Matt Lang wrote:
Had a look at the chart, what's the issue???


No issue, i just wanted to see how much oil the 2 stroke actually
used. The benchmark is a 4 stroke motor which is usually is not known
as "uses oil".

I didnt want to fel bad ripping around burning loads of oil, thus I
want to see how much i am useing compared to if I had bought a 4
stroke. The boat and the other motorized toys are getting winterized
(( So I have lots of time on my hand for these kind of questions



It confirms that the modern 2 strokes use less oil than the older ones,
but this is an allusion really when you take into account the extra


No, actually it doeasnt, unless you consider the optimax old desogn.
The optimax is an older design and the first generation DFI. Lets see
to how many generations they will actually make it ...

The chart shows Merc Optimax, Whoevers (Bombardier?) ETec, and Mercs 4
stroke Verado. The oldest design there is the optimax. All of the
above use less oil as a conventional 2 stroke.



costs & while the dealers won't admit it you "should" clean the holding
tank every year. Once in there oil subject to heat & moisture
deteriorates into sludge with even the smallest amounts of water.


This is a very good point which I will investigate right away in order
to keep my motor happy This flushing procedure can be done with
cheap oil or maybe other suitable substances. Do you have any
procedure or recommendation?
In the end it may be cheaper to buy a new oil tank? This needs to be
looked into.

I wouldn't think "flushing" would be needed indeed the suggestion here
is not to risk touching the existing hose fittings etc for fear of
creating a leak. Also even a small air lock can be trouble.



Again "all" the oil in a 2 stroke (by your graph the same or more than
a 4 stroke) still goes somewhere, either burnt or out the exhaust as raw
oil, I accept what you say about oily rags etc but we're talking the
entirety of the oil, not just sundry cleanup wipes.


Yes correct. This point was not looked at in my comaprison and was not
intended to be looked at. It is a very important and valid point
though. Someone needs to create an eco balance to see whats worse in
the end. If 4 stroke oil is recycled then thats best. If its done
like some people I know do by not recycling or just recycling the oil
but not the filter and rags then it maybe worse than the 2 stroke just
burning it up.


There is another issue with the dfi 2 strokes & their oil, it's related
to raw oil injected into the crankcase, the oil builds up till excess is
"transferred", it either then gets burnt or goes straight through the
exhaust as raw oil.


I see no serious issue. Exactly that happens with conventional 2
strokes ... of course in general its not good that 2 strokes burn oil
...

A conventional 2 stroke even an efi that injects raw oil, still "mixes"
it with fuel in the crankcase & it's in those premises that I was
suggesting the oil itself doesn't get the chance to lie around getting
hot, whereas the situation is slightly different with the DFIs, it can &
does.


The system injects very small amounts at idle or
even low revs, however the oil is subject to considerable heat buildup,
unlike 4 strokes oil or even an old tech 2 stroke when it was diluted
with fuel & traveled through the engine relatively quickly. This is why
they've promoted special oils, because the oil can get hot enough to
bake behind the rings & it's all down hill from there.


Yes the DFI motors need the expensive oil. I only know the optimax
and it partly recycles its oil, which is good but this requires
different oil then the normal 2 stroke uses which is bad, as the
recirculated oil must be made so it doesnt break down from it
(expensive).



Harry is a liar & has never actually owned a boat much less an optimax
engine. As for his old "hundreds of hours" lie, when he fabricated that
phantom boat in 98 he claimed here after a few mths use he had 200 hours
on it, it's just more evidence of a total lie.


Its not for me to judge that. I can not see a reason that would make
people claim they have owned certain boats and motors which they
actually havent. But to each their own.

Karen, I appreciate the discussion with you and the points you bring
in! You seem to be more knowledgable about the subject as ... lets say
... the average female (and in fact male)... Dont take this wrong,
this isnt sexist talk!

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
particular interest because for literally years before we'd been
watching Orbital the promoters of the optimax system, & Ficht trying to
flog their systems around the major engine manufacturers. Ficht was
originally promoted as a diesel injection system & orbital even got Ford
to run a test fleet of small cars on orbital 2 strokes.

Particularly Orbital in our view were all froth & bubble they made
extravagant claims in the local press releases it seemed every second
Wednesday; they claimed Ford were about to adopt it, then even the son
of the bent Indonesian ruler at the time Sohato was said to be going to
build cars with orbital engines & teach Detroit a thing or two:-) it
would have been hilarious had it not sucked endless sad investors of
their money.

