|
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: snipped E tec is Ficht DFI injection renamed probably because they realised the public would never fall for the same old Ficht lies a 3rd time. It's a dead end technology & was even before OMC got it from the Germans who had been hawking it around the motor industry for years & the "real" engine builders all politely said no thanks. Pity they didn't just tell them that lean mixtures are dangerous to engine longevity. Well, here's the thing of it - the '99 I have has over 600 hours on it and the twin 225s have about 800 - both relatively hard use - seems to work for me and I'm just some schumck with a couple of boats. Tom, I don't doubt for a minute yours have been OK, but that doesn't mean anything as to whether the technology is a success or not, given it brought a US icon Co from the very beginning of OBs to an end, chucked 7000 out of work & lost 1.3 Bil of union pension money I think even your 600 hrs won't undo the reality of an untested, design fault being put to the public for them to pay for the testing. snipped You mentioned that the last time and I've been looking around - I can't seem to find this 1 in 5 failure rate documented anywhere. Can you provide me a reference to this that I can look at? I know that the failure rate for the midrange (100-150) engines was high, but 1 in 5? I'm not sure of that. The head boss of OMC made the statement when they were trying to spruik that everything had been fixed in 99, alas it sucked a few more punters in & the failure rates were never mentioned again, you'd think they would have said hey we halved them!!! it's "only" 1 in 10 now :-) They didn't because it can't work, if it had a snowball's chance the big engine people, even just one of them, would have been serious about it, none were & their engineers were proven totally correct as we have:-). snipped I'm just a user and I'm trying to understand this apparent problem you have with FICHT - that's it. The "problem" is that to get a port transferred 2 stroke through the EPA they have to: (i) Run very lean mixtures at low to mid revs so lean that in normal premises they wouldn't even reliably ignite. (ii) To even get ignition of such lean mixtures they use 2 tactics (a) Multiple firing of the plug (proof that the mixture is extremely lean) & (b) They very low pressure (read poor atomisation = detonation) Direct inject the fuel "almost" (NB they were so dumb in the early models there was no "almost"!!!) at the plug so it might ignite, they pretend this is a "stratified" charge, but like all previous attempts to reliably maintain a stratified charge it doesn't stratify as intended often enough not to be reliable. (iii) Lean mixtures so long as they can actually be ignited, are a known source of chamber temp buildup, (the flame front is slow because the fuel is not evenly spread throughout the charge) even the dealer socalled mechanics know that if a carbed engine gets a partially blocked jet that cyl will run lean, get hot, once hot enough the charge will auto ignite (petrol auto ignites if in contact with anything over about 250C, not very hot, yes Tom??) & self sustaining detonation will set in making more heat more detonation, more heat etc etc etc, bang. (iv) There was some confusion at first because the typical failure set was when the boat was at power, however this was because the low to med. speed mixtures are so lean in Ficht (& opti) that there isn't enough fuel to even support detonation!!!, in normal premises a Ficht would stop save they repeatedly fire the plugs (no wonder they're expensive & still have a short life:-)) (v) The answer is that although they can't support detonation at low revs they can still build heat in the chamber, particularly the piston/rings, so when the user spools up & suddenly delivers a full normal "rich" mixture there are parts of the chamber well above 250C & a cyl or two lapse into uncontrollable detonation; the powerhead is wrecked in seconds. (vi) If you doubt that lean mixture heat buildup is the problem you should consider they're own desperate telling actions (a) Same engines, same production, same parts, same power outputs carbed vs DFI: the carbed engines are still plodding on, dirty EPA wise but reliable, the very same engines fitted with DFI kaboom. (b) You need a "special" dealer only ripoff price high temp oil for the DFI engines, why??? is there really a temp problem??? how?? where from?? after all it's the same as the carbed or EFI engine?? (c) Given the importance of precise spark timing & the effort all the manufacturers go to get it just right, how is it that it suddenly doesn't matter a hoot in the DFI??? I mean they just leave the plug firing away till some lean bit of mixture finally catches, but even then they leave it firing!!!! This is very telling as to the lean stratified fairytale Tom. Again keep asking why the carbed same engine same factory same parts, same HP/ltr etc etc geee it only needs one flash, that's one flash of the plug, to ignite the charge. (d) The best so far??? is that the new E-tecs are trying to say they are "better" because they use higher melting point alloy in the pistons!!! What an unbelievable admission, what confirmation that whoever signs the cheques (do they even still use cheques??) is being fed BS by probably the original pack of OMC BS'rs. Long long before standard garden variety aluminium is even looking hot (melts over 600C!!!) the engine is in terminal detonation, because as soon as the piston (or anything else in there) gets above 250C the game is over. Yes the wrecked powerheads have melted pistons etc but that's the outcome of uncontrollable detonation not the cause. Damn just how bloody stupid are these people?? & can the cheque signer even breath unassisted??? So far, I haven't heard much about the E-TECs other than my first hand experience with them which was around 35 hours with a 40 and about 30 hours with a 70. That's alot of hours Tom:-), those of us who really do boat will confirm, hmmm bit of a worry don't go all Harry on us:-) Sounds like you're trying the sell!! sell!! sell!!! This "I know of one that didn't fail" testimonial; crap is just that crap, it's the quiet owner who has his boating ruined by a design fault & worse a known design fault that is the real issue, & yes they're in a minority but if so what. Can you image if one in 5 GMs failed??? there would be a huge govt mandated recall as I say there should be this time with E tec, because this time you can't argue it's the EPA's or anyone elses' fault. Show me - give me a reference about this one-in-five fail rate. Even with the mid-range engine problems they had, I don't believe it was 1 in 5. It was straight from the head of OMC & confirmed by the NG OMC dealers of the time, not that they tell or could even recognise the truth:-) snipped 600+ on the '99 200 and just under 800 on the '01 225 twins and still going strong. Not really relevant Tom sorry, 2 stroke OBs are gone & good riddance. Buy more at your own risk it's your money & now you are aware of the risk I have no trouble. I have the 200C Ranger up for sale and have a current offer, with a deposit and everything, just