Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
K Smith
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Ficht failed no1


This NG has been the only place, anywhere that has been shown to have
correctly predicted Ficht would fail & explain why. Yes we're a messy
abusive bunch but we seem to have got this correct before anyone at all,
even beforte they started to fail in huge numbers, OMC admitted 1 in 5,
but that was probably a fudge like everything else they said.

Hopefully I can convince anyone who reads these of the rational reasons
why Ficht didn't work & why the latest modifications from the new owners
will not help the situation.

The initial posts on the subject were in 98 & have continued ever
since, even to the same predictions & explanations for the latest
incarnation from Bombardier.

Regrettably the posts & discussions have almost always been in a
combative environment, usually in answer to OMC dealers spamming the NG
with sales spruiking, so this & the posts to follow will be new threads,
hopefully to be reviewed & criticised if anyone has any comments.

I'll start with some very basic understandings of how engines work,
because throughout the years it's apparent even long time OB mechanics
have little or no basic training & not much understanding of the rules.

HOW THE FUEL BURNS

(i) Liquids don't burn, not petrol ( we call gasoline petrol, sorry:-)),
not diesel, not most any liquid. What does burn is the vapour given off
by liquids.

(ii) Temperature & pressure are one & the same, in these premises. So
any "temps" will be different as the pressure the fuel is under at the
time changes. The higher the pressure the higher the temps.

(ii) Various flammable liquids give off vapours at various
temps/pressures, which means some (petrol) will readily ignite at room
temp while others (diesel) will not. The temp at which a liquid gives
off enough vapour at norm atm pressure, to become flammable is usually
called it's "flashpoint"

(iii) The flashpoint for petrol at atm pressure (15psi) is around -40C
(&F) so it will ignite in most places whereas,
diesel has a flashpoint of around 60C (140F) which means in normal
settings it with not ignite, even if you throw a lit match into a bucket
of diesel.

(iv) Next it has to be "ignited", & the only way to do this is expose
the vapour to a heat higher than what is usually called it's
"autoignition" temp, again this varies with lots of things as above but
also, including the type of petrol, octane rating or the type of diesel,
however generally for unleaded petrol this is around 260C (500F) & for
diesel around 220C (430F) So petrol has a low flashoint but a high
autoignition temp & diesel is the otherway around. This is why diesel
engine fires are so dangerous, becasue once vapourised diesel leaks
(cracked injector line?) into contact with even modestly hot (210C)
articles (exhaust or turbo housing?) which are all around a running
diesel, it will autoignite, then any further fuel leaked will easily use
that heat to continue the fire.

(v) So long as the fuel is;
(a) fully vapourised or atomised so oxygen can surround each tiny droplet,
(b) in the correct quantities so the heat from each can create
autoignition in the surrounding droplets (too little or too lean & the
flame will not be sustained or will be very slow OR too much fuel or too
rich & the increasing pressure will force the vapour back into droplets
too large such that it will be a "liquid" & liquids don't burn),
(c) Once any are exposed to a temp higher than their autoignition
temp, then the surface of that droplet will "burn" converting oxygen etc
& in so doing the heat generated will heat the next droplet to above
it's autoigntion temp etc etc &
a flame front will travel away from the point of ignition.

(vi) The flamefront, once established travels at a fairly predictable
speed, again it's variable dependent on many variables but for petrol it
can be talked of as 16m/s (52ft/sec.) & once commenced in a closed
chamber the heat & temp will continue to rise as the burn continues.

HOW THE FUEL IS IGNITED THEN BURNT INSIDE PETROL VS DIESEL ENGINES.

(i) The two engines are totally different in their operation strategy,
although they do appear to be very similar; just fuelled differently;
(a) the petrol engine has to mix the vapourised fuel with the air
inside the combustion chamber BEFORE compression & ignition, which means
the amount of heat generated by the compression or anywhere else has to
be limited, which in turn limits the max compression ratio to around 9
to 1 whereas,
the diesel has no fuel at all in the chamber during compression & only
has fuel injected just before TDC (top dead centre) allowing very high
compression ratios.

(b) the petrol engine has to keep any part of the chamber below the
autoignition temp of the fuel (petrol 260Cor 500F at 1 atm) until the
point when it's required to be ignited (near TDC), whereas,
the diesel engine can allow the chamber temp to be as high as it likes,
because there is no fuel there till the fuel starts to get injected
(near TDC).

