E-Tec problems?????
 

my 90 e-tec (2005) blew a powerhead at 37 hours. they say the engine ran
for 29 minutes without oil. the no oil alarm went off once, i checked
the oil tank and there was plenty of oil. and then the alarm never went
off again. i was told that air bubbles can form in the oil line if you
have low oil and tilt the engine up. when you tilt it back down, an air
bubble can form in the oil line. no one claimed that this is what caused
the powerhead failure though. has anyone else had an e-tec powerhead
failure? and if so, what was the reason? also, i have been using the
xd-100 oil and the engine is porperly set-up. it also used way more oil
than they claimed it would. in the 37 hours of use, i filled the oil
tank three times. it blew in the beginning of the third oil tank. i just
got the boat back and after running it for approx. 2 hrs, the no oil
alarm went off again. this time i brought the boat back to the mechanic.
they river tested it and had no alarms go off. i had one oif the first
ficht 150 engines which blew three powerheads in three months. i hope
that i am not going to get burned again......


This is a paste of one from some of the forums, plenty more I'll try to
keep you up to date.

Have you noticed it's failed Ficht people who come back for more???
anyway .................... ego problems??? Certainly an interesting
study in how the minds of some purchasers work or don't work:-); they'll
lie, bully & BS but never admit to themselves what everyone can see
except them; that they've been had well & truly the first time, so they
buy another to prove just how easy it was the first time?? As for those
that buy 2 more?? well what can I say??? Dumber than a dog??

K

E-Tec problems?????
 

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:12:12 +1100, "K. Smith" wrote:


Have you noticed.........


That there is never a citation?
Gene,
Karen is our consumer advocate. I wonder what percent of new outboards
have powerhead failures due to reasons other than insufficient
lubrication.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

E-Tec problems?????
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:36:26 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:12:12 +1100, "K. Smith" wrote:


Have you noticed.........
That there is never a citation?

I wonder why that is?
I found the link by doing a Goggle search. It was in hulltruth.com

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

E-Tec problems?????
 

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:36:26 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Have you noticed.........


That there is never a citation?

I think I saw one at

www.deadhorsebeating.com

E-Tec problems?????
 

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:47:29 -0500, Reggie Smithers
wrote:

Gene,
Karen is our consumer advocate. I wonder what percent of new outboards
have powerhead failures due to reasons other than insufficient
lubrication.

Given the presented material, none, unless they are ficht or e-tech.
Did you have any problems typing that with your tongue stuck so firmly
in your cheek?

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

E-Tec problems?????
 

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:12:12 +1100, "K. Smith" wrote:



Have you noticed.........



That there is never a citation?


http://www.google.com/search?q=90+e-...ew+a+powerhead

BUT, let's hear about ALL outboard failures...

Rob

E-Tec problems?????
 

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:12:12 +1100, "K. Smith" wrote:



Have you noticed.........



That there is never a citation?

Sorry Gene but once you have the text it really is a doddle to google it
up. I got abused for using ID's because well the forums are actually
trying to sell this crap like the dealers are, also I don't want to ping
anyones privacy which is fair enough.

I wish you blokes were so keen to make the E-Tec spruikers give any
material at all to back their clearly false claims??

Take this example of recent times, in his sad efforts to support E-Tec
he comes out with total BS & you say nothing??? What are you that lonely
you dare not even ask for fear the bullies won't play with you
anymore??? Don't be, they're just the usual non boating idiots we have
to tolerate around here always have & always will, but at least hold
them to their own blatantly false claims.

paste of just some E-Tec claims all from just one E-Tec spruiker but hey
this one is a true Krausite (please Gene NB he claims "side by side"
testing!!! what a smuck!!!);

dont get the verado - heavy and its a fuel pig. not to mention that
the supercharging is a joke - optimax engines beat the snot out of
verados in side-by-side tests for speed, hole shots, etc.

optimax is reasonably better in fuel efficiency, weight and power.

buy a boat with etecs - lighter, faster, more efficient.

OR (NB Gene he's claiming 34% over the previous yrs Fichts!!!
breathtaking; even by Krause standards)

Above idle the ETec seems to use as much or 0-15% more fuel as other
motors. This is based on the performance data I have seen so far.


interesting - it certainly isnt what i see with mine - we, my partner
and i, saved over 34% fuel based against the previous years fichts.

where did you get the performance data from?

OR Gene!!!! Read this "cruising" @ 35MPH on his claimed E-Tecs 8-11 US
gph!!!!! The contender with twin 225 anythings will be almost 30 gph at
35mph.

really? and you base this one what?


Thats the way BRP shaped the pistons to help distribute the fuel around
the sparkplug in lean burn. As why it is not so efficient at higher
rpms ... Any book about combustion engine design will tel


bull****. i average a little around 8 to 11 gph at cruise which is 35
mph. thats a damn sight better than any four stroke or two cycle on
the market today.

and who the hell cruises at wot?

OR (NB again Gene 30%!!!! imagine 30% less fuel!!! you'd see it on the
evening news, the Arabs would be bombing Canada:-))

Dont get me wrong .. I think the ETecs are great motors and I am close
to getting one ... but its just that from the data I have seen, their
fuel efficieny is just not better as 4stroke or Optimax.


what kind of - data - are you looking for? compared to what other
boats use for fuel in my marina, similar boats - regulators, bluefins,
and one contender with twin hpdi yamahas - compared to mine with
optimaxes, i use less fuel by at least 30% - in fact, one guy is
selling his optimaxes with less than 400 hours on them to get etecs.


