Harry Krause wrote:

This is science? No, this is b.s.

And that, my friend, should be on the signature of all your posts.

--
Skipper

I havent read the whole article but the points you raise dont make this
a very thorough report and the data should be seen with some caution
....

Esp. since only one of each motor was tested its not much you can
conclude from there..

Matt

Harry Krause wrote:

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, my father was a "professional" boat
racer in New England and New York. By professional, I don't mean he made
a living at it. He didn't. But...he had factory sponsorship. He raced
outboard hydroplanes and "utility" runabouts. For some reason, the
engines he was supplied put out a lot more horses than the stock motors
many competitors bought from their dealers. I wonder why. :}

I raced hydros out west in the 50s. Never heard of your father. You got
any proof you can post that he competed in one of them minor East Coasts
circuits?

--
Skipper

K. Smith wrote:
Paste from an "independent" magazine test.

Not surprisingly given its strong on-water performance, the Mercury
250XS pulled the most horsepower (252 hp at 5200 rpm). Next was the
Yamaha (246 hp at 5600 rpm). Evinrude brought up the rear (239 hp at
5600 rpm).

In terms of torque, the Yamaha 250 HPDI VMax edged Mercury with 268
lb.-ft. at 3800 rpm, vs. the Merc's 267 lb.-ft. at 4400 rpm.
Evinrude came in a distant third, with 250 lb.-ft. at 4000 rpm.

end paste;

Gee those pesky "independent" tests, the dealers must be making up
the
excuses as we type:-) look at the lack of E-Tec torque!!! Woohoo this
before your season even starts!!!!

Yes yes I know it's all technically legal, but be aware when the HP
numbers get big so does that 10% allowance. I assume E-Tec charge for
a
full 250HP??? Oops silly me now I remember, that's right they're MORE
expensive than the others.



Hey Karen,

Twice in the above post you mention the lack of E-TEC torque and HP. If you
would read the magazine article, it is from March of 2003 and they are
comparing the FICHT motor (Evinrude DI), not an E-TEC!!!!! That is 2
years BEFORE the V-6 E-TEC was put into production.

Talk about "spruiking" in reverse. Bad mouthing an engine and not even
knowing which one is being tested !!!!

Besides that, notice that the magazine comments on how well the FICHT runs
compared to the others, and that was the one they preferred.

Bill Grannis
service manager

K. Smith wrote:
Paste from an "independent" magazine test.

Not surprisingly given its strong on-water performance, the Mercury
250XS pulled the most horsepower (252 hp at 5200 rpm). Next was the
Yamaha (246 hp at 5600 rpm). Evinrude brought up the rear (239 hp at
5600 rpm).

In terms of torque, the Yamaha 250 HPDI VMax edged Mercury with 268
lb.-ft. at 3800 rpm, vs. the Merc's 267 lb.-ft. at 4400 rpm.
Evinrude came in a distant third, with 250 lb.-ft. at 4000 rpm.

end paste;

Gee those pesky "independent" tests, the dealers must be making up
the
excuses as we type:-) look at the lack of E-Tec torque!!! Woohoo this
before your season even starts!!!!

Yes yes I know it's all technically legal, but be aware when the HP
numbers get big so does that 10% allowance. I assume E-Tec charge for
a
full 250HP??? Oops silly me now I remember, that's right they're MORE
expensive than the others.



Hey Karen,

Twice in the above post you mention the lack of E-TEC torque and HP. If you
would read the magazine article, it is from March of 2003 and they are
comparing the FICHT motor (Evinrude DI), not an E-TEC!!!!! That is 2
years BEFORE the V-6 E-TEC was put into production.

Talk about "spruiking" in reverse. Bad mouthing an engine and not even
knowing which one is being tested !!!!

Besides that, notice that the magazine comments on how well the FICHT runs
compared to the others, and that was the one they preferred.

Bill Grannis
service manager

Billgran wrote:

Hey Karen,

Twice in the above post you mention the lack of E-TEC torque and HP...

OK, Bill, while you continue to go after and try to insult K, perhaps it
time for you to answer one question. Karen warned this NG about Ficht
problems *before* the collapse and bankruptcy of OMC. You were spruiking
OMC and Ficht throughout her warnings. Thousands were hurt in the Ficht
debacle. Is it not time for you to come clean and apologize to all those
folks you led astray?


--
Skipper

"Skipper" wrote in message
...
Billgran wrote:

Hey Karen,

Twice in the above post you mention the lack of E-TEC torque and HP...

OK, Bill, while you continue to go after and try to insult K.....



Skipper,

I have no beef with you because you do not expound on the E-TEC one way or
another, as it is not your expertise. You do continue to defend someone who
knows nothing about DI motors except what some blokes told her.

Now here she outright lies about a magazine article, thinking folks won't
realize it is about a 3 year ago story that has NOTHING to do about E-TEC.
Don't you think she should apologize for trying to "hoodwink" people who
read her posts?

There is an old saying, that goes, "Never bet on a "nag" in a thoroughbred
horserace". Don't you think that is appropriate in this situation???

Billgran wrote:

"Skipper" wrote...

OK, Bill, while you continue to go after and try to insult K, perhaps it
time for you to answer one question. Karen warned this NG about Ficht
problems *before* the collapse and bankruptcy of OMC. You were spruiking
OMC and Ficht throughout her warnings. Thousands were hurt in the Ficht
debacle. Is it not time for you to come clean and apologize to all those
folks you led astray?

Skipper,

Don't you think she should apologize for trying to "hoodwink" people who
read her posts?

There is an old saying, that goes, "Never bet on a "nag" in a thoroughbred
horserace". Don't you think that is appropriate in this situation???

Actually, in light of the Ficht debacle and your actions in encouraging
folks to buy these troubled engines, indeed, I believe an apology is in
order. Thousands were hurt, Bill.

--
Skipper

I read through that "review," and started laughing almost
immediately.
There are so many "variances" from a scientific test that the entire
exercise has no validity. The easiest one to start with is this: the
Merc was a motor prepped for the test by that company's race division.
Once you see that, there's no reason to read any further. Then there's
the slight problem of one manufacturer not having a prop that'll allow
its engine to reach the top of the max RPM range.

This is science? No, this is b.s.

I just read the whole thing ... The merc fit the rules as you can
purchase it as is. So its not a one of akind motor. Same with the
prop.

It is too bad that one manufacturer didnt come up to rpm but they dont
have a prop for that ... so not much that can be done here

Matt

Sorry; the "merc" came from "merc racing." It was tweaked.

Yes thats true .. it was hand assembled and likely tweaked by merc
racing. but the fact is that you or I can walk in the store and buy
these kind of motors.

Matt