Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Billgran wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote in message
...

... eventually we got Bill to disassemble a Ficht injector & clock
it up & he was honest enough to come back & admit he'd been had).

Karen,

"You GOT me to dissassemble a FICHT injector ??????" You must be
off your rocker with that comment.


About the comment on the FICHT patents. Even the engineer Marcus
Bell would email me laughing that Karen from Australia could not even
fathom that fuel circulated thru the injector, even after many
"lessons" to you trying to make you see the light.

You are a looney.

Bill Grannis
service manager



Bill,
As someone who does have detailed knowledge of Ficht with a larger
than average data base, have you found Ficht or Etec to have more than
the average problems? Is there any truth to the problem that some of
Ficht engines had problems related to trolling for extended periods?




Trying to drum up some support for Ms. Smith?

Here are some interesting link with commentary from some people
experience in Ficht.

http://www.outboardrepairs.com/ficht/

http://www.outboardmotor.biz/FICHT/

As I said, I have no reason to support or bash Ficht or Ms. Smith.

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

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

Reggie,

Interesting links.

On the com link the latest issue was in 2002. I read all of them. On the
biz link I only randomly checked a hand full. Of those the latest was 2003
but there may well be more recent issues posted.

There were some serious early isues posted but most of the later ones were
related to common easy to solve problems encountered by all brands.

BTW, if you give any value to posts from the K of Oz you need to relook your
sucker index :=). Do a google on her FICHT/ETEC postings and read them all.
Then repeat the process for Bill Grannis. Perhaps if she did not flat out
lie about what Bill Grannis says about the engines she would be a little bit
credible, IMO.

FWIW, this FICHT owner user for the past seven years is perfectly happy. If
I buy another boat it will be Etec powered based upon my considerable FICHT
experience and satisfaction.

YMMV.

Butch
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Billgran wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote in message
...

... eventually we got Bill to disassemble a Ficht injector & clock it
up & he was honest enough to come back & admit he'd been had).

Karen,

"You GOT me to dissassemble a FICHT injector ??????" You must be off
your rocker with that comment.


About the comment on the FICHT patents. Even the engineer Marcus Bell
would email me laughing that Karen from Australia could not even fathom
that fuel circulated thru the injector, even after many "lessons" to
you trying to make you see the light.

You are a looney.

Bill Grannis
service manager



Bill,
As someone who does have detailed knowledge of Ficht with a larger than
average data base, have you found Ficht or Etec to have more than the
average problems? Is there any truth to the problem that some of Ficht
engines had problems related to trolling for extended periods?




Trying to drum up some support for Ms. Smith?

Here are some interesting link with commentary from some people experience
in Ficht.

http://www.outboardrepairs.com/ficht/

http://www.outboardmotor.biz/FICHT/

As I said, I have no reason to support or bash Ficht or Ms. Smith.

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

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

Butch Davis wrote:
Reggie,

Interesting links.

On the com link the latest issue was in 2002. I read all of them. On the
biz link I only randomly checked a hand full. Of those the latest was 2003
but there may well be more recent issues posted.

There were some serious early isues posted but most of the later ones were
related to common easy to solve problems encountered by all brands.

BTW, if you give any value to posts from the K of Oz you need to relook your
sucker index :=). Do a google on her FICHT/ETEC postings and read them all.
Then repeat the process for Bill Grannis. Perhaps if she did not flat out
lie about what Bill Grannis says about the engines she would be a little bit
credible, IMO.

FWIW, this FICHT owner user for the past seven years is perfectly happy. If
I buy another boat it will be Etec powered based upon my considerable FICHT
experience and satisfaction.

YMMV.

Butch
"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Billgran wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote in message
...

... eventually we got Bill to disassemble a Ficht injector & clock it
up & he was honest enough to come back & admit he'd been had).
Karen,

"You GOT me to dissassemble a FICHT injector ??????" You must be off
your rocker with that comment.