OR;- do you really think this nuffnuff has any idea what a contender
might weigh, much less that he owns one with twin 225 E-Tecs????? Come
on Gene embarrass yourself as usual & say you think this is for real,
I'll send it to the contender people for you:-)

selling his optimaxes with less than 400 hours on them to get etecs.


let me hear what the results are .. I honestly doubt he will save fuel
by doing that..


we will see - i'm betting he saves at least 20%. ill know by the end
of feb which is when he takes delivery.

i can tell you that i get the exact same gph rate with the contender
fisharound (31 foot long) that is 7,000 pounds heavier than its
predecessor. a contender 31 cc. the cc had 225 fichts, the fisharound
has 225 etecs.

OR ................ well that's enough for now:-)





But when the "real" side-by-side tests for speed, hole shots, etc.
facts arrived it was just another lie!!! as big & false as any the
dealers will tell:-) Except this one tries to gain cred by claiming to
have bought 2 of these slow, heavy, expensive & fuel hungry things &
that's not even mentioning the risks related to the Ficht based design &
you say nothing??? Cowards you really are.

Paste of the truth about false advertising at it's best;

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."


& the answer the E-Tec BS'ter gives is & you'll love this it's the
admission & final confirmation that all his E-Tec claims are nothing
more than BS.

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.


bull....


Yet the original BS'ter who I suspect doesn't even have an E-Tec by the
way, you let off scott free??? none of you even ask??? Pathetic no
wonder you get ripped off by this low injection pressure, lean mixtures
at power, continuous spark, no proper lubrication mumbo jumbo, you've
been warned ............................. again:-)


K

E-Tec problems?????
 

"K. Smith" wrote:

I wish you blokes were so keen to make the E-Tec spruikers give any
material at all to back their clearly false claims??

Take this example of recent times, in his sad efforts to support E-Tec
he comes out with total BS & you say nothing??? What are you that lonely
you dare not even ask for fear the bullies won't play with you
anymore??? Don't be, they're just the usual non boating idiots we have
to tolerate around here always have & always will, but at least hold
them to their own blatantly false claims. paste of just some E-Tec claims
all from just one E-Tec spruiker but hey this one is a true Krausite.

Yep, Krauses and his butt sniffers like Gene know nothing about boats
and real boating.

Oh Gene!!!! Read this, "cruising" @ 35MPH on his claimed E-Tecs 8-11 US
gph!!!!! The contender with twin 225 anythings will be almost 30 gph at
35mph.

Does no good confusing Krausites with phacts.

OR;- do you really think this nuffnuff has any idea what a contender
might weigh, much less that he owns one with twin 225 E-Tecs????? Come
on Gene embarrass yourself as usual & say you think this is for real.
I'll send it to the contender people for you:-)

Again, it does no good providing phacts to the Kloistered Krause Krowd.
They generate their own truths. They have ruined a once great NG with
their mind-numbing ignorance and BS.

But when the "real" side-by-side tests for speed, hole shots, etc.
facts arrived it was just another lie!!! as big & false as any the
dealers will tell:-) Except this one tries to gain cred by claiming to
have bought 2 of these slow, heavy, expensive & fuel hungry things &
that's not even mentioning the risks related to the Ficht based design &
you say nothing??? Cowards you really are.

Impossible the educate a stone, Karen.

Yet the original BS'ter who I suspect doesn't even have an E-Tec by the
way, you let off scott free??? none of you even ask??? Pathetic no
wonder you get ripped off by this low injection pressure, lean mixtures
at power, continuous spark, no proper lubrication mumbo jumbo, you've
been warned ............................. again:-)

So true!

--
Skipper

E-Tec problems?????
 

"K. Smith" wrote:

Oh Gene!!!! Read this, "cruising" @ 35MPH on his claimed E-Tecs 8-11 US
gph!!!!! The contender with twin 225 anythings will be almost 30 gph at
35mph.

Come
on Gene embarrass yourself as usual & say you think this is for real.
I'll send it to the contender people for you:-)



Well, once again Karen is "blown out of the water" with actual facts.

Here are the performance results with twin 2006 250hp E-TECs that only
consume 20.7 gph at about 35 mph on a heavy 30' SeaCraft, less than 11
gph per motor, just like Gene said.

That is so much better fuel economy than Karen's contention that a boat
that size should burn 30 gph at 35 mph!


Twin 250 E-TEC - 30' SeaCraft
19" Rebel - 3 blade props

RPM MPH GPH MPG
500 2.2 0.36 6.0
1000 5.7 1.46 3.9
1500 7.9 2.97 2.6
2000 9.0 5.98 1.5
2500 14.7 12.22 1.2
3000 21.4 14.20 1.5
3500 29.0 17.19 1.7
4000 35.3 20.70 1.7
4500 41.0 24.45 1.7
5000 46.2 31.59 1.5
5400 48.7 37.84 1.3

E-Tec problems?????
 

billgran wrote:

Twin 250 E-TEC - 30' SeaCraft
19" Rebel - 3 blade props

RPM MPH GPH MPG
500 2.2 0.36 6.0
1000 5.7 1.46 3.9
1500 7.9 2.97 2.6
2000 9.0 5.98 1.5
2500 14.7 12.22 1.2
3000 21.4 14.20 1.5
3500 29.0 17.19 1.7
4000 35.3 20.70 1.7
4500 41.0 24.45 1.7
5000 46.2 31.59 1.5
5400 48.7 37.84 1.3

spruik
verb

(Austral & NZ)
spruiked, spruiking
1. slang
Said especially of showmen, salesmen, etc: to speak in public,
especially at length and using ornate language.
Derivative: spruiker
noun

Etymology: Early 20c.

