| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The 2-Cycle Gasoline Engine
Light weight, but talk about an engine that burns oil!
This system introduces a mixture of gasoline, air and lubricating oil into the combustion chamber, compresses it, and then ignites the resulting mixture with a sparkplug. The two-cycle engine has been the mainstay for outboard engines. In recent years, however, two-cycle outboard motors are beginning to be replaced by four-cycle systems. The biggest advantage of the two-cycle engine is that it is very lightweight. The horsepower to weight ratio is the highest in marine reciprocating engines. One big disadvantage is you have to burn a fuel mixture of gasoline & lubricating oil. Another disadvantage is, because the lubricating oil does not burn as cleanly as gasoline, two-cycle engines tend to smoke, and foul their ignition systems. They also can leave an oily residue on the water from their exhaust. However, great improvement has been made in cleaning up their exhaust emissions through the use of more efficient fuel injection systems. Best regards http://www.geocities.com/winder21/ windersports portal Your guide to winder's interest on sports : provides tips and techniques to improve your game. |
Thanks, Winder. Nice to see "on Topic" postings.
"winder" wrote in message oups.com... Light weight, but talk about an engine that burns oil! This system introduces a mixture of gasoline, air and lubricating oil into the combustion chamber, compresses it, and then ignites the resulting mixture with a sparkplug. The two-cycle engine has been the mainstay for outboard engines. In recent years, however, two-cycle outboard motors are beginning to be replaced by four-cycle systems. The biggest advantage of the two-cycle engine is that it is very lightweight. The horsepower to weight ratio is the highest in marine reciprocating engines. One big disadvantage is you have to burn a fuel mixture of gasoline & lubricating oil. Another disadvantage is, because the lubricating oil does not burn as cleanly as gasoline, two-cycle engines tend to smoke, and foul their ignition systems. They also can leave an oily residue on the water from their exhaust. However, great improvement has been made in cleaning up their exhaust emissions through the use of more efficient fuel injection systems. Best regards http://www.geocities.com/winder21/ windersports portal Your guide to winder's interest on sports : provides tips and techniques to improve your game. |
Winder,
Whatever you cut and pasted that from is years out of date. Today, the much improved and direct injected 2-stroke engine emits fewer total emissions than a high-tech EFI 4-stroke outboard. They have no smoke, are super quiet and smooth, and have all the advantages of a 4 stroke, with the lower weight and higher performance of a 2 stroke. Bill Grannis service manager |
|
"Del Cecchi" wrote in message ... wrote: The suzuki 4stroke 140 is 410lb, the Evinrude 135/150 is 419lb (4 cyl. motor vs. a V6) The suzuke 200/225 is 580lb while the Evinrude is 524lb ....and how much does the Yamaha F225, Honda 225, and the Merc Verado 225 weigh compared to the Evinrude V6? Bill Grannis service manager |
"Billgran" wrote in message . .. "Del Cecchi" wrote in message ... wrote: The suzuki 4stroke 140 is 410lb, the Evinrude 135/150 is 419lb (4 cyl. motor vs. a V6) The suzuke 200/225 is 580lb while the Evinrude is 524lb ...and how much does the Yamaha F225, Honda 225, and the Merc Verado 225 weigh compared to the Evinrude V6? Bill Grannis service manager Now Bill, I was just refuting your generalization that the Bombardier motors were lighter than 4 strokes. And I don't have the motor guide out of bass and walleye boats handy. The Yamaha 115 and merc version also aren't much heavier than my 115 carb'd two stroke as I recall. And why should I want a V6 Evinrude instead of a 4cyl Suzuki? What's the big deal with the V6? Cars used them (4 stroke of course) because they reused much of the tooling and parts for the V8s that already existed. And apparently 2 stroke inline 4s have issues leading to bizarre solutions like the 2+2 on my Merc. But the 4 in my accord is just peachy, as is the one in my CB750. So, what is superior about the Evinrude 135/150 as compared to the Suzuki ? Ok looked up the yamaha. The 200/225/250 are 580-590 lb. The 150 is 466 lb. So looks like maybe 50 lb over the Evinrude. Is 50 lb a big deal? What is the relative selling price? If I was shopping I would buy a 4 stroke at this point in time. del cecchi |
"del cecchi" wrote in message ... "Billgran" wrote in message . .. "Del Cecchi" wrote in message ... wrote: The suzuki 4stroke 140 is 410lb, the Evinrude 135/150 is 419lb (4 cyl. motor vs. a V6) The suzuke 200/225 is 580lb while the Evinrude is 524lb ...and how much does the Yamaha F225, Honda 225, and the Merc Verado 225 weigh compared to the Evinrude V6? Bill Grannis service manager Now Bill, I was just refuting your generalization that the Bombardier motors were lighter than 4 strokes. And I don't have the motor guide out of bass and walleye boats handy. The Yamaha 115 and merc version also aren't much heavier than my 115 carb'd two stroke as I recall. And why should I want a V6 Evinrude instead of a 4cyl Suzuki? What's the big deal with the V6? Cars used them (4 stroke of course) because they reused much of the tooling and parts for the V8s that already existed. And apparently 2 stroke inline 4s have issues leading to bizarre solutions like the 2+2 on my Merc. But the 4 in my accord is just peachy, as is the one in my CB750. So, what is superior about the Evinrude 135/150 as compared to the Suzuki ? Ok looked up the yamaha. The 200/225/250 are 580-590 lb. The 150 is 466 lb. So looks like maybe 50 lb over the Evinrude. Is 50 lb a big deal? What is the relative selling price? If I was shopping I would buy a 4 stroke at this point in time. del cecchi Del, My "gerneralization" on wieght was meant for engines with the same number of cylinders, mostly the popular 200hp range and higher. The midrange motors 70-175 are a mix of 3,4, and 6 cylinders and can't be compared that way. What year CB750? I had a CB750 K2 that I rode for 27 years, even when I had Harleys, too. Sold all kinds of parts, hop-up stuff, repair kits, etc. on Ebay last summer. I couldn't believe the prices the people paid and the interest in those old bikes. Your other post mentioned information dribbling out about DFI motors, all that is open knowledge in boating magazines, Internet forums, Industtry publications, Industry news sources, etc. Ask away if you have any specific questions, you know my credentials and credibilty after all these years. Bill Grannis service manager |
