HLAviation wrote:
Ya know, a 2 stroke doesn't have to oil the bottom end through the fuel.
I've always wondered why the OB manufacturers didn't change the design to a
closed crankcase design with a dry sump oil system and a simple
supercharger. Cheaper, simpler, proven.

They have Aviation, the Ficht & Optic just pump tiny amounts of raw oil
into the crankcase, because there is no fuel going through it just air.

This is one of their problems, the small amount of oil just sits there
(that's why they claim not to use much oil) getting hotter & hotter
until it bakes behind the lean mixture induced overly hot rings.

The Optis use a piston pump (true it's almost the same as a truck's
brake pump) to pressurise a second inlet manifold which has the
injectors, then they shoot air & fuel into the chamber via another big
problematic injector(inlet valve), with it's plumbing drives lubrication
etc etc it's more complex than even the latest 4 strokes.

K


"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

JamesgangNC wrote:

Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with

her

position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4

stroke

engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke

products.

Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so
negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's

simplicity.

Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke
outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke
outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production,
in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real

deals.

I'll be glad to read them with great interest.

Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics.


--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

50 years is too far back. Those 2 strokes were simple. The Optimax and
Ficht of the last 10 years have not shown a lot of reliability. Witness

the

demise of original OMC. With the big Honda a basic high performance car
engine with a dry sump. there should be great reliability. The E-Tec,

etc,

with the addition of air compressors, low amount of lubrication at the

lower

end as the requirements for less oil and emissions. Makes for a engine

that

is on the edge of reliability.
Bill

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:15:06 +1000, "K. Smith"
wrote:

Enjoy your life Karen. You are just one of the Usenet denizens who
have nothing to contribute but negativity.

Later,

Tom

No Tom I'm the usenet denizen who warned people here in 97-98 that
Ficht wouldn't & couldn't work, further I actually explained why.

I was proven totally correct on all counts, sadly lots of people
pensioners, employees, boaters etc lost lots of money because people
like you, either brain dead dealers or dealer groupies decided rather
than deal with the technical issues you'd just throw mud at me, well
guess what I'm still squeaky clean & most of the Ficht dealers who told
all sorts of lies here have gone.

I'll still be here still clean as a whistle, after E-tec has gone
having cost many more lots of money & heartache.

So far you've not dealt with my points at all, what can't?? or just
scared, you should be.

K

An exhaust valve solves that problem.

"JamesgangNC" wrote in message
ink.net...
Because that doesn't address the burn problem. 2 strokes do not burn
clean
because the intake and exhaust all happens at the same time. Over a wide
rpm range you invariably have fuel that escapes with the exhaust. That's
the problem they're trying to solve because they have to meet emission
standards now.

"HLAviation" wrote in message
link.net...
Ya know, a 2 stroke doesn't have to oil the bottom end through the fuel.
I've always wondered why the OB manufacturers didn't change the design
to
a
closed crankcase design with a dry sump oil system and a simple
supercharger. Cheaper, simpler, proven.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JamesgangNC wrote:
Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree
with
her
position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4
stroke
engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke
products.
Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing
so
negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's
simplicity.

Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four
stroke
outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke
outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of
production,
in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real
deals.

I'll be glad to read them with great interest.

Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics.


--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

50 years is too far back. Those 2 strokes were simple. The Optimax
and
Ficht of the last 10 years have not shown a lot of reliability.
Witness
the
demise of original OMC. With the big Honda a basic high performance
car
engine with a dry sump. there should be great reliability. The E-Tec,
etc,
with the addition of air compressors, low amount of lubrication at the
lower
end as the requirements for less oil and emissions. Makes for a
engine
that
is on the edge of reliability.
Bill

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:29:02 GMT, "JamesgangNC"
wrote:


I don't agree that there is any future in it. There is no other major
industry that is interested in producing large consumer two strokes besides
the boating outboard business. You simply can not easily design a two
stroke that is going to cleanly burn all the fuel at the entire rpm range.


I wasn't there, but I understand that at the dealer's meeting for the
E-TEC big engine rollout (about a month or so ago), they compared
emissions of an E-TEC 225 to a Honda Civic and the E-TEC showed better
overall figures - one in particular carbon monoxide and one other was
actually better by a big margin. They did the test in front of
everybody at the meeting as I understand it, so it was a live test.

So what?? all the engines meet the EPA regs, why do you & the OMC
brigade constantly try to sell on this. It's not relevant to an owner.
What does matter is reliability & market perceptions of longevity, both
of which you don't have & can't get because your technology doesn't &
can't work, all the big engine people have tried lean burn & all except
you had dropped it as too risky, gee it's not hard it's just ordinary
rocket science with exactly the same problem; too little fuel for the
amount of oxidant available & kaboom.

Both reliability & perceived longevity determine boat resale.

K

Reducing the fuel charge is extremely dangerous to longevity. At the same
time advanced flow analysis and engine designs continue to make 4 strokes in
cars and motorcylces simpler, more powerful, cleaner, and cheaper to
produce. Most of that engineering is directly transferable into 4 stroke
outboards at a far lesser cost. The advantage of a full cycle to clean out
the combustion products and reload with a fresh charge is hard to beat if
you're looking to have a clean burn across the entire rpm range.


Well, we'll see.

Great discussion topic though. Nice job.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so
like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."

Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653

Harry,

That was an unfair "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question.
There isn't a 50 year history on 4 stroke outboards. And I know you know
that.

