Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
snipped


E tec is Ficht DFI injection renamed probably because they
realised the public would never fall for the same old Ficht lies a 3rd
time. It's a dead end technology & was even before OMC got it from the
Germans who had been hawking it around the motor industry for years &
the "real" engine builders all politely said no thanks. Pity they didn't
just tell them that lean mixtures are dangerous to engine longevity.



Well, here's the thing of it - the '99 I have has over 600 hours on it
and the twin 225s have about 800 - both relatively hard use - seems to
work for me and I'm just some schumck with a couple of boats.


Tom,

I don't doubt for a minute yours have been OK, but that doesn't
mean anything as to whether the technology is a success or not, given it
brought a US icon Co from the very beginning of OBs to an end, chucked
7000 out of work & lost 1.3 Bil of union pension money I think even your
600 hrs won't undo the reality of an untested, design fault being put to
the public for them to pay for the testing.


snipped



You mentioned that the last time and I've been looking around - I
can't seem to find this 1 in 5 failure rate documented anywhere. Can
you provide me a reference to this that I can look at? I know that
the failure rate for the midrange (100-150) engines was high, but 1 in
5? I'm not sure of that.

The head boss of OMC made the statement when they were trying to
spruik that everything had been fixed in 99, alas it sucked a few more
punters in & the failure rates were never mentioned again, you'd think
they would have said hey we halved them!!! it's "only" 1 in 10 now :-)

They didn't because it can't work, if it had a snowball's chance
the big engine people, even just one of them, would have been serious
about it, none were & their engineers were proven totally correct as we
have:-).



snipped


I'm just a user and I'm trying to understand this apparent problem you
have with FICHT - that's it.


The "problem" is that to get a port transferred 2 stroke through
the EPA they have to:

(i) Run very lean mixtures at low to mid revs so lean that in normal
premises they wouldn't even reliably ignite.

(ii) To even get ignition of such lean mixtures they use 2 tactics
(a) Multiple firing of the plug (proof that the mixture is
extremely lean) &
(b) They very low pressure (read poor atomisation =
detonation) Direct inject the fuel "almost" (NB they were so dumb in the
early models there was no "almost"!!!) at the plug so it might ignite,
they pretend this is a "stratified" charge, but like all previous
attempts to reliably maintain a stratified charge it doesn't stratify as
intended often enough not to be reliable.

(iii) Lean mixtures so long as they can actually be ignited, are a
known source of chamber temp buildup, (the flame front is slow because
the fuel is not evenly spread throughout the charge) even the dealer
socalled mechanics know that if a carbed engine gets a partially blocked
jet that cyl will run lean, get hot, once hot enough the charge will
auto ignite (petrol auto ignites if in contact with anything over about
250C, not very hot, yes Tom??) & self sustaining detonation will set in
making more heat more detonation, more heat etc etc etc, bang.

(iv) There was some confusion at first because the typical failure
set was when the boat was at power, however this was because the low to
med. speed mixtures are so lean in Ficht (& opti) that there isn't
enough fuel to even support detonation!!!, in normal premises a Ficht
would stop save they repeatedly fire the plugs (no wonder they're
expensive & still have a short life:-))

(v) The answer is that although they can't support detonation at low
revs they can still build heat in the chamber, particularly the
piston/rings, so when the user spools up & suddenly delivers a full
normal "rich" mixture there are parts of the chamber well above 250C & a
cyl or two lapse into uncontrollable detonation; the powerhead is
wrecked in seconds.

(vi) If you doubt that lean mixture heat buildup is the problem you
should consider they're own desperate telling actions
(a) Same engines, same production, same parts, same power
outputs carbed vs DFI: the carbed engines are still plodding on, dirty
EPA wise but reliable, the very same engines fitted with DFI kaboom.
(b) You need a "special" dealer only ripoff price high temp
oil for the DFI engines, why??? is there really a temp problem??? how??
where from?? after all it's the same as the carbed or EFI engine??
(c) Given the importance of precise spark timing & the
effort all the manufacturers go to get it just right, how is it that it
suddenly doesn't matter a hoot in the DFI??? I mean they just leave the
plug firing away till some lean bit of mixture finally catches, but even
then they leave it firing!!!! This is very telling as to the lean
stratified fairytale Tom. Again keep asking why the carbed same engine
same factory same parts, same HP/ltr etc etc geee it only needs one
flash, that's one flash of the plug, to ignite the charge.
(d) The best so far??? is that the new E-tecs are trying to
say they are "better" because they use higher melting point alloy in the
pistons!!! What an unbelievable admission, what confirmation that
whoever signs the cheques (do they even still use cheques??) is being
fed BS by probably the original pack of OMC BS'rs. Long long before
standard garden variety aluminium is even looking hot (melts over
600C!!!) the engine is in terminal detonation, because as soon as the
piston (or anything else in there) gets above 250C the game is over. Yes
the wrecked powerheads have melted pistons etc but that's the outcome of
uncontrollable detonation not the cause. Damn just how bloody stupid are
these people?? & can the cheque signer even breath unassisted???