Never once would Orbital deal with the common call from almost everyone
in the local industry of "how do you say you've dealt with the problem
of heat buildup when engines are run lean???", they usually muttered
something about extra atomisation happening in that primary manifold
from the air pump, however it didn't work.

We also watched their patent applications closely (when I say we we're
"interested" I mean we had a definite interest:-)). After a while &
particularly after Ford dismissed it as nonsense, we noticed most of
their filings were related to solutions to problems that were of their
own making, indeed we felt every ad hoc "fix" they seemed to dream up
would just lead to more questions than solutions.

As for Ficht it was much more easily identified as doomed, it's
original patents involved pumping fuel (diesel in this case) around a
closed rail at high velocity, then electromagnetically slamming a valve
shut in it's path, the impact shock created pressure waves in the system
(exactly like water pipe hammer when the washing machine valve slams
shut) they claimed the peaks of which could be harvested by an injector
nozzle. Of course anyone who knew the slightest about the amount of
energy & force needed to create sudden extreme pressure rises, that
could be sustained over the period of time a diesel needs to inject
fuel, immediately dismissed it as nonsense (Germany the home of fuel
injection didn't even give it a second glance).

The Ficht principle is the same as water hammer in domestic plumbing or
pressure spikes in hydraulic systems i.e. very well known & understood,
it's a bother & can cause damage but as soon as there's an outlet for
"spikes" (usually a simple damper) the pressure goes away. Ficht is an
attempt to get a great pressure rise over a very short period & do it
essentially for no energy input. Something for nothing??? not likely in
this universe as we currently know it:-)

We were more than a little bemused when Brunswick & OMC announced they
had signed up with orbital & ficht respectively, the orbital was as it
was & the Ficht they'd changed the execution so instead of suddenly
stopping fuel at high velocity they just struck a solid ball to great
the shock waves.A bit like dropping a rock in a bucket of water, the
waves created go over the edge.

Ficht failed spectacularly as predicted because the impact pressure
rise was never going to supply enough pressure rise to give proper
atomisation, coupled with the lean mixtures it had a serious
failure rate & as I said was doomed from the beginning. Optimax faired a
little better but still had the problem of low injection pressure (they
use a normal injector pressure but unlike a normal injector into a
vehicle manifold (which is usually below atmospheric pressure) they
inject against the pressure of the output from the additional air pump,
so the atomisation problem remains, as does the question of lean mixture
heat buildup.

Both technologies are by now totally discredited, Brunswick are clearly
going 4 stroke throughout the range & Ficht brought OMC down, then Bomb
(who have some proper engineers) got rid of it, now in a last desperate
gasp E-tec will try to mitigate against the symptoms by using ever more
heat resistant oil & pistons that will not "melt" till a higher temp:-)

Sorry to smile but it's absurd!!! if petrol sees any temp around or
above 250C it auto ignites (detonates), even the lowliest of aluminium
is good to well over 600C. So their latest suck it & see try is as
doomed as the original Fichts & for the exact same reasons;

(i) The impact shock injectors can never create enough pressure to
properly atomise the fuel (Yamaha need 800 psi & they are also going to
4 strokes).

(ii) The so called injector is not an injector at all but not much
better than a flap valve/garden hose nozzle, it will only open when the
combustion chamber pressure is well below the pressure in the shock
injectors. At power they "try" to start injection up to 240degs BTDC
i.e. before the previous charge has even uncovered the exhaust ports.

(iii) The continuous firing of the spark is just the same confirmation
of how lean the mix is at low to med revs & of course it means accurate
timing of the actual ignition point is impossible, this means some
firing will be as intended others very late, just so long as there isn't
a "miss" because then they fail the EPA.

(iv) The latest sensor to detect abnormal combustion (knock sensor) is
proof positive they're well aware of the issue, however it's also proof
they still don't understand the real cause of the engine failures.

(v) It's long been known (mainly from aircraft engines, but also some
attempts with car engines Chrysler, Honda & Mitsubishi) that engine can
run on very lean mixtures, however the "abnormal" combustion leads to
heat buildup in the chamber surfaces. Usually an engine running very
lean will not detonate while still extremely lean (i.e. their latest
sensor will not sense anything), but this doesn't stop the chamber
surfaces getting overly hot.

