On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:38:42 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


One in three failed yes. However it was not a mechanical failure - it
was an electrical failure. You yourself admitted, along with Bill,
that a stator failure is almost unheard of in any outboard engine.

Whoa! I had stator failures on two Mercs in the 1990s, a 90 hp and a 115
hp, both in their first season. Merc had some signficant stator problems
on its engines in the mid-1990s, and since then, I have read of stator
failures on all brands of outboards.

Wouldn't know Harry - I'm just reporting what I was told by some
people I trust.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:59:34 GMT, "Billgran"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:03:50 +1100, "K. Smith"
wrote:



Let's face it Bill, Karen is in a whole 'nother universe on this one.

Later,

Tom


Ok, thanks for the 1 in 3 explanation.

I'm with you on the new Evinrude E-TEC motors, since they've been out
almost 2 years, they've had an enviable reputation for dependability. Unless
you run one, it's hard to believe an engine starting within 1 revolution of
the flywheel, hot or cold. I'll be setting up a 33 HydraSport with triple
225 E-TECs in the next few weeks. We also have one out with triple F225
Yamahas, so it will be a great comparison.

I have 2 customers who are good friends and one has a 23 HydraSport with a
2001 225 FICHT and the other has the same boat with a 2002 Yamaha F225
4-stroke. The FICHT uses less fuel and outperforms the Yamaha by a good
margin. The owner is also happy that his FICHT has lower maintenance costs
than the Yamaha does. The Yamaha is a bit quieter at dead idle, but louder
at running speeds. By the way, they both do a lot of trolling, both dead
slow with liveys and fast trolling with plastics. They then blast wide open
to the next fishing area. No problems for almost 4 seasons, and they fish
year 'round. No "lean burn" problems that Karen keeps yappin' about.

I also have crabbers and commercial fisherman as customers with over 2000
hours on their FITCHs and a SeaTow operator that went over 3000 hours on a
pair of 2001 V6 FICHTS and just bought 2 new 2005 models.

Karen is definately "out there", no experience, no training, never been
around the FICHTS or E-TECs, never drove them or took them apart, never
talked to hundreds of satisfied owners, yet tries to "convince" others that
she knows all.

Bill Grannis
service manager

Del,
REMEMBER BACK 9 YEARS AGO, WHEN YOU STARTED READING THIS NEWSGROUP, A
LOT OF FOLKS POSTED ABOUT THEIR FICHT PROBLEMS WITH THE '98 AND SOME
'99 150-175HP ENGINES? OMC CAME OUT WITH THE FICHT 150 IN LATE SUMMER
OF '96. IT WAS ONLY AVAILABLE IN A 20" SHAFT AND 150 HP AND THE MOTORS
MET THE 2006 EPA EMISSION LIMITS 10 YEARS BEFORE THAY HAD TO.

IN '98 THE FICHT CAME OUT WITH A 25" SHAFT FOR OFFSHORE BOATS, AND ON
THOSE APPLICATIONS, PROBLEMS SHOWED UP AFTER A WHILE IN CERTAIN
SITUATIONS. DAVID JONES, THEN PRESIDENT OF OMC, STATED THAT 1 IN 5
FICHTS WITH A 25" SHAFT HAD PROBLEMS, AND THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF
DETERMINING AND FIXING THEM. ALL THIS WAS IN THE MARINE MAGAZINES, ON
THE INTERNET, AND WAS SPREAD BY WORD OF MOUTH. EVEN THE AUSTRALIAN
BOATING MAGAZINES HAD ARTICLES ON THE PROBLEMS AND ON WHAT OMC WAS
DOING.

TO OMC'S CREDIT, THEY SENT OUT SERVICE TEAMS TO RE-DO ALL THE '98 AND
'99 150-175'S IN THE FIELD WITH NEW CYLINDER HEADS AND REMAPPED
SOFTWARE, SPARK PLUGS, LINKAGE, ETC., ABOUT A 4 HOUR JOB PER MOTOR. THE
TEAMS WENT ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY TAKING CARE OF CUSTOMERS AND DEALER'S
MOTORS. THE MOTORS WORKED OK AFTER THE FIXES. NONE OF MY CUSTOMERS HAD
MAJOR PROBLEMS BUT I SAW MOTORS FROM other places that did. I also did
a lot of upgrade kit installations. I still service operational FICHTS
that are still used by families every season.

