EPA Engine RPM Test Procedures for Emission Levels

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  EPA Engine RPM Test Procedures for Emission Levels

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   EPA Engine RPM Test Procedures for Emission Levels

L H G posted 07-23-2009 10:05 PM ET (US)
At what RPM levels are engines tested for emissions by the EPA? All ranges, only idle, only top RPM? Is this whole emissions thing about idle speeds?
jimh posted 07-23-2009 10:09 PM ET (US)
I believe the EPA test procedure for outboards requires testing according to the ICOMIA standard 36-88 duty cycle.
See Standard 36-88 at
http://www.icomia.com/library/library.asp?view=Category&LC_ID=14#
jimh posted 07-23-2009 10:11 PM ET (US)
The actual regulations are given at
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr& sid=4cf53e02b09b97a9d237246c54f57473&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:32.0.1. 1.5.2.1.2&idno=40
jimh posted 07-23-2009 10:15 PM ET (US)
Here is the applicable regulation:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr; sid=4cf53e02b09b97a9d237246c54f57473;rgn=div9;view=text;node=40%3A32.0. 1.1.5.9.1.7.9;idno=40;cc=ecfr
L H G posted 07-23-2009 10:20 PM ET (US)
Thanks Jim. It looks like it's weighted 65% below planing speeds, and is an arbitrary standard at best, clearly intended to be be biased against conventional 2-strokes.
Just what I would expect.
jimh posted 07-23-2009 10:34 PM ET (US)
Could you explain why it is biased against two-cycle engines? The duty cycle is supposed to reflect the typical pattern of use of an outboard motor.
Do you suppose there is a difference in how two-cycle outboard engines are run compared to how four-cycle outboard engines are run? I would be interested to know your thoughts.
seahorse posted 07-23-2009 10:40 PM ET (US)
emission testing is done in 5 power modes from full power to idle. The measured emissions at each power setting are multiplied by the % of time spent at each mode and the grand total is then divided by the measured horsepower to give a result in ounces per horsepower per hour, or for the pocket protector crowd, the result is in grams per KW hour.
The percentages of time spent and tested at various rpms for 1 hour are as follows:
idle - 40%
40% power - 25%
60% power - 15%
80% power - 14%
Full power - 6%
jimh posted 07-23-2009 10:43 PM ET (US)
From ICOMIA 36-88
"The purpose of this standard is to provide a standard duty cycle which corresponds closely enough to the average consumer use so that the average composite values of important engine parameters, such as average rate of fuel consumption, or average specific fuel consumption may be provided so that different engines may be compared in a simple and rational manner."
I believe the duty cycle was developed long before the four-cycle outboard motor was much of a factor, so it seem unlikely that the duty cycle could have been designed in some way to be intentionally biased so as to put two-cycle outboard motors at a disadvantage compared to four-cycle motors when rated according to this duty cycle for their aggregate emission output.
L H G posted 07-23-2009 10:48 PM ET (US)
I have done as much outboard boating as anybody here except perhaps Clark Roberts! There is NO WAY 40% of my boating time is at IDLE speed, and a combined 65% of it at below planing speeds (2200 RPM using the 40% of max RPM figure).
Idle speed for all seven of my Mercs is 600 RPM. Even running out of a harbor and in no wake zones, with one engine running only, I am doing 1200-1400 RPM, a much cleaner burn, no smoke, no oil in the water. I would say that even 5% time at dead idle is too much, so the 40% is a joke. Nobody runs an engine at dead idle. But that's the speed at which 2-strokes look the worst. Very convenient way to stack the cards against the 2-stroke and make the DFI look better than they actually are as a total marine engine. I also have yet to hear ANY DFI or 4-stoke that runs quieter than my 200 EFI's at planing speed, except for the Verado.
jimh posted 07-23-2009 10:48 PM ET (US)
What constitutes a planing speed for a motor relative to maximum power? It would depend on the motor and boat combination. My boat is rated for 300-HP and will plane with a minimum 90-HP. Since 40-percent of 300-HP is 120-HP, in this case theICOMIA duty cycle would evaluate a 300-HP motor so that only 40-percent of the duty cycle involved below planing speed.