About the comment on the FICHT patents. Even the engineer Marcus Bell
would email me laughing that Karen from Australia could not even fathom
that fuel circulated thru the injector, even after many "lessons" to
you trying to make you see the light.

You are a looney.

Bill Grannis
service manager



Bill,
As someone who does have detailed knowledge of Ficht with a larger than
average data base, have you found Ficht or Etec to have more than the
average problems? Is there any truth to the problem that some of Ficht
engines had problems related to trolling for extended periods?



Trying to drum up some support for Ms. Smith?
Here are some interesting link with commentary from some people experience
in Ficht.

http://www.outboardrepairs.com/ficht/

http://www.outboardmotor.biz/FICHT/

As I said, I have no reason to support or bash Ficht or Ms. Smith.

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

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


Butch,
I do question most of Karen's posts, but instead of making it personal,
it makes much more sense to stick to the facts. You have always been a
knowledgeable contributor and so has Bill Grannis. It makes more sense
to place a higher value on actually data, than theoretical
extrapolations. Since Karen has taken a break from rec.boats, it makes
sense to make sure any new readers in rec.boats hear from others besides
Karen.

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

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

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:19:08 -0500, Reggie Smithers
wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

K. Smith wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

-rick- wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:


What "failure rate" statistics can you cite to back up your claim that
the engines "suffered way too high failure rates for
consumer usage"? Legitimate statistics, please, backed up by some sort
of legitimate science, not your usual crap you extrapolate from
reading
about three incidents that took place on a hot day in August on an
unnamed lake and involving three guys working their way through a keg
and bloodworms spread on crackers.

Are legitimate failure rate statistics publicly available for any
consumer item? The companies I've worked for held that data pretty
tightly.


Sure, at least partially. We've all encountered "recalls" with
various products, or at least read or heard about them.

But that's not my point. Ms. Smith is claiming a "way too high
failure rate," based upon nothing more than, basically, nothing. How
can you claim a rate is "too high" without any reliable quantifying?

The evidence I gave was we all were told this by a dealer friend of
yours in this NG!!! What better evidence could you possibly ask for???
again are you suggesting this particular dealer was nothing but lying
scum like you???


What I'm stating is that your propaganda is not based upon any
certified, verifiable, enumerated, qualified, or quantified data.



If that's what you're trying to say then just come out with it, don't
be shy.

Also it's clear that Brunswick are not putting any more money into it
& spending vast sums on the 4 strokes. That's the final nail as far as
I'm concerned.


When I bought my Opti in 1998, I read info from Brunswick which said the
Opti technology was a bridge to help the company meet emission standards
in the short term.



If one of your dealer buddies isn't enough for you then I can't help
you further

I'm not making the claim, you are. You need the help, not me.

Harry,
I can remember a very detailed discussion Karen had with some
engineering types who used to frequent this motley group. I thought
they agreed that there was and should be concern about the lubrication
of Fichts at trolling speed.


600+ something hours most at low speed on the ranger and no problems
related to oiling or cylinder wear. i did have a stator problem which
cascaded through the engine, but thats almost unheard of even of other
engines including fichts.

oh, and its an omc ficht.

the problem is that most of the folks, engineers or not, have no clue
about how the system works or doesnt work - mostly doesnt because the
assumptions they make are valuless, uninformed and strictly
speculation - in short, if you cant convince them with brilliance....

its an advanced technology which baffles some who think they know it
all, thus they have to rely on bull**** and bafflement to "make" their
points.

everybody else can buy merc optimaxs and verados and yamaha four
strokes, but they arent going to get the milage i do, the preformance
i do or the reliability i have received.

so im done with this - everybody can do what they want - ill be
laughing all the way to the fishing grounds - or the bank with my
incredibly efficient engines.

I'm sorry to provide a contradictory data point, courtesy of the folks
at Bass and Walleye Boats. In the 12/2005 issue they had the 200HP DFI
shootout where they compared the Optimax, HPDI, and Etec on identical
bass boats. In Optimum Fuel Economy, the Etec was last at 4.4 mpg,
compared to 5.5 on the HPDI and 5.8 for the Optimax. At WOT it was 3.7
for the etec, 4.2 for the merc, and 4.1 for the yamaha.