Merc's problems with Optimax resulted in a class action lawsuit, and
there may be one for the Yamaha 250-300 hp problems, but OMC did not
have any due to their effort to fix engines in the field and not just
gloss over the problem.

Also in 1999 OMC came out with the V4 FICHT in 90 and 115 hp sizes, as
well as a big block 200-225hp, and these motors did NOT HAVE THE
PROBLEMS THAT THE MID-SIZED 150-175'S DID.

FOR 2000, the FICHT system was improved quite a bit and called FICHT
Ram, and really did well. It was quieter and smoother than the earlier
series, and was better on fuel use. In 2001 they came out with a new
block, the 3.3L and it is still used today, and that really made the
motors perform even better while the hp increased to 250. These
versions are still being produced today.

If the FICHT was so bad why is it still in production after 9 years?
Wouldn't you think that all you would read about was blown up motors
and powerheads stacked by the roadside? Why would a company still make
motors that are "blowing up"? Whay would Bombardier buy Johnson and
Evinrude knowing the motors were junk? Think about it !

After a rocky start, FICHT and now its new E-TEC cousing is doing well.
It is only in the mind of "Karen-down-under", without any credentials
or experience in the outboard industry that FICHT is no good.

You asked about buying a '98 150 FICHT. Well, if you believe Karen,
then there is no such thing. There could not be any used FICHTS. Every
one blew up, there are piles of powerheads littering the landscape, and
owners have something else.
I stll maintain old FICHTS for customers who are doing fine with them.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:03:50 +1100, "K. Smith"
wrote:


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 10:43:41 +1100, "K. Smith"
wrote:



Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:17:23 -0600, Del Cecchi
wrote:


~~ snippage ~~


Trying to keep the barbarians from giving you a false impression. :)

Trying to keep the actual same people who spammed Ficht from doing it
all over again:-)


Karen, I've said this before and I'll say it again.

I have great appreciation for any opinion you would care to share on
other matters pertaining to boats and engines. You have knowledge to
impart and when you want to, you share good information.

In this area you are nothing more than a loud voice making lots of
noise and no sense. My experience and the experience of others is in
direct contradiction to your constant yammering on the subject of
FICHT and I suspect that it's something personal, not professional.

Gee Tom "your experience" is 1 in 3 failed, OMC finally admitted as a
marketing strategy for their latest fix no less:-) that only 1 in 5
failed:-)


One in three failed yes. However it was not a mechanical failure - it
was an electrical failure. You yourself admitted, along with Bill,
that a stator failure is almost unheard of in any outboard engine. The
Bombardier engineers were so interested in it, they paid for the parts
and labor so they could get their hands on the stator and computer to
try and understand what happened. Which they didn't have to do
because it was an OMC engine.

The resulting voltage cascade took out the computer which I would
have expected to have happened - no manufacturer takes the proper
precautions in protecting onboard computers from huge cascade failures
like this. So it was strictly a one-off - very rare, very unusual.

You couldn't be more wrong and the unfortunate thing is that anything
you have to say worthwhile is severely diminished.

Fascinating stuff Tom:-) So you confirm in your "experience" 1 in 3
Ficht failed???

Yes yes Tom I've heard it all before you like what I say so long as you
agree with it, are you absolutely sure you're not an OMC dealer???
possibly in a previous life???

Anyway if I upset you too much then just stop supporting Bill's spam &
I'll have no cause to correct you:-) Or if that's too much for a Koala
to bear try killfiling me, don't ask Krause how to do it though:-) he
claims he has me killed yet answers in 10 minutes; hey maybe that just
expedites msgs???

