It's just to slow them down at idle. By shutting cyls off the
remaining
ones can run cooler piston temps because they can have a more normal
spark timing or in Yamaha's DFI case run a richer mix which is easier
to
reliably ignite & doesn't generate as much lean mixture piston heat
buildup.


Wouldnt the Optimax (or other DFI) the perfect setup to keep the
cylinders cool? You could easyly run it on 3 cylinders @ idle and lean
mode.

I would cycle the shutoff. So one rev 3 fire the next rev they pause
and the other 3 fire.

You would not have to inject any gas in the cylinders that pause and
could keep the motor a lot cooler.

I am not 100% sure how the optimax injectors work. It sort of has 2 per
cylinder, one for gas and one for air but if they operate seperately,
air could still be injected to cool the cylinder further.

Do you know why this isnt done?

Matt

Karen wrote:
This is dealer BS 98 was only 7 years ago:-) By claiming they were
released late 97 when the US season is over, they try to make it sound
longer.


The first 1997 FICHT was introduced in June of 1996, about 8 years and
8 months ago. That's pretty close to 9 years, wouldn't you agree?


Karen wrote:
It was all you could read about, they were all over the place
even bill
boards ("Bill" boards get it:-)) were put up in Texas because Ficht
were
blowing up & OMC dealers were not fixing!!!!!


Hmmmm, how come you don't find piles of blow up FICHTS all over the
place? If there was a billboard it ain't no more. If all the newer
FICHTs were blowing up, where is the outrange, the articles about them,
the lawsuits, more billboards, sky writing, etc??


..

wrote:
Del,
REMEMBER BACK 9 YEARS AGO, WHEN YOU STARTED READING THIS NEWSGROUP, A
LOT OF FOLKS POSTED ABOUT THEIR FICHT PROBLEMS WITH THE '98 AND SOME
'99 150-175HP ENGINES? OMC CAME OUT WITH THE FICHT 150 IN LATE SUMMER
OF '96. IT WAS ONLY AVAILABLE IN A 20" SHAFT AND 150 HP AND THE MOTORS
MET THE 2006 EPA EMISSION LIMITS 10 YEARS BEFORE THAY HAD TO.

This must have been the era of the Bassmasters Classic episode.

IN '98 THE FICHT CAME OUT WITH A 25" SHAFT FOR OFFSHORE BOATS, AND ON
THOSE APPLICATIONS, PROBLEMS SHOWED UP AFTER A WHILE IN CERTAIN
SITUATIONS. DAVID JONES, THEN PRESIDENT OF OMC, STATED THAT 1 IN 5
FICHTS WITH A 25" SHAFT HAD PROBLEMS, AND THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF
DETERMINING AND FIXING THEM. ALL THIS WAS IN THE MARINE MAGAZINES, ON
THE INTERNET, AND WAS SPREAD BY WORD OF MOUTH. EVEN THE AUSTRALIAN
BOATING MAGAZINES HAD ARTICLES ON THE PROBLEMS AND ON WHAT OMC WAS
DOING.

Never saw anything in Bass and Walleye boats, which is the only boat mag
I read. And I wasn't really poring over all the boat web sites either.

TO OMC'S CREDIT, THEY SENT OUT SERVICE TEAMS TO RE-DO ALL THE '98 AND
'99 150-175'S IN THE FIELD WITH NEW CYLINDER HEADS AND REMAPPED
SOFTWARE, SPARK PLUGS, LINKAGE, ETC., ABOUT A 4 HOUR JOB PER MOTOR. THE
TEAMS WENT ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY TAKING CARE OF CUSTOMERS AND DEALER'S
MOTORS. THE MOTORS WORKED OK AFTER THE FIXES. NONE OF MY CUSTOMERS HAD
MAJOR PROBLEMS BUT I SAW MOTORS FROM other places that did. I also did
a lot of upgrade kit installations. I still service operational FICHTS
that are still used by families every season.

That is an interesting point. If it was a fundamental problem with the
technology then it should eventually have gotten all the motors, unless
it is triggered by usage patterns or by some confluence of tolerance
build up.

