Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:11:36 -0400, HK
wrote:

JimH wrote:
On Jun 13, 8:28 pm, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:09:51 -0400, HK
wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
http://www.swsports.org/images/Movies/Beautiful.wmv
Noisy at idle. Seriously. Nice ****er, though.
Please feel free to post a video of yours at idle.
Assuming that you actually have a Yamaha that is. :)
I don't own a video camera.
Give it up guys................

This whole thing of 'mine is bigger than yours' is getting old.
But...my motor is smaller than his...not bigger.
And it makes less noise...not more!
Prove it.


Speaking of proof, I just checked the Evinrude site and could not
find a link that took me to the dozens of motor and boat test
reports you can find on the Mercury and Yamaha sites. The Evinrude
site has lots of pop-ups and hyperbole, but not the kind of hard
information that helps a potential buyer evaluate performance and
fuel economy.

Can you provide the link there I couldn't find...appreciate it...

Maybe you should try again. There's all kinds of comparison data.



Yeah? In a non-hyperbolic format? I don't mean the sort of
unsubstantiated claims about "service." I mean, charts that show a
particular boat, with all its measurements and weights, air temp of
the day, what gear is on the boat, how many crew, how much fuel,
what prop,
and the readouts of RPM, speed, fuel burn through the operational
range of the engine.

I couldn't find that link on the Evinrude site. If you can, please
let me know what it is.

Yamaha and Mercury provide the data...on the Yamaha site, it looks
like this:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ous/angler.jpg



Where are the similar pages on the Evinrude site?


Evinrude has a very similar data sheet on their web site, they
actually compare the same data between them and Mercury and Yamaha,
all of them side by side. The one I saw was for the 225 hp, and is
Bullitin # PE333

D'oh.

Yes, Reggie, I know. If you keep digging and digging and digging, you
can find some. I think I know why. Evinrude is busy making all manner
of outrageous claims for its eTecs, but when it comes to supplying
data, you really have to dig for it on its site. I think that is
deliberate.

The report on the eTec 150 I found, on a boat that weighs about the
same as mine, and is about the same length and width, shows
performance and fuel usage results about the same as mine, and the
reports I found for boats I have some knowledge of showed the eTec's
produced results virtually no different than motors from other
manufacturers.

Which has been my point from the very beginning...that eTecs do not
violate the laws of thermodynamics...a 150 hp or a 200 hp modern,
high-tech outboard, two cycle or four cycle, produces pretty similar
results, and that the claims of astonishing performace for eTecs
are...bullship.

The only surprise I've had so far is on that video of Tom's eTec at
idle. It seems to be significantly noisier at idle than my old Yamaha
F225 or my current Yamaha F150, but there are too many variables and
unknowns involved here for me to draw conclusions.

Good googling on your part, Reggie. I suppose it still is a valid
substitute for you to actually owning a boat.



I thought you were ignoring me?


Only in the real world, crap-for-brains. *This* is rec.boats, the
newsgroup for boating poseurs - like you.

On Jun 14, 10:36*am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:11:36 -0400, HK wrote:

JimH wrote:
On Jun 13, 8:28 pm, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:09:51 -0400, HK
wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
http://www.swsports.org/images/Movies/Beautiful.wmv
Noisy at idle. Seriously. Nice ****er, though.
Please feel free to post a video of yours at idle.
Assuming that you actually have a Yamaha that is. *:)
I don't own a video camera.
Give it up guys................

This whole thing of 'mine is bigger than yours' is getting old.
But...my motor is smaller than his...not bigger.
And it makes less noise...not more!
Prove it.

Speaking of proof, I just checked the Evinrude site and could not
find a link that took me to the dozens of motor and boat test reports
you can find on the Mercury and Yamaha sites. The Evinrude site has
lots of pop-ups and hyperbole, but not the kind of hard information
that helps a potential buyer evaluate performance and fuel economy.

Can you provide the link there I couldn't find...appreciate it...

Maybe you should try again. *There's all kinds of comparison data.

Yeah? In a non-hyperbolic format? I don't mean the sort of
unsubstantiated claims about "service." I mean, charts that show a
particular boat, with all its measurements and weights, air temp of the
day, what gear is on the boat, how many crew, how much fuel, what prop,
and the readouts of RPM, speed, fuel burn through the operational range
of the engine.

I couldn't find that link on the Evinrude site. If you can, please let
me know what it is.

Yamaha and Mercury provide the data...on the Yamaha site, it looks like
this:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ous/angler.jpg

Where are the similar pages on the Evinrude site?

