So essentially the engine failed during the powerboat's report?? & the
bomb people can't even fix it then come back t\with an "excuse" which as
usual blames anyone but their lean at power engines.

Ask the E-Tec dealers how much agg. of kickbacks are they gathering up
to sell these things at well above the prices of proper proven designs
from proper proven manufacturers. Don't ever forget the BRP is not some
huge high tech French Co in Canada, it's a new wannabe French family
owned Co in Canada & you can make your own judgments about the so called
warranty & dealer marketing claims.

Anyway don't come back Ficht like & try to say you weren't warned.

K



The Powerboat Reports Controversy
The Statement:

Powerboat Reports (PBR) is a subscription-based (no advertising)
periodical similar to Consumer Reports. They test products impartially
and report the results to their subscribers. It's one of our favorite
publications.

In mid-2005, PBR installed two E-TEC 90s on a Twin Vee catamaran for
long term testing (typically around 250 hours). In the first 100 hours,
one of the engines developed a rattling noise in the #1 cylinder, but
there were no other problems. The other engine was fine.

BRP technicians appeared uncertain as to the cause of the problem, so
they had the dealer replace the powerhead. But the rattle only grew worse.

Eventually, BRP took the boat into their shop to diagnose the problem.
They came back in a week with the engine fixed, and claimed that the
rattle was the result of fuel starvation in the #1 cylinder caused by a
pinched fuel line. They claimed that the fuel line was kinked because
Twin Vee used a poor grade of fuel hose when they installed the motor.
BRP replaced the fuel hose, and the motor ran fine.

PBR and Twin Vee both contested the diagnosis. There was some amount of
finger-pointing, and Twin Vee was so upset with the process that they
have stated that they will no longer install Evinrude motors on their hulls.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 09:50:07 +1000, "K. Smith" wrote:

So essentially the engine failed during the powerboat's report?? & the
bomb people can't even fix it then come back t\with an "excuse" which as
usual blames anyone but their lean at power engines.

Fer cryzakes Karen, please find another dead horse to beat.

K. Smith wrote:


Eventually, BRP took the boat into their shop to diagnose the problem.
They came back in a week with the engine fixed, and claimed that the
rattle was the result of fuel starvation in the #1 cylinder caused by a
pinched fuel line. They claimed that the fuel line was kinked because
Twin Vee used a poor grade of fuel hose when they installed the motor.
BRP replaced the fuel hose, and the motor ran fine.


May or may not mean anything. What *else* did they do during the week
they had the engine besides replace a fuel hose with an internal
"pinch"? If anything?

It would be easy to do a quick rebuild on the #1 cylinder and then
return it with a story that there was a kinked fuel hose. "Look! We
replaced the fuel hose ((and secretly rebuilt the cylinder)) and it
runs fine!"

Or, if they admit rebuilding the cylinder and they blame the cause on a
constricted fuel supply line that isn't definitive, either. The rebuilt
engine ran fine when initially started up- but did as well for the
first umpteen hours on the (allegedly) constricted fuel line.

It's probably wrong to insist that skullduggery is the only explanation
for the restored performance of the engine after it was returned, but
it would be foolish to rule out the possibility entirely. More
information needed here. It would be interesting to know whether the
engine returned from the repair shop continues to run well, and for how
long.

It isn't insignificant that of two identical engines only one developed
a problem.

wrote:
K. Smith wrote:


Eventually, BRP took the boat into their shop to diagnose the problem.
They came back in a week with the engine fixed, and claimed that the
rattle was the result of fuel starvation in the #1 cylinder caused by a
pinched fuel line. They claimed that the fuel line was kinked because
Twin Vee used a poor grade of fuel hose when they installed the motor.
BRP replaced the fuel hose, and the motor ran fine.



May or may not mean anything. What *else* did they do during the week
they had the engine besides replace a fuel hose with an internal
"pinch"? If anything?

It would be easy to do a quick rebuild on the #1 cylinder and then
return it with a story that there was a kinked fuel hose. "Look! We
replaced the fuel hose ((and secretly rebuilt the cylinder)) and it
runs fine!"

Or, if they admit rebuilding the cylinder and they blame the cause on a
constricted fuel supply line that isn't definitive, either. The rebuilt
engine ran fine when initially started up- but did as well for the
first umpteen hours on the (allegedly) constricted fuel line.

It's probably wrong to insist that skullduggery is the only explanation
for the restored performance of the engine after it was returned, but
it would be foolish to rule out the possibility entirely. More
information needed here. It would be interesting to know whether the
engine returned from the repair shop continues to run well, and for how
long.

It isn't insignificant that of two identical engines only one developed
a problem.


Certainly is on topic & hi.

Yes I agree skulduggery is not the only explanation, but certainly it's
a runner. The latest twist might be that BRP now demands the motor back
& powerboats are saying no way, which does add to the skulduggery
concerns??. (have you heard about this??)

Given it's a very public testing program by a magazine with a
subscription base to maintain, it seems funny BRP won't even allow
powerboats to talk to them about it???

I suppose if you were into conspiracy .................... there were
maybe 2 powerhead failures??? After all it had a knock in it!!!! &
"they" replaced the first powerhead??? are these things so prone to
failure they just replace the powerhead regardless??? so as to hush it up??

Funny thing is when Bass & Walleye ran "independent" tests on Bomb
engines that showed poor performance, high fuel consumption, higher
weights, higher prices,etc again the MO was to allege the testing was
bent, hmmmmmmmmmmmm seems so far ONLY the seller/spruikers can get good
results & on this alone their reliability claims are at the least to be
questioned???

There is a good story about this "story" for some brave boatring writer
in the US??:-) Can it be that only a subscription based mag will
actually do proper testing & reports??? is the "industry" that shallow,
even mild criticism is banned, on threat of no more co-op.

K