The best indicator is the 4 stroke motorcycles.

I'll still side with a 2 stroke for outboards............... but 4 stroke
reliability isn't really in much question.

-W



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:2mnuc5Fpcdo9U1@uni-

Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke
outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke
outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production,
in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real
deals.

I'll be glad to read them with great interest.

Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics.

Clams Canino wrote:

Harry,

That was an unfair "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question.
There isn't a 50 year history on 4 stroke outboards. And I know you know
that.

The best indicator is the 4 stroke motorcycles.

I'll still side with a 2 stroke for outboards............... but 4 stroke
reliability isn't really in much question.

-W



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:2mnuc5Fpcdo9U1@uni-

Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke
outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke
outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production,
in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real
deals.

I'll be glad to read them with great interest.

Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics.


Of all the big horsepower engines built in the last 50 years, I'll bet
95% are two cycles. They've done a great job for us, and still do. Are
four strokes the future? Probably. But not necessarily because they last
longer or perform better. The first issue...will they last longer...is
an unknown. The second...will they perform better? Not that I see. Not yet.

--
We have nothing to fear..
....but four more years of George W. Bush.

Then you are back to more complicated mechanics and you still have the
inherent poor emissions of a 2 stroke.
Bill

"HLAviation" wrote in message
link.net...
Ya know, a 2 stroke doesn't have to oil the bottom end through the fuel.
I've always wondered why the OB manufacturers didn't change the design to
a
closed crankcase design with a dry sump oil system and a simple
supercharger. Cheaper, simpler, proven.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JamesgangNC wrote:
Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with
her
position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4
stroke
engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke
products.
Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing
so
negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's
simplicity.

Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four
stroke
outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke
outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production,
in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real
deals.

I'll be glad to read them with great interest.

Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics.


--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

50 years is too far back. Those 2 strokes were simple. The Optimax and
Ficht of the last 10 years have not shown a lot of reliability. Witness
the
demise of original OMC. With the big Honda a basic high performance car
engine with a dry sump. there should be great reliability. The E-Tec,
etc,
with the addition of air compressors, low amount of lubrication at the
lower
end as the requirements for less oil and emissions. Makes for a engine
that
is on the edge of reliability.
Bill

But those high HP engines of 10-40 years ago were not the new EPA approved 2
Strokes. The new engines are mechanical monstrosities.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Clams Canino wrote:

Harry,

That was an unfair "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question.
There isn't a 50 year history on 4 stroke outboards. And I know you
know
that.

The best indicator is the 4 stroke motorcycles.

I'll still side with a 2 stroke for outboards............... but 4
stroke
reliability isn't really in much question.

-W



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:2mnuc5Fpcdo9U1@uni-

Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke
outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke
outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production,
in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real
deals.

I'll be glad to read them with great interest.

Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics.


Of all the big horsepower engines built in the last 50 years, I'll bet
95% are two cycles. They've done a great job for us, and still do. Are
four strokes the future? Probably. But not necessarily because they last
longer or perform better. The first issue...will they last longer...is
an unknown. The second...will they perform better? Not that I see. Not
yet.

--
We have nothing to fear..
...but four more years of George W. Bush.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...
But those high HP engines of 10-40 years ago were not the new EPA approved
2
Strokes. The new engines are mechanical monstrosities.


Ah, you haven't see the Evinrude E-TEC yet. When you remove the cover, there
ain't much there compared to a 4-stroke. There is little wiring since it is
magneto controlled ( it doesn't run off a battery), the ECU (computer) is
compact, and hoses a fittings are at a minimum. It does not look like
previous engines that resembled the under-hood look of today's cars.

Emissions wise, the E-TEC emits a smaller total amount of hydrocarbons,
oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide than any 4-stroke. It also meets the
stricter European emission requirements that are tougher than the California
3-star test. Evinrude says that they will be the first outboard company to
have ALL thier motors meet the 3-star 2008 requirements.

The 250 hp E-TEC is quieter than the Yamaha 250 4-stroke at full throttle
and the same at mid-speeds according to Powerboat Reports.

Bill Grannis
service manager

Billgran wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...
But those high HP engines of 10-40 years ago were not the new EPA approved
2
Strokes. The new engines are mechanical monstrosities.


Ah, you haven't see the Evinrude E-TEC yet. When you remove the cover, there
ain't much there compared to a 4-stroke. There is little wiring since it is
magneto controlled ( it doesn't run off a battery), the ECU (computer) is
compact, and hoses a fittings are at a minimum. It does not look like
previous engines that resembled the under-hood look of today's cars.

Emissions wise, the E-TEC emits a smaller total amount of hydrocarbons,
oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide than any 4-stroke. It also meets the
stricter European emission requirements that are tougher than the California
3-star test. Evinrude says that they will be the first outboard company to
have ALL thier motors meet the 3-star 2008 requirements.

The 250 hp E-TEC is quieter than the Yamaha 250 4-stroke at full throttle
and the same at mid-speeds according to Powerboat Reports.

Bill Grannis
service manager



I haven't seen a Yamaha 250 four stroke yet, but at full throttle, my
Yamaha 225 four stroke seems as loud as any other outboard of the same
horsepower. It seems a bit quieter ad mid-range, and there is no
question it is much quieter than most two strokes at idle.

--
We have nothing to fear..
....but four more years of George W. Bush.