Top speeds were almost identical.

0-30 hole shot was 8.2 for the etec, 7.6 for the Optimax, and 6.7 for
the HPDI.

And list price was highest for the etec.

Note, the hulls were weighed and made to be exactly the same.

All setups were done by the bass cat factory folks

Here is a quote "After all the emissions and mileage hype from
Evinrude, we expected the E-Tec HO tr really put a hurtin' on the other
two when it came to the fuel fillup. Yet that was not the case at all."

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

Harry Krause wrote:
Del Cecchi wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:19:08 -0500, Reggie Smithers
wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

K. Smith wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

-rick- wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:


What "failure rate" statistics can you cite to back up your claim that
the engines "suffered way too high failure rates for
consumer usage"? Legitimate statistics, please, backed up by some sort
of legitimate science, not your usual crap you extrapolate from
reading
about three incidents that took place on a hot day in August on an
unnamed lake and involving three guys working their way through a keg
and bloodworms spread on crackers.
Are legitimate failure rate statistics publicly available for any
consumer item? The companies I've worked for held that data pretty
tightly.

Sure, at least partially. We've all encountered "recalls" with
various products, or at least read or heard about them.

But that's not my point. Ms. Smith is claiming a "way too high
failure rate," based upon nothing more than, basically, nothing. How
can you claim a rate is "too high" without any reliable quantifying?
The evidence I gave was we all were told this by a dealer friend of
yours in this NG!!! What better evidence could you possibly ask for???
again are you suggesting this particular dealer was nothing but lying
scum like you???

What I'm stating is that your propaganda is not based upon any
certified, verifiable, enumerated, qualified, or quantified data.



If that's what you're trying to say then just come out with it, don't
be shy.

Also it's clear that Brunswick are not putting any more money into it
& spending vast sums on the 4 strokes. That's the final nail as far as
I'm concerned.

When I bought my Opti in 1998, I read info from Brunswick which said the
Opti technology was a bridge to help the company meet emission standards
in the short term.



If one of your dealer buddies isn't enough for you then I can't help
you further
I'm not making the claim, you are. You need the help, not me.
Harry,
I can remember a very detailed discussion Karen had with some
engineering types who used to frequent this motley group. I thought
they agreed that there was and should be concern about the lubrication
of Fichts at trolling speed.

600+ something hours most at low speed on the ranger and no problems
related to oiling or cylinder wear. i did have a stator problem which
cascaded through the engine, but thats almost unheard of even of other
engines including fichts.

oh, and its an omc ficht.

the problem is that most of the folks, engineers or not, have no clue
about how the system works or doesnt work - mostly doesnt because the
assumptions they make are valuless, uninformed and strictly
speculation - in short, if you cant convince them with brilliance....

its an advanced technology which baffles some who think they know it
all, thus they have to rely on bull**** and bafflement to "make" their
points.

everybody else can buy merc optimaxs and verados and yamaha four
strokes, but they arent going to get the milage i do, the preformance
i do or the reliability i have received.

so im done with this - everybody can do what they want - ill be
laughing all the way to the fishing grounds - or the bank with my
incredibly efficient engines.

I'm sorry to provide a contradictory data point, courtesy of the folks
at Bass and Walleye Boats. In the 12/2005 issue they had the 200HP DFI
shootout where they compared the Optimax, HPDI, and Etec on identical
bass boats. In Optimum Fuel Economy, the Etec was last at 4.4 mpg,
compared to 5.5 on the HPDI and 5.8 for the Optimax. At WOT it was 3.7
for the etec, 4.2 for the merc, and 4.1 for the yamaha.

Top speeds were almost identical.

0-30 hole shot was 8.2 for the etec, 7.6 for the Optimax, and 6.7 for
the HPDI.

