Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:40:00 -0400, HK wrote:

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.

I have consistently said that fully injected, computer managed two
strokes are much more consistent and cheaper to run that four strokes.
I can't do anything more than post, on a performance related thread,
the results of a recent trip. Facts is facts.

Secondly, I can't speak to boat tests. I've tested a lot of bass/bay
boats in my time as part of the dealer setup regimen and the recent
innovations produced by Evinrude produce cleaner, faster and more
efficient engines. They are always better than the more formal boat
tests results would indicate. If I might offer an opinion, the is
bias in the test arena towards four stroke engines. Why that is, I
can't say.

My personal experience, based on two boats with the same technology,
matches.

I've compared my results to the testing results and frankly, I find
the testing results suspect compared to my personal experience. I
mean think about it. I have no doubt you achieved what the test
results produced, but your boat is longer, heavier, 21 degree dead
rise and you a pushing it with a standard production prop on a 150
horse power four stroke. I have a hard time believing, but I do
because I have no reason to doubt you - you have you ever given me
any reason to doubt you in this area - that you achieved the
performance you claimed. I'm willing to take your data as it stands.

Based on my personal experience, ETEC wins hands down.

And, if you want personal testimony about the engines performance, ask
Scott.

It's as simple as that.


I believe the test results posted by evinrude for your engine and a 20'
boat are reasonably accurate. I believe the very similar results posted
by yamaha for its engine and the same 20' boat are also accurate. My
posted results are almost precisely as indicated in Parker's test sheet,
which I have, and for Yamaha's published test reports for my engine and
boats almost identical to mine.

These manufacturers' tests are conducted under reasonably scientific
methods, including weights and measures, air temps, wind, prop sizing,
et cetera. For each RPM range reported, they run the engine at those
speeds upwind and downwind, and make the results available. At least
that is what Yamaha does. They use an accurate fuel flow meter.

What would be interesting for your boat is for you to run it at
specified RPMs for a few minutes and report the speed and fuel burn,
along with boat weight plus weight of engine fuel, guys and gear.

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.