Al Seidel

e-tec 90
January 30 2006, 3:08 AM

I tried the 2005 90 e-Tec. By my 4 stroke standards it was louder,
smokier and far less economical. It also stumbles at speed and the
dealer could not fixit. I got rid of it pronto and bought a 70 hp Suzuki
which moves my 17' whaler at almost the same speed.


The unfixable "stumbles" anyone remember the same complaints about
Ficht?? then they told everyone it was fixed??? Hmmm same story???

Just a suggestion but is that at the end of the lean mode?? around
2000rpm?? hmmm could it be detonation, for the hugely lean poorly
atomised mixture or maybe the continuously firing spark or maybe it's
just the 2 stroke fairies???

K

There's an interesting article available in "Ocean Skiff Journal" that
addresses the E-tec. If you're interested:

http://www.oceanskiffjournal.com/Sub...ral/ETEC1.aspx

Ray



K. Smith" wrote in message
...
Al Seidel

e-tec 90
January 30 2006, 3:08 AM

I tried the 2005 90 e-Tec. By my 4 stroke standards it was louder, smokier
and far less economical. It also stumbles at speed and the dealer could
not fixit. I got rid of it pronto and bought a 70 hp Suzuki which moves my
17' whaler at almost the same speed.


The unfixable "stumbles" anyone remember the same complaints about Ficht??
then they told everyone it was fixed??? Hmmm same story???

Just a suggestion but is that at the end of the lean mode?? around
2000rpm?? hmmm could it be detonation, for the hugely lean poorly atomised
mixture or maybe the continuously firing spark or maybe it's just the 2
stroke fairies???

K

Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:25:45 -0500, "RayB"
wrote:

There's an interesting article available in "Ocean Skiff Journal"
that addresses the E-tec. If you're interested:

http://www.oceanskiffjournal.com/Sub...ral/ETEC1.aspx



Pretty much screws Karen over pretty well doesn't it?



I believe her problem is that no one will screw her, over or under. :}


Really?? Wonder where Skipper is right now?

Harry Krause wrote:
Don White wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:25:45 -0500, "RayB"
wrote:

There's an interesting article available in "Ocean Skiff Journal"
that addresses the E-tec. If you're interested:

http://www.oceanskiffjournal.com/Sub...ral/ETEC1.aspx



Pretty much screws Karen over pretty well doesn't it?



I believe her problem is that no one will screw her, over or under. :}



Really?? Wonder where Skipper is right now?



In prison.


Do I dare ask what offence he's been convicted of?

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:45:52 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:
Really?? Wonder where Skipper is right now?


In prison.


Do I dare ask what offence he's been convicted of?

Bayliner Puffery.

Aggravated, first degree; plus third degree assault on news group
sensibilities.

Thanks for the article Ray & apologies for an on topic post of course:-)

This article is just more industry promotion to make the gullible part
with "extra" money to become R&D for an already shown to be failed
technology:-) But hey if you insist I'll play:-)

PG1. Firstly they assure you "we take a stab at presenting a balanced
view of the product, and make some recommendations to potential buyers"
What just a "stab"??? that's as good as they can do?? so it seems they
admit up front that other magazine articles aren't "balanced", they
don't say if others of their own are balanced or not but I'd suggest
they are not because from there we go into the phony ballony marketing
article itself. Which like all the other magazines doesn't want to
"upset" the industry hand that feeds them. They hedge their bets just
enough so when it happens again they can say gee "we knew & told
that":-) Too late!!!! the time to ping this faulty technology was 98-99
when we did, there's no 2nd prize for pretending to have minor concerns
when the same spruikers try to falsely market the exact same BS again.

PG2 Completely fudges the question of "why" BRM are not spruiking that
material any longer, other than supplying it under the table to the
dealers to show on their behalf?? The infomercials have been removed??
WHY??? I mean if any of it were remotely true I'd say we couldn't shut
them up:-) I'd suggest on legal advice??? the French can only ever see
their self interest & have no real idea of course but now only the bent
dealers spruik this blatantly deceptive BS.
NB this so called balanced article then just makes excuses for each
blatantly deceptive piece of advertising, & they even admit any real
boater would see through it, so they're trying to suck the non boater
naive in??? I guess anyone who hasn't heard of Ficht or is too stupid to
realise:-) Hey we have one in our NG??:-)


PG3 It's not much more than an ad for E-Tec, even saying the other
brands of DFI were as bad as Ficht?? What a joke!!! Merc Optimax is NOT
DFI end of story, & to then compare the Yamaha with cyl shutoffs when
lean, 800psi common rail injection & all the other things that made it
as least acceptable against the designed & built on the cheap Ficht is a
joke. But hey they're only just getting warmed up!!!!

