The early FICHT years question
 

I'm looking at a nice Blackfin with twin '97 Johson 225's.
I'm cautious when I think of the late 90's when OMC made faulty Ficht
outboards.
I'm thinking '97 '98,'99?
I know the injection system had problems then a fuel filter/reservoir issue.
Did all units need to be corrected by an OMC mechanic?
Is there a list of serial numbers for those corrected?
Are there certain years/models to be avoided?
Did Bombardier sell OMC if so what do we know about the buyer relative to
any warrant?


I

The early FICHT years question
 

Jim and Becky wrote:
I'm looking at a nice Blackfin with twin '97 Johson 225's.
I'm cautious when I think of the late 90's when OMC made faulty Ficht
outboards.
I'm thinking '97 '98,'99?
I know the injection system had problems then a fuel filter/reservoir issue.
Did all units need to be corrected by an OMC mechanic?
Is there a list of serial numbers for those corrected?
Are there certain years/models to be avoided?
Did Bombardier sell OMC if so what do we know about the buyer relative to
any warrant?


I



It's a defective design & while Ficht, OMC, then Bomb of course never
actually admitted that, the history confirms it (OMC 7000 jobs chucked &
US 1.3 billion of pension money peed against the wall) Bomb tried to
deceptively drop the Ficht name but quickly realised that these days
with NGs like this these, the old dealer delivered scams won't work
anymore, so sold it.

The core issue is that they try to deliberately run the engine very
very lean at lower revs to get through the EPA regs, but it's been well
known, understood & documented since before WW2 that this is at best
very risky & in a goodly percentage of instances fatal to the engine.
Leading to piston heat buildup, then when full fuel is re supplied as
power is quickly increased, it leads to full destructive detonation. (
the head of OMC actually admitted a Ficht failure rate of 1 in 5 !!!)

So be very careful because 1 in 5 Fichts fail & even accepting that all
OMC & anyone connected to them were Ficht liars so it was probably more
than that:-). Even so at 1 in 5 it's a pretty sad lottery. Yes the boat
will be very cheap on account of it having a Ficht, but ........

Just in case you come across a similar boat with an Optimax on it be
also aware that they are better but not by much. Notwithstanding they go
about it a totally different mechanical way, the very same basic design
fault is there.

No manufacturer has managed to run engines lean at power & not suffer
horrendous failure rate through detonation, & plenty have tried in the
past, including Honda, Chrysler & NASA. (it "is" very basic rocket science)

K

The early FICHT years question
 

"K Smith" wrote in message
...
Jim and Becky wrote:
I'm looking at a nice Blackfin with twin '97 Johson 225's.
I'm cautious when I think of the late 90's when OMC made faulty
Ficht
outboards.
I'm thinking '97 '98,'99?
I know the injection system had problems then a fuel
filter/reservoir issue.
Did all units need to be corrected by an OMC mechanic?
Is there a list of serial numbers for those corrected?
Are there certain years/models to be avoided?
Did Bombardier sell OMC if so what do we know about the buyer
relative to
any warrant?

It's a defective design & while Ficht, OMC, then Bomb of course never
actually admitted that, the history confirms it (OMC 7000 jobs chucked
&
US 1.3 billion of pension money peed against the wall) Bomb tried to
deceptively drop the Ficht name but quickly realised that these days
with NGs like this these, the old dealer delivered scams won't work
anymore, so sold it.

They sold the whole rec products division, and the family bought it so
there is likely more to it than that.

And the 225 is reputed to have been better than the 150/175 in those
days. True? I give up.

snip

K

Has anyone seen a good explanation of Etech and how it is different from
Ficht? They make it sound like a voice coil, ala disk drive. How do
they couple the force into the fuel? Do I have to go hunt through
Delphion.com or does someone have a patent number or two off a motor or
manual?

del cecchi

The early FICHT years question
 

You speak of peeing against a wall as if it's a *bad* thing?

-W

"K Smith" wrote in message news:bjo42k$kf4fg$1@ID-

US 1.3 billion of pension money peed against the wall)

The early FICHT years question
 

Major difference between that Lycoming and the Fitch. The Lycoming is a
crankcase lubed engine. I think (My OPINION) that the fitch and even the
Optimax failures come from lack of lube. I think the Opti's just have done
a better job of running more oil in to the airstream at low RPM's. Would
not be a problem if engines burned no oil.
Bill

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:19:39 +1000, K Smith
wrote:

The core issue is that they try to deliberately run the engine very
very lean at lower revs to get through the EPA regs, but it's been well
known, understood & documented since before WW2 that this is at best
very risky & in a goodly percentage of instances fatal to the engine.

Not necessarily true..... but Ficht didn't get it down right.... so
it *was* a failure. Millions of flight hours have been flown on the
lean side of the curve. Again, it *is* well documented that it is
possible, but not with the Ficht numbers.....

