posted 10-30-2013 08:23 AM ET (US)        

quote:

---

Other efforts to improve responsiveness include variable valve timing found in the Mercury VERADO line...

---

posted 10-30-2013 09:13 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

They had 150 hp outboards (their best selling motor) that were still running strong after over 6800 hours of commercial use. Averaging 500 miles a day as power for a commercial water taxi

---

posted 10-30-2013 07:33 PM ET (US)         

Now Yamaha is still being attacked here, again by Evinrude promoters, as falsifying this endurance advertizing, which is simply being reported by Mr. Hayes. Is it the old "kill the messenger" again that happens so frequesntly around here when the news is unfavorable?

It seems reasonable to me that the water taxi in question could operate daily, from 6am to Midnight, probably somewhere in Asia, at an average speed of 28 MPH. What's the big deal?

After all, the "water taxi" from Milwaukee WI to Muskegon MI operates at 42 MPH daily.

On the other hand, he is clearly mistaken about the Mercury Verado. The supercharging already gives it impressive reponsivenes that other 4-strokes, and 2-strokes, do not have.

posted 10-30-2013 07:59 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

It seems reasonable to me that the water taxi in question could operate daily, from 6am to Midnight, probably somewhere in Asia, at an average speed of 28 MPH. What's the big deal?

---

Oh and I'm NOT an Evinrude promoter. I'm a 2 stroke Mercury promoter. 2 stroke as in 2000 Merc 75 elpto.

Oh and another thing. I don't think the "water taxi" in Milwaukee is powered by a 150 Yamaha.

posted 10-30-2013 08:53 PM ET (US)            

Two key points:

- 18 trips across the Charleston Harbor every day, which is a total of about 30 miles (18 trips x 30 miles = 540 miles a day)

posted 10-30-2013 09:05 PM ET (US)            

I introduced the concept of using the water taxi to go around the world. The claim of 500-miles per day means this water taxi is able to go farther in one day than the fastest boat ever to go around the world. This is not presented in the article. It is my method of explaining how silly the notion in the article must be.

posted 10-30-2013 09:09 PM ET (US)            

How does a boat go 54-MPH-average with the engine running at 1,300-RPM?

posted 10-30-2013 09:09 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Please give it up. You are rapidly burning up all the credibility you used to have.

---

posted 10-30-2013 09:16 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

18 trips across the Charleston Harbor every day, which is a total of about 30 miles (18 trips x 30 miles = 540 miles a day)

---

Actual article:

quote:

---

“We make 18 trips across the Charleston
Harbor every day, which is a total of
about 30 miles,” said Connelly. “We only
burn about 70 gallons of fuel per week,
which is incredible considering the
boats run approximately 70 hours per
week. It’s critical that we have outboards
we can trust to transport 100-plus
daily passengers from the Aquarium to
Patriot’s Point.”

---

Each trip isn't 30 miles. The total each day is 30 miles. I've been there and on that taxi. Each trip is a little under 2 miles.

Plus if they only burn 70 gallons of fuel a week it means they are getting 50 miles per gallon.

posted 10-30-2013 09:23 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

“We make 18 trips across the Charleston Harbor every day, which is a total of about 30 miles,” said Connelly.

---

That is a total of 30-miles each day--not each trip. All you need to do to confirm that is look at Charleston harbor. It is not 30-miles across.

This fellow Glenn Hayes has twisted this simple statement into a claim that the boats averaged 500-miles per day. Sorry, but Glenn is off by a factor of about 18-times.

Even more strange, we have Larry, in his blood lust to proclaim that there are "Evinrude Supporters" behind this whole criticism, saying this:

quote:

---

Now Yamaha is still being attacked here, again by Evinrude promoters, as falsifying this endurance advertizing, which is simply being reported by Mr. Hayes. Is it the old "kill the messenger" again that happens so frequesntly around here when the news is unfavorable?