More of "their" opinion that all will be well but not a zot of actual
reasons why poorly atomised lean at power is suddenly not dangerous,
they haven't said anything about it, nothing!!!


PG4 Reads almost like the E-Tec rejoinder when they get pinged in fair
"independent tests" (say B&WE) & what??? powerboats mag. couldn't even
get one to last long enough to finish the test???:-) Seriously we'll all
laugh about this in the future but why wait?? it's a hoot it really
is!!!! But this socalled balanced article goes on to spin the results
with that neat little dealerism of "current model" so they can say the
engine they sell now is what??? suddenly lighter?? (it isn't still
heavier read the specs!!!), uses less fuel (their claims are so
outrageous I would suggest "only" the independent tests should be relied
upon, faster ?? (again don't rely on their "claims" the B&WE found the
bomb engines to be slow & for good reasons I'd suggest because of a huge
gearcase to carry impacts from detonation, piston that stops power
trying to survive detonation & lower specific outputs trying to reduce
detonation???) Note they don't mention the real news?? the Bomb engine
when actually tested was thirsty, heavier & slow; the trifecta of OMC
style marketing BS debunked right there.

PG4 Again the only thing testable (well the dealers are detestable)
about the E-Tec claims so far is the weight, fuel consumption &
performance & on all counts it transpires their marketing & dealer
spruiking is totally false add to that they want to charge thousands
more for a rehashed simple & cheap to build ficht 2 stroke than any
other engine & it's a measure of their neck they're even trying it on.

PG5 The conclusion?? what conclusion?? they say E-Tec long term
reliability is unknown?? but that's a fudge it really is,As said
powerboat couldn't even finish a test!!!:-) (seriously funny) this is
another Ficht upgrade with all the same claims made as every other Ficht
"upgrade", it seems this time they've given up trying to deny that
poorly atomised lean at power fueling is dangerous & are instead trying
to make the engine strong enough to survive the almost inevitable
detonation. The most telling line in PG5 is "It was sufficient evidence
to convince us to buy one" YES there it is!!! & despite the "In our
situation, we think the E-TEC 90 was the best balance of power, weight,
fuel economy, service and installation costs for our situation. We've
been very happy with the motor, once we got past our fuel/water
problems." Yes even when they get ficht bitten again they still accept
the excuses excuses excuses!!!:-)

So did they pay full retail??? did they even pay anything at all??? So
tell us the numbers??? & we'll make our own minds up if this is just
more deceptive industry back slap spruiking from the dealers or is this
even worse?? outright deceptive paid advertising?? What's an ad in an
obscure wanna be thing like this worth?? $100, $200?? The rest of PG5
just perpetuates more of the same E-Tec deceptive advertising like;

# You want the most low-end torque possible

Well the only "independent" test of a Bomb found it well down on HP
compared to even the cowl placard let alone the opposition:-), up on
fuel consumption compared to anything, but down on power hmmmm scary. So
this claim is not confirmed in any manner.

# You need the lightest motor

If they can't read I suppose that's right, again the "bigger" E-Tecs are
heavier not lighter. Is this a deliberate deception??? to not say
they're limiting the claim to a particular engine(s)??



# You want the cleanest motor available

Gee so now there's a claim:-) all OB engines, just like all cars meet
the regs, that's just a desperate marketing grab. Of course if you
really are a boating tree hugger you'd never ever buy a 2 stroke
anything, the oil ends up in (well on actually) the lake; end of story.


K















RayB wrote:
There's an interesting article available in "Ocean Skiff Journal" that
addresses the E-tec. If you're interested:

http://www.oceanskiffjournal.com/Sub...ral/ETEC1.aspx

Ray



K. Smith" wrote in message
...

Al Seidel

e-tec 90
January 30 2006, 3:08 AM

I tried the 2005 90 e-Tec. By my 4 stroke standards it was louder, smokier
and far less economical. It also stumbles at speed and the dealer could
not fixit. I got rid of it pronto and bought a 70 hp Suzuki which moves my
17' whaler at almost the same speed.


The unfixable "stumbles" anyone remember the same complaints about Ficht??
then they told everyone it was fixed??? Hmmm same story???