(c) the fuel in a petrol engine is ignited by exposure to a spark
which is well above it's autoignition temp so once the fuel /air mix
around the plug are ignited, then the flamefront proceeds out at a
predicatable rate from there whereas,
the fuel in a diesel engine is ignited, after a short delay, by
exposure to the hot compressed air in the chamber, which is above the
low autoignition temp of diesel. In the diesel the burn can be
controlled because as soon as fuel is injected it will autoignite, so at
idle the injection will stop almost immediately, but at higher power the
injection will continue over a longer period of the power stroke.

(d) The petrol engine can only control the power by controlling the
amount of fuel AND air that are in the chamber whereas,
the diesel can control it's power by adjusting the amount of fuel
injected on each power stroke.

(e) The chamber temp in a petrol engine needs to be closely controlled
so the fuel is ignited only by the advancing flamefront, if the chamber
or any pat of it exceeds the auto ignition temp any fuel air mix left
will just ignite starting it's own flamefront & heat pressure rise. This
is usually referred to as detonation & in cylinder readings can go
momentarily as high as 1800psi, which generates extreme temperature rise
very quickly making the detonation self sustaining whereas,
the diesel engine can allow the chamber to be very hot with no risk of
the fuel igniting before intended, because there is no fuel there till
it's deliberately injected.


I'll post more ....

K



  #2   Report Post  
Tuuk
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Ficht failed no1

I purchased the 225 ficht in 99, when the recall for the safety kit or
shield and software upgrade called me in and they attached the laptop
diagnostics on my engine, they told me I had just over 800 hours on the
engine. Since then I know I have put more than 200 hours or even 400 hours,
mostly idle speeds. I have gone through 4 sets of plugs (once per year)
which I found a very cheap source for and have had no problems and been very
satisfied with my purchase, high value. I thought the optimax people were
the ones having their aches and pains.
I am fairly pleased with my decision to go with the Ficht. Only other
problem I had was the trim and tilt system while under warranty, never
slowed me down or prevented a trip but they ended up replacing the entire
system and haven't seen the dealer since.







"K Smith" wrote in message
...

This NG has been the only place, anywhere that has been shown to have
correctly predicted Ficht would fail & explain why. Yes we're a messy
abusive bunch but we seem to have got this correct before anyone at all,
even beforte they started to fail in huge numbers, OMC admitted 1 in 5,
but that was probably a fudge like everything else they said.

Hopefully I can convince anyone who reads these of the rational reasons
why Ficht didn't work & why the latest modifications from the new owners
will not help the situation.

The initial posts on the subject were in 98 & have continued ever
since, even to the same predictions & explanations for the latest
incarnation from Bombardier.

Regrettably the posts & discussions have almost always been in a
combative environment, usually in answer to OMC dealers spamming the NG
with sales spruiking, so this & the posts to follow will be new threads,
hopefully to be reviewed & criticised if anyone has any comments.

I'll start with some very basic understandings of how engines work,
because throughout the years it's apparent even long time OB mechanics
have little or no basic training & not much understanding of the rules.

HOW THE FUEL BURNS

(i) Liquids don't burn, not petrol ( we call gasoline petrol, sorry:-)),
not diesel, not most any liquid. What does burn is the vapour given off
by liquids.

(ii) Temperature & pressure are one & the same, in these premises. So
any "temps" will be different as the pressure the fuel is under at the
time changes. The higher the pressure the higher the temps.

(ii) Various flammable liquids give off vapours at various
temps/pressures, which means some (petrol) will readily ignite at room
temp while others (diesel) will not. The temp at which a liquid gives
off enough vapour at norm atm pressure, to become flammable is usually
called it's "flashpoint"

(iii) The flashpoint for petrol at atm pressure (15psi) is around -40C
(&F) so it will ignite in most places whereas,
diesel has a flashpoint of around 60C (140F) which means in normal
settings it with not ignite, even if you throw a lit match into a bucket
of diesel.

(iv) Next it has to be "ignited", & the only way to do this is expose
the vapour to a heat higher than what is usually called it's
"autoignition" temp, again this varies with lots of things as above but
also, including the type of petrol, octane rating or the type of diesel,
however generally for unleaded petrol this is around 260C (500F) & for
diesel around 220C (430F) So petrol has a low flashoint but a high
autoignition temp & diesel is the otherway around. This is why diesel
engine fires are so dangerous, becasue once vapourised diesel leaks
(cracked injector line?) into contact with even modestly hot (210C)
articles (exhaust or turbo housing?) which are all around a running
diesel, it will autoignite, then any further fuel leaked will easily use
that heat to continue the fire.

