E-TEC v. Classic Two-Stroke: Fuel Economy Difference

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  E-TEC v. Classic Two-Stroke: Fuel Economy Difference

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   E-TEC v. Classic Two-Stroke: Fuel Economy Difference

Creeker posted 10-11-2008 08:05 PM ET (US)
I hope this question isn't too far out. I have a 1987 Outrage 18 with a 1993 Johnson 140-HP V4. If--big if--I went for a 115 E-TEC what would be my fuel usage improvement in percent? I am just looking for a ballpark estimate. Thanks in advance.
an86carrera posted 10-11-2008 08:25 PM ET (US)
I went from a 1987 Merc 3cyl 70hp to a 2008 90hp E-TEC and am very happy with the fuel usage.
I have no reference on the 70hp but now I get 35mph at idle and 7 mpg at WOT at 50+mph.
Also I feel that I'm helping in my small share on the pollution front.
This is on a 15' sport.
Len
Skipjack 17 posted 10-11-2008 09:24 PM ET (US)

40-50% better.
We went from a 1993 115 Hp Evenrude to a 2007 115 HP E-TEC on our Outrage and more then doubled our range. Less then 1/2 the oil. 80% less noise and best of all, great performance.
You will never look back..........B
jimh posted 10-11-2008 09:28 PM ET (US)
Read
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ETEC250HO.html
and make your own inference. Your question is not "far out" at all, and I would suggest the fuel economy will improve significantly. The type of usage for your motor will be influential. If you do a lot of trolling or low-speed boating, the improvement will be amazing. But even if you run around at 30-MPH all day, you will still see a significant improvement in fuel economy. The overall improvement will likely be 50-percent, that is, if you get 2-MPG now you will get 3-MPG.
Casco Bay Outrage posted 10-11-2008 09:55 PM ET (US)
Creek -
I have read BPR recently introduced a 130 hp to join the 115 and 150 hp engines. If you re-power, why drop the horsepower (other than price)?
tmann45 posted 10-12-2008 09:25 PM ET (US)
an86carrera said: ...but now I get 35mph at idle and...
Must be tough docking at that speed!
mateobosch posted 10-13-2008 11:15 PM ET (US)
Creeker,This spring I replaced my Johnson 90-HP V4 with a E-TEC 115-HP V4 and couldn't be happier. I get at least 5GPH/6MPG according to my I-Command with my Montauk.
I imagine with a Rage that those numbers would decrease but you will still notice significant improvements with economy, emissions, noise, and performance. Plus, the motor sounds mean when you punch it.
Happy hunting,
Matt
pglein posted 10-14-2008 12:32 PM ET (US)
Wow. I had no idea. I figured you might see a 10-20% improvement at best. It still doesn't "pencil out" financially unless you use your boat a tremendous amount, but it does make upgrading to a brand new motor much more attractive.
Creeker posted 10-15-2008 07:54 PM ET (US)
Thanks for all the replies and in response to Casco Bay:
I don't feel as if I need the 140hp size or equivalent. I think the 115 hp would give me enough power for my typical use.
TransAm posted 10-16-2008 03:43 PM ET (US)
The range of gas mileage on 2-strokes is very wide, depending on the age, carb or EFI, etc. I have a Temptation with twin 250 Yamaha EFI motors. If I run the boat on single engine, the best I can do is 2.5 MPH. It has been reported here the 250 E-tec is capable of 3.1 MPH operating on a hull that is 2,000 lbs lighter than my Temptation. The .6 MPH difference here represents a 24% increase in fuel economy. The difference would likley be closer to 20% if the weight of the hulls was more comparable.
TransAm posted 10-17-2008 07:01 AM ET (US)
Here's a more apples to apples comparison. Tom W. Clark just made this report http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006397.html Since this boat is similar to the Temptation, it appears this set up gets 16%-20% better mileage at cruise that a comparably equipped EFI 2-stroke. Much better mileage at displacement speed.
Peter posted 10-17-2008 07:58 AM ET (US)
Your percentage fuel usage improvement depends on how you use the boat.
Let's assume that you will run an E-TEC 115 under the ICOMIA duty cycle. According to the chart published in this thread continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006191.html , the E-TEC 115 will burn fuel at the average rate of 2.3 GPH. An E-TEC 150 will burn fuel at the average rate of 3.2 GPH under the same duty cycle.
I estimate that the 140 you currently have has an ICOMIA duty cycle average burn rate at least 1 GPH higher than the E-TEC 150, so figure 4.2 GPH. This is because a Johnson 140 is likely to burn at least 1 GPH, if not more, just at idle speed whereas the E-TEC 150 is burning about 0.2 GPH at idle speed.
So my ballpark estimate for average hourly fuel usage savings under the ICOMIA duty cycle going from the 140 to the E-TEC 115 is about 1.7 GPH. However, because the 140 is more powerful than the 115, under the ICOMIA duty cycle, your average speed will be slower with the 115 than the 140. Accordingly, that makes it difficult to predict what the fuel usage improvement in percentage will be. However, to run with the same average speed that you do with the 140, you will have to run the 115 harder which will reduce the gap in fuel usage. Let's say running at the same speed knocks the gap down to 1.2 GPH on average, then the percentage saved is about 29 percent overall. You will also save on oil usage.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: E-TEC v. Classic Two-Stroke: Fuel Economy Difference