under what I originally paid for it and minus the electronics package I put on it. I'm just waiting for my new 2300 Bay Ranger to be delivered in September. And that boat is going to have a FICHT on it - 225 in fact. Yes yes you're the usual seller, claiming this & that, in general any boat with a Ficht or it's derivatives is & will always be devalued, for good reason. As to the Contender, I wouldn't sell it on a bet because I love the boat. However, I have it looked over by a public adjuster with marine experience every year for total replacement cost and you know what? If the boat sank tomorrow, it's "true" value is 12% below what I paid for it - not bad for a two year old boat that is used on a regular basis. And that's without the electronics and equipment package which is insured on a seperate policy. Dear dear dear just keep paying those premiums based on that value then Tom, wow you really are a dealers dream!!! So much for the diiminished resale argument. Yep so much it's sad. However, to give you some outs, this is only my experience with the FICHT. I have talked to other FICHT owners and they seem content with their engines. Small sample to be sure, but these are folks in my circle who are fairly knowledgable with a lot of experience with outboards. Honestly Tom where do you find them?? around here the only boats left with Ficht on them are usually in the hands of dealers, telling the usual lies to try & unload them. There were lots of people taken in in the early times & they were pretty common, but seriously given the claimed numbers sold, where the hell did they all go?? you rarely see a Ficht powered boat these days, is it the same there??? Where does the picture go when you turn off the telly?? If you have reference to actual facts - as in actual numbers, types of failures, recalls, etc - I would appreciate seeing them. OMC were never going to help with that, they just kept changing endless blown powerheads & hoping the govt wouldn't make them do a full recall, offering the dealers a 30% markup if they just kept selling defective engines & dealers being what they are were only too happy to do that:-) till they ran out of money; well till the union pension funds ran out that is:-) Always open to seeing and evaluating all the evidence. There's plenty above to discuss, I look forward to it & thanks. You are pushing it uphill with a piece of string though Tom, Yamaha have all but given up on the DFI 2 strokes, Merc most certainly have, a few smaller Japanese are left but in general terms the real manufacturers have voted with their feet, or legs:-) whatever:-) K Later, Tom |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:15:06 +1000, "K. Smith"
wrote: Enjoy your life Karen. You are just one of the Usenet denizens who have nothing to contribute but negativity. Later, Tom |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with her
position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4 stroke engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke products. Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's simplicity. "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:15:06 +1000, "K. Smith" wrote: Enjoy your life Karen. You are just one of the Usenet denizens who have nothing to contribute but negativity. Later, Tom |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
JamesgangNC wrote:
Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with her position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4 stroke engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke products. Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's simplicity. Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production, in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real deals. I'll be glad to read them with great interest. Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics. -- A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse. |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:48:47 GMT, "JamesgangNC"
wrote: Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with her position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4 stroke engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke products. Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's simplicity. I agree with that, but I don't believe that two stroke technology is dead. I believe, and it's only my opinon, that those who are invested in two stroke technology will make it well worth the while. E-TEC may just be the start. Later, Tom |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JamesgangNC wrote: Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with her position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4 stroke engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke products. Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's simplicity. Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production, in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real deals. I'll be glad to read them with great interest. Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics. -- A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse. 50 years is too far back. Those 2 strokes were simple. The Optimax and Ficht of the last 10 years have not shown a lot of reliability. Witness the demise of original OMC. With the big Honda a basic high performance car engine with a dry sump. there should be great reliability. The E-Tec, etc, with the addition of air compressors, low amount of lubrication at the lower end as the requirements for less oil and emissions. Makes for a engine that is on the edge of reliability. Bill |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
I don't agree that there is any future in it. There is no other major
industry that is interested in producing large consumer two strokes besides the boating outboard business. You simply can not easily design a two stroke that is going to cleanly burn all the fuel at the entire rpm range. Reducing the fuel charge is extremely dangerous to longevity. At the same time advanced flow analysis and engine designs continue to make 4 strokes in cars and motorcylces simpler, more powerful, cleaner, and cheaper to produce. Most of that engineering is directly transferable into 4 stroke outboards at a far lesser cost. The advantage of a full cycle to clean out the combustion products and reload with a fresh charge is hard to beat if you're looking to have a clean burn across the entire rpm range. "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:48:47 GMT, "JamesgangNC" wrote: Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with her position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4 stroke engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke products. Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's simplicity. I agree with that, but I don't believe that two stroke technology is dead. I believe, and it's only my opinon, that those who are invested in two stroke technology will make it well worth the while. E-TEC may just be the start. Later, Tom |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Ya know, a 2 stroke doesn't have to oil the bottom end through the fuel.
