On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:27:46 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:50:55 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:44:33 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:56:22 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:15:13 -0500, DSK wrote:

Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific
observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it.

Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another?

Fair Skies
Doug King

I think the 4 stroke outboard has really closed the gap between I/O
and outboard. For small boats (20 or less) outboard is certainly the
way to go. If you keep your boat in the water I can't think of any
good reason for an I/O. The efficiency edge is gone now.
Once you get into the McYacht category (30+ cabin and such) inboards
rule.

foure stroke outboards are passe' - outmoded technology surpassed by
newer, better, faster and more reliable two stroke technolocy.

Yeah, your French is great, but *why*?

?

*Why* are two strokes the way to go?

--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

DSK wrote:

Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations,
theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it.

Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another?

Fair Skies
Doug King


Two of these is all you need...

http://www.godevil.com/

Wouldn't you think they would place a hyphen in their URL? Read it both
ways. Neither can be good for sales.

Dan

DSK wrote:

Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations,
theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it.

Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another?

Fair Skies
Doug King


I like io's because they off a rear mounted engine and clean stern. For
they type of boating I do on freshwater lakes in runabouts and my cuddy
they good choice. Also they don't have a lot of noise unless you have
load exhaust. They also handel pretty well. So far with running merc's
since my dads frist runabout - A 70 Beachcraft trihull, Our family and
my own personal boats have had excellent service with these io's. The
auto developed engines are very reliable.

But I can see lots of good reason to use outboats depending on the boat
and wants of the boater. Easier to winterize, better power to weight
ratio. But shorter production runs on specialized power heads can equal
higher cost overall. I have 71 7.5 merc that needed coils and a stator a
few years ago and they were pretty expensive. But I decided after 30
years of good service it was worth it to me to get it rebuilt

I only had driven one true inboat boat. My brothers purchased a Toyota
ski boat that i guy was selling pretty cheap. The thing leaps on plane
and is great for it's intended usage. But I found did not answer the
helm at all when backing down and just cut to port. It could have been
in part to my lack of experiance. But I never did get it to back up
where I wanted it to go. :-)

So to me I guess the bottom line is it just depends on ones own application.

Capt Jack R..

Some things I am surprised nobody has mentioned about
outboards- they are targets for thieves.... they can be
unclamped & carried to the shop for repairs, or winter
storage; also ease of replacement is the best.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
i absolutely defy any thief to take one of the etecs off the
contender.

just isn't possible.

???

It's possible to steal anything.

Are you saying that your engine is not a target because it
is too heavy and difficult to remove? That negates one of
the benefits of it being an outboard.

.... now ill grant you that lower units are a
seperate issue and i remove the lower units from all my outboards.

That sounds very convenient.

Actually, I was thinking of smaller outboards anyway.

Fair Skies- Doug King

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:15:13 -0500, DSK wrote:

Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another?

Somewhere around 200 hp the power per $$$ ratio begins to favor
inboards or I/O. I/Os typically have more speed than comparable
inboards but maintenance costs tend to be higher, and I/Os really need
to be stored out of the water for decent longevity. I/Os and
outboards are both favored in shallow water areas because they
typically need less depth, and prop replacement is easier and cheaper.
Inboards and I/Os have traditionally offered better fuel economy but
that may be changing with better OB technology.

Are you saying that your engine is not a target because it
is too heavy and difficult to remove


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
the later. they would literally have to saw off the transom to get
them and thats just not practical.

If it's worth money, it's worth stealing.

DSK

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:28:59 -0500, DSK wrote:


Are you saying that your engine is not a target because it
is too heavy and difficult to remove


the later. they would literally have to saw off the transom to get
them and thats just not practical.

You're being modest again Tom:-) you bought them so they'd never be
stolen??? have you forgotten to mention their best deterrent to theft??
they're E-Tecs!!!

If they're stolen you're looking for a thief who can't read the name on
them or some other desperate E-Tec victim hoping to get a part that
still works:-)


K

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:15:13 -0500, DSK wrote:


Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific
observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it.

Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another?


two cycle outboards. with the new injection technology available to
almost every manufacturer, reliability and overall lighter weights,
new lubrications and overall performance, two stroke outboards have it
hands down over four stroke, inboards and diesels.


Gee Tom, so your arm is much better I see:-) or did you let the other
one go for a minute???

The only manufacturer still trying to make 2 stroke OBs is the new
French kid who got it as a bequeath from Bombardier who got it at the
OMC bankruptcy auction great pedigree yes??? (talk about couldn't give
it away). Using the failed technology of Ficht which was so
comprehensively shown to be faulty that it brought an American icon Co down.

The so called changes, apart from dumping the name Ficht of course, are
only to deal with the symptoms of the problem & don't in any manner
address the core issue, which I say is; too low an injection pressure,
the fuel is not sufficiently atomised, the mixture is deliberately & EPA
necessarily extremely lean at low to medium revs, the lubrication is
very risky & they've yet to be shown to be anything other than an
elcheapo attempt to rip people off with more Ficht.

Their so called "improvements" absolutely confirm the case against them;

(i) "Special" high melting temp alloy for the pistons why??? because the
poorly atomised lean fuel creates excessive heat in the pistons & when
they looked at dead Fichts amateur (see more French:-)) like they though
hey we know we'll make the pistons higher melting point!!! What a
joke!!! Long long before even the lowest of tech aluminium alloys even
looks like getting too hot the engine is in terminal detonation caused
by excess heat.

(ii) "Special" treated bores why??? again see (i) these idiots saw
damaged bores after almost certain detonation failures & again figured
OK we'll make the bores tougher!!! What a joke!!!.

(iii) New plumbing why???? Well maybe because the USCG made Bombardier
when they owned it, do a safety recall of Fichts because the vibration
of detonation was allowing the pressurised fuel supply to leak & fire
was a risk??, of course the same detonation was blowing injectors out of
the heads!!! Seriously given that injectors seem to stay in diesel cyl
heads?? ask yourself what the f .................is going on in there???
Again the same hmmmmmmmmmmmmm lets just make it stronger so it might
stay they more often????? What a joke!!!

(iv) Special dealer only oil is optionally "recommended" why???? Is it
because the normal oil can't stand up too the excess heat generated by
the combo of poor atomisation & lean mixture so gets baked behind the
rings etc???? Have they even further reduced the amounts of oil??? It
seems like the same thinking as i, ii & iii so gee lets see we have an
oil baking problem how can we reduce that ???? Hey lets just reduce the
oil!!!! What a joke!!!!!

Already these engines are sounding just like Ficht, lots of software
"upgrades" & reports of failures. Of course the supporters mostly the
sad owners who can see their boat value sinking (literally) demand
forensic proof, but gee even at their worst on OMC's own admission 4 out
of 5 didn't fail:-) Anyone want a buy a lottery ticket??? good odds 4
outta 5 are winners, the only tricky bit is the tickets can be up around
$15000 a throw:-) 5 outta 5 suffer boat value loss but hey don't blame
me you wanted to go gambling.

K

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:28:59 -0500, DSK wrote:

Are you saying that your engine is not a target because it
is too heavy and difficult to remove

the later. they would literally have to saw off the transom to get
them and thats just not practical.

One the later Seaworthy from BoatUS shows a boat that has been stolen and
stripped. Those E-tecs would be no problem at all.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:56:22 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:15:13 -0500, DSK wrote:

Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific
observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it.

Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another?

Fair Skies
Doug King

I think the 4 stroke outboard has really closed the gap between I/O
and outboard. For small boats (20 or less) outboard is certainly the
way to go. If you keep your boat in the water I can't think of any
good reason for an I/O. The efficiency edge is gone now.
Once you get into the McYacht category (30+ cabin and such) inboards
rule.

foure stroke outboards are passe' - outmoded technology surpassed by
newer, better, faster and more reliable two stroke technolocy.

Maybe, maybe not. Those new 2 stroke DFI are very complicated, probably
more than the 4 strokes. My question is still the lubrication issues. At
idle expecially.