|
Which outboard?
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? |
Which outboard?
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 |
Which outboard?
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. |
Which outboard?
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:18:33 -0400, HK penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: 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. I'm curious to know what the 200hp would do RPM-wise and Fuel-wise with the 200hp..... at 26 MPH. I dunno, but...at WOT, the 200 is only 3 mph faster than the 150 on the same boat. I would guess at 26 mph that 200 would be spinning at 3800 rpm. |
Which outboard?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:24:55 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote: I'm curious to know what the 200hp would do RPM-wise and Fuel-wise with the 200hp..... at 26 MPH. You really need some knowledge of the torque curves to answer that question. Assuming the 200 develops more torque at the same or lower RPMs, it should be able to spin a prop with more pitch and get some extra speed or run at lower RPMs. Running at lower RPMs should be good for engine durability, but assuming it takes the same horsepower to run the same boat speed, fuel burn would be about the same. |
Which outboard?
"HK" wrote in message ... 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 $4000 less than the 200. Any comment on the extrapolations? Very suprising there's that much co$t difference between the 150 and the 200. db |
Which outboard?
Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:24:55 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote: I'm curious to know what the 200hp would do RPM-wise and Fuel-wise with the 200hp..... at 26 MPH. You really need some knowledge of the torque curves to answer that question. Assuming the 200 develops more torque at the same or lower RPMs, it should be able to spin a prop with more pitch and get some extra speed or run at lower RPMs. Running at lower RPMs should be good for engine durability, but assuming it takes the same horsepower to run the same boat speed, fuel burn would be about the same. The torque drops off rapidly on the Yamaha V6s below 4000 rpm. |
Which outboard?
D-unit wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... 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 $4000 less than the 200. Any comment on the extrapolations? Very suprising there's that much co$t difference between the 150 and the 200. db Entirely different engines, not the least of which a straight four versus a V6. |
Which outboard?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:47:26 -0400, HK wrote:
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? I'd go with the 200. After all, it is a four stroke. :) Actually, and I don't mean this the way it's going to sound, I find those gas milage figures suspect. However assuming that they are good numbers, I'd agree with you on the 150. Even if it is ancient technology. |
Which outboard?
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:47:26 -0400, HK wrote: 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? I'd go with the 200. After all, it is a four stroke. :) Actually, and I don't mean this the way it's going to sound, I find those gas milage figures suspect. However assuming that they are good numbers, I'd agree with you on the 150. Even if it is ancient technology. Well, Parker followed up by faxing me a performance data sheet. My extrapolations were pretty much on the money. The "mileage" figures are actually a hair better than I thought. 4000 rpm translates into 3.28 mpg and about 27 mph. That's pretty decent in my mind. Parker has a lot of credibility with me...the data sheet they sent me before I bought my 25-footer was right on the money. As far as "old" technology goes, with all my years as an owner of two stroke outboards, I now prefer the four strokes. I find them smoother, quieter, and there's no visible smoke, no oil to mix, and no visible oil in the water. Plus I love the fact that at trolling speeds, you practically cannot hear the engines. How old the is technology on the GM 6-71? BTW, the Evinrude eTec site really sucks. Too many weird things going on. |
Which outboard?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:30:14 -0400, HK wrote:
As far as "old" technology goes, with all my years as an owner of two stroke outboards, I now prefer the four strokes. I find them smoother, BZZZZZZTTTTT! You seriously need to take a ride on a ETEC powered boat. quieter, HAH!!! You can hold a normal conversation with my ETEC running WOT and the engine is less than six feet from my control station. and there's no visible smoke, no oil to mix, and no visible oil in the water. There ain't with mine either. Plus I love the fact that at trolling speeds, you practically cannot hear the engines. Just like mine. :) How old the is technology on the GM 6-71? Dunno. What's a GM 6-71? BTW, the Evinrude eTec site really sucks. Too many weird things going on. 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. :) Or perhaps becasue you went to the eTec sight you ended up at the Electronic Transportation Engineering Corporation? ~~ snerk ~~ That mpg figure by the way - you quoted 3.28 mpg @ 27mph. So over 27 miles run in an hour, that works out to 8.25 gallons per hour or there about. That's not to shabby actually - I may have been a little hasty in my suspicion at the figures. Still not as good as my ETEC, but acceptable. Even for ancient technology. |
Which outboard?
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. |
Which outboard?
