I'm interested in changing the main on my utility boat to something
around 70hp, probably an oil-injected 2-stroke although I've not
completely ruled out 4-stroke. I've been wresting with using the 60hp
E-Tec or the 70hp Yamaha.

As you probably know, the Yamaha uses old-school carburetion. My
local Evinrude dealer is naturally badmouthing carburetion, claiming
that today's bad gas (read as 10%-15% ethanol, along with sediments)
creates frequent trouble for carbureted engines, making the the old-
school 70hp Yamaha inferior.

Like me, do you say "hooey" (or something stronger) to that?? I doubt
there is more sediment in gas today than in the past (suddenly making
carburetion "inferior"). I don't remember carburetion giving me fits
of trouble when I used to own them. Admitting that my wrench turning
skills are limited, I cannot imagine why injection technology handles
fuel sediments any better, for that matter, but I'd grant that efi is
easier on fuel and would choose efi in the Yami 2-stroke if offered as
an option. It looks simply like Yamaha offers the largest hp
(consistent with my mfg's recommended max hp) for the lightest total
weight.

Save me from making a mistake! As noted on an earlier thread, why my
stone age 2-stroke preference? Beyond weight savings it's that I
already have a 4-stroke kicker. The main is just for getting around
and, as the kids grow up, pulling a tube.

Although a near second choice, the sometimes-reported midrange
troubles with E-Tecs make me a little nervous. I can't really tell
from postings on various boards if Evinrude has completely dealt with
the problem--even after having years to do so. Since this is a
relatively light weight aluminum utility (925# dry) I'm pretty
sensitive to keep engine weight to a minimum. Chunky Hondas (4-stroke
anyway) and the 75hp Optimax are out.

Your carburetion/efi thoughts appreciated.

John

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:10:36 -0700 (PDT), JohnDeere
wrote:


Your carburetion/efi thoughts appreciated.

Sediments aren't the issue between carbs and EFI.
Fuel filter maintenance should take care of that.
Computer controlled efficiency and ease of maintenance are what's
important to me.
I've replaced/rebuilt a number of carbs and only a few injectors,
which are cheaper than carbs. I'm talking cars but there's no basic
difference in the fuel feeds. Don't know the cost of OB injectors or
their reliability compared to auto.
Injectors do require a high pressure pump and regulator, which
are more prone to failure than a low pressure fuel pump.
My main beef with carbs is they aren't as efficient milage wise,
and they can be flaky and are harder to diagnose than an injector
system.
One thing I've noted is the main problem seen in the Honda 50 hp
is clogged carb jets.
Now, the boaters here with extensive OB experience can weigh in.

--Vic

"JohnDeere" wrote in message
...


Your carburetion/efi thoughts appreciated.

John


Carburators are clever devices that work amazingly well when you consider
the wide range of operating conditions, temperatures, gas flow rates,
air/gas mixture requirements, etc. that they are required to operate in.

EFI does all the above much better.

Eisboch

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:10:36 -0700 (PDT), JohnDeere
wrote:

I'm interested in changing the main on my utility boat to something
around 70hp, probably an oil-injected 2-stroke although I've not
completely ruled out 4-stroke. I've been wresting with using the 60hp
E-Tec or the 70hp Yamaha.

As you probably know, the Yamaha uses old-school carburetion. My
local Evinrude dealer is naturally badmouthing carburetion, claiming
that today's bad gas (read as 10%-15% ethanol, along with sediments)
creates frequent trouble for carbureted engines, making the the old-
school 70hp Yamaha inferior.

Fist off - If your local dealer is bad mouthing carburetion, then he's
a moron. Find another ETEC dealer.

Secondly, yes - the direct injection system handles the goop and crap
a little better than carbs do, but by now, most of the goop and crap
has been filtered out of the supply system and the 10/15% ethanol gas
you are getting is fairly clean. The station filters and the filters
on the engines can handle anything that is left over.

The fact of the matter is that while I kid Harry and Gene about
"inferior ancient technology" (it has been around since - well,
forever), improvements in computer controlled management make the new
engines efficient in comparison to the older engines. Where ETEC has
the advantage is that the technology is different - it's two stroke
using direct cylinder injection with a massive dose of computer fuel
management which takes into account a whole host of factors in
computing the most efficient fuel use. On my engine, as an example,
it's a 90 degree block, different gearing and I still manage to get
some really outstanding fuel efficiency. Guys with the 60 degree
block in the same engine do even better than I do.

