posted 03-04-2004 09:52 AM ET (US)            

What size Optimax was this?
Curious year difference between the motor and vessel.
Any idea how that original owner managed to package
a '97 and an '01 together?

Did you do any research on whichever model
early release Optimax this engine was?

It's been fairly widely reported that certain
early year models has some failures,
due to I believe, the exact problem you mentioned.

posted 03-04-2004 03:01 PM ET (US)            

Looks like you got the boat/motor from a dealer.
Mercury dealers have records of fault codes that are specific to your Optimax motor.
Before giving up on the whole thing, check with the dealer that sold you the package and see if they will give you the correct info/history on the motor.

The motor was sold in 2001? If so, when did the warranty expire? The warranty card can be transferred and upgraded.

Did the dealer try and help with the warranty coverage or did they tell you to contact Mercury?

The ECM on an Optimax is designed to disable a faulty function and shut down the motor in that area. A bad injector (fuel or air), will cause that cylinder to stop operating.

I bought a whaler with a used 2000 225 Optimax and did some research on the motor. Very easy with the S/N and warranty card. 450 hours and no problems.

Some of our work boats have Optimax Motors that needed repair due to improper dealer installation. Covered under warranty, but the motor failed because the dealer did not follow Mercury installation instructions.

Also had a new Yamaha 200 installed on a work boat. They put a 20" shaft instead of the required 25" shaft. Incorrect rigging and the wrong prop. Boat would not get on plane and the guy running it almost burnt the motor trying.

One more example, another shop installed a 225 Honda 4S on a work boat and it ran great. First 20 hour service revealed several problems with the installation and the water pump. Why the pump? Incorrect height placement of the motor and the pump got burnt.

Every motor is subject to problems. My Optimax could fail today.

See if the dealer will assist with your rebuild or replacement of the broken parts.

Just my .02 cents, but worth a try.

Andy

posted 03-04-2004 08:36 PM ET (US)            

How can I help you? I publish this website. We have a great community of people here. What we find is that often people who show up and in their first few postings suddenly put forth an obvious agenda are quite suspect.

posted 03-05-2004 12:57 AM ET (US)            

When any expensive product suffers an expensive repair out of warranty, it is a disappointment for the owner.

I believe that in 2001 the Optimax engines were sold with 2-year warranties as standard. You say you bought the motor in the fall of 2003, so I am assuming it was not covered by any manufacturer's warranty at the time you purchased it, or if it was covered by the original 2-year warranty then there was not much time left to that coverage.

So if I understand the situation, when you had this failure with the engine it was not covered by a warranty, and you were not the original purchaser of the engine, you bought it second-hand. And you did not purchase any secondary warranty coverage for the engine. You bought a used engine, a 225-HP Optimax, which probably has a replacement cost of say $13,000. And you decided at that time you bought that you would not purchase any additional coverage on the engine, a insurance policy against future possible problems. Instead you decided that you alone would carry the risk that there might be a problem.

Now I have to ask you if at the time you bought the engine was it clear to you that you were buying a used engine?

Was it clear to you that you were buying an engine that was not covered by a manufacturer's warranty?

Was it clear to you that when you bought this engine that you alone would assume the risks of it possibly failing in the future, that the seller (the dealer) who sold it to you was not giving you a warranty on it, and the manufacturer who made it originally and sold it to the dealer who then resold it to the original purchaser was not giving you a warranty?

Well, let me assume that was all clear to you. You were totally informed about the warranty coverage on the engine when you bought it: no coverage, no warranty. And you willing assumed the risk of having a failure on the engine that might cause the engine to need a $13,000 replacement.

Then the engine failed.

Then you found out that the people who had made it clear that they were not providing you with a warranty on this engine really meant what they said. They did not provide you with a warranty.

The dealer apparently is not giving you a warranty, just like he said.

The manufacturer is not giving you a warranty, just like they said.

Now you are upset that the people who said they were not going to give you any coverage on your second-hand engine really meant what they said. They did not lie to you. They did not deceive you. They told you clearly that when you bought this used merchandise you were going to be on your own.

So I don't see anything about your situation so far that is unusual.

Now, if I understand the situation correctly, after the engine had a failure you went back to the dealer and asked them to help. They are the ones who sold you this engine, so you probably asked them to please fix it for free. And I bet they said, well, no, we can't do that, we just sold this to you, we just sold you a second hand engine and we told you there was no warranty. So they told you it was not something they want to pay for, that you'd have to pay for it.