---

LARRY--Old friend, you are completely wrong. Let me lay it out for you:

First, there are no "Evinrude promoters" involved in this discussion. None have even mentioned Evinrude, except you. I know you believe in your heart of hearts in the crazy notion that behind every username lurks an Evinrude promotor, but it not true.

Second, no one has said that Yamaha has falsified anything. The only false information comes from Glenn Hayes article, which is the topic of discussion.

Third, we are indeed "killing the messenger" because this messenger, Glenn Hayes, can't get his facts straight. When someone writes an article that contains significant errors--we have found two glaring errors already--he deserves to be criticized.

Fourth, "killing the messenger" does not "happen frequently around here" unless the messenger is wrong, has significant problems in his information, or is singing an old and tired song that we have all heard dozens of time before and have grown tired of hearing.

posted 10-30-2013 09:33 PM ET (US)            

If the water taxis ran 365-days per year, that is only 2.67-hours-per-day.

We can look at the absurdity of the claim the boats ran an average of 500-miles per day by noting that it would require them to run at an average speed of

500/2.67 = 187-MPH

posted 10-30-2013 09:36 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I don't think Larry is the only one around here who had squandered their credibility.

---

posted 10-31-2013 08:14 AM ET (US)            

The article quotes the taxi service guy as stating “[s]o basically, the outboards are running for 10 hours straight at 1300-1400 RPM." This is two outboard motors if I understand correctly. At 1500 RPM, a Yamaha F150 burns 1.2 GPH per Yamaha performance reports. If we assume that at 1300 RPM it burns 1 GPH, then because they have two F150s their average burn rate for the boat is 2 GPH (1 + 1). If they run each motor for 9 hours each day, then they burn a total of 18 gallons of fuel per day. If they burn 70 gallons per week as the article states that means that the taxi is only running 3.8 days per week. But the article says that the water taxi runs "every day". Maybe they don't run in bad weather?

An F150 operating according to the ICOMIA duty cycle would burn about 3 GPH for each operating hour. The water taxi F150s are each burning about 1 GPH per my calculation. So by running continuously for 9 hours a day, seven days a week (less thermal cycling than a recreational user) and working about 1/3 as hard as they would be under the ICOMIA duty cycle, these particular Yamaha F150s seemingly led a pretty easy life for their first 7 years.

posted 10-31-2013 09:11 AM ET (US)            

http://www.charlestonwatertaxi.com/see-the-fleet/

According to the website it is 4 miles roundtrip. Logic and common sense would dictate that hours in that time period is correct but the mileage is not.

posted 10-31-2013 10:17 AM ET (US)         

I think the author may have goofed up some of the numbers, there is no way these engines travel 500 miles per day. The ferry operators numbers make perfect sense. 30 miles a day at approx 5 mph would be 6 hours a day. 6 hours a day from May through September would be approx 900 hours and that works fine with 6800 hours over 7 years when you consider the additional hours in the off season.

posted 10-31-2013 11:21 AM ET (US)            

The unfortunate outcome is many readers of this article with go away believing in two new myths about four-stroke-cycle outboard engines:

--the VERADO has variable valve timing, and

--a water taxi with a a four-stroke-cycle engine can average 500-miles in a day's use.

posted 10-31-2013 03:35 PM ET (US)         

http://www.allatsea.net/ outboard-engine-roundup-examining-todays-two-stroke-engines/

Actually, I'm quite sure this article will be considered excellent, first rate journalism, worthy of an award.

posted 10-31-2013 07:37 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Because of current technology, the days on the water that were once ruined by an oil warning buzzer going off are also a thing of the past.

---

This seems to suggest there is no concern for oil level in the oil reservoir of a two-stroke-cycle engine. That is a serious error.

posted 10-31-2013 07:56 PM ET (US)            

"Here is another of this man's articles for which he can be attacked? [sic] It might be fun for the group to hunt down all the errors here so the ridicule can continue?[sic]"

Larry--you are completely wrong, again. This author has not been the target of an attack. Please re-read the first article in this thread. That article cites the announcement of the Mercury VERADO has having variable valve timing, and asks if this is correct. There is no attack on the author, Glenn Hayes. The thread is started to find information about the VERADO--my favorite FOURSTROKE.

