|
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific
observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Fair Skies Doug King |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O? No SAILS!
DSK wrote:
Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. I grew up sailing for sport, and find that with a sailboat, one is already where one is going. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Quiet, doesn't pollute, a challenge to the senses & the intellect & the muscles all in one. Racing sailboats may be as silly & pointless as trying to throw or hit or kick a particular ball in a particular direction, but IMHO it's the most fun people can have with their clothes on. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
DSK wrote:
Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Are you not missing a most popular form of boat propulsion from your list? -- Skipper |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
Harry Krause wrote:
Skipper wrote: DSK wrote: Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Are you not missing a most popular form of boat propulsion from your list? -- Skipper Oars? My guess is he was talking about oars, OB, saildrive, sail and of course farting while holding onto an inner tube. -- Reggie ************************************************** ************* That's my story and I am sticking to it. ************************************************** ************* |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:33:05 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Skipper wrote: DSK wrote: Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Are you not missing a most popular form of boat propulsion from your list? Oars? rotflmao!!!! It could also be hot air in Skippy's case. ;-) |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:15:13 -0500, DSK wrote:
Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Fair Skies Doug King For sure, if I ever buy another boat, I'll get an outboard. My 5.7L Mercruiser 'seems' to have more problems than I hear of from those with outboards, unless it's like a 1965 15hp Johnson. The outboard does not take up so much deck space as the engine cover on my I/O. I like the design of the Grady Seafarer 228 with the "Grady Drive Transom". It has as much fishing room as I need and lots of amenities to keep the wife happy. I'd like an engine where changing the oil was a big job and winterizing could be accomplished much more easily. But, I kind of like the idea that in a few years, when I need a new engine, I can get what I need for $5000, instead of $15000. -- John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
DSK wrote: Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Fair Skies Doug King If the boat requires just one engine and outboards are available, that is the way to go. Otherwise twin inboards. |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another?
JimH wrote: If the boat requires just one engine and outboards are available, that is the way to go. Otherwise twin inboards. For smaller boats... say 25' for less? I happen to own a boat with a single diesel inboard, and find it very satisfactory especially for fuel economy. Maintenance is easier too. Some things I am surprised nobody has mentioned about outboards- they are targets for thieves.... they can be unclamped & carried to the shop for repairs, or winter storage; also ease of replacement is the best. DSK |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:06:43 -0500, JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:15:13 -0500, DSK wrote: Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Fair Skies Doug King For sure, if I ever buy another boat, I'll get an outboard. My 5.7L Mercruiser 'seems' to have more problems than I hear of from those with outboards, unless it's like a 1965 15hp Johnson. The outboard does not take up so much deck space as the engine cover on my I/O. I like the design of the Grady Seafarer 228 with the "Grady Drive Transom". It has as much fishing room as I need and lots of amenities to keep the wife happy. I'd like an engine where changing the oil was a big job and winterizing could be accomplished much more easily. But, I kind of like the idea that in a few years, when I need a new engine, I can get what I need for $5000, instead of $15000. Whoops, add 'not' just before 'a big job'! -- John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:27:46 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:50:55 -0500, JohnH wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:44:33 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:56:22 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:15:13 -0500, DSK wrote: Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Fair Skies Doug King I think the 4 stroke outboard has really closed the gap between I/O and outboard. For small boats (20 or less) outboard is certainly the way to go. If you keep your boat in the water I can't think of any good reason for an I/O. The efficiency edge is gone now. Once you get into the McYacht category (30+ cabin and such) inboards rule. foure stroke outboards are passe' - outmoded technology surpassed by newer, better, faster and more reliable two stroke technolocy. Yeah, your French is great, but *why*? ? *Why* are two strokes the way to go? -- John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
DSK wrote:
Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Fair Skies Doug King Two of these is all you need... http://www.godevil.com/ Wouldn't you think they would place a hyphen in their URL? Read it both ways. Neither can be good for sales. Dan |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
DSK wrote:
Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Fair Skies Doug King I like io's because they off a rear mounted engine and clean stern. For they type of boating I do on freshwater lakes in runabouts and my cuddy they good choice. Also they don't have a lot of noise unless you have load exhaust. They also handel pretty well. So far with running merc's since my dads frist runabout - A 70 Beachcraft trihull, Our family and my own personal boats have had excellent service with these io's. The auto developed engines are very reliable. But I can see lots of good reason to use outboats depending on the boat and wants of the boater. Easier to winterize, better power to weight ratio. But shorter production runs on specialized power heads can equal higher cost overall. I have 71 7.5 merc that needed coils and a stator a few years ago and they were pretty expensive. But I decided after 30 years of good service it was worth it to me to get it rebuilt I only had driven one true inboat boat. My brothers purchased a Toyota ski boat that i guy was selling pretty cheap. The thing leaps on plane and is great for it's intended usage. But I found did not answer the helm at all when backing down and just cut to port. It could have been in part to my lack of experiance. But I never did get it to back up where I wanted it to go. :-) So to me I guess the bottom line is it just depends on ones own application. Capt Jack R.. |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
Some things I am surprised nobody has mentioned about
outboards- they are targets for thieves.... they can be unclamped & carried to the shop for repairs, or winter storage; also ease of replacement is the best. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: i absolutely defy any thief to take one of the etecs off the contender. just isn't possible. ??? It's possible to steal anything. Are you saying that your engine is not a target because it is too heavy and difficult to remove? That negates one of the benefits of it being an outboard. .... now ill grant you that lower units are a seperate issue and i remove the lower units from all my outboards. That sounds very convenient. Actually, I was thinking of smaller outboards anyway. Fair Skies- Doug King |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:15:13 -0500, DSK wrote:
Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Somewhere around 200 hp the power per $$$ ratio begins to favor inboards or I/O. I/Os typically have more speed than comparable inboards but maintenance costs tend to be higher, and I/Os really need to be stored out of the water for decent longevity. I/Os and outboards are both favored in shallow water areas because they typically need less depth, and prop replacement is easier and cheaper. Inboards and I/Os have traditionally offered better fuel economy but that may be changing with better OB technology. |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
Are you saying that your engine is not a target because it
is too heavy and difficult to remove Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: the later. they would literally have to saw off the transom to get them and thats just not practical. If it's worth money, it's worth stealing. DSK |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:28:59 -0500, DSK wrote: Are you saying that your engine is not a target because it is too heavy and difficult to remove the later. they would literally have to saw off the transom to get them and thats just not practical. You're being modest again Tom:-) you bought them so they'd never be stolen??? have you forgotten to mention their best deterrent to theft?? they're E-Tecs!!! If they're stolen you're looking for a thief who can't read the name on them or some other desperate E-Tec victim hoping to get a part that still works:-) K |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:15:13 -0500, DSK wrote: Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? two cycle outboards. with the new injection technology available to almost every manufacturer, reliability and overall lighter weights, new lubrications and overall performance, two stroke outboards have it hands down over four stroke, inboards and diesels. Gee Tom, so your arm is much better I see:-) or did you let the other one go for a minute??? The only manufacturer still trying to make 2 stroke OBs is the new French kid who got it as a bequeath from Bombardier who got it at the OMC bankruptcy auction great pedigree yes??? (talk about couldn't give it away). Using the failed technology of Ficht which was so comprehensively shown to be faulty that it brought an American icon Co down. The so called changes, apart from dumping the name Ficht of course, are only to deal with the symptoms of the problem & don't in any manner address the core issue, which I say is; too low an injection pressure, the fuel is not sufficiently atomised, the mixture is deliberately & EPA necessarily extremely lean at low to medium revs, the lubrication is very risky & they've yet to be shown to be anything other than an elcheapo attempt to rip people off with more Ficht. Their so called "improvements" absolutely confirm the case against them; (i) "Special" high melting temp alloy for the pistons why??? because the poorly atomised lean fuel creates excessive heat in the pistons & when they looked at dead Fichts amateur (see more French:-)) like they though hey we know we'll make the pistons higher melting point!!! What a joke!!! Long long before even the lowest of tech aluminium alloys even looks like getting too hot the engine is in terminal detonation caused by excess heat. (ii) "Special" treated bores why??? again see (i) these idiots saw damaged bores after almost certain detonation failures & again figured OK we'll make the bores tougher!!! What a joke!!!. (iii) New plumbing why???? Well maybe because the USCG made Bombardier when they owned it, do a safety recall of Fichts because the vibration of detonation was allowing the pressurised fuel supply to leak & fire was a risk??, of course the same detonation was blowing injectors out of the heads!!! Seriously given that injectors seem to stay