Now you don't seem too mad at them. In fact, you seem to be quite satisfied with them. You say:

"Karen, at Skipjack Marine was an excellent advocate for me."

What this means to me is that Karen at Skipjack marine told you that they were not going to pay for the repair just like they told you they were not going to pay for the repair when you bought the boat from them last fall. Their story has not changed one bit. So when they tell you "sorry", you seem to be okay with that.

Now I bet Karen at Skipjack sympathizes with you, and she even offers to get in touch with the manufacturer and see it they still meant what they said when you bought the engine, or maybe she can see if they really meant something else, if they really meant they would offer a warranty for the engine even though the time period of the original warranty was expired.

So now Karen is your "advocate" and contacts the manufacturer and tells them the situation, which is something like this.

"Hi, manufacturer, this is Karen. I sold a customer a used boat and a used motor. The used motor was one of yours. It was out of warranty. I told the customer it was out of warranty. I told him we were not giving him a warranty. I told him you were not giving him a warranty. He seemed to understand that he was assuming the risk of any repairs the engine might need. But now that it needs some repairs he is upset, and I don't want to lose him as a customer, so will you assume the risk of any repairs retroactively and fix his engine for him?

And the manufacturer says something like this:

"Gee, Karen, you guys are great dealers and all that, but when we made this motor three years ago and it was sold we said we'd warranty it for two years. And now it is more than two years since it was sold and put into service. And we meant what we said. So we are not inclined to just pick up the repair costs for him. So no, we cannot give you free repairs on this engine, you'll have to give the customer free repairs if you want to make him happy, because as far as we can tell when he bought that used engine from you he alone assumed the burden of risk on this engine."

What I don't understand is that you seem really upset with the manufacturer who told you he was not giving a warranty, but you don't seem at all upset with Karen and Skipjack Marina, and they are really telling you the same thing, no, they're not giving you a warranty either.

This seems odd to me. I bet when you bought the engine that perhaps the seller made some representations to you about it. Like it was in excellent condition, it was hardly used, it was like new. Well, it was like new, but there was one big difference. It did not have a warranty.

I bet when you bought the engine that the manufacturer did not make any direct representations to you about the engine other than that it was made three years ago and the warranty ran out already.

So if you are going to be upset that the engine repairs are not being covered under a warranty, I think the only person who had control over that at the time the used boat and the used motor were purchased is you. If you wanted to get someone else to share the risk of future repairs, you should have found someone, some third party who would have offered to share the risk with you that there might be an expensive failure on this $13,000 used engine.

But as I understand it, you did not find someone to share the risk, and you assumed the risk yourself. At that is where you are now, paying for the repairs yourself. And the only person who really had any control over that situation was you. If you wanted someone else to share the risk you should have located them and asked them to assume some of the risk on this used boat and used motor.

What I have learned from this situation is that when someone buys a used boat and a used motor, and they make the deal with the seller with the clear understanding that there is no warranty coverage from the seller and in addition with the understanding that there is no warranty coverage from the manufacturer still in effect, that this means exactly what it says.

Now about the engine. We've heard a story like this before. A guy buys used engines, used Mercury engines, used Mercury Optimax engines. Then, BLAM, they are no good. The big mystery here is how the engines were run by the first owner. Maybe the first owner ran them improperly. Maybe he used cheap oil. Maybe he over-heated them. Maybe he fouled the plugs. Who knows. That is the key--Who knows?

The other odd thing is the very low hours of use. Many people think that a mechanical device that has just been sitting idle is somehow immune to wear and decay. Sometimes just the opposite is true. Something mechanical that gets regular and steady use often is in better shape than something that sat around for two years, especially if it sat around for two years in salt water.

Now the most cynical way to look at this is that darn injector was defective and it was going to blow up at 115 hours no matter what, it is just that it took more than two years to get 115 hours on the engine and induce the failure.

Well, the sad story here is that on marine outboard engines the warranty is always in terms of time, not in hours of use. That is clear from the start. And it is so simple to adjust hours-of-use numbers that no one would really expect a manufacturer to shell out $13,000 just because an hour meter on a console said 499.9 hours instead of 500.1 hours. They are too easy to fiddle with.

