle as a market entry consultant for the Chinese manufacturers, and help pull their heads out of their asses and start doing real market analysis and marketing.

How's the arm, by the way?

cheers

The arm is much better thanks,

I was just looking at engine families, wondering which out of all offered in the USA would meet that CO level of 2 g/km and only about 33% do. Or you could say that 66% of all the current engine families offered in the USA would not meet the new Chinese standard.

So here we are and china has stricter emission standards then the US?

That’s motorcycles I wonder about autos….or other aspect of environmental protections. They have huge problems with pollution in china.

I do not think they should export anything below their own new standards. If they do it will only allow for illegal activity. It will also bring about pollution problems in developing nations. With being the largest economy comes responsibility.

I would say that Zongshen is in Brazil to set up the manufacturing of electrics and will then access the lithium in Bolivia and they will develop batteries to power them. I read that Bolivia has the largest deposits of Lithium in the world. The new standards will empower that and global alignment on the higher standards are inevitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MJH

The arm is much better thanks,

---

Very glad to hear it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MJH

....So here we are and china has stricter emission standards then the US?

That’s motorcycles I wonder about autos….or other aspect of environmental protections. They have huge problems with pollution in china.

I do not think they should export anything below their own new standards. If they do it will only allow for illegal activity. It will also bring about pollution problems in developing nations. With being the largest economy comes responsibility.

---

Actually, the US is a real laggard in emissions controls, globally speaking. For decades, Detroit adroitly blocked both stricter emissions controls and higher mileage standards, and now look what you've got: Lots of engines that will only cut the mustard in the US, but nowhere else -- not even in China. How smart was that?

America is going through a huge reality check right now, but is pretty much oblivious to it. I like Joe Nocera, but his column in the NYTimes about the Chevy Volt totally missed the point. He and most people simply cannot even conceptualize of a future where it is not reasonable to pilot yourself around in a two-ton box made of plastic and metal, and where "commutes" of 30, 50 or 100 miles, not to mention 10 miles or less, are no longer viable. Exurbs will either have to develop comprehensive local services, including food and energy, or expire. Transportation itself will become a luxury, as it was 200 years ago. I digress.........

Meanwhile, thank g_d for motorcycles (and bicycles, and legs to walk on...)

cheers

Some engines are just inherently cleaner burning then others, it could be why the very popular 350cc Honda twin never got past 1976? Those cleaner burning engines would be even cleaner with EFI, but the technology requires people that typically command high salaries and also technicians rather then mechanics. So it drive eduction and training, not only in engineering and technical training but in process management.

It is not good to allow manufactures to produce and sell both, they need to only produce the cleaner engines. Companies that do not have something to work with will keep flooding the export markets, they will rob the better models from the markets. They can only thrive through volume and if the higher standard can be avoided with exports only that are non-conforming domestically they will avoid the domestic market. They will also sell illegal models out the back doors with falsified paper work.

They need to submit only valid C3 models for production and those need to also meet all the other standards by default. Even if a market has no regulations they should volunteer to only supply cleaner burning models.

That again drives the technology and supply chain, the cleaner engines are not that expensive only the development of them is. It is then recovered with unit sales at smaller margins over higher volumes over longer time frames. It is or would be the government banks that must back that with low or no interest loans.

A good approach is to empower the engine manufacturers and encourage them to supply only engines and not complete models. Then others can develop designs off the engines. Those will thrive as engine sources and that is were the backing or funding should go even if they are funding the license from an outside source that has the technology. The smallest engine could be displaced with electrics, but they have to pioneer and source affordable lithium batteries the lead acid is an environmental hazard. Even if they relinquish that to Honda they should but only if manufactured in china.

I do not think the higher standard should be only on under or over in engine size it should be on all classes and force the change. But they need to fund it and allow bringing in new investors as well.

The main goal would be not to displace too many workers over the changes. But be aware as time goes on they may begin to confiscate and destroy what is illegal. Those that are selling or buying what they know is not compliant could loose it. They opened Pandora’s box with this regulation the back lash will be illegal activity and then actions in response to that.

http://plugbike.com/wp-content/uploa...ic-scooter.jpg
http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/y...scooters-2.jpg

Too expensive....but getting more interesting.
ZERO

Derbi has an electric model and you can be sure that Zongshen has its eye on it.

Fisker
Tesla

These are two new car companies…both are operating out of retooled GM plants. One in Freemont and the other in Delaware.

Also GE is encouraging it.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/200...IUM_index.html

I would like to develop a consortium that capitalizes on the lithium and that would include distributed manufacturing across global markets.

Bolivia would be the center for battery research and development. But even better it could be a Global project for an emission free country.

Bolivia plans to tap its vast hydroelectric potential are not clear. In the late 1980s, Bolivia's hydroelectricity capacity of approximately 300 megawatts represented only 2 percent of the 18,000-megawatt potential, estimated by engineering studies performed in the 1970s and 1980s. Although small- and medium-sized hydroelectric projects were under way through regional or local governments, any large-scale projects were dependent on negotiations in progress with Brazil over the price for natural gas exports.

I wonder if the could strike deal with the Chinese to develop the hydroelectric for access to the Lithium, under a contingency that the production of the actual batteries be done in Bolivia.

I would like to see the lithium be developed as an economic feeder to cascade into other aspects of development within Bolivia. To develop high technology grids and public social infrastructure, such as health care and education as well as sustainable energy efficient housing.

If you want a sneak peek at how a Telsa works and what goes into the assembly, check this out:

The factory in Freemont was funded through the federal stimulus, think about the short sighted comment “it did not work” the automotive bailout included the funding of retooling factories that were taken off line by GM. The series of events were more brilliant then anything, but were discounted and pushed back by political wrangling.

Bolivia has an issue with capitalism, they have a history of issues with the corporate models. Progress often not seen as that progressive often seen as regressive.

Sometimes, actually often, political wrangling prevent progress it stifles it works to offset it with rhetoric and even outright lies to gain a footing. If that footing is set on deceit and then takes hold it may hold on to the misconception and falsities actually to the extent that could drive down a nation.

MJH,
You buddy Scott at CCW is asking for private/public assistance.
http://www.clevelandcyclewerks.com/blog/

"Cleveland CycleWerks is seeking help from the public and private sectors with establishing our assembly plant in Cleveland Ohio. We love our city are trying to bring more manufacturing back to Cleveland. We are looking for:
1. Investors.
2. Grant Writers for seeking private / public funding.
3. Property owners who have space available and are open to assembly operations.
4. Cooperation from City, County and Federal officials. Possibly land bank property that may be available to us.
5. Community support: If you see this post pass it on, spread the word, the next great American Motorcycle Company is ready to take on the world with assembly in Cleveland Ohio!!!"

I believe it would require a white paper, before anything else.

In that it would likely reveal the costs per unit goes up with any part being domestic and then the retail price beyond what is already high?

Unless the factory was communal?
Who wants to read the white paper?

Remember the old factory towns....

It's all a matter of costs per unit and competitiveness.

MJH,
Does your answer mean that you are not investing in CCW?

I think it's more likely the parts will be imported (keeping them less expensive) and then assembled (not manufactured) in Ohio. I think it's a smart move esp. in regards to dealing with some frustrating regulatory sticky tape.

As long as you have people willing to do work for something they love... then some work will get done. Quality is the name of the game.

CC