Billgran wrote:
"del cecchi" wrote in message ... "Billgran" wrote in message m... "Del Cecchi" wrote in message ... wrote: The suzuki 4stroke 140 is 410lb, the Evinrude 135/150 is 419lb (4 cyl. motor vs. a V6) The suzuke 200/225 is 580lb while the Evinrude is 524lb ...and how much does the Yamaha F225, Honda 225, and the Merc Verado 225 weigh compared to the Evinrude V6? Bill Grannis service manager Now Bill, I was just refuting your generalization that the Bombardier motors were lighter than 4 strokes. And I don't have the motor guide out of bass and walleye boats handy. The Yamaha 115 and merc version also aren't much heavier than my 115 carb'd two stroke as I recall. And why should I want a V6 Evinrude instead of a 4cyl Suzuki? What's the big deal with the V6? Cars used them (4 stroke of course) because they reused much of the tooling and parts for the V8s that already existed. And apparently 2 stroke inline 4s have issues leading to bizarre solutions like the 2+2 on my Merc. But the 4 in my accord is just peachy, as is the one in my CB750. So, what is superior about the Evinrude 135/150 as compared to the Suzuki ? Ok looked up the yamaha. The 200/225/250 are 580-590 lb. The 150 is 466 lb. So looks like maybe 50 lb over the Evinrude. Is 50 lb a big deal? What is the relative selling price? If I was shopping I would buy a 4 stroke at this point in time. del cecchi Del, My "gerneralization" on wieght was meant for engines with the same number of cylinders, mostly the popular 200hp range and higher. The midrange motors 70-175 are a mix of 3,4, and 6 cylinders and can't be compared that way. What year CB750? I had a CB750 K2 that I rode for 27 years, even when I had Harleys, too. Sold all kinds of parts, hop-up stuff, repair kits, etc. on Ebay last summer. I couldn't believe the prices the people paid and the interest in those old bikes. Your other post mentioned information dribbling out about DFI motors, all that is open knowledge in boating magazines, Internet forums, Industtry publications, Industry news sources, etc. Ask away if you have any specific questions, you know my credentials and credibilty after all these years. Bill Grannis service manager It is a 1976, been sitting for a few years now. My retirement project :-) I heard a lot of rumors that the early 150's didn't do so well, on this group and on the Bass Fishing board at wmi.org or whatever it is. But the magazines I read, like Bass and Walleye Boats (which I really like), just pretended it wasn't happening. And the folks I talked to at the boat show..... they just gave me blank looks. Maybe Industry Publications or other specialized areas had some information, but I didn't see it. And I've been reading rec.boats starting in 96 or 97 when I was shopping for my Lund. So here is a blunt question: If one bought an early Ficht 150, what was the likelyhood that one would have had major problems with the powerhead? I have heard the big blocks were better, what is the comparable number for them? And what had the rate dropped to by the time of the OMC bankruptcy? I am, just to satisfy my curiousity, trying to understand whether indeed 2 strokes are barely feasable and direct injected two strokes have fundamental problems that doom any attempt to make them work reliably, or whether quality problems, whether isolated or pervasive, caused the appearance of a flaw. I heard stories of sooting. I heard stories of poor quality assurance when switching supplies for parts. But I certainly wasn't in the story flow. So what is your opinion as to the root cause of the problems? del |
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:17:23 -0600, Del Cecchi
wrote: ~~ mucho snippage ~~ So here is a blunt question: If one bought an early Ficht 150, what was the likelyhood that one would have had major problems with the powerhead? I have heard the big blocks were better, what is the comparable number for them? And what had the rate dropped to by the time of the OMC bankruptcy? I am, just to satisfy my curiousity, trying to understand whether indeed 2 strokes are barely feasable and direct injected two strokes have fundamental problems that doom any attempt to make them work reliably, or whether quality problems, whether isolated or pervasive, caused the appearance of a flaw. I heard stories of sooting. I heard stories of poor quality assurance when switching supplies for parts. But I certainly wasn't in the story flow. So what is your opinion as to the root cause of the problems? I can answer a couple of these questions for you. It was the early 150 FICHTs that had the major problems. And those were corrected eventually. And if you have an early 150 FICHT that is running, the likely circumstance is that it's been upgraded and is ok. With respect to DI engines - anything you hear about them being fundamentally flawed by a certain individual on this newsgroup or by competitive dealers is strictly personal opinion and unfounded in the real world. DI is the way to go with two strokes. I am also impressed by the E-TEC engines - my new boat will have E-TECS. I currently own three FICHTs and with one exception, have never had any major problems and those problems that I did have weren't much different that any new engine would have - easily and quickly correctable. That one exception was related to the electronics (something that almost never happens even on other type engines - a stator failure which cascaded into the computer) and not the power head. As to soot - use a good grade gas, make sure you use stabilizer and use the FICHT oil instead of a industry standard brand. Haven't had any soot problems yet. I did have on one, but I was using el cheapo gas on the way to the launch. Switched over and no more problem. I know several shell fish types (clammers) who have FICHTS with incredible amounts of hours on them and they are running just fine thank you very much. :) I am a barely technically literate very satisfied FICHT owner - Bill can give you the heavy duty technical stuff. Trying to keep the barbarians from giving you a false impression. :) Later, Tom |