K Albus posted 07-24-2009 08:56 AM ET (US)
Larry, I think you'd be surprised at how much time your outboards spend running at idle speed if you actually kept track of it. This page from the Reference section shows engine reports for E-Tecs on two different boats: http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ETEC_EngineHistoryReport.html . Both of the reports show that more time is spent at idle speed than any other speed. Also, both reports show that more than 50% of the time the engine will be running at something less than planing speed.
seahorse posted 07-24-2009 09:15 AM ET (US)

quote:

There is NO WAY 40% of my boating time is at IDLE speed, and a combined 65% of it at below planing speeds (2200 RPM using the 40% of max RPM figure).

Here is a link explaining how the emission testing is done and a good explanation for those who don't believe that about 40% of their boating is done at very low rpms.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~pauldawson/IAME-57_Emissions-a-sml.pdf
Peter posted 07-24-2009 10:02 AM ET (US)
I have the laptop based diagnostic software for my 2002 Evinrude 225 Fichts. The first time I plugged the software in I could not believe how much time, percentage wise, was below 1000 RPM. It was and still is nearly 40 percent. My profile does not look like the ICOMIA. Mine is more bimodal. 40 percent at 1000 RPM and below (idle) and another 40 percent at 2/3s throttle (4000 RPM) with the rest scattered between 1000 and 4000 and a little amount of time above 4000 RPM. When I think about it, the computer is dead on. I come out my slip and run at 1000 RPM until I clear the no wake zone where I run at a 4000 RPM cruise.
Because I changed slip locations a few years ago, my below 1000 RPM percentage is falling slightly and the 4000 RPM percentage is rising because I have less no wake zone to go through.
"I also have yet to hear ANY DFI or 4-stoke that runs quieter than my 200 EFI's at planing speed, except for the Verado." -- LHG
I'll bet a 2003 Johnson 150 placed in the same power to weight ratio situation as a pair of 200 EFI's on a 25 Outrage would be much quieter and produce far less blue smoke. I'm sure that the thick blue smoke belching Mercury V6 EFI's were the sole reason that the EPA went through the huge effort to regulate outboard motor emissions ultimately banning conventional 2-stroke outboards.
jimh posted 07-24-2009 11:11 AM ET (US)
I know many of us view our boating as really blue water boating, and we we see ourselves sailing over the bounding main, saltwater spray in our face, our foaming wake cutting an endless swath into a brilliant turquoise sea as we head offshore on a long distance cruise. Then there is the reality of boating: a lot of NO WAKE boating in the Atlantic Intracoastal Water Way, a lot of idling around the dock, idling out of the inlet, a lot of time spent not on plane.
When last fall I tested an engine with the ability to record its operating time and throttle position, I was quite surprised to discover that, in spite of what I though was a long weekend of really pouring the coal to the engine, my actual operating data was remarkably different: a total of 54.8-percent of that time the engine was running below 1,600-RPM.
L H G posted 07-24-2009 12:07 PM ET (US)
I'm sticking with what I said. You guys don't run my boats. 2-strokes run poorly at IDLE, which is 600 RPM, their absolute worst performance situation, and to use a 40% figure for 600 RPM is ridiculous. That's why nobody runs their 2-stroke at 600. There is a big difference in the way a 2-stroke runs at 1000-1600. No smoke at all, and much better economy.
The environmental crowd rigged the phony duty cycle so they could push the elimination of the 2-stroke on nieve legislators (you know, the same ones that brought us sub-prime loans and ethanol). The outboard industry has been conned, made to look much worse than they were, and we are all paying for it big time, as I will have to do also, eventually. In reality, the DFI's are cleaner, (have we figured out where the oil goes yet?) and with better running qualities BELOW 1000 RPM, but not by that much if that 40% figure is removed.
Haven't we already decided that to pay for the high purchase cost in fuel savings, most people won't live long enough? High cost of the 3-Star engines have also contributed to the permanent boating industry disaster, forcing thousands out of higher cost boating forever. People simply can't afford to buy the stuff anymore in any quantity.
If I wanted to spend my boating hours at 600 RPM IDLE, I would have bought a rowboat. The rowboat would be faster.
DFI's and 4-strokes have been around for 10 years now. Have any of you noticed that your air and water are cleaner now because of this? Not likely. In the Great Lakes, the credit goes to the Zebra Mussel, not E-tec, Optimax and 4-stroke engines.
