BRP clains the ETec uses less fuel as other motors ... this is the case
at idle speed, where it hardly matters if a motor uses 20% more or less
fuel.

Above idle the ETec seems to use as much or 0-15% more fuel as other
motors. This is based on the performance data I have seen so far.

ETec pistons have a distinct shape with a dip in which a raised "nose"
sits. This helps at idle speeds but makes it less efficient at open
throttle.


Matt

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 17:55:18 -0800, wrote:

BRP clains the ETec uses less fuel as other motors ... this is the case
at idle speed, where it hardly matters if a motor uses 20% more or less
fuel.

20% of 100 is what?

20


id say thats pretty significant.

if I burn 1.5 gph or 3 gph trolling (+100%) .... I couldnt care less
....

If I burn 15 or 30 gph at cruise (+100%) .. it matters to me


Above idle the ETec seems to use as much or 0-15% more fuel as other
motors. This is based on the performance data I have seen so far.

interesting - it certainly isnt what i see with mine - we, my partner
and i, saved over 34% fuel based against the previous years fichts.

where did you get the performance data from?

http://www.e-tecinfonet.org/id3.html

I compared similar setups to Yamaha 4 strokes .... as I said it "seems"
like they use 5-15% more ... They do not seem to use significantly less
at cruise....

Lets leave idle speed out as its insignificant and WOT as pretty much
all motors use very equal amounts of fuel at WOT.



ETec pistons have a distinct shape with a dip in which a raised "nose"
sits. This helps at idle speeds but makes it less efficient at open
throttle.

really? and you base this one what?

Thats the way BRP shaped the pistons to help distribute the fuel around
the sparkplug in lean burn. As why it is not so efficient at higher
rpms ... Any book about combustion engine design will tell

Matt

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 19:24:36 -0800, wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 17:55:18 -0800, wrote:

~~ snip ~~

really? and you base this one what?

Thats the way BRP shaped the pistons to help distribute the fuel around
the sparkplug in lean burn. As why it is not so efficient at higher
rpms ... Any book about combustion engine design will tel

bull****. i average a little around 8 to 11 gph at cruise which is 35
mph. thats a damn sight better than any four stroke or two cycle on
the market today.

I will yet have to see any data that would show the ETec uses less fuel
at cruise at the same speed as an Optimax or modern 4 stroke ... If
you have any data, let me know.

Until then, lets both stick to our opinion .. No hard feelings.

Dont get me wrong .. I think the ETecs are great motors and I am close
to getting one ... but its just that from the data I have seen, their
fuel efficieny is just not better as 4stroke or Optimax.

and who the hell cruises at wot?

Nobody ... what makes you think that?

Matt

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 2 Feb 2006 09:13:47 -0800, wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 19:24:36 -0800, wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 17:55:18 -0800, wrote:

~~ snip ~~

really? and you base this one what?

Thats the way BRP shaped the pistons to help distribute the fuel around
the sparkplug in lean burn. As why it is not so efficient at higher
rpms ... Any book about combustion engine design will tel

bull****. i average a little around 8 to 11 gph at cruise which is 35
mph. thats a damn sight better than any four stroke or two cycle on
the market today.

I will yet have to see any data that would show the ETec uses less fuel
at cruise at the same speed as an Optimax or modern 4 stroke ... If
you have any data, let me know.

Until then, lets both stick to our opinion .. No hard feelings.

Dont get me wrong .. I think the ETecs are great motors and I am close
to getting one ... but its just that from the data I have seen, their
fuel efficieny is just not better as 4stroke or Optimax.

what kind of - data - are you looking for? compared to what other

gph over mph data

boats use for fuel in my marina, similar boats - regulators, bluefins,
and one contender with twin hpdi yamahas - compared to mine with
optimaxes, i use less fuel by at least 30% - in fact, one guy is

30% is a great saving but its lilely to be caused by others factors as
just the motor ..

selling his optimaxes with less than 400 hours on them to get etecs.

let me hear what the results are .. I honestly doubt he will save fuel
by doing that..



and who the hell cruises at wot?

Nobody ... what makes you think that?

sorry - i wasnt feeling very good when i wrote that - my bad.