Merc's problems with Optimax resulted in a class action lawsuit, and
there may be one for the Yamaha 250-300 hp problems, but OMC did not
have any due to their effort to fix engines in the field and not just
gloss over the problem.

Yamaha problems? Are they having HPDI problems? The information is
still not reaching the general public. There was just a 300 HPDI
article in Bass and Walleye boats, and I don't recall so much as a hint
of any problems.

I just looked, and the Optimax suit was settled for an extended
warrantee and some coupons. And you only get the coupons if you have
had a bunch of repairs. Oh, and a bunch of money to the lawyers I would
guess. And the 300 HPDI is a "salt water intrusion" but the web site
wanted me to register.

Also in 1999 OMC came out with the V4 FICHT in 90 and 115 hp sizes, as
well as a big block 200-225hp, and these motors did NOT HAVE THE
PROBLEMS THAT THE MID-SIZED 150-175'S DID.

Don't have to shout at me, I am a very reasonable person. Do you have
any theories or information about why? What was it about the 150s that
seemingly caused them to have more problems than the big blocks or the
V4s?

FOR 2000, the FICHT system was improved quite a bit and called FICHT
Ram, and really did well. It was quieter and smoother than the earlier
series, and was better on fuel use. In 2001 they came out with a new
block, the 3.3L and it is still used today, and that really made the
motors perform even better while the hp increased to 250. These
versions are still being produced today.

So what did they change? As an engineer I am interested in stuff like
that.

If the FICHT was so bad why is it still in production after 9 years?
Wouldn't you think that all you would read about was blown up motors
and powerheads stacked by the roadside? Why would a company still make
motors that are "blowing up"? Whay would Bombardier buy Johnson and
Evinrude knowing the motors were junk? Think about it !

I never said that they were bad. But they, at least some models, did
have problems, at least for a time. Bombadier clearly thought that they
could rehabilitate the brands and the product line and make money.
Since they and Genmar only paid 95 million dollars together and that
included the boat companies.

After a rocky start, FICHT and now its new E-TEC cousing is doing well.
It is only in the mind of "Karen-down-under", without any credentials
or experience in the outboard industry that FICHT is no good.

Even you will admit that a fair number of folks had bad experiences with
early Ficht motors, would you not?

You asked about buying a '98 150 FICHT. Well, if you believe Karen,
then there is no such thing. There could not be any used FICHTS. Every
one blew up, there are piles of powerheads littering the landscape, and
owners have something else.
I stll maintain old FICHTS for customers who are doing fine with them.

Actually I mentioned that I could have bought one in 98 when I was boat
shopping but instead went with a carb'd merc. So, knowing what you know
now, with the benefit of 6 years of hindsight, if I had bought a 150
Ficht in 98 for my Lund fishing boat here in Minnesota, what would have
been my experience? Would I still have it? Would I have had to spend
significant money on repairs? Would it have been available and working
when I wanted to go fishing in the summer?

What was the percentage of people in similar situations who had good
outcomes? No significant repairs, no lost vacation time, that sort of
thing. I don't get to put a lot of hours on the boat, living here in
Minnesota and working for a living, probably 100 hours a year.

I know Karen has theories, but I am an agnostic on the matter. I can
read a patent but I don't know what was implemented. And I have no
access to the kind of Failure Analysis and testing that would be required.

del cecchi

del cecchi

Clams Canino wrote:
wrote in message


Anybody know the point of intentionally running on only two out of
four cylinders?
Related question, how do the non-firing cylinders receive lubrication
without pumping raw fuel/oil out the exhaust at low rpms?


They are firing, and getting a fuel/oil mix. They are just not getting a
sufficiant amount of said mix to actually *combust*, so they remain
"passive" until the revs come up and they start sucking from the main jets.

