FREDO wrote:
Karen,

I can be gone for a year or more from this N/G and come back and you are
still talking about the same issues.

Glad you're back anyway Fredo.

IMHO, you must have a personal problem with this company or any company for
that matter that is trying to do the responsible thing for the environment
by trying to reduce the amount of emissions that outboard motors emit.

I have a problem with it you're right & so I detail exactly what it is &
nobody has yet even tried to challenge the technical issues, just abuse
me which doesn't bother me even a little.

Hey, next we might even be hearing that diesel motors put out less
particulate emissions than gasoline motors.

No not at all diesels a dirty things even with the new low sulphur fuel
& much better atomisation, so there we agree on at least one thing. As
for me I'd always have a diesel powered boat & never ever allow a diesel
engine to operate in my boat:-)

Do you have any solutions for the problems they have with these engines or
do you just want to "keep the pot stirred".

NO if I did I'd refer you to them at the USPTO but neither do they
(again check the USPTO) the latest attempt has centred on making the
structure strong enough to survive the heat buildup from lean poorly
atomised fuel & then the "sometimes" detonation. The oiling is still a
worry also.


Fredo thinking to self: "When I buy my retirement boat I will make sure it's
a S/V with an auxiliary power plant".
Then the problem becomes can I sail it by myself or will I just be stuck in
the harbor hunched over a keyboard every day.

Maybe try both Fredo, if you get fun & a mix of mental & physical
exercise from both???

K



"K. Smith" wrote in message
...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:54:22 +1100, "K. Smith" wrote:



Yes the endless "software" upgrades have begun it's exactly like the
Ficht debacle. Anyway don't say you haven't been warned this is aboating
NG & this is motors the NG users pay hugely for so ..............


# 7/24/05 8:08:00 PM Submitted by Bulletbuoy (69.14.99.177) from
MICHIGAN says Lol must be bad more like it
As of Friday at the Everstart they had on the Detroit River. The e-tech
had 3 blown power heads, one boat's motor caught on fire and blew the
cowling 30 feet in the error. Forcing the gentlemen aboard to abandon
ship. LOL E tech went over like a fat kid in dodgeball on erie.


It was Merc Verados. Nice try Karen.

Better than nice Tom, it's bloody beautiful!!!:-) the post is clear in
what it says, 3 (count 'em three!!) E-Tecs blow at the Everstart (& it
seems that was "as of Friday"), what are you saying now, the rest of the
boating community are just making this up??? I mean do you go to OMC
dealer classes to be able to post this BS??? Even as OMC went into
bankruptcy the dealers were still trying that line to make one last sale
to the gullible, give it up:-)

I'd guess if it wasn't so there would be at least
one other person from that tournament saying it wasn't so??

So it's me just making sure people are kept up to date with how the
latest Ficht experiment is coming along:-) Yes yes we all know they keep
reducing the prices & finding out what the real price is very difficult,
but hey that's what they did trying to flog the fichts, gave the dealers a
30% markup in rebates etc, so I suppose that might explain why the dealers
will say & do most anything to hook another sucker:-)

Given the detonation vibration/abuse fuel leaks are back (remember the
coast guard ordered a ficht safety recall over them last time??) might I
seriously suggest you wear head protection when you use yours, after all
wouldn't want to see you knocked silly by a blown away cowling:-)

Fear not Tom, I'll do my best to keep you up to date on developments as
the latest consumer funded lean burn at power experiment goes off. Why
have Bomb even gotten away from them????

K

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 12:27:43 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 16:46:43 +1100, "K. Smith" wrote:

No. There really is no point in discussing your set opinions.


What I am a little ****ed at is in some forums people are now starting
to use my material outright rather than build upon it, but hey :-)

K

Good point. What you post on Usenet belongs to you. Check out some of
the TOS of these web based forums... what you post becomes the
property of the forum owner! Ever wonder why Peggie (had to) quit
posting in them?

Good morning Gene, and Happy New Year. Looks like the group is pretty quiet this AM.
Too much partying maybe?