So far the only confirmation of a mistake on the VERADO has come you, Larry.

It is only as more careful reading of his article is done by other readers, that even more errors become apparent. The thread discusses the several further errors.

The purpose of the review is to dispel myths, in this case, very ironically, myths created by the author himself in an article he ironically titled "Dispelling Myths...."

If you really have sympathy for Glenn Hayes, why would you then hunt out more articles by him and invite readers to review them? You seem to be encouraging the very thing you claim is objectionable to you.

Again, I think your obsession with E-TEC and Evinrude is behind it. You found an article that might say something positive about the E-TEC, and now you want to dare "the Evinrude promoters" to find something wrong with it.

posted 11-01-2013 01:17 PM ET (US)         

The high service hours given the use of these engines makes perfect sense to me. Most mechanical things are at their best when used and maintained regularly. It sounds like these engines never gum up with bad fuel from sitting, never deteriorate due the effects of condensation in the crankcases (and fuel tank) due to sitting for months on end. They are not run at maximum RPM and receive frequent service due to the usage. These are utopian conditions for an engine!

The F150 mechanicals are obviously engineered pretty well by Yamaha, but the most common effects which cause outboard engines to go bad are obviously minimized. Great story.

posted 11-01-2013 04:32 PM ET (US)            

Kudos to Yamaha. You can easily see why just about every major boat manufacturer exclusively offers nothing but four stroke engines.

posted 11-01-2013 07:28 PM ET (US)            

Let's explore that. First even changing the oil themselves means they endure an opportunity cost. Changing the oil and filter means you can't be doing something else. To do a proper comparison, one should also include the value of their personal time required for the maintenance task including proper disposal of used oil. And on a commercial boat like that, it's not coming out of the water for an oil/filter change so the oil has to be extracted through the dipstick tube. How much labor time is charged by a dealer for an oil and filter change through a dipstick extraction? 1/2 hour, 1 hour? Whatever that is, you need to include that in the total cost. I'll bet it takes 8X longer to change the oil and filter than it does to pour a gallon of oil into a reservoir and that time doesn't even account for disposal of waste oil.

We'll limit the financial analysis to the material costs for the powerhead lubrication. But a Yamaha F150 also requires a gearlube change every 100 hours as well as a fuel filter change. There is also powerhead anode replacements and timing belt changes (every 1000 hours which they apparently neglected to do). If 1300 RPM is considered an extreme operating condition, the frequency of oil/filter changes is higher but we'll assume its not.

The Yamaha F150 requires almost 5 quarts of oil and a filter every 100 hours per the Yamaha schedule for normal operation. 5 quarts of Yamahalube crankcase oil (1 gallon + 1 quart) costs about $40. The Yamaha filter is $20. We'll say the drain plug gasket is free. So the materials cost is about $60 for the basic powerhead lubrication materials every 100 hours.

Now if the Evinrude E-TEC 150 was operated at the same 1300 RPM (it would be less because the Evinrude has a lower gear ratio and a lower WOT RPM), it would consume about 1 GPH per Evinrude's performance reports. Assuming that the motor is set for the XD100 oiling rate and that rate is 75:1 (I think its higher than that), for each 100 hours of operation the E-TEC 150 is consuming 100 gallons of fuel and 1.3 gallon of XD100 oil. At my local shop, XD 100 goes for about $35 per gallon from bulk. So for 100 hours of operation, the lubrication material costs is $45. So before you even get into the labor cost, the Evinrude's powerhead lubrication material costs at the XD100 setting is LOWER. If you use TCW3 setting (say 50:1) and $25 per gallon according to what my local dealer charges for XD 50 from bulk, the lubrication cost is $50, still LOWER.