K Albus posted 07-24-2009 01:19 PM ET (US)
Larry, it sounds like you're saying that you don't run your motors at idle because they run poorly at that speed. That may be true, and maybe that condition prevents you from running your motors at idle speed for significant amounts of time.
I have a 135 Optimax, and I run it at idle speed all the time - in no wake zones, while trolling for walleye or salmon, or sometimes when just taking a slow cruise. My engine runs fine at idle speed, even for extended periods of time. It doesn't "load up" with carbon and begin to sputter or smoke after a long period of idle speed operation.
When you think about the amount time spent (not the distance traveled) in no wake zones, even without any trolling being considered, the 40% number seems accurate. For example, consider the Inland Waterway in Northern Michigan. You put your boat in on the northern part of Mullet Lake and cruise down to Indian River at high speed. That might take 20 minutes. You then motor through the Indian River at idle speed for 45 minutes. Then you cruise across Burt Lake at high speed, taking another 20 minutes to make the crossing to the Crooked River. Even though only part of the Crooked River is a no wake zone, navigating the no wake zone portions of the river takes much longer than navigating the high speed zones - let's say 10 minutes at high speed and 20 minutes at idle speed. Follow that up with a cruise around Crooked Lake, part of which includes a no wake zone - we'll say 30 minutes of high-speed boating and 20 minutes of no wake speed. Then repeat in the opposite order on your way back to Mullet Lake.
Even though the distance covered at high speed is about the same as the distance covered at no wake speed, your engine will spend substantially more time at no wake speed. In this example, you'll spend 130 minutes at high speed, and 150 minutes at no-wake speed. In other words, about 54% of the time will be spent at idle speed. And this does not include the idle engine speed time that elapsed while you warmed up your engines or stopped in the middle of the lake to talk to your buddies.
Another example: On our recent trip from Grand Haven to Milwaukee, the trip started and ended with the 45 minute no wake zone between Spring Lake and Lake Michigan. Add to that about two hours of no-wake cruising up and down the Milwaukee River, plus about 30 minutes of idling in and around the marina, and several minutes of idle speed operation for mid-lake breaks. Even with 3+ plus hours of high speed boating across Lake Michigan in each direction, my boat was operating at idle speed for almost 40% of the time over the course of the weekend.
Of these two examples, I think the Inland Waterway example is more typical of how people operate their boats. They start out at idle speed for a while, make a relatively short run at high speed, idle around for a while, and then make another short run or two at high speed, followed by an idle-speed trip back to the dock or launch. Even though the distances traveled at idle speed may be relatively short, the time spent traveling at idle speed is significant.
WHALETEX posted 07-24-2009 01:54 PM ET (US)
I have never owned a DFI or 4 Stroke. Just 50:1 or VRO carved 2 strokes from 4hp to 250hp. Looking back at over 40 years of boating I am very comfortable that the EPA cycle is very close to my overall useage.
I have had whole days of trolling with the VRO engines where the engine was not shut off for 10 hours or more and the throttle never left idle except for the initial startup. The same sort of days with the 50:1 engines would be troll for 30-45 minutes followed by a 2 minute blow out at 3/4 to full throttle.
Another frequent fishing cycle for us was what I would call a fishing bus. It starts with a typical no wake zone start followed by a run to the fishing area where the outboard was pretty much shut down for the day. The day of fishing would either be wading, drifting or running an electric troll motor. The big motor might get run for a minute or two during the day to reposition. The day would end with a run back to the ramp. Most of the runs to and from the ramp were about 15 miles and when the conditions would allow they were made at or above 80% throttle so they lasted for 20-30 minutes. Sometimes when it was kind of snotty these runs were made at about 50% throttle and it would take 40 minutes to an hour to cover the same distance. Every once in a while it would get real snotty with 40+MPH winds and 6-8 foot swells and we would have to lump it out in our 16' Whaler at about 1200rpm for 2-3 hours to cover the same distance. Even though the ugly low rpm days were fewer than the pretty run fast days, each of the ugly low rpm days put about 5 times the hours on the engine clock.
The last cycle for us would be the pleasure cycle which would be a mix of no wake zone idle, watersking and tubing at 50%-80% running throttle with brief full throttle and idle times while positioning the boat for the skier, and sightseeing cruising at 60%-75% throttle.
