K. Smith wrote:


You are pushing it uphill with a piece of string though Tom, Yamaha
have all but given up on the DFI 2 strokes, Merc most certainly have, a
few smaller Japanese are left but in general terms the real
manufacturers have voted with their feet, or legs:-) whatever:-)


Utter bull****.


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

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:39:49 -0400, "Gene Kearns"
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:40:19 GMT, "Billgran"
wrote:

Tom,

You might want to check out the Evinrude E-TEC outboards in the 40-50hp
class. They are as quiet as a 4 stroke, there is no smoke orof mixing oil,
they do not need expensive oil changes and ridiculously priced oil filters.
They also do not use rubber timing belts that could bend valves when they
break, and are expensive to replace. There are no valves to burn, rust or
stick, and they do not need the cost of labor and a gasket for periodic
adjustments.

They come with a full 3 year warranty that does not lower coverage after 1
year as with some other brands.

The E-TEC does not need any dealer service for 3 years or 300 hours in
regular use. Some 4 strokes need oil changes every 6 months, plus again for
the 10 hr. check.

I've run these and am impressed with how quiet they are. They've been
produced since last year and are working well. One nice thing is that they
do not need a battery to run. They rope start within 1 revolution and the
ignition system does not need a battery to run like the 4 strokes do in
your horsepower range. If you are interested in clean air, the E-TECs have a
lower emission rating and emit fewer total emissions than the same size 4
stroke motor.


I'm a bit confused. My 4-stroke Suzuki's don't need "expensive oil
changes" any more than my car.... and even if they did, it would be
more than offset by not having to buy 2-stroke oil. Suzuki filters
aren't that expensive... and even if they were, I can use automotive
filters.

I don't have any rubber timing belts.

I have a six year warranty.

These 4-strokes weigh less than the 2-strokes they replaced.

At idle, they are so quiet, you have to check the pee hole or tach to
see if they have cut off....

I was over at Blue Fin manufacturing plant in Bristol, RI last week
and was surprized at how quiet the Suzuki 4 strokes are.

I like the four stroke technology, but I'm kind of anal when it comes
to brand loyalty. Bombardier has been very good to me and I plan on
repaying that by purchasing two new E-TEC engines from them this fall.

I think each technology has it's good points and bad points. So far,
I really haven't seen or heard anything negative about any of the new
technologies except second hand nonsense which I ignore. I seem to
hear more first hand bad mouthing Yamaha than other brands and that is
mostly "I brought my boat into the shop last month and they said they
are waiting on parts from Yamaha".

I will say this - I was mightly impressed with the Honda four strokes.
I had a little incident on a charter trip in the St. Lawrence Seaway a
couple of weeks ago and those little USCG inflatable looking boats
boats run twin 225 Hondas - I was standing in the back of the boat
talking to the crew on the run back to the dock and could carry on a
normal conversation without straining to hear or talk.

Very cool.

Later,

Tom

You guys can say what you want and speculate all day. Bottom line is my old
Johnson has ran like a champ for YEARS and still does. It has no computer, it
has no oil injection. It is simple and relaible, in most cases I can fix it on
the water.
It works. Thats the way it should be on the water.
The LAST thing I would want on Lake Erie is some hi tech, computerized POS
breaking down on me in a storm.
The old Johnson has towed in more than a few of these new outboards.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:59:21 -0400, "Gene Kearns"
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:28:39 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:


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.


There was a high failure rate in some HP models. It was nearly a
bankrupting issue for the company and their customer service suffered
commensurately.

K's irrational passion in this matter is a mystery and probably
pathological. It is fueled by an antiquated understanding of
operating engines lean-of-peak. Although well documented as workable
for decades, she deems operating an engine in this manner idiotic.
Amusingly, the champion she uses for citations in this matter, Textron
Lycoming, has pretty much recanted their immediately previous position
on this matter in Special Service Publication #700..... returning to
their original position that lean-of-peak operation is desirable The
make-or-break point in this matter is engine management. Where there
exists adequate engine management "FICHT Technology" (as if it were
really unique) is a workable process. Where there was an effective
lapse in engine management, there were engine failures.

Net result is that if you have a person or computer making sure that
fuel-air mixtures are appropriate and that no detonation occurs, it is
a viable technology.

I restate my opinion - FICHT has been a good technology for me and
while I've had my whoopsies, it's been no more so than other brands
I've owned over the years and in fact, one major incident could very
easily been my fault - I can't be sure. If it not a good technology
for others, fine.

Hey, Karen has her opiinion - let her have it.

Doesn't bother me one way or the other.

On another subject, the world of Usenet has become more and more
polarized and irrational. It started in the late 90's after the Net
became widely available and just has accellerated in the past few
years.

Unfortuate really. It used to be a lot more fun.

