"HK" wrote in message
...
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:05?pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:49:07 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Chuck Gould wrote:
Your opinion has certainly "evolved" since the days when you proudly
proclaimed your ownership of a Hatteras in rec.boats. :-)
Indeed, Chuck. After a four year war "for oil" that continues, $3+
prices
at the pump, and the hard right working harder than ever to deny the
impact of global warming, it just seems "smarter" to downsize one's
energy
consuming toys. I wouldn't mind seeing a substantial luxury tax or
energy
surtax on oversized pleasure vehicles, luxury yachts, private planes,
et
cetera.
The surtax should be on the cost of the fuel in excess of X amount of
gallons used per month, not the item the fuel is used in.
Eisboch
Harry, if you're still reading - many of those trawlers are powered with
small diesels, burning almost nothing. Do you consider Wayne's or
Chuck's
boats 'luxury yachts'?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I realize over 4 nmpg. I'd be surprised to learn that Harry's boat is
more economical than that.


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?

Eisboch

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.

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 20:57:56 -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 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?

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:48:22 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

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?

Don't know. Probably not high compared to Yamaha's. I do know that
Bombardier made an attempt to link engines and boats with their
Fishhawk line, but that lasted for only two years.

Yamaha's success has largely been due to their linkage with
manufacturers on exclusive deals. Customers aren't given any other
choice.

Hard to fight that.

I can say with relative authority, that on bass boats which you can
make a choice, ETECs tend to sell at about the same pace and once you
sell somebody an ETEC, it's instant conversion.

Other than that, can't say.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:48:22 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

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?

Don't know. Probably not high compared to Yamaha's. I do know that
Bombardier made an attempt to link engines and boats with their
Fishhawk line, but that lasted for only two years.

Yamaha's success has largely been due to their linkage with
manufacturers on exclusive deals. Customers aren't given any other
choice.

Hard to fight that.

I can say with relative authority, that on bass boats which you can
make a choice, ETECs tend to sell at about the same pace and once you
sell somebody an ETEC, it's instant conversion.

Other than that, can't say.

The tie in with the mfg'er seems to limit ETEC as an option. I have the
feeling that is why Harry switched to Yamaha

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:48:22 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

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?

Don't know. Probably not high compared to Yamaha's. I do know that
Bombardier made an attempt to link engines and boats with their
Fishhawk line, but that lasted for only two years.

Yamaha's success has largely been due to their linkage with
manufacturers on exclusive deals. Customers aren't given any other
choice.

Hard to fight that.

I can say with relative authority, that on bass boats which you can
make a choice, ETECs tend to sell at about the same pace and once you
sell somebody an ETEC, it's instant conversion.

Other than that, can't say.


Not high compared to Yamaha? Not high compared to Mercury or Suzuki,
either, I would bet, not in the larger engine offerings. Hell, there may
be fewer eTecs out there than large Hondas of the same vintage.

There's a lot of residual bad will among boaters and dealers from the
demise of OMC, and the feeling the current owners of the Evinrude brand
name will dump it as soon as they can. Evinrude/Johnson/OMC was a
well-respected brand name until the corporations ruined it.

There are very, very few eTec dealers, and many of those are marginal.

Both Yamaha and Mercury have had long years of linkages with boat
manufacturers. Evinrude used to have these relationships, too. Suzuki
has been trying to build up its linkages, with some limited success.

I wouldn't touch an eTec with a 10-foot pole. I don't know anything
about eTec technology. I don't trust the company that owns the brand name.

That and the fact that eTec has virtually no market penetration around
here.

I'd buy a Merc or a Suzuki, though. Zukes have come a long way.

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!