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 16:46:43 +1100, "K. Smith" wrote:

No. There really is no point in discussing your set opinions.


What I am a little ****ed at is in some forums people are now starting
to use my material outright rather than build upon it, but hey :-)

K


Good point. What you post on Usenet belongs to you. Check out some of
the TOS of these web based forums... what you post becomes the
property of the forum owner! Ever wonder why Peggie (had to) quit
posting in them?

I didn't realise that thanks Gene.

I've looked at the "forums" several times but try as they do, they still
seem to come across sanitised.

I know this place is a bit wild & woolly at times however at least
everyone says what they say pretty much without censorship or commercial
concerns.

K

In article , "K. Smith"
wrote:

wrote:

[material deleted]
I also like to see more data and like to know where the original post
came from.

Here the reference to "the original post" is to a comment that three
Evinrude E-TEC motors had blown up at a fishing tournament held in Lake
Erie around July 24, 2005

[Karen replies]
These are a few just for you:


http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003712.html


Thanks for citing my website as a part of your effort to discredit the
E-TEC, but I am afraid the article you cited contains not one word of
any problems with the E-TEC motor at a fishing tournament in Lake Erie
around July 24, 2005. As a matter of fact, all the articles in the cited
thread were posted about a week before the fishing tournament held in
Lake Erie around July 24, 2005.

I don't see how they corroborate the initial claim about all of these
engines blowing up. I am local to that area and have not heard anything
about it.

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:

James Hebert wrote:
In article , "K. Smith"
wrote:

wrote:

[material deleted]
I also like to see more data and like to know where the original post
came from.

Here the reference to "the original post" is to a comment that three
Evinrude E-TEC motors had blown up at a fishing tournament held in Lake
Erie around July 24, 2005

[Karen replies]
These are a few just for you:

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003712.html


Thanks for citing my website as a part of your effort to discredit the
E-TEC, but I am afraid the article you cited contains not one word of
any problems with the E-TEC motor at a fishing tournament in Lake Erie
around July 24, 2005. As a matter of fact, all the articles in the cited
thread were posted about a week before the fishing tournament held in
Lake Erie around July 24, 2005.

I don't see how they corroborate the initial claim about all of these
engines blowing up. I am local to that area and have not heard anything
about it.


Aussie rules?

I do wonder about the Australian origin of Karen's E-TEC criticism. The
principal competitor to E-TEC in the direct-injection business is
Orbital, an Australian company whose products are licensed to Mercury
for their OptiMax. Do we hear these same concerns about OptiMax?

Also, now that the Bombardier manufacturing facility in Wisconsin where
the E-TEC injector is made has been sold to a company owned in part by
Orbital, will this criticism let up?

Here are the details of that recently announced bit of business, from an
article I posted some time ago on CONTINUOUSWAVE.COM.

-------------

MORE NEWS ON BRP SALE OF DELAVAN
by Jim Hebert
CONTINUOUSWAVE.COM
11-14-2005

It seemed to come as a surprise, but the announcement of the sale of
Bombardier's facility in Delavan, Wisconsin, to Synerject was
foreshadowed one year in advance. On November 10, 2004 the intention to
sell the Delavan plant was announced by Bombardier in Quebec. To the
very same day a year later, word came that the plant in east-central
Wisconsin which manufactures the fuel injectors and electronic engine
controllers for Evinrude and Johnson outboard motors was sold. The
announcement came in the form of a press release from Australia's
ORBITAL. The actual buyer will be Synerject, a U.S.-based 50:50 joint
venture between Orbital and Siemens VDO Automotive.

Synerject is the non-vehicle marketing and manufacturing arm for Siemens
VDO fuel injectors and the Orbtial Combustion Process (OCP) controls.
The firm is the supplier of the air-assisted direct injection hardware
used in the Mercury OptiMax two-stroke outboards. It will now take over
the manufacture of Bombardier's E-TEC fuel injectors. However, BRP will
retain the intellectual property rights to their patented designs.