I have heard that Mercury has, particularly with regard to certain problems that they felt were caused by defects in the manufacture of the Optimax engine, provided substantial support for repairs, even to the point of providing new engines. I don't know if they have offered support beyond the warranty period, or for second or third owners.

posted 03-05-2004 03:56 AM ET (US)            

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/005648.html

posted 03-05-2004 08:56 AM ET (US)            

In this transaction we had a buyer (Paul) and a seller. Now the seller was either the dealership itself or the previous owner and the dealership brokered the transaction. Let's assume that the seller was represented in this transaction by Karen, who was either the seller herself (as part of the dealership) or represented the real seller (the previous owner) in the transaction. In any case, Karen was never really working for the buyer, Paul, she was always working for the seller.

I bet that she never mentioned anything to the buyer about repair history of 225-HP Optimax engines. She probably never said anything like, "hey, Mr. Buyer, we have a shop full of these engines and the injectors are going off like popcorn." She probably didn't mention to the buyer that the manufacturer had ceased production of this engine for a while because it was trying to resolve a problem related to the injectors blowing up.

I bet she never said to the buyer, "let me do some research for you on this model engine and see if there has been any problems with it." I bet she never said, "let me get in touch with the manufacturer's representative and see if there is any potential for extended coverage because this engine might have been produced during a time when there were some problems with the injectors."

She probably never did any of this because she was really never working on behalf of the buyer, she was always working on behalf of the seller.

Now the buyer may have misunderstood the nature of Karen's relationship in this transaction and might have thought, gee, Karen is a nice person, and she is helping me buy this boat, so she is on my side in this deal. Wrong. Karen was always working for the other side, not the buyer's side but the seller's side in this transaction.

In a transaction like this, involving something expensive, mechanical, and second hand, the buyer should get his own advocate in the transaction. The buyer needs to hire someone who is working for him, who is on his side, who does not work for the seller. Someone who can survey the situation and assess the merchandise. Someone who can give the buyer advice.

If the buyer had done this, he might have learned that it perhaps would be prudent to negotiate some coverage of the used engine, some insurance against its future failure, because the engine was a very expensive item, and like anything mechanical, it was subject to potential failure and expensive repair.

Let's look at the relationship between Paul and Karen after the sale. Paul thinks that Karen is his advocate, that she is going to carry the ball for him with the manufacturer. Really? Let's see.

In this case, Karen (the dealer) and the manufacturer have a pre-existing relationship. They probably have a contract. A deal. Karen buys engines from the manufacturer and sells them at a profit. One of the ways that her company makes money is by profiting from the sale of products the manufacturer provides her at a discount, that she marks up, and then sells.
We got a name for this: retail business.

So when Paul comes back after the sale with a problem, she is polite, she says she'll try to get some help from the manufacturer on this, but I bet when she talks to the manufacturer the tone of her voice changes a little. It has to, you see. Even though she and buyer no longer are in business together--in fact they never were in business together as I explained above, even though the buyer might have misunderstood and thought they were in business together--so even though she and the buyer were really never in business together, guess what, she and the manufacturer still are in business together. That is why when she gets on the telephone and calls the manufacturer's representative and tells him about this situation with the out-of-warranty product that needs expensive repairs, the tone of her voice is not quite the same as it would be if she were really in business with the buyer. At the end of the week she is going to get a paycheck, and the name on the upper left corner of that paycheck is not going to be the buyer's name, it is going to be the dealer's name because that is who she works for.

What I have learned from this situation is this: when you are the buyer of an expensive second hand mechanical device, it is a good idea to become well-informed about the condition and circumstances that surround it. Don't think the seller or the seller's agent are working in your behalf. Do some research. Hire someone to evaluate the merchandise. Give some serious thought to purchasing insurance against expensive future repairs.

posted 03-05-2004 12:19 PM ET (US)            

You are absolutely right. It is incontestable that Mercury and the dealer both have no obligation to help this person.

Florida15 has a good point too - good customer relations is important as well.

But consider this:
If I buy a Honda (used) am I supporting Honda? I mean, they never see any profit from my purchase. The local HONDA mechanic might see some profit if I need to have work done..and Honda might make some money selling OEM parts for repair work, but they really have nothing to do with me as a customer.

The same is true here. Let's face it, it is one of the reasons that BW listens to us on this site, but still proceeds in their current design direction - We're not direct customers! We buy used, "classics".