So

far, I haven't heard much about the E-TECs other than my first hand
experience with them which was around 35 hours with a 40 and about 30
hours with a 70.


That's alot of hours Tom:-), those of us who really do boat will
confirm, hmmm bit of a worry don't go all Harry on us:-) Sounds like
you're trying the sell!! sell!! sell!!!


This "I know of one that didn't fail" testimonial; crap is just
that crap, it's the quiet owner who has his boating ruined by a design
fault & worse a known design fault that is the real issue, & yes they're
in a minority but if so what. Can you image if one in 5 GMs failed???
there would be a huge govt mandated recall as I say there should be this
time with E tec, because this time you can't argue it's the EPA's or
anyone elses' fault.



Show me - give me a reference about this one-in-five fail rate. Even
with the mid-range engine problems they had, I don't believe it was 1
in 5.

It was straight from the head of OMC & confirmed by the NG OMC
dealers of the time, not that they tell or could even recognise the truth:-)


snipped


600+ on the '99 200 and just under 800 on the '01 225 twins and still
going strong.

Not really relevant Tom sorry, 2 stroke OBs are gone & good
riddance. Buy more at your own risk it's your money & now you are aware
of the risk I have no trouble.


I have the 200C Ranger up for sale and have a current offer, with a
deposit and everything, just under what I originally paid for it and
minus the electronics package I put on it. I'm just waiting for my
new 2300 Bay Ranger to be delivered in September. And that boat is
going to have a FICHT on it - 225 in fact.


Yes yes you're the usual seller, claiming this & that, in general
any boat with a Ficht or it's derivatives is & will always be devalued,
for good reason.


As to the Contender, I wouldn't sell it on a bet because I love the
boat. However, I have it looked over by a public adjuster with marine
experience every year for total replacement cost and you know what?
If the boat sank tomorrow, it's "true" value is 12% below what I paid
for it - not bad for a two year old boat that is used on a regular
basis. And that's without the electronics and equipment package which
is insured on a seperate policy.


Dear dear dear just keep paying those premiums based on that value
then Tom, wow you really are a dealers dream!!!


So much for the diiminished resale argument.


Yep so much it's sad.


However, to give you some outs, this is only my experience with the
FICHT. I have talked to other FICHT owners and they seem content with
their engines. Small sample to be sure, but these are folks in my
circle who are fairly knowledgable with a lot of experience with
outboards.


Honestly Tom where do you find them?? around here the only boats
left with Ficht on them are usually in the hands of dealers, telling the
usual lies to try & unload them. There were lots of people taken in in
the early times & they were pretty common, but seriously given the
claimed numbers sold, where the hell did they all go?? you rarely see a
Ficht powered boat these days, is it the same there??? Where does the
picture go when you turn off the telly??


If you have reference to actual facts - as in actual numbers, types of
failures, recalls, etc - I would appreciate seeing them.


OMC were never going to help with that, they just kept changing
endless blown powerheads & hoping the govt wouldn't make them do a full
recall, offering the dealers a 30% markup if they just kept selling
defective engines & dealers being what they are were only too happy to
do that:-) till they ran out of money; well till the union pension funds
ran out that is:-)


Always open to seeing and evaluating all the evidence.


There's plenty above to discuss, I look forward to it & thanks.

You are pushing it uphill with a piece of string though Tom, Yamaha
have all but given up on the DFI 2 strokes, Merc most certainly have, a
few smaller Japanese are left but in general terms the real
manufacturers have voted with their feet, or legs:-) whatever:-)

K


Later,

Tom

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

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.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
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

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.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:48:47 GMT, "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.

I agree with that, but I don't believe that two stroke technology is
dead. I believe, and it's only my opinon, that those who are invested
in two stroke technology will make it well worth the while. E-TEC may
just be the start.

Later,

Tom

"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

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.
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.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:48:47 GMT, "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.

I agree with that, but I don't believe that two stroke technology is
dead. I believe, and it's only my opinon, that those who are invested
in two stroke technology will make it well worth the while. E-TEC may
just be the start.

Later,

Tom

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

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

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.

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