On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:09:53 -0500, RLM wrote:

This isn't like a long stroke 20-1 compression ratio, low RPM, tractor engine.
Low HP,slow speed, extremely high torque.

I agree with you on everything.

The problem is why an outboard? I would think that this is a perfect
type of diesel for the small inboard - in particular something like a
jet boat - with that kind of raw torgue available, you could run two
jets - maybe even three off of one engine.

Mercedes has been racing a short stroke diesel for the past few years
on the endurance circuit and certainly the concept is proven to be
reliable, but why outboards? It doesn't seem to me to be directly
applicable, but then again, I'm a moron.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:57:41 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:35:52 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

i think they're operating cost comparison's are W-A-A-A-Y overboard.
("Overboard" pardon the pun)

For one thing, they're using gasoline and diesel at the same purchase
costs....

Yes but that's the least of it in my opinion. It is difficult, if
not impossible to build a reliable, high output, lightweight diesel.
If it were possible lots of other people would have done it by now.
High power to weight ratio is what outboards excel at - diesels, not
so much.

Well, Mercedes is racing a high rpm short stroke diesel and it seems
to work well. I think they even make a car with one - I'm not a
Mercedes guy so what do I know.

Then again, your point is well taken - the whole point of diesels is
lots of power at low rpms.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:48:24 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:57:41 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:35:52 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

i think they're operating cost comparison's are W-A-A-A-Y overboard.
("Overboard" pardon the pun)

For one thing, they're using gasoline and diesel at the same purchase
costs....

Yes but that's the least of it in my opinion. It is difficult, if
not impossible to build a reliable, high output, lightweight diesel.
If it were possible lots of other people would have done it by now.
High power to weight ratio is what outboards excel at - diesels, not
so much.

Nothing is impossible. You design the tool to do the job. This isn't going
to be every ones engine. E-Tech has that wrapped up. This is a diesel.
Things change!

HEY!! :)

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:28:23 +0000, Tom Francis wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:43:09 -0600, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:01:05 -0800, CalifBill wrote:

http://www.megoutboard.com/index.php

Wonder how they would work on a triple engine Grady?

To me, it doesn't seem that the advantages of a diesel translate well to
an outboard engine, especially a turbo diesel. Am I missing something?

Yes. It's just another pitiful attempt by the four stroke crowd to
salvage something out of their ancient technology in the face of
clearly superior two stroke, direct injected technology. Namely ETECs
which, as we all know, are the wave (get it wave?) of the future. :)

Sad isn't it?

Detroits are two stroke diesels. The piston acts as a sliding intake valve.
Four exaust valves for high flow. Short stroke with turbo is the advantage.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:04:08 -0500, RLM wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:28:23 +0000, Tom Francis wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:43:09 -0600, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:01:05 -0800, CalifBill wrote:

http://www.megoutboard.com/index.php

Wonder how they would work on a triple engine Grady?

To me, it doesn't seem that the advantages of a diesel translate well to
an outboard engine, especially a turbo diesel. Am I missing something?

Yes. It's just another pitiful attempt by the four stroke crowd to
salvage something out of their ancient technology in the face of
clearly superior two stroke, direct injected technology. Namely ETECs
which, as we all know, are the wave (get it wave?) of the future. :)

Sad isn't it?

Detroits are two stroke diesels. The piston acts as a sliding intake valve.
Four exaust valves for high flow. Short stroke with turbo is the advantage.

http://www.industrialbrake.com.au/im...sel_liners.jpg

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:30:17 -0500, Boater wrote:

Tom Francis wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:01:05 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:

http://www.megoutboard.com/index.php

Wonder how they would work on a triple engine Grady?

Terribly I suspect.

"Similar Performance to 175hp, 225hp or 300hp Gasoline Four-stroke
Engines (depending on power level)."

No thanks - if I wanted heavy four stroke ancient tech Yamaha's on the
back, I would have kept them on the boat. :)

TWO STROKES RULE!!!!


Oh, boy...Tom got taken...again. :)

You may have missed this...It's very well written.

So why are you posting into the metalworking newsgroups? Id be terribly
surprised if you could operate a cordless drill motor without a
catastrophic accident, let alone machinery weighing many tons and
holding microns of accuracy when cutting metals.

Frankly, your constant crossposting into the two metalworking groups and
showing everyone your ass, appears to be a pathetic cry for attention.
I notice you have largely worn out your welcome on the boat newsgroup,
....its not even in your the cross post list. Most of your posts are not.
One assumes you have come over to the metalworking groups, and left out
your boat group, because you really didnt want the other there, who
already hold you in deep contempt, from seeing you get your ass handed
to you in such a regular fashion.

**** off, ****mere. Its no wonder they call you Bloater.

Gunner

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:53:54 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:

Then again, your point is well taken - the whole point of diesels is
lots of power at low rpms.

Nonsense. The only point to Diesels is fuel economy. Were that not so,
they wouldn't even exist. They have both gasoline and steam beat in
that regard. That is what you get in exchange for cost and weight.
They make 300 RPM gas engines by the way. Caterpillar makes large,
slow turning, spark ignition engines. They mostly run on me

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:53:54 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:

Then again, your point is well taken - the whole point of diesels is
lots of power at low rpms.

Wrongo. The only point is economy. If not for that they wouldn't even
exist. As for low RPM Arrow makes a 25 hp, 396 CID spark engine. One
cylinder. Designed to run for fifty years at 300 RPM with
maintainance,usually just an oil change, once a year. You can get a
1000 hp diesel that size. The diesel is lighter.

Casady

"Tom Francis" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:43:09 -0600, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:01:05 -0800, CalifBill wrote:

http://www.megoutboard.com/index.php

Wonder how they would work on a triple engine Grady?

To me, it doesn't seem that the advantages of a diesel translate well to
an outboard engine, especially a turbo diesel. Am I missing something?

Yes. It's just another pitiful attempt by the four stroke crowd to
salvage something out of their ancient technology in the face of
clearly superior two stroke, direct injected technology. Namely ETECs
which, as we all know, are the wave (get it wave?) of the future. :)

Sad isn't it?

Those ancient 4 strokes do not blow up as often as those Evinrude Etec
forerunner clones.

"Tom Francis" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:09:53 -0500, RLM wrote:

This isn't like a long stroke 20-1 compression ratio, low RPM, tractor
engine.
Low HP,slow speed, extremely high torque.

I agree with you on everything.

The problem is why an outboard? I would think that this is a perfect
type of diesel for the small inboard - in particular something like a
jet boat - with that kind of raw torgue available, you could run two
jets - maybe even three off of one engine.

Mercedes has been racing a short stroke diesel for the past few years
on the endurance circuit and certainly the concept is proven to be
reliable, but why outboards? It doesn't seem to me to be directly
applicable, but then again, I'm a moron.

They run a big jet off the one engine.
http://www.precisionweldboats.com/
Tom (Maxrat) probably makes one of the top 3 boats in the industry.