I have a similar situation. I bought a used Boston Whaler. It had a 1994 Evinrude 70 on it. I had the engine checked mechanically. It looked clean from the outside, and the mechanic gave it a "thumbs up." The compression was even across all cylinders, and within factory specs.

Growing up, I had a 6 HP Evinrude, and my grandfather had a 15 hp evinrude the 6 HP is from the 70's...my father sold it last spring in perfect working condition (and I ran that engine HARD as a youth). The 15 HP ran perfectly when sold as well. Given that both of these engines were old (one more than 25 years old, the other nearly 10 years old) when sold, and working perfectly, I ASSUMED that that Evinrude quality would surely translate to my 1994 model.

Last summer, something happened. We suspect that the VRO pump failed and burned the #3 cylinder. I am picking the boat up tomorrow. The repair was expensive.

Am I mad at the manufacturer? Sure...I wish they'd just stick with the tried and true technology (some things don't NEED to be improved much). Do I think they should have done something? Yeah..they should have replaced those VRO systems right away...but they didn't.

Do I think they owe me? No.

Wyeisland - chalk it up to learning experience. If you can get 25K for the boat, you're even, so what's the big deal? If not, I'd run it! Your dealer should give you some kind of warranty for repairs! It's like having a new engine. Just go with it, and change to Yamaha if you want when the time *really* comes to repower. (i.e. it will be cheaper to just buy a new engine).

Boating is expensive when you're a pro. ...and as you learn to become a pro, it's full of expensive little lessons - it's the nature of the beast.

I'm sorry that this happened to you.

I understand your feelings of frustration with a motor with so little use having problems of this magnitude.

Welcome to life. We usually don't get what we deserve (we get by with a bit of grace from others - including manufacturers and dealers). This time, JimH has pointed out that you got exactly what you deserve in a situation that was unfortunate. Sorry.

By the way - Are you equally furious with Suzuki for making an engine that caught fire? No "flaming" threads about their customer service...did they replace the engine?

posted 03-05-2004 04:35 PM ET (US)            

I can't get into the Merc program with my Mac but if he would post a serial number I would run it the next time I go to the marina.

Like others have stated. I buy a used motor and it blows, I rave about the dealer and come down on the manufacturer. There is realy something wrong here. The manufacturer is no better than the dealer representing their product and I have seen many out of warranty issues covered by the manufacturer at the insistance of the dealer, Mercury/Mercruiser, Volvo and OMC.

Buying new or used the seller does not represent you, hopefully the new seller is as honest as you expect them to be. The seller of a used product, dealer or private party, is suspect.

I feel that my post is another in a string of answers to a basher but I didn't have anything better to do.

posted 03-05-2004 06:06 PM ET (US)            

While I am very conversant with California's "implied warranty of habitability" and "implied covenant of quiet use and enjoyment" as they apply to residential rental dwellings, I'm not very knowledgable about implied warranties as they apply to products such as outboard motors...maybe the other CW lawyer/members have a better read.

Skred -- For the most part, the days of 'caveat emptor' are long gone, and good riddance. Legislatures and courts have acknowledged that in a high tech, complex society, the general public is not as likely to be able to make reasonably informed purchases as it was back in the relatively simple days of the horse and buggy.

Buckda -- As a public relations professional, don't you think it might be wise for a large corporation to have some sort of ombudsman to deal with situations such as Paul's, and maybe to quietly take care of him rather than risk the negative publicity of this sort of report (and by "take care of him" I don't mean Sopranos' style!).
Without getting into the rights and wrongs of Paul's claim, shouldn't someone, whether at the dealership or the manufacturer or both, make some sort of effort to compromise this messy situation, regardless of warranty status? I'm certainly not singling out Mercury...it seems that most corporations have gotten worse and worse about customer relations while they spend literally billions of dollars each year on advertising attempting to sell us on how well they relate to their customers.

posted 03-05-2004 06:51 PM ET (US)            

Tony -

Excellent idea.

My thoughts:
1.) Quietly dealing with something wouldn't be public relations, it would be customer relations :) (We PR people like to spread the word!) This option, however would be considered grassroots PR - word of mouth reputation is the most powerful form of advertising and corporate trust-building agent there is.

2.) Most executives come up through the sales/marketing ranks and unfortunately, don't have a very complex/comprehensive understanding of PR and how to effectively use it to augment sales and bolster corporate reputation. This is evident in the vast sums of money spent on advertising and marketing and the relatively small amounts of money spent on PR. This is further compounded by the fact that because of that funding, most marketing/advertising companies own PR agencies - not the other way around...and the cycle continues.