(vi) In an OB 2 stroke the head can be kept very cool being alloy &
having an endless supply of cool water, but the piston/rings in a 2
stroke is almost totally uncooled. Once the piston temps gets over 250C
(not very hot really) then auto ignition is a certainty but while lean
probably no harm done, simply because there isn't enough fuel present.

(vii) The trouble starts when the power is quickly increased above the
lean burn mode, suddenly there is plenty of fuel available & this sudden
excess fuel rather than cool the piston just auto ignites but now it
will lead to full on detonation = more heat = more detonation etc etc bang.

(viii) Their new sensor will detect this but what can it really do???
retard the spark timing?? too late the overly hot piston is causing the
auto ignition not the spark timing; increase the mixture??? again too
late it's the sudden influx of fuel onto the overly hot surface that set
the full detonation going in the first place; what's left??
electronically lower the power?? well consumers won't be impressed with
their engine slowing when they suddenly give it full throttle.

It's instructive to see how the same lean mixtures problem has been
approached by others over many years;

(a) The car people Chrysler, Honda, Mitsubishi & Mercedes have all gone
to extreme lengths to guard against excess heat being built up while the
engine is in lean mode, mostly this limits lean mixtures to idle (no
power at all) over run, (No power at all & boat motors don't have it
anyway) or very light throttle high speed cruise (again hardly any power
at all, most cars it's when the EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) is
engaged, so the average modern slippery sedan needs about 30hp to hold
it at 65mph (flat road blah blah blah) & this is usually around
1800-2000 rpm or 12-15% of max power at about 35-40% of max revs i.e.
the cyl pressure is extremely low with lots of air (& exhaust) going
through keeping the chamber cool. (a boat motor has no very light load
high speed cruise, as the revs rise so does the load from the prop it
increases at a steepening rate) All these precautions yet they're all 4
strokes (half the number of firings & plenty of oil under the piston to
carry the heat away).

(b) The piston aircraft engines are also run lean although never
anything like as lean as Ficht & Optimax claim. Aircraft lean as
the air density lowers with altitude so they're not really very lean at
all & allowing that they're big slow turning essentially lazy
engines, even so they still run the risk of having heat buildup in the
chamber when operated too lean, so pilots are trained never to recover
from lean cruising by just giving the engine full rich mixture & more
throttle (exactly what happens when an OB is suddenly powered up after a
long run in the lean mode). Pilots are trained to richen the mixture
slowly as the power is slowly increased, this is to give the chamber
temps time to normalise as the extra fuel is added; just in case:-)



You are also welcome to email me. My email as posted is real.

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.


Mine isn't; the name is OK but it's tpg com au

K

Matt

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:23:19 +1100, "K. Smith"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

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.

Ah - now I understand the reasons for your antipathy towards FICHT.

NIcely put by the way. I don't agree based on my own personal
experience with FICHTS and what I know about them pre/post-OMC, but
you have reasons and that's fine.

It was interesting. :)

I'm curious though. Your argument about diesel makes some sense -
essentially, FICHT (and Etec for that matter) is diesel technology.
Without going into a long treatise on the subject, I assume your
contention is that FICHT is not a true two stroke and as such,
problematic in the long run?

Later,

Tom

Unfortunately the lack of background does not stop her basic research from
being more correct than not on a theoretical / technical level.

The DFI motors do have some inherant lean burn issues. Issues that have been
sucessfully "worked around" by throwing more electronics and technology at
them, but still loom over the design concept as a whole.

The wise council of Lord Vader when he said: "Do not be too proud of this
technalogical terror that you've constructed." could well be applied
here...... heh

-W

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Of course the same questions could be asked about harry WRT any topic and
the answer would be the same........except for pilfering union
money....which he would be well qualified to answer.

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...

Unfortunately the lack of background does not stop her basic research from
being more correct than not on a theoretical / technical level.

The DFI motors do have some inherant lean burn issues. Issues that have
been
sucessfully "worked around" by throwing more electronics and technology at
them, but still loom over the design concept as a whole.

The wise council of Lord Vader when he said: "Do not be too proud of this
technalogical terror that you've constructed." could well be applied
here...... heh

-W

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
The fact that there are plenty of Yamaha and Merc DFIs around and
running well, and that the Evinrude whatever the hell they called now
selling well and running well speaks for itself.