--
Skipper

E-Tec problems?????
 

"Skipper" wrote in message
...

(Austral & NZ)
spruiked, spruiking
1. slang
Said especially of showmen, salesmen, etc: to speak in public,
especially at length and using ornate language.
Derivative: spruiker
noun



Sorry, Skipper,

Those fuel consumption and performance figures are FACTS, not "spuik".

E-Tec problems?????
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


On 24 Feb 2006 05:43:49 -0800, "billgran"
wrote:
Here are the performance results with twin 2006 250hp E-TECs that only
consume 20.7 gph at about 35 mph on a heavy 30' SeaCraft, less than 11
gph per motor, just like Gene said.


I've been saying this since last summer when I put the 225s on my
Contender.



Actually, you probably get better milage than the 20.7 gph at 35mph than the
SeaCraft because your Contender is a faster boat with a more efficient hull
design. What do you get for top speed and which props are you running?

Bill Grannis
service manager

E-Tec problems?????
 

Billgran wrote:

spruiked, spruiking
1. slang
Said especially of showmen, salesmen, etc: to speak in public,
especially at length and using ornate language.
Derivative: spruiker

Sorry, Skipper,

Those fuel consumption and performance figures are FACTS, not "spuik".

You were one of those disagreeing with Karen when she correctly pointed
out the original Ficht debacle. Respectfully, Bill, did you ever admit
she was right and you were wrong at the time? Did you ever apologize to
her for your mistaken position?

--
Skipper

E-Tec problems?????
 

"Skipper" wrote in message
...


You were one of those disagreeing with Karen when she correctly pointed
out the original Ficht debacle. Respectfully, Bill, did you ever admit
she was right and you were wrong at the time? Did you ever apologize to
her for your mistaken position?

--
Skipper


Did you ever stop beating your wife?

E-Tec problems?????
 

Billgran wrote:
"Skipper" wrote in message
...

You were one of those disagreeing with Karen when she correctly pointed
out the original Ficht debacle. Respectfully, Bill, did you ever admit
she was right and you were wrong at the time? Did you ever apologize to
her for your mistaken position?

--
Skipper


Did you ever stop beating your wife?



Bill,
I wonder how long E-Tec needs to be in use before we can decide if their
service record is acceptable or comparable to 4 stroke engines.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

E-Tec problems?????
 

Billgran wrote:
"Skipper" wrote in message
...


You were one of those disagreeing with Karen when she correctly pointed
out the original Ficht debacle. Respectfully, Bill, did you ever admit
she was right and you were wrong at the time? Did you ever apologize to
her for your mistaken position?

--
Skipper



Did you ever stop beating your wife?



More likely she beats him!

E-Tec problems?????
 

Billgran wrote:

"Skipper" wrote...

You were one of those disagreeing with Karen when she correctly pointed
out the original Ficht debacle. Respectfully, Bill, did you ever admit
she was right and you were wrong at the time? Did you ever apologize to
her for your mistaken position?

Did you ever stop beating your wife?

Just thought I'd ask...and offer some insight into your long running
battle with Karen. She was *proven* right then...and you should have
been big enough to have admitted it.

--
Skipper

E-Tec problems?????
 

"Skipper" wrote in message
...


Just thought I'd ask...and offer some insight into your long running
battle with Karen. She was *proven* right then...and you should have
been big enough to have admitted it.

--
Skipper


She hasn't been proven right. Karen has been consistantly wrong on most
counts. Just look at the recent post about fuel consumption at 35mph. In
actuality, her erroneous assumption was almost 50% higher that the actual
facts. That is what happens when "armchair admirals" spout off with no hands
on experience, training, or even seeing or driving an E-TEC, FICHT, or any
other model.

I work on outboard motors as a full time job. If E-TEC and FICHT were so
bad, as Karen claims, there would be piles of blown engines and every
Evinrude dealer would be out of business as no one would buy them. It ain't
that way, Bombardier is the 3rd largest seller of outboards in the US,
behind 1st place Merc and then Yamaha.

E-Tec problems?????
 

billgran wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote:

Oh Gene!!!! Read this, "cruising" @ 35MPH on his claimed E-Tecs 8-11 US
gph!!!!! The contender with twin 225 anythings will be almost 30 gph at
35mph.

Come
on Gene embarrass yourself as usual & say you think this is for real.
I'll send it to the contender people for you:-)



Well, once again Karen is "blown out of the water" with actual facts.

Here are the performance results with twin 2006 250hp E-TECs that only
consume 20.7 gph at about 35 mph on a heavy 30' SeaCraft, less than 11
gph per motor, just like Gene said.

That is so much better fuel economy than Karen's contention that a boat
that size should burn 30 gph at 35 mph!