To sum it all up my useage today is much the same today as it was 40 years ago. More of my time on the lake is spent with the outboard turned off than on and when it is turned on it is more likely to be in idle than above 70%
pglein posted 07-24-2009 02:19 PM ET (US)

quote:
I have done as much outboard boating as anybody here except perhaps Clark Roberts! There is NO WAY 40% of my boating time is at IDLE speed, and a combined 65% of it at below planing speeds (2200 RPM using the 40% of max RPM figure).
I would estimate that 40% of my use is at or very near idle speeds.
Just the other day I was thinking about this, and was sort of surprised when I started thinking about what it meant for my engine. The short trip progressed pretty much like this (these are best estimates):
Start and warm up engine: 33% throttle, 0:00:10
Transit no wake zone to entrance of harbor: idle, 0:05:00
Cross bay to location of first crab pot, 75% throttle, 0:05:00
Left engine running while pulling pot: idle, 0:05:00
Move to second pot: 50% throttle, 0:00:30
Left engine running while pulling pot: idle, 0:05:00
Move to third pot: 50% throttle, 0:00:30
Left engine running while pulling pot: idle, 0:05:00
Move to fourth pot: 50% throttle, 0:00:30
Killed engine while pulling the last pot and securing crab pots
Move to location of beginning of troll: 66% throttle, 0:02:00
Troll for salmon: idle, 0:30:00
Cross bay to entrance of harbor: 80% throttle, 0:02:00
Transit no wake zone to marina slip: idle, 0:05:00
Shut down engine.
So, based on that 1:05:40 trip, I spent:
0:55:00 at idle
0:00:10 at 33% throttle
0:01:30 at 50% throttle
0:05:00 at 75% throttle
0:02:00 at 80% throttle
That was a little unusual, becuase my kicker was not running, so I had to use the main for trolling. I had to leave the engine running while pulling crab pots because the conditions in all but one location required it. However, if we knock the 30 minutes of trolling out of that, it was 0:33:40 of run time:
0:25:00 at idle
0:00:10 at 33% throttle
0:01:30 at 50% throttle
0:05:00 at 75% throttle
0:02:00 at 80% throttle
Expressed as percentages that's:
74.3% at idle
00.5% at 33% throttle
04.5% at 50% throttle
14.9% at 75% throttle
05.9% at 80% throttle

If conditions had been more calm, and I had shut off the engine while pulling the crab pots, as I normally do, it would have been 0:18:40 of run time:
0:10:00 at idle
0:00:10 at 33% throttle
0:01:30 at 50% throttle
0:05:00 at 75% throttle
0:02:00 at 80% throttle
or:
53.6% at idle
00.8% at 33% throttle
08.0% at 50% throttle
26.8% at 75% throttle
10.7% at 80% throttle
So, as you can see, the duty cycle seahorse quoted above is not all that unusual at all. The only part I would take issue with, would be the 40% at 25% power. For those of us with planing hull boats, this would certainly be abnormal, due to the low fuel economy at that speed range. However, there are a LOT of outboards out there that are not on planing hull boats (think party barges, trolling motors, tenders, etc...), so I still think it's reasonable to do it that way if you've got to choose one standard to be used across ALL outboard engines.
I do not think the standards are biased or skewed at all.
Peter posted 07-24-2009 02:28 PM ET (US)
I think the EPA regulation of outboard motors came about because someone high up at the EPA paddling around in their kayak in the middle of a congested navigation channel (as they always seem to do) was smoked out by a Mercury 200 EFI. Those motors belch out more bug killing blue smoke than a 1950s outboard running 24:1 premix.
K Albus posted 07-24-2009 02:46 PM ET (US)
That kayaking EPA official probably also got dumped in the water by the same boat because its Mercury 200 EFI was not capable of running at idle speed, leaving its operator no choice but to plow through the no-wake zone cutting a solid two-foot wake. And that's why there won't be any more 2-strokes.
L H G posted 07-24-2009 02:55 PM ET (US)
I've saying all along that a same HP/same cube Merc EFI will smoke any E-tec that was ever built.
Buckda posted 07-24-2009 02:59 PM ET (US)
Depends on how you use the word "smoke"......
newt posted 07-24-2009 08:40 PM ET (US)
I dunno guys. I'm a novice having owned only 5 outboard motors - two Merc 90's and three Johnson 150's, but for sure the Johnsons kill more mosquitoes than the Mercs ever did.

