Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:35:03 +1000, "K. Smith"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 21:25:26 +1000, "K. Smith"
wrote:


Billgran wrote:

"Tom Hooper" wrote in message
...


Looking to power a 17 to 19 shallow V scow bow open boat, ply or alum

~~ snippity do da ~~

E tec is Ficht DFI injection renamed probably because they realised the
public would never fall for the same old Ficht lies a 3rd time. It's a
dead end technology & was even before OMC got it from the Germans who
had been hawking it around the motor industry for years & the "real"
engine builders all politely said no thanks. Pity they didn't just tell
them that lean mixtures are dangerous to engine longevity.

Well, here's the thing of it - the '99 I have has over 600 hours on it
and the twin 225s have about 800 - both relatively hard use - seems to
work for me and I'm just some schumck with a couple of boats.

I'm sure there will be problems along the way once these get into the
main consumer stream, but that's true of any engine.

Gee it seems if "ANY" of the others had a failure rate or 1 in 5 we
would have heard about it, the only others to come close were Opti &
surprise surprise they had the same 2 stroke lean mixture crap, as with
ficht the same hawked around for years & all the big engine makers just
laughed; as they should.

You mentioned that the last time and I've been looking around - I
can't seem to find this 1 in 5 failure rate documented anywhere. Can
you provide me a reference to this that I can look at? I know that
the failure rate for the midrange (100-150) engines was high, but 1 in
5? I'm not sure of that.

I've already
heard about some Verado quirks that will make your hair curl, but I
can't speak to them directly - this was strictly second hand info.

Yes yes we understand you OMC dealers never want to say too much but
nod nod wink wink:-) give it up!!!! you even tried to say Merc Optis
were "as bad" as Ficht at one stage, anything to make a sale hey??

Um....I'm not a OMC or Bombardier dealer. In fact, I don't know any
Bombarbier "dealers" per se other than the local guy who handles
Yamaha/Mercury and is a Bombardier servicing dealer. He services my
engines. The other guy I know sells Ferritti Group yachts like
Bertrams and such and sells packaged inflatables that may or may not
have Bombardier engine on them.

I'm just a user and I'm trying to understand this apparent problem you
have with FICHT - that's it.

So
far, I haven't heard much about the E-TECs other than my first hand
experience with them which was around 35 hours with a 40 and about 30
hours with a 70.

This "I know of one that didn't fail" testimonial; crap is just that
crap, it's the quiet owner who has his boating ruined by a design fault
& worse a known design fault that is the real issue, & yes they're in a
minority but if so what. Can you image if one in 5 GMs fsailed??? there
would be a huge govt mandated recall as I say there should be this time
with E tec, because this time you can't argue it's the EPA's or anyone
elses' fault.

Show me - give me a reference about this one-in-five fail rate. Even
with the mid-range engine problems they had, I don't believe it was 1
in 5.

Just a counter argument - I'm happy with my FICHTs and when I get
ready for an engine change on the Contender, which may happen this
year, I will be using E-TECS strictly based on the performance of the
FICHTs that I have currently installed.

From your "friend" the E-tec dealer??? Come on Tom even if your engines
haven't failed your boat resale is shot, so this is some expensive
friend you have, unless it's your imaginary marketing friend???

Excuse me - you know nothing about me, my life, my friends, social or
business - just as I don't know anything about you other than what you
put here on this screen. You can't accuse me of anything other than
defending my choice of power.

I am one happy, contented and very impressed FICHT owner, user and
abuser. :)

Don't leave it too late, they don't go for long:-)

600+ on the '99 200 and just under 800 on the '01 225 twins and still
going strong.

I have the 200C Ranger up for sale and have a current offer, with a
deposit and everything, just under what I originally paid for it and
minus the electronics package I put on it. I'm just waiting for my
new 2300 Bay Ranger to be delivered in September. And that boat is
going to have a FICHT on it - 225 in fact.

As to the Contender, I wouldn't sell it on a bet because I love the
boat. However, I have it looked over by a public adjuster with marine
experience every year for total replacement cost and you know what?
If the boat sank tomorrow, it's "true" value is 12% below what I paid
for it - not bad for a two year old boat that is used on a regular
basis. And that's without the electronics and equipment package which
is insured on a seperate policy.

So much for the diiminished resale argument.

However, to give you some outs, this is only my experience with the
FICHT. I have talked to other FICHT owners and they seem content with
their engines. Small sample to be sure, but these are folks in my
circle who are fairly knowledgable with a lot of experience with
outboards.

If you have reference to actual facts - as in actual numbers, types of
failures, recalls, etc - I would appreciate seeing them.

Always open to seeing and evaluating all the evidence.

Later,

Tom


You're arguing with a junk-yard dog here, Tom. She's not worth the trouble.

--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:33:21 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


You're arguing with a junk-yard dog here, Tom. She's not worth the trouble.

I'm always willing to give anyone their shots - I just demand a
certain level of civility and common sense. If it's a 20% failure
rate, then I want to know (1) how the data was developed (2) was it
all related to FICHT or were there other mechanical/electrical
problems (3) what evidence is there available that E-TEC is just FICHT
under a different guise? In short, prove it.

I have a lot of money sunk into boats and I spendt a lot of time
researching potential power sources for my repower. The problems with
OMC are not relevant to Bombardier and E-TEC - if Karen has evidence
contrary to that, then I want to see it. It's is certainly contrary
to what I have learned about the technology.

Just trying to be a gentleman about it. :)

Later,

Tom

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:33:21 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


You're arguing with a junk-yard dog here, Tom. She's not worth the trouble.

I'm always willing to give anyone their shots - I just demand a
certain level of civility and common sense. If it's a 20% failure
rate, then I want to know (1) how the data was developed (2) was it
all related to FICHT or were there other mechanical/electrical
problems (3) what evidence is there available that E-TEC is just FICHT
under a different guise? In short, prove it.


My recollection is that there is no such data. The number came about as
a result of an off the cuff remark by a an executive of a company that
formerly owned OMC (Evinrude and Johnson) manufacturing, and it applied
to a particular model in a particular model year. In other words, it was
a quick, unqualified statement by someone who might have known, but
never released any data one way or the other. Ms. Smith took this
statement as a mantra, and has regurgitated it about a million times
since. She has no data, she has never even seen the insides of any of
these engines.

For some time, Ms. Smith claimed to be "the manufacturer" of a diesel
outboard motor line. That's bull****. All she manufactures is innuendo.



I have a lot of money sunk into boats and I spendt a lot of time
researching potential power sources for my repower. The problems with
OMC are not relevant to Bombardier and E-TEC - if Karen has evidence
contrary to that, then I want to see it. It's is certainly contrary
to what I have learned about the technology.

Just trying to be a gentleman about it. :)

If you get down with Karen Smith, she'll cover you with manure, or at
least try to do so.



Later,

Tom


--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.