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of these engines powering the
fishing boats leaving the marina where I keep Yo Ho, and I see these
guys several times a week and talk to them. These high tech two strokes
seem to be causing them no more trouble than the four cycle Yamahas and
Suzukis of similar horsepower some of their friends have.

Technology is evolving, eh? You build something as best you can, you
test it, and if some units fail, you improve what you are doing and
produced refined product, and that's how the process works. I would
expect that next year's four cycle Yamaha 225 would be more refined than
my 2003 model. And I haven't had any problems with my 2003 model.

I'm not saying they can't be made to work. I'm saying they make me nervous
as much as a small electronic failure can wipe out a powerhead. I'm more com
fortable with them in your sal****er environment, where age won't be a
factor in the long haul.

-W

[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]

Ficht failed spectacularly as predicted because the impact pressure
rise was never going to supply enough pressure rise to give proper
atomisation, coupled with the lean mixtures it had a serious
failure rate & as I said was doomed from the beginning. Optimax faired a
little better but still had the problem of low injection pressure (they
use a normal injector pressure but unlike a normal injector into a
vehicle manifold (which is usually below atmospheric pressure) they
inject against the pressure of the output from the additional air pump,
so the atomisation problem remains, as does the question of lean mixture
heat buildup.


These days optimax motors seem to work pretty well ? I havent heard
recent failures..


Both technologies are by now totally discredited, Brunswick are clearly
going 4 stroke throughout the range & Ficht brought OMC down, then Bomb
(who have some proper engineers) got rid of it, now in a last desperate
gasp E-tec will try to mitigate against the symptoms by using ever more
heat resistant oil & pistons that will not "melt" till a higher temp:-)

Sorry to smile but it's absurd!!! if petrol sees any temp around or
above 250C it auto ignites (detonates), even the lowliest of aluminium
is good to well over 600C. So their latest suck it & see try is as
doomed as the original Fichts & for the exact same reasons;

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

[snip]

(v) It's long been known (mainly from aircraft engines, but also some
attempts with car engines Chrysler, Honda & Mitsubishi) that engine can
run on very lean mixtures, however the "abnormal" combustion leads to
heat buildup in the chamber surfaces. Usually an engine running very
lean will not detonate while still extremely lean (i.e. their latest
sensor will not sense anything), but this doesn't stop the chamber
surfaces getting overly hot.

These days some car manufacturers have 4 stroke DFI motors which work
well. Isnt that techinically the same as a 2 stroke DFI (in regards of
the problems)?



(vi) In an OB 2 stroke the head can be kept very cool being alloy &
having an endless supply of cool water, but the piston/rings in a 2
stroke is almost totally uncooled. Once the piston temps gets over 250C
(not very hot really) then auto ignition is a certainty but while lean
probably no harm done, simply because there isn't enough fuel present.

(vii) The trouble starts when the power is quickly increased above the
lean burn mode, suddenly there is plenty of fuel available & this sudden
excess fuel rather than cool the piston just auto ignites but now it
will lead to full on detonation = more heat = more detonation etc etc bang...

Do I read correctly that the dabgerous behaviour is:

From idle to WOT? But lets say from 2000-3000 to WOT is no issue?


[snip]


(b) The piston aircraft engines are also run lean although never
anything like as lean as Ficht & Optimax claim. Aircraft lean as
the air density lowers with altitude so they're not really very lean at
all & allowing that they're big slow turning essentially lazy
engines, even so they still run the risk of having heat buildup in the
chamber when operated too lean, so pilots are trained never to recover
from lean cruising by just giving the engine full rich mixture & more
throttle (exactly what happens when an OB is suddenly powered up after a
long run in the lean mode). Pilots are trained to richen the mixture
slowly as the power is slowly increased, this is to give the chamber
temps time to normalise as the extra fuel is added; just in case:-)

Now, what exactly is lean mode for a DFI outboard? Idle only or lets
say below 3000 rpm?

You are also welcome to email me. My email as posted is real.

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

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" ?