Billgran wrote:
"del cecchi" wrote in message ... "Billgran" wrote in message m... "Del Cecchi" wrote in message ... wrote: The suzuki 4stroke 140 is 410lb, the Evinrude 135/150 is 419lb (4 cyl. motor vs. a V6) The suzuke 200/225 is 580lb while the Evinrude is 524lb ...and how much does the Yamaha F225, Honda 225, and the Merc Verado 225 weigh compared to the Evinrude V6? Bill Grannis service manager Now Bill, I was just refuting your generalization that the Bombardier motors were lighter than 4 strokes. And I don't have the motor guide out of bass and walleye boats handy. The Yamaha 115 and merc version also aren't much heavier than my 115 carb'd two stroke as I recall. And why should I want a V6 Evinrude instead of a 4cyl Suzuki? What's the big deal with the V6? Cars used them (4 stroke of course) because they reused much of the tooling and parts for the V8s that already existed. And apparently 2 stroke inline 4s have issues leading to bizarre solutions like the 2+2 on my Merc. But the 4 in my accord is just peachy, as is the one in my CB750. So, what is superior about the Evinrude 135/150 as compared to the Suzuki ? Ok looked up the yamaha. The 200/225/250 are 580-590 lb. The 150 is 466 lb. So looks like maybe 50 lb over the Evinrude. Is 50 lb a big deal? What is the relative selling price? If I was shopping I would buy a 4 stroke at this point in time. del cecchi Del, My "gerneralization" on wieght was meant for engines with the same number of cylinders, mostly the popular 200hp range and higher. The midrange motors 70-175 are a mix of 3,4, and 6 cylinders and can't be compared that way. What year CB750? I had a CB750 K2 that I rode for 27 years, even when I had Harleys, too. Sold all kinds of parts, hop-up stuff, repair kits, etc. on Ebay last summer. I couldn't believe the prices the people paid and the interest in those old bikes. Your other post mentioned information dribbling out about DFI motors, all that is open knowledge in boating magazines, Internet forums, Industtry publications, Industry news sources, etc. Ask away if you have any specific questions, you know my credentials and credibilty after all these years. Bill Grannis service manager So what you really mean Bill is it's just more deceptive spruiking from the very same dealer (& most other OMC dealers) who told & continue to tell all sorts of BS about Ficht??? The E-Tec is nothing more than the latest in a long line of set marketing BS that "Ficht is all fixed now", which you've deceptively spammed this NG with for years. It's totally unproven & will go the same way it did when you actually called it Ficht; under. K Krause's lie of the day is a bit of a double header sorry, but so many lies so little time:-) Whenever his total lack of any real boating knowledge looks like uncovering him as the sad little liar he is, he posts some crazy list of boats he claims are his base, here are just a few of his claims, he has tried to sustain these lies & as each one is shown to be a fabrication he just invents a new one, the latest is the "Parker". Don't feel conned nor stupid if you've been taken in by him, he make exactly the same lies up in the jet ski NGs when he used to pollute them with his crap, can you believe it he claimed to be a jet skier!!!!! (responsible & caring in the socialist way of course:-)) This idiot has never owned a boat & never will he is totally devoid of any boating experience nor knowledge, other than what he picks up in this NG & the occasional paid charter fishing trip. Here are some: Hatteras 43' sportfish Swan 41' racing/cruising sloop Morgan 33 O'Day 30 Cruisers, Inc., Mackinac 22 Century Coronado Bill Luders 16, as sweet a sailboat as ever caught a breeze. Century 19' wood lapstrake with side wheel steering Cruisers, Inc. 18' and 16' wood lapstrakes Wolverines. Molded plywood. Gorgeous. Several. 14,15,17 footers with various Evinrudes Lighting class sailboat Botved Coronet with twin 50 hp Evinrudes. Interesting boat. Aristocraft (a piece of junk...13', fast, held together with spit) Alcort Sunfish Ancarrow Marine Aquiflyer. 22' footer with two Caddy Crusaders. Guaranteed 60 mph. In the late 1950's. Skimmar brand skiff Arkansas Traveler fiberglass bowrider (I think it was a bowrider) Dyer Dhow Su-Mark round bilge runabout, fiberglass Penn Yan runabouts. Wood. Old Town wood and canvas canoe Old Town sailing canoe...different than above canoe I own the following boats: a 36' "lobster" style boat a 19' center console fishing boat an 11' inflatable dinghy 1/2 of a canoe Those are the types of boats I currently own. I'm also in the market for some interesting kind of lightweight flatbottomed skiff, similar to the old Skimmar, for the "new" 51-year-old 10 hp outboard I recently bought. One of the boats is kept on dry land within a half mile of Chesapeake Bay. One is kept at a private covered boat dock in a little creek off Chesapeake Bay. One is kept in the backyard of a friend who lives much closer to the Shenandoah River than I do. And one is kept next to the 36-footer." |