Evinrude has a very similar data sheet on their web site, they actually
compare the same data between them and Mercury and Yamaha, all of them
side by side. *The one I saw was for the 225 hp, and is Bullitin # PE333- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Reggie, please ignore the stooges that are here for nothing but
starting ****ing contests.

wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:36 am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:11:36 -0400, HK wrote:
JimH wrote:
On Jun 13, 8:28 pm, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:09:51 -0400, HK
wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
http://www.swsports.org/images/Movies/Beautiful.wmv
Noisy at idle. Seriously. Nice ****er, though.
Please feel free to post a video of yours at idle.
Assuming that you actually have a Yamaha that is. :)
I don't own a video camera.
Give it up guys................
This whole thing of 'mine is bigger than yours' is getting old.
But...my motor is smaller than his...not bigger.
And it makes less noise...not more!
Prove it.
Speaking of proof, I just checked the Evinrude site and could not
find a link that took me to the dozens of motor and boat test reports
you can find on the Mercury and Yamaha sites. The Evinrude site has
lots of pop-ups and hyperbole, but not the kind of hard information
that helps a potential buyer evaluate performance and fuel economy.
Can you provide the link there I couldn't find...appreciate it...
Maybe you should try again. There's all kinds of comparison data.
Yeah? In a non-hyperbolic format? I don't mean the sort of
unsubstantiated claims about "service." I mean, charts that show a
particular boat, with all its measurements and weights, air temp of the
day, what gear is on the boat, how many crew, how much fuel, what prop,
and the readouts of RPM, speed, fuel burn through the operational range
of the engine.
I couldn't find that link on the Evinrude site. If you can, please let
me know what it is.
Yamaha and Mercury provide the data...on the Yamaha site, it looks like
this:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ous/angler.jpg
Where are the similar pages on the Evinrude site?
Evinrude has a very similar data sheet on their web site, they actually
compare the same data between them and Mercury and Yamaha, all of them
side by side. The one I saw was for the 225 hp, and is Bullitin # PE333- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Reggie, please ignore the stooges that are here for nothing but
starting ****ing contests.



This is rich: the turd known as Loogy playing newgroup cop with the turd
known as Reggie.

:)

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Jun 14, 9:41 am, "D.Duck" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...





Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:11:36 -0400, HK wrote:
JimH wrote:
On Jun 13, 8:28 pm, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:09:51 -0400, HK
wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
http://www.swsports.org/images/Movies/Beautiful.wmv
Noisy at idle. Seriously. Nice ****er, though.
Please feel free to post a video of yours at idle.
Assuming that you actually have a Yamaha that is. :)
I don't own a video camera.
Give it up guys................
This whole thing of 'mine is bigger than yours' is getting old.
But...my motor is smaller than his...not bigger.
And it makes less noise...not more!
Prove it.
Speaking of proof, I just checked the Evinrude site and could not find
a
link that took me to the dozens of motor and boat test reports you can
find on the Mercury and Yamaha sites. The Evinrude site has lots of
pop-ups and hyperbole, but not the kind of hard information that helps
a
potential buyer evaluate performance and fuel economy.
Can you provide the link there I couldn't find...appreciate it...
Maybe you should try again. There's all kinds of comparison data.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please, you know he is only trolling, you have been here long enough.
If you must address him, please be kind enough to snip, snip, snip..
Most here agreed not to engage any trolls a few weeks back, and things
have been much better. If you read back over a couple days of posts,
you will see nothing but the usual attacks and trolls from this
puppet, you will also notice no one at all but you responding...

Join the fight against curtain climbers, don't look, don't react, and
don't get sucked in.. thanks.


So...you don't have any manufacturer's performance chart data that might
be used for comparison, either, hey, boy? You'll be a welcome addition to
the dregs of rec.boats, too.


He's already here..as JustWait, etc.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:09:51 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
http://www.swsports.org/images/Movies/Beautiful.wmv


Noisy at idle. Seriously. Nice ****er, though.

Please feel free to post a video of yours at idle.

Assuming that you actually have a Yamaha that is. :)


The sound of that tell-tale ****ing in the water must drive you nuts when at
idle. :-)

Eisboch

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 03:25:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

This whole thing of 'mine is bigger than yours' is getting old.

Maybe so but mine really is bigger.

Good point.

How big are those in terms of cubic inches?

DD 6-71s ?

Easy, the first number, 6, is the number of cylinders. The second
number, 71, is the displacement (cid) of each cylinder. Ergo, 6 times
71 is 426 cubic inches. Pretty big for a 6 cylinder engine but the
really big puppies are the 12V71s and 12V92s. Those things are
massive.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:09:41 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

In spite of Evinrude's claims, no fuel system provides increased power
and better fuel consumption.... by definition. You increase power by
burning more fuel in the engine.... either by supercharging, larger
valves, tuned intake and/or headers, increased engine size, etc....
but you can't get something for nothing.