I've always wondered why the OB manufacturers didn't change the design to a closed crankcase design with a dry sump oil system and a simple supercharger. Cheaper, simpler, proven. "Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JamesgangNC wrote: Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with her position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4 stroke engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke products. Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's simplicity. Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production, in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real deals. I'll be glad to read them with great interest. Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics. -- A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse. 50 years is too far back. Those 2 strokes were simple. The Optimax and Ficht of the last 10 years have not shown a lot of reliability. Witness the demise of original OMC. With the big Honda a basic high performance car engine with a dry sump. there should be great reliability. The E-Tec, etc, with the addition of air compressors, low amount of lubrication at the lower end as the requirements for less oil and emissions. Makes for a engine that is on the edge of reliability. Bill |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Because that doesn't address the burn problem. 2 strokes do not burn clean
because the intake and exhaust all happens at the same time. Over a wide rpm range you invariably have fuel that escapes with the exhaust. That's the problem they're trying to solve because they have to meet emission standards now. "HLAviation" wrote in message link.net... Ya know, a 2 stroke doesn't have to oil the bottom end through the fuel. I've always wondered why the OB manufacturers didn't change the design to a closed crankcase design with a dry sump oil system and a simple supercharger. Cheaper, simpler, proven. "Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JamesgangNC wrote: Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with her position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4 stroke engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke products. Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's simplicity. Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production, in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real deals. I'll be glad to read them with great interest. Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics. -- A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse. 50 years is too far back. Those 2 strokes were simple. The Optimax and Ficht of the last 10 years have not shown a lot of reliability. Witness the demise of original OMC. With the big Honda a basic high performance car engine with a dry sump. there should be great reliability. The E-Tec, etc, with the addition of air compressors, low amount of lubrication at the lower end as the requirements for less oil and emissions. Makes for a engine that is on the edge of reliability. Bill |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:29:02 GMT, "JamesgangNC"
wrote: I don't agree that there is any future in it. There is no other major industry that is interested in producing large consumer two strokes besides the boating outboard business. You simply can not easily design a two stroke that is going to cleanly burn all the fuel at the entire rpm range. I wasn't there, but I understand that at the dealer's meeting for the E-TEC big engine rollout (about a month or so ago), they compared emissions of an E-TEC 225 to a Honda Civic and the E-TEC showed better overall figures - one in particular carbon monoxide and one other was actually better by a big margin. They did the test in front of everybody at the meeting as I understand it, so it was a live test. Reducing the fuel charge is extremely dangerous to longevity. At the same time advanced flow analysis and engine designs continue to make 4 strokes in cars and motorcylces simpler, more powerful, cleaner, and cheaper to produce. Most of that engineering is directly transferable into 4 stroke outboards at a far lesser cost. The advantage of a full cycle to clean out the combustion products and reload with a fresh charge is hard to beat if you're looking to have a clean burn across the entire rpm range. Well, we'll see. Great discussion topic though. Nice job. Later, Tom S. Woodstock, CT ----------- "Angling may be said to be so like the mathematics that it can never be fully learnt..." Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653 |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
HLAviation wrote:
Ya know, a 2 stroke doesn't have to oil the bottom end through the fuel. I've always wondered why the OB manufacturers didn't change the design to a closed crankcase design with a dry sump oil system and a simple supercharger. Cheaper, simpler, proven. They have Aviation, the Ficht & Optic just pump tiny amounts of raw oil into the crankcase, because there is no fuel going through it just air. This is one of their problems, the small amount of oil just sits there (that's why they claim not to use much oil) getting hotter & hotter until it bakes behind the lean mixture induced overly hot rings. The Optis use a piston pump (true it's almost the same as a truck's brake pump) to pressurise a second inlet manifold which has the injectors, then they shoot air & fuel into the chamber via another big problematic injector(inlet valve), with it's plumbing drives lubrication etc etc it's more complex than even the latest 4 strokes. K "Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JamesgangNC wrote: Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with her position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4 stroke engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke products. Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's simplicity. Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production, in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real deals. I'll be glad to read them with great interest. Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics. -- A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse. 50 years is too far back. Those 2 strokes were simple. The Optimax and Ficht of the last 10 years have not shown a lot of reliability. Witness the demise of original OMC. With the big Honda a basic high performance car engine with a dry sump. there should be great reliability. The E-Tec, etc, with the addition of air compressors, low amount of lubrication at the lower end as the requirements for less oil and emissions. Makes for a engine that is on the edge of reliability. Bill |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:15:06 +1000, "K. Smith" wrote: Enjoy your life Karen. You are just one of the Usenet denizens who have nothing to contribute but negativity. Later, Tom No Tom I'm the usenet denizen who warned people here in 97-98 that Ficht wouldn't & couldn't work, further I actually explained why. I was proven totally correct on all counts, sadly lots of people pensioners, employees, boaters etc lost lots of money because people like you, either brain dead dealers or dealer groupies decided rather than deal with the technical issues you'd just throw mud at me, well guess what I'm still squeaky clean & most of the Ficht dealers who told all sorts of lies here have gone. I'll still be here still clean as a whistle, after E-tec has gone having cost many more lots of money & heartache. So far you've not dealt with my points at all, what can't?? or just scared, you should be. K |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
An exhaust valve solves that problem.