Twin 250 E-TEC - 30' SeaCraft
19" Rebel - 3 blade props

RPM MPH GPH MPG
500 2.2 0.36 6.0
1000 5.7 1.46 3.9
1500 7.9 2.97 2.6
2000 9.0 5.98 1.5
2500 14.7 12.22 1.2
3000 21.4 14.20 1.5
3500 29.0 17.19 1.7
4000 35.3 20.70 1.7
4500 41.0 24.45 1.7
5000 46.2 31.59 1.5
5400 48.7 37.84 1.3


Is the data for one motor or both motors?

My 200 HP Optimax takes 19 GPH at WOT .. so 37 GPH for 500 HP wouldnt
be bad ...

All other ETec fuel data I have seen so far the ETec got their ass
whipped by the optimax (even HDPI).

Matt

E-Tec problems?????
 

Billgran wrote:

Just thought I'd ask...and offer some insight into your long running
battle with Karen. She was *proven* right then...and you should have
been big enough to have admitted it.

She hasn't been proven right.

That's what I'm talking about, Bill. OMC when bankrupt and screwed
thousands customers over the very Ficht technology issues Karen warned
us about.

http://my.boatus.com/consumer/OMCBankruptcy.asp

In spite of your blunder in the Ficht issue I still have a great deal of
respect for your opinions. You are one the the industries real assets,
but damn it, admit when you're wrong.

--
Skipper

E-Tec problems?????
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

billgran wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote:

Oh Gene!!!! Read this, "cruising" @ 35MPH on his claimed E-Tecs
8-11 US
gph!!!!! The contender with twin 225 anythings will be almost 30
gph at
35mph.

Come
on Gene embarrass yourself as usual & say you think this is for
real.
I'll send it to the contender people for you:-)



Well, once again Karen is "blown out of the water" with actual facts.

Here are the performance results with twin 2006 250hp E-TECs that only
consume 20.7 gph at about 35 mph on a heavy 30' SeaCraft, less than 11
gph per motor, just like Gene said.

That is so much better fuel economy than Karen's contention that a
boat
that size should burn 30 gph at 35 mph!


Twin 250 E-TEC - 30' SeaCraft
19" Rebel - 3 blade props

RPM MPH GPH MPG
500 2.2 0.36 6.0
1000 5.7 1.46 3.9
1500 7.9 2.97 2.6
2000 9.0 5.98 1.5
2500 14.7 12.22 1.2
3000 21.4 14.20 1.5
3500 29.0 17.19 1.7
4000 35.3 20.70 1.7
4500 41.0 24.45 1.7
5000 46.2 31.59 1.5
5400 48.7 37.84 1.3


Is the data for one motor or both motors?

My 200 HP Optimax takes 19 GPH at WOT .. so 37 GPH for 500 HP wouldnt
be bad ...

It would be unbelievable. Did you see the Bass and Walleye Boats results
I posted a while ago? etec didn't use less gas than Optimax or HPDI.
These numbers would have etec producing 50 hp more per motor at the same
fuel usage than your Optimax.

Maybe Bill Grannis will provide his opinion about the veracity of the
numbers.

All other ETec fuel data I have seen so far the ETec got their ass
whipped by the optimax (even HDPI).

Matt

E-Tec problems?????
 

billgran wrote:

"K. Smith" wrote:


Oh Gene!!!! Read this, "cruising" @ 35MPH on his claimed E-Tecs 8-11 US
gph!!!!! The contender with twin 225 anythings will be almost 30 gph at
35mph.

Come

on Gene embarrass yourself as usual & say you think this is for real.
I'll send it to the contender people for you:-)



Well, once again Karen is "blown out of the water" with actual facts.

Here are the performance results with twin 2006 250hp E-TECs that only
consume 20.7 gph at about 35 mph on a heavy 30' SeaCraft, less than 11
gph per motor, just like Gene said.

That is so much better fuel economy than Karen's contention that a boat
that size should burn 30 gph at 35 mph!


Twin 250 E-TEC - 30' SeaCraft
19" Rebel - 3 blade props

RPM MPH GPH MPG
500 2.2 0.36 6.0
1000 5.7 1.46 3.9
1500 7.9 2.97 2.6
2000 9.0 5.98 1.5
2500 14.7 12.22 1.2
3000 21.4 14.20 1.5
3500 29.0 17.19 1.7
4000 35.3 20.70 1.7
4500 41.0 24.45 1.7
5000 46.2 31.59 1.5
5400 48.7 37.84 1.3


Nice try deceptive dealer try William, a different boat, different
engines & even then up at double the spruiker's claimed consumption!!!!
I know you have to say something because well what other marketing can
you do after your support of Ficht even up till you ran away. Na you're
just spreading marketing BS again & probably at least as false as the
original spruiker's claims.

Do you have anything to say about his 34% better fuel consumption claims
against the Fichts??? No?? nothing at all???

How about this contender weighing 7000lbs more than the ficht
contender??? any comments on that BS??? No?? Nothing at all???

What say you of the Bass & Walleye actual side by side tests of
E-Tecs??? where they conclude the E-Tecs are slow, heavy, thirsty &
expensive?? any comments at all??? no? What Nothing???? after all they
allow spruikers of marketing BS all the time & you say nothing???

