On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:29:00 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

K. Smith wrote:
Matt Lang wrote:


Whats your background and your background with motors if I may ask?


There follows a seemingly endless regurgitation of KarenSmith b.s., but
no answers to the specific questions posed to Ms. Smith, to wit:

"Whats your background and your background with motors if I may ask?"

The answers:

No background whatsoever.
No background with the motors.

Zip, zilch, nothing, nada.

She obviously knows much more about the subject than you ever will,
Harry.

You've yet to post anything which answers a technical question, except
a derogatory comment for the one who does provide an answer.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:29:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Matt Lang wrote:
[snip]

Whats your background and your background with motors if I may ask?

When the DFI were released we (we is the blokes I work with) took a

who exaclty is "we" ?

[snip]


Heheheh...bingo!



One hasnt heard of any bad news about HPDI ... doesnt this indicate
there is no general problem and this can work fine?

There were some problems with the HPDI system reported a few years ago,
but I haven't seen anything recently. Which means nothing.





Sorry to be so long again, but this subject has been a war since 98 &
it seems till Brunswick are all 4 stroke & E-tec has failed it will
continue.

No worries! I prefer detailed information and yes i run into some of
the older "discussions" about the subject ;)

Matt


Over the years, Ms. Smith has whined mightily about these new tech
outboards, but has not once, to my recollection, provided any cites
based upon hard science to back up her rather outrageous claims. In the
last day or so, she made yet another outrageous claim, and when pushed,
admitted that something she tried to make a bid deal about really had a
remote possibility of occuring.

Ms. Smith doesn't like the way US manufacturers and dealers do business,
but never presents viable alternatives that might return anything
reasonable on investment.

Further, though asked often, she will not reveal what business she is
in, nor what her company's connections are to the boating field, nor
whether she has any academic credentials, and she frequrently refers to
a series of unnamed experts she calls her "blokes."

From what I've seen, she scours the internet for bits and scraps, and
tries to portmanteau them into really awful sack of woe against what she
perceives are her enemies.

She doesn't like being called out, and reacts wildly to it. It's sort of
fund to pull her chains.

Another great technical response, Harry.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:53:06 +1100, "K. Smith"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~


I know my view on this is against you Tom & I do apologise but as you
can see I have copped an endless flogging mainly from Krause & the
dealers, so when we were confirmed as right most of them just ran away
leaving the people they'd conned holding the blown engine so to speak.


I don't' have a problem with opposing viewpoints. I have a rather
simple way of looking at things like this - to wit: If it works, it
works. :)

Glad to hear it & definitely glad to have someone sane in the
discussion indeed I hope you give us all the benefit of your soon to be,
E-tec ownership & it goes without saying, regardless of how E-tec
performs generally we always wish real rec.boaters nothing but the best.


I will admit I came to FICHT late in the game and I will also admit
that I literally had to be talked into purchasing one. And I will
also admit that I had my share of problems with the OMC FICHT that is
on my Ranger bay boat.

However, Bombardier was more than willing to correct the problems
without cost to me and once the engine was updated and made sound, I
haven't had a problem with it. And the other two that I have, both
Bombardier FICHTS have had zero problems.

I think Bomb did try to have a better attitude than OMC (wouldn't be
hard:-)) certainly they got the OMC carcass cheap enough that they could
afford a bit of largess, which they didn't skimp on.


However, your discussion points make sense and I'm not discounting
them. My experience has been positive and, for me that's is what is
most important. To me, Mercury is the spawn of the devil and will
remain that way until I can't get in a boat anymore. And it wasn't
over their engines, it was over a $1,000 trolling motor that they
refused to fix under warranty - sometimes the little things are bigger
issues than the big things. :)

Crazy isn't it?? they lost many many times 10s of that business over a
trivial matter, yet Bomb have you as a good customer because they did
the right thing. Good on ya I wish more people stuck to their guns in
that way, after a while the products themselves & service would improve
for everyone, so thanks.

K

Later,

Tom

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 06:19:52 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

K. Smith wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:


The only conclusion one can draw from Smith's posts is that she is
****ed at the manufacturers and dealeras of outboard motors,

I'm "****ed" at dealers yes they're lazy mostly dishonest bludgers, it
wasn't till the internet I realised it wasn't just our dealers but yours
too. They have consistently lied about just about ever subject in this
NG but especially about Ficht & Opti.

Yeah, we know your opinion.

Well, Harry, what's your opinion on how to stop your terrorist van
with a nuke? You're so quick to disparage, yet so slow to present an
alternative.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:O7ydnU_Wmf4ViD_cRVn- Yeah, but...you're living with the outboard
motors of 30-40 years ago.
All the new high horsepower outboards, two cycle or four cycle, are
dependent upon electronics and lots of strange parts that weren't on the
old outboards. Even my old-tech Merc 90 and 115 went teats-up on me two
times each for the same damned electronic part failure (you know which
one, too), until Merc finally realized it had a problem with LOTS of
this same part, and changed something in production or supplier to fix
it. The new diesel inboards are electronics-bound these days, too. These
engines are getting more electronic so as to meet pollution standards.

30-40 is a stretch. I *tend* to cut off at 1988 though I've worked on a few
of the 3 cylinder 90's and those 2+2 fours. The difference is that with a
carbed motor if you have an electronic failure it'll not run till you fix it
but it's rarely catastrophic. With DFI an electronic failure that gets you
too lean will cause a melt-down.

Where I do agree with Karen is that the manufacturers trotted the DFI stuff
out too soon and used the public as the beta-test platform. OMC paid dearly
for this folly and Mercury took a pretty good black eye with some of the
early Opti's too.

I'm all for pollution standards.... but I think it's niggling to have them
impact the small markets like boats and OHRV's when tightening the car/truck
standards has so much more impact. I bet if the Queen Mary II was nuclear
powered instead of diesel it would offset ALL the outboard emissions with
the one clean boat.

-W

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:07:04 +0000, Clams Canino wrote:


I'm all for pollution standards.... but I think it's niggling to have them
impact the small markets like boats and OHRV's when tightening the
car/truck standards has so much more impact. I bet if the Queen Mary II
was nuclear powered instead of diesel it would offset ALL the outboard
emissions with the one clean boat.

I understand your point. I'd be curious to find out exactly how much
pollution boats produce. We might be surprised. For instance, I was
shocked to learn a lawnmower pollutes as much, in an hour, as 40 late
model cars. I'm not sure that the lawnmower is *that* dirty or, cars have
gotten that clean.

http://www.aqmd.gov/monthly/garden.html