Seems that the "they saved a lot of money vs burning XD100 or even regular TCW3 oil" 4-stroke myth has been busted.

posted 11-02-2013 01:48 AM ET (US)         

Please point out anywhere in this discussion where I brought up the subject of Evinrude operating costs relative to the Yamaha F150 operating costs. You won't find it. I have no interest in that worthless subject at all. Peter seems to be obsessed with it however, and it now seems he is the one introducing E-tec maintenance into a Yamaha endurance discussion, not me. So quit attacking me.

posted 11-02-2013 07:06 AM ET (US)            

If one has never owned a DFI 2-stroke outboard and thus has a first hand appreciation of how much less fuel they use than a carburated 2-stroke, particularly at low engine speeds, I can understand why one might think that the lubrication materials costs under the taxi's operating conditions favor a 4-stroke when in fact they don't.

And because we don't want Larry's favorite brand to feel left out, the lubrication material costs for a Mercury Optimax 150 would also be less than the Yamaha F150 under the same conditions. And not to leave Yamaha out, the lubrication costs for the Yamaha HPDI 150, which I currently have, might be about the same cost as the F150s because the HPDI lacks stratified charge mode and accordingly uses more fuel between idle and 1500 RPM than a Mercury Optimax 150, Evinrude E-TEC 150 or even the Evinrude Ficht 150.

If one were to use a 3 gallon remote oil tank in the taxi service, then lubrication maintenance would consist of pouring two gallons of oil into each tank once every 200 hours of operation.

posted 11-02-2013 07:59 AM ET (US)            

I dont know any commercial operator that will change their oil once a week or week and a half. The reality is that due to the duty cycle and most idle time, the oil is most likely changed once a month. Now compare 300 hours vs. the cost of TCW3 oil and see what you get. Now multiple that to get to 8700 hours. The savings is very large.

Sometimes recommended maintenance does not apply do not apply verbatim in the real world use.

All the other maintenance issues are similar since gearlube does not last longer in one engine vs another. Also recommended saltwater maintenance for any engine is virtually identical.

posted 11-02-2013 08:29 AM ET (US)            

Just a simple search online yielded OEM Yamaha oil for $28 per gallon and filters for $15.

Opportunity cost is nil because of multitasking and downtime due to the fact that 100% efficiency is impossible.

It is amazing that people that have never ran a commercial boating operation can sit back in the computer chairs and state they know better or how they can do it better.

posted 11-02-2013 09:51 AM ET (US)            

Pricing I used came from Shipyard Island Marine for genuine Yamaha parts. The taxi service doesn't use genuine Yamaha parts. Here is a link to a comparison of a Sierra filter versus a Yamaha filter -- www.thehulltruth.com/shipyard-isl-marine-engine-parts/ 101185-yamaha-vs-sierra-oil-filters-w-pics.html . If I were going to skimp on the maintenance schedule, I'd be inclined to use the Yamaha parts.

Of course if you don't follow the maintenance schedule or use Yamaha parts you can avoid costs and the time lost from doing the maintenance. But thats the only way the theory works regarding lower 4-stroke lubrication cost and effort here -- AVOID doing the maintenance according to the frequency recommended by YAMAHA. And Yamaha considers operating the motor at trolling speeds, which is what 1300 RPM produces, to be an adverse operating condition in which the maintenance frequency should be adjusted (meaning more frequent than 100 hours). So basically are we now to believe that the maintenance schedule published by Yamaha is B.S. and must only serve one purpose, to increase Yamaha's revenue?

Don't get me wrong, I think Yamaha makes good product. I currently own two Yamaha HPDI 150s, have owned a Yamaha 225 Ox66 and the Yamaha 2-stroke 70 for a number of years in the past. They have all been good outboards for me. And I can completely understand why a commercial operator would avoid maintenance using genuine Yamaha parts -- Yamaha charges excessively for them. The price of a little plastic fuel filter screen that goes inside the vapor separator tank of an HPDI 150 is over $30! That part cannot cost more than 50 cents to make! And then there is another $30 for the custom o-ring that seals the top and bottom of the tank. So its $60 in parts just to replace a fuel filter not including labor. And it takes about 1/2 to 3/4 hour to disassemble and reassemble the tank carefully detaching the tank from the motor block and unscrewing 10 screws that hold the top and bottom together so as not to lose those screws. Contrast that to the Evinrude Fichts I had before that. The equivalent fuel filter service to the VST filter was a spin-on just like the oil filter. A 5 minute replacement of a part that costs $9. Only tool needed was a strap wrench to loosen the filter.

posted 11-02-2013 11:18 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I dont know any commercial operator that will change their oil once a week or week and a half.