(v) So long as the fuel is;
(a) fully vapourised or atomised so oxygen can surround each tiny droplet,
(b) in the correct quantities so the heat from each can create
autoignition in the surrounding droplets (too little or too lean & the
flame will not be sustained or will be very slow OR too much fuel or too
rich & the increasing pressure will force the vapour back into droplets
too large such that it will be a "liquid" & liquids don't burn),
(c) Once any are exposed to a temp higher than their autoignition
temp, then the surface of that droplet will "burn" converting oxygen etc
& in so doing the heat generated will heat the next droplet to above
it's autoigntion temp etc etc &
a flame front will travel away from the point of ignition.

(vi) The flamefront, once established travels at a fairly predictable
speed, again it's variable dependent on many variables but for petrol it
can be talked of as 16m/s (52ft/sec.) & once commenced in a closed
chamber the heat & temp will continue to rise as the burn continues.

HOW THE FUEL IS IGNITED THEN BURNT INSIDE PETROL VS DIESEL ENGINES.

(i) The two engines are totally different in their operation strategy,
although they do appear to be very similar; just fuelled differently;
(a) the petrol engine has to mix the vapourised fuel with the air
inside the combustion chamber BEFORE compression & ignition, which means
the amount of heat generated by the compression or anywhere else has to
be limited, which in turn limits the max compression ratio to around 9
to 1 whereas,
the diesel has no fuel at all in the chamber during compression & only
has fuel injected just before TDC (top dead centre) allowing very high
compression ratios.

(b) the petrol engine has to keep any part of the chamber below the
autoignition temp of the fuel (petrol 260Cor 500F at 1 atm) until the
point when it's required to be ignited (near TDC), whereas,
the diesel engine can allow the chamber temp to be as high as it likes,
because there is no fuel there till the fuel starts to get injected
(near TDC).

(c) the fuel in a petrol engine is ignited by exposure to a spark
which is well above it's autoignition temp so once the fuel /air mix
around the plug are ignited, then the flamefront proceeds out at a
predicatable rate from there whereas,
the fuel in a diesel engine is ignited, after a short delay, by
exposure to the hot compressed air in the chamber, which is above the
low autoignition temp of diesel. In the diesel the burn can be
controlled because as soon as fuel is injected it will autoignite, so at
idle the injection will stop almost immediately, but at higher power the
injection will continue over a longer period of the power stroke.

(d) The petrol engine can only control the power by controlling the
amount of fuel AND air that are in the chamber whereas,
the diesel can control it's power by adjusting the amount of fuel
injected on each power stroke.

(e) The chamber temp in a petrol engine needs to be closely controlled
so the fuel is ignited only by the advancing flamefront, if the chamber
or any pat of it exceeds the auto ignition temp any fuel air mix left
will just ignite starting it's own flamefront & heat pressure rise. This
is usually referred to as detonation & in cylinder readings can go
momentarily as high as 1800psi, which generates extreme temperature rise
very quickly making the detonation self sustaining whereas,
the diesel engine can allow the chamber to be very hot with no risk of
the fuel igniting before intended, because there is no fuel there till
it's deliberately injected.


I'll post more ....

K





  #3   Report Post  
Short Wave Sportfishing
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Ficht failed no1

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:21:29 +1100, K Smith
wrote:


This NG has been the only place, anywhere that has been shown to have
correctly predicted Ficht would fail & explain why. Yes we're a messy
abusive bunch but we seem to have got this correct before anyone at all,
even beforte they started to fail in huge numbers, OMC admitted 1 in 5,
but that was probably a fudge like everything else they said.


~~ snippity do da ~~

I have a '00 200 Evinrude FICHT on my Ranger CC that Bombadier has
been most helpful with by updating the engine with all the safety/fuel
fixes, replacing the computer and electronic harness twice all at no
charge to me. They wre not required to do this I might add - they did
it on their own with no prompting from me when I bought the boat. I
have a new fuel pump sitting right next to my desk that is an update
and will be installed in the spring - no charge to me.

The engine does have a slight vibration around 2300 rpm, but I
understand that is typical for this model engine and is related to the
V angle of the block and is not an unbalance or fuel delivery problem.
It delivers plenty of horsepower in the normal rpm range and will push
the Ranger beyond 50 mph with a following wind and around 45/47 (GPS)
mph on a normal run.

I have nothing but good things to say about Bombadier and the FICHT
engine ignition/injection scheme.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------
"My rod and my reel - they comfort me."

St. Pete, 12 Lb. Test
  #4   Report Post  
Rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Ficht failed no1

K Smith wrote:

I'll post more ....


The only thing more dependable than a Ficht, that you will
continue to post ... ad nauseum.