PS...
Don't quote Lycoming figures. Their engines are no more designed to
run lean of peak than Ficht.... they just happen to know it.




--



Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC.

http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/cavern/
Homepage
http://www.southharbourvillage.com/directions.asp Where
Southport,NC is located.
http://www.southharbourvillage.com/autoupdater.htm Real Time Pictures
at My Marina
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats Rec.boats
at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide

The early FICHT years question
 

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:19:39 +1000, K Smith
wrote:


The core issue is that they try to deliberately run the engine very
very lean at lower revs to get through the EPA regs, but it's been well
known, understood & documented since before WW2 that this is at best
very risky & in a goodly percentage of instances fatal to the engine.


Not necessarily true..... but Ficht didn't get it down right.... so
it *was* a failure. Millions of flight hours have been flown on the
lean side of the curve. Again, it *is* well documented that it is
possible, but not with the Ficht numbers.....

PS...
Don't quote Lycoming figures. Their engines are no more designed to
run lean of peak than Ficht.... they just happen to know it.


Gene who's engines are designed to run lean at power as Ficht does???

OK I won't "quote" Lycoming but I should be allowed to comment:-)

(i) Yes aero engines can & are regularly run lean but as lean as 40 to
1?? That's the figure given by OMC in the early days of Ficht for their
operation a low revs, in keeping with their normal deceptions they also
claimed an 80% fuel saving!!!

(ii) Yes aero engines can & are regularly run lean but they're very low
specific output engines even the best of them not much more than 40
HP/ltr @ WOT, then they're not usually allowed to be lean if above 60%
of max manifold i.e.say 25HP/ltr. The Fichts also run extremely lean
(much more so than the aero engines) @ 25HP/ltr but
(a) The aero is a very slow turning 4 stroke with a sophisticated lub
system which sprays oil under the pistons & has proper oil temp control
(coolers).
(b) The Fichts have no piston cooling whatsoever & are 2 strokes so
have twice as many heat input events for any given period.

(iii) The aero engines are not allowed to be brought back from lean
operation to normal mixtures quickly, indeed usually they are restricted
to slow incremental richening operations over "minutes", rather than
just being suddenly subjected to a normal "full" mixture. Whereas the
Fichts have no such protection from delivering a full mixture into a
lean overheated chamber. i.e. after a long period in a no wake zone at
the upper end of the lean mode then the user spools up quickly,
delivering a full mixture onto an overheated piston & ......... well 1
in 5 what else is there to say:-)


K

The early FICHT years question
 

del cecchi wrote:
"K Smith" wrote in message
...

Jim and Becky wrote:

I'm looking at a nice Blackfin with twin '97 Johson 225's.
I'm cautious when I think of the late 90's when OMC made faulty

Ficht

outboards.
I'm thinking '97 '98,'99?
I know the injection system had problems then a fuel

filter/reservoir issue.

Did all units need to be corrected by an OMC mechanic?
Is there a list of serial numbers for those corrected?
Are there certain years/models to be avoided?
Did Bombardier sell OMC if so what do we know about the buyer

relative to

any warrant?

It's a defective design & while Ficht, OMC, then Bomb of course never
actually admitted that, the history confirms it (OMC 7000 jobs chucked

&

US 1.3 billion of pension money peed against the wall) Bomb tried to
deceptively drop the Ficht name but quickly realised that these days
with NGs like this these, the old dealer delivered scams won't work
anymore, so sold it.


They sold the whole rec products division, and the family bought it so
there is likely more to it than that.

And the 225 is reputed to have been better than the 150/175 in those
days. True? I give up.

snip

K


Has anyone seen a good explanation of Etech and how it is different from
Ficht? They make it sound like a voice coil, ala disk drive. How do
they couple the force into the fuel? Do I have to go hunt through
Delphion.com or does someone have a patent number or two off a motor or
manual?

del cecchi




It's a scam nothing more, if there were actually a new technology we'd
know about it by now.

Sold it to the family?? gees louise what?? they couldn't find a proper
commercial buyer for actual money??? You mean they unloaded a basket
case nothing more.

Marketing BS for the bent OMC dealers to spruik.

K

The early FICHT years question
 

So, has the Ficht issue been resolved on brand new models?
If so what would be considered the most recent year that they are considered
reliable?
What was the first year of Ficht?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
K Smith wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
K Smith wrote:

So be very careful because 1 in 5 Fichts fail & even accepting that
all
OMC & anyone connected to them were Ficht liars so it was probably more
than that:-). Even so at 1 in 5 it's a pretty sad lottery. Yes the boat
will be very cheap on account of it having a Ficht, but ........

Just in case you come across a similar boat with an Optimax on it be
also aware that they are better but not by much. Notwithstanding they
go
about it a totally different mechanical way, the very same basic design
fault is there.



Oh? Not that I accept your FICHT numbers (yes, I remember your
"source,"
but if Opti's are "not much better," what is the percentage of their
alleged failure? Got any documentable stats, or is this another of
those
claims you pull out of your butt?