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: EPA Engine RPM Test Procedures for Emission Levels
L H G	posted 07-23-2009 10:05 PM ET (US) At what RPM levels are engines tested for emissions by the EPA? All ranges, only idle, only top RPM? Is this whole emissions thing about idle speeds?
jimh	posted 07-23-2009 10:09 PM ET (US) I believe the EPA test procedure for outboards requires testing according to the ICOMIA standard 36-88 duty cycle. See Standard 36-88 at http://www.icomia.com/library/library.asp?view=Category&LC_ID=14#
jimh	posted 07-23-2009 10:11 PM ET (US) The actual regulations are given at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr& sid=4cf53e02b09b97a9d237246c54f57473&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:32.0.1. 1.5.2.1.2&idno=40
jimh	posted 07-23-2009 10:15 PM ET (US) Here is the applicable regulation: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr; sid=4cf53e02b09b97a9d237246c54f57473;rgn=div9;view=text;node=40%3A32.0. 1.1.5.9.1.7.9;idno=40;cc=ecfr
L H G	posted 07-23-2009 10:20 PM ET (US) Thanks Jim. It looks like it's weighted 65% below planing speeds, and is an arbitrary standard at best, clearly intended to be be biased against conventional 2-strokes. Just what I would expect.
jimh	posted 07-23-2009 10:34 PM ET (US) Could you explain why it is biased against two-cycle engines? The duty cycle is supposed to reflect the typical pattern of use of an outboard motor. Do you suppose there is a difference in how two-cycle outboard engines are run compared to how four-cycle outboard engines are run? I would be interested to know your thoughts.
seahorse	posted 07-23-2009 10:40 PM ET (US) emission testing is done in 5 power modes from full power to idle. The measured emissions at each power setting are multiplied by the % of time spent at each mode and the grand total is then divided by the measured horsepower to give a result in ounces per horsepower per hour, or for the pocket protector crowd, the result is in grams per KW hour. The percentages of time spent and tested at various rpms for 1 hour are as follows: idle - 40% 40% power - 25% 60% power - 15% 80% power - 14% Full power - 6%
jimh	posted 07-23-2009 10:43 PM ET (US) From ICOMIA 36-88 "The purpose of this standard is to provide a standard duty cycle which corresponds closely enough to the average consumer use so that the average composite values of important engine parameters, such as average rate of fuel consumption, or average specific fuel consumption may be provided so that different engines may be compared in a simple and rational manner." I believe the duty cycle was developed long before the four-cycle outboard motor was much of a factor, so it seem unlikely that the duty cycle could have been designed in some way to be intentionally biased so as to put two-cycle outboard motors at a disadvantage compared to four-cycle motors when rated according to this duty cycle for their aggregate emission output.
L H G	posted 07-23-2009 10:48 PM ET (US) I have done as much outboard boating as anybody here except perhaps Clark Roberts! There is NO WAY 40% of my boating time is at IDLE speed, and a combined 65% of it at below planing speeds (2200 RPM using the 40% of max RPM figure). Idle speed for all seven of my Mercs is 600 RPM. Even running out of a harbor and in no wake zones, with one engine running only, I am doing 1200-1400 RPM, a much cleaner burn, no smoke, no oil in the water. I would say that even 5% time at dead idle is too much, so the 40% is a joke. Nobody runs an engine at dead idle. But that's the speed at which 2-strokes look the worst. Very convenient way to stack the cards against the 2-stroke and make the DFI look better than they actually are as a total marine engine. I also have yet to hear ANY DFI or 4-stoke that runs quieter than my 200 EFI's at planing speed, except for the Verado.
jimh	posted 07-23-2009 10:48 PM ET (US) What constitutes a planing speed for a motor relative to maximum power? It would depend on the motor and boat combination. My boat is rated for 300-HP and will plane with a minimum 90-HP. Since 40-percent of 300-HP is 120-HP, in this case theICOMIA duty cycle would evaluate a 300-HP motor so that only 40-percent of the duty cycle involved below planing speed.
