basskisser wrote:

K. Smith wrote:
Paste from an "independent" magazine test.

Not surprisingly given its strong on-water performance, the Mercury
250XS pulled the most horsepower (252 hp at 5200 rpm). Next was the
Yamaha (246 hp at 5600 rpm). Evinrude brought up the rear (239 hp at
5600 rpm).

In terms of torque, the Yamaha 250 HPDI VMax edged Mercury with 268
lb.-ft. at 3800 rpm, vs. the Merc's 267 lb.-ft. at 4400 rpm.
Evinrude came in a distant third, with 250 lb.-ft. at 4000 rpm.

end paste;

Gee those pesky "independent" tests, the dealers must be making up the
excuses as we type:-) look at the lack of E-Tec torque!!! Woohoo this
before your season even starts!!!!

Yes yes I know it's all technically legal, but be aware when the HP
numbers get big so does that 10% allowance. I assume E-Tec charge for a
full 250HP??? Oops silly me now I remember, that's right they're MORE
expensive than the others.

Either cite, or post the ENTIRE article.

Why should she, the point was made. And a very good point it was.

--
Skipper

Skipper wrote:


Either cite, or post the ENTIRE article.

Why should she, the point was made. And a very good point it was.

--
Skipper

One links or posts the entire article because if the point made is a
valid one, the rest of the article will support it. Many people are
skeptical enough that they are unwilling to accept a few sentences,
pulled out of context, as an exact or definitive summation.

People (with a lot less integrity than Ms. Smith) have been known,
sometimes regularly, to use highly selected snippets taken out of
context. Some of the more malevolent and screwed up among that subset
will blatantly alter the quoted material- even when there is absolutely
*no* hope that they could ever get away undetected. While Karen and I
have a history of disagreeing, I accept without reservation that the
sentences she quoted read exactly the way she reported them.

(It could be that the magazine article was not online, and that typing
the entire article would be tedious and there is no available link. In
that case, the title of the publication and the issue # would be
useful.....)

For an example of linking an entire article, Skipper, if I were to
offer you some advice for your next "cruise" it would be better to
offer you a link to this article:

http://www.cruisecritic.com/features...les.cfm?ID=132

than to post a few sentences or even a paragraph taken out of context.
See what I mean?

wrote:

Skipper wrote:

Either cite, or post the ENTIRE article.

Why should she, the point was made. And a very good point it was.

One links or posts the entire article because if the point made is a
valid one, the rest of the article will support it. Many people are
skeptical enough that they are unwilling to accept a few sentences,
pulled out of context, as an exact or definitive summation.

People (with a lot less integrity than Ms. Smith) have been known,
sometimes regularly, to use highly selected snippets taken out of
context.

Yes, you occasionally run into some real scoundrels in the boat
business, some with almost no personal integrity at all. I've noticed
that most of these turds got their training in used car sales...if you
know what I mean.

--
Skipper

He http://bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=943489




On 27 Feb 2006 07:51:23 -0800, wrote:


Skipper wrote:


Either cite, or post the ENTIRE article.

Why should she, the point was made. And a very good point it was.

--
Skipper

One links or posts the entire article because if the point made is a
valid one, the rest of the article will support it. Many people are
skeptical enough that they are unwilling to accept a few sentences,
pulled out of context, as an exact or definitive summation.

People (with a lot less integrity than Ms. Smith) have been known,
sometimes regularly, to use highly selected snippets taken out of
context. Some of the more malevolent and screwed up among that subset
will blatantly alter the quoted material- even when there is absolutely
*no* hope that they could ever get away undetected. While Karen and I
have a history of disagreeing, I accept without reservation that the
sentences she quoted read exactly the way she reported them.

(It could be that the magazine article was not online, and that typing
the entire article would be tedious and there is no available link. In
that case, the title of the publication and the issue # would be
useful.....)

For an example of linking an entire article, Skipper, if I were to
offer you some advice for your next "cruise" it would be better to
offer you a link to this article:

http://www.cruisecritic.com/features...les.cfm?ID=132

than to post a few sentences or even a paragraph taken out of context.
See what I mean?

--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Skipper wrote:
basskisser wrote:

K. Smith wrote:
Paste from an "independent" magazine test.

Not surprisingly given its strong on-water performance, the Mercury
250XS pulled the most horsepower (252 hp at 5200 rpm). Next was the
Yamaha (246 hp at 5600 rpm). Evinrude brought up the rear (239 hp at
5600 rpm).

In terms of torque, the Yamaha 250 HPDI VMax edged Mercury with 268
lb.-ft. at 3800 rpm, vs. the Merc's 267 lb.-ft. at 4400 rpm.
Evinrude came in a distant third, with 250 lb.-ft. at 4000 rpm.

end paste;

Gee those pesky "independent" tests, the dealers must be making up the
excuses as we type:-) look at the lack of E-Tec torque!!! Woohoo this
before your season even starts!!!!

Yes yes I know it's all technically legal, but be aware when the HP
numbers get big so does that 10% allowance. I assume E-Tec charge for a
full 250HP??? Oops silly me now I remember, that's right they're MORE
expensive than the others.

Either cite, or post the ENTIRE article.

Why should she, the point was made. And a very good point it was.

--
Skipper

Without article, or cite it was simply an opinion by someone who
doesn't have the technical training needed to intelligently offer any
facts above what she's allegedly snipped from an alleged article.

I have to agree that it should say where the data is from .. if its
available online a link should be given too.

Not to suggest that here but often data that is without all the article
can be misleading ..

The Merc in this case has 5% more HP which is hardly noticeable .. The
thing is that you cant conclude that mers have more HP than rude... If
you test 2 different motors it may look the otherway round as there are
differences in each motor.

The data would only valid if a certain population of motors, lets say
10 was tested. From that data you could see SD and average HP. That
comparison would be more meaningful.

Matt

P.S.

its no secret that the data is from he

http://www.bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=943489

Matt

http://bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=943489




On 27 Feb 2006 10:02:45 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


Skipper wrote:
basskisser wrote:

K. Smith wrote:
Paste from an "independent" magazine test.

Not surprisingly given its strong on-water performance, the Mercury
250XS pulled the most horsepower (252 hp at 5200 rpm). Next was the
Yamaha (246 hp at 5600 rpm). Evinrude brought up the rear (239 hp at
5600 rpm).

In terms of torque, the Yamaha 250 HPDI VMax edged Mercury with 268
lb.-ft. at 3800 rpm, vs. the Merc's 267 lb.-ft. at 4400 rpm.
Evinrude came in a distant third, with 250 lb.-ft. at 4000 rpm.

end paste;

Gee those pesky "independent" tests, the dealers must be making up the
excuses as we type:-) look at the lack of E-Tec torque!!! Woohoo this
before your season even starts!!!!

Yes yes I know it's all technically legal, but be aware when the HP
numbers get big so does that 10% allowance. I assume E-Tec charge for a
full 250HP??? Oops silly me now I remember, that's right they're MORE
expensive than the others.

Either cite, or post the ENTIRE article.

Why should she, the point was made. And a very good point it was.

--
Skipper

Without article, or cite it was simply an opinion by someone who
doesn't have the technical training needed to intelligently offer any
facts above what she's allegedly snipped from an alleged article.

--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

K. Smith wrote:
Paste from an "independent" magazine test.

Not surprisingly given its strong on-water performance, the Mercury
250XS pulled the most horsepower (252 hp at 5200 rpm). Next was the
Yamaha (246 hp at 5600 rpm). Evinrude brought up the rear (239 hp at
5600 rpm).

In terms of torque, the Yamaha 250 HPDI VMax edged Mercury with 268
lb.-ft. at 3800 rpm, vs. the Merc's 267 lb.-ft. at 4400 rpm.
Evinrude came in a distant third, with 250 lb.-ft. at 4000 rpm.

end paste;

Gee those pesky "independent" tests, the dealers must be making up
the
excuses as we type:-) look at the lack of E-Tec torque!!! Woohoo this
before your season even starts!!!!

Yes yes I know it's all technically legal, but be aware when the HP
numbers get big so does that 10% allowance. I assume E-Tec charge for
a
full 250HP??? Oops silly me now I remember, that's right they're MORE
expensive than the others.



Hey Karen,

Twice in the above post you mention the lack of E-TEC torque and HP. If you
would read the magazine article, it is from March of 2003 and they are
comparing the FICHT motor (Evinrude DI), not an E-TEC!!!!! That is 2
years BEFORE the V-6 E-TEC was put into production.

Talk about "spruiking" in reverse. Bad mouthing an engine and not even
knowing which one is being tested !!!!

Besides that, notice that the magazine comments on how well the FICHT runs
compared to the others, and that was the one they preferred.

Bill Grannis
service manager

"Billgran" wrote in message
news

K. Smith wrote:
Paste from an "independent" magazine test.

Not surprisingly given its strong on-water performance, the
Mercury
250XS pulled the most horsepower (252 hp at 5200 rpm). Next was
the
Yamaha (246 hp at 5600 rpm). Evinrude brought up the rear (239 hp
at
5600 rpm).

In terms of torque, the Yamaha 250 HPDI VMax edged Mercury with
268
lb.-ft. at 3800 rpm, vs. the Merc's 267 lb.-ft. at 4400 rpm.
Evinrude came in a distant third, with 250 lb.-ft. at 4000 rpm.

end paste;

Gee those pesky "independent" tests, the dealers must be making
up
the
excuses as we type:-) look at the lack of E-Tec torque!!! Woohoo
this
before your season even starts!!!!

Yes yes I know it's all technically legal, but be aware when the
HP
numbers get big so does that 10% allowance. I assume E-Tec charge
for
a
full 250HP??? Oops silly me now I remember, that's right they're
MORE
expensive than the others.



Hey Karen,

Twice in the above post you mention the lack of E-TEC torque and HP.
If you
would read the magazine article, it is from March of 2003 and they are
comparing the FICHT motor (Evinrude DI), not an E-TEC!!!!! That
is 2
years BEFORE the V-6 E-TEC was put into production.

Talk about "spruiking" in reverse. Bad mouthing an engine and not even
knowing which one is being tested !!!!

Besides that, notice that the magazine comments on how well the FICHT
runs
compared to the others, and that was the one they preferred.

Bill Grannis
service manager

The article from a few months ago that I posted the fuel consumption
figures from was most certainly an etec. You work for the magazine,
right? Their numbers shouldn't be a surprise to you.

I'm not bad mouthing anyone, but some folks are posting like an etec is
some sort of magic motor that gets way better gas mileage than a Optimax
or HPDI or 4Stroke, which doesn't seem to be confirmed by B&WB. Great
magazine, by the way. I read it cover to cover every issue.

del