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

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:22:46 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:56:31 GMT, Duke Nukem wrote:

How old the is technology on the GM 6-71?
Dunno. What's a GM 6-71?
aka DD 6-71, a pair of them heading north next week, coming soon to a
harbor near you.

They were designed late 30s, early 40s. First application was to
power Sherman tanks in WW2, followed by a kazillion busses, heavy
construction equipment and commercial generators, followed later by a
few fine motor yachts, lobster boats and trawlers.

Ok - I thought we were discussing outboards and GM had made some
weirdo kind of outboard I'd never heard of.

Diesel is a whole different ball game than gas two or four stroke
outboards.

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

Yes, but in typical liberal commie pinko moron fashion, went
completely off track.

See the title? It says "WHICH OUTBOARD"? Which would indicate, to me
at least being the boorish neanderthal conservative moron I am, that
the subject is outboards, not inboards.

Two strokes rule!! Four strokes drool!!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

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

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:22:46 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:56:31 GMT, Duke Nukem wrote:

How old the is technology on the GM 6-71?
Dunno. What's a GM 6-71?
aka DD 6-71, a pair of them heading north next week, coming soon to a
harbor near you.

They were designed late 30s, early 40s. First application was to
power Sherman tanks in WW2, followed by a kazillion busses, heavy
construction equipment and commercial generators, followed later by a
few fine motor yachts, lobster boats and trawlers.
Ok - I thought we were discussing outboards and GM had made some
weirdo kind of outboard I'd never heard of.

Diesel is a whole different ball game than gas two or four stroke
outboards.
You made a comment about "old technology." So did I.

Yes, but in typical liberal commie pinko moron fashion, went
completely off track.

See the title? It says "WHICH OUTBOARD"? Which would indicate, to me
at least being the boorish neanderthal conservative moron I am, that
the subject is outboards, not inboards.

Two strokes rule!! Four strokes drool!!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)


You need to think outside of that box!

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:05:48 -0400, HK wrote:

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

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:22:46 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:56:31 GMT, Duke Nukem wrote:

How old the is technology on the GM 6-71?
Dunno. What's a GM 6-71?
aka DD 6-71, a pair of them heading north next week, coming soon to a
harbor near you.

They were designed late 30s, early 40s. First application was to
power Sherman tanks in WW2, followed by a kazillion busses, heavy
construction equipment and commercial generators, followed later by a
few fine motor yachts, lobster boats and trawlers.
Ok - I thought we were discussing outboards and GM had made some
weirdo kind of outboard I'd never heard of.

Diesel is a whole different ball game than gas two or four stroke
outboards.
You made a comment about "old technology." So did I.

Yes, but in typical liberal commie pinko moron fashion, went
completely off track.

See the title? It says "WHICH OUTBOARD"? Which would indicate, to me
at least being the boorish neanderthal conservative moron I am, that
the subject is outboards, not inboards.

Two strokes rule!! Four strokes drool!!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

You need to think outside of that box!

Gee - didn't somebody do that once. Some blokes or something?

Hmmm - I have to think.

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

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:22:46 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:56:31 GMT, Duke Nukem wrote:

How old the is technology on the GM 6-71?
Dunno. What's a GM 6-71?
aka DD 6-71, a pair of them heading north next week, coming soon to a
harbor near you.

They were designed late 30s, early 40s. First application was to
power Sherman tanks in WW2, followed by a kazillion busses, heavy
construction equipment and commercial generators, followed later by a
few fine motor yachts, lobster boats and trawlers.
Ok - I thought we were discussing outboards and GM had made some
weirdo kind of outboard I'd never heard of.

Diesel is a whole different ball game than gas two or four stroke
outboards.
You made a comment about "old technology." So did I.

Yes, but in typical liberal commie pinko moron fashion, went
completely off track.

See the title? It says "WHICH OUTBOARD"? Which would indicate, to me
at least being the boorish neanderthal conservative moron I am, that
the subject is outboards, not inboards.

Two strokes rule!! Four strokes drool!!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

It is amazing how things change based upon what one owns, I remember
when Harry had a 2 stroke, he would argue with Karen how inferior 4
stroke outboards are as compared to 2 strokes.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:21:08 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

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

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:22:46 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:56:31 GMT, Duke Nukem wrote:

How old the is technology on the GM 6-71?
Dunno. What's a GM 6-71?
aka DD 6-71, a pair of them heading north next week, coming soon to a
harbor near you.