K Albus	posted 07-24-2009 08:56 AM ET (US) Larry, I think you'd be surprised at how much time your outboards spend running at idle speed if you actually kept track of it. This page from the Reference section shows engine reports for E-Tecs on two different boats: http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ETEC_EngineHistoryReport.html . Both of the reports show that more time is spent at idle speed than any other speed. Also, both reports show that more than 50% of the time the engine will be running at something less than planing speed.
seahorse	posted 07-24-2009 09:15 AM ET (US) quote: There is NO WAY 40% of my boating time is at IDLE speed, and a combined 65% of it at below planing speeds (2200 RPM using the 40% of max RPM figure). Here is a link explaining how the emission testing is done and a good explanation for those who don't believe that about 40% of their boating is done at very low rpms. http://members.iinet.net.au/~pauldawson/IAME-57_Emissions-a-sml.pdf
Peter	posted 07-24-2009 10:02 AM ET (US) I have the laptop based diagnostic software for my 2002 Evinrude 225 Fichts. The first time I plugged the software in I could not believe how much time, percentage wise, was below 1000 RPM. It was and still is nearly 40 percent. My profile does not look like the ICOMIA. Mine is more bimodal. 40 percent at 1000 RPM and below (idle) and another 40 percent at 2/3s throttle (4000 RPM) with the rest scattered between 1000 and 4000 and a little amount of time above 4000 RPM. When I think about it, the computer is dead on. I come out my slip and run at 1000 RPM until I clear the no wake zone where I run at a 4000 RPM cruise. Because I changed slip locations a few years ago, my below 1000 RPM percentage is falling slightly and the 4000 RPM percentage is rising because I have less no wake zone to go through. "I also have yet to hear ANY DFI or 4-stoke that runs quieter than my 200 EFI's at planing speed, except for the Verado." -- LHG I'll bet a 2003 Johnson 150 placed in the same power to weight ratio situation as a pair of 200 EFI's on a 25 Outrage would be much quieter and produce far less blue smoke. I'm sure that the thick blue smoke belching Mercury V6 EFI's were the sole reason that the EPA went through the huge effort to regulate outboard motor emissions ultimately banning conventional 2-stroke outboards.
jimh	posted 07-24-2009 11:11 AM ET (US) I know many of us view our boating as really blue water boating, and we we see ourselves sailing over the bounding main, saltwater spray in our face, our foaming wake cutting an endless swath into a brilliant turquoise sea as we head offshore on a long distance cruise. Then there is the reality of boating: a lot of NO WAKE boating in the Atlantic Intracoastal Water Way, a lot of idling around the dock, idling out of the inlet, a lot of time spent not on plane. When last fall I tested an engine with the ability to record its operating time and throttle position, I was quite surprised to discover that, in spite of what I though was a long weekend of really pouring the coal to the engine, my actual operating data was remarkably different: a total of 54.8-percent of that time the engine was running below 1,600-RPM.
L H G	posted 07-24-2009 12:07 PM ET (US) I'm sticking with what I said. You guys don't run my boats. 2-strokes run poorly at IDLE, which is 600 RPM, their absolute worst performance situation, and to use a 40% figure for 600 RPM is ridiculous. That's why nobody runs their 2-stroke at 600. There is a big difference in the way a 2-stroke runs at 1000-1600. No smoke at all, and much better economy. The environmental crowd rigged the phony duty cycle so they could push the elimination of the 2-stroke on nieve legislators (you know, the same ones that brought us sub-prime loans and ethanol). The outboard industry has been conned, made to look much worse than they were, and we are all paying for it big time, as I will have to do also, eventually. In reality, the DFI's are cleaner, (have we figured out where the oil goes yet?) and with better running qualities BELOW 1000 RPM, but not by that much if that 40% figure is removed. Haven't we already decided that to pay for the high purchase cost in fuel savings, most people won't live long enough? High cost of the 3-Star engines have also contributed to the permanent boating industry disaster, forcing thousands out of higher cost boating forever. People simply can't afford to buy the stuff anymore in any quantity. If I wanted to spend my boating hours at 600 RPM IDLE, I would have bought a rowboat. The rowboat would be faster. DFI's and 4-strokes have been around for 10 years now. Have any of you noticed that your air and water are cleaner now because of this? Not likely. In the Great Lakes, the credit goes to the Zebra Mussel, not E-tec, Optimax and 4-stroke engines.