Rick

  #5   Report Post  
Mad Dog Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Ficht failed no1

" Tuuk" wrote in message ...
I purchased the 225 ficht in 99, when the recall for the safety kit or
shield and software upgrade called me in and they attached the laptop
diagnostics on my engine, they told me I had just over 800 hours on the
engine. Since then I know I have put more than 200 hours or even 400 hours,
mostly idle speeds. I have gone through 4 sets of plugs (once per year)
which I found a very cheap source for and have had no problems and been very
satisfied with my purchase, high value. I thought the optimax people were
the ones having their aches and pains.
I am fairly pleased with my decision to go with the Ficht. Only other
problem I had was the trim and tilt system while under warranty, never
slowed me down or prevented a trip but they ended up replacing the entire
system and haven't seen the dealer since.



My readings here and elsewhere tell me that there is not a single
brand of outboard motor without some sort of problems somewhere in its
line.



"K Smith" wrote in message
...

This NG has been the only place, anywhere that has been shown to have
correctly predicted Ficht would fail & explain why. Yes we're a messy
abusive bunch but we seem to have got this correct before anyone at all,
even beforte they started to fail in huge numbers, OMC admitted 1 in 5,
but that was probably a fudge like everything else they said.

Hopefully I can convince anyone who reads these of the rational reasons
why Ficht didn't work & why the latest modifications from the new owners
will not help the situation.



Your material is not well presented. If you want to know how things
work, why not simply go to www.howstuffworks.com Many of the subjects
there are very well presented in words and in graphics.

Aside from trashing Harry Krause regularly, what is your area of
expertise? Are you an engine design engineer or a super mechanic who
regularly works on these motors? If you are you might have something
useful to pass along. If not and if you are going to sprinkle your
usual invective in your "rational reasons" why would anyone bother. I
guess what I am sahing is that if you want to present science present
it scientifically.


  #6   Report Post  
Todd Dye
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Ficht failed no1

I have a '2000 Ficht 225, and have nothing but positive things to say about
the Fichts.

It's by far the most reliable and efficient outboard I've owned. The only
thing that I feel is necessary is to change the plugs annually, no big
deal...

I know that there were a lot of problems with the early years 150 & 175 HP
Fichts, but for the most part the problems were resolved by upgrades and
confined to the lower hp models.

I know that there are just as many cases of Optimax's failing as there have
been Ficht, but for some reason it seems more acceptable for Mercury.

Your incessant postings on this topic makes me wonder if you have stake in
another outboard manufacturer?



"Rick" wrote in message
news
K Smith wrote:

I'll post more ....


The only thing more dependable than a Ficht, that you will
continue to post ... ad nauseum.

Rick



  #7   Report Post  
Don White
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Ficht failed no1

Karen pretends to have some interest in large, butt ugly diesel outboards.

Todd Dye wrote in message news:z1XNb.13485
snip
..

Your incessant postings on this topic makes me wonder if you have stake in
another outboard manufacturer?


snip


  #8   Report Post  
JDavis1277
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Ficht failed no1

Please add my little 1999 model 115 FICHT to the list of those owned by happy
owners.

During break in the engine had an annoying habit of dripping oil into the motor
well. This has stopped after approximately 120 hours of use. It slowly
diminished from about 20 hours until it stopped completely.

I like just about all outboards. The newish Merc 115 Opti is interesting and I
guess is one bank of the 225 Opti. Four strokes are, probably, the future of
outboards and as I expect they will have lost weight and improved hole shot
performance by the time I'm in the market I'll probably move on from my FICHT
then.

BTW, amongst it's two stroke brethern my 115 is the quietest, fastest, most
fuel efficient 115 I've seen.

YMMV.

Butch
  #9   Report Post  
K Smith
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Ficht failed no1

JDavis1277 wrote:
Please add my little 1999 model 115 FICHT to the list of those owned by happy
owners.

During break in the engine had an annoying habit of dripping oil into the motor
well. This has stopped after approximately 120 hours of use. It slowly
diminished from about 20 hours until it stopped completely.

I like just about all outboards. The newish Merc 115 Opti is interesting and I
guess is one bank of the 225 Opti. Four strokes are, probably, the future of
outboards and as I expect they will have lost weight and improved hole shot
performance by the time I'm in the market I'll probably move on from my FICHT
then.

BTW, amongst it's two stroke brethern my 115 is the quietest, fastest, most
fuel efficient 115 I've seen.

YMMV.

Butch


Thank you to all the Ficht owners who took the trouble to reply.
Obviously I, like you, (& yes like you:-)) am very glad that your motors
have not failed, indeed a good majority of them "didn't" actually fail.

That you are in that majority is good & I wish you no ill.

However the "Ficht" DFI as a concept has failed, OMC bust, Bomb bailed,
etc etc, even the latest owners have chosen to drop the name outright,
given the numbers of failures.

As to what constitutes a failed design??? I guess it's an eye of the
beholder thing & what percentage of failed engines is too many????
likewise. I'd suggest that if GM or Ford had any that were above even a
tiny part of 1% as totally unrepairable save a new block/pistons etc,
that line would wreck the market for all models of their cars etc.
however that's just in the eye of this beholder.

You're happy so to you Ficht were 100% good, equally for the 2 in 5
owners who's engines failed, they're 100% unhappy. The fact your boats
have been greatly devalued because they carry a Ficht is again an
opinion thing.

Again thanks for going to the trouble to support your engines I
honestly appreciate it.

Seeing they're not sold anymore these posts weren't intended to start
any sort of war with you nor the dealers but to, in an unpressured way,
explain the reasons behind our "opinion". The explanations may be
flawed, even fatally so; by posting them it will give anyone the
opportunity to say whatever, just as you have.

Seeing there has been no real challenge on the basic facts, the
important things to have grasped are;

(i) Only fuel vapour burns never the liquid itself.

(ii) Fuels have an autoignition temp. & will self ignite when the vapour
is brought to or in contact with, that temp.

(iii) The flame front must travel to all the charge before the chamber
temp/pressure amalgam exceeds the fuel's autoignition temp. or the burn
is abnormal & unpredicable.

The next thread will move on to mainly petrol engines & the application
of these basics.

Best regards,


K

  #10   Report Post  
Tuuk
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Ficht failed no1

Hey, I don't think the purchase of a Ficht has devalued my boat. I will
guarantee to you, without a doubt, that it has increased the value of my
boat by double. Guaranteed.

Sure any new car or engine is going to have bugs, but you really seem to
have an axe to grind with this technology. What you have said, I have heard
the opposite.






"K Smith" wrote in message
...
JDavis1277 wrote:
Please add my little 1999 model 115 FICHT to the list of those owned by

happy
owners.

During break in the engine had an annoying habit of dripping oil into

the motor
well. This has stopped after approximately 120 hours of use. It slowly
diminished from about 20 hours until it stopped completely.

I like just about all outboards. The newish Merc 115 Opti is

interesting and I
guess is one bank of the 225 Opti. Four strokes are, probably, the

future of
outboards and as I expect they will have lost weight and improved hole

shot
performance by the time I'm in the market I'll probably move on from my

FICHT
then.

BTW, amongst it's two stroke brethern my 115 is the quietest, fastest,

most
fuel efficient 115 I've seen.

YMMV.

Butch


Thank you to all the Ficht owners who took the trouble to reply.
Obviously I, like you, (& yes like you:-)) am very glad that your motors
have not failed, indeed a good majority of them "didn't" actually fail.

That you are in that majority is good & I wish you no ill.

However the "Ficht" DFI as a concept has failed, OMC bust, Bomb bailed,
etc etc, even the latest owners have chosen to drop the name outright,
given the numbers of failures.

As to what constitutes a failed design??? I guess it's an eye of the
beholder thing & what percentage of failed engines is too many????
likewise. I'd suggest that if GM or Ford had any that were above even a
tiny part of 1% as totally unrepairable save a new block/pistons etc,
that line would wreck the market for all models of their cars etc.
however that's just in the eye of this beholder.

You're happy so to you Ficht were 100% good, equally for the 2 in 5
owners who's engines failed, they're 100% unhappy. The fact your boats
have been greatly devalued because they carry a Ficht is again an
opinion thing.

Again thanks for going to the trouble to support your engines I
honestly appreciate it.

Seeing they're not sold anymore these posts weren't intended to start
any sort of war with you nor the dealers but to, in an unpressured way,
explain the reasons behind our "opinion". The explanations may be
flawed, even fatally so; by posting them it will give anyone the
opportunity to say whatever, just as you have.

Seeing there has been no real challenge on the basic facts, the
important things to have grasped are;

(i) Only fuel vapour burns never the liquid itself.

(ii) Fuels have an autoignition temp. & will self ignite when the vapour
is brought to or in contact with, that temp.

(iii) The flame front must travel to all the charge before the chamber
temp/pressure amalgam exceeds the fuel's autoignition temp. or the burn
is abnormal & unpredicable.

The next thread will move on to mainly petrol engines & the application
of these basics.

Best regards,


K



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2 or 4 stroke? RG General 46 December 15th 03 03:38 AM
Evinrude FICHT beats out Yamaha in JD Powers survey Billgran General 60 November 4th 03 03:02 PM
The early FICHT years question Jim and Becky General 22 September 18th 03 01:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017