On May 30, 4:52*pm, wrote:
Jay,
At the risk of getting caught up in the back and forth between you and
Salty (and by the way I haven't even read that whole sub thread. It
just looked like it was going nowhere) let me take a shot at
explaining wherein the miscommunication lies.

Actually, Rick, there was never any "miscommunication" per se. I
accepted the fact that the entire scenario regarding the operation of
my new outboard and the apparent discrepancies in the manual were
disconcerting. None of that had anything to do with being the target
of an egotistical ******* like Salty whose primary responses to ideas
I was just tossing into the fire was to call me names such as dimwit.
However, I noticed that seems to be a modus operandi with him as I've
noticed his derogatory remarks toward others in previous threads.

Contributions from you and others have been helpful in trying to
resolve this matter. You and others have kept an open mind in trying
to assess this situation while Salty seems to be unable to budge from
his one-track approach to life roughly translated to "I have my
opinion, do NOT confuse me with the facts!" Having him leave the
thread was a breath of fresh air but I see he's back so I guess I can
add liar to his resume.

Using your automobile example. If you drive a car that has an overheat light on the dash and it intermittently turns itself on when actually the engine's water temp is at its normal level, that wouldn't mean your engine is defective. It would mean your indicator light is defective. Because it's designed to turn itself on only when the water temp is too hot. That situation would be analogous to a telltale that
intermittently works when there's nothing wrong with the water pump.
You could never know for sure whether to believe it or not. That's not
to say there's anything wrong with your motor. It's saying the design
of the indicator is questionable.

I totally agree with that part. There needs to be some sort of
indicator that's readily observable and indicative of motor
overheating and/or water pump failure; however, my examples comparing
with automobiles were not a statement of fact. I was just wondering
out loud and fully expected disagreement on some points but
disagreement with class, not resorting to pompous name-calling like
the infantile Salty seems to favor.

However, if I understand correctly, from up thread somewhere, even when you're not getting a steady stream of water from the tell-tale, you're at least supposed to see a water spray as long as the water pump is functioning. So as long as you can see the spray easily, you've still got a reliable indicator.

Unfortunately, that's not even something Suzuki mechanics, the
manual and Customer Service can seem to agree on or how much is to be
seen.

Maybe Salty didn't see the "spray" explanation or maybe he's going
under the assumption that the spray isn't visible enough. -shug- I
dunno.

In Salty's iron-clad mind, encased in cement, if that sucker isn't
"peeing up a storm" at all times, the motor is a piece of dangerous,
defective crap. LOL

Frankly, I would have to see the spray with my own two eyes to voice an opinion on that. Anyhow, that's my 2 cents on the subject.
Rick

Actually, Rick, that worth more than 2 cents, mainly because you
seem to be keeping an open mind and exploring every possible angle for
the inconsistencies of that motor's operation.

Thanks, Jay