Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"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.

My prediction is that with the economy in the dumpster, and that
includes the sale of new boats, the owner of Evinrude's tradename
will soon put it on the block.


-----------------

Probably not. If they belly up, the name will have very little value.



Well, the Evinrude division cannot really go belly up, can it? I mean,
it is an owned subsidiary of another corporation. I don't believe it
publishes its own balance sheet. But it can become unprofitable to the
point its owners liquidate it.

It's kind of a sad story. Evinrude and Johnson were *the* motors to own,
at least on the East Coast for salt water use until about the mid-1960s.
Then Mercury began to clobber them in overall sales, and then it was
Yamaha's turn, especially in the Chesapeake Bay area and, according to
my Milford buddy, in that part of Connecticut, too. When I lived in
Florida, Merc was the big name, but Yamaha was biting at its heels.

In the mid-Bay area, there are very few newer Evinrudes.


You forgot the obligatory "my Dad..." sentence in your post, WAFA.

"Tom Francis" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:12:20 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 29, 11:03 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
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

Runs on YOU?

LOL!

300 RPM? How about 600 hp at 80!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxssIc4HUNM

Pfffhhhttttt.....

That's just the starter for this one:

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/

108,920 hp at 102 rpm

I remember the Radar Picket ships of the 1950's-early 60's. We toured one
in my youth. Old Liberty Ships and I seem to remember as we walked by the
piston rods, that the RPM was 4. Piston rods were about 2 decks long and
were exposed, with fences around the hole in the deck.

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 30, 7:06 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:43:27 GMT, Tom Francis



wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:12:20 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 29, 11:03 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
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

Runs on YOU?

LOL!

300 RPM? How about 600 hp at 80!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxssIc4HUNM

Pfffhhhttttt.....

That's just the starter for this one:

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/

108,920 hp at 102 rpm

Way cool. The Wikipedia entry mentions this:
"The upper portion is lubricated by continuous injection of consumable
lubricant"
So I'm thinking this is just a damn big e-tec.
What is heavy fuel oil? This is said to be a 2-stroke diesel, but
runs on "heavy fuel oil."

--Vic

"Baker fuel" or baker oil"

From what I gather, it was almost like tar,and had to be pre-heated to
get it to flow. A guy who was on the USS John Hood told me that.

We were on a cruise ship a few years ago, and they use the Navy Special and
have to preheat to get it to flow.

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 30, 2:07 pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:26:44 GMT, Tom Francis

wrote:
And battleship gray engines. :)

Officially, there is no such color. Battleships, pickups, and
everything between, are painted ' Haze Gray '.

Casady

Well Richard. You may be right, but there's a lot of paint companies
that label their stuff "Battleship Gray or 'grey'" And of course, tere
are a wide variety of tints with the same name.

http://www.paint-colors.net/store/pr...cat=249&page=1

My brother painted his 1946 Ford Battleship Gray. Because that was the
paint available. I will have to inform him it was really Haze Gray.

"Tom Francis" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:07:02 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:26:44 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:

And battleship gray engines. :)

Officially, there is no such color. Battleships, pickups, and
everything between, are painted ' Haze Gray '.


I have a hazy memory of two "official" greys used on Navy ships. One was
"deck grey" or something which was a different shade than the one used on
the hull.

Eisboch

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:15:13 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:

Never knew they painted bow waves on ships.

Germans did that with Bismarck.

Casady

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:15:13 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:

Never knew they painted bow waves on ships.

Germans did that with Bismarck.

Casady


To fool the ocean?

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:22:58 +0000, Richard Casady wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:15:13 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:

Never knew they painted bow waves on ships.

Germans did that with Bismarck.

Casady

Or the British Dazzle camouflage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 30, 7:06 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:43:27 GMT, Tom Francis



wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:12:20 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 29, 11:03 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
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

Runs on YOU?

LOL!

300 RPM? How about 600 hp at 80!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxssIc4HUNM

Pfffhhhttttt.....

That's just the starter for this one:

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/

108,920 hp at 102 rpm

Way cool. The Wikipedia entry mentions this:
"The upper portion is lubricated by continuous injection of consumable
lubricant"
So I'm thinking this is just a damn big e-tec.
What is heavy fuel oil? This is said to be a 2-stroke diesel, but
runs on "heavy fuel oil."

--Vic

"Baker fuel" or baker oil"

From what I gather, it was almost like tar,and had to be pre-heated to
get it to flow. A guy who was on the USS John Hood told me that.

************************************************** ********************

Is that the same as 'bunker fuel'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:24:48 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:15:13 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:

Never knew they painted bow waves on ships.

Germans did that with Bismarck.

Casady


To fool the ocean?

To mislead an enemy as to the speed. If it works, the torpedoes and
shells will miss. It might work somewhat, and the different paint job
is no costlier.

Casady