Anyway so far nobody, not you, not spam man Bill, not Humpty Dumpty
have actually challenged the technical merit of what I say, so I can
only assume on that front it's all tickety boo but you & spam Bill are
just trying to keep it quiet as long as you can. You to save what little
boat value is left & Bill?? well so he can sell more :-)


K

Been busy today so I'll keep the Krause lie of the day short.

This lying simpleton, after it became clear he was losing a thread
where he was displaying his usual lack of patriotism much less gratitude
for the brave men & women out there risking their everything, to keep
the likes of him safe, he just reverts to type.

But seriously can you imagine this uneducated union thug now claims he
is reviewing universities!!! & wait for it he poo poos the engineering
course!!! this from a lying uneducated union thug who couldn't use a
toaster without a union authorised electrician in attendance.

I've included just one of the followup responses but it was such a bald
faced lie it even embarrassed the rejoinders:-)

I have visited West Point, the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy and
the sub training facility at Groton. Some years ago, I actually did look
over descriptions of some of the course material at Annapolis and the
c.v.'s of some of the faculty. I'm sure the engineering course material
is fairly rigorous, though it is more "trade-oriented" and did not look
up to MIT or CalTech standards. I mean, if your goal is to be an
aeronautical engineer, you're going to get better training at MIT or
CalTech or at any of a large number of other engineering schools. I
thought the faculty academic credentials no better than what is found at
a typical smaller four year public university. The military academies
turn out military officers with an education, not highly educated
military officers. But that is their purpose, eh?


--

Holy molly, grandma, put on your high boots.

Harry Krause, admitted graduate in the humanities with a degree in English
is hereby qualified to critique the engineering curriculum of not only West
Point, but also that of the Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy and
compare it to that of MIT and CalTech.

The above paragraph is a classic.

You missed your calling Harry.

Billgran wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:59:34 GMT, "Billgran"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:03:50 +1100, "K. Smith"
wrote:



Let's face it Bill, Karen is in a whole 'nother universe on this one.

Later,

Tom



Ok, thanks for the 1 in 3 explanation.

I'm with you on the new Evinrude E-TEC motors, since they've been out
almost 2 years, they've had an enviable reputation for dependability. Unless
you run one, it's hard to believe an engine starting within 1 revolution of
the flywheel, hot or cold. I'll be setting up a 33 HydraSport with triple
225 E-TECs in the next few weeks. We also have one out with triple F225
Yamahas, so it will be a great comparison.

2 years!!! he claims it because it's 3/2/05!!! these dealers are
slippery little suckers:-) you did that exact BS line with Ficht to
Bill:-) they're just getting to the market. The rest of this para is
just classic Bill spam:-)


I have 2 customers who are good friends and one has a 23 HydraSport with a
2001 225 FICHT and the other has the same boat with a 2002 Yamaha F225
4-stroke. The FICHT uses less fuel and outperforms the Yamaha by a good
margin. The owner is also happy that his FICHT has lower maintenance costs
than the Yamaha does. The Yamaha is a bit quieter at dead idle, but louder
at running speeds. By the way, they both do a lot of trolling, both dead
slow with liveys and fast trolling with plastics. They then blast wide open
to the next fishing area. No problems for almost 4 seasons, and they fish
year 'round. No "lean burn" problems that Karen keeps yappin' about.

Gee & this is from a Florida dealer who "Never" even saw a failed
Ficht!! Yeah sure Bill, you couldn't go to a ramp without tripping over
one:-) So you know 2 who are happy how many do you know who aren't???

Indeed again tell me where have all the Fichts gone!!! (long time
passin') other than a few with you dealers they're thin on the ground,
surely the price of alloy would have dropped if they all got melted down
which is what should have happened to them:-)


I also have crabbers and commercial fisherman as customers with over 2000
hours on their FITCHs and a SeaTow operator that went over 3000 hours on a
pair of 2001 V6 FICHTS and just bought 2 new 2005 models.

Bill you are just delivering the dealer spam you learned at the last
junket, give it up!!! Ficht didn't work for the reasons we gave you in
98, E-Tec will be exactly the same because it is the same!!!

