Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:57:56 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Some small tests I've run on Son of Yo Ho indicate about 3.5 mpg at 26
mph. At your boat's speeds, my mileage goes down. 10 miles an hour equals
about 2 mpg.
So what?

Score another one for ETEC. The slower I go, the less fuel I use.

WHOO HOO!!!



You might wanna think that statement through.
At 3.8 mph, I burn about .65 gph, for almost 5 mpg, but I don't run at
that speed, even though that is more mpg than I get at cruise. I'm
talking practical running speeds here. At a 6 mph trolling speed, I get
about 4 mpg, which is a bit higher than my normail mpg at cruise, but
not very much. MPG drops for a while, but starts picking up again at 18
mph. 4000 rpm is really the sweet spot for my rig...3.5 mpg and 26 mph.

Do you have any metered results?

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:02:21 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:18:49 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Harry,
I recommend you put my in your bozo bin, you seem to be getting upset.
With your weight problems it is not good for your heart.

http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=AEHSRLS&key=VLV
JR
NOT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWcOvwcNGaA
You know, there is a photo of ReggieReTURDo extant, but it was taken a
few years ago:

http://tinyurl.com/3d9ady

Wasn't that the guy who cut that big hole in the transom of your
Parker? :)

He doesn't look THAT dumb.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:57:56 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Some small tests I've run on Son of Yo Ho indicate about 3.5 mpg at 26
mph. At your boat's speeds, my mileage goes down. 10 miles an hour equals
about 2 mpg.
So what?

Score another one for ETEC. The slower I go, the less fuel I use.

WHOO HOO!!!

How big is Chuck's engine - that's pretty efficient.

Hmmm - come to think of it, Doug King has a Sundowner - I'll ask him
his fuel mileage next time I chat with him.

SWS,
Have you seen any market share analysis between ETEC and 4 stroke?
I would assume that Ficht problems have hurt ETEC to some degree.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:20:56 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


nice song


Nice beat, I think you can dance to it, but the lyrics seem weak.


http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/images/fword.mp3

LMf-ingAO!

I'm John, and my first wife was Shirley! That was hilarious. I'm wondering
why we don't just play that for kids in first grade. They'd never have to
learn another word, only inflection.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:09:01 -0400, HK wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


Harry,
That was not polite, I am just trying to understand your position
on this issue. You can't say you don't like slow cruising, that
you really like to go fast so you can get to your destination
quickly, no matter what the fuel consumption is, and then chastise
someone else for using less fuel by cruising slowly.

So what kind of mpg and gph does your lobster boat get?





Once more, Reggie, don't offer me advice and don't ask me questions.
I allowed you more than a week to see if you could behave like a
gentlemen. Well, you couldn't. Drop dead. And please, no
rationalizations about how "innocent" your queries are.

http://tinyurl.com/3dg



I have been behaving like a gentlemen. You are the one who has been
calling me names, which I have ignored. Why did my question bother
you?



http://tinyurl.com/3dg

Harry,
Is using profanity behaving like a gentleman?



"Once more, Reggie, don't offer me advice and don't ask me questions."

http://tinyurl.com/3dg

Harry, do you know of any tests showing fuel consumption of the Yamaha 150?

John H. wrote:

Harry, do you know of any tests showing fuel consumption of the Yamaha 150?



Yamaha has pages and pages of "performance bulletins" on its engines, on
its website.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:20:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:57:56 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Some small tests I've run on Son of Yo Ho indicate about 3.5 mpg at 26
mph. At your boat's speeds, my mileage goes down. 10 miles an hour equals
about 2 mpg.
So what?

Score another one for ETEC. The slower I go, the less fuel I use.

WHOO HOO!!!

How big is Chuck's engine - that's pretty efficient.

Hmmm - come to think of it, Doug King has a Sundowner - I'll ask him
his fuel mileage next time I chat with him.

SWS,
Have you seen any market share analysis between ETEC and 4 stroke?
I would assume that Ficht problems have hurt ETEC to some degree.