Am glad .. i was worried for a second

Matt

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 2 Feb 2006 12:19:01 -0800, wrote:

selling his optimaxes with less than 400 hours on them to get etecs.

let me hear what the results are .. I honestly doubt he will save fuel
by doing that..

we will see - i'm betting he saves at least 20%. ill know by the end
of feb which is when he takes delivery.

Definately let me know .. it would be interesting to see ...


i can tell you that i get the exact same gph rate with the contender
fisharound (31 foot long) that is 7,000 pounds heavier than its
predecessor. a contender 31 cc. the cc had 225 fichts, the fisharound
has 225 etecs..

Interesting indeed ... may also mean the FICHTs were gas guzzlers

Matt

lets give this a break until some measured fuel use data comes in

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
K. Smith wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 31 Jan 2006 05:24:34 -0800, "Oscar"
wrote:


Anybody hava an opinion on these two engines. I may be making a
boat
purchase soon and have an option on these two models.

Any help is appreciated.

dont get the verado - heavy and its a fuel pig. not to mention
that
the supercharging is a joke - optimax engines beat the snot out of
verados in side-by-side tests for speed, hole shots, etc.

optimax is reasonably better in fuel efficiency, weight and power.

buy a boat with etecs - lighter, faster, more efficient.
The verado might cost a little more but it will be reliable & still
be "available" off into the future, meaning your boat will still be
worth something.

The Optimax engines were more reliable than the ficht now marketed
as E-tec, mainly because the Optimaxes are not true direct
injection.

Don't be hoodwinked into anything remotely associated with Ficht
there are literally thousands upon thousands of people who will
confirm the technology is a failure. Even if a particular engine
hasn't failed (yet:-)) 100% of boats suffer to reduction in resale
becasue of the risky engine.

K
Karen,
Via Goggle, I looked for any articles or E-Tec problems. I could not
find any. While there might be problems with E-Tec down the road, no
E-Tec engine will suffer a reduction in resale.

Do you have any proof via boat resale prices, that E-Tec will devalue
in resale or are you basing that on the Ficht's being discontinued?



Ms. Smith is a well-known troll. Why are you feeding her?

(You know, the same questions you ask when I slamdunk Snipper for his
anti-Semitism.)

:}
Harry,
Karen does a great job of creating some very lively on topic debates,
which should always be encouraged, even if we disagree.
Karen believes what she says. My question is a polite way of seeing if
her beliefs are based on anything factual or just a gut feel. If her
belief is based upon a gut feel, those newbies who do not know of
Karen's long term hard on for Ficht, can decide if her opinion is more
valuable than those who own E-Tec.

Let me just remind you all that stories about Ficht being unreliable and
so forth were pretty hard to come by while they were being manufactured.
Any stories were dismissed as "isolated" although in retrospect there
were some items on a couple of sites catering to dealers etc that by
reading between the lines could be construed as hints.

The whole incident reminds me of certain cars that got good reviews when
introduced only to get the "what a piece of crap, it was never any good"
after they were gone. Vega comes to mind. Popular Science with article
on the wonderful new aluminum block with anodized bore, and what an
advance it was. Or go back to the Caddy 4/6/8 and read the original
articles.

Same with Ficht.

How many etecs have been sold?

How many folks that post to this group have one?


del

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 1 Feb 2006 19:24:36 -0800, wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006 17:55:18 -0800, wrote:

~~ snip ~~

really? and you base this one what?

Thats the way BRP shaped the pistons to help distribute the fuel around
the sparkplug in lean burn. As why it is not so efficient at higher
rpms ... Any book about combustion engine design will tel

bull****. i average a little around 8 to 11 gph at cruise which is 35
mph. thats a damn sight better than any four stroke or two cycle on
the market today.

and who the hell cruises at wot?
Here be a quote from the BWB 90 HP shootout

"In terms of optimum cruising economy, the Evinrude finished in the
middle of the pack. Unfortunately, our test engine had two faults. The
first occurred at 1500 rpm, where the Evinrude was very rough running.
Then, at 2000 rpm, it would not hold a constant rpm but would surge to
2500 or higher. The E-Tec injection system provides a very lean fuel
charge at low rpm for exceptional slow speed economy, and we suspect that
2000 rpm is where the changeover occurs to a normal fuel/air mix. If so,
this likely explains the surging. At 2000 rpm and 7.9 mph, this rig is
about to climb onto plane and the surging will probably be
inconsequential for most owners.