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:17:23 -0600, Del Cecchi wrote: ~~ mucho snippage ~~ So here is a blunt question: If one bought an early Ficht 150, what was the likelyhood that one would have had major problems with the powerhead? I have heard the big blocks were better, what is the comparable number for them? And what had the rate dropped to by the time of the OMC bankruptcy? I am, just to satisfy my curiousity, trying to understand whether indeed 2 strokes are barely feasable and direct injected two strokes have fundamental problems that doom any attempt to make them work reliably, or whether quality problems, whether isolated or pervasive, caused the appearance of a flaw. I heard stories of sooting. I heard stories of poor quality assurance when switching supplies for parts. But I certainly wasn't in the story flow. So what is your opinion as to the root cause of the problems? I can answer a couple of these questions for you. It was the early 150 FICHTs that had the major problems. And those were corrected eventually. And if you have an early 150 FICHT that is running, the likely circumstance is that it's been upgraded and is ok. Alice in wonderland stuff!!! It's become a religion for those who have a boat worth nothing because they're unfortunate enough to have a Ficht on the back, sorta like hostages making friends with the kidnappers, in this case you are helping lying dealers talk the BS up so they can rip more unsuspecting people off with their latest consumer funded experiments. With respect to DI engines - anything you hear about them being fundamentally flawed by a certain individual on this newsgroup or by competitive dealers is strictly personal opinion and unfounded in the real world. DI is the way to go with two strokes. I am also impressed by the E-TEC engines - my new boat will have E-TECS. Well I guess you can say that Tom so I guess as a rejoinder I'm entitled to say we told you Ficht & Optimax would fail & we were right except unlike all the other hangers on we told you up front pre the failures in 98-99 & we even explained why in long tedious detail:-) Before the subject OMC dealer chokes on his latest glossy E-Tec marketing brochu-) I have to immediately acknowledge I "personally" make no claim for myself, that this was a collaborative effort the major players being my blokes, Marcus & Dell. We all disagreed & even had "spirited" disputes but in the end ......... we all agreed as Alice said curiouser & curiouser:-) You need to find just one single verifiable document Tom that predates ours & then you can criticise but till then I say we have the runs on the board, here we say hit for 6, I think you'd say slam dunk???:-). With E-Tec we'll get even more & again well ahead of time:-) This mad attempt to make an engine piston strong enough just to live through detonation??? A giggle of huge proportions!!! I currently own three FICHTs and with one exception, have never had any major problems and those problems that I did have weren't much different that any new engine would have - easily and quickly correctable. That one exception was related to the electronics (something that almost never happens even on other type engines - a stator failure which cascaded into the computer) and not the power head. You have no clue what the "major" problem was all you know is what the dealer chose to tell you or what he parrots from "tech training". But hey why are you even happy??? you did worse than the head of OMC admitted???? he only admitted a failure rate of 1 in 5, you sadly got 1 in 3:-) Gee the major spruiker of Ficht in this NG is a Florida dealer (you know Tom sun & sand, all year season???) he painted himself as knowing all there was to know about Ficht & when we immediately saw that Ficht "couldn't" work because of poor atomisation, lean mixtures at power & multiple spark firing, he of course personally abused me as only a spammer can when their sell sell sell line is challenged. Eventually we showed him how it worked by displaying the Ficht patents to him then & only then we finally got him to actually measure inside a Ficht injector because he'd been "taught" at tech training that the Ficht injector was a solenoid driven piston in a bore!!!:-) huge lie!!! He actually didn't even know how it worked!!! Even after he found it had to operate as we had advised that didn't stop him, he continued with the sell sell sell spam even as people who had fallen for it were suffering the consequences. So when the Fichts really started to fail, just as we had "pre" predicted!! guess what this spammer claimed he'd "never" even seen a failed Ficht!!! at this time people were putting ani Ficht billboard up in Texas:-) Worse much worse in my view, when OMC went under, taking 1.3Bil that's Bil Tom of union retirees money becasue hey OMC were fully unionised so the funds just gave them other eople's money!!! (a whole seperate scandal), 7000 workers got chucked but clearly still not the right ones:-) & endless boaters were left hanging with faulty motors & worthless boats, then just like all the other spamming NG OMC dealers he ran away!!!! & didn't even respond to specific pleas for help from people who had been conned into buying them. As to soot - use a good grade gas, make sure you use stabilizer and use the FICHT oil instead of a industry standard brand. Haven't had any soot problems yet. I did have on one, but I was using el cheapo gas on the way to the launch. Switched over and no more problem. You are being dealer conned; the so called "soot" buildup is because the lean mixtures make excessive heat which bakes the tiny amounts of oil. They've blamed every thing & everyone but the truth is it's the poor atomisation, being too lean at power, unreliable actual ignition timing when lean & the very risky oiling. It never was the pistons supplier's fault, gee wake up Tom, the same pistons worked OK in the carbed versions of the very same engine indeed most still do, the oil?? give it up this is BS & then the fuel?? what a hoot:-), every other IC engine in the biggest using country of IC engines runs fine on something we call petrol, if Ficht can't then they shouldn't be selling them, oops forgot the laws of physics saw to it they don't, just as they will with E-tec. I know several shell fish types (clammers) who have FICHTS with incredible amounts of hours on them and they are running just fine thank you very much. :) So what??? 1 in 5 failed!!!!! well in your case 1 in 3 :-) 4 out of 5 is not good enough!!! 