How about my position that you're only pushing these things because like
Ficht you're gathering over the norm agg. kickbacks rebates, plans etc,
I mean the courts confirmed you were getting 30% on the big Fichts, what
price your marketing BS this time???

The tommy claim is 8 to 11 GPH no mention of "per engine" of course,
unless you're confirming the original spruik was exactly as I pinged it;
a false deceptive marketing lie??? I mean now he even comes back below &
admits it!!!!!

But hey keep up the selective deceptions William just as you did when I
was warning about Ficht & just as with Ficht when they fold you'll be
run away william again. As for your other deception that E-Tec is the
3rd biggest selling OB last year that's typical of all your marketing BS
look at the numbers, what?? even with your deceptive claiming of not yet
delivered engines you have no numbers at all.

As for the reasons they'll fail?? the same as I told you in 98-99 for
Ficht, not enough actual injection pressure, poor atomisation & lean
mixture heat buildup which leads to full detonation then the engine
switches to "normal" mixture & gets full mixture. (I'll ping the
lubrication or lack thereof separately:-))

By the way the article extracts pasted below have fallen for the E-Tec
marketing BS about high melting point pistons (what a total joke that
is!!!), long long before anything melts in there the engine is in
catastrophic detonation, the remains are melted that's true but what
killed it was detonation at power. If a fuel mixture sees much more than
260C it auto ignites "normal" aluminium doesn't look like melting till
well over double that temp.


Pasted extract, so even marketing Willy can see I was right all those
years ago;

"develop more pressure (up to 700 psi) than the Ficht solenoid (500
psi), and, secondly, the polarity of the coil can be reversed, allowing
for better control of the piston and a quicker plunger return. This
allows for higher engine rpm, as more fuel can be delivered in a shorter
period of time. The Ficht system relies solely on a spring to return the
piston"

& then

"Lean-burn technology has its limitations. Here’s why: A lean mixture
burns very hot. Under lean-burn conditions, once an engine reaches a
speed and load factor that generates too much heat for the cooling
system to handle, cylinder-head temperatures can rise to the point where
pistons melt and heads are damaged, and where cylinder-wall scoring is
inevitable."


K

E-Tec problems?????
 

Skipper wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote:


I wish you blokes were so keen to make the E-Tec spruikers give any
material at all to back their clearly false claims??


Take this example of recent times, in his sad efforts to support E-Tec
he comes out with total BS & you say nothing??? What are you that lonely
you dare not even ask for fear the bullies won't play with you
anymore??? Don't be, they're just the usual non boating idiots we have
to tolerate around here always have & always will, but at least hold
them to their own blatantly false claims. paste of just some E-Tec claims
all from just one E-Tec spruiker but hey this one is a true Krausite.


Yep, Krauses and his butt sniffers like Gene know nothing about boats
and real boating.


Oh Gene!!!! Read this, "cruising" @ 35MPH on his claimed E-Tecs 8-11 US
gph!!!!! The contender with twin 225 anythings will be almost 30 gph at
35mph.


Does no good confusing Krausites with phacts.


OR;- do you really think this nuffnuff has any idea what a contender
might weigh, much less that he owns one with twin 225 E-Tecs????? Come
on Gene embarrass yourself as usual & say you think this is for real.
I'll send it to the contender people for you:-)


Again, it does no good providing phacts to the Kloistered Krause Krowd.
They generate their own truths. They have ruined a once great NG with
their mind-numbing ignorance and BS.


But when the "real" side-by-side tests for speed, hole shots, etc.
facts arrived it was just another lie!!! as big & false as any the
dealers will tell:-) Except this one tries to gain cred by claiming to
have bought 2 of these slow, heavy, expensive & fuel hungry things &
that's not even mentioning the risks related to the Ficht based design &
you say nothing??? Cowards you really are.


Impossible the educate a stone, Karen.


Yet the original BS'ter who I suspect doesn't even have an E-Tec by the
way, you let off scott free??? none of you even ask??? Pathetic no
wonder you get ripped off by this low injection pressure, lean mixtures
at power, continuous spark, no proper lubrication mumbo jumbo, you've
been warned ............................. again:-)


So true!

--
Skipper

Hi Skip,

It seems lying has become a communicable disease in this NG with Krause
as the original carrier:-)

Ah deja news it's as if the dealers had never run away & hidden:-)

Runaway william tried to even deny it & I had to post his history here
just after Ficht went toes up in the ditch:-) He wouldn't even answer
the posts of desperate ripped off people he'd helped talk into buying
Ficht, now he wants another go??? na not likely.

K

E-Tec problems?????
 

Del Cecchi wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

billgran wrote:

"K. Smith" wrote:

Oh Gene!!!! Read this, "cruising" @ 35MPH on his claimed E-Tecs
8-11 US
gph!!!!! The contender with twin 225 anythings will be almost 30
gph at
35mph.

Come

on Gene embarrass yourself as usual & say you think this is for
real.
I'll send it to the contender people for you:-)


Well, once again Karen is "blown out of the water" with actual facts.

Here are the performance results with twin 2006 250hp E-TECs that only
consume 20.7 gph at about 35 mph on a heavy 30' SeaCraft, less than 11
gph per motor, just like Gene said.

That is so much better fuel economy than Karen's contention that a
boat
that size should burn 30 gph at 35 mph!


