On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:31:39 -0400, Dan intrceptor@gmaildotcom
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. :)

Do you happen to know the difference in weight? The 4 stroke should be
quite a bit heavier.

The difference, dry weight, is minor and any "weight" advantage is
suspect. The ETEC 200 HO (my engine) is 509 pounds. The Yamaha 200
HP four stroke is 585 pounds dry.

My engine has a 90 degree block, the Yamaha is 60 degree block, but
high compression. Mine is 200 CUI, the Yamaha is 206 CUI.

So comparatively, they are relatively the same except for the block
angle with a slight advantage to ETEC in weight which isn't
significant.