Just a suggestion but is that at the end of the lean mode?? around
2000rpm?? hmmm could it be detonation, for the hugely lean poorly atomised
mixture or maybe the continuously firing spark or maybe it's just the 2
stroke fairies???

K

So you liked the article, eh?
Ray
"K. Smith" wrote in message
...

Thanks for the article Ray & apologies for an on topic post of course:-)

This article is just more industry promotion to make the gullible part
with "extra" money to become R&D for an already shown to be failed
technology:-) But hey if you insist I'll play:-)

PG1. Firstly they assure you "we take a stab at presenting a balanced view
of the product, and make some recommendations to potential buyers" What
just a "stab"??? that's as good as they can do?? so it seems they admit up
front that other magazine articles aren't "balanced", they don't say if
others of their own are balanced or not but I'd suggest they are not
because from there we go into the phony ballony marketing article itself.
Which like all the other magazines doesn't want to "upset" the industry
hand that feeds them. They hedge their bets just enough so when it happens
again they can say gee "we knew & told that":-) Too late!!!! the time to
ping this faulty technology was 98-99 when we did, there's no 2nd prize
for pretending to have minor concerns when the same spruikers try to
falsely market the exact same BS again.

PG2 Completely fudges the question of "why" BRM are not spruiking that
material any longer, other than supplying it under the table to the
dealers to show on their behalf?? The infomercials have been removed??
WHY??? I mean if any of it were remotely true I'd say we couldn't shut
them up:-) I'd suggest on legal advice??? the French can only ever see
their self interest & have no real idea of course but now only the bent
dealers spruik this blatantly deceptive BS.
NB this so called balanced article then just makes excuses for each
blatantly deceptive piece of advertising, & they even admit any real
boater would see through it, so they're trying to suck the non boater
naive in??? I guess anyone who hasn't heard of Ficht or is too stupid to
realise:-) Hey we have one in our NG??:-)


PG3 It's not much more than an ad for E-Tec, even saying the other brands
of DFI were as bad as Ficht?? What a joke!!! Merc Optimax is NOT DFI end
of story, & to then compare the Yamaha with cyl shutoffs when lean, 800psi
common rail injection & all the other things that made it as least
acceptable against the designed & built on the cheap Ficht is a joke. But
hey they're only just getting warmed up!!!!

More of "their" opinion that all will be well but not a zot of actual
reasons why poorly atomised lean at power is suddenly not dangerous, they
haven't said anything about it, nothing!!!


PG4 Reads almost like the E-Tec rejoinder when they get pinged in fair
"independent tests" (say B&WE) & what??? powerboats mag. couldn't even get
one to last long enough to finish the test???:-) Seriously we'll all laugh
about this in the future but why wait?? it's a hoot it really is!!!! But
this socalled balanced article goes on to spin the results with that neat
little dealerism of "current model" so they can say the engine they sell
now is what??? suddenly lighter?? (it isn't still heavier read the
specs!!!), uses less fuel (their claims are so outrageous I would suggest
"only" the independent tests should be relied upon, faster ?? (again don't
rely on their "claims" the B&WE found the bomb engines to be slow & for
good reasons I'd suggest because of a huge gearcase to carry impacts from
detonation, piston that stops power trying to survive detonation & lower
specific outputs trying to reduce detonation???) Note they don't mention
the real news?? the Bomb engine when actually tested was thirsty, heavier
& slow; the trifecta of OMC style marketing BS debunked right there.

PG4 Again the only thing testable (well the dealers are detestable) about
the E-Tec claims so far is the weight, fuel consumption & performance & on
all counts it transpires their marketing & dealer spruiking is totally
false add to that they want to charge thousands more for a rehashed simple
& cheap to build ficht 2 stroke than any other engine & it's a measure of
their neck they're even trying it on.