95 out of 100 is still not good enough imagine if 5% of Fords engines failed???? Considering they charge more than the price of a medium sized car, you know Tom, with wheels, tyres. brakes, auto trans, seats, windscreen wipers, crash testing, etc etc yet these idiots are trying to rip you off with a an unglorified lawn mower engine hooked to a problematic right angle drive??? I am a barely technically literate very satisfied FICHT owner - Bill can give you the heavy duty technical stuff. Partly right:-) & a classic target to start sleeping with the kidnappers, hope you don't start robbing banks with them Tom. 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:-) Later, Tom K Krause's lie of the day is a bit of a double header sorry, but so many lies so little time:-) Whenever his total lack of any real boating knowledge looks like uncovering him as the sad little liar he is, he posts some crazy list of boats he claims are his base, here are just a few of his claims, he has tried to sustain these lies & as each one is shown to be a fabrication he just invents a new one, the latest is the "Parker". Don't feel conned nor stupid if you've been taken in by him, he make exactly the same lies up in the jet ski NGs when he used to pollute them with his crap, can you believe it he claimed to be a jet skier!!!!! (responsible & caring in the socialist way of course:-)) This idiot has never owned a boat & never will he is totally devoid of any boating experience nor knowledge, other than what he picks up in this NG & the occasional paid charter fishing trip. Here are some: Hatteras 43' sportfish Swan 41' racing/cruising sloop Morgan 33 O'Day 30 Cruisers, Inc., Mackinac 22 Century Coronado Bill Luders 16, as sweet a sailboat as ever caught a breeze. Century 19' wood lapstrake with side wheel steering Cruisers, Inc. 18' and 16' wood lapstrakes Wolverines. Molded plywood. Gorgeous. Several. 14,15,17 footers with various Evinrudes Lighting class sailboat Botved Coronet with twin 50 hp Evinrudes. Interesting boat. Aristocraft (a piece of junk...13', fast, held together with spit) Alcort Sunfish Ancarrow Marine Aquiflyer. 22' footer with two Caddy Crusaders. Guaranteed 60 mph. In the late 1950's. Skimmar brand skiff Arkansas Traveler fiberglass bowrider (I think it was a bowrider) Dyer Dhow Su-Mark round bilge runabout, fiberglass Penn Yan runabouts. Wood. Old Town wood and canvas canoe Old Town sailing canoe...different than above canoe I own the following boats: a 36' "lobster" style boat a 19' center console fishing boat an 11' inflatable dinghy 1/2 of a canoe Those are the types of boats I currently own. I'm also in the market for some interesting kind of lightweight flatbottomed skiff, similar to the old Skimmar, for the "new" 51-year-old 10 hp outboard I recently bought. One of the boats is kept on dry land within a half mile of Chesapeake Bay. One is kept at a private covered boat dock in a little creek off Chesapeake Bay. One is kept in the backyard of a friend who lives much closer to the Shenandoah River than I do. And one is kept next to the 36-footer." |
Harry Krause wrote:
K. Smith wrote: ,,,yet another lamentation about the loss of her job as a fluffer in a porno palace. & another admission by Krause that he is a non boating liar seems he even lies about who is in the killfile:-) K Krause's lie of the day is a bit of a double header sorry, but so many lies so little time:-) Whenever his total lack of any real boating knowledge looks like uncovering him as the sad little liar he is, he posts some crazy list of boats he claims are his base, here are just a few of his claims, he has tried to sustain these lies & as each one is shown to be a fabrication he just invents a new one, the latest is the "Parker". Don't feel conned nor stupid if you've been taken in by him, he make exactly the same lies up in the jet ski NGs when he used to pollute them with his crap, can you believe it he claimed to be a jet skier!!!!! (responsible & caring in the socialist way of course:-)) This idiot has never owned a boat & never will he is totally devoid of any boating experience nor knowledge, other than what he picks up in this NG & the occasional paid charter fishing trip. |
Harry Krause wrote:
K. Smith wrote: Here are some: Indeed, my father was a boat dealer and marina owner for nearly 30 years. For many years running, his dealership sold more Evinrudes than any other in Connecticut, and, for some years, more than any other dealer in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. Cruisers, Inc., Mackinac- 22 owned by dad Century Coronado - used one a few times. Bill Luders 16, as sweet a sailboat as ever caught a breeze. - dad bought his new directly from bill luders Century 19' wood lapstrake with side wheel steering i remember it well; a trade in. Cruisers, Inc. 18' and 16' wood lapstrakes - dad sold this line for many years. Wolverines. Molded plywood. Gorgeous. Several. 14,15,17 footers -sold this line, too with various Evinrudes Lighting class sailboat - yep, kept at Milford. Botved Coronet with twin 50 hp Evinrudes. Interesting boat. - my dad was the sole us distributor for three years, and then a key dealer. Aristocraft (a piece of junk...13', fast, held together with spit) - yep pretty crap Alcort Sunfish yep Ancarrow Marine Aquiflyer. 