Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:33:20 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:58:42 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:00:48 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Would a silver prop perform better?
Of course not.

Black props are Ninja Props - automatically better.
Tom,
Does etec have as nice of a web site as Yamaha?

http://www.yamaha-motor.com/outboard...home/home.aspx

I don't think so.

opps, I check them out, they have Yamaha beat in the web site catagory also.

Does etec have black props?

I don't think so .......
I was seriously thinking of buying a 350 Yamaha if I bought the boat I
was thinking about.

Think I'll stick with 200 HO ETEC twins. When Scot and I were out
running around Narraganset Bay today, we burned 9 gallons of gas in
four hours.

And most of that was running time as we took the long way around a
couple of areas. WOT and cruise with about an hour trolling. It ran
four hours straight.

Not bad - 2.40 gph.

Not bad at all. :)
How many hours at WOT? How many hours at "cruise," and at what RPMS?
Nine gallons? Hehehe.

Hehehe all you want Parker Boy...

Unlike you, I have a witness who posts here. :)

HE HE HE!!!



Anything is possible, Tom, depending upon how much time was spent at
WOT, how much at cruise and at what speed, and how much time was spent
at low rpms, but the implication you are giving here is you ran that
engine "mostly" at WOT and cruise for four hours, and burned 2.4 gph.
The laws of thermodynamics must be different up there.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:21:40 -0400, HK wrote:

Anything is possible, Tom, depending upon how much time was spent at
WOT, how much at cruise and at what speed, and how much time was spent
at low rpms, but the implication you are giving here is you ran that
engine "mostly" at WOT and cruise for four hours, and burned 2.4 gph.
The laws of thermodynamics must be different up there.

Well, we ran out of Oakland Beach in Warwick, WOT to Ohio Ledge on the
Providence side, found a blue fish boil (idle), worked Ohio Ledge for
a few minutes, then ran cruise (4200/35 mph) to the sunk coal bunker
off the lower end of Prudence Island T-Wharf, WOT (5100/46 mph) on our
way out to Breton Reef, stopped short of the Newport Bridge, Scot
caught a nice 10 lb blue, trolled around for a while, ran out East
Passage past Newport Harbor to the #2 bouy at the south end of the
Reef, worked up to the old tower site and back (idle), picked up and
ran to Beaver Tail (cruise) nothing going on there, so ran West
Passage to East Greenwich Bay (cruise), trolled East Greenwich Bay on
a line from Round Rock/Hunt Ledge to Sally Rock for a while, picked up
and ran to Conimicut Point (Cruise) at the lower end of the Providence
River opposite the #2 light, then WOT back to Oakland Beach for
recovery.

Never shut the engine off.

Four and a half hours total run time start to finish.

9 gallons of fuel.

And I have a witness.

Thermo That, Dynamic Boy. :)

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:21:40 -0400, HK wrote:

Anything is possible, Tom, depending upon how much time was spent at
WOT, how much at cruise and at what speed, and how much time was spent
at low rpms, but the implication you are giving here is you ran that
engine "mostly" at WOT and cruise for four hours, and burned 2.4 gph.
The laws of thermodynamics must be different up there.

Well, we ran out of Oakland Beach in Warwick, WOT to Ohio Ledge on the
Providence side, found a blue fish boil (idle), worked Ohio Ledge for
a few minutes, then ran cruise (4200/35 mph) to the sunk coal bunker
off the lower end of Prudence Island T-Wharf, WOT (5100/46 mph) on our
way out to Breton Reef, stopped short of the Newport Bridge, Scot
caught a nice 10 lb blue, trolled around for a while, ran out East
Passage past Newport Harbor to the #2 bouy at the south end of the
Reef, worked up to the old tower site and back (idle), picked up and
ran to Beaver Tail (cruise) nothing going on there, so ran West
Passage to East Greenwich Bay (cruise), trolled East Greenwich Bay on
a line from Round Rock/Hunt Ledge to Sally Rock for a while, picked up
and ran to Conimicut Point (Cruise) at the lower end of the Providence
River opposite the #2 light, then WOT back to Oakland Beach for
recovery.