Well it was your little OMC dealer mate from the ice box who claimed as
many Optis were failing as Fichts??

I asked if you had any documentable statistics. Do you?



And what credentials do you have to pass judgment on these engines or
anything else? You don't even have a basic engineering degree. Nor have
you ever even seen one of these engines.

You are a crock, Karen. You have no original information. You throw up
here what you read elsewhere, without any idea of what you post is
true.

Well you better find just one other reference

I asked if you had any serious credentials. Do you?


You ought to carry a warning label: "Warning: B.S. Levels Lethal with
Karen Smith of Oz."

From Harry the non boating liar this is a bit rich.

Here's a paste of more of your lies & don't try denials as you did last
time they're pastes of your own lies.

paste of Harry the king of BS from 97;

Have you ever sailed from San Francisco to Hawaii? I have.
Have you ever rounded Cape Horn? I have, twice.
Have you ever transited the Panama Canal? I have.
Have you owned more than 20 boats in your lifetime? I have.
Have you ever sailed large boats competitively? I have.
Have you ever been hundreds of miles from land in a powerboat under
your
command? I have.

Unbelievable than as it is now.

K


To a person of no accomplishment like you, probably so.
Prove they are lies.




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

The early FICHT years question
 

"Jim and Becky" wrote in message
. ..
So, has the Ficht issue been resolved on brand new models?
Maybe. It won't be known for a few years.

If so what would be considered the most recent year that they are
considered
reliable?
Reliability statistics for outboard motors are essentially unavailable.
One can search the web for anecdotal accounts. But they are not even as
reliable as Consumer Reports.

What was the first year of Ficht?

97 maybe? or 98.

del

The early FICHT years question
 

"Jim and Becky" wrote in message
. ..
So, has the Ficht issue been resolved on brand new models?
If so what would be considered the most recent year that they are
considered
reliable?
What was the first year of Ficht?


FICHT history


The first production FICHT came out as a 20" shaft 150hp Johnson or Evinrude
in late 1996 and was targeted for the bass boat and sport boat models. It
worked as designed and had won the Popular Science innovation award.

In '98, the came out with the V4 90-115hp and the 175, along with extra long
shaft lengths for the offshore boats. In some applications, usually larger
boats that were over-propped, problems developed in the 150-175 series. The
then president of OMC David Jones said that about 20% had problems and had a
crash program to find out why and what to do about fixing it. According to
findings from consultants all over the world, hired by OMC, the abrasiveness
of soot buildup due to poor mid-range combustion scored the internal parts
of the motor. All the boating magazines had articles about it and what the
company was doing about it. This was published also in the Australian and
European press.

The factory then spent big bucks sending special teams around the country
installing cylinder head and software fixes to the thousands of engines that
were being used and made an upgrade kit available for dealer installation.
By then the 2000 models were ready for production and contained not only the
fixes, but a second generation design called FICHT Ram. The computers were
more powerful and now were complete engine management modules, including
charging system operation. The new motors worked well and ran even smoother
and more powerful than their predecessors. Boat tests and consumer tests
showed they were OK for all applications. For 2001 the big block V-6's were
redesigned to a larger 3.3L block for the 200-225-250hp models. The first
20-225 models came out in '99 with a 3.0L block and worked OK, they did not
have the application problems of the 150-175 series of that year, either did
the V4 90-115"s.

The 2001 Evinrude FICHTS finished a close 2nd to Yamaha in the J.D. Power's
survey that year and got an honorable mention (along with the Honda 130
4-stroke) the previous year.

OMC had money problems for quite a few years, had bad management decisions,
then had a corporate raider as an owner, then when the corporate raider was
indicted in a French banking scandal, he declared bankruptcy for the company
after raiding the pension fund, according to stories in the papers.

Bombardier bought the assets in the bankruptcy auction and re-introduced the
motors after building and up-to-date plant and improving quality control of
the vendors and manufacturers. The 2002 models and later are next to
bulletproof and are more economical to run than the equivalent 4-stroke
models. The total emissions are even less than the 4-strokes. The motors do
not run lean at power as someone posts over and over again. They use a
stratified charge at settings below 15% throttle opening, which on a
2-stroke is way less than 15% power output. Some aircraft engines are leaned
out up to 75% power output without problems, according to their operating
handbooks. My old IO-360 Continental 6 cylinder aircraft motor allowed, if I
remember correctly, 50 degrees lean of peak at cruise settings.

Since Bombardier took over, you do not hear about problems with the motors
on this or any other newsgroup. The bass boat crowd loves the HO series
200-225 models made specifically for those boats.

Like many things, the early problems in some situations were overblown and
rumors were spread mostly by those who were not familiar with the product
and what was being done. A lot of what you read and will read in this
newsgroup is from a small contingent of individuals who do not work on or
operate the motors, yet post lines and lines of hear-say, and even made up
stuff. Some even rant and rave and go off on a tangent since they do not
have the knowledge of what is happening.

