"Duke Nukem" wrote in message



That's only because you ancient technology types are gettin' feeble
and old and just don't understand new, advanced and superior
technology and presentations. :)



No disputing the gettin old part but I for one and tired of web sites
that cannot be informative without showing me a java movie while
Im waiting for the page to load. I do not need to be entertained with
dazzling graphics and presentations when all I really want
is information. If I want a freakin movie, I'll go to the
coastal cinemas.

p.s. I don't like MS Vista either.


db

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:34:55 -0400, HK wrote:

You made a comment about "old technology." So did I.

You were talking about yourself?

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:34:55 -0400, HK wrote:

You made a comment about "old technology." So did I.

You were talking about yourself?



That, too.

D-unit wrote:
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message


That's only because you ancient technology types are gettin' feeble
and old and just don't understand new, advanced and superior
technology and presentations. :)



No disputing the gettin old part but I for one and tired of web sites
that cannot be informative without showing me a java movie while
Im waiting for the page to load. I do not need to be entertained with
dazzling graphics and presentations when all I really want
is information. If I want a freakin movie, I'll go to the
coastal cinemas.

p.s. I don't like MS Vista either.


db




The evinrude etec site is a colossal pain in the ass.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:19:13 -0400, HK wrote:

Well, I won't argue two versus four stroke with you. Way back when I
would have argued that two stroke engines were lighter than the four
strokes, and had a more interesting power band. But the new high tech
two strokes seem about as heavy as the four strokes these days.

In general, two strokes are about 100 lbs lighter than four strokes so
that's a minor marketing point - I agree with you.

Out of all the four strokes I've run in the past year or so, the one
I'm most impressed with is the Verado - that's real competition in
terms of power for ETEC engines - those beasts have power up the
wazoo. Efficiency kind of sucks and they are heavy, but they have a
serious power band.

I've mentioned this befo I have yet to see anyone using an etec
evinrude around here. In fact, I haven't run into a dealer on my side of
the Bay that actually sells evinrudes "loose" or pre-rigged. I think the
OMC bustout a few years ago and the subsequent sale of its brand name to
the French/Canadians did great harm to its dealer network, and I don't
think that network has recovered.

That's part of it - OMC did a lot of damage to the product line I'll
admit. Part of the problem, of course, is the exaggeration of the
whole FICHT debacle. It only affected certain engines and a limited
number of engines at that, but "everybody knows" that they are "junk"
which just isn't true. The USCG over reaction by demanding recall of
the entire line didn't help either.

The other component is pricing. Let's face it - Yamaha is dumping
engines at or below cost to manufacturers to force market share. I'm
not sure how this is a viable economic model, but it seems to be
working. Instead of buying boat companies like Brunswick did and
putting Mercs on them, Yamaha just went with wheeling and dealing and
now supply a ton of engines via that route. It's hard to compete
price wise with Yamaha - that's absoutely true. Having said that,
when I looked into repower with the Ranger, dollar for dollar, Yamaha
was just as expensive as the ETEC considering control and guage change
over - in fact, it was almost $4,000 more expensive for a 200 hp
Yamaha four stroke than the ETEC.

Suzuki? Don't know much about them per se. I konw they are priced
well - almost like Yamaha in fact.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:22:14 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:34:55 -0400, HK wrote:

You made a comment about "old technology." So did I.

You were talking about yourself?

Well, speaking for myself, I am "old", but the technology is new. :)

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:03:04 -0400, "D-unit" cof42_AT_earthlink.net
wrote:


"Duke Nukem" wrote in message

That's only because you ancient technology types are gettin' feeble
and old and just don't understand new, advanced and superior
technology and presentations. :)

No disputing the gettin old part but I for one and tired of web sites
that cannot be informative without showing me a java movie while
Im waiting for the page to load. I do not need to be entertained with
dazzling graphics and presentations when all I really want
is information. If I want a freakin movie, I'll go to the
coastal cinemas.

Marketing nowadays is entertainment driven and keeping somebody at a
site while the good stuff loads.

I understand your point though - it does get annoying sometimes.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:19:13 -0400, HK wrote:

Well, I won't argue two versus four stroke with you. Way back when I
would have argued that two stroke engines were lighter than the four
strokes, and had a more interesting power band. But the new high tech
two strokes seem about as heavy as the four strokes these days.

In general, two strokes are about 100 lbs lighter than four strokes so
that's a minor marketing point - I agree with you.

Out of all the four strokes I've run in the past year or so, the one
I'm most impressed with is the Verado - that's real competition in
terms of power for ETEC engines - those beasts have power up the
wazoo. Efficiency kind of sucks and they are heavy, but they have a
serious power band.