And list price was highest for the etec.

Note, the hulls were weighed and made to be exactly the same.

All setups were done by the bass cat factory folks

Here is a quote "After all the emissions and mileage hype from
Evinrude, we expected the E-Tec HO tr really put a hurtin' on the other
two when it came to the fuel fillup. Yet that was not the case at all."



Now you've gone and done it. You've given "Ms. Smith" something new to
distort and misquote for the next 10 years. You referred to your report
as a contradictory datapoint, which it certainly is. But there's nothing
in that data to predict the same sort of results with those engines on
an entirely different type of boat, or, in fact, when used in pairs.

Dale provided the only facts in this discussion so far .. so lets
attack him to teach him a lesson!!! [sarcasm]... If those facts work
in favour of Ms. Smith .. then so be it ... We dont have anything to
hide, right?

Matt

sorry .. must say: "Del"

D'oh. I'm neither attacking Del nor disagreeing with him. He provided
some precise information. It's just unfortunate Ms. Smith will misuse it.

I am glad

Harry Krause wrote:
Del Cecchi wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:19:08 -0500, Reggie Smithers
wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

K. Smith wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

-rick- wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:


What "failure rate" statistics can you cite to back up your
claim that
the engines "suffered way too high failure rates for
consumer usage"? Legitimate statistics, please, backed up by
some sort
of legitimate science, not your usual crap you extrapolate from
reading
about three incidents that took place on a hot day in August on an
unnamed lake and involving three guys working their way through
a keg
and bloodworms spread on crackers.
Are legitimate failure rate statistics publicly available for
any consumer item? The companies I've worked for held that data
pretty tightly.

Sure, at least partially. We've all encountered "recalls" with
various products, or at least read or heard about them.

But that's not my point. Ms. Smith is claiming a "way too high
failure rate," based upon nothing more than, basically, nothing.
How can you claim a rate is "too high" without any reliable
quantifying?
The evidence I gave was we all were told this by a dealer friend
of yours in this NG!!! What better evidence could you possibly ask
for??? again are you suggesting this particular dealer was nothing
but lying scum like you???

What I'm stating is that your propaganda is not based upon any
certified, verifiable, enumerated, qualified, or quantified data.



If that's what you're trying to say then just come out with it,
don't be shy.

Also it's clear that Brunswick are not putting any more money into
it & spending vast sums on the 4 strokes. That's the final nail as
far as I'm concerned.

When I bought my Opti in 1998, I read info from Brunswick which
said the Opti technology was a bridge to help the company meet
emission standards in the short term.



If one of your dealer buddies isn't enough for you then I can't
help you further
I'm not making the claim, you are. You need the help, not me.
Harry,
I can remember a very detailed discussion Karen had with some
engineering types who used to frequent this motley group. I thought
they agreed that there was and should be concern about the
lubrication of Fichts at trolling speed.

600+ something hours most at low speed on the ranger and no problems
related to oiling or cylinder wear. i did have a stator problem which
cascaded through the engine, but thats almost unheard of even of other
engines including fichts.

oh, and its an omc ficht.

the problem is that most of the folks, engineers or not, have no clue
about how the system works or doesnt work - mostly doesnt because the
assumptions they make are valuless, uninformed and strictly
speculation - in short, if you cant convince them with brilliance....

its an advanced technology which baffles some who think they know it
all, thus they have to rely on bull**** and bafflement to "make" their
points.

everybody else can buy merc optimaxs and verados and yamaha four
strokes, but they arent going to get the milage i do, the preformance
i do or the reliability i have received.

so im done with this - everybody can do what they want - ill be
laughing all the way to the fishing grounds - or the bank with my
incredibly efficient engines.

I'm sorry to provide a contradictory data point, courtesy of the folks
at Bass and Walleye Boats. In the 12/2005 issue they had the 200HP
DFI shootout where they compared the Optimax, HPDI, and Etec on
identical bass boats. In Optimum Fuel Economy, the Etec was last at
4.4 mpg, compared to 5.5 on the HPDI and 5.8 for the Optimax. At WOT
it was 3.7 for the etec, 4.2 for the merc, and 4.1 for the yamaha.