FICHT and now its new generation called E-TECH are working well. The more
stringent future emission laws on the books and proposed, are easily met
today, where 4-strokes may need expensive catalytic converters, etc. to
comply. In the small motor categories, the carbureted 4-strokes cannot meet
2008 and later specs, but future E-TECH motors will. I watched a 3hp single
cylinder ETECH outboard rope start and run smoothly, and that was over a
year ago.

Bottom line is the 2000 and later 150-175hp FICHTS do not have problems with
the design, but like some things, the reputation from 6 years ago still gets
regurgitated.

Bill Grannis
service manager

The early FICHT years question
 

K Smith wrote:



You really have no clue do you??


Since you are totally devoid of any recognized credentials in the area
of engine design, rebuilding, repair or maintenance, and most likely
have never even seen a FICHT or even an OptiMax engine's innards, it
more easily may be concluded that *you* are the clueless one on this matter.

Moreover, you obviously have a hidden agenda here.

Got a college degree in anything? Got an engineering degree in anything?
Ever worked as a senior level mechanic? Ever been to a high-level
training school for mechanics? Ever been published in a professional
magazine?

I didn't think so. The best guess is that you once worked as a
receptionist, phone answerer and coffee go-fer for a little boatyard in
Australia.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

The early FICHT years question
 

Harry Krause wrote:
K Smith wrote:


You really have no clue do you??



Since you are totally devoid of any recognized credentials in the area
of engine design, rebuilding, repair or maintenance, and most likely
have never even seen a FICHT or even an OptiMax engine's innards, it
more easily may be concluded that *you* are the clueless one on this matter.

Moreover, you obviously have a hidden agenda here.

Got a college degree in anything? Got an engineering degree in anything?
Ever worked as a senior level mechanic? Ever been to a high-level
training school for mechanics? Ever been published in a professional
magazine?

I didn't think so. The best guess is that you once worked as a
receptionist, phone answerer and coffee go-fer for a little boatyard in
Australia.




Here's another of your lies for you Harry, it's a measure of your lack
of anything that you don't realise just how stupid your stories are.
Your education lies?? you are the master of cut & paste never ever
any5thing original let alone anything that might take some
understanding, then there's your complete lack of boating knowledge,
when compared to your lies.

Here's another of your obvious lies for you, seeing a pattern?? yes
mental illness.

As far as your other complaints, well, almost every president in my memory,
and I *remember* Truman, Eisenhower (who cheated on his wife), Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush, lied and participated in
deceit to one degree or another, and on issues far more important than who
was giving them blow jobs.

Good lord. I met *every* president in the damned group except Bush, and I
worked once for his father.

paste of Harry the king of BS from 97;

Have you ever sailed from San Francisco to Hawaii? I have.
Have you ever rounded Cape Horn? I have, twice.
Have you ever transited the Panama Canal? I have.
Have you owned more than 20 boats in your lifetime? I have.
Have you ever sailed large boats competitively? I have.
Have you ever been hundreds of miles from land in a powerboat under your
command? I have.

The early FICHT years question
 

Bill,

Great post...fact as opposed to "Ka Ka".

My 2000 115 Ficht still runs great. I wouldn't have any other motor.

Nick in Spartanburg, SC

"Billgran" wrote in message
...

"Jim and Becky" wrote in message
. ..
So, has the Ficht issue been resolved on brand new models?
If so what would be considered the most recent year that they are
considered
reliable?
What was the first year of Ficht?


FICHT history


The first production FICHT came out as a 20" shaft 150hp Johnson or
Evinrude
in late 1996 and was targeted for the bass boat and sport boat models. It
worked as designed and had won the Popular Science innovation award.

In '98, the came out with the V4 90-115hp and the 175, along with extra
long
shaft lengths for the offshore boats. In some applications, usually larger
boats that were over-propped, problems developed in the 150-175 series.
The
then president of OMC David Jones said that about 20% had problems and had
a
crash program to find out why and what to do about fixing it. According to
findings from consultants all over the world, hired by OMC, the
abrasiveness
of soot buildup due to poor mid-range combustion scored the internal parts
of the motor. All the boating magazines had articles about it and what the
company was doing about it. This was published also in the Australian and
European press.

The factory then spent big bucks sending special teams around the country
installing cylinder head and software fixes to the thousands of engines
that
were being used and made an upgrade kit available for dealer installation.
By then the 2000 models were ready for production and contained not only
the
fixes, but a second generation design called FICHT Ram. The computers were
more powerful and now were complete engine management modules, including
charging system operation. The new motors worked well and ran even
smoother
and more powerful than their predecessors. Boat tests and consumer tests
showed they were OK for all applications. For 2001 the big block V-6's
were
redesigned to a larger 3.3L block for the 200-225-250hp models. The first
20-225 models came out in '99 with a 3.0L block and worked OK, they did
not
have the application problems of the 150-175 series of that year, either
did
the V4 90-115"s.

