On Sep 14, 8:43 am, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:53:17 -0400, HK wrote:

My guess is that if you had a shadow boat, the same boat as yours,
equipped with a four stroke Yamaha of the same horsepower as yours, and
that boat was operated the same as you ran yours at the same time, the
difference in fuel burn might fill a quart jar. Maybe.

Wanna bet?

Just to make the point, one of my professional collegues has a brand
new 20' Bay Ranger with a 150 Yamaha four stroke and he doesn't even
come close to the performance I get with my 200 HO ETEC. My boat is
seven years older than his and heavier by about 800 pounds to boot as
we have discussed in the past.

I would be glad to email him and ask him to give me his fuel burn
figures if you want. Might be an interesting comparisoin to what you
are getting.

I know they aren't as good as mine. :)

Neener, neener, neener...

According to the performance charts on the engine manufacturers' web
sites, the fuel burn figures for the etec 150 and the yamaha 150 on the
same boat are virtually identical, well within the margins of error.
Published fuel burn figures obtained under similar circumstances are
worth looking at...anecdotal information is...well, anecdotal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who you callin' anecdotal there... guy's probably got a three blade
prop and a low transom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


Just a side question regarding fuel burn.

The old Whaler I recently purchased has a 25 hp Johnson on it. I *think*
(but am not sure) it's a 1993 engine. It looks very, very similar to the
little Johnson you had on the boat you just sold (Princecraft?).

Anyway, I had forgotten how fuel hungry the old 2 strokes are. 90 percent
of the time I am just putt-putting around the harbor with an occasional and
brief WOT run just to clear the carbs. I have a six gallon fuel tank and
I've already used more fuel in this boat than I have all summer on the GB.
Any idea what the fuel burn rate is with this engine? It *has* to be quite
high, even at trolling speeds.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


Just a side question regarding fuel burn.

The old Whaler I recently purchased has a 25 hp Johnson on it. I *think*
(but am not sure) it's a 1993 engine. It looks very, very similar to the
little Johnson you had on the boat you just sold (Princecraft?).

Anyway, I had forgotten how fuel hungry the old 2 strokes are. 90 percent
of the time I am just putt-putting around the harbor with an occasional and
brief WOT run just to clear the carbs. I have a six gallon fuel tank and
I've already used more fuel in this boat than I have all summer on the GB.
Any idea what the fuel burn rate is with this engine? It *has* to be quite
high, even at trolling speeds.

Eisboch




My memory on this is really foggy, but...

Way back in the 1950s, I had a 13' Wolverine molded ply runabout with a
25 hp evinrude two stroke. Damned fast boat. Anyway, I ran it at only
two speeds...off, as in not running, or WOT. I seem to remember that a
six gallon steel fuel tank would last about an hour and a half. I had
two such tanks in the boat.

On Sep 14, 10:23 am, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

Just a side question regarding fuel burn.

The old Whaler I recently purchased has a 25 hp Johnson on it. I *think*
(but am not sure) it's a 1993 engine. It looks very, very similar to the
little Johnson you had on the boat you just sold (Princecraft?).

Anyway, I had forgotten how fuel hungry the old 2 strokes are. 90 percent
of the time I am just putt-putting around the harbor with an occasional and
brief WOT run just to clear the carbs. I have a six gallon fuel tank and
I've already used more fuel in this boat than I have all summer on the GB.
Any idea what the fuel burn rate is with this engine? It *has* to be quite
high, even at trolling speeds.

Eisboch

My memory on this is really foggy, but...

Way back in the 1950s, I had a 13' Wolverine molded ply runabout with a
25 hp evinrude two stroke. Damned fast boat. Anyway, I ran it at only
two speeds...off, as in not running, or WOT. I seem to remember that a
six gallon steel fuel tank would last about an hour and a half. I had
two such tanks in the boat.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I had a mid 80's 25 horse on a 18 foot colombian (way underpowered)
but at displacement speed and 3/4 throttle we would go through 6-10
gallons in a typical day on the water. It is carborated like yours I
think (93? Carbs?), iirc, the Princecraft sports a 04 which may be
injected, whole different animal if that is the case. If you are going
to get a lot of use out of the Whaler, and it sounds like you might.
Sell the old engine or trade it in for something nicer, quieter,
smoother..

On Sep 14, 10:43 am, wrote:
On Sep 14, 10:23 am, HK wrote:





Eisboch wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

Just a side question regarding fuel burn.

The old Whaler I recently purchased has a 25 hp Johnson on it. I *think*
(but am not sure) it's a 1993 engine. It looks very, very similar to the
little Johnson you had on the boat you just sold (Princecraft?).

