posted 12-04-2012 01:47 PM ET (US)            

--the V4 E-TEC engines remain in production as the 115-HP models

--the new 135-HP V6 replaces the prior 130-HP V4 which was some sort of high-output designated engine

--the 135-HP V6 E-TEC will be the torque champion of that horsepower class

--the V6 135-HP will weigh more (obviously) than the V4 130-HP

--the price differential between the V6 compared to the V4 will make it attractive to buy the V6; the price increase will only be on the order of a couple hundred dollars I am told

--the 135-HP V6 will be adaptable to electronic controls using ICON and also be available in counter rotation models; the V4 was available in counter rotation but did not have the option of electronic controls

--the EPA emission requirements are becoming more stringent every year, and rather than calibrate and qualify the V4 at 130-HP it was probably decided at Evinrude to calibrate and qualify the V6 at 135-HP.

posted 12-04-2012 04:18 PM ET (US)            

I'd be completely shocked if the price differential from a 1.7L V4 to a 2.6L V6 were "on the order of a couple hundred dollars". Currently, the price differential between those platforms, in the 130 and 150 HP values, appears to be between 17% and 19%, or $1700-2200. While its certainly possible, I'd suggest that a compression of that order between the two different platforms would crush the sales of the 150 HP versions unless those prices were also dramatically decreased.

I used these quick Google searched sites for price comparisons, with a 25" shaft as the standard:
http://www.boatwrench.com/EvinrudeE-TEC.html
http://www.intercoastalmarinemd.com/evinrude-e-tec/557-2

Finally, test data that I've seen on the current 130 HP V4 E-TEC were exhibit 1B in the [E-TEC] naming convention that a crafty contributor came up with. The performance appeared quite soft in comparison to my similarly spec'd Yamaha 130. Seldom does a company abandon a hot selling product after a relatively short production run, if in fact, they are abandoning the 130 HP version.

And finally, that is a massive displacement 135 HP engine. Was the original Johnson-Evinrude 135 and 140 HP engine a V4 or V6 model? This version should certainly be one powerful horse and a good candidate for an Outrage-18 repower.

posted 12-04-2012 05:13 PM ET (US)            

At present Evinrude has a 225-HP E-TEC. Evinrude also has an almost identical engine that it calls the 200 H.O.. There is a school of thought that thinks these engines have about the same power output. The model designated "200 H.O." sells for a significantly lower--at least significantly lower to me--price, about $600, as I recall. This is a bit on an anomaly in the price-power curve. If you pay more for the higher-priced engine will you get more power? I don't know.

It would be interesting to see a careful analysis of the price of outboard engines in a particular manufacturer's product line as a function of horsepower in which there was an attempt to develop an algorithm or to fit the points to a curve. Maybe someone will take this on and write a good article about it. I would love to see a careful analysis.

Re the V4 130-HP being a high-output. It was a high-output engine, that is, not a model designated "H.O." but an engine that produces a high output power for its displacement. In contrast the 135-HP V6 will be a de-tuned V6 or a low-output engine. It is quite common to see a particular engine platform used over a wide range of power outputs, and when that engine produces higher power we can say it is a high-output model; when that engine produces lower power we can say it is a low-output model.

I have seen several mentions that the EPA regulations played a part in this model change, but I don't understand what inference I am supposed to draw from that statement. I really don't care how the EPA influenced the development of the new engine, because all that really matters is that the engine meets the limits needed to qualify in model year 2013 for sale in the USA.

My speculation about EPA influence on the V4 engine models was also based on some comments made by a dealer, but I don't know if those thoughts were based on some more particular.

posted 12-04-2012 06:36 PM ET (US)            

When you wrote that the 130 V4 was "some sort of high-output designated engine" you meant that it was the highest horsepower in its platform? That seems particularly confusing when there actually exists a model named "HO" or high output in said platform. I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to word selection, I guess.

A quick review of the E-TEC 200 HO and 225 suggest that they are built upon the same platform, the V6 3.3L / 200 cubic inch platform. I'd expect them to be priced fairly closely with a modest increase for the 225 over the 200 perhaps, and in reviewing the links above, see that they are. A bit over 3% additional money gets you the 225. I am surprised to see that for a modest grand, or a bit under 6% increase, you can get the 3.3L 200 in lieu of the 2.6L 200. That seems like good money.

posted 12-05-2012 12:59 AM ET (US)            

I guess we could use Patrick's make-it-up-as-you-go sales theory to explain why any engine no longer in production has been dropped--weak sales. The list would be really long. We could start with almost all of the Mercury OptiMax engines that have been dropped in the past year or two.