Creeker	posted 10-11-2008 08:05 PM ET (US) I hope this question isn't too far out. I have a 1987 Outrage 18 with a 1993 Johnson 140-HP V4. If--big if--I went for a 115 E-TEC what would be my fuel usage improvement in percent? I am just looking for a ballpark estimate. Thanks in advance.
an86carrera	posted 10-11-2008 08:25 PM ET (US) I went from a 1987 Merc 3cyl 70hp to a 2008 90hp E-TEC and am very happy with the fuel usage. I have no reference on the 70hp but now I get 35mph at idle and 7 mpg at WOT at 50+mph. Also I feel that I'm helping in my small share on the pollution front. This is on a 15' sport. Len
Skipjack 17	posted 10-11-2008 09:24 PM ET (US) 40-50% better. We went from a 1993 115 Hp Evenrude to a 2007 115 HP E-TEC on our Outrage and more then doubled our range. Less then 1/2 the oil. 80% less noise and best of all, great performance. You will never look back..........B
jimh	posted 10-11-2008 09:28 PM ET (US) Read http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ETEC250HO.html and make your own inference. Your question is not "far out" at all, and I would suggest the fuel economy will improve significantly. The type of usage for your motor will be influential. If you do a lot of trolling or low-speed boating, the improvement will be amazing. But even if you run around at 30-MPH all day, you will still see a significant improvement in fuel economy. The overall improvement will likely be 50-percent, that is, if you get 2-MPG now you will get 3-MPG.
Casco Bay Outrage	posted 10-11-2008 09:55 PM ET (US) Creek - I have read BPR recently introduced a 130 hp to join the 115 and 150 hp engines. If you re-power, why drop the horsepower (other than price)?
tmann45	posted 10-12-2008 09:25 PM ET (US) an86carrera said: ...but now I get 35mph at idle and... Must be tough docking at that speed!
mateobosch	posted 10-13-2008 11:15 PM ET (US) Creeker,This spring I replaced my Johnson 90-HP V4 with a E-TEC 115-HP V4 and couldn't be happier. I get at least 5GPH/6MPG according to my I-Command with my Montauk. I imagine with a Rage that those numbers would decrease but you will still notice significant improvements with economy, emissions, noise, and performance. Plus, the motor sounds mean when you punch it. Happy hunting, Matt
pglein	posted 10-14-2008 12:32 PM ET (US) Wow. I had no idea. I figured you might see a 10-20% improvement at best. It still doesn't "pencil out" financially unless you use your boat a tremendous amount, but it does make upgrading to a brand new motor much more attractive.
Creeker	posted 10-15-2008 07:54 PM ET (US) Thanks for all the replies and in response to Casco Bay: I don't feel as if I need the 140hp size or equivalent. I think the 115 hp would give me enough power for my typical use.
TransAm	posted 10-16-2008 03:43 PM ET (US) The range of gas mileage on 2-strokes is very wide, depending on the age, carb or EFI, etc. I have a Temptation with twin 250 Yamaha EFI motors. If I run the boat on single engine, the best I can do is 2.5 MPH. It has been reported here the 250 E-tec is capable of 3.1 MPH operating on a hull that is 2,000 lbs lighter than my Temptation. The .6 MPH difference here represents a 24% increase in fuel economy. The difference would likley be closer to 20% if the weight of the hulls was more comparable.
TransAm	posted 10-17-2008 07:01 AM ET (US) Here's a more apples to apples comparison. Tom W. Clark just made this report http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006397.html Since this boat is similar to the Temptation, it appears this set up gets 16%-20% better mileage at cruise that a comparably equipped EFI 2-stroke. Much better mileage at displacement speed.
Peter	posted 10-17-2008 07:58 AM ET (US) Your percentage fuel usage improvement depends on how you use the boat. Let's assume that you will run an E-TEC 115 under the ICOMIA duty cycle. According to the chart published in this thread continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006191.html , the E-TEC 115 will burn fuel at the average rate of 2.3 GPH. An E-TEC 150 will burn fuel at the average rate of 3.2 GPH under the same duty cycle. I estimate that the 140 you currently have has an ICOMIA duty cycle average burn rate at least 1 GPH higher than the E-TEC 150, so figure 4.2 GPH. This is because a Johnson 140 is likely to burn at least 1 GPH, if not more, just at idle speed whereas the E-TEC 150 is burning about 0.2 GPH at idle speed. So my ballpark estimate for average hourly fuel usage savings under the ICOMIA duty cycle going from the 140 to the E-TEC 115 is about 1.7 GPH. However, because the 140 is more powerful than the 115, under the ICOMIA duty cycle, your average speed will be slower with the 115 than the 140. Accordingly, that makes it difficult to predict what the fuel usage improvement in percentage will be. However, to run with the same average speed that you do with the 140, you will have to run the 115 harder which will reduce the gap in fuel usage. Let's say running at the same speed knocks the gap down to 1.2 GPH on average, then the percentage saved is about 29 percent overall. You will also save on oil usage.