posted 12-25-2013 10:11 AM ET (US)            

The oil has been in the leg for at least four years. I suspect you've had your moneys worth out of that oil. I would change it.

I believe your boat use is in salt water and offshore. If it was my engine I would replace the impeller, change the oil and lubricate the propeller shaft. If you find water in the oil consider replacement of the shaft seal. Consider it an investment in peace of mind.

posted 12-25-2013 01:50 PM ET (US)            

I think you misunderstood me, I did my 300 hr ck up and change of oil, plugs, impeller, etc, etc, etc last Oct 2012 when my engine hit it's three year mark although I was not even close to the 300 hr mark (only had 149 hrs). Ran me 500 bucks and was completed in 2 hrs by the the Evinrude Tech.

I am asking if I can go another 300 hrs and or 3 yrs before my next maintenance? No one seems to have a confirmed answer.

Thks,

posted 12-30-2013 07:15 AM ET (US)            

The maintenance schedule identifies, by way of reference number (2), exactly THREE items in the list that require annual maintenance if use is in saltwater: 1) anti-corrosion anodes; 2) lubricate grease fittings; and 3) inspect and lubricate propeller shaft splines. Would you take your outboard motor to your dealer to have these items addressed annually if you used your boat in saltwater?

posted 12-30-2013 10:59 AM ET (US)            

One frequently misinterpreted maintenance procedure regarding the E-TEC is the service of the thermostats. The thermostats are only to be inspected at 300-hours or three years, or, as suggested for extremely heavy use, commercial use, or use in polluted water or in saltwater, at more frequent intervals, perhaps annually. It is not necessary to replace them if they are in good condition and working properly. When my E-TEC was checked by my Evinrude Platinum level dealer's fully trained and certified master technician, the thermostats housings were opened, the thermostats checked for debris and general condition, and the system was reassembled. New thread seal compound was applied to the housing. The engine was operated until the thermostats opened. Temperature of the individual cylinder heads was monitored on the EV-Diagnostic software to infer the temperature at which each thermostat was opening. The two thermostats operated within a few degrees of each other and within the range limit specified in the service manual. As a result, they were not replaced.

In a similar manner, it is not necessary to replace the water pump impeller and associated wear plates and seal at precisely 300-hours or three years. When my engine was serviced at the three-year interval, the water pump was still providing cooling water at the specified pressures, so it was not replaced. My dealer remarked that it is quite normal for the water pump to provide more than three years of service when the engine is operated in the sort of environment that my engine has been. I operate the engine in clear, clean, cold freshwater. I supposed if you operate the E-TEC in a soupy swamp of tropical saltwater you might get a different outcome. This is clearly explained in the owner's manual.

posted 12-30-2013 04:56 PM ET (US)            

In fact I will argue that the 3 year no maintenance ploy has caused much confusion and may result in lack of required basic maintenance such as greasing fittings and prop shaft.

As we saw with the Yamaha 4 stroke that went 7800+ hours on the watertaxi, any engine can go past the required schedule of maintenance without blowing up.

posted 12-30-2013 05:37 PM ET (US)            

I don't recall reading any comment that says if the maintenance requirement schedule is not meticulously followed the engine will blow up.

Even the Army says it's OK to be 10% beyond the scheduled maintenance hours, miles, days or operations(functions).

I believe the majority of maintenance professions agree that there are no dire outcomes from missing a maintenance period now and then. Too many misses can and often will result in a gradual deterioration in reliability.

posted 12-30-2013 07:27 PM ET (US)            

The engine never was serviced by an Evinrude Tech and was still going strong when I sold it, even the VRO never gave me any problems. When I sold the 15' I bought a new 17'with a new 1998 90 Johnson Ocean Pro, same thing 10 yrs of flawless service without ever seeing a marine tech. Did basic preventive maintenance and that was it.