Twin 250 E-TEC - 30' SeaCraft
19" Rebel - 3 blade props

RPM MPH GPH MPG
500 2.2 0.36 6.0
1000 5.7 1.46 3.9
1500 7.9 2.97 2.6
2000 9.0 5.98 1.5
2500 14.7 12.22 1.2
3000 21.4 14.20 1.5
3500 29.0 17.19 1.7
4000 35.3 20.70 1.7
4500 41.0 24.45 1.7
5000 46.2 31.59 1.5
5400 48.7 37.84 1.3


Is the data for one motor or both motors?

My 200 HP Optimax takes 19 GPH at WOT .. so 37 GPH for 500 HP wouldnt
be bad ...


It would be unbelievable. Did you see the Bass and Walleye Boats results
I posted a while ago? etec didn't use less gas than Optimax or HPDI.
These numbers would have etec producing 50 hp more per motor at the same
fuel usage than your Optimax.

Maybe Bill Grannis will provide his opinion about the veracity of the
numbers.

All other ETec fuel data I have seen so far the ETec got their ass
whipped by the optimax (even HDPI).

Matt





Thanks for stating the bloody obvious about his fuel claims Matt & for
risking the pack turning upon you:-) it's not much fun I can tell you.

& thanks as always to smart Del; you're a straight shooter & appreciated
for it, even when you need to shoot me from time to time:-)

Runaway william & tommy too loony for school are not interested in
actual figures they're interested in selling overpriced, heavy, slow
thirsty engines at hugely inflated markups:-) Now add the Ficht historic
reliability question & you can see why they need to talk BS.

K

E-Tec problems?????
 

"K. Smith" wrote:

But hey, keep up the selective deceptions, William, just as you did when I
was warning about Ficht & just as with Ficht when they fold you'll be
run away william again. As for your other deception that E-Tec is the
3rd biggest selling OB last year that's typical of all your marketing BS
look at the numbers, what?? even with your deceptive claiming of not yet
delivered engines you have no numbers at all.

As for the reasons they'll fail?? the same as I told you in 98-99 for
Ficht, not enough actual injection pressure, poor atomisation & lean
mixture heat buildup which leads to full detonation then the engine
switches to "normal" mixture & gets full mixture. (I'll ping the
lubrication or lack thereof separately:-))

By the way the article extracts pasted below have fallen for the E-Tec
marketing BS about high melting point pistons (what a total joke that
is!!!), long long before anything melts in there the engine is in
catastrophic detonation, the remains are melted that's true but what
killed it was detonation at power. If a fuel mixture sees much more than
260C it auto ignites "normal" aluminium doesn't look like melting till
well over double that temp.

Pasted extract, so even marketing Willy can see I was right all those
years ago;

"develop more pressure (up to 700 psi) than the Ficht solenoid (500
psi), and, secondly, the polarity of the coil can be reversed, allowing
for better control of the piston and a quicker plunger return. This
allows for higher engine rpm, as more fuel can be delivered in a shorter
period of time. The Ficht system relies solely on a spring to return the
piston"

"Lean-burn technology has its limitations. Here’s why: A lean mixture
burns very hot. Under lean-burn conditions, once an engine reaches a
speed and load factor that generates too much heat for the cooling
system to handle, cylinder-head temperatures can rise to the point where
pistons melt and heads are damaged, and where cylinder-wall scoring is
inevitable."

Appreciate the detailed explanation, K. What I don't understand is why
Bill continues spruiking for these companies when so many folks have
been hurt by folks like him saying, "what, me worry." I honestly think
he doesn't understand that he'd get even more respect if he'd come clean
about Ficht & E-Tec.

--
Skipper

E-Tec problems?????
 

"K. Smith" wrote:

Hi Skip,

It seems lying has become a communicable disease in this NG with Krause
as the original carrier:-)

Ah, Deja News, it's as if the dealers had never run away & hidden:-)

Runaway William tried to even deny it & I had to post his history here
just after Ficht went toes up in the ditch:-) He wouldn't even answer
the posts of desperate ripped off people he'd helped talk into buying
Ficht, now he wants another go??? na not likely.

K

Again, Grannis does himself no favors with his continued spruiking for
these companies. I still have a lot of respect for his knowledge and
advice, and am puzzled and disappointed by his continued indefensible
Ficht & E-Tec positions. Suppose some folks just have closed minds to
the truth. Not a good trait for serious boaters.

As for the NG, believe we both know it has deteriorated significantly
over the last three years. The "regulars" trading 30 to 50 mindless
drivels each and every day have chased serious boaters to better climes.

--
Skipper

E-Tec problems?????
 

"K. Smith" wrote:

Thanks for stating the bloody obvious about his fuel claims Matt & for
risking the pack turning upon you:-) it's not much fun I can tell you.

& thanks as always to smart Del; you're a straight shooter & appreciated
for it, even when you need to shoot me from time to time:-)

Runaway william & tommy too loony for school are not interested in
actual figures they're interested in selling overpriced, heavy, slow
thirsty engines at hugely inflated markups:-) Now add the Ficht historic
reliability question & you can see why they need to talk BS.

K

I wouldn't worry about "the pack." Just consider the source and the
content of their accumulated assortment of pap.

--
Skipper

E-Tec problems?????
 