The 2001 Evinrude FICHTS finished a close 2nd to Yamaha in the J.D.
Power's
survey that year and got an honorable mention (along with the Honda 130
4-stroke) the previous year.

OMC had money problems for quite a few years, had bad management
decisions,
then had a corporate raider as an owner, then when the corporate raider
was
indicted in a French banking scandal, he declared bankruptcy for the
company
after raiding the pension fund, according to stories in the papers.

Bombardier bought the assets in the bankruptcy auction and re-introduced
the
motors after building and up-to-date plant and improving quality control
of
the vendors and manufacturers. The 2002 models and later are next to
bulletproof and are more economical to run than the equivalent 4-stroke
models. The total emissions are even less than the 4-strokes. The motors
do
not run lean at power as someone posts over and over again. They use a
stratified charge at settings below 15% throttle opening, which on a
2-stroke is way less than 15% power output. Some aircraft engines are
leaned
out up to 75% power output without problems, according to their operating
handbooks. My old IO-360 Continental 6 cylinder aircraft motor allowed, if
I
remember correctly, 50 degrees lean of peak at cruise settings.

Since Bombardier took over, you do not hear about problems with the motors
on this or any other newsgroup. The bass boat crowd loves the HO series
200-225 models made specifically for those boats.

Like many things, the early problems in some situations were overblown and
rumors were spread mostly by those who were not familiar with the product
and what was being done. A lot of what you read and will read in this
newsgroup is from a small contingent of individuals who do not work on or
operate the motors, yet post lines and lines of hear-say, and even made up
stuff. Some even rant and rave and go off on a tangent since they do not
have the knowledge of what is happening.

FICHT and now its new generation called E-TECH are working well. The more
stringent future emission laws on the books and proposed, are easily met
today, where 4-strokes may need expensive catalytic converters, etc. to
comply. In the small motor categories, the carbureted 4-strokes cannot
meet
2008 and later specs, but future E-TECH motors will. I watched a 3hp
single
cylinder ETECH outboard rope start and run smoothly, and that was over a
year ago.

Bottom line is the 2000 and later 150-175hp FICHTS do not have problems
with
the design, but like some things, the reputation from 6 years ago still
gets
regurgitated.

Bill Grannis
service manager

The early FICHT years question
 

"Billgran" wrote in message
...

"Jim and Becky" wrote in message
. ..
So, has the Ficht issue been resolved on brand new models?
If so what would be considered the most recent year that they are
considered
reliable?
What was the first year of Ficht?


FICHT history


The first production FICHT came out as a 20" shaft 150hp Johnson or
Evinrude
in late 1996 and was targeted for the bass boat and sport boat models.
It
worked as designed and had won the Popular Science innovation award.

In '98, the came out with the V4 90-115hp and the 175, along with
extra long
shaft lengths for the offshore boats. In some applications, usually
larger
boats that were over-propped, problems developed in the 150-175
series. The
then president of OMC David Jones said that about 20% had problems and
had a
crash program to find out why and what to do about fixing it.
According to
findings from consultants all over the world, hired by OMC, the
abrasiveness
of soot buildup due to poor mid-range combustion scored the internal
parts
of the motor. All the boating magazines had articles about it and what
the
company was doing about it. This was published also in the Australian
and
European press.

The factory then spent big bucks sending special teams around the
country
installing cylinder head and software fixes to the thousands of
engines that
were being used and made an upgrade kit available for dealer
installation.
By then the 2000 models were ready for production and contained not
only the
fixes, but a second generation design called FICHT Ram. The computers
were
more powerful and now were complete engine management modules,
including
charging system operation. The new motors worked well and ran even
smoother
and more powerful than their predecessors. Boat tests and consumer
tests
showed they were OK for all applications. For 2001 the big block V-6's
were
redesigned to a larger 3.3L block for the 200-225-250hp models. The
first
20-225 models came out in '99 with a 3.0L block and worked OK, they
did not
have the application problems of the 150-175 series of that year,
either did
the V4 90-115"s.

The 2001 Evinrude FICHTS finished a close 2nd to Yamaha in the J.D.
Power's
survey that year and got an honorable mention (along with the Honda
130
4-stroke) the previous year.

snip
Bottom line is the 2000 and later 150-175hp FICHTS do not have
problems with
the design, but like some things, the reputation from 6 years ago
still gets
regurgitated.

Bill Grannis
service manager


So to net it out, you would say that only the 150-175 models from
1997-1999 had reliability problems and those were related to
applications on heavy boats that were overpropped? If the fixes to the
earlier models did the job, why did they have to come out with the ram
stuff?