Not one of the proper engine people (GM, Ford any of the
Japanese,Europeans nobody none), have even bothered to try Ficht because
they have proper engineers who know about this stuff. After all it "is"
rocket science:-) So it's no shame you can't understand but you should
be ashamed for continuing to tell this BS & also for running away like a
naughty child when OMC went feet up in the table drain.


Karen is definately "out there", no experience, no training, never been
around the FICHTS or E-TECs, never drove them or took them apart, never
talked to hundreds of satisfied owners, yet tries to "convince" others that
she knows all.

I look forward to a debate with you on the technical merits then Bill
any time you like, after all I've been offering this challenge since 98,
maybe this time you'll have the gonads to have a try???


Bill Grannis
service manager



K

Been busy today so I'll keep the Krause lie of the day short.

This lying simpleton, after it became clear he was losing a thread
where he was displaying his usual lack of patriotism much less gratitude
for the brave men & women out there risking their everything, to keep
the likes of him safe, he just reverts to type.

But seriously can you imagine this uneducated union thug now claims
he is reviewing universities!!! & wait for it he poo poos the
engineering course!!! this from a lying uneducated union thug who
couldn't use a toaster without a union authorised electrician in attendance.

I've included just one of the follow up responses but it was such a
bald faced lie it even embarrassed the rejoinders:-)


I have visited West Point, the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy and
the sub training facility at Groton. Some years ago, I actually did look
over descriptions of some of the course material at Annapolis and the
c.v.'s of some of the faculty. I'm sure the engineering course material
is fairly rigorous, though it is more "trade-oriented" and did not look
up to MIT or CalTech standards. I mean, if your goal is to be an
aeronautical engineer, you're going to get better training at MIT or
CalTech or at any of a large number of other engineering schools. I
thought the faculty academic credentials no better than what is found at
a typical smaller four year public university. The military academies
turn out military officers with an education, not highly educated
military officers. But that is their purpose, eh?



--


Holy molly, grandma, put on your high boots.


Harry Krause, admitted graduate in the humanities with a degree in
English
is hereby qualified to critique the engineering curriculum of not
only West
Point, but also that of the Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy and
compare it to that of MIT and CalTech.


The above paragraph is a classic.


You missed your calling Harry.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:34:57 -0600, "del cecchi" wrote:
apparently 2 stroke inline 4s have issues leading to
bizarre solutions like the 2+2 on my Merc.

What sort of issues?
I've wondered for a long time why anyone would intentionally design an
engine that doesn't run on all cylinders. The only 2+2 I've had
personal experience with (115 Merc) would shake/vibrate the whole boat
at low rpms. A trip to the shop would temporarilly fix the problem but
second or third time out, the shake/vibration problem would return.

Anybody know the point of intentionally running on only two out of
four cylinders?
Related question, how do the non-firing cylinders receive lubrication
without pumping raw fuel/oil out the exhaust at low rpms?

Just wondering.........
Thanks
Rick

wrote in message

Anybody know the point of intentionally running on only two out of
four cylinders?
Related question, how do the non-firing cylinders receive lubrication
without pumping raw fuel/oil out the exhaust at low rpms?

They are firing, and getting a fuel/oil mix. They are just not getting a
sufficiant amount of said mix to actually *combust*, so they remain
"passive" until the revs come up and they start sucking from the main jets.

Why? I've never gotten a totally straight answer. I know that unlike all
the 4 cylinder cross-flows Mercury did, this looper will *not* run correctly
at low RPM on all four. I gather it suffers from harmonics and bad
vibration. And from everything I've read, it's an inherant problem with no
work-around. I don't know what kind of spin Mercury Marketing puts on the
2+2 angle, but the fact is, it was the only way they could make it run right
at all.

Conversely, thier three cylinder 90 (same motor just a three) runs fine at
idle on all three. I think that much like the 90 is kind of 1/2 of the V-6,
that Merc should make the mid-hp motors (100-125) half of the larger V-6's
and scrap that 4. I'll not forget to mention that they had a perfected
100-140hp powerhead untill 1989 when the 2+2 emerged.