"JamesgangNC" wrote in message ink.net... Because that doesn't address the burn problem. 2 strokes do not burn clean because the intake and exhaust all happens at the same time. Over a wide rpm range you invariably have fuel that escapes with the exhaust. That's the problem they're trying to solve because they have to meet emission standards now. "HLAviation" wrote in message link.net... Ya know, a 2 stroke doesn't have to oil the bottom end through the fuel. I've always wondered why the OB manufacturers didn't change the design to a closed crankcase design with a dry sump oil system and a simple supercharger. Cheaper, simpler, proven. "Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JamesgangNC wrote: Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with her position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4 stroke engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke products. Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's simplicity. Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production, in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real deals. I'll be glad to read them with great interest. Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics. -- A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse. 50 years is too far back. Those 2 strokes were simple. The Optimax and Ficht of the last 10 years have not shown a lot of reliability. Witness the demise of original OMC. With the big Honda a basic high performance car engine with a dry sump. there should be great reliability. The E-Tec, etc, with the addition of air compressors, low amount of lubrication at the lower end as the requirements for less oil and emissions. Makes for a engine that is on the edge of reliability. Bill |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:29:02 GMT, "JamesgangNC" wrote: I don't agree that there is any future in it. There is no other major industry that is interested in producing large consumer two strokes besides the boating outboard business. You simply can not easily design a two stroke that is going to cleanly burn all the fuel at the entire rpm range. I wasn't there, but I understand that at the dealer's meeting for the E-TEC big engine rollout (about a month or so ago), they compared emissions of an E-TEC 225 to a Honda Civic and the E-TEC showed better overall figures - one in particular carbon monoxide and one other was actually better by a big margin. They did the test in front of everybody at the meeting as I understand it, so it was a live test. So what?? all the engines meet the EPA regs, why do you & the OMC brigade constantly try to sell on this. It's not relevant to an owner. What does matter is reliability & market perceptions of longevity, both of which you don't have & can't get because your technology doesn't & can't work, all the big engine people have tried lean burn & all except you had dropped it as too risky, gee it's not hard it's just ordinary rocket science with exactly the same problem; too little fuel for the amount of oxidant available & kaboom. Both reliability & perceived longevity determine boat resale. K Reducing the fuel charge is extremely dangerous to longevity. At the same time advanced flow analysis and engine designs continue to make 4 strokes in cars and motorcylces simpler, more powerful, cleaner, and cheaper to produce. Most of that engineering is directly transferable into 4 stroke outboards at a far lesser cost. The advantage of a full cycle to clean out the combustion products and reload with a fresh charge is hard to beat if you're looking to have a clean burn across the entire rpm range. Well, we'll see. Great discussion topic though. Nice job. Later, Tom S. Woodstock, CT ----------- "Angling may be said to be so like the mathematics that it can never be fully learnt..." Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653 |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Harry,
That was an unfair "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question. There isn't a 50 year history on 4 stroke outboards. And I know you know that. The best indicator is the 4 stroke motorcycles. I'll still side with a 2 stroke for outboards............... but 4 stroke reliability isn't really in much question. -W "Harry Krause" wrote in message news:2mnuc5Fpcdo9U1@uni- Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production, in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real deals. I'll be glad to read them with great interest. Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics. |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Clams Canino wrote:
Harry, That was an unfair "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question. There isn't a 50 year history on 4 stroke outboards. And I know you know that. The best indicator is the 4 stroke motorcycles. I'll still side with a 2 stroke for outboards............... but 4 stroke reliability isn't really in much question. -W "Harry Krause" wrote in message news:2mnuc5Fpcdo9U1@uni- Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production, in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real deals. I'll be glad to read them with great interest. Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics. Of all the big horsepower engines built in the last 50 years, I'll bet 95% are two cycles. They've done a great job for us, and still do. Are four strokes the future? Probably. But not necessarily because they last longer or perform better. The first issue...will they last longer...is an unknown. The second...will they perform better? Not that I see. Not yet. -- We have nothing to fear.. ....but four more years of George W. Bush. |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Then you are back to more complicated mechanics and you still have the
inherent poor emissions of a 2 stroke. Bill "HLAviation" wrote in message link.net... Ya know, a 2 stroke doesn't have to oil the bottom end through the fuel. I've always wondered why the OB manufacturers didn't change the design to a closed crankcase design with a dry sump oil system and a simple supercharger. Cheaper, simpler, proven. "Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JamesgangNC wrote: Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with her position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4 stroke engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke products. Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's simplicity. Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production, in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real deals. I'll be glad to read them with great interest. Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics. -- A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse. 50 years is too far back. Those 2 strokes were simple. The Optimax and Ficht of the last 10 years have not shown a lot of reliability. Witness the demise of original OMC. With the big Honda a basic high performance car engine with a dry sump. there should be great reliability. The E-Tec, etc, with the addition of air compressors, low amount of lubrication at the lower end as the requirements for less oil and emissions. Makes for a engine that is on the edge of reliability. Bill |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
