BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

HK

wrote:
On Sep 14, 7:53 am, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:21:40 -0400, HK wrote:
Anything is possible, Tom, depending upon how much time was spent at
WOT, how much at cruise and at what speed, and how much time was spent
at low rpms, but the implication you are giving here is you ran that
engine "mostly" at WOT and cruise for four hours, and burned 2.4 gph.
The laws of thermodynamics must be different up there.
Well, we ran out of Oakland Beach in Warwick, WOT to Ohio Ledge on the
Providence side, found a blue fish boil (idle), worked Ohio Ledge for
a few minutes, then ran cruise (4200/35 mph) to the sunk coal bunker
off the lower end of Prudence Island T-Wharf, WOT (5100/46 mph) on our
way out to Breton Reef, stopped short of the Newport Bridge, Scot
caught a nice 10 lb blue, trolled around for a while, ran out East
Passage past Newport Harbor to the #2 bouy at the south end of the
Reef, worked up to the old tower site and back (idle), picked up and
ran to Beaver Tail (cruise) nothing going on there, so ran West
Passage to East Greenwich Bay (cruise), trolled East Greenwich Bay on
a line from Round Rock/Hunt Ledge to Sally Rock for a while, picked up
and ran to Conimicut Point (Cruise) at the lower end of the Providence
River opposite the #2 light, then WOT back to Oakland Beach for
recovery.
Never shut the engine off.
Four and a half hours total run time start to finish.
9 gallons of fuel.
And I have a witness.
Thermo That, Dynamic Boy. :)
Well, I just looked at the Evinrude etec site and checked over a few
performance bulletins. I didn't see any evidence that the etecs were any
more efficient than yamahas in fuel burn. In fact, when I looked at the
sheet for the Angler 204FX with a 150 etec, a boat a little smaller and
lighter than mine, and loaded lighter, too, I saw a fuel burn very
similar to mine at "cruise" speeds, and the typical one gallon an hour
per 10 horsepower performance at WOT, about the same as what I get.

Same was true for the 200 hp etec. Interestingly, Evinrude doesn't
provide oil burn figures on its performance sheets, yet on its web site,
it makes all manner of claims for "efficiency." I have a feeling that
whatever small "gains" are claimed for an etec fuel burn are lost when
you average in the cost of that "special" oil.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

With the extra weight and huge deadrise in comparison to the Ranger,
do you think Tom might get better gph than you? If the engines head to
head are as close as you say, you might be burning more fuel in
similar situations. BTW, I can confirm that SW ran the engine all day,
and we covered a lot of ground touring the bay at speed.
Gotta' say on a side note. what a beautiful area that is. the
architecture,the different environments, great place to boat.

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.