Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:24:53 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -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."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?
Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)
Now I understand the meaning of the word...jarhead! :}

"More" is one of those words like "significant." If over a day in which
the two engines ran six hours gunnel to gunnel, and the total fuel burn
for one engine was, say, 19 gallons, and the fuel burn for the other
engine was, say, 17 or 21 gallons, that would not be significant to my
wallet.

I'd love to put my ETEC on your boat and watch your ugly mug turn
green with envy using half the amount of fuel you normally use with
that ancient egg beater you have now. :)


Go ahead...make my day! I'll watch while you lift my Yamaha off the
transom and put your etec on it. We can do this at the local hospital,
which you will need after your heavy lifting. It's a damned fine little
hospital, too.


Half, eh? So etecs aren't constrained by the rule of 10, eh?