-W

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:34:57 -0600, "del cecchi" wrote:
apparently 2 stroke inline 4s have issues leading to
bizarre solutions like the 2+2 on my Merc.

What sort of issues?
I've wondered for a long time why anyone would intentionally design an
engine that doesn't run on all cylinders. The only 2+2 I've had
personal experience with (115 Merc) would shake/vibrate the whole boat
at low rpms. A trip to the shop would temporarilly fix the problem but
second or third time out, the shake/vibration problem would return.

Anybody know the point of intentionally running on only two out of
four cylinders?
Related question, how do the non-firing cylinders receive lubrication
without pumping raw fuel/oil out the exhaust at low rpms?

Just wondering.........
Thanks
Rick

Be aware that some models of Yamaha V6 outboards, both EFI and HPDI, shut
down 2 or 3 cylinders at idle and low speeds.

Bill Grannis
service manager

Clams Canino wrote:
wrote in message


Anybody know the point of intentionally running on only two out of
four cylinders?
Related question, how do the non-firing cylinders receive lubrication
without pumping raw fuel/oil out the exhaust at low rpms?


They are firing, and getting a fuel/oil mix. They are just not getting a
sufficiant amount of said mix to actually *combust*, so they remain
"passive" until the revs come up and they start sucking from the main jets.

Why? I've never gotten a totally straight answer. I know that unlike all
the 4 cylinder cross-flows Mercury did, this looper will *not* run correctly
at low RPM on all four. I gather it suffers from harmonics and bad
vibration. And from everything I've read, it's an inherant problem with no
work-around. I don't know what kind of spin Mercury Marketing puts on the
2+2 angle, but the fact is, it was the only way they could make it run right
at all.

It's just to slow them down at idle. By shutting cyls off the remaining
ones can run cooler piston temps because they can have a more normal
spark timing or in Yamaha's DFI case run a richer mix which is easier to
reliably ignite & doesn't generate as much lean mixture piston heat buildup.

All this stuff has been basic common knowledge about 2 strokes for 40
years & every OB mechanic will tell you how if a 2 stroke runs lean the
piston gets hot & bang. Yet they seem to have forgotten the basics when
DFI came along, or more likely they never understood anything to begin
with & just parrot what they're told at "tech" training.

The "reason" it's used at idle is that crankcase transferred 2 strokes
(the crankcase is the inlet manifold if you like) can't be brought to a
slow idle with throttle plates "alone" like say a car petrol 4 stroke is
(high manifold vacuum).

The reason "just" throttle plates aren't good enough are;

(i) Unlike a proper 4 stroke:-) (it's just me Clams, stay calm:-)) a 2
stoke has both the exhaust & transfer (inlet) ports open at the same
time, whereas at idle a 4 stroke has very little overlap & modern VCT
ones even less. Remember the old hot rodders??? well they're old now:-)
they put more overlap into their cam shafts to make more power at high
revs?? but that meant they wouldn't idle smoothly, because remaining
exhaust would flow into the high vacuum inlet manifold as soon as the
inlet valve opened, those that had a manifold pressure gauges could see
the gauge bouncing up & down at idle.

(ii) OBs are special 2 strokes in that the exhaust is submerged & even
with bleed holes in the leg the back pressure in the exhaust system is
constantly changing, depending on the type of boat, the load the boat
has in it, even as the boat rocks & sounds up & down in waves.

(iii) Crankcase transferred 2 stokes are very sensitive to exhaust back
pressure for the obvious reasons but even more so if there is back
pressure on the exhaust ports at idle. If there was a high vacuum in the
crankcase at idle, then as soon as the transfer port was uncovered,
instead of the new charge flowing up from the crankcase the exhaust
might flow back down into the crankcase. (as it is they spit a bit now
at idle when the occasional back flow)

(iv) Crankcase transferred 2 stokes "need" some back pressure in the
exhaust to run efficiently otherwise too much of the fresh charge will
just go out the exhaust ports, however they are usually setup so the
optimum back pressure occurs at the right part of the rev range, not at
idle, at idle any exhaust back pressure is a problem & a constantly
changing back pressure is fatal to a soft slow smooth idle.