I have a small group of old blokes who do stuff, "we" develop all sorts
of stuff, some for ourselves, some for others. They enjoy the tangles I
get myself into in the NG but every single time so far they've been
right on the money, even when "we" were definitely the odd ...... out in
the early DFI days:-)

[snip]


Ficht failed spectacularly as predicted because the impact pressure
rise was never going to supply enough pressure rise to give proper
atomisation, coupled with the lean mixtures it had a serious
failure rate & as I said was doomed from the beginning. Optimax faired a
little better but still had the problem of low injection pressure (they
use a normal injector pressure but unlike a normal injector into a
vehicle manifold (which is usually below atmospheric pressure) they
inject against the pressure of the output from the additional air pump,
so the atomisation problem remains, as does the question of lean mixture
heat buildup.



These days optimax motors seem to work pretty well ? I havent heard
recent failures..

I think that's probably right, however you don't see the endless
purchasing spree of new ones like you did in the boom & Brunswick have
all but given up on it & are going 4 stroke, not that the dealers trying
to sell something will admit it;-)



Both technologies are by now totally discredited, Brunswick are clearly
going 4 stroke throughout the range & Ficht brought OMC down, then Bomb
(who have some proper engineers) got rid of it, now in a last desperate
gasp E-tec will try to mitigate against the symptoms by using ever more
heat resistant oil & pistons that will not "melt" till a higher temp:-)

Sorry to smile but it's absurd!!! if petrol sees any temp around or
above 250C it auto ignites (detonates), even the lowliest of aluminium
is good to well over 600C. So their latest suck it & see try is as
doomed as the original Fichts & for the exact same reasons;


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

No that's true & I comment about that to Tom, there are definite
reasons they are more reliable (which tend to confirm the reasons why
the others aren't), but it must cost Yamaha lots (800psi petrol???) so
it seems they are also going 4 stroke.


[snip]


(v) It's long been known (mainly from aircraft engines, but also some
attempts with car engines Chrysler, Honda & Mitsubishi) that engine can
run on very lean mixtures, however the "abnormal" combustion leads to
heat buildup in the chamber surfaces. Usually an engine running very
lean will not detonate while still extremely lean (i.e. their latest
sensor will not sense anything), but this doesn't stop the chamber
surfaces getting overly hot.


These days some car manufacturers have 4 stroke DFI motors which work
well. Isnt that techinically the same as a 2 stroke DFI (in regards of
the problems)?

It is similar but as I said, other than dead idle, most of the time
that a 4 stroke can risk running lean are times a boat motor just never
sees. The comment about only half the ignition events is relevant to
heat buildup also.




(vi) In an OB 2 stroke the head can be kept very cool being alloy &
having an endless supply of cool water, but the piston/rings in a 2
stroke is almost totally uncooled. Once the piston temps gets over 250C
(not very hot really) then auto ignition is a certainty but while lean
probably no harm done, simply because there isn't enough fuel present.

(vii) The trouble starts when the power is quickly increased above the
lean burn mode, suddenly there is plenty of fuel available & this sudden
excess fuel rather than cool the piston just auto ignites but now it
will lead to full on detonation = more heat = more detonation etc etc bang...


Do I read correctly that the dabgerous behaviour is:

From idle to WOT? But lets say from 2000-3000 to WOT is no issue?

Yes after say 2000 (it varies) the engine is on normal mixtures so then
if the oiling system is working as intended it should be as good as any
non DFI 2 stroke. Opti does have a much better 7 into 7 (the extra is
for the air pump) oiling system than Ficht's 1 into 6.


[snip]


(b) The piston aircraft engines are also run lean although never
anything like as lean as Ficht & Optimax claim. Aircraft lean as
the air density lowers with altitude so they're not really very lean at
all & allowing that they're big slow turning essentially lazy
engines, even so they still run the risk of having heat buildup in the
chamber when operated too lean, so pilots are trained never to recover
from lean cruising by just giving the engine full rich mixture & more
throttle (exactly what happens when an OB is suddenly powered up after a
long run in the lean mode). Pilots are trained to richen the mixture
slowly as the power is slowly increased, this is to give the chamber
temps time to normalise as the extra fuel is added; just in case:-)


Now, what exactly is lean mode for a DFI outboard? Idle only or lets
say below 3000 rpm?

Idle up to about 1800 they put cyls back to full mixture mode at
different times so you don't "feel" it as the boat accelerates.


You are also welcome to email me. My email as posted is real.

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

Take care.

K

Matt

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:23:19 +1100, "K. Smith"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~


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.