in diesel cyl heads?? ask yourself what the f .................is going on in there??? Again the same hmmmmmmmmmmmmm lets just make it stronger so it might stay they more often????? What a joke!!! (iv) Special dealer only oil is optionally "recommended" why???? Is it because the normal oil can't stand up too the excess heat generated by the combo of poor atomisation & lean mixture so gets baked behind the rings etc???? Have they even further reduced the amounts of oil??? It seems like the same thinking as i, ii & iii so gee lets see we have an oil baking problem how can we reduce that ???? Hey lets just reduce the oil!!!! What a joke!!!!! Already these engines are sounding just like Ficht, lots of software "upgrades" & reports of failures. Of course the supporters mostly the sad owners who can see their boat value sinking (literally) demand forensic proof, but gee even at their worst on OMC's own admission 4 out of 5 didn't fail:-) Anyone want a buy a lottery ticket??? good odds 4 outta 5 are winners, the only tricky bit is the tickets can be up around $15000 a throw:-) 5 outta 5 suffer boat value loss but hey don't blame me you wanted to go gambling. K |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:28:59 -0500, DSK wrote: Are you saying that your engine is not a target because it is too heavy and difficult to remove the later. they would literally have to saw off the transom to get them and thats just not practical. One the later Seaworthy from BoatUS shows a boat that has been stolen and stripped. Those E-tecs would be no problem at all. |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:56:22 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:15:13 -0500, DSK wrote: Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Fair Skies Doug King I think the 4 stroke outboard has really closed the gap between I/O and outboard. For small boats (20 or less) outboard is certainly the way to go. If you keep your boat in the water I can't think of any good reason for an I/O. The efficiency edge is gone now. Once you get into the McYacht category (30+ cabin and such) inboards rule. foure stroke outboards are passe' - outmoded technology surpassed by newer, better, faster and more reliable two stroke technolocy. Maybe, maybe not. Those new 2 stroke DFI are very complicated, probably more than the 4 strokes. My question is still the lubrication issues. At idle expecially. |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. DSK wrote: Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Fair Skies Doug King For smaller power boats, say 28' or less, I'd pick outboards because they have plenty of power, are accessible, don't take up room in the cockpit, and, best of all, aren't I/O's For larger boats, straight inboards, gasoline or diesel. Depends on the boat and usage. Smaller power boats 25' or less used as ski boats / wakeboard boats inboard. for running shallow rivers for fishing, inboard jet, or outboard jet. For running medium big rivers 21-25' inboard jets. For really big rivers 27'+ dual inboard jets. Large docked sportfishers, inboard diesels. Bass boats O/B's. Bay boats that are docked o/b's for trailer boats O/B or I/O. |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
"K. Smith" wrote in message ... Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:28:59 -0500, DSK wrote: Are you saying that your engine is not a target because it is too heavy and difficult to remove the later. they would literally have to saw off the transom to get them and thats just not practical. You're being modest again Tom:-) you bought them so they'd never be stolen??? have you forgotten to mention their best deterrent to theft?? they're E-Tecs!!! If they're stolen you're looking for a thief who can't read the name on them or some other desperate E-Tec victim hoping to get a part that still works:-) K That is actually funny. |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
Shortwave Sportfishing
foure stroke outboards are passe' - outmoded technology surpassed by newer, better, faster and more reliable two stroke technolocy. In theory, two strokes should be almost twice as efficient. In practice, they still aren't... wrote: If you go fast all the time, 2 stroke is probably the way to go but if you do a lot of "slow" 4 strokes still have the edge. I notice all the commercial guys running in the Estero River (30-50') pontoon boats) use 4 strokes. It's worth noticing what they guys who do it for a living are using. But I have an ulterior motive in this thread, I am considering buying a boat this spring (in fact I have an offer on the table right now) and if the new 2-stroke technology is really good, I'd like to try it out. I have some experience with a small 4 stroke and it was OK. OTOH one of the boats I'm strongly considering is the traditional inboard diesel... tried & true! Fair Skies Doug King |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
K. Smith wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:15:13 -0500, DSK wrote: Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? two cycle outboards. with the new injection technology available to almost every manufacturer, reliability and overall lighter weights, new lubrications and overall performance, two stroke outboards have it hands down over four stroke, inboards and diesels. Gee Tom, so your arm is much better I see:-) or did you let the other one go for a minute??? The only manufacturer still trying to make 2 stroke OBs is the new French kid who got it as a bequeath from Bombardier who got it at the OMC bankruptcy auction great pedigree yes??? (talk about couldn't give it away). Using the failed technology of Ficht which was so comprehensively shown to be faulty that it brought an American icon Co down. The so called changes, apart from dumping the name Ficht of course, are only to deal with the symptoms of the problem & don't in any manner address the core issue, which