No doubt about it at all. You get the idiot "revamped FICHT" all the
time. And, in some ways, they are revamped FICHTS. On the other hand
with the advent of new materials science plus some very clever
adaptation of other engine technologies, Bombardier took ETEC to where
FICHT would have gone had it lived a little longer. You have to
remember, Bombardier marketing and engineering types aren't stupid -
they are a big time company and didn't walk into the FICHT debacle
blindly. They saw the potential of FICHT, bought the technology and
ran with it. The results were the clearly superior ETEC engines.

It's like the idiot who posted about having gone through three
powerheads on his 200 FICHT. Right - and I'm the freakin' tooth
fairy. The 200s were never a problem other than routine stuff you run
into on other types of engines. The "problem" was fairly well
confined to the 150/175 blocks and even then, it wasn't as
catastrophic as it's made out to be. Power heads failed - no doubt
about it, but the Coast Guard over reacted to the situation and made
it worse under pressure from Mercury and Yamaha - or so I have been
told from some engineers who were involved in the process.

Bombardier even went to extremes to make sure the 150/175 ETECs were
right before they released them into the product stream - they were
delayed for a while until they could be absoutely sure that the same
problems didn't develop in the ETEC line as happened in the FICHT
line.

True story. One of the guys at my old marina had two '99 200 FICHTS
on his 32 Hydra-Sport and when the recall was announced, panicked and
removed them replacing them with Merc 200 Optimax's.

Both engines failed within 15 hours of new - powerhead failures. And
he had over 700 hours on his FICHTS with no problems other than
routine maintenance.

Perception is hard to battle. Folks have bought into the whole four
stroke hype for two reasons - it's not a "mysterious" engine with
cutting edge technology (it's like having your car engine on the back
of your boat) and Yamaha dumped their product at low profit margins to
gain market share through what should be viewed as restraint of trade
policies with exclusive deals with manufacturers.

Four strokes have some advantages over two strokes - can't debate that
point. But pound-for-pound, dollar-for-dollar, ETEC two stroke
technology is clearly superior in all areas of performance and
eventually, they will prevail.

WE WILL RULE THE WORLD!!!

Er...

Um...

Never mind. :)

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

WE WILL RULE THE WORLD!!!

Er...

Um...

Never mind. :)

I am positive if there was a problem with ETEC, we would have heard
about it in rec.boats.

So what do you guess is the market share on ETEC?

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Perception is hard to battle. Folks have bought into the whole four
stroke hype for two reasons - it's not a "mysterious" engine with
cutting edge technology (it's like having your car engine on the back
of your boat) and Yamaha dumped their product at low profit margins to
gain market share through what should be viewed as restraint of trade
policies with exclusive deals with manufacturers.

Four strokes have some advantages over two strokes - can't debate that
point. But pound-for-pound, dollar-for-dollar, ETEC two stroke
technology is clearly superior in all areas of performance and
eventually, they will prevail.

WE WILL RULE THE WORLD!!!

Er...

Um...

Never mind. :)


Man, you need to cut back on that Kool-Aid!

HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Perception is hard to battle. Folks have bought into the whole four
stroke hype for two reasons - it's not a "mysterious" engine with
cutting edge technology (it's like having your car engine on the back
of your boat) and Yamaha dumped their product at low profit margins to
gain market share through what should be viewed as restraint of trade
policies with exclusive deals with manufacturers.

Four strokes have some advantages over two strokes - can't debate that
point. But pound-for-pound, dollar-for-dollar, ETEC two stroke
technology is clearly superior in all areas of performance and
eventually, they will prevail.

WE WILL RULE THE WORLD!!!

Er...

Um...

Never mind. :)


Man, you need to cut back on that Kool-Aid!


Harry,
Didn't you have a Ficht or Mercury OptiMax? If I remember correctly you
didn't have any problems with the engine, and the only problem you were
aware of was solved by a software update. At that time, you and Tom
were singing the exact same song of the benefits of high tech 2 stroke,
vs. the negatives of the heavier, low torque Yamaha 4 stroke. You must
have posted 1000's of messages to Karen calling her an idiot, bitch and
ugly c_nt and you couldn't imagine why anyone would buy a 4 stroke.

What happened to change your mind?