GZ250 (GN250) & TU250 (Qingqi)

[MJH]

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.

[barnone]

MJH,
You sure are lazy.
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.

[MJH]

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.

[MJH]

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.

[euphonius]

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

[MJH]

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.




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

[MJH]

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