Your view of what engines are selling well depends on where you are standing when you start looking around. If you are standing at some restaurant dock between Ft. Lauderdale and Miami you will think that the most popular engine is a 250 to 300-HP four-cycle used in twin, triple, or quadruple installation on the transom of 32 to 40-foot center console boats. If you are at the boat ramp on a small northern fresh water lake, you will think the 30-year-old two-cycle 10-HP engine is the most popular.

I am intrigued when people start talking about sales figures--they never have any figures. Sales figures are just not available. When someone starts to talk about outboard engine sales numbers, they are almost always just making stuff up to match their own personal opinions. The people that actually have sales figures are not going to post the figures on-line.

posted 12-05-2012 01:34 AM ET (US)            

--has more power than you might expect based on the numerical designation, that is, for example a 200 H.O. might be producing more than 200-HP;

--has taller gears, that is, lower numerical gear ratio, to work better at higher speeds;

--has (often) a gear case with lower drag that helps at high speeds; the gear case might have had lower water pick-ups than the standard gearcase, too, although now the standard Evinrude gearcase (model M2) has water pick-ups on the nose of the gear case bullet, so it is what used to be considered a low water pick-up gearcase, too; and,

--has special paint or special decals or special styling to differentiate it from the standard engines, although these days this has been reduced to just a different set of decals and sometimes only a very minor difference.

I also have been led to believe by some comments that perhaps these special engines or H.O. engines were intentionally rated at a lower horsepower in order to meet some horsepower limit on certain boats or categories of boats in competitions. If a guy has a boat with a 200-HP limit, he might want to get the 200 H.O. to get some extra power instead of getting the 225-HP and exceeding the rated power of his hull.

There is also the notion that the power curve on these special engines is weighted for best results near full throttle. That's good for people who like to run their engine at full throttle a lot of the time underway.

But I don't think any of these characterizations are hard rules, and some of the H.O. models break those rules.

When I was buying a new E-TEC I could have had a 200 H.O. or a 225-HP E-TEC, and the 200 H.O. was less expensive. However, I figured that the 200 H.O. was an engine tuned to go fast, and I wanted an engine that would be a good all-round engine. I paid more to get the E-TEC 225 model. Looking back, the 200 H.O. seems like the identical engine. If there is a difference it must be in the fuel mapping in the EMM or something deep inside the engine. I have read recently about different ports on the cylinders, but not particularly authoritative reports on that.

I think the same situation will occur with the E-TEC 135 H.O. and the E-TEC 150-HP. The H.O. will probably be cheaper, but it will probably have 150-HP (wink-wink) or close to it. Exactly what the gear case ratio and gear case designs will be or what options will be offered are yet to be seen. And, of course, the price is not known.

posted 12-05-2012 07:17 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Looking back, the 200 H.O. seems like the identical engine. If there is a difference it must be in the fuel mapping in the EMM or something deep inside the engine. I have read recently about different ports on the cylinders, but not particularly authoritative reports on that.

Exactly what the gear case ratio and gear case designs will be or what options will be offered are yet to be seen. And, of course, the price is not known.

I do think that the E-TEC 135 H.O. will not have any problem in outperforming any in-line four-cylinder four-cycle outboard engine in the 135-HP range

---

Jim,

I might be able to clear up a few of your questions.

1) Check the part numbers for a 200HO block and a 225-250 block. The different numbers mean different porting on the cylinders even though they are the same displacement. If someone ever tried to put a 225 or 250 EMM and injectors on a 200HO, it would run terribly rich due to the block differences.

2)The 20" 135 has the L2 high-performance gearcase and the regular SLE gearcase on the 25", with CCR avaiable. The price difference between a 25" 135 and a similar 150 is about $1000 retail.

posted 12-05-2012 09:23 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Seldom does a company abandon a hot selling product after a relatively short production run, if in fact, they are abandoning the 130 HP version.

---

Yamaha abandoned the "hot" 130 to which you refer. There are factors other than performance that may force the abandonment of a particular model -- most notibly, compliance or optimization of compliance with EPA regulations.