Skipper wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote:


But hey, keep up the selective deceptions, William, just as you did when I
was warning about Ficht & just as with Ficht when they fold you'll be
run away william again. As for your other deception that E-Tec is the
3rd biggest selling OB last year that's typical of all your marketing BS
look at the numbers, what?? even with your deceptive claiming of not yet
delivered engines you have no numbers at all.


As for the reasons they'll fail?? the same as I told you in 98-99 for
Ficht, not enough actual injection pressure, poor atomisation & lean
mixture heat buildup which leads to full detonation then the engine
switches to "normal" mixture & gets full mixture. (I'll ping the
lubrication or lack thereof separately:-))


By the way the article extracts pasted below have fallen for the E-Tec
marketing BS about high melting point pistons (what a total joke that
is!!!), long long before anything melts in there the engine is in
catastrophic detonation, the remains are melted that's true but what
killed it was detonation at power. If a fuel mixture sees much more than
260C it auto ignites "normal" aluminium doesn't look like melting till
well over double that temp.


Pasted extract, so even marketing Willy can see I was right all those
years ago;


"develop more pressure (up to 700 psi) than the Ficht solenoid (500
psi), and, secondly, the polarity of the coil can be reversed, allowing
for better control of the piston and a quicker plunger return. This
allows for higher engine rpm, as more fuel can be delivered in a shorter
period of time. The Ficht system relies solely on a spring to return the
piston"


"Lean-burn technology has its limitations. Here’s why: A lean mixture
burns very hot. Under lean-burn conditions, once an engine reaches a
speed and load factor that generates too much heat for the cooling
system to handle, cylinder-head temperatures can rise to the point where
pistons melt and heads are damaged, and where cylinder-wall scoring is
inevitable."


Appreciate the detailed explanation, K. What I don't understand is why
Bill continues spruiking for these companies when so many folks have
been hurt by folks like him saying, "what, me worry." I honestly think
he doesn't understand that he'd get even more respect if he'd come clean
about Ficht & E-Tec.

--
Skipper

Skip you give him credit as a normal human he's not he's a dealer:-)
Even when the Fichts were ruining countless peoples' pleasure time he
was still claiming all was well with them.

After OMC went bankrupt along with the silly warranty cover they sold we
don't know what Willy had to say, for he ran away:-)

As for the NG it's at least not as political & their childish posts
about OT toys is better than before.

K

E-Tec problems?????
 

\ Thanks for stating the bloody obvious about his fuel claims Matt &
for
risking the pack turning upon you:-) it's not much fun I can tell you.

Actually I am just stating fuel use for a 200 HP Optimax :) And make
the observations that for 2 engines fuel use would be good for one
maybe not.

My measurements are obtained via a smartcraft gage and correct except
unintended error.

The whole thing is he

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/1...artcopy0mb.jpg


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

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 believe your theories about lean burn and detonation to be accurate.
Also accurate is that the technology seems to be mastered quiet well by
now. If thats the case for ETec will have to be seen.

Also I think the truth is the truth and should be told. Unfortunately
we dont know yet WHAT the truth actually is.

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

Matt

E-Tec problems?????
 

"K. Smith" wrote:

Appreciate the detailed explanation, K. What I don't understand is why
Bill continues spruiking for these companies when so many folks have
been hurt by folks like him saying, "what, me worry." I honestly think
he doesn't understand that he'd get even more respect if he'd come clean
about Ficht & E-Tec.

Skip, you give him credit as a normal human, he's not. he's a dealer:-)
Even when the Fichts were ruining countless peoples' pleasure time he
was still claiming all was well with them.

I know, and will never under why he couldn't admit the truth.

After OMC went bankrupt along with the silly warranty cover they sold, we
don't know what Willy had to say, for he ran away:-)

It's all in the Google archives. A truly sad episode for a respected
industry pro. He should have climbed above his loyalty to these
manufacturers, for it is the public that he ultimately serves.

As for the NG it's at least not as political & their childish posts
about OT toys is better than before.

But their intelligence level is so damn low. I wouldn't mind that they
don't know boats and boating if they weren't so damn intellectually
slow.

--
Skipper

E-Tec problems?????
 

M wrote:

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 believe your theories about lean burn and detonation to be accurate.
Also accurate is that the technology seems to be mastered quiet well by
now. If thats the case for ETec will have to be seen.

Also I think the truth is the truth and should be told. Unfortunately
we dont know yet WHAT the truth actually is.

Matt,

Review the NG Google archives for '98-2000 for Ficht. Look closely at
the contributions from K and Grannis. That should tell you a lot about
your proposed purchase and the respective positions of these two. One
was proven right, the other wrong. Check it out.

--
Skipper

E-Tec problems?????
 

yes. For FICHT Karen was spot on ... However that does not mean that
ETec motors will take the same fate.

Take in mind that the Optimax were blowing up too but I think its fair
to say that they are holding up as well as any other motor by now.

Time will tell about the ETec.

I just dont think I want to be the Beta tester ;)

Matt

E-Tec problems?????
 

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...


It would be unbelievable. Did you see the Bass and Walleye Boats results
I posted a while ago? etec didn't use less gas than Optimax or HPDI.



Del,

Keep in mind, those fuel numbers in B&WB are for the HO series of E-TECs
which are their bass boat performance motors where fuel economy is not the
major priority.