PG5 The conclusion?? what conclusion?? they say E-Tec long term
reliability is unknown?? but that's a fudge it really is,As said powerboat
couldn't even finish a test!!!:-) (seriously funny) this is another Ficht
upgrade with all the same claims made as every other Ficht "upgrade", it
seems this time they've given up trying to deny that poorly atomised lean
at power fueling is dangerous & are instead trying to make the engine
strong enough to survive the almost inevitable detonation. The most
telling line in PG5 is "It was sufficient evidence to convince us to buy
one" YES there it is!!! & despite the "In our situation, we think the
E-TEC 90 was the best balance of power, weight, fuel economy, service and
installation costs for our situation. We've been very happy with the
motor, once we got past our fuel/water problems." Yes even when they get
ficht bitten again they still accept the excuses excuses excuses!!!:-)

So did they pay full retail??? did they even pay anything at all??? So
tell us the numbers??? & we'll make our own minds up if this is just more
deceptive industry back slap spruiking from the dealers or is this even
worse?? outright deceptive paid advertising?? What's an ad in an obscure
wanna be thing like this worth?? $100, $200?? The rest of PG5 just
perpetuates more of the same E-Tec deceptive advertising like;

# You want the most low-end torque possible

Well the only "independent" test of a Bomb found it well down on HP
compared to even the cowl placard let alone the opposition:-), up on fuel
consumption compared to anything, but down on power hmmmm scary. So this
claim is not confirmed in any manner.

# You need the lightest motor

If they can't read I suppose that's right, again the "bigger" E-Tecs are
heavier not lighter. Is this a deliberate deception??? to not say they're
limiting the claim to a particular engine(s)??



# You want the cleanest motor available

Gee so now there's a claim:-) all OB engines, just like all cars meet the
regs, that's just a desperate marketing grab. Of course if you really are
a boating tree hugger you'd never ever buy a 2 stroke anything, the oil
ends up in (well on actually) the lake; end of story.


K















RayB wrote:
There's an interesting article available in "Ocean Skiff Journal" that
addresses the E-tec. If you're interested:

http://www.oceanskiffjournal.com/Sub...ral/ETEC1.aspx

Ray



K. Smith" wrote in message
...

Al Seidel

e-tec 90
January 30 2006, 3:08 AM

I tried the 2005 90 e-Tec. By my 4 stroke standards it was louder,
smokier and far less economical. It also stumbles at speed and the dealer
could not fixit. I got rid of it pronto and bought a 70 hp Suzuki which
moves my 17' whaler at almost the same speed.


The unfixable "stumbles" anyone remember the same complaints about
Ficht?? then they told everyone it was fixed??? Hmmm same story???

Just a suggestion but is that at the end of the lean mode?? around
2000rpm?? hmmm could it be detonation, for the hugely lean poorly
atomised mixture or maybe the continuously firing spark or maybe it's
just the 2 stroke fairies???

K

Nup it was deceptive crap up there with the worst of the E-Tec marketing
BS:-)

I did gather some more material though so thanks for that.

K



RayB wrote:
So you liked the article, eh?
Ray
"K. Smith" wrote in message
...

Thanks for the article Ray & apologies for an on topic post of course:-)

This article is just more industry promotion to make the gullible part
with "extra" money to become R&D for an already shown to be failed
technology:-) But hey if you insist I'll play:-)

PG1. Firstly they assure you "we take a stab at presenting a balanced view
of the product, and make some recommendations to potential buyers" What
just a "stab"??? that's as good as they can do?? so it seems they admit up
front that other magazine articles aren't "balanced", they don't say if
others of their own are balanced or not but I'd suggest they are not
because from there we go into the phony ballony marketing article itself.
Which like all the other magazines doesn't want to "upset" the industry
hand that feeds them. They hedge their bets just enough so when it happens
again they can say gee "we knew & told that":-) Too late!!!! the time to
ping this faulty technology was 98-99 when we did, there's no 2nd prize
for pretending to have minor concerns when the same spruikers try to
falsely market the exact same BS again.

PG2 Completely fudges the question of "why" BRM are not spruiking that
material any longer, other than supplying it under the table to the
dealers to show on their behalf?? The infomercials have been removed??
WHY??? I mean if any of it were remotely true I'd say we couldn't shut
them up:-) I'd suggest on legal advice??? the French can only ever see
their self interest & have no real idea of course but now only the bent
dealers spruik this blatantly deceptive BS.
NB this so called balanced article then just makes excuses for each
blatantly deceptive piece of advertising, & they even admit any real
boater would see through it, so they're trying to suck the non boater
naive in??? I guess anyone who hasn't heard of Ficht or is too stupid to
realise:-) Hey we have one in our NG??:-)


PG3 It's not much more than an ad for E-Tec, even saying the other brands
of DFI were as bad as Ficht?? What a joke!!! Merc Optimax is NOT DFI end
of story, & to then compare the Yamaha with cyl shutoffs when lean, 800psi
common rail injection & all the other things that made it as least
acceptable against the designed & built on the cheap Ficht is a joke. But
hey they're only just getting warmed up!!!!