---

About a decade ago--how time flies--I was in the Pacific Northwest, where a resort was operating a fleet of custom 17-foot Boston Whaler boats for the purpose of taking their clients fishing. All of the boats had four-stroke-power-cycle engines. (I don't think the E-TEC was available then.) The fleet had about a dozen or more boats. The resort changed the crankcase oil in the engines at the recommended interval, 100-hours, and maybe sometimes more often, because the boats were used to troll. It is often recommended that if there is a lot of low speed operation that the oil be changed more often. Since these engines were running about eight to ten hours a day, they were changing the oil every two weeks or less. It was more or less a fulltime job for the technician there to change the crankcase oil in two or three of their boats every day.

Of course, as we see here, an operator can choose to change the oil less frequently than recommended. For example, I recall a fellow I knew who told me he never changed the oil in his cars. He just kept adding some new oil as needed--he thought it was a waste of time to change the oil. So he would represent a very low maintenance cost case for comparison. However, if we are going to make a comparison on the costs of operating two engines, then it is unreasonable to permit one side of the comparison to arbitrarily alter the maintenance interval so that those costs are significantly reduced.

There was already a rigorous comparison made of the operating costs of outboard engines according to the recommendations of the manufacturers, and we already had a discussion on that comparison. You will recall, the E-TEC had the lowest cost. See the thread from a month ago:

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/022342.html

I also want to see how others react to the method used by CWTX on his Yamaha engines. He seems to be stretching the oil change interval quite a bit. Scott is changing the oil "three times per season." We already know from Scott's own data that the annual average running time for his engine is about 971-hours. This suggests that the engine oil is being changed about every 325-hours of operation. This means the oil change interval is being stretched by a factor of about 3.25

In a prior discussion about a two-stroke-power-cycle outboard operated by the government, there was a fury of criticism leveled at the operator when they exceeded the recommended maintenance interval by a factor of 1.8. In that discussion, the following description was applied:

quote:

---

The treatment of those engines is not a testament to the engine but instead simply neglect.

---

Cf.: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007364.html

I have to say, I am surprised at the reaction here. With the engine maintenance stretched to 3.25-times the recommended interval, the reaction is:

quote:

---

Sometimes recommended maintenance does not apply do not apply verbatim in the real world use.

---

This gives me a laugh. When the two-stroke-power-cycle engine maintenance was stretched by a factor of 1.8 it was "neglect", and when the four-stroke-power-cycle maintenance is stretched 3.25-times it is just a "real world" outcome. It suggests to me that when a comparison is made, if someone has a finger on the scale tilting it in favor of the four-stroke-cycle engine that is just "real world" but if the scale is tilted just slightly in favor of the two-stroke-power-cycle engine that is "skewed in one direction."

posted 11-02-2013 11:29 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The reality is that ...the oil is most likely changed once a month.

---

Since we have seen that the engine time for these taxi engines is 971-hours per year, we can figure that if the oil were changed ten times a year--which is almost once a month, allowing for some off-season time--then the oil would would be getting changed at very close to the 100-hour interval recommended.

posted 11-02-2013 01:53 PM ET (US)            

The commercial operator has the highest hour confirmed outboard on the entire internet and has had no issue what so ever. They had not replaced the timing belt either and yet the engine has not blown up.

Real world is different vs internet theory.

The stroke DFI would have burned $6500+ combined between the twins in 2 stroke oil (even uses the cheapest oil) . While the real world watertaxi cost less then 1/10 of that use.

Also it seem like a few people have difficultly with the numbers for computing annual use.