"The Fix" you're well familiar with Clams, but can you believe it these
claimed 30 yr OMC dealers didn't know this bit till we told then in this
NG in 97:-) Honestly their so called tech training is nothing more than
product marketing brain washing, on my washing machine that would be
small, delicate & cold water only load;-)

(i) They allow lots of air/fuel mix through the engine at idle, this
means that there's plenty of pumping action by the engine at idle
because the engine is actually trying to rev up. This is why they "seem"
to be rich at idle, they're not "rich" (try leaning them & they stop
yes??) but just using lots of air & fuel to try & go.

(ii) The engine is then slowed by retarding the spark timing. Not just
a little either, it depends on the engine etc but firing the plug well
after TDC (say 16-20 degs atdc!!!) is not uncommon. With your old Mercs
do some measuring & you'll be astounded what the actual spark timing is
at idle.

(iii) Most 2 or 4 stroke petrol engines can be made to have a very
soft, smooth & stable idle simply by retarding the spark timing, but
there's a rub; there always is;-)

(iv) Because the piston is already traveling down the bore before the
spark fires the pressure is constantly reducing meaning the flame front
gets slower, meaning the chamber quickly gets overly hot. (if you have
an old car you'll remember one of the first checks against over heating
was to make sure the spark timing was right, if it's retarded then the
engine will over heat just idling in the drive).

(v) The reason they can use late spark timing in 2 stroke OBs is that
they run endless raw water cooling so they don't overheat as such,
however that totally uncooled piston does still get very hot during long
periods of idling.

(vi) Ever notice how often when you hear the 2 stroke engine blowup
story it includes a long period of trolling beforehand??? They say
something like we were trolling an hour or so then went to move to
another paddock opened it up, we accelerated, the power started to go
away, then we stopped. What happened was they were idling for hours on a
very retarded spark timing which got the piston very hot, the engine
itself was cool because as you know the rubber impeller pump is almost a
displacement pump at idle. They "suddenly" gave it WOT & the engine was
made to work, the spark timing suddenly shot forward to the max.
Combined with the hot piston if there was even one tiny spot in any
chamber over 250C then the mixture will auto ignite (detonate) this
sudden huge pressure rise creates huge amounts of more heat so the
offending piston gets even hotter, if the usr doesn't pull back very
quickly then the detonation becomes self sustaining & ..........it ends
like a Ficht:-)

(vii) OK Clams I better reconfirm one of the reasons "your" old Mercs
were so successful was the pistons were small, lots of them but they
were tiny. The surface area of the piston was small compared to the
total length of the rings, it's the rings that transfer the piston heat
over to the very cool bore. That's one of the reasons any 2 stroke over
500cc per cyl is considered suspect because as the diam of the bore goes
up the area of the piston top to absorb heat goes up X the sq of the
radius, but the amount of ring length available to transfer that heat
away, only goes up linearly. There's only one bunch of idiots I know of
who are using consumer funded testing to make cyls over 500cc in
consumer production, guess who??? ......... want to phone a
friend??..........give up??? OK; it's BS Bill & the Ficht
team............ again:-)

Conversely, thier three cylinder 90 (same motor just a three) runs fine at
idle on all three. I think that much like the 90 is kind of 1/2 of the V-6,
that Merc should make the mid-hp motors (100-125) half of the larger V-6's
and scrap that 4. I'll not forget to mention that they had a perfected
100-140hp powerhead untill 1989 when the 2+2 emerged.

-W




K

& the Krause lie for the day is an oldie but a goodie:-)

So this lying idiot sees himself as circulating in the upper circles,
honestly this lying idiot thinks this is believable, which is more proof
of his total stupidity:-)

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

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