I say is; too low an injection pressure, the fuel is not sufficiently atomised, the mixture is deliberately & EPA necessarily extremely lean at low to medium revs, the lubrication is very risky & they've yet to be shown to be anything other than an elcheapo attempt to rip people off with more Ficht. Their so called "improvements" absolutely confirm the case against them; (i) "Special" high melting temp alloy for the pistons why??? because the poorly atomised lean fuel creates excessive heat in the pistons & when they looked at dead Fichts amateur (see more French:-)) like they though hey we know we'll make the pistons higher melting point!!! What a joke!!! Long long before even the lowest of tech aluminium alloys even looks like getting too hot the engine is in terminal detonation caused by excess heat. (ii) "Special" treated bores why??? again see (i) these idiots saw damaged bores after almost certain detonation failures & again figured OK we'll make the bores tougher!!! What a joke!!!. (iii) New plumbing why???? Well maybe because the USCG made Bombardier when they owned it, do a safety recall of Fichts because the vibration of detonation was allowing the pressurised fuel supply to leak & fire was a risk??, of course the same detonation was blowing injectors out of the heads!!! Seriously given that injectors seem to stay in diesel cyl heads?? ask yourself what the f .................is going on in there??? Again the same hmmmmmmmmmmmmm lets just make it stronger so it might stay they more often????? What a joke!!! (iv) Special dealer only oil is optionally "recommended" why???? Is it because the normal oil can't stand up too the excess heat generated by the combo of poor atomisation & lean mixture so gets baked behind the rings etc???? Have they even further reduced the amounts of oil??? It seems like the same thinking as i, ii & iii so gee lets see we have an oil baking problem how can we reduce that ???? Hey lets just reduce the oil!!!! What a joke!!!!! Already these engines are sounding just like Ficht, lots of software "upgrades" & reports of failures. Of course the supporters mostly the sad owners who can see their boat value sinking (literally) demand forensic proof, but gee even at their worst on OMC's own admission 4 out of 5 didn't fail:-) Anyone want a buy a lottery ticket??? good odds 4 outta 5 are winners, the only tricky bit is the tickets can be up around $15000 a throw:-) 5 outta 5 suffer boat value loss but hey don't blame me you wanted to go gambling. K Tom, What is the difference between E-Tec and Ficht? -- Reggie ************************************************** ************* That's my story and I am sticking to it. ************************************************** ************* |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:03:17 -0500, Reggie Smithers wrote: Tom, What is the difference between E-Tec and Ficht? its more a difference in philosophy and engineering tolerances than complete differences. etec is essentially ficht technology, but re-engineered, the way the emm handles the ignitiion is more efficient, the coding is more elegant, new injectors, new cylinder metal tech, better tolerances, new lubricants - think more, bigger, betterrer. interesting that the injectors are being made in australia. Is your preference in the ETec vs 4 stroke based upon a power to weight ratio or are there other benefits? -- Reggie ************************************************** ************* That's my story and I am sticking to it. ************************************************** ************* |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
|
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:46:00 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:44:33 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: foure stroke outboards are passe' - outmoded technology surpassed by newer, better, faster and more reliable two stroke technolocy. If you go fast all the time, 2 stroke is probably the way to go but if you do a lot of "slow" 4 strokes still have the edge. I notice all the commercial guys running in the Estero River (30-50') pontoon boats) use 4 strokes. Now *there's* a helpful comment, especially for one who does a lot of spring trolling. -- John H Why is it helpful? When I lived in Florida, I used to run my 90hp and then 115hp two-stroke Merc for hours and hours at trolling speeds without any problems. My Optimax Merc also ran nicely at trolling speeds. An awful lot of time in this newsgroup is spent splitting hairs. Harry and Tom, Isn't E-Tec and Ficht more likely to have problems at trolling speed than a 4 stroke? The big advantage E-Tec and Ficht have over 4 stroke is weight. -- Reggie ************************************************** ************* That's my story and I am sticking to it. ************************************************** ************* |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:43:00 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:32:58 -0500, Reggie Smithers wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:03:17 -0500, Reggie Smithers wrote: Tom, What is the difference between E-Tec and Ficht? its more a difference in philosophy and engineering tolerances than complete differences. etec is essentially ficht technology, but re-engineered, the way the emm handles the ignitiion is more efficient, the coding is more elegant, new injectors, new cylinder metal tech, better tolerances, new lubricants - think more, bigger, betterrer. interesting that the injectors are being made in australia. Is your preference in the ETec vs 4 stroke based upon a power to weight ratio or are there other benefits? brand loyalty is part of it. i liked the way bombardier handled the ficht situation by admitting there was a problem, then fixing it. they saw the potential of ficht and redesigned/reengineered it to make it right. plus i like new technology risks that pay off. etec