No I conceded they might be measuring in chuckster gallons:-) You are a
classic example of how magazine writers just print nonsense in the hope
of not offending the marketers.

K

Wrong, again. I don't state fuel consumption figures without identifying the
source of the information. Sources can be
fuel consumption tests done by the engine mfg during commissioning,
observations of
fuel flow meters underway, or anecdotal remarks by a marketing representative.

Your difficulty seems to center around statements like, "The factory claims the
vessel burns 4 gph at 10-knots," (or) "My dockmate repowered with a 300HP
Gruntngroaner and he says his fuel consumption has dropped from 22 gph to
17." If the statements are properly identified as third party claims, why
should the writer or poster be barbecued alive because your textbook theory
would appear to question the numbers?

It's one thing to express some skepticism, but another entirely to convert a
discussion of fuel efficiency to a personality oriented flame fest.

When you watch television news and some reporter says "The local Aussie
politician claims he has single-handedly revitalized the economy of SE
Australia," and you disagree with the politician's boast, do you damn the
reporter for "spreading lies"?

Subject: albin 28 flush deck
From: "K. Smith"
Date: 12/21/04 3:13 AM Eastern

"Capt." you are clearly not a boater at all, you just swallow the
magazine nonsense then repeat hoping nobody will ever ring the bell, the
bell has tolled for thee.

Great. And I hope that means I will no longer be hearing from you.

Capt. Bill

Subject: albin 28 flush deck
From: (Gould 0738)

Looks like it's your turn in the barrel. Good luck.

True.

I used to think Harry was over the top in his attitude towards her. But now,
I'm beginning to get it.

I think I'll give it a rest with the female jaxxass.

Capt. Bill

LaBomba182 wrote:
Subject: albin 28 flush deck
From: "K. Smith"
Date: 12/21/04 3:13 AM Eastern


"Capt." you are clearly not a boater at all, you just swallow the
magazine nonsense then repeat hoping nobody will ever ring the bell, the
bell has tolled for thee.


Great. And I hope that means I will no longer be hearing from you.

Capt. Bill


You should kill file me then capt., fore I will always say what I say
when people post nonsense, you can hide if you want I care not. I don't
use a kill file; don't need it.


K

Gould 0738 wrote:
No I conceded they might be measuring in chuckster gallons:-) You are a
classic example of how magazine writers just print nonsense in the hope
of not offending the marketers.

K


Wrong, again. I don't state fuel consumption figures without identifying the
source of the information. Sources can be
fuel consumption tests done by the engine mfg during commissioning,
observations of
fuel flow meters underway, or anecdotal remarks by a marketing representative.

Hmmmm I do think you're a spammer & marketer by genes Chuck, however I
don't think you're a Krause type open liar, so what about the 28 ft boat
you gave us the figures on a few years ago??? It wasn't till even owners
were saying the marketing claims were bunkum that you seemed to accept
they were just marketing nonsense.


Your difficulty seems to center around statements like, "The factory claims the
vessel burns 4 gph at 10-knots,"

No difficulty with that at all it's clearly a second hand hearsay type
comment.

(or) "My dockmate repowered with a 300HP
Gruntngroaner and he says his fuel consumption has dropped from 22 gph to
17." If the statements are properly identified as third party claims, why
should the writer or poster be barbecued alive because your textbook theory
would appear to question the numbers?

But that's the point Chuck they don't make it clear it's just a self
serving hearsay claim, they say things like; we were cruising at 18kts
burning about 6 gals/hr, that's a totally different claim & a deceptive
marketing claim, nothing more.

It's one thing to express some skepticism, but another entirely to convert a
discussion of fuel efficiency to a personality oriented flame fest.

I have endeavoured several times in this NG to make it clear that the
fuel comsumption of modern HO marine diesels is an almost flat line
these days, turbo &/or supercharged, intercooled or no, the fuel
consumption per HP made is within a reasonable range, a fixed amount.

When you watch television news and some reporter says "The local Aussie
politician claims he has single-handedly revitalized the economy of SE
Australia," and you disagree with the politician's boast, do you damn the
reporter for "spreading lies"?

Chuck this is selling things by making false claims. The Yanmar dealers
who post testimonials to try to make people believe the false numbers
are just engaging in covered false advertising!!! If you then
unquestioningly print that, then you are also.

I would or at least used to, hope you might be better than that & at
the very least smell a rat (other than Krause) & make some further
inquiries.

If they want to use boats they've refitted with diesel engines for
advertising purposes then that's OK but seeing they fitted the engines &
presumably tested them on the water etc why not do some actual numbers &
then advertise with proper confidence???? They know the owners are
dreaming but if it helps sales they just use it, equally when the
spruikers tell you nonsense you should at the least be skeptical.

You have a slow very fuel efficient diesel boat Chuck as do I & we both
know just walking by that a 28ft cabin boat doing 22mph on 6 gal/hr is
well out of order much less a 28 ft cabin boat doing 40 mph on 11
gal/hr, claiming a 315HP diesel is at "max".


K