Why? I've never gotten a totally straight answer. I know that unlike all
the 4 cylinder cross-flows Mercury did, this looper will *not* run correctly
at low RPM on all four. I gather it suffers from harmonics and bad
vibration. And from everything I've read, it's an inherant problem with no
work-around. I don't know what kind of spin Mercury Marketing puts on the
2+2 angle, but the fact is, it was the only way they could make it run right
at all.

Conversely, thier three cylinder 90 (same motor just a three) runs fine at
idle on all three. I think that much like the 90 is kind of 1/2 of the V-6,
that Merc should make the mid-hp motors (100-125) half of the larger V-6's
and scrap that 4. I'll not forget to mention that they had a perfected
100-140hp powerhead untill 1989 when the 2+2 emerged.

-W



The story I heard was it had to do with the port timing and the exhaust
configuration. If both of a pair were running at low speed the exhaust
blew back. 180 crank. one fires with other at bdc. Maybe even spits
back out the carb.

I have one of the 115. Been ok.

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...
Yamaha problems? Are they having HPDI problems? The information is still
not reaching the general public. There was just a 300 HPDI article in
Bass and Walleye boats, and I don't recall so much as a hint of any
problems.


Like the '98-'99 FICHT problems, the Yamaha 300 problems only affect certain
applications, mostly offshore fishing boats. It does not affect the
freshwater bass boat motors. Part of the problem is salt water intrusion,
but the "fix" takes 12 to 15 hours to do, and it is a whole series of
changes, including wiring harness, ECU, adding a reverse switch, etc. and
can only be done by factory approved locations. They are not fixing all at
this time, just the offshore folks on certain makes of boats. You can read
all about it and some horror stories (as usual) on various web sites and
forum. It is also known in the trade journals. Use Google.




FOR 2000, the FICHT system was improved quite a bit and called FICHT
Ram, and really did well. It was quieter and smoother than the earlier
series, and was better on fuel use. In 2001 they came out with a new
block, the 3.3L and it is still used today, and that really made the
motors perform even better while the hp increased to 250. These
versions are still being produced today.

So what did they change? As an engineer I am interested in stuff like
that.


The combustion process at 15% power was changed so all cylinders did not
switch over from stratified to homogenous mode all at once. This smoothed
the engine operation in that range (while the boat is plowing, and not on
plane yet) and cut down on the sooting of the rings which caused most of the
engine problems. There was a lot written about the re-engineered FICHTS and
the new EMM's that replaced older ECU's, 40 volt systems vs. 24volts,
exhaust pressure sensors, etc. Look for back issues of various boating
magazines in the library or do a lot of searching with Google. There was a
lot of information put out back then. An Australian boating magazine had a
very good article about the technical changes, but of course Karen didn't
believe any of it.

Bill Grannis
service manager

On 2/4/05, Del Cecchi wrote:
I have one of the 115. Been ok.

Sooooo yours hasn't had the extreme shakes/vibration at low rpm that I
described?
To be fair, the one I've used isn't a typical use outboard. It's a
yacht club chase boat (used mainly for teaching sailing as well as
race committee work) and spends most of its life idling in neutral or
idling in gear, then occasionally blasting off full tilt boogie for a
mile or two, then idling in neutral again for the longest. Also gets
pressed into service for towing on occasion. Maybe that explains why a
tune up just doesn't last more than one outing before it starts
shakin' the bejeebees outta the boat and passengers again.

Thanks to all up the thread for the responses though. I had been told
it was a fuel saving measure. I never did buy that one. Makes more
sense to me now.

Rick

"K. Smith" wrote in message
(vii) OK Clams I better reconfirm one of the reasons "your" old Mercs
were so successful was the pistons were small, lots of them but they
were tiny. The surface area of the piston was small compared to the
total length of the rings, it's the rings that transfer the piston heat
over to the very cool bore.

Not only were the bores small, but getting *to* the 99ci illustrated this
point.

