On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:32:33 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Mar 7, 6:11*pm, Short Wave Sportfising
wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 18:20:01 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfising" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:26:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Short Wave Sportfising wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 05:40:40 -0800 (PST), billgran
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We5YIEgRhRE

Well done.

Ve Vill Take Over Za Vorld!!!

I could actually feel the warping of space and time.

You were having a stroke.

Great video. *Did I see a quick, almost subliminal flash of "600"
superimposed over what appeared to be a future engine?

Caught that did you?

I think it is - either the rumored multi-fuel engine for the mass
market or another engine that I've heard rumors about, but ain't gonna
say if only because I don't want to sound stupid.

Not that I don't sound stupid anyway, but stupider.

(Thought I'd get that in before anybody else did.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

When they said in 2000 Evinrude jsut about disapeared, was that
refering to the Ficht downfall That about tanked the company?

Don't know, that's why I'm asking.

It's rather long and complicated, but essentially yes. OMC bet the
farm on FICHT and due to a series of circumstances made some strange
engineering decisions (probably due to the ton of money they had in
developing the FICHT) which caused some premature failures in the
150/175 hp range engines. There was also an over reaction by the CG
to the problem forcing the recall of all FICHTS even though the
problems were limited to one engine block. It was just a series of
errors compounded by some concurrent events which took OMC down. As a
whole, the engine had it's problems - no doubt about that - lean burn
caused carbon build up, there were problems in the fuel delivery
system initially, the water cooled EMMs had a series of problems
because of heat failure (which wasn't strictly the fault of OMC - that
system wasn't engineered by OMC but they were responsible), etc. It
was ground breaking technology that was rushed to market too soon.
Given a two or three more years, FICHT would have been what ETEC is
now, but OMC didn't have the time to do it right.

Bombardier had been pretty much on the same track as OMC was with the
FICHT with some engine development. They also recognised the brand
value. Along wtih a belief in the base FICHT system as sound, they
bought it all, redesigned, engineered the heck out of existing FICHTS
and eventually ETEC was the result.