More of "their" opinion that all will be well but not a zot of actual
reasons why poorly atomised lean at power is suddenly not dangerous, they
haven't said anything about it, nothing!!!


PG4 Reads almost like the E-Tec rejoinder when they get pinged in fair
"independent tests" (say B&WE) & what??? powerboats mag. couldn't even get
one to last long enough to finish the test???:-) Seriously we'll all laugh
about this in the future but why wait?? it's a hoot it really is!!!! But
this socalled balanced article goes on to spin the results with that neat
little dealerism of "current model" so they can say the engine they sell
now is what??? suddenly lighter?? (it isn't still heavier read the
specs!!!), uses less fuel (their claims are so outrageous I would suggest
"only" the independent tests should be relied upon, faster ?? (again don't
rely on their "claims" the B&WE found the bomb engines to be slow & for
good reasons I'd suggest because of a huge gearcase to carry impacts from
detonation, piston that stops power trying to survive detonation & lower
specific outputs trying to reduce detonation???) Note they don't mention
the real news?? the Bomb engine when actually tested was thirsty, heavier
& slow; the trifecta of OMC style marketing BS debunked right there.

PG4 Again the only thing testable (well the dealers are detestable) about
the E-Tec claims so far is the weight, fuel consumption & performance & on
all counts it transpires their marketing & dealer spruiking is totally
false add to that they want to charge thousands more for a rehashed simple
& cheap to build ficht 2 stroke than any other engine & it's a measure of
their neck they're even trying it on.

PG5 The conclusion?? what conclusion?? they say E-Tec long term
reliability is unknown?? but that's a fudge it really is,As said powerboat
couldn't even finish a test!!!:-) (seriously funny) this is another Ficht
upgrade with all the same claims made as every other Ficht "upgrade", it
seems this time they've given up trying to deny that poorly atomised lean
at power fueling is dangerous & are instead trying to make the engine
strong enough to survive the almost inevitable detonation. The most
telling line in PG5 is "It was sufficient evidence to convince us to buy
one" YES there it is!!! & despite the "In our situation, we think the
E-TEC 90 was the best balance of power, weight, fuel economy, service and
installation costs for our situation. We've been very happy with the
motor, once we got past our fuel/water problems." Yes even when they get
ficht bitten again they still accept the excuses excuses excuses!!!:-)

So did they pay full retail??? did they even pay anything at all??? So
tell us the numbers??? & we'll make our own minds up if this is just more
deceptive industry back slap spruiking from the dealers or is this even
worse?? outright deceptive paid advertising?? What's an ad in an obscure
wanna be thing like this worth?? $100, $200?? The rest of PG5 just
perpetuates more of the same E-Tec deceptive advertising like;

# You want the most low-end torque possible

Well the only "independent" test of a Bomb found it well down on HP
compared to even the cowl placard let alone the opposition:-), up on fuel
consumption compared to anything, but down on power hmmmm scary. So this
claim is not confirmed in any manner.

# You need the lightest motor

If they can't read I suppose that's right, again the "bigger" E-Tecs are
heavier not lighter. Is this a deliberate deception??? to not say they're
limiting the claim to a particular engine(s)??



# You want the cleanest motor available

Gee so now there's a claim:-) all OB engines, just like all cars meet the
regs, that's just a desperate marketing grab. Of course if you really are
a boating tree hugger you'd never ever buy a 2 stroke anything, the oil
ends up in (well on actually) the lake; end of story.


K















RayB wrote:

There's an interesting article available in "Ocean Skiff Journal" that
addresses the E-tec. If you're interested:

http://www.oceanskiffjournal.com/Sub...ral/ETEC1.aspx

Ray



K. Smith" wrote in message
...


Al Seidel

e-tec 90
January 30 2006, 3:08 AM

I tried the 2005 90 e-Tec. By my 4 stroke standards it was louder,
smokier and far less economical. It also stumbles at speed and the dealer
could not fixit. I got rid of it pronto and bought a 70 hp Suzuki which
moves my 17' whaler at almost the same speed.


The unfixable "stumbles" anyone remember the same complaints about
Ficht?? then they told everyone it was fixed??? Hmmm same story???

Just a suggestion but is that at the end of the lean mode?? around
2000rpm?? hmmm could it be detonation, for the hugely lean poorly
atomised mixture or maybe the continuously firing spark or maybe it's
just the 2 stroke fairies???

K