K Albus	posted 07-24-2009 01:19 PM ET (US) Larry, it sounds like you're saying that you don't run your motors at idle because they run poorly at that speed. That may be true, and maybe that condition prevents you from running your motors at idle speed for significant amounts of time. I have a 135 Optimax, and I run it at idle speed all the time - in no wake zones, while trolling for walleye or salmon, or sometimes when just taking a slow cruise. My engine runs fine at idle speed, even for extended periods of time. It doesn't "load up" with carbon and begin to sputter or smoke after a long period of idle speed operation. When you think about the amount time spent (not the distance traveled) in no wake zones, even without any trolling being considered, the 40% number seems accurate. For example, consider the Inland Waterway in Northern Michigan. You put your boat in on the northern part of Mullet Lake and cruise down to Indian River at high speed. That might take 20 minutes. You then motor through the Indian River at idle speed for 45 minutes. Then you cruise across Burt Lake at high speed, taking another 20 minutes to make the crossing to the Crooked River. Even though only part of the Crooked River is a no wake zone, navigating the no wake zone portions of the river takes much longer than navigating the high speed zones - let's say 10 minutes at high speed and 20 minutes at idle speed. Follow that up with a cruise around Crooked Lake, part of which includes a no wake zone - we'll say 30 minutes of high-speed boating and 20 minutes of no wake speed. Then repeat in the opposite order on your way back to Mullet Lake. Even though the distance covered at high speed is about the same as the distance covered at no wake speed, your engine will spend substantially more time at no wake speed. In this example, you'll spend 130 minutes at high speed, and 150 minutes at no-wake speed. In other words, about 54% of the time will be spent at idle speed. And this does not include the idle engine speed time that elapsed while you warmed up your engines or stopped in the middle of the lake to talk to your buddies. Another example: On our recent trip from Grand Haven to Milwaukee, the trip started and ended with the 45 minute no wake zone between Spring Lake and Lake Michigan. Add to that about two hours of no-wake cruising up and down the Milwaukee River, plus about 30 minutes of idling in and around the marina, and several minutes of idle speed operation for mid-lake breaks. Even with 3+ plus hours of high speed boating across Lake Michigan in each direction, my boat was operating at idle speed for almost 40% of the time over the course of the weekend. Of these two examples, I think the Inland Waterway example is more typical of how people operate their boats. They start out at idle speed for a while, make a relatively short run at high speed, idle around for a while, and then make another short run or two at high speed, followed by an idle-speed trip back to the dock or launch. Even though the distances traveled at idle speed may be relatively short, the time spent traveling at idle speed is significant.
WHALETEX	posted 07-24-2009 01:54 PM ET (US) I have never owned a DFI or 4 Stroke. Just 50:1 or VRO carved 2 strokes from 4hp to 250hp. Looking back at over 40 years of boating I am very comfortable that the EPA cycle is very close to my overall useage. I have had whole days of trolling with the VRO engines where the engine was not shut off for 10 hours or more and the throttle never left idle except for the initial startup. The same sort of days with the 50:1 engines would be troll for 30-45 minutes followed by a 2 minute blow out at 3/4 to full throttle. Another frequent fishing cycle for us was what I would call a fishing bus. It starts with a typical no wake zone start followed by a run to the fishing area where the outboard was pretty much shut down for the day. The day of fishing would either be wading, drifting or running an electric troll motor. The big motor might get run for a minute or two during the day to reposition. The day would end with a run back to the ramp. Most of the runs to and from the ramp were about 15 miles and when the conditions would allow they were made at or above 80% throttle so they lasted for 20-30 minutes. Sometimes when it was kind of snotty these runs were made at about 50% throttle and it would take 40 minutes to an hour to cover the same distance. Every once in a while it would get real snotty with 40+MPH winds and 6-8 foot swells and we would have to lump it out in our 16' Whaler at about 1200rpm for 2-3 hours to cover the same distance. Even though the ugly low rpm days were fewer than the pretty run fast days, each of the ugly low rpm days put about 5 times the hours on the engine clock. The last cycle for us would be the pleasure cycle which would be a mix of no wake zone idle, watersking and tubing at 50%-80% running throttle with brief full throttle and idle times while positioning the boat for the skier, and sightseeing cruising at 60%-75% throttle. To sum it all up my useage today is much the same today as it was 40 years ago. More of my time on the lake is spent with the outboard turned off than on and when it is turned on it is more likely to be in idle than above 70%
