On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:26:38 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:30:48 -0400, HK wrote:

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

Practical experience along with fully supportable personal evidence
proves otherwise.

Thems the figures. No need to embellish.

Maybe I'm just luckier than others. :)

You never give complete figures. How many miles? What
average speed?

I suppose that would be meaningful in this discussion if that was part
of the original thread. We were discussing GPH and efficiency while
running.

However, just for the sake of discussion, let me look at my chart and
get a distance. Be right back.

Rougly 57 miles over 4 1/2 hours which equals 12.67 mph.

That right? Can't be. Let me use a calculator - I did that in my
head.

Hmmmm - guess it is. Then again, makes sense because some of that
time was not running time but idle time.

Never mind - I was talking to myself. :)

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:26:38 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:30:48 -0400, HK wrote:

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
Practical experience along with fully supportable personal evidence
proves otherwise.

Thems the figures. No need to embellish.

Maybe I'm just luckier than others. :)
You never give complete figures. How many miles? What
average speed?

I suppose that would be meaningful in this discussion if that was part
of the original thread. We were discussing GPH and efficiency while
running.

However, just for the sake of discussion, let me look at my chart and
get a distance. Be right back.

Rougly 57 miles over 4 1/2 hours which equals 12.67 mph.

That right? Can't be. Let me use a calculator - I did that in my
head.

Hmmmm - guess it is. Then again, makes sense because some of that
time was not running time but idle time.

Never mind - I was talking to myself. :)




Uh...

"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."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"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."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

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

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"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."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

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


Now I understand the meaning of the word...jarhead! :}

"More" is one of those words like "significant." If over a day in which
the two engines ran six hours gunnel to gunnel, and the total fuel burn
for one engine was, say, 19 gallons, and the fuel burn for the other
engine was, say, 17 or 21 gallons, that would not be significant to my
wallet.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:24:53 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"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."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?

Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

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

Now I understand the meaning of the word...jarhead! :}

"More" is one of those words like "significant." If over a day in which
the two engines ran six hours gunnel to gunnel, and the total fuel burn
for one engine was, say, 19 gallons, and the fuel burn for the other
engine was, say, 17 or 21 gallons, that would not be significant to my
wallet.

I'd love to put my ETEC on your boat and watch your ugly mug turn
green with envy using half the amount of fuel you normally use with
that ancient egg beater you have now. :)

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:24:53 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:52:09 -0400, HK wrote:

"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."

There's no real argument with that statement, is there?
Yes there is - after all, this is rec.bots - standard operating
procedure. :)

While I agree that you would almost have to swap engines on the same
boat to make it absolutely "scientific", you can compare, or make some
pretty good estimates, of what fuel consumption would be even
comparing results from different engines on different boats.

And I'm saying that ETEC will provide a significant increase in fuel
efficiency, both short term and long term, over any four stroke design
available today. In other words, given the mileage/idle/cruise/WOT
time on that same trip, I'm saying that your boat would have used more
fuel and cost more to run than mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)
Now I understand the meaning of the word...jarhead! :}

"More" is one of those words like "significant." If over a day in which
the two engines ran six hours gunnel to gunnel, and the total fuel burn
for one engine was, say, 19 gallons, and the fuel burn for the other
engine was, say, 17 or 21 gallons, that would not be significant to my
wallet.

I'd love to put my ETEC on your boat and watch your ugly mug turn
green with envy using half the amount of fuel you normally use with
that ancient egg beater you have now. :)


Go ahead...make my day! I'll watch while you lift my Yamaha off the
transom and put your etec on it. We can do this at the local hospital,
which you will need after your heavy lifting. It's a damned fine little
hospital, too.


Half, eh? So etecs aren't constrained by the rule of 10, eh?

wrote:
On Sep 14, 8:43 am, HK wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who you callin' anecdotal there... guy's probably got a three blade
prop and a low transom


The low transom helps to reduce wind drag thus increasing the fuel
efficiency.

Calif Bill wrote:


You f'n pervert. You are the one most likely to be in the 2 holer with a
plastic raincoat on while spying on both men and women. Since you now
actually appear to own a boat and have actually used it, seems as if you
have to describe all. My Yamaha T-8 came with a white prop. When I got the
prop straightened they painted it black. does not seem to be a noticable
difference in performance. The black prop worked well on Tuesday while
trolling for lake trout at Lake Tahoe. Caught a small 12" one and a nice
24" one. Both released to be caught another day. Maybe if I paint the
stainless impellers in my jetdrive, I can get another 20-30 knots of
performance?

As you use the black prop, you will notice the black paint will peel
away. Your performance will deteriorate as the paint peels.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:42:16 -0400, HK wrote:

I could run my boat for four hours, including some time at WOT and
cruising speed, and also honestly report a fuel burn of X gallons for
the adventure. But unless the information is presented in a standardized
format, it is only anecdotal.

Well, let's do it.

I'm going down to SC in the middle of October - let's set something up
for when I return. Split the cost of the boat trip.

Test the information and compare results.

Tom, make sure you go for a test run on Harry's other boat, the elusive
Lobster Boat.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:03:11 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:42:16 -0400, HK wrote:

I could run my boat for four hours, including some time at WOT and
cruising speed, and also honestly report a fuel burn of X gallons for
the adventure. But unless the information is presented in a standardized
format, it is only anecdotal.

Well, let's do it.

I'm going down to SC in the middle of October - let's set something up
for when I return. Split the cost of the boat trip.

Test the information and compare results.

Tom, make sure you go for a test run on Harry's other boat, the elusive
Lobster Boat.

Well, here's the way I look at it.

I don't give a flying rats a$$ about it.

How's that?

Further, unless I see an image of your boat, I'll assume that you
don't have one either. You seem intent on phantom boats, prove you
own one.

Otherwise, drop it - it's stupid and silly.