22' footer with two Caddy Crusaders. Guaranteed 60 mph. In the late 1950's. - correct. Skimmar brand skiff - my favorite rowboat Arkansas Traveler fiberglass bowrider (I think it was a bowrider) another line my father handled Dyer Dhow Su-Mark round bilge runabout, fiberglass - tough but ugly little glass runabout Penn Yan runabouts. Wood. - yep beautiful, canvas covered cedar Old Town wood and canvas canoe yep. Old Town sailing canoe...different than above canoe What did your dad do, Ms, Smith, aside from drink? More of the "father" lie hey Krause??? don't rush ahead we're getting the father series soon enough just be patient, I even have the source of where you got one of the whoppers:-) K Krause's lie of the day is a bit of a double header sorry, but so many lies so little time:-) Whenever his total lack of any real boating knowledge looks like uncovering him as the sad little liar he is, he posts some crazy list of boats he claims are his base, here are just a few of his claims, he has tried to sustain these lies & as each one is shown to be a fabrication he just invents a new one, the latest is the "Parker". Don't feel conned nor stupid if you've been taken in by him, he make exactly the same lies up in the jet ski NGs when he used to pollute them with his crap, can you believe it he claimed to be a jet skier!!!!! (responsible & caring in the socialist way of course:-)) This idiot has never owned a boat & never will he is totally devoid of any boating experience nor knowledge, other than what he picks up in this NG & the occasional paid charter fishing trip. Here are some: Hatteras 43' sportfish Swan 41' racing/cruising sloop Morgan 33 O'Day 30 Cruisers, Inc., Mackinac 22 Century Coronado Bill Luders 16, as sweet a sailboat as ever caught a breeze. Century 19' wood lapstrake with side wheel steering Cruisers, Inc. 18' and 16' wood lapstrakes Wolverines. Molded plywood. Gorgeous. Several. 14,15,17 footers with various Evinrudes Lighting class sailboat Botved Coronet with twin 50 hp Evinrudes. Interesting boat. Aristocraft (a piece of junk...13', fast, held together with spit) Alcort Sunfish Ancarrow Marine Aquiflyer. 22' footer with two Caddy Crusaders. Guaranteed 60 mph. In the late 1950's. Skimmar brand skiff Arkansas Traveler fiberglass bowrider (I think it was a bowrider) Dyer Dhow Su-Mark round bilge runabout, fiberglass Penn Yan runabouts. Wood. Old Town wood and canvas canoe Old Town sailing canoe...different than above canoe I own the following boats: a 36' "lobster" style boat a 19' center console fishing boat an 11' inflatable dinghy 1/2 of a canoe Those are the types of boats I currently own. I'm also in the market for some interesting kind of lightweight flatbottomed skiff, similar to the old Skimmar, for the "new" 51-year-old 10 hp outboard I recently bought. One of the boats is kept on dry land within a half mile of Chesapeake Bay. One is kept at a private covered boat dock in a little creek off Chesapeake Bay. One is kept in the backyard of a friend who lives much closer to the Shenandoah River than I do. And one is kept next to the 36-footer." |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Indeed, my father was a boat dealer and marina owner for nearly 30 years. For many years running, his dealership sold more Evinrudes than any other in Connecticut, and, for some years, more than any other dealer in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. snip Don't suppose you kept any of the 'service manuals' for the Evinrudes? I'd like to have the original factory manual for the 1986 Yachtwin 6hp. |
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. I just wish you'd knock it off - it's not convincing to anybody who owns a FICHT and it's only making you look foolish. All the best. Live long and prosper, Tom |
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:-) So I'd prefer the experience of those I respect along with, the 7000 who got chucked out of work, the 1.3 bil union pensions lost, the loss of a US icon Co. About the only good to coime of it was a few of the lying dealers took a bath:-) I just wish you'd knock it off - it's not convincing to anybody who owns a FICHT and it's only making you look foolish. Yes the old dealer line doing "me" a favour by stopping me criticising faulty products being marketed to the public for testing. It's all been tried before so I won't "knock it off" & again with E-Tec remember where , when, the detail of & from who you heard it first:-) All the best. Live long and prosper, Tom Same to you, but don't get conned again or you'll never see any boat value again:-) K Krause's lie of the day is a bit of a double header sorry, but so many lies so little time:-) Whenever his total lack of any real boating knowledge looks like uncovering him as the sad little liar he is, he posts some crazy list of boats he claims are his base, here are just a few of his claims, he has tried to sustain these lies & as each one is shown to be a fabrication he just invents a new one, the latest is the "Parker". Don't feel conned nor stupid if you've been taken in by him, he make exactly the same lies up in the jet ski NGs when he used to pollute them with his crap, can you believe it he claimed to be a jet skier!!!!! (responsible & caring in the socialist way of course:-)) This idiot has never owned a boat & never will he is totally devoid of any boating experience nor knowledge, other than what he picks up in this NG & the occasional paid charter fishing trip. Here are some: Hatteras 43' sportfish Swan 41' racing/cruising sloop Morgan 33 O'Day 30 Cruisers, Inc., Mackinac 22 Century Coronado Bill Luders 16, as sweet a sailboat as ever caught a breeze. Century 19' wood lapstrake with side wheel steering Cruisers, Inc. 18' and 16' wood lapstrakes Wolverines. Molded plywood. Gorgeous. Several. 14,15,17 footers with various Evinrudes Lighting class sailboat Botved Coronet with twin 50 hp Evinrudes. Interesting boat. Aristocraft (a piece of junk...13', fast, held together with spit) Alcort Sunfish Ancarrow Marine Aquiflyer. 22' footer with two Caddy Crusaders. Guaranteed 60 mph. In the late 1950's. Skimmar brand skiff Arkansas Traveler fiberglass bowrider (I think it was a bowrider) Dyer Dhow Su-Mark round bilge runabout, fiberglass Penn Yan runabouts. Wood. Old Town wood and canvas canoe Old Town sailing canoe...different than above canoe I own the following boats: a 36' "lobster" style boat a 19' center console fishing boat an 11' inflatable dinghy 1/2 of a canoe Those are the types of boats I currently own. I'm also in the market for some interesting kind of lightweight flatbottomed skiff, similar to the old Skimmar, for the "new" 51-year-old 10 hp outboard I recently bought. One of the boats is kept on dry land within a half mile of Chesapeake Bay. One is kept at a private covered boat dock in a little creek off Chesapeake Bay. One is kept in the backyard of a friend who lives much closer to the Shenandoah River than I do. And one is kept next to the 36-footer." |