I am perfectly willing to admit I have no access to the statistics and
failure rates, so am asking these questions honestly in a spirit of
inquiry and interest in new technology. I am also still trying to
figure out how an Etec injector works. The Ficht used a metal rod driven
by an external solenoid. What is the difference in Etec? Got a patent
number or two?

del cecchi

The early FICHT years question
 

I am also still trying to
figure out how an Etec injector works. The Ficht used a metal rod driven
by an external solenoid. What is the difference in Etec? Got a patent
number or two?

del cecchi


Hi Del,

It's been a long time.

Check out Patent No.6398511 B1. It works like an audio speaker where a pulse
of current makes the "armature" move forward, then an opposite pulse stops
it and returns the "armature" to its home position. Unlike the FICHT
injector, it does not depend on springs to return it to start its cycle all
over again. It still is a "linear motor" attached to a pump, but according
to the factory folks, it is not only more precise in delivery and supposidly
operational up to 10,000 rpm, but it can "pump" more fuel in a shorter time
frame so higher horsepower motors are possible. That is why Yamaha has to
use such high pressures, now up to 1000 psi, is to flow enough fuel in the
short amount of time it has between exhaust port closing and igntion. They
still have to start fuel injection before the exhaust is closed and that is
why they cannot meet 2008 emission specs, but only the 2006 ones..

From what I understand, OMC was working on this years back and now
Bombardier has the resources to get it into production. It is a Bombardier
patent and is not infringing on any Ficht family patents so they do not have
to use the FICHT name.

I haven't gotten to see or play with one yet but reports from the field
testers say the E-TECH idles very slow and doesn't even ripple the water
because it is so smooth. Time will tell when the production models roll off
the line next month. According to Bombardier, by next year's model
introduction, they will be the first company to have all their motors meet
2008 emission limits.

I did watch a 3hp rope start E-TECH run 2 years ago. Carbureted small hp
4-strokes can't meet the more stringent emission levels, but E-TECH can.

Bill Grannis
service manager

The early FICHT years question
 

del cecchi wrote:
"Billgran" wrote in message
om...


I am also still trying to

figure out how an Etec injector works. The Ficht used a metal rod

driven

by an external solenoid. What is the difference in Etec? Got a

patent

number or two?

del cecchi


Hi Del,

It's been a long time.

Check out Patent No.6398511 B1. It works like an audio speaker where a

pulse

of current makes the "armature" move forward, then an opposite pulse

stops

it and returns the "armature" to its home position. Unlike the FICHT
injector, it does not depend on springs to return it to start its

cycle all

over again. It still is a "linear motor" attached to a pump, but

according

to the factory folks, it is not only more precise in delivery and

supposidly

operational up to 10,000 rpm, but it can "pump" more fuel in a shorter

time

frame so higher horsepower motors are possible. That is why Yamaha has

to

use such high pressures, now up to 1000 psi, is to flow enough fuel in

the

short amount of time it has between exhaust port closing and igntion.

They

still have to start fuel injection before the exhaust is closed and

that is

why they cannot meet 2008 emission specs, but only the 2006 ones..

From what I understand, OMC was working on this years back and now
Bombardier has the resources to get it into production. It is a

Bombardier

patent and is not infringing on any Ficht family patents so they do

not have

to use the FICHT name.

I haven't gotten to see or play with one yet but reports from the

field

testers say the E-TECH idles very slow and doesn't even ripple the

water

because it is so smooth. Time will tell when the production models

roll off

the line next month. According to Bombardier, by next year's model
introduction, they will be the first company to have all their motors

meet

2008 emission limits.

I did watch a 3hp rope start E-TECH run 2 years ago. Carbureted small

hp

4-strokes can't meet the more stringent emission levels, but E-TECH

can.

Bill Grannis
service manager


Thanks for the patent pointer. The voice coil in a speaker or in a disk
drive is in a magnetic field from a perm. magnet, and is attached to the
cone or arm. I'm having trouble figuring out how the voice coil creates
the fuel pressure. Push on a rod or diaphram maybe?

I'll take a look at the patent when I am on wideband.

del cecchi




I mentioned at least a year ago that Ficht were mucking around with
capacitors, trying yet again to get something for nothing (NB patent
date 4 June 2002).

In short this is Ficht sans the name & if you read the patent look at
the effort they've put into making sure there's no mention of what
happens inside the "pump" part i.e. it's still the same old impact pump
with the same original defects from 98 not enough pressure, not enough
flow, not enough atomisation & still trying to meet regs with lean
mixtures, all = detonation failures in too high a percentage to be a
commercial proposition.

As I suggested when I first mentioned the capacitor thing, they are
well aware of the problem but have no solution, this is just more of the
same old OMC experimentation with consumers' money!! They've increased
the size of the electrical system so much that now they're trying to
milk as much energy out of it vs times available, as possible, trouble
is it's literally re-arranging deck chairs on the S(unken) S(hi.) Ficht.

It can't work any more than the original Ficht did & as then, the same
NG dealer lackies will deceive, spruik & BS.