"In 2009 we repowered with our second set. In April of 2013, Yamaha acquired them with 8700 hours a piece, again still running. After testing there was no measurable performance differences between the old and new. We are on our third set of F150's which have 2060 hrs since put on in Late April of this year."

He is doing well over 2000hours per year as per his words and not made up calculations.

posted 11-02-2013 03:56 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Also it seem like a few people have difficultly with the numbers for computing annual use.

---

The primary source material, YAMAHA MARINE RETAIL PARTNER says:

quote:

---

Almost seven years later and with 6,800 hours on each outboard...

---

Cf.: http://www.njoutboards.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ ultimate-reliability.pdf

Now we do some math:

6,800/7 = 971-hours per year, average

Exactly what part of this does OMCRobert believe to be a problem?

There have been two assertions made by two of the big four-stroke supporters, LHG and OMCRober, in this thread that there have been some sort of errors made in calculations presented in this discussion. These claims are, in themselves, further myths. There are, as far as I know, no math errors on any of the calculations mentioned here. All of the calculations are based on three sources:

--the erroneous material of Glenn Hayes' article, where it was demonstrated that the claim of 500-miles per day average travel for a water taxi was beyond the bound of any reasonable belief

--the claims of the YAMAHA MARINE RETAIL PARTNER, from which the figure of 6,800-hours in seven years is taken,

--and the first-person account of Scott C, who said he changes the oil about once every three months

OMCRobert says that in order for a person to be able to perform simple math with numbers like these and get the correct answer they have to be some sort of professional waterman, but I disagree. I think any sharp fifth-grader could perform the multiplication or division needed, even if he could not swim.

Exactly what is so scary about someone actually reading an article and applying a little thought to what is being said? We found out here there was a great deal of Myth-Making going on, and when the record is set straight, it seems like some feathers got ruffled. Why are certain people so sensitive when it turns out a Yamaha F150 cannot run a water taxi for 500-miles in one day while averaging 1400-RPM and only needing an oil change once every three months?

posted 11-02-2013 04:03 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

This is the difference between people that really use their engines and people that theorize about it behind a keyboard.

---

I am not sure what the antecedent of "this" was supposed to be, but, as far as I can tell, what is trying to be differentiated is as follows:

--people that "really use their engines" are sloppy with their numbers and when they get into print all sorts of mistakes are made with them;

posted 11-02-2013 10:44 PM ET (US)            

I think the fact that these engines had aftermarket oil filters and oil is even a larger endorsement of their durability.

posted 11-02-2013 11:36 PM ET (US)            

Scott C says:

quote:

---

...in Dec 2005...new F150s. We logged 6800 hours, per motor ...In 2009 we repowered...

---

OK. Let's take those figures as the facts of the matter. This suggests that it took four years to get 6,800 hours. This actually makes things much more favorable for my point of view. I explain.

If the engines run 6,800 hours in four years, that is 1,700-hours per year, and the oil was only changed three times a year, or every 566-hours. Yikes, no wonder the cost of operating these engines appears to be so low. Even if we use the manufacturer's recommendation of 100-hour oil changes, the interval has been stretched to 5.7-times longer. If we use the recommendation of 50-hour oil change interval for rugged service, that suggests the service interval is stretched to 11-times the recommendations.

There is a possibility of saving on operating costs with the F150 if you do not follow the manufacturer's recommendations. The rigorous analysis of operating costs in the article we discussed last month showed the E-TEC was the least expensive to own and operate when the manufacturer's recommendations are followed.

It is obvious that if you reduce the maintenance procedures to longer intervals than recommended, your maintenance costs will be lower. We don't need to have an argument about that. It is a simple fact.

It is interesting to hear that Yamaha RING FREE is being used. That is very expensive stuff; using it raises the cost of fuel considerably. The stuff sells at retail for about $27 for 12-ounces, which will treat 120-gallons of gasoline. Its use raises the price of the fuel by $27/120-gallons, or $0.225 per gallon. Maybe Scott buys it in bulk and gets a better deal, but the average boater will be buying it at retail and in small quantities, so my price estimate is accurate. So one thing we learn here is that if you run a four-stroke-cycle engine you can expect to always pay $0.225-per-gallon for fuel. A nice advantage?