Never shut the engine off.

Four and a half hours total run time start to finish.

9 gallons of fuel.

And I have a witness.

Thermo That, Dynamic Boy. :)


Well, I just looked at the Evinrude etec site and checked over a few
performance bulletins. I didn't see any evidence that the etecs were any
more efficient than yamahas in fuel burn. In fact, when I looked at the
sheet for the Angler 204FX with a 150 etec, a boat a little smaller and
lighter than mine, and loaded lighter, too, I saw a fuel burn very
similar to mine at "cruise" speeds, and the typical one gallon an hour
per 10 horsepower performance at WOT, about the same as what I get.

Same was true for the 200 hp etec. Interestingly, Evinrude doesn't
provide oil burn figures on its performance sheets, yet on its web site,
it makes all manner of claims for "efficiency." I have a feeling that
whatever small "gains" are claimed for an etec fuel burn are lost when
you average in the cost of that "special" oil.

My guess is that if you had a shadow boat, the same boat as yours,
equipped with a four stroke Yamaha of the same horsepower as yours, and
that boat was operated the same as you ran yours at the same time, the
difference in fuel burn might fill a quart jar. Maybe.

On Sep 14, 7:53 am, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:21:40 -0400, HK wrote:

Anything is possible, Tom, depending upon how much time was spent at
WOT, how much at cruise and at what speed, and how much time was spent
at low rpms, but the implication you are giving here is you ran that
engine "mostly" at WOT and cruise for four hours, and burned 2.4 gph.
The laws of thermodynamics must be different up there.

Well, we ran out of Oakland Beach in Warwick, WOT to Ohio Ledge on the
Providence side, found a blue fish boil (idle), worked Ohio Ledge for
a few minutes, then ran cruise (4200/35 mph) to the sunk coal bunker
off the lower end of Prudence Island T-Wharf, WOT (5100/46 mph) on our
way out to Breton Reef, stopped short of the Newport Bridge, Scot
caught a nice 10 lb blue, trolled around for a while, ran out East
Passage past Newport Harbor to the #2 bouy at the south end of the
Reef, worked up to the old tower site and back (idle), picked up and
ran to Beaver Tail (cruise) nothing going on there, so ran West
Passage to East Greenwich Bay (cruise), trolled East Greenwich Bay on
a line from Round Rock/Hunt Ledge to Sally Rock for a while, picked up
and ran to Conimicut Point (Cruise) at the lower end of the Providence
River opposite the #2 light, then WOT back to Oakland Beach for
recovery.

Never shut the engine off.

Four and a half hours total run time start to finish.

9 gallons of fuel.

And I have a witness.

Thermo That, Dynamic Boy. :)

Well, I just looked at the Evinrude etec site and checked over a few
performance bulletins. I didn't see any evidence that the etecs were any
more efficient than yamahas in fuel burn. In fact, when I looked at the
sheet for the Angler 204FX with a 150 etec, a boat a little smaller and
lighter than mine, and loaded lighter, too, I saw a fuel burn very
similar to mine at "cruise" speeds, and the typical one gallon an hour
per 10 horsepower performance at WOT, about the same as what I get.

Same was true for the 200 hp etec. Interestingly, Evinrude doesn't
provide oil burn figures on its performance sheets, yet on its web site,
it makes all manner of claims for "efficiency." I have a feeling that
whatever small "gains" are claimed for an etec fuel burn are lost when
you average in the cost of that "special" oil.

My guess is that if you had a shadow boat, the same boat as yours,
equipped with a four stroke Yamaha of the same horsepower as yours, and
that boat was operated the same as you ran yours at the same time, the
difference in fuel burn might fill a quart jar. Maybe.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

With the extra weight and huge deadrise in comparison to the Ranger,
do you think Tom might get better gph than you? If the engines head to
head are as close as you say, you might be burning more fuel in
similar situations. BTW, I can confirm that SW ran the engine all day,
and we covered a lot of ground touring the bay at speed.
Gotta' say on a side note. what a beautiful area that is. the
architecture,the different environments, great place to boat.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:53:17 -0400, HK wrote:

I have a feeling that
whatever small "gains" are claimed for an etec fuel burn are lost when
you average in the cost of that "special" oil.

