M wrote:
I am on neither side here but happen to own a 2.5l Optimax and was
interested in getting a 150 HP ETec.

apologies I accept that might have seemed like I was trying to verbal
you & it was not intended.


No worries we are cool. I didnt take it that way at all.


Since those engines arent cheap, I am VERY interested about knowing
about ANY problem that MAY be there. The fuel use of the ETec seems to
be 5-15% higher as an optimax/4 stroke which is to me a concern. But
for others with deep pockets it may not.


I think the fuel claims are well out of order when posted by dealers of
outright spruikers & as you say independent tests say otherwise.


I hold in their favour that you can tweak fuel use a little depending
what boat and what prop you use ... The problem is that there is very
little ETec fuel use data and none looks in favour of ETec.

In favour of ETec we have to hold that its meant to be a powerful
motor, not so much a fuel miser. But since BRP advertises it as being
economic they will have to hold up to our scrutiny

But it's not either Matt, have a look at the B&WE dyno tests the 250
only makes 239 which is legal BUT then they claim it doesn't use much
fuel!!!

If you account for the lack of power (239 vs say a real 250 for the
others) then it's fuel use is terrible!!!.




Tom's fuel claims are not even laughable, but runaway william's are &
worse than well out of order. He doesn't even seem to realise that he's
claiming hugely better fuel consumption than a proper EFI 4 stroke!!,
after the 2 stroke is on full mixture mode spilling fuel all over the place.


Well ... Tom so far has to me been a nice guy so i hold in his favour
that the measurements had some sort of bug in them. That doesnt have
to be intensional.

I agree & to be honest he has done me no harm, but equally I see lots of
posts from him that are so far off the mark (use a "good" primer before
gel coating? what actual boater with any experience could post that
advice not once but twice!!?). I'm ever amazed people who I know know
don't ping him & of course he relies upon that. Needless to say when I
did finally ping him he reacted as BS'ters mostly do; because after a
while they actually think people who know believe them when for manners,
peace or pity they stay silent. In the end I just have to say what I
say & wear the results. On this occasion he doesn't see the need to
correct his claims so they stand as a deceptive E-Tec spruiking & all he
says is suspect. His claim still uncorrected was a 31ftr at 35 mph on
8-11 gph.


The thing with fuel use is also that many boaters eyeball it rather
than performing precision measurements...

I still hope that Tom will provide more data.

He won't that would involve more character than his ego will ever allow:-)


To be honest "if" anyone big or small could actually figure out how to
run IC engines (or rockets) significantly lean at power, the big people
GM, Ford, all the Euro & Japanese based builders would be bashing on
their door looking for a license. It's that big a deal it really is.


There are a few things against 2DFI motors in cars:

- You would NOT survive ANY doubt about their reliability

Ford tested Orbital in the UK years ago & as you say ............... the
usual excuses of course but Ford walked away.

- ANY issue would be VERY costly

True but if anything can be made to reliably run lean at power that's
huge, they've been trying since the 30s & every attempt so far has
failed, Ficht is just the last in a long line.

Some of the cars, Mitsubishi & Merc do run lean but never at power. Just
idle, over run & very very light load high speed cruise, which modern
electronics can manage fairly well. Some even totally turn the fuel off
on over run, but most just accept the risks are not worth the minimal gains.

- An automotive motor is expected to last 10+ years

& an OB that costs the same as a medium car isn't???

- The general automotive crowd does not take as much abuse as boaters
do and the automotive crowd seems to be better with class action
lawsuits.

Boat engines get it easy, they rev but never see real load, the way a
fixed pitch prop consumes torque means a correctly propped boat motor
can always accelerate if given more throttle right up to max, in a car
that's not the case so they can see some serious sustained loads. Fatal
if even mildly lean. Aero engines are a good analogy they can be run
moderately lean but it's always a risk (the body count proves it) &
their specific outputs are lazy compared to a 2 stroke OB even down at
2000rpm. NB they never run anything like as lean as the Ficht/E-Tecs.

- You do not have endless amounts of cold water to cool any heat issue

That is a good point however in a crankcase transferred 2 stroke the
most critical & largest surface area of the combustion chamber (the
piston & rings) remains totally un cooled, no matter how cool the head is.

- You wouldnt even get the motor close to passing any sort of emission
law

Yes you would??? I mean the driving force in these E-Tecs is emissions
the reason they're runny lean at 35 or 40 to 1 mixtures is to fudge past
the EPA regs no other motive at all. The cars (Honda, Chrysler) tried
lean in the 60s 70s 80s for the same reasons less fuel, less emissions.

- The resources who would work on it would be so small that even if it
could work it wouldnt. Same that happened to the Wankel / Rotary
engine. A great desin but has no chance to compete with the R&D
manpower of the Otto motor

The wankel had & still has sealing problems, fuel consumption etc; again
in a light little sports or sedan car but if subjected to heavy loads &
fuel discipline????? I think the patents on the basic idea expired many
years ago so if it had prospects the biggies would be putting R&D into
it, after all Ford actually even put money into Orbital testing.



If people see a need to turn on me for that - then by all means turn on
me.

Well I hope they don't & never do, but be aware vested interest is
involved here so ...............


Well actually its ME who has significant amounts of money invested in a
200 HP Orbital 2DFI motor; If this thing ever blows up, I will be sure
to speak about it worldwide ..

If it hasn't yet it probably won't Matt, means your boat setup & usage
patterns don't subject it to long periods in lean mode under heavy load,
followed by sudden full acceleration, which is when we say the trouble hits.

We incorrectly thought back when Ficht started that they'd fail while
lean with the poor low pressure atomisation but we now say they fail
after they return to full mixture around 1500-2000. When lean they are
so lean there isn't enough fuel there to sustain damaging detonation.

It's significant that they are doing exactly the same as Ficht in
issuing software "upgrades" trying to cure "rough spots" at or around
the mode change point say 2000. This for me is confirmation the exact
same thing is happening in E-Tec that happened in Ficht, but the E-Tec
is built stronger so it might tolerate the detonation longer, long
enough that their failure rate will let them get away with it????? I'm
betting they won't but ......................

Matt


K