I somewhat surprised that the OEM filters were not used. They don't change them very often, so the extra price of the filters wouldn't seem to add too much costs. If I owned a Yamaha F150 and it was under warranty, I would use their filter. It would eliminate any wiggle room in the warranty if there were to be a problem.

For the typical boat owner, who wants to maintain his warranty, there is no way for the service interval to be stretched to five to ten times more than recommended. To do this would be completely insane. The warranty would be voided. It would be foolish to treat a new F150, which probably costs about $17,000, by ignoring the recommended maintenance intervals and using aftermarket parts. That sort of care would put any warranty coverage into jeopardy in order to save a small amount of money. I don't think any real boater would do it. It might make sense in a commercial operation, as the warranty is much more limited in commercial use.

posted 11-03-2013 07:43 AM ET (US)            

The fact of the matter is that in any one particular industrial application, you need to do side by side comparisons to make any reasonable comparisons.

Manufacturers suggested maintenance intervals are all well and good, for typical users, but once you start running night and day, day after day, you can usually toss them out in favor for development of high usage maintenance routines that work for your particular application.

Take oil for example: The manufacturers suggested oil change interval takes into account a large calculus of predicted hours of operation, predicted days sitting dormant, predicted humidity of the environment, etc. Why? Sitting and breathing moist air in and out of a breather when dormant, water vapor and byproducts of combustion in the oil form acid, which then attacks bearing surfaces, etc. I've no doubt that the lubricity of the oil is not the controlling factor when Yamaha suggests an oil change interval. Bottom line is that manufacturers predict maintenance based on averages. Run your engine every day hard, boil off the water, never let acidifying oil sit on the bearings, and you can likely triple the time between oil changes with ease.

In aviation, we do oil sampling and failure predition based on Ph, contaminents, and metals in the oil. Oil change intervals are determined in commercial service in aviation by reference to sampling and analysis and trends of changes in the oil. Oil changes are extended much longer for engines run daily v/s engines run at recreational levels. Lube Oil aboard ship is rarely (never) changed, it is filtered, Ph adjusted, and analyzed continuously but never changed. A Sultzer marine diesel aboard a 800 foot ship has several thousand gallons of lube oil in it's system so you can can imagine why it's not just changed.

The bottom line is that you can throw out the manufacturers little book when you run 2000 hours a year, and develop whatever works for your application. This is just simple industrial engineering.

This is all for 4 strokes, obviously (save for the Sultzer, which like all of the huge ship engines is a 2 stroke.. ;-) )

On the eTec, you are "stuck", if you want to call it that, with the mix ratio that the engine is set up for. You cannot do a local analysis of anything, can't track metals and wear elements in the oil, etc., and can't decrease oil use by analysis and selection of change intervals. That's not bad, it's just different.

So, again, meaningful cost comparisons need to be done "on the transom" of similar engines run under similar conditions, for similar numbers of hours. All of the number crunched above are based on flawed assumptions. GIGO, for those who understand that in math Garbage In = Garbage Out.

Dave

posted 11-03-2013 07:56 AM ET (US)            

Well said. I see you speak from experience and see how you understand real world use is different from just reading about it online.

posted 11-03-2013 08:19 AM ET (US)            

Any recreational user could blindly pull a name out of a hat for any of the usual HP selections and be happy for life. Evinrude, Yamaha, Mercury, Honda... they are all essentially interchangable black-boxes that work. Pick one and use it.

Cost of operation? Who cares? Any of them are going to be many orders of magnitude more expensive than just keeping whatever old engine is already on the back of your boat running today. If you want to economize, keep your repower money in your pocket and buy fuel. If you have a reliable engine, stick with it.

If you do need a new engine, pick one based on the local dealer you like and acceptable transom weight for your boat and go boating.