I just just checked the "special" oil.

I used slightly less than 19 ounces.

At $26.15 per gallon (I buy at a bulk rate), that works out to .25¢ an
ounce which means that I spent $4.75 in oil - roughly rounding up.

9 gallons of fuel at $2.56/gallon equals $23.04. Add $4.75 equals
$27.79 dived by four and a half hours equals $6.18/hour operating
cost.

Even at retail ($36.70/gallon) it still works out to $5.05 worth of
oil which makes the operating cost at $7.53/hour.

Talk about inexpensive operating cost.

Special That, Oil Boy. :)

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:53:17 -0400, HK wrote:

My guess is that if you had a shadow boat, the same boat as yours,
equipped with a four stroke Yamaha of the same horsepower as yours, and
that boat was operated the same as you ran yours at the same time, the
difference in fuel burn might fill a quart jar. Maybe.

Wanna bet?

Just to make the point, one of my professional collegues has a brand
new 20' Bay Ranger with a 150 Yamaha four stroke and he doesn't even
come close to the performance I get with my 200 HO ETEC. My boat is
seven years older than his and heavier by about 800 pounds to boot as
we have discussed in the past.

I would be glad to email him and ask him to give me his fuel burn
figures if you want. Might be an interesting comparisoin to what you
are getting.

I know they aren't as good as mine. :)

Neener, neener, neener...

wrote:
On Sep 14, 7:53 am, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:21:40 -0400, HK wrote:
Anything is possible, Tom, depending upon how much time was spent at
WOT, how much at cruise and at what speed, and how much time was spent
at low rpms, but the implication you are giving here is you ran that
engine "mostly" at WOT and cruise for four hours, and burned 2.4 gph.
The laws of thermodynamics must be different up there.
Well, we ran out of Oakland Beach in Warwick, WOT to Ohio Ledge on the
Providence side, found a blue fish boil (idle), worked Ohio Ledge for
a few minutes, then ran cruise (4200/35 mph) to the sunk coal bunker
off the lower end of Prudence Island T-Wharf, WOT (5100/46 mph) on our
way out to Breton Reef, stopped short of the Newport Bridge, Scot
caught a nice 10 lb blue, trolled around for a while, ran out East
Passage past Newport Harbor to the #2 bouy at the south end of the
Reef, worked up to the old tower site and back (idle), picked up and
ran to Beaver Tail (cruise) nothing going on there, so ran West
Passage to East Greenwich Bay (cruise), trolled East Greenwich Bay on
a line from Round Rock/Hunt Ledge to Sally Rock for a while, picked up
and ran to Conimicut Point (Cruise) at the lower end of the Providence
River opposite the #2 light, then WOT back to Oakland Beach for
recovery.
Never shut the engine off.
Four and a half hours total run time start to finish.
9 gallons of fuel.
And I have a witness.
Thermo That, Dynamic Boy. :)
Well, I just looked at the Evinrude etec site and checked over a few
performance bulletins. I didn't see any evidence that the etecs were any
more efficient than yamahas in fuel burn. In fact, when I looked at the
sheet for the Angler 204FX with a 150 etec, a boat a little smaller and
lighter than mine, and loaded lighter, too, I saw a fuel burn very
similar to mine at "cruise" speeds, and the typical one gallon an hour
per 10 horsepower performance at WOT, about the same as what I get.

Same was true for the 200 hp etec. Interestingly, Evinrude doesn't
provide oil burn figures on its performance sheets, yet on its web site,
it makes all manner of claims for "efficiency." I have a feeling that
whatever small "gains" are claimed for an etec fuel burn are lost when
you average in the cost of that "special" oil.

My guess is that if you had a shadow boat, the same boat as yours,
equipped with a four stroke Yamaha of the same horsepower as yours, and
that boat was operated the same as you ran yours at the same time, the
difference in fuel burn might fill a quart jar. Maybe.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

With the extra weight and huge deadrise in comparison to the Ranger,
do you think Tom might get better gph than you? If the engines head to
head are as close as you say, you might be burning more fuel in
similar situations. BTW, I can confirm that SW ran the engine all day,
and we covered a lot of ground touring the bay at speed.
Gotta' say on a side note. what a beautiful area that is. the
architecture,the different environments, great place to boat.