That' one of the reasons I've always stayed a loyal Evinrude/Johnson fan all these years, and why I dumped my
Merc 115 when I bought it with the Montauk 190. I can't say that the Merc was bad but there was so many small annoyances that it got the best of me. My biggest complaint to the dealer was that I never knew for sure when the engine was in neutral. Almost pulled my wife off the dock a couple of times, they kept telling me all was fine! The motor cover latches just fell out one day, the rubber stopper where the cables go into the engine would constantly pop out. And last but not least a terrible vibration in the rear baitwell hatch caused by the engine. Soon as I put on the E-TEC the vibration was gone. Just love my E-TEC!

posted 12-31-2013 02:17 AM ET (US)            

If a manufacturer of another brand says their maintenance needs to be done at a certain interval, these same critics decide--again based apparently on their expertise--that this interval is wrong and is too short. The maintenance actually needs to be done less often than the manufacturer recommends.

posted 12-31-2013 09:11 AM ET (US)            

The first 90 had about 1500 hrs on it( 1300 in the first 2 years) . We had to replace an injector and the tilt and trim unit around 950hr and the starter relay at about 1400hr. Changed the impeller at 900 hrs and again when we replaced the lower unit at 1300 hrs. Lower unit failure was from smacking a big log in the swamp. I changed the plugs probably 4 times on this motor, it didn't need that many as one change was when I was looking for what ended up being the injector problem.

The 150 has had no maintenance as it has less than 300 hrs.

The new 90 has been in service for one year and needs to go in for service, that will include impeller and scan for fault codes,based on miles traveled I suspect we have close to 1000 hrs. I have changed plugs once and lower unit oil once.

I now change plugs when mpg's start to drop or slow to start. So plugs seem to last 300 to 400 hrs.

We run ethanol gas with blue stabil through 10 micron filters and only use XD-50.

We track miles on the GPS and the 90's travel about 10,000 miles per year.

posted 12-31-2013 09:52 AM ET (US)            

Based on my experience previously with Evinrude DFI outboards and now with Yamaha DFI outboards, Yamahas are not built with DIY maintenance in mind, but rather dealer maintenance and parts department profits in mind. Evinrudes are clearly more DIY friendly.

For example, changing the fuel filter(s) is far more difficult on the Yamaha HPDI than on the Evinrude Ficht or E-TEC. On the Evinrude, the fuel filter/water separator is a spin-on filter which takes about 5 to 10 minutes to change out and costs between 10 and 15 dollars and the only tool required is a simple strap wrench to loosen the filter.

In contrast, on the Yamaha HPDI, there are two filters, a first filter/water separator which is relatively easy to get at but the other is a little $30 (costs about $1 to make) plastic filter on the end of the fuel injection lift pump buried inside the vapor separator tank. If this little filter clogs causing the motor to starve for fuel, and they frequently do, one has to unbolt the vapor separator from the engine block using a socket wrench, then separate the top and bottom halves of the vapor separator tank by unscrewing 10 Philips head screws with a long length but moderate driver size Philips head screwdriver so as to be able to reach some of the difficult to reach screws. One also needs a coffee can or equivalent to put all the bolts and screws for later reuse. There is also a $30 custom shaped o-ring that fits between the upper and lower halves of the VST. Once you've had experience performing this maintenance, which the parts manager at the dealer tells me should be done every Spring commissioning, it takes about 45 minutes to an hour to complete. I'm sure that the less mechanically inclined would just take one look at the situation and resign themselves to having the dealer do it when they can get an appointment with the dealer. The 4-stroke motors are even worse because the VST is buried behind the air plenum so you need to remove some of that as well to gain access.

posted 12-31-2013 10:11 AM ET (US)            

Looking at the new outboard engine designs hitting the market in the past 2 years, I would agree that we are seeing a shift to DIY accessibility. The latest engine designs on the market have a QR code for easy scanning and the maintenance schedule right under the cowling with all easy to change filters and even catch cans.

Marketing is a powerful tool and many people will follow blindly what they are told without using common sense.