But those high HP engines of 10-40 years ago were not the new EPA approved 2
Strokes. The new engines are mechanical monstrosities. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Clams Canino wrote: Harry, That was an unfair "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question. There isn't a 50 year history on 4 stroke outboards. And I know you know that. The best indicator is the 4 stroke motorcycles. I'll still side with a 2 stroke for outboards............... but 4 stroke reliability isn't really in much question. -W "Harry Krause" wrote in message news:2mnuc5Fpcdo9U1@uni- Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production, in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real deals. I'll be glad to read them with great interest. Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics. Of all the big horsepower engines built in the last 50 years, I'll bet 95% are two cycles. They've done a great job for us, and still do. Are four strokes the future? Probably. But not necessarily because they last longer or perform better. The first issue...will they last longer...is an unknown. The second...will they perform better? Not that I see. Not yet. -- We have nothing to fear.. ...but four more years of George W. Bush. |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
"Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... But those high HP engines of 10-40 years ago were not the new EPA approved 2 Strokes. The new engines are mechanical monstrosities. Ah, you haven't see the Evinrude E-TEC yet. When you remove the cover, there ain't much there compared to a 4-stroke. There is little wiring since it is magneto controlled ( it doesn't run off a battery), the ECU (computer) is compact, and hoses a fittings are at a minimum. It does not look like previous engines that resembled the under-hood look of today's cars. Emissions wise, the E-TEC emits a smaller total amount of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide than any 4-stroke. It also meets the stricter European emission requirements that are tougher than the California 3-star test. Evinrude says that they will be the first outboard company to have ALL thier motors meet the 3-star 2008 requirements. The 250 hp E-TEC is quieter than the Yamaha 250 4-stroke at full throttle and the same at mid-speeds according to Powerboat Reports. Bill Grannis service manager |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Billgran wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... But those high HP engines of 10-40 years ago were not the new EPA approved 2 Strokes. The new engines are mechanical monstrosities. Ah, you haven't see the Evinrude E-TEC yet. When you remove the cover, there ain't much there compared to a 4-stroke. There is little wiring since it is magneto controlled ( it doesn't run off a battery), the ECU (computer) is compact, and hoses a fittings are at a minimum. It does not look like previous engines that resembled the under-hood look of today's cars. Emissions wise, the E-TEC emits a smaller total amount of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide than any 4-stroke. It also meets the stricter European emission requirements that are tougher than the California 3-star test. Evinrude says that they will be the first outboard company to have ALL thier motors meet the 3-star 2008 requirements. The 250 hp E-TEC is quieter than the Yamaha 250 4-stroke at full throttle and the same at mid-speeds according to Powerboat Reports. Bill Grannis service manager I haven't seen a Yamaha 250 four stroke yet, but at full throttle, my Yamaha 225 four stroke seems as loud as any other outboard of the same horsepower. It seems a bit quieter ad mid-range, and there is no question it is much quieter than most two strokes at idle. -- We have nothing to fear.. ....but four more years of George W. Bush. |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
K. Smith wrote:
Billgran wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... But those high HP engines of 10-40 years ago were not the new EPA approved 2 Strokes. The new engines are mechanical monstrosities. Ah, you haven't see the Evinrude E-TEC yet. When you remove the cover, there ain't much there compared to a 4-stroke. There is little wiring since it is magneto controlled ( it doesn't run off a battery), the ECU (computer) is compact, and hoses a fittings are at a minimum. It does not look like previous engines that resembled the under-hood look of today's cars. Emissions wise, the E-TEC emits a smaller total amount of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide than any 4-stroke. It also meets the stricter European emission requirements that are tougher than the California 3-star test. Evinrude says that they will be the first outboard company to have ALL thier motors meet the 3-star 2008 requirements. The 250 hp E-TEC is quieter than the Yamaha 250 4-stroke at full throttle and the same at mid-speeds according to Powerboat Reports. Bill Grannis service manager Bill you are just marketing or spamming again as you have since the beginning of Ficht, you personally have deceived many with this crap. Ahhh. Ms. Karen "I've never seen one of these newfangled outboards" Smith pipes in -again- with more of her Luddite nonsense. It's quieter than or cleaner than, it's tidier really tidier???:-) what a hoot!!! so what?? So what? So what? We have antipollution laws now, that's what's so what, you ignorant twit. You & your fellow dealers are just BS again to make sales; you have no clue whatsoever if E-tec will work, it's more experimenting with consumers' money. You only know what you been told to parrot to the public, true or false you have no care. I'd take the word of Bill Grannis *any day* all day long over the word of non-accomoplished whiner like you. You have no credentials. Like Ficht I tell you again ....and again and again and again and again and again and again... ....and again and again and again and again and again and again... ....and again and again and again and again and again and again... ....and again and again and again and again and again and again... And never with any documentation or statistics. -- We have nothing to fear.. ....but four more years of George W. Bush. |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:17:53 GMT, "Billgran"
wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net... But those high HP engines of 10-40 years ago were not the new EPA approved 2 Strokes. The new engines are mechanical monstrosities. Ah, you haven't see the Evinrude E-TEC yet. When you remove the cover, there ain't much there compared to a 4-stroke. There is little wiring since it is magneto controlled ( it doesn't run off a battery), the ECU (computer) is compact, and hoses a fittings are at a minimum. It does not look like previous engines that resembled the under-hood look of today's cars. Emissions wise, the E-TEC emits a smaller total amount of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide than any 4-stroke. It also meets the stricter European emission requirements that are tougher than the California 3-star test. Evinrude says that they will be the first outboard company to have ALL thier motors meet the 3-star 2008 requirements. The 250 hp E-TEC is quieter than the Yamaha 250 4-stroke at full throttle and the same at mid-speeds according to Powerboat Reports. Hey Bill Were you at that meeting in Florida a month or two ago? Did they really do that Honda Civic, E-TEC test I was told about? I'm telling you - after hearing all the good stuff about E-TEC, I'm in for two for the Contender. Later, Tom |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Billgran wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... But those high HP engines of 10-40 years ago were not the new EPA approved 2 Strokes. The new engines are mechanical monstrosities. Ah, you haven't see the Evinrude E-TEC yet. When you remove the cover, there ain't much there compared to a 4-stroke. There is little wiring since it is magneto controlled ( it doesn't run off a battery), the ECU (computer) is compact, and hoses a fittings are at a minimum. It does not look like previous engines that resembled the under-hood look of today's cars. Emissions wise, the E-TEC emits a smaller total amount of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide than any 4-stroke. It also meets the stricter European emission requirements that are tougher than the California 3-star test. Evinrude says that they will be the first outboard company to have ALL thier motors meet the 3-star 2008 requirements. The 250 hp E-TEC is quieter than the Yamaha 250 4-stroke at full throttle and the same at mid-speeds according to Powerboat Reports. Bill Grannis service manager Bill you are just marketing or spamming again as you have since the beginning of Ficht, you personally have deceived many with this crap. It's quieter than or cleaner than, it's tidier really tidier???:-) what a hoot!!! so what?? the real issue is how do you get away from the fact they run lean at low revs despite you outright untruths when you say "no it doesn't, it's stratified" please people have learned from your Ficht, Bomb debacles & you still need "special" (read expensive dealer only) oil & "special" alloy in the pistons to what?? resist the heat buildup?? You & your fellow dealers are just BS again to make sales; you have no clue whatsoever if E-tec will work, it's more experimenting with consumers' money. You only know what you been told to parrot to the public, true or false you have no care. Like Ficht I tell you again & care not if you believe, that this carries the same basic design defect of Ficht, lean mixtures, not enough fuel atomisation from too low an injection pressure & the usual problems created by heat buildup in the chamber. I'll leave the ignition & lubrication problems for another day:-) & there will be another day:-) I have to say you are as brazen as Harry & about as clever, to think after Ficht panned out you still come here with you dealer sell spam. K |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
"K. Smith" wrote in message ... Like Ficht I tell you again & care not if you believe, that this carries the same basic design defect of Ficht, lean mixtures, not enough fuel atomisation from too low an injection pressure & the usual problems created by heat buildup in the chamber. I understand that in Australia, that Johnson-Evinrude beat out Mercury for market share recently. That must mean there are a lot of Bombardier FICHTS, traditional 2-strokes, and a season's full of E-TECs sold down there. Bill Grannis service manager |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
K. Smith wrote:
Harry Krause wrote: K. Smith wrote: Billgran wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message hlink.net... But those high HP engines of 10-40 years ago were not the new EPA approved 2 Strokes. The new engines are mechanical monstrosities. Ah, you haven't see the Evinrude E-TEC yet. When you remove the cover, there ain't much there compared to a 4-stroke. There is little wiring since it is magneto controlled ( it doesn't run off a battery), the ECU (computer) is compact, and hoses a fittings are at a minimum. It does not look like previous engines that resembled the under-hood look of today's cars. Emissions wise, the E-TEC emits a smaller total amount of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide than any 4-stroke. It also meets the stricter European emission requirements that are tougher than the California 3-star test. Evinrude says that they will be the first outboard company to have ALL thier motors meet the 3-star 2008 requirements. The 250 hp E-TEC is quieter than the Yamaha 250 4-stroke at full throttle and the same at mid-speeds according to Powerboat Reports. Bill Grannis service manager Bill you are just marketing or spamming again as you have since the beginning of Ficht, you personally have deceived many with this crap. Ahhh. Ms. Karen "I've never seen one of these newfangled outboards" Smith pipes in -again- with more of her Luddite nonsense. It's quieter than or cleaner than, it's tidier really tidier???:-) what a hoot!!! so what?? So what? So what? We have antipollution laws now, that's what's so what, you ignorant twit. It's more marketing crap the same BS line they used to run when deceptively selling faulty fichts, ALL OBs marketed particularly in the US meet the current standards, as for the future standards??? Loo, it isn't anyone's fault that you don't get it. Most Americans want quieter outboards, and if Outboard X is noticeably quieter than Outboard Y, then that will appeal to many. One can only imagine the noise level of the piece of crap "diesel outboard" you had welded together. As for pollution, many Americans are interested in that, too. You & your fellow dealers are just BS again to make sales; you have no clue whatsoever if E-tec will work, it's more experimenting with consumers' money. You only know what you been told to parrot to the public, true or false you have no care. I'd take the word of Bill Grannis *any day* all day long over the word of non-accomoplished whiner like you. You have no credentials. Bill is an OB mechanic & not even very knowledgeable at that Bill is a first-rate outboard technician, quite knowledgeable, published, and a first-class human being. As far as anyone here knows, you have no credentials whatsoever, you have not written any technical or user articles that any publication has printed, and you come across as an argumentative, perseverating, loud-mouthed asshole. Ergo, I would take Bill's word over yours on anything. YOU HAVE NO CREDENTIALS. , remember despite claiming 30 yrs experience we had to teach him how the old 2 strokes controlled idle speed?? Bull****. -- We have nothing to fear.. ....but four more years of George W. Bush. |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Harry Krause wrote:
K. Smith wrote: Billgran wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message link.net... But those high HP engines of 10-40 years ago were not the new EPA approved 2 Strokes. The new engines are mechanical monstrosities. Ah, you haven't see the Evinrude E-TEC yet. When you remove the cover, there ain't much there compared to a 4-stroke. There is little wiring since it is magneto controlled ( it doesn't run off a battery), the ECU (computer) is compact, and hoses a fittings are at a minimum. It does not look like previous engines that resembled the under-hood look of today's cars. Emissions wise, the E-TEC emits a smaller total amount of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide than any 4-stroke. It also meets the stricter European emission requirements that are tougher than the California 3-star test. Evinrude says that they will be the first outboard company to have ALL thier motors meet the 3-star 2008 requirements. The 250 hp E-TEC is quieter than the Yamaha 250 4-stroke at full throttle and the same at mid-speeds according to Powerboat Reports. Bill Grannis service manager Bill you are just marketing or spamming again as you have since the beginning of Ficht, you personally have deceived many with this crap. Ahhh. Ms. Karen "I've never seen one of these newfangled outboards" Smith pipes in -again- with more of her Luddite nonsense. It's quieter than or cleaner than, it's tidier really tidier???:-) what a hoot!!! so what?? So what? So what? We have antipollution laws now, that's what's so what, you ignorant twit. It's more marketing crap the same BS line they used to run when deceptively selling faulty fichts, ALL OBs marketed particularly in the US meet the current standards, as for the future standards??? like Ficht we only have their word for it & Ficht didn't even make it to 2001:-) They're hoping people will be silly enough to think their new engine will be outlawed if it doesn't meet off into the future standards, of course it won't. So what I say is "so what" simpleton marketing line delivered by simpletons to take in simpletons; hey it's got you, there's the proof:-) You & your fellow dealers are just BS again to make sales; you have no clue whatsoever if E-tec will work, it's more experimenting with consumers' money. You only know what you been told to parrot to the public, true or false you have no care. I'd take the word of Bill Grannis *any day* all day long over the word of non-accomoplished whiner like you. You have no credentials. Bill is an OB mechanic & not even very knowledgeable at that, remember despite claiming 30 yrs experience we had to teach him how the old 2 strokes controlled idle speed?? he still hasn't figured out why & how VRO failed, still is in denial about Ficht, damn he's even told this NG they were pretty good & "he" never saw a blown one:-) so I guess you being taken in by his marketing spam just proves it again about the easiest to take in are ......, well you are an outright liar, Bill is just trying to spam a buck & gee I guess that's how OB dealers & their employees go about it. Like Ficht I tell you again ...and again and again and again and again and again and again... ...and again and again and again and again and again and again... ...and again and again and again and again and again and again... ...and again and again and again and again and again and again... And never with any documentation or statistics. Geee but we were right about Ficht & Opti, that really gets up your dirty ever growing nose hey:-) Documentation?? go to your employers the union pension funds, ask them where the workers' 1.3 Bil went when they gave it to their good left leaning (little play on the word "lean" there in case you missed it;-)) mate Sorell?? it was pi...ed against the Ficht wall. I guess you & your other bent union thugs don't care, after all it's just genuine workers' money & it makes the amounts your mob take seem less odious. You are a liar Harry not much else to be said. K |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Billgran wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote in message ... Like Ficht I tell you again & care not if you believe, that this carries the same basic design defect of Ficht, lean mixtures, not enough fuel atomisation from too low an injection pressure & the usual problems created by heat buildup in the chamber. I understand that in Australia, that Johnson-Evinrude beat out Mercury for market share recently. That must mean there are a lot of Bombardier FICHTS, traditional 2-strokes, and a season's full of E-TECs sold down there. Bill Grannis service manager I mentioned it before & honestly mean it where did all the Fichts go??? Honestly there are a few sad dealers still trying to unload "demo" boats with Fichts etc etc but they just disappeared almost overnight:-) There were lots of them around then poof they're gone I can't imagine they all blew up but I guess it's just not possible to sell a boat with a Ficht almost as any price. So where does the picture go when you turn off the telly?? Please Bill we are just going to argue if you go back into you spam as you have with Ficht, & honestly be warned this latest resurrection will have the same outcome, for the very same reasons. There must be some fast talkers left over from OMC to still get people to give them money to experiment with. Got some really bad news for you too Bill, Harry believes you!!! & is trying (again) to support you:-) too easy you have the Harry & Ficht albatross around your neck:-) K |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
"Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net...
The new engines are mechanical monstrosities. If you remember, when you were young, that's what they said about the horseless carriage. |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Unfortunately no it doesn't.