At the 130 to 140 HP range (25 inch shaft length specifications), the choices are:

Honda 135 - 485 lbs and 2.35L displacement
Suzuki 140 - 421 lbs and 2.04L displacement
Yamaha - Nothing offered.
Mercury - Nothing offered.
Evinrude - 135 - 433 lbs and 2.59L displacement*

*2-stroke displacement. 4-stroke equivalent displacement to get similar power curve to the 2-stroke would be about 3 to 3.1L (approximately 25 percent more displacement needed). If choosing a 130 to 140 HP outboard, based purely on performance, I think choosing the Evinrude 135 is a no brainer.

Given that Mercury currently doesn't have anything to offer in the 130 to 140 HP segment, I'm guessing that Evinrude is anticipating that Mercury will release a 135 4-stroke built on the 3.0L inline 4-cylinder 150. While many hope for a 200 HP version in that motor platform, I think a 135 is more likely to be launched given that it is in keeping with the large displacement, low output sales pitch Mercury made when the 150 FourStroke was released. Now on the other end, Yamaha is coming out with its 200 in-line 4 so Mercury may feel the squeeze on both ends. On either end of the spectrum, Evinrude's 2.6L V6 2-stroke has Mercury covered.

posted 12-05-2012 09:57 AM ET (US)            

I speculate that this would be a cost savings for the manufacturer because they would not have to conduct testing and certification for a designation of model under a completely new family. I am sure that the testing and certification of the emission for EPA compliance does not come cheaply.

As for what horsepower ranges exist and what engine models are needed, I don't have any clue. It seems like there is a general expectation of outboard engines in the 50-HP to 300-HP range being available at incremental power increases of about 10-HP at the lower segment and 25-HP at the upper segment of that range.

The recreational outboard engine market might be seeing a reduction in the sales of outboard engines at the very high end of the range due to the general trend for boaters to move into smaller, less expensive, and more fuel efficient boats. If there is such a trend then it makes perfect sense to have an engine in the 135-HP range. I am sure that at every outboard manufacturer there is a product manager that wants his line to have an engine for every horsepower range.

posted 12-05-2012 12:13 PM ET (US)            

The high-ouput V4 engines (under whatever model name Evinrude gave them) accomplished the increase in power output by use of a tuning valve in the exhaust passage. The valve was some sort of a throttle plate valve that opened or closed an exhaust passage, changing the length of the exhaust path. This had the effect of enhancing the engine power in certain engine speed ranges. The valve was operated by an electrical actuator. The actuator was controlled by the engine management module.

I know of at least one post to one website where one owner of one E-TEC V4 commented about having to get service on the exhaust valve. For the E-TEC FUD-meisters this one mention of a problem is all that is needed to proclaim that there were problems with the exhaust valve in the V4 and then to speculate that this is why they are not being produced in 2013.

posted 12-05-2012 12:38 PM ET (US)            

In dismissing my suggestion of weak sales, Jim seems to suggest that the alternate could be true, BRP ceases production of the 130 HP V4 due to strong sales!

And Peter, are you really comparing the 19 year (1986-2004) production run of the Yamaha 130 HP with the apparent 4 year (2009-2012) production run of the E-TEC 130? Or are you suggesting 19 years is "relatively short"? I'm not clear on your comparison of the duration of production runs for these two engines.

posted 12-05-2012 02:02 PM ET (US)            

PRJ -- My point really had nothing to do with production runs. I merely point out that there can be other reasons for discontinuation of products. If you think that the Yamaha 130 had a long production run, the 32 cubic inch OMC 2-cylinder had a 30 year production run from 1976 to 2006. As I recall, the production run for the OMC 42 cubic inch 2-cylinder looper was even longer (something like 35 years). Those motors probably would have continued for another 30 to 35 years had not the EPA stepped in to change the market dynamics.

Mercury's Optimax 225 with a fairly long production run has been discontinued yet the 200 and 250 HP models which are built on the same platform have not. Mercury has no light weight offering at 225 HP for standard recreational applications. Why would any manufacturer have such an odd product line gap from a pure market perspective given that 225 HP models are popular, probably more popular than 200 and 250s? The odd gap must be caused by something else and that something else is probably emissions regulation compliance optimization.

When the government gets involved in regulating a market, weird things can happen with perhaps the most obvious being the housing market.

posted 12-05-2012 02:16 PM ET (US)         

The press release in the National Professional Angler Association website didn't mention it - an article from Sport Fishing Magazine doesn't mention anything about dropping the 115/130 (they claim the 135 H.O. is a de-tuned 150hp) - the Evinrude website doesn't mention any of this.