I am sure many people change their car oil right at 3000 miles because that is what they are told.

posted 12-31-2013 01:23 PM ET (US)            

--a code reader capable device which can interpret the code into some sort of URL

--a web browser that can use the URL

--an internet connection that can access the URL

When you get the information that is provided, it is just static information. What is called "boiler plate" text. (The term boiler plate comes from the notion that the text can be "unbolted" from one place and put in another place without change. It is just static text.)

I don't think that is a very useful application on any of those devices. It really is a silly practice. Why not just print the URL in plain text? Why not jut print out the text--which has probably been done in the owner's manual. Even if I fetch the text with my Smartphone (which cost $300) using my wireless mobile data connection (which costs $1,000 per year), all I get is some text and a picture on my little Smartphone screen. The resolution and size of the images will be small. The text will have to be scrolled on the display to read. Are you really going to do this while you are in the process of performing maintenance? With oily hands or grease on your fingers you will be using your Smartphone? As far as I am concerned, the two-dimension scan code is essentially useless. It is a bit of whiz-bang that provides nothing that couldn't be provided better by another method.

A good example of an application of modern electronics to engine maintenance is found in my automobile. Using the display of the dashboard and a switch on the steering wheel, I can interrogate the engine to see how much life is left in the oil. The engine computes the oil life based on the actual hours and engine speeds the engine has been run since the oil was last changed. The automobile displays this as the percentage of remaining oil life. When the percentage of remaining oil life approaches, say, 10-percent, then I think about changing the oil. This is an example of how technology can be applied to an engine in a useful way to facilitate maintenance. The difference between this sort of smart application of technology and a stupid application of technology (like a QR code to provide a web URL to static information) is very distinct:

--Smart technology, like the computed oil life remaining, adds computation and dynamic data, takes advantage of built-in displays and input devices, and makes the maintenance more timely.

--Dumb technology, like the QR code, requires the user to invest thousand of dollars in additional devices in order to even use the method, and delivers the same or inferior results as could be achieved with much less expensive and much simpler methods. Its purpose seems mainly to adapt some technology for a purpose for which it is not very well suited.

posted 12-31-2013 01:28 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I am sure many people change their car oil right at 3000 miles because that is what they are told [by the manufacturer of the car].

---

I cannot help but make the inference that the speaker of this quote thinks he knows better. The conclusion is then that the reader should ignore what the manufacturer tells them and follow the advice of the speaker of that quote. This leads to the following statement:

I am sure many people will not change their car oil at the interval recommended by the manufacturer because they read advice from some guy on the internet who said to ignore that advice and follow his.

I don't see that there is any difference in these paradigms, other than to decide who is the expert. Is the expert the manufacturer of the device? Or, is the expert the guy on the internet who says the manufacturer's advice is bad?

posted 12-31-2013 01:53 PM ET (US)            

"--Dumb technology, like the QR code, requires the user to invest thousand of dollars in additional devices in order to even use the method, and delivers the same or inferior results as could be achieved with much less expensive and much simpler methods. Its purpose seems mainly to adapt some technology for a purpose for which it is not very well suited."

You realize that the vast majority of people of under 40 years old have smartphones and QR readers are free on just about every smart phone. They bring you their website with tips on how to do things, videos showing it being done and even ways to troubleshoot basic problems.

QR codes are the wave of the future and very helpful all while being at the tip of your fingers.

Also, you can take shots at me all you want, but as you stated previously "Many thanks for your first-hand account of your experience in operating an Evinrude in saltwater. It is always great to have actual, real-world, first-hand results in a discussion. They are much better than speculations and conjectures."

This directly contradicts you point that you should listen to the manufacturers recommendation not taking into consideration that marketing and sales in any large corporation has a large impact on final policy and recommendation.

posted 01-01-2014 08:27 AM ET (US)            

As far as I can see, the QR code on an engine block is about the technological equivalent of a decal with text on it. It is nothing more than a very expensive way to read text in a language other than English. To make a comparison, you might say that it is similar to having the instructions written in Chinese instead of English. The Smartphone is a device that translates Chinese into English. There really is nothing to marvel at in this. It would have been simpler to just print the text in English. Instead, it is printed in Chinese and you have to buy an expensive device to read them and translate back to English. I say "Chinese" because that is a language who character set is incomprehensible to most of us and a language we cannot read.