LOL,,,
krause,,, you sure owned a lot of boats,,, in your dreams,, lol,,, you can always tell when krause is embarrassed by getting caught in a lie,, he flings back with ridiculous insults,,, lol,,,, krause,, you are a real winner,,, at least when I post about you,,it is exactly what you yourself have said,,, lol,,,, You know,, about all the lies,, very **** poor family relations for a family law expert,,, and I like to remind you of the lies you post,,, lol,,, "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... K. Smith wrote: Harry Krause wrote: K. Smith wrote: ,,,yet another lamentation about the loss of her job as a fluffer in a porno palace. & another admission by Krause that he is a non boating liar seems he even lies about who is in the killfile:-) Ahhh, a witty rejoinder from our failed fluffer, a fat, ugly, overweight, pockmarked broad who claims to have invented a diesel outboatd motor that isn't manufactured or sold anywhere, and who works as a receptionish at a failing little boatyard down under. |
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. Sad really. Later, Tom |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:03:50 +1100, "K. Smith" wrote: One in three failed yes. However it was not a mechanical failure Where did you get the figure 1 in 3 failed? It was David Jones the then president of OMC that told a news conference that 1 in 5 1998 25" shaft FICHTS had problems. I reported that quote here on the newsgroup back then. Bill Grannis service manager |
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: One in three failed yes. However it was not a mechanical failure Where did you get the figure 1 in 3 failed? It was David Jones the then president of OMC that told a news conference that 1 in 5 1998 25" shaft FICHTS had problems. I reported that quote here on the newsgroup back then. She was citing my particular situation, not the early average of 1 in 5. I own three of these beasts - I had one particularly rare failure - thus one out of three for me. My point was that my problem was purely related to electrical problems and not any other mechanical defect which Karen likes to wail about. And while I don't have major hours on any of my engines, I know clammers and bull rakers over in RI who have early 150 FICHTs who have tons of hours on their motors and like them and rely on them for their livelihood. I'm so convinced about BRP's engine technology that ETECS are going on my new Contender 31 Fisharound (wife made me do it - honest - creature comforts don't 'cha know). MY other choices were Mercury Verado's or Yamaha DFI. I think the Verado's are ugly and much to heavy and while Yamaha makes a good engine, I'm more of a brand loyalist in most things I do. If these engines are so bad, you have to wonder why I received six very respectable offers on my Contender CC this winter - all guys who have successful charter operations and want a fast, reliable boat for tuna chasing. Let's face it Bill, Karen is in a whole 'nother universe on this one. Later, Tom |
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. |
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. Wouldnt the Optimax (or other DFI) the perfect setup to keep the cylinders cool? You could easyly run it on 3 cylinders @ idle and lean mode. I would cycle the shutoff. So one rev 3 fire the next rev they pause and the other 3 fire. You would not have to inject any gas in the cylinders that pause and could keep the motor a lot cooler. I am not 100% sure how the optimax injectors work. It sort of has 2 per cylinder, one for gas and one for air but if they operate seperately, air could still be injected to cool the cylinder further. Do you know why this isnt done? Matt |
Karen wrote:
This is dealer BS 98 was only 7 years ago:-) By claiming they were released late 97 when the US season is over, they try to make it sound longer. The first 1997 FICHT was introduced in June of 1996, about 8 years and 8 months ago. That's pretty close to 9 years, wouldn't you agree? Karen wrote: It was all you could read about, they were all over the place even bill boards ("Bill" boards get it:-)) were put up in Texas because Ficht were blowing up & OMC dealers were not fixing!!!!! Hmmmm, how come you don't find piles of blow up FICHTS all over the place? If there was a billboard it ain't no more. If all the newer FICHTs were blowing up, where is the outrange, the articles about them, the lawsuits, more billboards, sky writing, etc?? .. |
|
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. 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 The story I heard was it had to do with the port timing and the exhaust configuration. If both of a pair were running at low speed the exhaust blew back. 180 crank. one fires with other at bdc. Maybe even spits back out the carb. I have one of the 115. Been ok. |
"Del Cecchi" wrote in message ... Yamaha problems? Are they having HPDI problems? The information is still not reaching the general public. There was just a 300 HPDI article in Bass and Walleye boats, and I don't recall so much as a hint of any problems. Like the '98-'99 FICHT problems, the Yamaha 300 problems only affect certain applications, mostly offshore fishing boats. It does not affect the freshwater bass boat motors. Part of the problem is salt water intrusion, but the "fix" takes 12 to 15 hours to do, and it is a whole series of changes, including wiring harness, ECU, adding a reverse switch, etc. and can only be done by factory approved locations. They are not fixing all at this time, just the offshore folks on certain makes of boats. You can read all about it and some horror stories (as usual) on various web sites and forum. It is also known in the trade journals. Use Google. 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. So what did they change? As an engineer I am interested in stuff like that. The combustion process at 15% power was changed so all cylinders did not switch over from stratified to homogenous mode all at once. This smoothed the engine operation in that range (while the boat is plowing, and not on plane yet) and cut down on the sooting of the rings which caused most of the engine problems. There was a lot written about the re-engineered FICHTS and the new EMM's that replaced older ECU's, 40 volt systems vs. 24volts, exhaust pressure sensors, etc. Look for back issues of various boating magazines in the library or do a lot of searching with Google. There was a lot of information put out back then. An Australian boating magazine had a very good article about the technical changes, but of course Karen didn't believe any of it. Bill Grannis service manager |