Anyway, I had forgotten how fuel hungry the old 2 strokes are. 90 percent
of the time I am just putt-putting around the harbor with an occasional and
brief WOT run just to clear the carbs. I have a six gallon fuel tank and
I've already used more fuel in this boat than I have all summer on the GB.
Any idea what the fuel burn rate is with this engine? It *has* to be quite
high, even at trolling speeds.

Eisboch

My memory on this is really foggy, but...

Way back in the 1950s, I had a 13' Wolverine molded ply runabout with a
25 hp evinrude two stroke. Damned fast boat. Anyway, I ran it at only
two speeds...off, as in not running, or WOT. I seem to remember that a
six gallon steel fuel tank would last about an hour and a half. I had
two such tanks in the boat.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I had a mid 80's 25 horse on a 18 foot colombian (way underpowered)
but at displacement speed and 3/4 throttle we would go through 6-10
gallons in a typical day on the water. It is carborated like yours I
think (93? Carbs?), iirc, the Princecraft sports a 04 which may be
injected, whole different animal if that is the case. If you are going
to get a lot of use out of the Whaler, and it sounds like you might.
Sell the old engine or trade it in for something nicer, quieter,
smoother..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Above response was to Eisboch, not Harry, sorry...

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:30:48 -0400, HK wrote:

I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant

Practical experience along with fully supportable personal evidence
proves otherwise.

Thems the figures. No need to embellish.

Maybe I'm just luckier than others. :)

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:16:53 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .


Just a side question regarding fuel burn.

The old Whaler I recently purchased has a 25 hp Johnson on it. I *think*
(but am not sure) it's a 1993 engine. It looks very, very similar to the
little Johnson you had on the boat you just sold (Princecraft?).

Anyway, I had forgotten how fuel hungry the old 2 strokes are. 90 percent
of the time I am just putt-putting around the harbor with an occasional and
brief WOT run just to clear the carbs. I have a six gallon fuel tank and
I've already used more fuel in this boat than I have all summer on the GB.
Any idea what the fuel burn rate is with this engine? It *has* to be quite
high, even at trolling speeds

Mine was pretty good on fuel. I always ran it WOT to where I wanted
to go - somewhere around 2 GPH I think - can't remember and it was a
limited sample - I didn't have a lot of hours on the engine and it was
always short runs on small lakes - never more than 10/15 minutes at a
time.

To tell the truth, I never did an extended run on it.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:40:00 -0400, HK wrote:

Hey, I'm not knocking your two stroke here. Remember, I owned an
Optimax, which also used very little oil and wasn't bad on gas, either.
But the claims of astoundingly better gas mileage with this high tech
two strokes is...b.s. They might be better than a standard old-tech two
stroke, but they are not better than a four stroke.

I have consistently said that fully injected, computer managed two
strokes are much more consistent and cheaper to run that four strokes.
I can't do anything more than post, on a performance related thread,
the results of a recent trip. Facts is facts.

Secondly, I can't speak to boat tests. I've tested a lot of bass/bay
boats in my time as part of the dealer setup regimen and the recent
innovations produced by Evinrude produce cleaner, faster and more
efficient engines. They are always better than the more formal boat
tests results would indicate. If I might offer an opinion, the is
bias in the test arena towards four stroke engines. Why that is, I
can't say.

My personal experience, based on two boats with the same technology,
matches.

I've compared my results to the testing results and frankly, I find
the testing results suspect compared to my personal experience. I
mean think about it. I have no doubt you achieved what the test
results produced, but your boat is longer, heavier, 21 degree dead
rise and you a pushing it with a standard production prop on a 150
horse power four stroke. I have a hard time believing, but I do
because I have no reason to doubt you - you have you ever given me
any reason to doubt you in this area - that you achieved the
performance you claimed. I'm willing to take your data as it stands.

Based on my personal experience, ETEC wins hands down.

And, if you want personal testimony about the engines performance, ask
Scott.

It's as simple as that.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:40:00 -0400, HK wrote:

Hey, I'm not knocking your two stroke here. Remember, I owned an
Optimax, which also used very little oil and wasn't bad on gas, either.
But the claims of astoundingly better gas mileage with this high tech
two strokes is...b.s. They might be better than a standard old-tech two
stroke, but they are not better than a four stroke.

I have consistently said that fully injected, computer managed two
strokes are much more consistent and cheaper to run that four strokes.
I can't do anything more than post, on a performance related thread,
the results of a recent trip. Facts is facts.