The engine serial number is already on my engine. It is written in Arabic numerals and I can read it without needing a machine. That this information is also provided by the QR Code is not anything exciting, new, or exclusive.

The QR Code does not change on an engine, therefore it cannot track anything. The QR Code has no idea what maintenance has been done. If there is some sort of tracking of maintenance, it is being done somewhere else, not in the QR code. All the QR Code does is make obscure and hard to read the place where that tracking is being done. Because the QR Code cannot change once it has been painted on or applied to the engine, it is impossible that the QR Code contains any data that has changed. At best, the QR Code just points to some resource on the internet that contains data. All the QR Code does is make it harder to reach that resource for people who have not made an additional investment in a QR Code reader.

The QR Code does not contain any video recordings. If there is a video recording, it is being provided from somewhere else. The QR Code might point to the place where the video recording is hosted on the internet. But you will not get a video to watch from your outboard engine with a QR Code unless you have a device that can retrieve it from the internet, you have access to the internet, and the resource is available from the internet. If you are in the middle of Lake Michigan, you won't be able to watch a video from a QR Code because you won't have access to the internet. The QR Code is not a video, but it is just a pointer to a video.

I also very much doubt that the video changes its content based on anything that has happened to the engine. The video does not change because the engine has a certain number of hours on it, or change because the engine won't start this morning, or change because I forgot to replace the fuel filter. The QR Code just points to an unchanging, generic video that is applicable to an entire class of engines. If a manufacturer wanted to provide a video with their engine, they could include a memory storage device, say a micro SD memory card, and you could put that into your device and watch it. Then you could get the video without the internet connection. That might actually be useful.

The QR Code really postpones the delivery of information. Instead of having the information on the engine in a form that a human could read, the QR Code puts the information somewhere else (the internet), and makes the pointer to the information hard to read.

There is so much that could be done in terms of communication between an engine and a very sophisticated device like a generic smartphone that would be useful. But pointing to a URL is not impressive.

posted 01-01-2014 08:40 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Also, you can take shots at me all you want....

---

I don't quite understand why you think I am taking "a shot" at you. If you are saying this because I pointed out the logic you were using regarding whose advice should be followed, you should not consider this to be an application of principles that is applied only to you.

I have simply shown that the basic logical assertion being made regarding how often the maintenance needs to be done on a particular engine boils down to a question of who holds the expert knowledge. OMCRobert has asserted that the manufacturer does not hold the expert knowledge because their advice is not to be followed. He seems to suggest that anyone who would follow the advice of a manufacturer is a fool and is being duped, because he says that advice is "a marketing ploy."

I now have a further problem with OMCRobert's advice and his consistency. OMCRobert seems to be suggesting that if the manufacturer provides his advice by encoding it into a non-human readable form, the QR Code, requiring the user to buy an expensive device to read the QR Code, which results in the user being able to visit a site on the internet, assuming the user has access to the internet, then the manufacturer's advice is now to be followed.

posted 01-01-2014 08:54 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

...you should know better than to making factual comments here on continuousETEC, afterall no motor can compete with the dated ETEC design.

---

Eric--your observation is slightly off. I would characterize the website has having some of the most critical comments about the E-TEC that can be found. The E-TEC has been under more or less continuous attack here by a variety of people since c.2004. I don't know if you can find another website whose contents contains so much negativity about the E-TEC, and especially about Bombardier Recreational Products. Thanks to the efforts of a few really persistent individuals, the E-TEC receives a constant bashing here. As you see here, a simple question about the definition of an interval--three-years or 300-hours, whichever comes first--has turned into an E-TEC bashing. And you seem to have joined the party with your comment regarding "the dated [E-TEC] design." Thanks for providing an example of what I have just pointed out.

posted 01-01-2014 11:18 AM ET (US)            

Query: If I put a QR code sticker in the engine compartment of a 1980s Volkswagen making the information in the owner's manual regarding maintenance retrievable via the Internet on a mobile device, does that make the 1.8L 4-cylinder, 4-stroke EFI, single overhead cam and 8 valves per cylinder motor in the engine compartment a current design?

posted 01-01-2014 12:43 PM ET (US)            

Here is info right from a company's website.