They were designed late 30s, early 40s. First application was to
power Sherman tanks in WW2, followed by a kazillion busses, heavy
construction equipment and commercial generators, followed later by a
few fine motor yachts, lobster boats and trawlers.
Ok - I thought we were discussing outboards and GM had made some
weirdo kind of outboard I'd never heard of.

Diesel is a whole different ball game than gas two or four stroke
outboards.
You made a comment about "old technology." So did I.

Yes, but in typical liberal commie pinko moron fashion, went
completely off track.

See the title? It says "WHICH OUTBOARD"? Which would indicate, to me
at least being the boorish neanderthal conservative moron I am, that
the subject is outboards, not inboards.

Two strokes rule!! Four strokes drool!!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

It is amazing how things change based upon what one owns, I remember
when Harry had a 2 stroke, he would argue with Karen how inferior 4
stroke outboards are as compared to 2 strokes.

Four stroke technology is inferior to two stroke technology. I have
always been a proponent of two stroke technology - in particular with
diesel engines which dollar for dollar are more efficient that four
stroke diesels.

My friend Harold has a very rare experimental International Harvester
two stroke diesel MTA tractor in his collection. That thing starts
first crank, runs like a top and pulls like a SOaB - he actually
pulled a 24 bottom gang plow with it almost a half mile. Damn thing
is almost 60 years old and still original - well, except for the
torgue amplifier which was rebuilt.

And until they figure out how to develop a light weight, V6 200 hp two
stroke diesel outboard, I'll keep the two stroke I have.

TWO STROKES RULE!! FOUR STROKE DROOLS!!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

There is no argument. :)

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:21:08 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

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

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:22:46 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:56:31 GMT, Duke Nukem wrote:

How old the is technology on the GM 6-71?
Dunno. What's a GM 6-71?
aka DD 6-71, a pair of them heading north next week, coming soon to a
harbor near you.

They were designed late 30s, early 40s. First application was to
power Sherman tanks in WW2, followed by a kazillion busses, heavy
construction equipment and commercial generators, followed later by a
few fine motor yachts, lobster boats and trawlers.
Ok - I thought we were discussing outboards and GM had made some
weirdo kind of outboard I'd never heard of.

Diesel is a whole different ball game than gas two or four stroke
outboards.
You made a comment about "old technology." So did I.
Yes, but in typical liberal commie pinko moron fashion, went
completely off track.

See the title? It says "WHICH OUTBOARD"? Which would indicate, to me
at least being the boorish neanderthal conservative moron I am, that
the subject is outboards, not inboards.

Two strokes rule!! Four strokes drool!!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)
It is amazing how things change based upon what one owns, I remember
when Harry had a 2 stroke, he would argue with Karen how inferior 4
stroke outboards are as compared to 2 strokes.

Four stroke technology is inferior to two stroke technology. I have
always been a proponent of two stroke technology - in particular with
diesel engines which dollar for dollar are more efficient that four
stroke diesels.

My friend Harold has a very rare experimental International Harvester
two stroke diesel MTA tractor in his collection. That thing starts
first crank, runs like a top and pulls like a SOaB - he actually
pulled a 24 bottom gang plow with it almost a half mile. Damn thing
is almost 60 years old and still original - well, except for the
torgue amplifier which was rebuilt.

And until they figure out how to develop a light weight, V6 200 hp two
stroke diesel outboard, I'll keep the two stroke I have.

TWO STROKES RULE!! FOUR STROKE DROOLS!!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

There is no argument. :)


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.

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.

I don't see many Suzukis around here, either. The leading brands are
Yamaha and Merc in the larger engines. I don't pay any attention to the
small outboards.

I see "Reggie" is still trying too hard to be relevant. Poor little
scheisskopf. All he seems to be able to do here is either snipe at
another poster or post some bit of general comment he found elsewhere.

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.

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.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Four stroke technology is inferior to two stroke technology. I have
always been a proponent of two stroke technology - in particular with
diesel engines which dollar for dollar are more efficient that four
stroke diesels.

I'm for the six-stroke...

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=467