Top speeds were almost identical.

0-30 hole shot was 8.2 for the etec, 7.6 for the Optimax, and 6.7 for
the HPDI.

And list price was highest for the etec.

Note, the hulls were weighed and made to be exactly the same.

All setups were done by the bass cat factory folks

Here is a quote "After all the emissions and mileage hype from
Evinrude, we expected the E-Tec HO tr really put a hurtin' on the
other two when it came to the fuel fillup. Yet that was not the case
at all."



Now you've gone and done it. You've given "Ms. Smith" something new to
distort and misquote for the next 10 years. You referred to your report
as a contradictory datapoint, which it certainly is. But there's nothing
in that data to predict the same sort of results with those engines on
an entirely different type of boat, or, in fact, when used in pairs.

Extrapolation only takes you so far in life.

Harry,
You are correct, but the info Del provided would make me look for more
info and data points if I was in the market for a OB or two.

All things being equal, a simple engine is better than complex engine.

That said, I can't remember anyone who visited rec.boats having a
service problem with Ficht or Etec. So while it appears they did have
some problems initially they must have coveted the initial problem under
warranty or we would have seem some upset consumers posting in rec.boats.

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

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

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:15:54 -0600, Del Cecchi
wrote:


I'm sorry to provide a contradictory data point, courtesy of the folks
at Bass and Walleye Boats. In the 12/2005 issue they had the 200HP DFI
shootout where they compared the Optimax, HPDI, and Etec on identical
bass boats. In Optimum Fuel Economy, the Etec was last at 4.4 mpg,
compared to 5.5 on the HPDI and 5.8 for the Optimax. At WOT it was 3.7
for the etec, 4.2 for the merc, and 4.1 for the yamaha.


bull....

You don't believe the Bass and Walleye boats test? Have you read it?
Why do you not believe it? Perhaps Bill Grannis would comment on their
credibility.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
...


Bill,
As someone who does have detailed knowledge of Ficht with a larger than
average data base, have you found Ficht or Etec to have more than the
average problems? Is there any truth to the problem that some of Ficht
engines had problems related to trolling for extended periods?




Reggie,

About 8 years ago, in FICHT's 2nd year of production, the 1998 models of the
150 and 175hp had problems. I did not see these with my customers as we
setup the boats and ran them for an hour before delivering them. We did the
intital breakin and double checked for the correct prop. I did see problem
motors from other dealers that sent their customers to the dealership for
which I work. The '98 and '99 150-175 series had factory teams going around
the country installing upgrade kits and redesigned cylinder heads. In some
applications, the motors were troublesome, they were the ones with the 25"
shaft. The boat magazines wrote many articles on the problems and what the
factory was doing for fixes. At the same time in 1999, the 90-115 V4 FICHTS
and the 200-225 V6 FICHTS did NOT have the problems or bad reputation of the
150-175 hp versions. In 2000 the FICHT was redesigned and called FICHT Ram,
and that system is still being produced today. The 2000 and later FICHTS are
really good motors, that got even better when Bombardier took over the 2002
and later production.

There are months of reading about these if you want to spend your time
using Google, Yahoo, boating forums, etc. The problematic 150-175 motors
cast the bad name on all FICHTS and with misinformation that goes around the
Internet and the ignorance of the motors by some folks, 8 years later FICHT
has a bad connotation, something like Bayliner still having their stigma.

Do your research and be sure to check the credentials of anyone when you
read their posts. Almost every "nay-sayer" has never owned, worked on, been
around, or even has a grasp of the engine.

About the E-TECs, they are super motors and are proving themselves on crab
boats, commercial fishing boats, law enforcement, SeaTow, etc. We have
almost no warranty problems and much fewer problems than we do with
Yamaha's.

Bill Grannis
service manager