"HLAviation" wrote in message ink.net... An exhaust valve solves that problem. "JamesgangNC" wrote in message ink.net... Because that doesn't address the burn problem. 2 strokes do not burn clean because the intake and exhaust all happens at the same time. Over a wide rpm range you invariably have fuel that escapes with the exhaust. That's the problem they're trying to solve because they have to meet emission standards now. "HLAviation" wrote in message link.net... Ya know, a 2 stroke doesn't have to oil the bottom end through the fuel. I've always wondered why the OB manufacturers didn't change the design to a closed crankcase design with a dry sump oil system and a simple supercharger. Cheaper, simpler, proven. "Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JamesgangNC wrote: Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with her position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4 stroke engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke products. Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's simplicity. Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production, in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real deals. I'll be glad to read them with great interest. Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics. -- A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse. 50 years is too far back. Those 2 strokes were simple. The Optimax and Ficht of the last 10 years have not shown a lot of reliability. Witness the demise of original OMC. With the big Honda a basic high performance car engine with a dry sump. there should be great reliability. The E-Tec, etc, with the addition of air compressors, low amount of lubrication at the lower end as the requirements for less oil and emissions. Makes for a engine that is on the edge of reliability. Bill |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
Why not?
"JamesgangNC" wrote in message ink.net... Unfortunately no it doesn't. "HLAviation" wrote in message ink.net... An exhaust valve solves that problem. "JamesgangNC" wrote in message ink.net... Because that doesn't address the burn problem. 2 strokes do not burn clean because the intake and exhaust all happens at the same time. Over a wide rpm range you invariably have fuel that escapes with the exhaust. That's the problem they're trying to solve because they have to meet emission standards now. "HLAviation" wrote in message link.net... Ya know, a 2 stroke doesn't have to oil the bottom end through the fuel. I've always wondered why the OB manufacturers didn't change the design to a closed crankcase design with a dry sump oil system and a simple supercharger. Cheaper, simpler, proven. "Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JamesgangNC wrote: Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with her position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4 stroke engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke products. Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's simplicity. Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production, in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real deals. I'll be glad to read them with great interest. Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics. -- A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse. 50 years is too far back. Those 2 strokes were simple. The Optimax and Ficht of the last 10 years have not shown a lot of reliability. Witness the demise of original OMC. With the big Honda a basic high performance car engine with a dry sump. there should be great reliability. The E-Tec, etc, with the addition of air compressors, low amount of lubrication at the lower end as the requirements for less oil and emissions. Makes for a engine that is on the edge of reliability. Bill |
Why Ficht failed & why 2stroke OBs are thankfully gone (almost:-))
You understand that a 2 stroke has to intake a charge of air and gas,
compress it, ignite it, and get the results out of the cylinder on one up stroke and one down stroke? To do that it has to have a considerable overlap of those items. That's why a 2 stroke is not twice as powerful as the same sized 4 stroke, even though a 2 stroke fires every stroke it wastes some of the power stroke with early exhaust and can not load the complete cylinder displacement with a fuel/air charge. That also creates the situation where at parts of the rpm range you are either letting the burning fuel out before it has completed or letting unburned fuel run out before you close the exhaust port. A really high performing 2 stroke is peaky, it has a small rpm range where it runs like hell, anything over or under and it's a dog. That rpm range is where the port openings and the flow is just right to get rid of the exhaust and the scavaging effect loads the maximum charge. If you close up the overlap then you reduce the power stroke so much that you can't even get half the power of a 4 stroke power cycle. Plus adding other stuff like valves and compressors negates the main advantage of the two stroke, it's simple and has few moving parts. "HLAviation" wrote in message link.net... Why not? "JamesgangNC" wrote in message ink.net... Unfortunately no it doesn't. "HLAviation" wrote in message ink.net... An exhaust valve solves that problem. "JamesgangNC" wrote in message ink.net... Because that doesn't address the burn problem. 2 strokes do not burn clean because the intake and exhaust all happens at the same time. Over a wide rpm range you invariably have fuel that escapes with the exhaust. That's the problem they're trying to solve because they have to meet emission standards now. "HLAviation" wrote in message link.net... Ya know, a 2 stroke doesn't have to oil the bottom end through the fuel. I've always wondered why the OB manufacturers didn't change the design to a closed crankcase design with a dry sump oil system and a simple supercharger. Cheaper, simpler, proven. "Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JamesgangNC wrote: Not taking a position on Karen's usefulness but I have to agree with her position on 2 strokes. There is just far too much established 4 stroke engineering that can be used to make reliable riskfree 4 stroke products. Trying to make a 2 stroke low emission is just not worth it. Doing so negates one of the biggests advantages of a two stroke, it's simplicity. Do you have some legitimate statistics that demonstrate that four stroke outboards are measurably more reliable and riskfree than two-stroke outboards. I mean generally, say, for the last 50 years of production, in horsepowers of 150 or more. Big, highly stressed engine. The real deals. I'll be glad to read them with great interest. Not opinions. Genuine, scientifically based statistics. -- A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush; A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse. 50 years is too far back. Those 2 strokes were simple. The Optimax and Ficht of the last 10 years have not shown a lot of reliability. Witness the demise of original OMC. With the big Honda a basic high performance car engine with a dry sump. there should be great reliability. The E-Tec, etc, with the addition of air compressors, low amount of lubrication at the lower end as the requirements for less oil and emissions. Makes for a engine that is on the edge of reliability. Bill |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com