Rod Houston, CEO of Synerject, explained the rationale behind the
purchase. The Delavan plant, he said, "is complementary to Synerject's
core business of manufacturing and supplying engine management modules
for the non-automotive market." He expects the acquisition to "bring a
significant increase in revenue and make a material contribution to
Synerject's growth."

When asked about the E-TEC fuel injector, he made clear that "the
transaction involves only assets relating to the manufacture of the fuel
injectors and engine management modules. There'll be no transfer of
intellectual property rights for E-TEC to Synerject. Synerject continues
to have the exclusive rights to the OCP system and this continues to be
a key focus of Synerject."

It is expected that long-term contracts will assure BRP of a steady
supply of the E-TEC injectors, a prime component of their new line of
outboard motors. Sales of E-TEC engines are showing strong growth. Roche
Lambert recently sent very enthusiastic notices to the Bombardier
outboard dealer network highlighting impressive sales figures and growth
figures over 200-percent from a year ago.

Synerject foresees strong growth in their non-vehicular markets,
particular in components and controllers for motorcycles, which are
expected to show very strong sales growth in developing Asia markets
like China and India.

The sale makes strange bedfellows of Mercury and Evinrude. The prime
components of their two-stroke engine fuel injection systems will now be
manufactured by a common supplier, although using completely different
technologies.

For the approximately 60 employees at the Delavan plant, the notice of a
buyer is probably very welcome after a year of suspense.

-------------------

thousands & thousands of people taken in. Remember the huge deep
pocketed & technically savvy corp Bombardier got out of this very early
on (wonder why???). You're now dealing with another corp entity, I have
no idea as to it's structure but if you are going to buy you should.


Excuse my ignorance but isnt ETec/Evinrude still owned by BRP ? I
thought thats Bomardier Recreational Products = Bombardier?

Whats the deal here?

Matt

K. Smith wrote:
Yes the endless "software" upgrades have begun it's exactly like the
Ficht debacle. Anyway don't say you haven't been warned this is aboating
NG & this is motors the NG users pay hugely for so ..............


# 7/24/05 8:08:00 PM Submitted by Bulletbuoy (69.14.99.177) from
MICHIGAN says Lol must be bad more like it
As of Friday at the Everstart they had on the Detroit River. The e-tech
had 3 blown power heads, one boat's motor caught on fire and blew the
cowling 30 feet in the error. Forcing the gentlemen aboard to abandon
ship. LOL E tech went over like a fat kid in dodgeball on erie.

I am starting to wonder how true the post is (not Karens but
Bulletboys). After all, these are the FIRST and ONLY blown ETecs I
have heard of ... And the fact that 3 motors kabooom at one tournament
can IMO only have one or more of the following reasons the likelyhood
of which I cant assess due to a lack of data:

- ETecs are worse than FICHTs
- The story is not true
- There is a lot of ETecs with a manufacturing defect and the 3 are
part of that
- Whoever set up those 3 motors made a mistake with all 3
- Extreme coincidence


If FICHTS kabooomed at a rate of 1 in 5, how much kaboooms are known of
ETecs and what is the estimated percentage of kabooomed ETecs of ETecs
built?

Matt

P.S.

To add a few comments for clarifications and avoid arguments (how do I
know ?

- I think DFI motors are the best marine outboard motors out there (as
long as they hold up)
- I OWN a 2 stroke DFI motor
- I am neutral in the DFI sucks or rules discussion
- For personal reasons I like to know of anything, esp problems around
DFI (esp. ETec and Optimax)
- I believe Karen has a substantial knowledge about combustion motors
- I think Karens theories about DFI motors are true. But may not
impact the motors life as much as anticipated

wrote:
thousands & thousands of people taken in. Remember the huge deep

pocketed & technically savvy corp Bombardier got out of this very early
on (wonder why???). You're now dealing with another corp entity, I have
no idea as to it's structure but if you are going to buy you should.