On 2/4/05, Del Cecchi wrote:
I have one of the 115. Been ok. Sooooo yours hasn't had the extreme shakes/vibration at low rpm that I described? To be fair, the one I've used isn't a typical use outboard. It's a yacht club chase boat (used mainly for teaching sailing as well as race committee work) and spends most of its life idling in neutral or idling in gear, then occasionally blasting off full tilt boogie for a mile or two, then idling in neutral again for the longest. Also gets pressed into service for towing on occasion. Maybe that explains why a tune up just doesn't last more than one outing before it starts shakin' the bejeebees outta the boat and passengers again. Thanks to all up the thread for the responses though. I had been told it was a fuel saving measure. I never did buy that one. Makes more sense to me now. Rick |
"K. Smith" wrote in message (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. Not only were the bores small, but getting *to* the 99ci illustrated this point. IN THE BEGINNING (1962) came the 89.9 ci Merc 1000 with a 2.875" bore. The next offering was the 93 ci Merc 1100 achieved by boring out the Merc 1000 blocks. This motor with only 1/2 extra ci per hole ran hotter, enough that it only enjoyed a 2 year production run '66-'67, the risk vs reward was not worth it for 3ci and 10hp. (today they are rare - and still have that rep as the hotties of the family) Going back to the original 89ci block and the drawing board in 1968, they left the bores alone at 2.875" and instead *stroked* it, to make a "whopping" 99.9 ci's. And in *that* config it enjoyed a 20 year production run. Now granted, by the time they got done wringing 150hp out of a little 99ci block, the thing is still a motor that's thermally on the edge, but so long as the waterpump is working, the advance max's at 21 degrees (23-25 with Cam II) and it don't lean out for any reason, it'll run forever at WOT. The moral of the story is that the "risk vs reward factor" became much better by stroking it a lot, than boring it a little. -W |
Lets not forget these motors had "liquid fuel" cooling ;)
Lots of gas runs through these motors... Matt (could watch the gas needle drop with his 1250) |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Del Cecchi" snip-snip-snip 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. Don't have to shout at me, I am a very reasonable person. Hey, Del, I was not "shouting". My first post must have been lost in cyberspace and when I cut and pasted what I had saved to send you another post, using a memory resident program, It came out half in capital letters, and I was not going to retype the whole thing. Sorry if you took offense, that was not my intention. By the way, I 'm glad you read Bass and Walleye, that is one of the magazines that I write for, you will see my name as a field editor. I've written several articles over the years about servicing the FICHT motors. I was not writing back in the '98-'99 FICHT problem days, but Jim Barron, the technical manager for B&WB wrote about the problems, the fixes, and many engine tests over the years. Don't forget that most of the problem FICHTS were the 25" shaft models that were used primarily offshore. Bass Boats (and walleye boats) mostly use 20" shaft engines, and those did not have the problems. That is why many are still doing fine today. It's hard to keep all the facts and figures straight, but the V-4 FICHTS and the 1999 200-225 hp FICHTS did not have the problems that those '98&'99 150-175's did. Bill Grannis service manager |
wrote in message oups.com... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Del Cecchi" snip-snip-snip 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. Don't have to shout at me, I am a very reasonable person. Hey, Del, I was not "shouting". My first post must have been lost in cyberspace and when I cut and pasted what I had saved to send you another post, using a memory resident program, It came out half in capital letters, and I was not going to retype the whole thing. Sorry if you took offense, that was not my intention. By the way, I 'm glad you read Bass and Walleye, that is one of the magazines that I write for, you will see my name as a field editor. I've written several articles over the years about servicing the FICHT motors. I was not writing back in the '98-'99 FICHT problem days, but Jim Barron, the technical manager for B&WB wrote about the problems, the fixes, and many engine tests over the years. Don't forget that most of the problem FICHTS were the 25" shaft models that were used primarily offshore. Bass Boats (and walleye boats) mostly use 20" shaft engines, and those did not have the problems. That is why many are still doing fine today. It's hard to keep all the facts and figures straight, but the V-4 FICHTS and the 1999 200-225 hp FICHTS did not have the problems that those '98&'99 150-175's did. Bill Grannis service manager I was wondering about the caps. I don't recall Jim Barron or anybody from BWB saying much of anything. But maybe it was too subtle for me. I know that these kind of trade pubs often require reading between the lines and judging what they don't say as much as what they do say. It's hard to understand why the shaft would make a difference. I guess it is usage conditions. Your articles in BWB are always interesting. del |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:34 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com