An engine is not a social statement, a political statement, or a reflection of your personal value to society. You are not buying a company, or a country, or a labor union, or anythign else. It's *just* an engine.

If any one particular brand were SO much better than the others, somebody would notice and the bad engine manufacturers would be run outta business by market forces. Nobody does, and none do.

Dave

posted 11-03-2013 08:46 AM ET (US)            

Which usage and situation represents exactly zero precentage of the members here who argue on and on and on and on ad nauseum about the supposed superioriities of their particular favorite choice.

To me, as a 'Tauk owner, I am interested in just one thing: Transom weight of a 90. Nothjing else means a hill of beans. Your actual mileage may vary. (that's a joke... ;-)

Dave

posted 11-03-2013 08:52 AM ET (US)            

To go back to the initial article that is the subject of this discussion, I would like to point out the precise words of its author about maintenance:

quote:

---

If maintenance schedules are followed there is no reason not to expect long-term reliability...

---

This is another rather ironic statement in light of what we have learned about the water taxi engines. The taxi engines are held up for examination of durability, yet the maintenance schedules were not followed. I don't quite see how you make a case for following the manufacturer's maintenance schedule by citing an instance of an operator not following that schedule. This seems like another case of making myths instead of dispelling them.

posted 11-03-2013 09:07 AM ET (US)            

There's a difference between following *A* maintenance schedule and following *the manufacturers recommended* maintenance schedule.

As I posted above, the recreational suggested maintenance schedule is very likely quite different than an industrial application maintenance schedule.

The case is that one should follow the maintenance schedule that is germane to the application the engine is actually used for. Like other applications, what works may be a manufacturers schedule, or one that is operator developed based on their conditions. Just remembering a few different engines in my past, there are very different oil change intervals for engines used in continuous duty, desert operations, and intermittant duty applications. The continuous duty engines run much longer between changes than those run in intermittant operation, with desert ops requiring the most frequent changes. In the particular case being discussed, it's obvious that Yamaha publishes a schedule based on intermittant (recreational) use, and the operator has biased the program more towards the side of continuous use.

Data point: Cat 3208 oil change on my Trawler, intermittant recreational service: 100 hours or annually, as required. Cat 3208 oil change when used for stationary oil field pump use (24/7 use): 500 hours, with extensions to 1000 hours with oil sampling and external large filtration. Both are within recommendation limits for the type of service they are used for. Neither is wrong.

Dave

.

posted 11-03-2013 09:21 AM ET (US)            

It illustrates that modern outboard engines are very durable, robust and reliable. The outdate idea of "get an inboard diesel" if you are putting thousands of hours on a boat is over as proven by CWTZ. I dont think any other engine could have outperformed these engines in terms of performance, ease of maintenance, price and performance.

A modern outboard engine that is reasonably cared for will last long past all expectations.

posted 11-03-2013 04:04 PM ET (US)            

I'd love to know what kind of hours the crabbers around me are logging. They are out 8 to 16 hours a day running full throttle to idle speed hundreds of times a day as their traps are often as little as 100 feet apart. They run fast between traps then a little faster than idle speed circling the trap as they pick it up and empty it. There are literally thousands of traps up and down the St. Johns River.

posted 11-04-2013 08:14 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I think this article is great even with the mistakes.

---

posted 11-04-2013 12:16 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Thanks for reading the article and for discovering the errors within it. It appears that I submitted an uncorrected version in error to our editor for publication. For that I apologize. The 500 miles per day proclamation came from an off-the-cuff conversation with one of the Yamaha representatives at the Miami show in 2012 and should have read 300 miles (a more plausible yet unverifiable amount). Unfortunately I am unable to confirm this quote directly as I no longer have copies of the recordings I made of my interviews due to the length of time since it transpired. The hours noted in the article of the motors can be substantiated and verified by Yamaha however. You are also correct that Mercury Verados do not employ variable valve timing and the article should have read “in the upper end of the Suzuki line.” The errors have now been corrected. Again thanks for comments and for bringing this to our attention.

---