I'm not trying to compare SW's fuel burn to mine. My point is that on
two identical boats, operated identically at cruise speeds, one with an
etec and the other with a yamaha or suzuki four stroke, the differences
in fuel burn would not be that significant.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:28:40 -0400, "JimH" ask wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:53:17 -0400, HK wrote:

I have a feeling that
whatever small "gains" are claimed for an etec fuel burn are lost when
you average in the cost of that "special" oil.

I just just checked the "special" oil.

I used slightly less than 19 ounces.

At $26.15 per gallon (I buy at a bulk rate), that works out to .25¢ an
ounce which means that I spent $4.75 in oil - roughly rounding up.

9 gallons of fuel at $2.56/gallon equals $23.04. Add $4.75 equals
$27.79 dived by four and a half hours equals $6.18/hour operating
cost.

Even at retail ($36.70/gallon) it still works out to $5.05 worth of
oil which makes the operating cost at $7.53/hour.

Talk about inexpensive operating cost.

Special That, Oil Boy. :)

$2.56/gallon? We have not seen that for some time here. Street prices
here are $2.90 and marina prices are $3.20.

Helps to live close to the MA border.

Their prices are .30¢ to $35¢ cheaper per gallon than CT. :)

And the gas station is only 9 miles from the house.

WHOO HOO!!!

Although if Coupe DeVille Patrick has his way, that is soon going to
change to fund his "highway" improvement program.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:53:17 -0400, HK wrote:

I have a feeling that
whatever small "gains" are claimed for an etec fuel burn are lost when
you average in the cost of that "special" oil.

I just just checked the "special" oil.

I used slightly less than 19 ounces.

At $26.15 per gallon (I buy at a bulk rate), that works out to .25¢ an
ounce which means that I spent $4.75 in oil - roughly rounding up.

9 gallons of fuel at $2.56/gallon equals $23.04. Add $4.75 equals
$27.79 dived by four and a half hours equals $6.18/hour operating
cost.

Even at retail ($36.70/gallon) it still works out to $5.05 worth of
oil which makes the operating cost at $7.53/hour.

Talk about inexpensive operating cost.

Special That, Oil Boy. :)




I just did the 10-hour break-in oil change on my Yamaha 150; 5.5 quarts
at $1.50 a quart. I bought six quarts. $9.00. According to the manual,
the next oil change is due at 100 hours. Six quarts for every 100 hours,
or $9.00 for every 100 hours. About 10 cents an hour for oil. Four hours
of use, 40 cents worth of oil.

Hey, I'm not knocking your two stroke here. Remember, I owned an
Optimax, which also used very little oil and wasn't bad on gas, either.
But the claims of astoundingly better gas mileage with this high tech
two strokes is...b.s. They might be better than a standard old-tech two
stroke, but they are not better than a four stroke.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:53:17 -0400, HK wrote:

My guess is that if you had a shadow boat, the same boat as yours,
equipped with a four stroke Yamaha of the same horsepower as yours, and
that boat was operated the same as you ran yours at the same time, the
difference in fuel burn might fill a quart jar. Maybe.

Wanna bet?

Just to make the point, one of my professional collegues has a brand
new 20' Bay Ranger with a 150 Yamaha four stroke and he doesn't even
come close to the performance I get with my 200 HO ETEC. My boat is
seven years older than his and heavier by about 800 pounds to boot as
we have discussed in the past.

I would be glad to email him and ask him to give me his fuel burn
figures if you want. Might be an interesting comparisoin to what you
are getting.

I know they aren't as good as mine. :)

Neener, neener, neener...


According to the performance charts on the engine manufacturers' web
sites, the fuel burn figures for the etec 150 and the yamaha 150 on the
same boat are virtually identical, well within the margins of error.
Published fuel burn figures obtained under similar circumstances are
worth looking at...anecdotal information is...well, anecdotal.