Ah - now I understand the reasons for your antipathy towards FICHT.

NIcely put by the way. I don't agree based on my own personal
experience with FICHTS and what I know about them pre/post-OMC, but
you have reasons and that's fine.

It was interesting. :)

I'm curious though. Your argument about diesel makes some sense -
essentially, FICHT (and Etec for that matter) is diesel technology.
Without going into a long treatise on the subject, I assume your
contention is that FICHT is not a true two stroke and as such,
problematic in the long run?

No Ficht, Opti, E-tec, Yamaha dfi, are 2 strokes & as such if fed more
normal mixtures "&" the piston's temp controlled then it would/should
survive as well as other 2 strokes.

The Yamahas have been interesting & somewhat more successful, they've
had to resort to 800 psi & in one case 1000 psi petrol injection!!! so
they can get enough atomisation to allow the lean mixtures to burn more
predictably, also even they don't use mixtures as lean as Ficht & Opti.
They randomly shut cyls down at low/med revs, so their aggregate EPA
count still passes, but the pistons don't have to see such extremely
lean mixtures/heat.

It's probably relevant to mention & remember that right throughout the
Ficht debacle & to a lesser extent Opti, they were making almost
identical if not exact same engines, same parts, castings etc, Carbed
Johnsons or EFI Mercs, yet only the Fichts or Opti DFIs failed..... why??

OMC were pushing the 2 strokes at 500cc per cyl that's getting to the
limit, notwithstanding E-tec are going to try even bigger:-) (sorry
that's a cheap shot Tom:-)) Again no secret knowledge involved here it's
well known & understood that the bigger a petrol 2 strokes cyl gets the
more difficulty it has dispersing heat out of the piston. All the high
performance petrol 2 strokes have lots of small cyls. Even Clam's
beloved old Mercs, which have to be the most successful 2 strokes ever
built, had lots & lots of tiny pistons with very low cyl pressures.

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.

K


Later,

Tom

Harry Krause wrote:
Clams Canino wrote:

Unfortunately the lack of background does not stop her basic research from
being more correct than not on a theoretical / technical level.

The DFI motors do have some inherant lean burn issues. Issues that have been
sucessfully "worked around" by throwing more electronics and technology at
them, but still loom over the design concept as a whole.



The fact that there are plenty of Yamaha and Merc DFIs around and
running well, and that the Evinrude whatever the hell they called now
selling well and running well speaks for itself.

There are dozens and dozens and dozens of these engines powering the
fishing boats leaving the marina where I keep Yo Ho, and I see these
guys several times a week and talk to them. These high tech two strokes
seem to be causing them no more trouble than the four cycle Yamahas and
Suzukis of similar horsepower some of their friends have.


Are you just a simpleton Krause or can't you stop yourself lying?? It
was your pension fund that backed Soros with unionists' retirement
money!!! Have you not noticed that Ficht ****ed US$1.3 billion, that
billion against the wall.

This was during the biggest consumer spending spree in history!!!

Dozens are OK so what?? 1 in 5 failed that was admitted & since then
they've never admitted the failure rate again & they won't with this
latest E-tec try.


Technology is evolving, eh? You build something as best you can, you
test it, and if some units fail, you improve what you are doing and
produced refined product, and that's how the process works.

This is technology that is known not to work, lean mixtures make heat
then cause detonation.

I don't expect you to have any understanding whatsoever but this "is"
rocket science. If you have a burn in a closed chamber such that you
cause a significant pressure rise, then it's very difficult to ensure
that burn progresses in a predictable manner. If the mixture is too lean
then ignition will be spasmodic & the flame front slow, if the mixture
is too rich the burn will be at too low a temp, very dirty & use way too
much fuel. Either side of those two, too lean or too rich & it just
doesn't ignite at all. Even the shuttle only went closed loop very
recently, before that it was all done on calculating the pressures,
temps, etc etc & programing the oxygen & fuel amounts accordingly.

They were & some still are experimenting to discover what everyone has
known since the 1930s & they're using consumers money.


I would
expect that next year's four cycle Yamaha 225 would be more refined than
my 2003 model. And I haven't had any problems with my 2003 model.

Ah more lies you don't own a boat Krause & never have & never will, you
are just a liar.

K

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. :)

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.

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. :)

Later,

Tom