3.) It is impossible for a company to make everyone happy all the time.

That's what I was talking about re: grace. A company that chooses to "make things right no matter what" has a lot of grace...and suffers for it in the open marketplace (i.e. they get taken advantage of). If Wal-Mart didn't have their open returns policy, their earnings numbers would probably look a lot better as a percentage of sales. Conversely, (though difficult to measure) their sales volume might suffer some from backlash of such a decision. They also would suffer financially - it would be a huge gamble - if the competition did not adopt similar policies, and sales did not drastically shift in their favor, they'd be dead.

This is a huge risk that most companies are not willing to make. It is anecdotally apparent that outboard buyers are a lot like pickup truck buyers. Not much can convince them to go to "the dark side". Ford owners will never buy a Chevy, vice versa, and similarly for Dodge. (Interesting note here is that Toyota and Nissan are making some inroads in terms of sales, but it remains to be seen if the core, repeat truck buyers are migrating, or if it is the less-loyal purchasers.

It is interesting to note that companies with big budgets for PR are doing a bit of research on sites such as this to "listen" to the rumblings...THT and other sites probably are included in a "monthly monitoring list" somewhere and an intern is reading this stuff.

No company that I am aware of is currently being responsive enough to take immediate action on this intelligence, but they are listening to what's being said about them.

Let's take this thread for example:
New member, with low influencing capabilities posts about his bad experience with company's product.

Site Moderator and one long-time member (who both have considerable influence on this particular community) clearly and openly question intent and validity of complaint.

My evaluation as a person who'd be monitoring this site: "not a big deal - low influence of original poster is not likely enough to effect purchase decision of other members for a new outboard".

Now, If LHG or JimH had agreed with this poster with the general message indicating that "Merc should do something!" - Well, then the summary might be different.

This phenomenon and the ability of certain individuals to influence opinions and behaviors through the Internet and online communities is a current topic of much research in the PR industry today.

My previous agency calls these people "e-fluentials" (See http://www.efluentials.com/ ) and has conducted quite a bit of proprietary research on them.

In the case of a complex piece of machinery, some sort of compromise should be explored. I have no idea of how to make this work with dealer reimbursement, but some kind of prorating could be figured out. The other option (which Merc. might now be able to accomplish technologically with Verado) would be to put an hourmeter on the computer controlling system so that it could not be manipulated without some sort of evidence. This could allow them to warrant an engine on a "hours used" basis instead of the less-measurable "time since initial sale".

However, this obviously would be an expensive move by a manufacturer in the North, because we don't put that many hours on in a season (i.e. they could be doing warranty work on a 10 year old engine!) and might upset owners in the South (such as Florida or Texas) where they can use their boats year-round and might run through the warranty period in only 1-2 years under heavy use.

The other option, which I would like to see, is an extended warranty option like that on new cars..pay more, get more. This is available to a limited extent, and the market may have already proved this option to be non-viable.

Bottom line: It would be great if this poster could have a positive resolution to his problem with the used Mercury motor that he bought where Mercury makes the repairs – but wouldn't that just hurt the rest of us in the long run? Mercury and other companies who go above and beyond in every instance would surely have to push the costs on the rest of us in some form or another.

posted 03-05-2004 08:03 PM ET (US)            

Larry -- All I know is that I'd like to have you as a friend at my back in a shooting war...your fierce loyalty is incredible. But I don't know whether Paul/wyeisland should be immediately branded as some sort of troll or "basher." Maybe he did get screwed by a dealer; I know I'd be mighty mad if I bought a motor, WHATEVER brand, from a dealer and it blew up shortly afterwards, and I felt I was getting the run-around. I'd feel very different if I bought a used motor from a private party, especially if the seller hadn't misrepresented the motor's condition. And Larry, I really don't see a concerted attack being waged against Mercury outboards at this site. Some folks are annoyed that BW bundles their boats with Mercurys...wouldn't bother me in the least as a practical matter if I were ever to buy a new Whaler, except on a philosophical, anti-monopoly, free market basis. I'm sure Mercs are just about a good or bad as the next outboard motor, I just don't get the almost fanatical (no offense!) brand loyalties you have for Mercurys and others have for Yamahas, Suzukis, etc. Oh well, I've never gotten into brand loyalties for anything but cameras, and even that's changing for me now that the digital age is here...maybe that's why I can't understand how a very intelligent person can become all pissed off and exercised over a perceived attack against the reputation of an outboard motor manufacturer. Of course, if you engineered the damn things yourself, Larry, or owned a huge block of Merc equities...