E-Tec problems?????
 

"Billgran" wrote in message
.. .

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...


It would be unbelievable. Did you see the Bass and Walleye Boats
results I posted a while ago? etec didn't use less gas than Optimax
or HPDI.



Del,

Keep in mind, those fuel numbers in B&WB are for the HO series of
E-TECs which are their bass boat performance motors where fuel economy
is not the major priority.

Check out this article
http://bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=943489
for 250hp comparison.
at 3.3 mpg and 75 mph, that comes out to what, 22 gph at WOT?

Other BandWboats articles at
http://bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=1059733
http://bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=1059625

Too bad the tables aren't in the web version of the articles.
It isn't clear to me what the difference between a regular and HO version
is, since if they are both 200s, the gov't says they can't be more than
220 hp.

del

E-Tec problems?????
 

Billgran wrote:
"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...

It would be unbelievable. Did you see the Bass and Walleye Boats results
I posted a while ago? etec didn't use less gas than Optimax or HPDI.




Del,

Keep in mind, those fuel numbers in B&WB are for the HO series of E-TECs
which are their bass boat performance motors where fuel economy is not the
major priority.


Listen runaway either you're deliberately spreading untruths or you're
just so swept away in the marketing BS you've lost the ability to think.

500HP on 37 us gph is completely over the top, it's better than any of
the big engine makers car or boat can manage with the latest tech 4 strokes.

Even your dealer lies page claims the 250HP E-Tecs use 22 gph (that's
each for the dumbos) but that's also an outright lie in itself!!!
because your same marketing page also claims the 225 burns 21.5 gph so
just runaway runaway with your marketing BS, it now puts you in the same
bin as Krause & the brain dead dog trainer. (bins are always executable?)

You pretend you "believe" it yet you never post other "independent"
figures which show the E-Tecs as fuel hungry??? Why is that??? you have
just missed them???? You're not a victim of this attempted huge
deception you're about to try on the US market, but a full part of it.

No runaway you're just here to market your latest high markup product &
like you did with Ficht you'll say anything to suck a sale out of anyone.

K

E-Tec problems?????
 

M wrote:

\ Thanks for stating the bloody obvious about his fuel claims Matt &
for

risking the pack turning upon you:-) it's not much fun I can tell you.


Actually I am just stating fuel use for a 200 HP Optimax :) And make
the observations that for 2 engines fuel use would be good for one
maybe not.

My measurements are obtained via a smartcraft gage and correct except
unintended error.

The whole thing is he

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/1...artcopy0mb.jpg


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.


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.

Fuel consumption is such an easy one for marketers to fudge it's always
there & can be a significant factor when making a buying decision (more
so theses days with fuel prices as they are). Even though Govts have
stepped in with motor cars, they still push the boundaries of reality in
their advertising sometimes.

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.


I believe your theories about lean burn and detonation to be accurate.
Also accurate is that the technology seems to be mastered quiet well by
now. If thats the case for ETec will have to be seen.

All the really big motor people have been spruiked with the Ficht
technology for years & years (orbital also for that matter) & all have
rejected it. The fact that yet another none mainstream engine builder
(even more so now BRP is a family Co) is having yet another go at
marketing them with no published patents as to exactly how they've dealt
with the core issues, means for me they're just scamming the public
again, hoping enough of them will hold together long enough that they
can get away with it.

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.

Also I think the truth is the truth and should be told. Unfortunately
we dont know yet WHAT the truth actually is.

The spruikers, dealers & the manufacturer will never ever tell the
truth, their myriad priors confirm that is just never going to happen.
Runaway william was still spruiking Ficht in this NG with claims all was
well right up till a few weeks (the dealers had prior knowledge) before
OMC went toes up in a table drain, leaving everyone who believed him
holding a worthless engine (even if still running) on the stern of a now
worthless boat, covered by a worthless warranty.

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 ...............

K

Matt

E-Tec problems?????
 

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 ;)


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.

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.


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

- ANY issue would be VERY costly

- An automotive motor is expected to last 10+ years

- 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.

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

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

- 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


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 ..

Matt

E-Tec problems?????
 

"K. Smith" wrote:

Billgran wrote:

Keep in mind, those fuel numbers in B&WB are for the HO series of E-TECs
which are their bass boat performance motors where fuel economy is not the
major priority.

Listen runaway either you're deliberately spreading untruths or you're
just so swept away in the marketing BS you've lost the ability to think.

Which?

--
Skipper

E-Tec problems?????
 

Matt,

Very little fuel use data for E-TECs? Take a look at e-tecinfonet.org for
some performance vs consumption numbers on several different boat/motor
combinations.

Agree that owner data can be inaccurate unless a fuel flow meter and GPS is
used.

Butch
"M" wrote in message
oups.com...

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 ;)


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.

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.


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

- ANY issue would be VERY costly

- An automotive motor is expected to last 10+ years

- 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.

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

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

- 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


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 ..

Matt

E-Tec problems?????
 

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
ink.net...
Matt,

Very little fuel use data for E-TECs? Take a look at e-tecinfonet.org
for some performance vs consumption numbers on several different
boat/motor combinations.

Agree that owner data can be inaccurate unless a fuel flow meter and
GPS is used.

Please note that that is exactly what Bass and Walleye Boats does.

Butch
"M" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip