| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
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. K |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
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 |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
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? |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
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. |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Harry Krause wrote:
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. There's no evidence extant that Ms. Smith has any valid technical training whatsoever. However are you going to get by these next seven weeks while Skipper is off cruising? K will be the only one with enough knowledge and experience to show you the errors of your ways. BTW, did you see that nice article about cruising locations published by Grandma Rosalie in the cruising group, Harry. You really should heed the advice of those with real experience. Ta ta. -- Skipper |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
|
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
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 |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
P.S.
its no secret that the data is from he http://www.bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=943489 Matt |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
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! ***** ****************************************** |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Harry Krause wrote:
This is science? No, this is b.s. And that, my friend, should be on the signature of all your posts. -- Skipper |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
I havent read the whole article but the points you raise dont make this a very thorough report and the data should be seen with some caution .... Esp. since only one of each motor was tested its not much you can conclude from there.. Matt |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Harry Krause wrote:
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, my father was a "professional" boat racer in New England and New York. By professional, I don't mean he made a living at it. He didn't. But...he had factory sponsorship. He raced outboard hydroplanes and "utility" runabouts. For some reason, the engines he was supplied put out a lot more horses than the stock motors many competitors bought from their dealers. I wonder why. :} I raced hydros out west in the 50s. Never heard of your father. You got any proof you can post that he competed in one of them minor East Coasts circuits? -- Skipper |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
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 |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
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 |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Billgran wrote:
Hey Karen, Twice in the above post you mention the lack of E-TEC torque and HP... OK, Bill, while you continue to go after and try to insult K, perhaps it time for you to answer one question. Karen warned this NG about Ficht problems *before* the collapse and bankruptcy of OMC. You were spruiking OMC and Ficht throughout her warnings. Thousands were hurt in the Ficht debacle. Is it not time for you to come clean and apologize to all those folks you led astray? -- Skipper |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
"Skipper" wrote in message ... Billgran wrote: Hey Karen, Twice in the above post you mention the lack of E-TEC torque and HP... OK, Bill, while you continue to go after and try to insult K..... Skipper, I have no beef with you because you do not expound on the E-TEC one way or another, as it is not your expertise. You do continue to defend someone who knows nothing about DI motors except what some blokes told her. Now here she outright lies about a magazine article, thinking folks won't realize it is about a 3 year ago story that has NOTHING to do about E-TEC. Don't you think she should apologize for trying to "hoodwink" people who read her posts? There is an old saying, that goes, "Never bet on a "nag" in a thoroughbred horserace". Don't you think that is appropriate in this situation??? |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Billgran wrote:
"Skipper" wrote... OK, Bill, while you continue to go after and try to insult K, perhaps it time for you to answer one question. Karen warned this NG about Ficht problems *before* the collapse and bankruptcy of OMC. You were spruiking OMC and Ficht throughout her warnings. Thousands were hurt in the Ficht debacle. Is it not time for you to come clean and apologize to all those folks you led astray? Skipper, Don't you think she should apologize for trying to "hoodwink" people who read her posts? There is an old saying, that goes, "Never bet on a "nag" in a thoroughbred horserace". Don't you think that is appropriate in this situation??? Actually, in light of the Ficht debacle and your actions in encouraging folks to buy these troubled engines, indeed, I believe an apology is in order. Thousands were hurt, Bill. -- Skipper |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
I read through that "review," and started laughing almost
immediately. There are so many "variances" from a scientific test that the entire exercise has no validity. The easiest one to start with is this: the Merc was a motor prepped for the test by that company's race division. Once you see that, there's no reason to read any further. Then there's the slight problem of one manufacturer not having a prop that'll allow its engine to reach the top of the max RPM range. This is science? No, this is b.s. I just read the whole thing ... The merc fit the rules as you can purchase it as is. So its not a one of akind motor. Same with the prop. It is too bad that one manufacturer didnt come up to rpm but they dont have a prop for that ... so not much that can be done here Matt |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Sorry; the "merc" came from "merc racing." It was tweaked. Yes thats true .. it was hand assembled and likely tweaked by merc racing. but the fact is that you or I can walk in the store and buy these kind of motors. Matt |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
"M" wrote in message oups.com... Sorry; the "merc" came from "merc racing." It was tweaked. Yes thats true .. it was hand assembled and likely tweaked by merc racing. but the fact is that you or I can walk in the store and buy these kind of motors. Matt but, as I recall, it still had a lower list price than the etec. :-) del |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
"Billgran" wrote in message . .. 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 |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
yes I found that interesting (and hard to beleive) too :)
But if you look at the total cost for the boat and motor the merc was the most expensive.. Matt P.S. Take in mind that one of the other posters was right that it was a FICHT not Etec. |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Skipper wrote: Billgran wrote: "Skipper" wrote... OK, Bill, while you continue to go after and try to insult K, perhaps it time for you to answer one question. Karen warned this NG about Ficht problems *before* the collapse and bankruptcy of OMC. You were spruiking OMC and Ficht throughout her warnings. Thousands were hurt in the Ficht debacle. Is it not time for you to come clean and apologize to all those folks you led astray? Skipper, Don't you think she should apologize for trying to "hoodwink" people who read her posts? There is an old saying, that goes, "Never bet on a "nag" in a thoroughbred horserace". Don't you think that is appropriate in this situation??? Actually, in light of the Ficht debacle and your actions in encouraging folks to buy these troubled engines, indeed, I believe an apology is in order. Thousands were hurt, Bill. -- Skipper "Thousands were hurt?" Are you kidding? This group is a couple of dozen guys who sit around gabbing among themselves. Supposed to be about boats. Only if everybody ran out and bought a 75 engines apiece were "thousands" ever hurt, and we regularly hear from owners of these engines who have been satisfied all along. Obviously there are differences of opinion on this issue, and those are best resolved by examining facts rather than calling for people of he opposing stripe to "apologize". It probably would have been useful for Karen to disclose that the article was written in 2003, rather than "just before your season's starting....", but let's give her the benefit of the doubt. Something published in the US in 2003 may just now be showing up as a reprint in an Australian boating magazine. BTW, how does this concern you? You don't own anything upon which to mount an outboard of any variety .. |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
wrote:
Actually, in light of the Ficht debacle and your actions in encouraging folks to buy these troubled engines, indeed, I believe an apology is in order. Thousands were hurt, Bill. "Thousands were hurt?" Are you kidding? "Shortly after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Chicago on December 22, OMC announced that it would no longer warranty any of its products. This left tens of thousands of consumers without protection if their boats or engines failed and thousands of OMC dealers with large inventories no longer backed by their manufacturers." http://my.boatus.com/consumer/OMCBankruptcy.asp BTW, how does this concern you? You don't own anything upon which to mount an outboard of any variety Wrong again, Chuckster. I think all readers should trek on up to Seattle and see for themselves what an incompetent and unscrupulous schlort your really are. -- Skipper |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Gene Kearns wrote:
Skipper penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Either cite, or post the ENTIRE article. Why should she, the point was made. And a very good point it was. Because any honest poster with more than a 3rd grade education knows that is the proper thing to do. The ENTIRE article? Not always needed, Gene. Perhaps the title of this thread should have been 'Clarity of Purpose'. That way, we could better focus on the major point of this thread, responsible reporting. K warned NG readers about Ficht technology (and in depth and detail) over a year BEFORE the schidt hit the fan and the Ficht failure became common knowledge. During this same time, Grannis was spruiking Ficht while insulting NG contributors. Well, lo and behold, turns out K was right and Grannis wrong. Tens of thousands of Ficht customers were left high and dry. So, what did we learn from that episode? We learned that a gal from Aussieland could take on a recognized and respected technical guru and be vindicated. We also learned not to trust the advice of gurus quite so much in the future because they might well be wrong. We also learned that Bill's pride and ego would not let him admit that he led many down the primrose path. Bill Grannis *is* a recognized and respected industry expert. Thousands were hurt in the Ficht debacle. This NG should be used as a forum to discuss such issues and warn folks of potential disasters. K did her job. Grannis should at least tip his hat to the good job K did in warning readers of the Ficht problem, she was the only one doing so. I thing he'd be a bigger man for doing so. -- Skipper |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Skipper wrote: Harry Krause wrote: In the late 1940s and early 1950s, my father was a "professional" boat racer in New England and New York. By professional, I don't mean he made a living at it. He didn't. But...he had factory sponsorship. He raced outboard hydroplanes and "utility" runabouts. For some reason, the engines he was supplied put out a lot more horses than the stock motors many competitors bought from their dealers. I wonder why. :} I raced hydros out west in the 50s. Never heard of your father. You got any proof you can post that he competed in one of them minor East Coasts circuits? -- Skipper Skipper do YOU have "any proof you can post" that shows YOU have competed in hydro racing? |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
basskisser wrote: Skipper wrote: Harry Krause wrote: In the late 1940s and early 1950s, my father was a "professional" boat racer in New England and New York. By professional, I don't mean he made a living at it. He didn't. But...he had factory sponsorship. He raced outboard hydroplanes and "utility" runabouts. For some reason, the engines he was supplied put out a lot more horses than the stock motors many competitors bought from their dealers. I wonder why. :} I raced hydros out west in the 50s. Never heard of your father. You got any proof you can post that he competed in one of them minor East Coasts circuits? -- Skipper Skipper do YOU have "any proof you can post" that shows YOU have competed in hydro racing? Back in the 1950's, nearly all of us kids were "hydroplane" racers. The Thunderboats were in their heydey in the 50's, as there were still plenty of surplus WWII rotary aircraft engines available. I "raced hydros" too. If you had a bicycle, you didn't dare appear on the street without playing cards flapping in the spokes and trailing a "hydro" cobbled together from a couple of scraps of wood and a few nails. We'd race around the school playground or an empty parking lot, taking it all so seriously and avoiding the temptation to "spaz out" by shouting "Vroom, vroom, vrooom!" in the process. (Such sound effects would have been considered very childish). |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Harry Krause wrote:
basskisser wrote: Skipper wrote: Harry Krause wrote: In the late 1940s and early 1950s, my father was a "professional" boat racer in New England and New York. By professional, I don't mean he made a living at it. He didn't. But...he had factory sponsorship. He raced outboard hydroplanes and "utility" runabouts. For some reason, the engines he was supplied put out a lot more horses than the stock motors many competitors bought from their dealers. I wonder why. :} I raced hydros out west in the 50s. Never heard of your father. You got any proof you can post that he competed in one of them minor East Coasts circuits? -- Skipper Skipper do YOU have "any proof you can post" that shows YOU have competed in hydro racing? Skipper apparently is a lot older than I thought. He ought to be shopping for caskets, not boats. Is Skipper in the same age bracket your dad would have been? |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Skipper wrote: wrote: Actually, in light of the Ficht debacle and your actions in encouraging folks to buy these troubled engines, indeed, I believe an apology is in order. Thousands were hurt, Bill. "Thousands were hurt?" Are you kidding? "Shortly after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Chicago on December 22, OMC announced that it would no longer warranty any of its products. This left tens of thousands of consumers without protection if their boats or engines failed and thousands of OMC dealers with large inventories no longer backed by their manufacturers." http://my.boatus.com/consumer/OMCBankruptcy.asp BTW, how does this concern you? You don't own anything upon which to mount an outboard of any variety Wrong again, Chuckster. I think all readers should trek on up to Seattle and