IN THE BEGINNING (1962) came the 89.9 ci Merc 1000 with a 2.875" bore. The
next offering was the 93 ci Merc 1100 achieved by boring out the Merc 1000
blocks. This motor with only 1/2 extra ci per hole ran hotter, enough that
it only enjoyed a 2 year production run '66-'67, the risk vs reward was not
worth it for 3ci and 10hp. (today they are rare - and still have that rep as
the hotties of the family)

Going back to the original 89ci block and the drawing board in 1968, they
left the bores alone at 2.875" and instead *stroked* it, to make a
"whopping" 99.9 ci's. And in *that* config it enjoyed a 20 year production
run. Now granted, by the time they got done wringing 150hp out of a little
99ci block, the thing is still a motor that's thermally on the edge, but so
long as the waterpump is working, the advance max's at 21 degrees (23-25
with Cam II) and it don't lean out for any reason, it'll run forever at WOT.
The moral of the story is that the "risk vs reward factor" became much
better by stroking it a lot, than boring it a little.

-W

Lets not forget these motors had "liquid fuel" cooling

Lots of gas runs through these motors...

Matt (could watch the gas needle drop with his 1250)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Del Cecchi"

snip-snip-snip

Also in 1999 OMC came out with the V4 FICHT in 90 and 115 hp sizes,
as
well as a big block 200-225hp, and these motors did NOT HAVE THE
PROBLEMS THAT THE MID-SIZED 150-175'S DID.



Don't have to shout at me, I am a very reasonable person.



Hey, Del,

I was not "shouting". My first post must have been lost in cyberspace
and
when I cut and pasted what I had saved to send you another post, using
a
memory resident program, It came out half in capital letters, and I was
not
going to retype the whole thing. Sorry if you took offense, that was
not my
intention.

By the way, I 'm glad you read Bass and Walleye, that is one of the
magazines that I write for, you will see my name as a field editor.
I've
written several articles over the years about servicing the FICHT
motors. I
was not writing back in the '98-'99 FICHT problem days, but Jim Barron,
the
technical manager for B&WB wrote about the problems, the fixes, and
many
engine tests over the years.

Don't forget that most of the problem FICHTS were the 25" shaft models
that
were used primarily offshore. Bass Boats (and walleye boats) mostly use
20"
shaft engines, and those did not have the problems. That is why many
are
still doing fine today. It's hard to keep all the facts and figures
straight, but the V-4 FICHTS and the 1999 200-225 hp FICHTS did not
have the problems that those '98&'99 150-175's did.

Bill Grannis
service manager

wrote in message
oups.com...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Del Cecchi"

snip-snip-snip

Also in 1999 OMC came out with the V4 FICHT in 90 and 115 hp sizes,
as
well as a big block 200-225hp, and these motors did NOT HAVE THE
PROBLEMS THAT THE MID-SIZED 150-175'S DID.



Don't have to shout at me, I am a very reasonable person.



Hey, Del,

I was not "shouting". My first post must have been lost in cyberspace
and
when I cut and pasted what I had saved to send you another post, using
a
memory resident program, It came out half in capital letters, and I
was
not
going to retype the whole thing. Sorry if you took offense, that was
not my
intention.

By the way, I 'm glad you read Bass and Walleye, that is one of the
magazines that I write for, you will see my name as a field editor.
I've
written several articles over the years about servicing the FICHT
motors. I
was not writing back in the '98-'99 FICHT problem days, but Jim
Barron,
the
technical manager for B&WB wrote about the problems, the fixes, and
many
engine tests over the years.

Don't forget that most of the problem FICHTS were the 25" shaft models
that
were used primarily offshore. Bass Boats (and walleye boats) mostly
use
20"
shaft engines, and those did not have the problems. That is why many
are
still doing fine today. It's hard to keep all the facts and figures
straight, but the V-4 FICHTS and the 1999 200-225 hp FICHTS did not
have the problems that those '98&'99 150-175's did.

Bill Grannis
service manager

I was wondering about the caps.
I don't recall Jim Barron or anybody from BWB saying much of anything.
But maybe it was too subtle for me. I know that these kind of trade
pubs often require reading between the lines and judging what they don't
say as much as what they do say.

It's hard to understand why the shaft would make a difference. I guess
it is usage conditions.

Your articles in BWB are always interesting.

del