K

The early FICHT years question
 

"K Smith" wrote in message
...
del cecchi wrote:
snip
Thanks for the patent pointer. The voice coil in a speaker or in a
disk
drive is in a magnetic field from a perm. magnet, and is attached to
the
cone or arm. I'm having trouble figuring out how the voice coil
creates
the fuel pressure. Push on a rod or diaphram maybe?

I'll take a look at the patent when I am on wideband.

del cecchi




I mentioned at least a year ago that Ficht were mucking around with
capacitors, trying yet again to get something for nothing (NB patent
date 4 June 2002).

Recovering energy from the magnetic field and storing it in a capacitor
to be reused isn't something for nothing.


In short this is Ficht sans the name & if you read the patent look at
the effort they've put into making sure there's no mention of what
happens inside the "pump" part i.e. it's still the same old impact
pump
with the same original defects from 98 not enough pressure, not enough
flow, not enough atomisation & still trying to meet regs with lean
mixtures, all = detonation failures in too high a percentage to be a
commercial proposition.

Actually there is a patent under Bombardier for a spiffy new nozzle
also. :-)
And one on cold starting.

Hard to imagine the workings of an injector for an idling 3hp engine,
isn't it?


snip

It can't work any more than the original Ficht did & as then, the same
NG dealer lackies will deceive, spruik & BS.

K

It's their job. :-) If they didn't believe the mfg, then they couldn't
be dealers of that brand for long.

I haven't had time to read the patents well enough to see if there is
momentum involved or if it is a straightforward hydraulic pump deal.

del

The early FICHT years question
 

del cecchi wrote:
"K Smith" wrote in message
...

del cecchi wrote:

snip

Thanks for the patent pointer. The voice coil in a speaker or in a

disk

drive is in a magnetic field from a perm. magnet, and is attached to

the

cone or arm. I'm having trouble figuring out how the voice coil

creates

the fuel pressure. Push on a rod or diaphram maybe?

I'll take a look at the patent when I am on wideband.

del cecchi




I mentioned at least a year ago that Ficht were mucking around with
capacitors, trying yet again to get something for nothing (NB patent
date 4 June 2002).


Recovering energy from the magnetic field and storing it in a capacitor
to be reused isn't something for nothing.


Exactly!! & this encapsulates their problem, to take pressures from
circulation to anything worthwhile in DFI terms (remember Yam are now up
at 1000psi of petrol) then back down to circulation again to recharge
the chamber in the time available per stroke for a high revving 2
stroke, takes energy & lots of it?? How much?? don't know, but you &
Marcus were starting to work it out years ago but ......

The impact injectors don't really increase the fuel pressure they just
impact velocity. The ups & downs cancel each other save some small
spillage, which isn't even a pump as such. i.e. there is no actual
displacement of the fluid.


In short this is Ficht sans the name & if you read the patent look at
the effort they've put into making sure there's no mention of what
happens inside the "pump" part i.e. it's still the same old impact

pump

with the same original defects from 98 not enough pressure, not enough
flow, not enough atomisation & still trying to meet regs with lean
mixtures, all = detonation failures in too high a percentage to be a
commercial proposition.


Actually there is a patent under Bombardier for a spiffy new nozzle
also. :-)
And one on cold starting.

They're prolific as OMC were. I think we've discussed before it's a tactic.


Hard to imagine the workings of an injector for an idling 3hp engine,
isn't it?

Well it's a spruiking story I'm sure we'll hear oft enough as they try
to sell these things again, we heard some doozies the first time around
& as then some will believe & some won't, however I'm hoping this time
people will be at least a bit wary of the dealers BS.



snip

It can't work any more than the original Ficht did & as then, the same
NG dealer lackies will deceive, spruik & BS.

K


It's their job. :-) If they didn't believe the mfg, then they couldn't
be dealers of that brand for long.

I guess that's fair enough but this NG is different, if they want to
advertise with deceptions there are plenty of forums etc for that, this
is supposed to be open discussion without spam. I accept I overreact but
don't apologise, I've had a flogging from these individuals over the
years & will not be silenced by bullies this time anymore than I was the
first time.


I haven't had time to read the patents well enough to see if there is
momentum involved or if it is a straightforward hydraulic pump deal.

They don't say; the patent concentrates on the drive system. I suspect
they have a license problem with Ficht if they use any of Ficht's
material & clearly they're desperate to dump the Ficht name (don't blame
them:-)) but to persist with the consumer funded experiments is outright
sad, if not illegal. This time I'm betting the good ol' boys will sue on
mass, as they should have the first time.

K

del

The early FICHT years question
 

Harry Krause wrote:
K Smith wrote:

Here's another of your obvious lies for you, seeing a pattern?? yes
mental illness. Add the stalking of a NG member in real life & a
dangerous liar to boot.

Hows the Lobster boat & Parker lies going Harry???, you are full of crap.