"Under the cowl, the new outboard has a convenient maintenance label highlighting basic maintenance intervals and requirements for the "do-it-yourself's". This label features a QR code that links to a series of step-by-step videos demonstrating just how easy it is to perform routine maintenance such as oil and gear lube changes.
QR code linking to videos, maintenance log, local dealers, and a consumer-direct hotline. Also recalls and notices can be posted directly to the link"

How is this not helpful and a step in the right direction? I guess for people that are not tech savvy, it would seem intimidating but it does provide the most up to date information and does not required "the user to invest thousand of dollars in additional devices in order to even use the method."

This is just one step in the right direction and outside the box thinking allowing for the most up to date information.

I am speaking from actual, real-world, first-hand results and not relying on speculations and conjectures on QR codes.

posted 01-02-2014 04:47 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

But I digress, I still contend that the three year maintenance marketing ploy is successful but still largely a gimmick.

---

posted 01-02-2014 08:07 AM ET (US)            

My first hand experience with doing the maintenance on the fuel filters of Evinrude and Yamaha DFI outboards, as described above, makes me believe that the calculator/comparison tool is for more right than wrong.

posted 01-02-2014 08:08 AM ET (US)            

Sked maintenance costs only for (300 hours) were as follows:

Evinrude $648.94

Honda $1604.00

Mercury $1206.59

Suzuki $1608.40

Yamaha $1588.00

posted 01-02-2014 09:26 AM ET (US)            

To insist that use of a QR Code represents some sort of technological breakthrough in outboard engine manufacturing is really quite an exaggeration. It might be more amazing for some to learn that the contents that are embedded in QR Code could be easily read by a human if those contents were just presented in plain text.

I guess, for people who are technologically unsophisticated, a QR Code can impress them as being some sort of advanced technology.

A further problem with providing information that resides on the internet on a website by pointing to its URL is the long-term durability of that URL. In order for the pointer to the internet resource, no matter if provided by text or by QR Code, to be useful at some time in the future, the provider of that web information will have to make a commitment to maintain that web resource at that URL for perpetuity. I have concern about the commitment that outboard engine manufacturers will have for maintaining those URL's. If their past behavior is any example, the websites of outboard engine manufacturers are extremely inconsistent in the preservation of information at a particular URL. It is quite common to find that pointers to information resources that are only a few months old result in dead links or redirection to generic pages. When this happens, the value of a pointer to information hosted on the web becomes zero.

posted 01-02-2014 11:15 AM ET (US)            

But then again many people already think that the fuel filters clean themselves or the engine creates it own grease.

posted 01-03-2014 10:50 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

But then again many people already think that the fuel filters clean themselves or the engine creates it own grease.

---

I think you are proposing the follow paradigm:

If you do not agree with me (OMCRobert), then you probably believe in fairy tales.

I cannot take your advice seriously. In order for me to take your advice seriously, you will have to create a video presentation that gives the information you want me to have. You will have to post the video presentation on the internet. Then, you will have to create a QR Code that gives the URL to that advice. In that way, after I decode your QR Code URL, use my web browser to visit your hosting site, and use a video viewer to watch your video, I will be able to take your advice seriously.

posted 01-03-2014 11:40 AM ET (US)            

If they actually did gear oil changes on all of those gearcases, as I have, they would know that the Magnum gearcase takes about 25 percent more gear oil (39 ounces) versus 31 ounces in the case of the Yamaha V6 gearcase or 32 ounces in the case of the old OMC Offshore gearcase. The volume difference is even greater on the counter rotating gearcases (41 ounces for the Magnum counter versus 27 ounces for Yamaha counter).

That more robustly built gearcase with a much larger oil capacity, coupled with the use of full synthetic gear oil allows a longer interval to be specified.