BWB Field Editor Bill Grannis, our Johnson/Evinrude expert, tells us that
this problem, which generally occurs on light or overpropped boats, has
been addressed in a warranty bulletin by BRP titled
"Recalibration/Software Update." The software update that corrects this
problem is available for 2004 models at dealers for no charge. The
warranty bulletin states "improvements are already incorporated in 2005
models."

del

Del Cecchi wrote:
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
K. Smith wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 31 Jan 2006 05:24:34 -0800, "Oscar"
wrote:


Anybody hava an opinion on these two engines. I may be making a
boat
purchase soon and have an option on these two models.

Any help is appreciated.
dont get the verado - heavy and its a fuel pig. not to mention
that
the supercharging is a joke - optimax engines beat the snot out of
verados in side-by-side tests for speed, hole shots, etc.

optimax is reasonably better in fuel efficiency, weight and power.

buy a boat with etecs - lighter, faster, more efficient.
The verado might cost a little more but it will be reliable & still
be "available" off into the future, meaning your boat will still be
worth something.

The Optimax engines were more reliable than the ficht now marketed
as E-tec, mainly because the Optimaxes are not true direct
injection.

Don't be hoodwinked into anything remotely associated with Ficht
there are literally thousands upon thousands of people who will
confirm the technology is a failure. Even if a particular engine
hasn't failed (yet:-)) 100% of boats suffer to reduction in resale
becasue of the risky engine.

K
Karen,
Via Goggle, I looked for any articles or E-Tec problems. I could not
find any. While there might be problems with E-Tec down the road, no
E-Tec engine will suffer a reduction in resale.

Do you have any proof via boat resale prices, that E-Tec will devalue
in resale or are you basing that on the Ficht's being discontinued?


Ms. Smith is a well-known troll. Why are you feeding her?

(You know, the same questions you ask when I slamdunk Snipper for his
anti-Semitism.)

:}
Harry,
Karen does a great job of creating some very lively on topic debates,
which should always be encouraged, even if we disagree.
Karen believes what she says. My question is a polite way of seeing if
her beliefs are based on anything factual or just a gut feel. If her
belief is based upon a gut feel, those newbies who do not know of
Karen's long term hard on for Ficht, can decide if her opinion is more
valuable than those who own E-Tec.

Let me just remind you all that stories about Ficht being unreliable and
so forth were pretty hard to come by while they were being manufactured.
Any stories were dismissed as "isolated" although in retrospect there
were some items on a couple of sites catering to dealers etc that by
reading between the lines could be construed as hints.

The whole incident reminds me of certain cars that got good reviews when
introduced only to get the "what a piece of crap, it was never any good"
after they were gone. Vega comes to mind. Popular Science with article
on the wonderful new aluminum block with anodized bore, and what an
advance it was. Or go back to the Caddy 4/6/8 and read the original
articles.

Same with Ficht.

How many etecs have been sold?

How many folks that post to this group have one?


del


Del,
If I can read between the lines, you agree with Karen that Ficht did
have problems that went beyond the norm. You also have a concern that
ETec is to too new to determine if they have actually corrected the problem.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

If I can read between the lines, you agree with Karen that Ficht did
have problems that went beyond the norm. You also have a concern that
ETec is to too new to determine if they have actually corrected the problem.




I dont think anybody would dispute that FICHT had problems that went
beyond the norm ...

I would also agree to the theory that a 2 stroke DFI is more
complicated as the average 4 stroke motor as the DFI motor has to go
out of its way to meet emission standards and is emplyoing technolgies
that have not been tested and perfected ovet the last 80 years (like
the 4 strokes). Therefore will have a higher kaboom risk.

I by the way have not heard of kaboomed 4 strokes as much as kaboomed
2DFI's.


Matt