Secondly, I can't speak to boat tests. I've tested a lot of bass/bay
boats in my time as part of the dealer setup regimen and the recent
innovations produced by Evinrude produce cleaner, faster and more
efficient engines. They are always better than the more formal boat
tests results would indicate. If I might offer an opinion, the is
bias in the test arena towards four stroke engines. Why that is, I
can't say.

My personal experience, based on two boats with the same technology,
matches.

I've compared my results to the testing results and frankly, I find
the testing results suspect compared to my personal experience. I
mean think about it. I have no doubt you achieved what the test
results produced, but your boat is longer, heavier, 21 degree dead
rise and you a pushing it with a standard production prop on a 150
horse power four stroke. I have a hard time believing, but I do
because I have no reason to doubt you - you have you ever given me
any reason to doubt you in this area - that you achieved the
performance you claimed. I'm willing to take your data as it stands.

Based on my personal experience, ETEC wins hands down.

And, if you want personal testimony about the engines performance, ask
Scott.

It's as simple as that.


I believe the test results posted by evinrude for your engine and a 20'
boat are reasonably accurate. I believe the very similar results posted
by yamaha for its engine and the same 20' boat are also accurate. My
posted results are almost precisely as indicated in Parker's test sheet,
which I have, and for Yamaha's published test reports for my engine and
boats almost identical to mine.

These manufacturers' tests are conducted under reasonably scientific
methods, including weights and measures, air temps, wind, prop sizing,
et cetera. For each RPM range reported, they run the engine at those
speeds upwind and downwind, and make the results available. At least
that is what Yamaha does. They use an accurate fuel flow meter.

What would be interesting for your boat is for you to run it at
specified RPMs for a few minutes and report the speed and fuel burn,
along with boat weight plus weight of engine fuel, guys and gear.

I could run my boat for four hours, including some time at WOT and
cruising speed, and also honestly report a fuel burn of X gallons for
the adventure. But unless the information is presented in a standardized
format, it is only anecdotal.

"HK" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
HK wrote:
I previously reported this:

2008 Parker 2100CC with Yamaha F150 and black stainless 15-1/4 x 15
three blade prop.

Two guys, full fuel load (100 gallons), cooler, ice, rods, and the
usual junk:

6000 rpm and 40 mph+ on both the GPS and built in Yamaha speedo. I
think there is a little more if I play with trim.

4000 rpm delivered 25+ mph, and 4500 produced just about 30 mph. I
"cruise" at 25 or so, and with a little trim fiddle, I was able to
achieve this with 3900 rpm, and about 6 gph.


UPDATE:

This past weekend out on the Patuxent River with my wife aboard and
with a buddy aboard, too, with 80 gallons of fuel in the tank and two
coolers, plus the bimini top up, and the usual assortment of stuff
you have to have with a female aboard, including a folding lounge chair
(!):

We got 40+ mph at 5900 rpm in flat water. The acceleration is
outstanding with the 15-1/4 x 15 prop. The boat jumps right up on plane
when you firewall the throttle and you can almost immediately pull back
for a smooth cruise. Nice flat wake, too, and with the almost flat
through hull transducer, no little rooster tail off the transom.

I rarely will have more than two or three other people on this boat, so
I am well-pleased with the WOT figures, since with the damned chop on
the Bay much of time time, running at 25 mph is much more likely, and
even more likely many days, running in the low 20s. The fuel burn at
cruise is in the low 6 gph range.

When I was contemplating this new boat, I considered for a while going
with an F200. I'm glad I didn't...not for my usage on Chesapeake
Bay...the ideal match is the F150.
_________________
That is great news. thanks for the update
\

Would a silver prop perform better?

You a**holes try sooooo hard, eh, Bill? Perhaps you and Reggie Retardo can
hook up in a Minneapolis airport men's room. Just tap your foot.

Prop color has some meaning in the Yamaha prop offerings. I'd explain, but
what's the point? I mean, this is "wrecked.boats," the playpen for Junior
Snarkers like you and your boatless, lifeless, nameless, jobless
dipstick of a buddy, Reggie Retardo.


You f'n pervert. You are the one most likely to be in the 2 holer with a
plastic raincoat on while spying on both men and women. Since you now
actually appear to own a boat and have actually used it, seems as if you
have to describe all. My Yamaha T-8 came with a white prop. When I got the
prop straightened they painted it black. does not seem to be a noticable
difference in performance. The black prop worked well on Tuesday while
trolling for lake trout at Lake Tahoe. Caught a small 12" one and a nice
24" one. Both released to be caught another day. Maybe if I paint the
stainless impellers in my jetdrive, I can get another 20-30 knots of
performance?