I've mentioned this befo I have yet to see anyone using an etec
evinrude around here. In fact, I haven't run into a dealer on my side of
the Bay that actually sells evinrudes "loose" or pre-rigged. I think the
OMC bustout a few years ago and the subsequent sale of its brand name to
the French/Canadians did great harm to its dealer network, and I don't
think that network has recovered.

That's part of it - OMC did a lot of damage to the product line I'll
admit. Part of the problem, of course, is the exaggeration of the
whole FICHT debacle. It only affected certain engines and a limited
number of engines at that, but "everybody knows" that they are "junk"
which just isn't true. The USCG over reaction by demanding recall of
the entire line didn't help either.

The other component is pricing. Let's face it - Yamaha is dumping
engines at or below cost to manufacturers to force market share. I'm
not sure how this is a viable economic model, but it seems to be
working. Instead of buying boat companies like Brunswick did and
putting Mercs on them, Yamaha just went with wheeling and dealing and
now supply a ton of engines via that route. It's hard to compete
price wise with Yamaha - that's absoutely true. Having said that,
when I looked into repower with the Ranger, dollar for dollar, Yamaha
was just as expensive as the ETEC considering control and guage change
over - in fact, it was almost $4,000 more expensive for a 200 hp
Yamaha four stroke than the ETEC.

Suzuki? Don't know much about them per se. I konw they are priced
well - almost like Yamaha in fact.


I haven't been shopping for an outboard sans boat, so I'm not really
aware that Yamaha has a price advantage. I'd love to see some examples
of such Yamaha pricing, though. Hell, it isn't easy to see a boat price
"unbundled" from its outboard.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:05:56 -0400, HK wrote:

I haven't been shopping for an outboard sans boat, so I'm not really
aware that Yamaha has a price advantage. I'd love to see some examples
of such Yamaha pricing, though. Hell, it isn't easy to see a boat price
"unbundled" from its outboard.

Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough.

What I meant is that Yamaha is making deals with manufacturers so that
boats are bundled with Yamaha engines - they are cutting costs to
manufacturers to get their engine out there.

On Jun 13, 3:18 pm, HK wrote:
trainfan1 wrote:
HK wrote:

I know someone considering the purchase of a 21' Parker center
console, the model with the 21-degree transom deadrise. The boat
itself weighs 2750 pounds. Great open fishing boat.

Parker recommends three Yamaha engines in its four stroke line: 150
hp, 200 hp and 225 hp.

For a boat with the same hull but with a pilothouse cabin that brings
the hull weight to 3250 pounds, the Yamaha performance page indicates
a top speed of 39.3 mph with the 150 hp engine running 5600 rpm and
burning 17.5 gph. At a cruise speed of 25.6 mph at 4000 rpm, the rig
burns 7.8 gph.

I'm recommending the 150 hp engine for the 21-foot center console. I'm
guessing a top end of 42-43 mph with a fuel burn of 15-16 gph, and a
4000 rpm cruise of of 27-28 mph, burning 6.5 to 7 gph.

I don't see any need to step up to a 200 hp V6 on this boat. The days
you can comfortably run more than 25 mph in a 21' boat are rare on
Chesapeake Bay. The 150 is about $4000 less than the 200.

Any comment on the extrapolations?

You're still going to have the engine running at 5600 rpm WOT, and
burning 17.5 gph, with a different prop, maybe.

I'm surprised the cruise engine speed is as high as 4000 rpm, but this
is a 4 stroke. It's also quite a bit of fuel at WOT for any stock 150.

No E-Tec options to consider?

I know... it's a Parker.

Rob

I doubt the engine will be running at 5600 rpm. No one I know wants that
kind of fuel burn.

We got a data sheet faxed from Parker. Their sheets are pretty reliable.

4000 rpm happens to be the sweet spot for these four stroke Yamahas. It
is on my 225, too.

The data sheet says 16 gph at 5600 producing 40.9 mph, and 7.30 gph at
4000 rpm producing 26.2 mph. That's pretty close to my guess
extrapolations. No reason to go to a 200 or 225 hp.

Naw. Not interested in an Evinrude eTec. I like four stroke engines.
So does my friend.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I wouldn't be so quick to toss the idea of a two stroke.

They weigh less, which is always a good thing on a small boat. Their
far less complicated, which helps for long term reliability and cost
of repairs/ownership. The fuel injected 2 stroke engines burn less
fuel. They cost less to buy, and you run them at lower RPM's than a 4
stroke to get the same power, so the 4 stroke is probably going to
wear faster. OK, you do have to add oil to a 2 stroke, but you have to
check the oil, change it and change oil filters on a four stroke. Is
the yard going to let you do that? So you've probably got to pay for
that, and we all know how inexpensive yard bills are. Two strokes have
been around for a long time, you know their reliable (I'd get a Merc
over the Yamaha any day), 4 strokes are still new, and new products
have their problems. I wouldn't even consider a 4 stroke, especially
on a small boat. My two cents.

John