Those things we can't understand we brand as improbable, that which is
improbable become impossible.

It's not something for nothing - it's just more efficient.

When you consider all the electronics associated with the fuel/oil
delivery system, the EMM management that takes into account air
pressure/air temperature/water temperature, variable timing based on
RPM and controlling the injection timing you've developed a management
system that allows for efficiency. You are absolutely correct that
you use more fuel at higher rpms, but you use that fuel to obtain the
maximum effienciey. The two stroke engine is much more - um - er -
adaptable to this approach.

Four stroke manufacturers have been aware of this for years -
introduce the same type of systems to a four stroke engine would
create higher efficiencies than that gained by ETEC believe it or not.
The problem is that the costs involved in creating this monster would
drive the manufacturing cost up where even the Japanese price supports
would collapse and then ETEC would have the economic advantage. :)

Be that as it may, I've been asked off line by a bunch of people to
drop the subject because it gets Harry's undies in a bunch so I will
comply to keep the piece. :)

Speaking of which, you going to be around sometime mid-Julyish? I'll
buy the gas and we can head out with your four strokes and do some
fishing.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:37:56 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 03:25:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

This whole thing of 'mine is bigger than yours' is getting old.

Maybe so but mine really is bigger.

Good point.

How big are those in terms of cubic inches?

DD 6-71s ?

Easy, the first number, 6, is the number of cylinders. The second
number, 71, is the displacement (cid) of each cylinder. Ergo, 6 times
71 is 426 cubic inches. Pretty big for a 6 cylinder engine but the
really big puppies are the 12V71s and 12V92s. Those things are
massive.

That's what I thought - I couldn't remember the what the numbers
meant. Nice to know that I remembered it correctly.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:09:41 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

In spite of Evinrude's claims, no fuel system provides increased power
and better fuel consumption.... by definition. You increase power by
burning more fuel in the engine.... either by supercharging, larger
valves, tuned intake and/or headers, increased engine size, etc....
but you can't get something for nothing.

Those things we can't understand we brand as improbable, that which is
improbable become impossible.

It's not something for nothing - it's just more efficient.

When you consider all the electronics associated with the fuel/oil
delivery system, the EMM management that takes into account air
pressure/air temperature/water temperature, variable timing based on
RPM and controlling the injection timing you've developed a management
system that allows for efficiency. You are absolutely correct that
you use more fuel at higher rpms, but you use that fuel to obtain the
maximum effienciey. The two stroke engine is much more - um - er -
adaptable to this approach.

Four stroke manufacturers have been aware of this for years -
introduce the same type of systems to a four stroke engine would
create higher efficiencies than that gained by ETEC believe it or not.
The problem is that the costs involved in creating this monster would
drive the manufacturing cost up where even the Japanese price supports
would collapse and then ETEC would have the economic advantage. :)

Be that as it may, I've been asked off line by a bunch of people to
drop the subject because it gets Harry's undies in a bunch so I will
comply to keep the piece. :)

Speaking of which, you going to be around sometime mid-Julyish? I'll
buy the gas and we can head out with your four strokes and do some
fishing.


Nice try. Your endless totally unsubstantiated claims about the "fuel
efficiency" of eTecs just make me giggle, as do your unsubstantiated
claims about eTec market share.

Anyone with any understanding of outboard motors who reads through the
various performance bulletins available on engine/boat combos can only
conclude there are very minor variations in the results available with
the various brands of modern engines, two stroke or four stroke, on
similar boats.

You apparently believe the "hype" in the Evinrude infomericals. Your
privilege. The reality is, what is presented in that commercial is
totally unscientific information, unscientifically presented, and you
bought into it. Considering your background, that's sort of surprising.

What matters to me, mostly, with my outboards is that they start and run
smoothly when I turn the key, and that they are quiet and relatively
fuel efficient. In my experience, you can't beat a four-stroke for that.
I used to be a believer in two stroke outboards, but not any more.

I did enjoy this comment from you, though:

"When you consider all the electronics associated with the fuel/oil
delivery system, the EMM management that takes into account air
pressure/air temperature/water temperature, variable timing based on
RPM and controlling the injection timing you've developed a management
system that allows for efficiency."

Maybe. More likely, you have a "management system" that is doomed to
fail at some point with catastrophic results and a huge repair bill.

Enjoy.

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:30:39 -0400, HK wrote:

Anyone with any understanding of outboard motors who reads through the
various performance bulletins available on engine/boat combos can only
conclude there are very minor variations in the results available with
the various brands of modern engines, two stroke or four stroke, on
similar boats.

Any "understanding" you have about anything relates only to what side
of the manic/depressive cycle you are on at any given time.

Go take your meds.