It's really a question of what you are comfortable with. I started
with FICHT right out of the box and wasn't disappointed. I repowered
with the ETEC and haven't been disappointed.

Like me, do you say "hooey" (or something stronger) to that?? I doubt
there is more sediment in gas today than in the past (suddenly making
carburetion "inferior"). I don't remember carburetion giving me fits
of trouble when I used to own them. Admitting that my wrench turning
skills are limited, I cannot imagine why injection technology handles
fuel sediments any better, for that matter, but I'd grant that efi is
easier on fuel and would choose efi in the Yami 2-stroke if offered as
an option. It looks simply like Yamaha offers the largest hp
(consistent with my mfg's recommended max hp) for the lightest total
weight.

There is a difference between Electronic Fuel Injection and Direct
Injection. EFI injects fuel at the intake valve, Direct Injection
injects fuel into the cylinder. Just so that you know.

My ETEC is very efficient and averages (WOT to idle on an average run)
3.5 to 3.67 gallons/hr. That's a 200 hp HO pushing a 20 foot Ranger
bay boat.

The ETEC 60 inline twin weighs 240 pounds, the Yamaha 60 237 pounds.
You aren't saving much in terms of weight.

The simple truth is this - you get amazing amounts of quiet power at a
very efficient burn rate with ETEC. A 60 ETEC on that boat, as you
describe it, will out perform a 60 or 75 four stroke any day of the
week. Guarenteed.

Although a near second choice, the sometimes-reported midrange
troubles with E-Tecs make me a little nervous. I can't really tell
from postings on various boards if Evinrude has completely dealt with
the problem--even after having years to do so. Since this is a
relatively light weight aluminum utility (925# dry) I'm pretty
sensitive to keep engine weight to a minimum. Chunky Hondas (4-stroke
anyway) and the 75hp Optimax are out.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with "problems". I'm fairly
well plugged into things and I don't know of any mid-range problems
with ETEC.

Care to explain?

On Jul 15, 11:58 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:10:36 -0700 (PDT), JohnDeere

wrote:
I'm interested in changing the main on my utility boat to something
around 70hp, probably an oil-injected 2-stroke although I've not
completely ruled out 4-stroke. I've been wresting with using the 60hp
E-Tec or the 70hp Yamaha.

As you probably know, the Yamaha uses old-school carburetion. My
local Evinrude dealer is naturally badmouthing carburetion, claiming
that today's bad gas (read as 10%-15% ethanol, along with sediments)
creates frequent trouble for carbureted engines, making the the old-
school 70hp Yamaha inferior.

Fist off - If your local dealer is bad mouthing carburetion, then he's
a moron. Find another ETEC dealer.

Secondly, yes - the direct injection system handles the goop and crap
a little better than carbs do, but by now, most of the goop and crap
has been filtered out of the supply system and the 10/15% ethanol gas
you are getting is fairly clean. The station filters and the filters
on the engines can handle anything that is left over.

The fact of the matter is that while I kid Harry and Gene about
"inferior ancient technology" (it has been around since - well,
forever), improvements in computer controlled management make the new
engines efficient in comparison to the older engines. Where ETEC has
the advantage is that the technology is different - it's two stroke
using direct cylinder injection with a massive dose of computer fuel
management which takes into account a whole host of factors in
computing the most efficient fuel use. On my engine, as an example,
it's a 90 degree block, different gearing and I still manage to get
some really outstanding fuel efficiency. Guys with the 60 degree
block in the same engine do even better than I do.

It's really a question of what you are comfortable with. I started
with FICHT right out of the box and wasn't disappointed. I repowered
with the ETEC and haven't been disappointed.

Like me, do you say "hooey" (or something stronger) to that?? I doubt
there is more sediment in gas today than in the past (suddenly making
carburetion "inferior"). I don't remember carburetion giving me fits
of trouble when I used to own them. Admitting that my wrench turning
skills are limited, I cannot imagine why injection technology handles
fuel sediments any better, for that matter, but I'd grant that efi is
easier on fuel and would choose efi in the Yami 2-stroke if offered as
an option. It looks simply like Yamaha offers the largest hp
(consistent with my mfg's recommended max hp) for the lightest total
weight.

There is a difference between Electronic Fuel Injection and Direct
Injection. EFI injects fuel at the intake valve, Direct Injection
injects fuel into the cylinder. Just so that you know.

My ETEC is very efficient and averages (WOT to idle on an average run)
3.5 to 3.67 gallons/hr. That's a 200 hp HO pushing a 20 foot Ranger
bay boat.