pglein	posted 07-24-2009 02:19 PM ET (US) quote: I have done as much outboard boating as anybody here except perhaps Clark Roberts! There is NO WAY 40% of my boating time is at IDLE speed, and a combined 65% of it at below planing speeds (2200 RPM using the 40% of max RPM figure). I would estimate that 40% of my use is at or very near idle speeds. Just the other day I was thinking about this, and was sort of surprised when I started thinking about what it meant for my engine. The short trip progressed pretty much like this (these are best estimates): Start and warm up engine: 33% throttle, 0:00:10 Transit no wake zone to entrance of harbor: idle, 0:05:00 Cross bay to location of first crab pot, 75% throttle, 0:05:00 Left engine running while pulling pot: idle, 0:05:00 Move to second pot: 50% throttle, 0:00:30 Left engine running while pulling pot: idle, 0:05:00 Move to third pot: 50% throttle, 0:00:30 Left engine running while pulling pot: idle, 0:05:00 Move to fourth pot: 50% throttle, 0:00:30 Killed engine while pulling the last pot and securing crab pots Move to location of beginning of troll: 66% throttle, 0:02:00 Troll for salmon: idle, 0:30:00 Cross bay to entrance of harbor: 80% throttle, 0:02:00 Transit no wake zone to marina slip: idle, 0:05:00 Shut down engine. So, based on that 1:05:40 trip, I spent: 0:55:00 at idle 0:00:10 at 33% throttle 0:01:30 at 50% throttle 0:05:00 at 75% throttle 0:02:00 at 80% throttle That was a little unusual, becuase my kicker was not running, so I had to use the main for trolling. I had to leave the engine running while pulling crab pots because the conditions in all but one location required it. However, if we knock the 30 minutes of trolling out of that, it was 0:33:40 of run time: 0:25:00 at idle 0:00:10 at 33% throttle 0:01:30 at 50% throttle 0:05:00 at 75% throttle 0:02:00 at 80% throttle Expressed as percentages that's: 74.3% at idle 00.5% at 33% throttle 04.5% at 50% throttle 14.9% at 75% throttle 05.9% at 80% throttle If conditions had been more calm, and I had shut off the engine while pulling the crab pots, as I normally do, it would have been 0:18:40 of run time: 0:10:00 at idle 0:00:10 at 33% throttle 0:01:30 at 50% throttle 0:05:00 at 75% throttle 0:02:00 at 80% throttle or: 53.6% at idle 00.8% at 33% throttle 08.0% at 50% throttle 26.8% at 75% throttle 10.7% at 80% throttle So, as you can see, the duty cycle seahorse quoted above is not all that unusual at all. The only part I would take issue with, would be the 40% at 25% power. For those of us with planing hull boats, this would certainly be abnormal, due to the low fuel economy at that speed range. However, there are a LOT of outboards out there that are not on planing hull boats (think party barges, trolling motors, tenders, etc...), so I still think it's reasonable to do it that way if you've got to choose one standard to be used across ALL outboard engines. I do not think the standards are biased or skewed at all.
Peter	posted 07-24-2009 02:28 PM ET (US) I think the EPA regulation of outboard motors came about because someone high up at the EPA paddling around in their kayak in the middle of a congested navigation channel (as they always seem to do) was smoked out by a Mercury 200 EFI. Those motors belch out more bug killing blue smoke than a 1950s outboard running 24:1 premix.
K Albus	posted 07-24-2009 02:46 PM ET (US) That kayaking EPA official probably also got dumped in the water by the same boat because its Mercury 200 EFI was not capable of running at idle speed, leaving its operator no choice but to plow through the no-wake zone cutting a solid two-foot wake. And that's why there won't be any more 2-strokes.
L H G	posted 07-24-2009 02:55 PM ET (US) I've saying all along that a same HP/same cube Merc EFI will smoke any E-tec that was ever built.
Buckda	posted 07-24-2009 02:59 PM ET (US) Depends on how you use the word "smoke"......
newt	posted 07-24-2009 08:40 PM ET (US) I dunno guys. I'm a novice having owned only 5 outboard motors - two Merc 90's and three Johnson 150's, but for sure the Johnsons kill more mosquitoes than the Mercs ever did.