has almost everything over four stroke. there is nothing wrong with four stroke technology, but its not as efficient, weighs more and flat out hands down etecs out perform any other outboard on the market today. not to mention the outstanding emissions figures. there is a couple in my marina that has a regulator which is very similar to my contender. they have twin 250 yamaha four stroke on theirs. my boat has a bettter top end, better hole shot, better accelleration and i weigh more plus giving away 50 horsepower. When looking at them on the Evinrude site, and reading about their dependability, I was surprised that the warranty was for only three years. It would seem like Evinrude could help their sales a bunch by putting out a five year warranty, given all the claims they make. -- John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:34:22 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:46:00 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:44:33 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: foure stroke outboards are passe' - outmoded technology surpassed by newer, better, faster and more reliable two stroke technolocy. If you go fast all the time, 2 stroke is probably the way to go but if you do a lot of "slow" 4 strokes still have the edge. I notice all the commercial guys running in the Estero River (30-50') pontoon boats) use 4 strokes. Now *there's* a helpful comment, especially for one who does a lot of spring trolling. -- John H Why is it helpful? When I lived in Florida, I used to run my 90hp and then 115hp two-stroke Merc for hours and hours at trolling speeds without any problems. My Optimax Merc also ran nicely at trolling speeds. An awful lot of time in this newsgroup is spent splitting hairs. Helpful because until now I'd not considered a difference in capabilities at trolling speeds. I'd be interested in comparing differences with the new engines, not the older ones. -- John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote: Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:46:00 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:44:33 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: foure stroke outboards are passe' - outmoded technology surpassed by newer, better, faster and more reliable two stroke technolocy. If you go fast all the time, 2 stroke is probably the way to go but if you do a lot of "slow" 4 strokes still have the edge. I notice all the commercial guys running in the Estero River (30-50') pontoon boats) use 4 strokes. Now *there's* a helpful comment, especially for one who does a lot of spring trolling. -- John H Why is it helpful? When I lived in Florida, I used to run my 90hp and then 115hp two-stroke Merc for hours and hours at trolling speeds without any problems. My Optimax Merc also ran nicely at trolling speeds. An awful lot of time in this newsgroup is spent splitting hairs. Harry and Tom, Isn't E-Tec and Ficht more likely to have problems at trolling speed than a 4 stroke? The big advantage E-Tec and Ficht have over 4 stroke is weight. I can only relate my experiences with two cycle and two cycle Optimax outboards. None ever presented any problems at trolling speeds. Further, when I was a kid summering on the edge of LI Sound, we trolled for stripers for hours at a time with two cycle outboards. The mfg'er did concede there were some problems (I read about 20% of the engines had the problem to varying degrees) with oil/gas ratio as the slower speeds. The old outlawed polluting 2 stroke used a oil pre-mixture high enough that the engine was properly lubed at the slower speeds. I remember reading someone in here used to say he premixed his oil enough that it would smoke, then he knew it was protected. Too bad all the fish in his area died. -- Reggie ************************************************** ************* That's my story and I am sticking to it. ************************************************** ************* |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:27:03 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:28:59 -0500, DSK wrote: Are you saying that your engine is not a target because it is too heavy and difficult to remove the later. they would literally have to saw off the transom to get them and thats just not practical. One the later Seaworthy from BoatUS shows a boat that has been stolen and stripped. Those E-tecs would be no problem at all. theyd have a hell of a time stealing the boat too. Attack cows next door? |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JimH wrote: DSK wrote: Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Fair Skies Doug King If the boat requires just one engine and outboards are available, that is the way to go. Otherwise twin inboards. Twin inboards when they are necessary, but there are lots of single-engine inboard boats that do very well on one prop. I could never quite get a good handle on maneuvering a single screw inboard. |
Propulsion: Outboard, inboard, I-O?
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JimH wrote: DSK wrote: Here's a boating topic with room for general & specific observations, theory, opinion, fact, sea stories. Let's see it. Why would you choose one type of propulsion over another? Fair Skies Doug King If the boat requires just one engine and outboards are available, that is the way to go. Otherwise twin inboards. Twin inboards when they are necessary, but there are lots of single-engine inboard boats that do very well on one prop. I could never quite get a good handle on maneuvering a single screw inboard. JimH, It is very different from a I/O, but once you learn how to take advantage of "prop walk" it is just as easy. -- Reggie ************************************************** ************* That's my story and I am sticking to it. ************************************************** ************* |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com