Later,

Tom

On 27 Jul 2004 16:29:31 GMT, obull (CCred68046)
wrote:

You guys can say what you want and speculate all day. Bottom line is my old
Johnson has ran like a champ for YEARS and still does. It has no computer, it
has no oil injection. It is simple and relaible, in most cases I can fix it on
the water.
It works. Thats the way it should be on the water.
The LAST thing I would want on Lake Erie is some hi tech, computerized POS
breaking down on me in a storm.
The old Johnson has towed in more than a few of these new outboards.

ROTFL!!!!!

Well, that put paid to that. :)

Later,

Tom

Sadly, low tech can no longer be bought. Sooner or later, if you
continue boating, you'll be faced with the same choice(s)

Thank God I am in fresh water
My little '63 Evinrude is still kicking strong.
My Big Johnson is nothing short of wonderful. I suspect they will both out
live me.
I looked under the cowl of a big new Yamaha that quit last weekend trying to
lend a hand and was mortified. Thats insane!
"Wait here, let me run and pick up $60,000.00 worth of diagnostic equipment and
$7000 worth of special tools and I'll be right back"
I suggested they invest in some good oars.

Yeah, and I've pulled in plenty of powerboats of all vintages under sail.=
"CCred68046" wrote in message
...
You guys can say what you want and speculate all day. Bottom line is my
old
Johnson has ran like a champ for YEARS and still does. It has no
computer, it
has no oil injection. It is simple and relaible, in most cases I can fix
it on
the water.
It works. Thats the way it should be on the water.
The LAST thing I would want on Lake Erie is some hi tech, computerized POS
breaking down on me in a storm.
The old Johnson has towed in more than a few of these new outboards.

On 27 Jul 2004 17:45:35 GMT, obull (CCred68046)
wrote:

Sadly, low tech can no longer be bought. Sooner or later, if you
continue boating, you'll be faced with the same choice(s)

Thank God I am in fresh water
My little '63 Evinrude is still kicking strong.
My Big Johnson is nothing short of wonderful. I suspect they will both out
live me.
I looked under the cowl of a big new Yamaha that quit last weekend trying to
lend a hand and was mortified. Thats insane!
"Wait here, let me run and pick up $60,000.00 worth of diagnostic equipment and
$7000 worth of special tools and I'll be right back"
I suggested they invest in some good oars.

Actually, it's more like "Let me grab my $500 Palm PDA with the
$1,599 diagnostic software which tells me it's code 504 that I will
have to look up in the $12,000 table of error codes and I'll need that
$1 screwdriver from Ocean State Job Lot to fix it."

:)

Later,

Tom

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:28:39 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:



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.



There was a high failure rate in some HP models. It was nearly a
bankrupting issue for the company and their customer service suffered
commensurately.

K's irrational passion in this matter is a mystery and probably
pathological. It is fueled by an antiquated understanding of
operating engines lean-of-peak. Although well documented as workable
for decades, she deems operating an engine in this manner idiotic.
Amusingly, the champion she uses for citations in this matter, Textron
Lycoming, has pretty much recanted their immediately previous position
on this matter in Special Service Publication #700..... returning to
their original position that lean-of-peak operation is desirable The
make-or-break point in this matter is engine management. Where there
exists adequate engine management "FICHT Technology" (as if it were
really unique) is a workable process. Where there was an effective
lapse in engine management, there were engine failures.

Net result is that if you have a person or computer making sure that
fuel-air mixtures are appropriate and that no detonation occurs, it is
a viable technology.


But that's it Gene they don't detonate when lean because there isn't
enough fuel there.

You repeated claim to be a pilot so I'm surprised you're not well
across how this goes, as you lean the exhaust temp will actually drop
because there isn't much fuel there, however the piston will continue to
heat up, as you richen & increase power there are rules which forbid you
to just go to full rich, you're supposed to do it incrementally so the
chamber's temp (piston/rings) can be brought back to normal temps before
there's full fuel there to support detonation.

Assuming you really are a pilot as claimed then this is all common
knowledge to you yes???

Now compare how Ficht do it, they run so lean it won't even ignite they
keep firing the plug, them once the chamber is good & hot they suddenly
over seconds give it full mixture & a big increase in power??? What's
surprising is that as many survive as they do.


K

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:21:18 +1000, "K. Smith"
wrote:


Gene Kearns wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:28:39 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:




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.



There was a high failure rate in some HP models. It was nearly a
bankrupting issue for the company and their customer service suffered
commensurately.



Net result is that if you have a person or computer making sure that
fuel-air mixtures are appropriate and that no detonation occurs, it is
a viable technology.


But that's it Gene they don't detonate when lean because there isn't
enough fuel there.


Isn't that the whole point?

No the "point" is that pockets of fuel remain unignited by the flame
front (end gases), long enough to be auto ignited as soon as the
temp/pressure combination goes above 250C, in most premises, planes cars
etc this would be detonation itself, in the early days we indeed
submitted that was the problem.

As I said the thing was few of them seemed to be failing while still in
lean mode, it appeared they were failing after the lean burn mode ended
& the engine spooled up.