And finally, talking about stocks, can we all join in a moment of silence and sorrow for the fate of Martha Stewart, who might soon be occupying the tidyest, trendiest cell in the whole damn penal correction system. There but for fortune...

posted 03-05-2004 08:13 PM ET (US)            

"I think it is fair to think that a 3 year old engine with 115 hours would be good for quite a while."

I agree, it is fair to think that. And in most cases that is the result. Most people, the vast majority of people, who buy a used engine with only 115 hours on it do not find themselves needing a $5,000 repair just a few months later. But if something happens, like it did in this case, and a 2001 engine--which might have been made in 2000--needs an expensive repair in 2004, is it fair to ask someone else to pay for it?

When the manufacturer said he offered two years of coverage against defects (or whatever exactly his warranty said), is it fair to come to him and say, hey, I had a defect after two years and you should pay.

Now maybe the manufacturer evaluates these situations on a case by case basis, and in some circumstances offers extended coverage beyond what was stated initially. But if the manufacturer automatically agreed to cover every engine for an extra year, well, they'd have a name for a program like that: a 3-year warranty!

If they were going to cover their product for three years, why would they just advertise that they only covered it for two years? Heck, if they are going to automatically cover anyone who calls up with a problem between 2 and 3 years after the sale, they might as well just come out and proclaim it up front--this product has a three year warranty.

posted 03-05-2004 09:40 PM ET (US)            

wyeisland

Give us ther serial number of your engine. I would be happy to run it through the Merc system and get a background check. With the serial number I can get a complete history of the engine and will pass it on to all.
The process could help you if help is deserved.

Not posting the serial number will indicate to me and hopefully all others on the forum that you have no basis for your complaint and end this tirade.

posted 03-05-2004 10:17 PM ET (US)            

JIMH it is your forum as to do as you please bu tat least give me the courtesy of a admin delete.... WTF????
The post that never was?

What do you have no regard for my opinion? if so.. so state it.. I will gladly refrain from posting by why delete any trace of my comment on this post?

posted 03-06-2004 12:30 AM ET (US)            

I do want to say that I did not intend to disparage your dealer ("Karen") and I probably should have not used her name in my comments where I attributed to my hypothetical dealer many things that may not in fact be applicable to your real dealer and long time boat and motor seller, the real "Karen".

And as many have said, there is no doubt that one would not feel anything else but extreme disappointment in a product that failed in such an expensive way so early in its anticipated useful life.

And I don't think your reaction is unreasonable, that you would tend to not be an advocate of buying that same brand of product again.

This is just human nature. If people spend money and don't get good value, they tend to have a long memory. Even on relatively inexpensive things, people don't often give suppliers a second chance. If you go to a restaurant and get a lousy meal, will you go back again? Probably not.

As others have mentioned, this situation with bad fuel injectors on c.2001 Optimax engines has produced some difficult times, both for the owners and for Mercury. I am sure Mercury would be much happier if your engine did not need an expensive repair in its third or fourth year of use.

The internet makes it possible for you to have a forum for your story--pun intended. Now in this case the forum for your story is my forum, continuouswave, and one of reasons people come here regularly to read its contents is that we like to concentrate on high-information content and leave the trolling and bashing to someplace else--as much as possible.

----

On the internet angle, to give some history on this topic, the forum has been the target of occasional campaigns by newly-arrived participants who come out of the gate with a very strong agenda in their first one or two postings. This immediately sends up a flag to other participants. This type of participation is called "trolling" like in trolling for fish. You troll some bait and see if anyone bites.

"Bashing" occurs when a participant shows a relentless agenda against a particular product, person, or company.

----

Nota Bene: To KNOT--Actually I did post an administrative notice that I had deleted all the automotive complaints from the forum and to please take them to automotive forums, but some how I managed to delete that posting, too.

I like cooked carrots better than I like raw carrots, but if I posted that three times a week to articles about outboard motors then people would get pretty bored with it in a hurry.

posted 03-06-2004 10:07 AM ET (US)            

Will stick to Boats