see for themselves what an incompetent and unscrupulous schlort your really are. -- Skipper You seriously expect Bill to apologize for the OMC bankruptcy? How daffy. I always welcome a visit from anybody coming to Seattle. A guy from Derby, KS came up here severalyears ago and began singing my praises very enthusiastiacally, in this forum, immediately thereafter. Derby's a pretty small place and the odds are you probably know this guy. I could repost the glowing accolades yet again- but that would be immodest. Years later, the guy claimed that in reality he immediately developed the impression I was a true POS. I asked him, "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?" To be fair, I do think he insisted he was lying "then." So, a self-confessed liar from your same town has a low opinion of me. Darn. You now I live and breathe to try to make a good impression on posers and liars....(not). But back to boats. What do you own upon which you could mount an outboard? A workbench bracket situated above a water-filled garbage can? When was the last time you were out on a boat (not as a charter client or cruise ship passenger)? I don't expect any answers, really. You come around here to stir up trouble, not discuss boats. You claim superior expertise and disparage the "boating CV" of others here- but the only story you have ever shared about your own boating experience (with the gas cans and the 30-foot waves in the Sea of Cortez) is such a lucky accident or obvious lie that it only makes you look even more ridiculous. My challenge to you, Dave Mann of Derby, Kansas, would be to put up or shut up. Until or unless you are willing to share some evidence of being a boater or even owning a boat that sits unused in your driveway (did the sale on your 22-foot Bayliner from a few years ago fall through?) you have very little license to sit in judgment on the boating experiences of other participants in this group and certainly no business "dissing" the entire group as you recently did with your "boating CV" remark. |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
|
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Skipper wrote: Is that so? Yup. If you know so darn much about boats, Dave, you ought to know the make, model, LOA, etc of the boat you own. You ought to know where and when you use it. You should be able to discuss boating related issues without starting a flame war or cut 'n pasting something from the Ku Klux Klan website. But all we hear from you is negative remarks about nearly everybody else in the group, and not a scintilla of evidence that you have even been aboard a boat since you reported your Bayliner runabout sold a few years back. You contribute nothing to the group except stirring up discord. Even your childish "nautical jeopardy" crap has taken a sick and perverse turn to become a vehicle for personal attack. |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Harry Krause wrote: Skipper wrote: wrote: You seriously expect Bill to apologize for the OMC bankruptcy? How daffy. Nice spin asshole. Speaking of spin, weren't you bragging the other day about spinning out of here for a "seven-week cruise"? What happened? You going back to the slam to finish the rest of your term? Harry, it's not "the slam", it's the mental hospital... |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Harry Krause wrote:
Speaking of spin, weren't you bragging the other day about spinning out of here for a "seven-week cruise"? What happened? You going back to the slam to finish the rest of your term? Harry, it's not "the slam", it's the mental hospital... Maybe he's going to a Klan Konklave Or perhaps: http://tinyurl.com/22qec -- Skipper |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Gene Kearns wrote:
Skipper penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: The ENTIRE article? Not always needed, Gene. Perhaps the title of this thread should have been 'Clarity of Purpose'. Exactly my point. Good. I don't need nor do I wish to be told what to believe. Based on some of your "contributions" and continued spamming, I'm not sure that's true. That way, we could better focus on the major point of this thread, responsible reporting. K warned NG readers about Ficht technology (in depth and detail) over a year BEFORE the schidt hit the fan and the Ficht failure became common knowledge. Skipper, if you would EVER read for content, I have already debunked this myth... K's warnings were not myth but fact. During this same time, Grannis was spruiking Ficht while insulting NG contributors. Well, lo and behold, turns out K was right and Grannis wrong. Tens of thousands of Ficht customers were left high and dry. I really have trouble understanding a midwesterner from the USA using the term "spruiking," unless, of course, he is letting someone else think for him. My position on Evinrude's poor business ethics has already been voiced, without any citation, since it is my opinion. Which has absolutely nothing to do with my factual statement above, of course. So, what did we learn from that episode? We learned that a gal from Aussieland could take on a recognized and respected technical guru and be vindicated. We