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. |
Which outboard?
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. |
Which outboard?
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. :) |
Which outboard?
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! |
Which outboard?
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. |
Which outboard?
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. :) |
Which outboard?
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. |
Which outboard?
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. |
Which outboard?
"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 |
Which outboard?
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? |
Which outboard?
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. |
Which outboard?
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. |
Which outboard?
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. |
Which outboard?
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. :) |
Which outboard?
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. |
Which outboard?
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. |
Which 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. |
Which outboard?
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 |
Which outboard?
Capt John wrote:
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), Nothing really wrong with Yamaha except for where they're built & where the $$ end up... 4 strokes are still new, ? http://hometown.aol.com/homelite55/ Old technology, to some. and new products have their problems. I wouldn't even consider a 4 stroke, especially on a small boat. My two cents. They have their place at times, but the 2 strokes are getting so good so fast now. Rob John |
Which outboard?
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:22:12 -0700, Capt John
wrote: They weigh less, which is always a good thing on a small boat. Not significantly. It's generally at or around 100 lbs depending on model. Their far less complicated, That is absoutely not true, unless you consider the Yamaha carbed series as "uncomplicated" which they are not. which helps for long term reliability That's true enough in particular with today's oil injection/metering systems. What also helps long term reliability is new materials science and just like four strokes, good service and maintenance regimens. Also the new synthetic oils also help, but they are expensive. and cost of repairs/ownership. Eh. Repairs are as expensive as four strokes in terms of labor and depending on what kind of two stroke (carbed vs injected) parts are expensive no matter what kind of power system. The fuel injected 2 stroke engines burn less fuel. Mine does and is probably the most efficient two stroke on the market. Yamaha HPDI are pigs on gas and Optimax engines aren't that far behind. 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. Eh - that's a problematic statement. Mine is a 90 degree engine block with a lower gear ratio than Yamaha/Merc which is what produces the power (plus a four blade prop). 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. That's one area where we agree. 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. That's a very good point. Marinas up here don't allow four stroke self maintenance in their yards and certainly not at the slips. Two strokes have been around for a long time, you know their reliable (I'd get a Merc over the Yamaha any day), Their both pigs. Buy ETEC. :) |
Which outboard?
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:30:42 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote: Seems like a deal until you figure back in the cost of the oil. I know - NYOB seems to have a problem with this concept too. In terms of ETEC only: @ $26 a gallon for XD-100, it would seem to be expensive. Over the summer of average use - say around 100/125 hours, you won't even use a gallon. How many oil changes do you go through on a four stroke every 100/125 hours? |
Which outboard?
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:23:50 -0400, trainfan1
wrote: Nothing really wrong with Yamaha except for where they're built & where the $$ end up... 4 strokes are still new, ? http://hometown.aol.com/homelite55/ Old technology, to some. Ancient. Old is acceptable. :) Wow - I haven't seen one of those on a boat in years. I know a collector who has several of the Homelite's in his basement and both still run. |
Which outboard?
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:40:11 -0400, D-unit penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: "HK" wrote in message ... 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 $4000 less than the 200. Any comment on the extrapolations? Very suprising there's that much co$t difference between the 150 and the 200. Big difference for the 4-stoke vs 2-stroke! The 150HP engine is a 4 cyl inline and the 200HP is a 6 cyl V..... -- Most definitely, The only difference in the old 2-stroke150/200's is carberation..... methinks. My old 84 yamaha 150's were so damn reliable and ran like tops. That was the first year they made 6-cylinder 2 strokes and they got it right except for one thing: Corrosion control. db |
Which outboard?
|
Which outboard?
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 |
Which outboard?
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:48:55 -0700, -rick- wrote:
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 Cool - although I fail to see the advantage. |
Which outboard?
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:08:15 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote: On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:07:19 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:48:55 -0700, -rick- wrote: 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 Cool - although I fail to see the advantage. If I interpret correctly..... It is using water to extract the wasted heat energy that the cooling system would throw away.... it isn't really water injection to enhance fuel burning efficiency, like on an aircraft. It is really a combination gasoline/steam engine. I see issues with shock cooling and corrosion. Cool, nevertheless.... I understand the concept - I'm just having trouble understanding how this becomes more efficient than a four stroke. You still have to carry the water which is heavy and I imagine it uses a fair amount of water to create enough oommph to move the piston on the fifth stroke. Interesting none the less. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com