Excuse my ignorance but isnt ETec/Evinrude still owned by BRP ? I
thought thats Bomardier Recreational Products = Bombardier?

Whats the deal here?

Matt


I don't know Matt as I suggested you should find out. Without saying
this is right I'd suggest you see if the Bombardier family itself has
privately taken over the recreational products range including jet skis
etc??? If that's right then you're dealing with that Co.

I guess you might also wonder why Bombardier itself would almost give
such hugely significant technology away??? particularly having paid lots
to acquire OMC & the name Ficht:-) which nobody seems to want to mention
these days (I may have mentioned the war but I think I got away with it;-))

K

James Hebert wrote:
In article , "K. Smith"
wrote:


wrote:


[material deleted]

I also like to see more data and like to know where the original post
came from.


Here the reference to "the original post" is to a comment that three
Evinrude E-TEC motors had blown up at a fishing tournament held in Lake
Erie around July 24, 2005

[Karen replies]

These are a few just for you:


http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003712.html



Thanks for citing my website as a part of your effort to discredit the
E-TEC, but I am afraid the article you cited contains not one word of
any problems with the E-TEC motor at a fishing tournament in Lake Erie
around July 24, 2005. As a matter of fact, all the articles in the cited
thread were posted about a week before the fishing tournament held in
Lake Erie around July 24, 2005.

I don't see how they corroborate the initial claim about all of these
engines blowing up. I am local to that area and have not heard anything
about it.


You see James this is the problem with forums such as yours, in this
case you nopt onloy feel compelled to support your site you also support
the latest DFI experiment called E-Tec? You even try to claim another
forums posts "must" be wrong because you say so:-)

I did not say "your" forum mentioned blown E-Tecs although the poster
had asked for more data & where the original (blown E-tecs) post came
from, but his request wasn't limited to just that, it's patently clear
from the links where the information came from. Of course you'd never
allow that:-). I had derided the latest "upgrades" your site
conveniently gave material on them & clearly unbeknown to you much
mo-) People can read James even though you'd prefer they just
accepted your views without any review at all. Welcome to an open forum:-)

If you had decided to actually find out about this technology you would
already know why I say Ficht failed outright & to a lesser but still
unacceptable extent Optimax. You're correct I am an Ozzy & was well
familiar with Orbital long before Brunswick came into it. They'd been
trying to flog it for years prior as had Ficht but none of the real
engine people had taken it up & so far still haven't??? or do you say
otherwise??

Over some years I've explained in detail why & exactly how the DFIs
including Orbital Optimax would fail & sadly for many boaters, OMC
employees & unionists' pensions I was right. Of course as you promote &
boot lick the suppliers you don't wish to even acknowledge these facts.
You should read a truly "open" forum like here, then you'd know that the
OMC dealers were well aware of the defective nature of the Fichts &
continued to push them because they were getting up to 30% agg of
rebates & other sundry kickbacks on them. It was all well documented &
discussed here as the bankruptcy court dealt with OMC & the dealers
trying to get themselves onto the list of creditors for their so called
rebates:-)

A 101 so that even you may get a rubimentary understanding;

(i) The only way it seems a crankcase transferred 2 stroke can viably
get through the EPA rules is by running extremely lean mixtures at low
to medium revs. In the early days OMC dealers were claiming 40-1
mixtures but once the failures started all hard technical material was
withdrawn.

(ii) The Ficht style injector is nothing more than an impact pressure
pulse. There is no actual rail circulating fuel at any really high
pressure compared to say the Yamaha's up to 800 psi. Now the new owners
talk about injection pressures they're actually talking about the peak
pulse of pressure, after that each following shock wave is progressively
lower. Drop a stone into a full bucket of water. If you can search Deja
news/google groups you'll find where years ago I posted the pressure
graph that accompanied one of the early patent applications for Ficht.

(iii) The suggestion is that a combination of a very lean mixture, very
poor fuel atomisation caused by too low an injection pressure, prolonged
repeated firing of the spark plug & maintaining that mode of operation
up to reasonable levels of specific power might "sometimes" lead to
excessive heat buildup in the piston.