also learned not to trust the advice of gurus quite so much in the future because they might well be wrong. We also learned that Bill's pride and ego would not let him admit that he led many down the primrose path. This is a textbook example of how one or more incorrect premisses yields a flawed and incorrect result. K, to this day, still doesn't understand the true reason that the Ficht engine failed. What a load of horse pucky. -- Skipper |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... This is a textbook example of how one or more incorrect premisses yields a flawed and incorrect result. K, to this day, still doesn't understand the true reason that the Ficht engine failed. Apparently, you don't either, but I'm sure that won't end the mutual admiration society between Derby and Darby. What is the true reason Ficht failed? I don't claim to know, although some sort of sooting was mentioned back at the time. But there was a lot of spin going on at the time so I don't know whether to believe it was sooting or prolonged operation at high load low rpm or both or something else entirely. Perhaps it was just poor purchasing decisions for components. Or maybe Ficht was Fine, and the company was grossly mismanaged. del |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
"M" wrote in message oups.com... yes I found that interesting (and hard to beleive) too :) But if you look at the total cost for the boat and motor the merc was the most expensive.. Matt P.S. Take in mind that one of the other posters was right that it was a FICHT not Etec. I was referring to the recent "shootout" http://bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=1059733 ..."Finally, there's price. Everyone knows that no one pays list. However, it's usually where the bargaining starts, unlike when dealing for a car or truck. In this arena, Merc's $16,664 list price is a bargain, even when it only includes the Torque Master lower unit and 1.75:1 ratio. To get an engine equipped like our test unit (with 1.62:1 ratio Sport Master gearcase), you'll have to shell out another $1286, for a total of $17,950. The Evinrude lists at $20,421, but keep in mind that BRP puts out an intentionally high list price to give their dealers more wiggle room when bargaining. Yamaha lists the suggested retail for its VMax 225 HPDI as $16,720, which is the best price of the three, considering how it's equipped. My guess is that any of these engines would be available from most dealers for somewhere between $16,000~$17,500." The web version says nothing about total package. But since the boats were identical... |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
you are right ...
but i was referring to this one: http://www.bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=943489 For many outboarders, cost is a major factor. Based on suggested retail, Mercury wins in this respect as well, with a list price of $15,860. That's almost $2000 less than Yamaha's $17,620 sticker, and nearly $3000 less than Evinrude's $18,531 price tag. What's important to know is that Merc's dealer margins are significantly smaller than Yamaha's or Evinrude's - meaning, there's less room for haggling. Hence, your actual cost likely will be much closer than list prices suggest. Base Price (w/ Mercury 200 EFI): $36,450 Price As Tested (Evinrude 250): $44,982 (Merc 250XS OptiMax): $48,475 (Yamaha 250 HPDI VMax): $44,792 There must be a typo as it doesnt make sense.. Matt |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
wrote:
Harry Krause wrote: 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. There's no evidence extant that Ms. Smith has any valid technical training whatsoever. There a cool new web site just for this sort of situation. It's called google.com. Might want to look into it. I plugged in "Not surprisingly given its strong on-water performance" and what do you know... http://www.bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=943489 -phish Well done phish & thanks for that. Of course like you I suspect "some" are not as stupid as they pretend, is it even possible for "some"??? Of course some are more stupid than they lie:-) It's part of they object to my on topic boating post because it doesn't follow the corporate marketing line. The problem I have is that the dealers in E-Tec have started a full on Ficht replay of BS advertising, so when there is non Company material I stumble across I'll share it. Of course the dealers will be running their stuff unchallenged as they wish. K |
E-Tec problems?? well yes if you want the HP you pay for
Harry Krause wrote:
As I posted previously, there is NO evidence whatsoever that Ms. Smith has any valid technical training whatsoever, or ANY legitimate credentials relating to any sort of marine engines. None, zip, zilch. As previously posted by many, K was the first to wave the warning flag over Ficht technology and she took on the industry spruikers detail by detail. She was proven correct. I'd say that alone dictates the prudent course would be to listen well to her E-Tec advisories. -- Skipper |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:02 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com