The reason this was happening is because the mixture is so extremely
lean in the low rev range, much leaner than any car or aero engine has
ever tried, remember they need multiple continuous firing of the plug
just to get ignition!!! in a plane it would have gone rough at even
slightly lean & at the 40-1 mixtures claimed by OMC an aero engine would
stop outright. So they've sort of over ridden a natural safety by
continuous firing of the plug.

We say there just isn't enough fuel there to cause detonation damage in
lean mode, but the chamber temp continues to rise from a combination of
the lean mixtures slow flame front & the pressure spikes caused by the
auto ignition of the end gases.

When we talk chamber temp it probably means piston/rings only really
the rest is well cooled but again remember an aero engine has the piston
oil spray cooled & only see half the number of firings for a given revs
& even in turbo full takeoff mode has a much lower specific output
HP/ltr than the Fichts


You repeated claim to be a pilot so I'm surprised you're not well
across how this goes, as you lean the exhaust temp will actually drop
because there isn't much fuel there, however the piston will continue to
heat up,


That is a ridiculously false statement, unless there is detonation.
EGT is about the same at 50 deg lean and 50 deg rich. Cylinder head
temperature is much cooler at 50 deg lean than 50 rich..... read the
data, it is on the Textron Lycoming website.

The chamber temp or cyl head temp if you like will drop, but EGT is as
good an indicator however the same rationale applies.



as you richen & increase power there are rules which forbid you
to just go to full rich, you're supposed to do it incrementally so the
chamber's temp (piston/rings) can be brought back to normal temps before
there's full fuel there to support detonation.



You need to do a bit more reading. Moving a mixture from lean of peak
to rich of peak goes through a higher temperature regime at peak....
that is what peak is all about.

OK we agree on this, as you increase the mixture & power up the chamber
gets hotter from where is had been operating, no matter what & if it has
been operating at or near the max allowed then it will go over, in other
words save you very slowly richen the mix over time (minutes not
seconds) then the chamber temp "has" to rise as the power & mixture are
increased.

No rapid changes should be made from
lean to rich or vice versa.....

Again we agree on this?? to suddenly go from a lean running to full
rich as power is increased is not allowed?? Gee that's exactly what
Ficht & Opti try to do every time a usr powers up after a long run in
lean mode!!!.

but it has nothing to do with the
piston being hotter at a point when the engine is producing less
power....

We clearly disagree on this. I've read the references as you have I'll
put a few links in case anyone else would like to have a look & as
always a technical discussion would be great;

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main...ngEngines.html

http://66.102.7.104/custom?q=cache:i...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main...erLeaning.html

that isn't even logical and certainly doesn't follow the
laws of physics.

Always a good line, but if it's all that obvious you'll post the
reasons, remember all the time we are talking a chamber temp not going
above 400F which is very cool given the 2 strokes piston is completely
uncooled & see a firing on each & every stroke.





Assuming you really are a pilot as claimed then this is all common
knowledge to you yes???


If you doubt it, the verification is on the FAA's website.... it also
shows my Aircraft Mechanic's License and Inspection Authorization...
as asked before, where are your credentials?



Now compare how Ficht do it, they run so lean it won't even ignite they
keep firing the plug, them once the chamber is good & hot they suddenly
over seconds give it full mixture & a big increase in power??? What's
surprising is that as many survive as they do.



The fact that they *do* work, are commercially available and in use
today, have a loyal following, and do sell.... should be an ample
indicator to a reasonable person that they are wrong about seeing
perpetually faulty technology.... why, again, don't you get it?

They don't ALL fail just as not all pilots who over lean die, but
enough in both categories fail to make it not a commercial thing.

At least with the aero engines there's an element of self inflicted
result, with ficht the owner has no input, he's either lucky or not.


PS.

Do a google on "lean burn engines" and you will find that there are
dozens of companies manufacturing engines and/or controls for engines
to maximize the use of "lean burn." Time to throw away that old
engine text and enter the 21st century.


Read the articles closely Gene they are using lean at idle, overrun &
light throttle high speed cruise, never ever at power, the only ones we
can find are our discussions subjects.

A big OB on a heavy boat, propped to achieve a high top speed, will be
making significant HP (in HP/ltr terms) to plough the boat along nose
high in say a no wake zone & doing this in the upper end of the Ficht's
lean burn mode. With a totally uncooled piston then subjected to a
sudden power up & full rich mixture??? Unless I've misunderstood you
above this "must" result in an increase in chamber temp??? it's a
lottery with very good odds if you want to go gambling, 4 out of 5 are
winners but damn, the tickets are very expensive.

I've never said this is easy nor obvious Gene, gee if it was we
wouldn't have spent months & thousands of words in the early ficht days
trying to warn people:-) everybody would be doing it:-) we tend to
specialise in the difficult:-) but it's true & yes you will have to
stop, read & then think but at the end you'll see that 7000 chucked
unemployed, 1.3 bil of pensioners money, nobody has admitted how much
Bomb lost but it would be heaps & endless hurt boaters always trumps a
few brand loyal lucky users who are in the main dealer groupies or lying
dealers.

K