Del Cecchi wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:19:08 -0500, Reggie Smithers
wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

K. Smith wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

-rick- wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:


What "failure rate" statistics can you cite to back up your
claim that
the engines "suffered way too high failure rates for
consumer usage"? Legitimate statistics, please, backed up by
some sort
of legitimate science, not your usual crap you extrapolate from
reading
about three incidents that took place on a hot day in August on an
unnamed lake and involving three guys working their way through
a keg
and bloodworms spread on crackers.


Are legitimate failure rate statistics publicly available for any
consumer item? The companies I've worked for held that data
pretty tightly.



Sure, at least partially. We've all encountered "recalls" with
various products, or at least read or heard about them.

But that's not my point. Ms. Smith is claiming a "way too high
failure rate," based upon nothing more than, basically, nothing.
How can you claim a rate is "too high" without any reliable
quantifying?


The evidence I gave was we all were told this by a dealer friend of
yours in this NG!!! What better evidence could you possibly ask
for??? again are you suggesting this particular dealer was nothing
but lying scum like you???



What I'm stating is that your propaganda is not based upon any
certified, verifiable, enumerated, qualified, or quantified data.



If that's what you're trying to say then just come out with it,
don't be shy.

Also it's clear that Brunswick are not putting any more money into
it & spending vast sums on the 4 strokes. That's the final nail as
far as I'm concerned.



When I bought my Opti in 1998, I read info from Brunswick which said
the Opti technology was a bridge to help the company meet emission
standards in the short term.



If one of your dealer buddies isn't enough for you then I can't
help you further


I'm not making the claim, you are. You need the help, not me.


Harry,
I can remember a very detailed discussion Karen had with some
engineering types who used to frequent this motley group. I thought
they agreed that there was and should be concern about the
lubrication of Fichts at trolling speed.



600+ something hours most at low speed on the ranger and no problems
related to oiling or cylinder wear. i did have a stator problem which
cascaded through the engine, but thats almost unheard of even of other
engines including fichts.

oh, and its an omc ficht.

the problem is that most of the folks, engineers or not, have no clue
about how the system works or doesnt work - mostly doesnt because the
assumptions they make are valuless, uninformed and strictly
speculation - in short, if you cant convince them with brilliance....

its an advanced technology which baffles some who think they know it
all, thus they have to rely on bull**** and bafflement to "make" their
points.

everybody else can buy merc optimaxs and verados and yamaha four
strokes, but they arent going to get the milage i do, the preformance
i do or the reliability i have received.

so im done with this - everybody can do what they want - ill be
laughing all the way to the fishing grounds - or the bank with my
incredibly efficient engines.


I'm sorry to provide a contradictory data point, courtesy of the folks
at Bass and Walleye Boats. In the 12/2005 issue they had the 200HP DFI
shootout where they compared the Optimax, HPDI, and Etec on identical
bass boats. In Optimum Fuel Economy, the Etec was last at 4.4 mpg,
compared to 5.5 on the HPDI and 5.8 for the Optimax. At WOT it was 3.7
for the etec, 4.2 for the merc, and 4.1 for the yamaha.

Top speeds were almost identical.

0-30 hole shot was 8.2 for the etec, 7.6 for the Optimax, and 6.7 for
the HPDI.

And list price was highest for the etec.

Note, the hulls were weighed and made to be exactly the same.

All setups were done by the bass cat factory folks

Here is a quote "After all the emissions and mileage hype from
Evinrude, we expected the E-Tec HO tr really put a hurtin' on the other
two when it came to the fuel fillup. Yet that was not the case at all."


Hi Del

Good to see you!!! this is pretty good for me to!!!, it's as if I
haven't aged even a single day!!! & mostly the same players even
spruiking the same BS.

As for the fuel consumption watch out for Tom & his highly technical
"bull" rejoinder:-) he thinks fuel consumption is sort of a mystical
thing, if you believe it, it might happen:-) True!!!!

His latest is a deceptive claim i.e. a 31ftr (E-Tec X 2) cruising at 35
mph on 11 gph!!! I calced it as easily as you will & that's asking for
300 prop HP all on 11 gph!!! The very best, highest tech diesels can't
even claim close to that:-)

He hasn't even tried to defend it; but hey I'm repeatedly asking &
waiting for the story; it will rival the dealers I suspect:-)

K