(iv) Here I originally suggested that this would lead to enough heat
building in the piston to cause potentially disastrous detonation &
indeed given the premises when they first came out, felt the failure
rate would be huge much higher than the later claimed 1 in 5, indeed it
was OMCs 1 in 5 claim that got me wondering how 4 out of 5 survived:-)

(v) The answer seems to be that when in lean mode there just isn't
enough fuel present to sustain detonation. This is a phenomenon well
known & understood in aero engines since the 1930s (& they never try to
run anything like a mixture of 40-1 if they did the engine just stops,
you can't in the normal sense ignite such a mixture). By repeatedly
firing the plug while the injector sprays fuel past (not at) it they can
get an ignition. In the early days OMC had the dealers telling people it
was like putting a match to a can of WD40 while you held the button down:-)
WD40 is mostly kero & like most jet engines that also run on kero you
can get a continuous ignition but don't try it with petrol:-)

(iv) The submission was & remains that in "some" circumstances (say a
large boat with a high top speed & therefore high prop pitch, being used
for long periods at the upper end of the lean burn mode?), it's then
that piston heat might become extreme. This possibility I say is
admitted by the latest fixes special high melting point alloy in the
pistons & special high temp oil why?? if there aren't any piston temp
issues???

(v) If & it's an "if" one of the pistons gets even a little hot (say any
point on it or the rings being over 250C) certainly then the situation
has the potential for pre ignition once the mixture is quickly returned
to "normal". i.e.the suggestion is that as the engine changes from lean
burn mode to full mixture & a single firing of the plug, the sudden
influx of fuel might get pre ignited by a possibly overly hot piston &
then the heat/extreme pressure combination might send the particular
cylinder into full detonation.

(vi) It's also suggested the oiling is a part of the problem & also
maybe a part of the proof of what I have said, because again excess oil
possibly gets baked behind the rings? & then possibly more heat?
possibly more pre-ignition? possibly more detonation is a risk? The
proof part is that they have greatly reduced the quantum of oil
available in all the so called DFI 2 strokes but again why?? & why the
special super expensive dealer only hight temp oils?? again it's
suggested this is support for the position put when Ficht was new.

So James if you've read this & even partly got a handle on it, now go &
re read the link I posted to your site, do you see the issue with the so
called "upgrades"??? also ask yourself why do different boats, different
props etc seem to experience the "roughness" at different engine
speeds??? Given that the spruikers will not give any real technical
material & the dealers certainly have none, then I'm happy to use your
site's material in support of my position.

So again just for clarity: I didn't allege your site said there were
blown up E-Tecs because you clearly would have none of that:-) But I did
note the OMC Ficht like "upgrades" were back & I was happy to link to
you showing the symptoms as these engine get to or near the mode change
point & the mixture is reverting back to normal, maybe just maybe on a
very hot piston????

No need to thank me for publicising your site for you indeed I'm glad to
& hope to again.

K

"K. Smith" wrote A 101 so that even you may get a
rubimentary understanding;

(i) The only way it seems a crankcase transferred 2 stroke can viably
get through the EPA rules is by running extremely lean mixtures at low
to medium revs. In the early days OMC dealers were claiming 40-1
mixtures but once the failures started all hard technical material was
withdrawn.

Mixture has nothing to do with meeting the EPA requirements in any direct
sense.
The problem with the conventional ported two stroke outboard is emissions of
unburned hydrocarbons. Since the incoming fuel/air charge is used to
displace the exhauste gases. Approx. 15% of the fuel/air mix passes in thru
the intake port and out thru the exhaust port without the benefit of having
been in the cylinder during a combustion phase.
Hence ways to significantly reduce the amount of unburned hydrocarbons in
the exhaust
a) seperate the airflow/scavenging from the fuel.
b) switch to a four stroke process where the piston scavenges the cylinder.
c) post burn the unburnt fuel in a catalytic converter.