As far as your other complaints, well, almost every president in my
memory,
and I *remember* Truman, Eisenhower (who cheated on his wife), Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush, lied and participated in
deceit to one degree or another, and on issues far more important
than who
was giving them blow jobs.

Good lord. I met *every* president in the damned group except Bush, and I
worked once for his father.


paste of Harry the king of BS from 97;

Have you ever sailed from San Francisco to Hawaii? I have.
Have you ever rounded Cape Horn? I have, twice.
Have you ever transited the Panama Canal? I have.
Have you owned more than 20 boats in your lifetime? I have.
Have you ever sailed large boats competitively? I have.
Have you ever been hundreds of miles from land in a powerboat under your
command? I have.

The early FICHT years question
 

K Smith wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
K Smith wrote:

Here's another of your obvious lies for you, seeing a pattern?? yes
mental illness. Add the stalking of a NG member in real life & a
dangerous liar to boot.

Hows the Lobster boat & Parker lies going Harry???, you are full of crap.


The boats are fine, Karen. Still no credentials, eh?




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

The early FICHT years question
 

Karen,

I know you're a DFI Hater, and epecially an OMC DFI Hater, and god
knows enough folks were screwed by OMC directly, and many others
indirectly (those who have perfectly good running engines whose boat
value and marketability is hurt due to the label engine), but... all
of the ancedotal evidence I've seen seems to indicate that Mercury's
version is not doing that bad, considering all the engines they sell,
and that Yamaha's version, HPDI, has no widepsread systemic problems.
Aside from your biased unprofessional opinion about the adequacy of
"lean burn technology", do you have any stats to back-up your anti-DFI
attitude wrt non-OMC engines?

The early FICHT years question
 

K Smith wrote:
FishFan wrote:

Aside from your biased unprofessional opinion about the adequacy of
"lean burn technology", do you have any stats to back-up your anti-DFI
attitude wrt non-OMC engines?

As for my unprofessional
opinion I guess you better point to the other people who publicly,
repeatedly & in the face of some pretty vile abuse, predicted that Ficht
& to an admitted lesser extent Opti wouldn't work???

As usual, someone asks a direct question and you don't have an answer.
Do you have any stats to back up your anti-DFI attitidue with non-OMC
engines?





--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

The early FICHT years question
 

FishFan wrote:
Karen,

I know you're a DFI Hater, and epecially an OMC DFI Hater, and god
knows enough folks were screwed by OMC directly, and many others
indirectly (those who have perfectly good running engines whose boat
value and marketability is hurt due to the label engine),

We probably agree so far & yes about especially not liking OMC DFI, If
asked I can give reasons but for now :-)

but... all
of the ancedotal evidence I've seen seems to indicate that Mercury's
version is not doing that bad, considering all the engines they sell,

It depends of what you mean by "that' Bad?? as bad as Ficht?? no it's
certainly always done better than that, but it's still way behind the
very same Merc engines, built on the same production lines using the
same basic structural components BUT when fuelled via EFI. The same
observations can be said of OMC Ficht, despite the dealers blaming
"quality" control, pistons, fuel, oil etc they seem to not acknowledge
that the carbed almost exact same engines are about the same as they've
always been reliability wise.

and that Yamaha's version, HPDI, has no widepsread systemic problems.

Not hat's true but significantly they've confronted the issues head on
(little joke the-)), they use extremely high injection pressures so
assuring better atomisation & they don't run anywhere as lean as Ficht
nor Opti, they shut cyls down at low revs, so the remaining ones can
operate at more normal mixtures (still lean but not as much).

I'd submit it's a pretty open secret the next Merc engines will be 4
strokes & the Yamahas already have their 4 stroke directly competing
against their own 2 strokes. Nothing is ever certain but it seems both
the successful DFI people are getting away from it, yes??. As for
OMC/bomb their claims about 2008 compliance & BS BS BS is the same stuff
they spruiked in 98 about the 2006 regs & so what?? In 5 years there
won't be any Ficht even renamed Ficht to worry about.

Aside from your biased unprofessional opinion about the adequacy of
"lean burn technology", do you have any stats to back-up your anti-DFI
attitude wrt non-OMC engines?

The typo seems to have lost some of this?? if you are asking why I
don't like the non DFI OMCs it's mainly the oiling system, VRO (yes yes
deceptively renamed after people started to wise up) it's still as bad
as it ever was & should be disconnected as soon as the engine gets a
little old, then have oil in the fuel tank. As for my unprofessional
opinion I guess you better point to the other people who publicly,
repeatedly & in the face of some pretty vile abuse, predicted that Ficht
& to an admitted lesser extent Opti wouldn't work??? We did & stayed
true to our reasoning over the years as we were proven correct, sadly it
cost 7000 innocent jobs, an American icon business & loads of peoples'
retirement funds, but my conscience is clear I posted it would happen &
explained in detail exactly why. I'd claim we're more "professional"
than OMC & certainly those brain dead OMC dealers.

K