The ETEC 60 inline twin weighs 240 pounds, the Yamaha 60 237 pounds.
You aren't saving much in terms of weight.

The simple truth is this - you get amazing amounts of quiet power at a
very efficient burn rate with ETEC. A 60 ETEC on that boat, as you
describe it, will out perform a 60 or 75 four stroke any day of the
week. Guarenteed.

Although a near second choice, the sometimes-reported midrange
troubles with E-Tecs make me a little nervous. I can't really tell
from postings on various boards if Evinrude has completely dealt with
the problem--even after having years to do so. Since this is a
relatively light weight aluminum utility (925# dry) I'm pretty
sensitive to keep engine weight to a minimum. Chunky Hondas (4-stroke
anyway) and the 75hp Optimax are out.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with "problems". I'm fairly
well plugged into things and I don't know of any mid-range problems
with ETEC.

Care to explain?

I frankly haven't made an effort to catalog complaints, so it will be
hard to answer your question. I've simply spent some time probing
Google with terms like "Yamaha trouble", "ETEC trouble", etc.; even
this board has plenty of ETEC chatter. Everyting mechanical has some
rate of failure. There seems to be a recurring "mid-RPM" type of
complaint involving ETEC owners. Impossible to say whether my casual
reading was statistically significant. Doubt it. Shame they don't make
a 70 ETEC on the same (light) powerhead.

I appreciate your help. Pretty impressive fuel economy on your 200.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:50:26 -0700 (PDT), JohnDeere
wrote:


The ETEC 60 inline twin weighs 240 pounds, the Yamaha 60 237 pounds.
You aren't saving much in terms of weight.

The simple truth is this - you get amazing amounts of quiet power at a
very efficient burn rate with ETEC. A 60 ETEC on that boat, as you
describe it, will out perform a 60 or 75 four stroke any day of the
week. Guarenteed.

Although a near second choice, the sometimes-reported midrange
troubles with E-Tecs make me a little nervous. I can't really tell
from postings on various boards if Evinrude has completely dealt with

Ah - ahem...

There is a difference between E-TECs. There is a high performance ETEC
auto cylinder head and engine made by Edelbrock

http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_...etec_435.shtml

and the E-TEC outboard engine made by Evinrude.

http://www.evinrude.com/en-US/

The reported problems with mid-range RPM performance involve the
Edelbrock E-TEC heads/engines not the Evinrude ETEC outboards.

Two completely different animals. :)

"JohnDeere" wrote in message
...
I'm interested in changing the main on my utility boat to something
around 70hp, probably an oil-injected 2-stroke although I've not
completely ruled out 4-stroke. I've been wresting with using the 60hp
E-Tec or the 70hp Yamaha.

As you probably know, the Yamaha uses old-school carburetion.


The carburetors are not problematic unless the boat sits for more than a
month or so and varnish forms inside the passageways. Today's fuels gum up
fairly quickly unless you use a fuel stabilizer constantly.

If you are thinking of the E-TEC, the 3 cyl. 75hp is a sweetheart, and it's
very powerful for its size and super quiet. It tolerates ethanol fuels
better than most motors and is a big seller in Brazil where they run 22%
ethanol (depending on their goverment's whims). The 60 is a strong motor,
but it's 2 cylinder and not as smooth as a 3 banger.

About the rough running you mentioned, that was taken care of 2 years ago
with a software change to allow throttle position adjustment just like the
2007 models had. For 2008, they changed the injector plunger and ignition
system for even smoother drivability. Most of the earlier comments anyway
were due to not propping the motor correctly plus some had been operating
too cool, making them run rich.

Bill Grannis
service manager

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:03:52 -0400, wrote:

I agree 100% it is far more complex sounding, but mechanically it is a
whole lot simpler. Computers are doing the same thing to boats that
they did to cars. Remember the 15,000 tuneup? That is more like
100,000 miles now.

We replaced the plugs on the Navigator at 100 000 miles, if you want
to call that a tuneup. They were still good. It needed a valve guide
at 170 000 miles.

Casady

Normally I would advise to go for an E-tec OB; electronics are currently very
reliable, and fuel economy is of some importance. There is however one
situation that could make a difference; when you have to operate your OB for
prolonged periods of time far from the civilised world (and the diagnostics
and spare parts that come with it), I would always go for the carb-version.
With moderate tools and knowledge a carb-version can always be forced into
some kind of functionality, while for the E-tec dead is dead.
Mees de Roo