But such facts should not get in the way of the naysayer's campaign.

posted 01-05-2014 09:37 AM ET (US)            

The gearlubes of these two companies is also semisynthetic and designed for the following-

Extensively tested to provide excellent protection against corrosion and excessive wear.

Specifically formulated to help prevent failures due to water entering the gear housing.

Extreme pressure synthetic additives protect gears from metal to metal contact.

No industry-wide standards exist concerning marine gear oils.

posted 01-05-2014 09:58 AM ET (US)            

Your latest is right on the money. Why is there no mention of oil filter change intervals from Evinrude? Why no mention of zerk fitting service? Clearly BRP is guilty of some kind of misrepresentation. You must be correct when you accuse Evinrude of not suggesting a maintenance interval that is best for the engine. After all, Evinrude must enjoy the added cost of warranty claims resulting from their ridiculously long maintenance interval.

Don't give up the struggle. Soon Evinrude will give up their marketing direction and suggest a more sensible maintenance schedule.

posted 01-05-2014 11:39 AM ET (US)            

My point the entire time is that just about any 2 stroke outboard can go the same amount of time with identical maintance as the Evinrude. They do not do anything special to warrant the increase in time in the maintance schedule. Actually if you read further into the manual you will see that when used in saltwater the engine requires the same maintance as any other engine according to Evinrude.

The marketing and hype is tHe only difference between an Etecs, an Optimax or an Tohatsu TLDI. I have not seen any real piece of information was warrants the increase in time between maintance.

It is marketing but you guys will believe anything Evinrude says without question.

posted 01-05-2014 10:46 PM ET (US)            

Evinrude in their E-TEC engine maintenance has:

--made an error in the schedule of maintenance

--made this error intentionally

--and their motive was to deceive their customers

When these pronouncements are made they come with warnings that, if you don't buy into them, you must be naive, inexperienced, gullible, lacking in scientific or common knowledge, or be otherwise some sort of babe in the woods. A further argument put forth is that the manufacturer who is recommending too little maintenance is simply exploiting some option that is really available to all manufacturers, and because the other brands do not do it we should recognize them for their altruism and being more honest.

These are wonderfully imaginative claims, but in the end, those making the claims offer no proof of any of them. Nothing has been demonstrated in any way that there is an error in Evinrude's recommended maintenance. Not a single piece of evidence.

If someone has some real proof of any of the claims, please lay it out for us. You need to show us in some real form where:

--Evinrude is wrong in their maintenance schedule

--Evinrude made this error intentionally

--Evinrude's motive was to deceive their customers

--all other manufacturers refrain from this because they are nice guys

posted 01-06-2014 12:05 AM ET (US)            

My point has always been and still is the following:

That just about any 2 stroke outboard can go the same amount of time with identical maintenance as the Evinrude. Evinrude does not do anything special to warrant the increase in time in the maintenance schedule.

I have seen no real proof showing why an Evinrude requires less maintenance vs other 2 stroke engines. When questioned on how the filters get changed, things tightened, or how the prop shaft and fittings get greased, I get no answer. Instead I am belittled for questioning the manufacturer when there is no real difference in these systems vs any other brand.

Please give me some proof as to why the engine requires less maintenance and we will discuss the facts like gentlemen.

posted 01-06-2014 11:00 AM ET (US)            

The bottom line is that ANY of the modern engines can be maintained on the same interval as any other manufacturers similar product, with similar results. There's no doubt that the modern generations of engines are tightly engineered systems that can be run turnkey without much more than fuel and lubricant for the lives of most owners. If different manufacturers wish to print up different maintenance intervals, "who cares"? Any sensible owner will balance his own operating conditions and tempo and will maintain based on that real world use. Use it two weeks each summer on a freshwater lake? Use it 365 days a year in New York Harbor running crews back and forth to a work barge? Use it in Antarctica in brash ice every day on a Zodiac? Use it in Florida on a flats boat as a guide? The same engine will require a different interval, and sensible operators will take the right steps.

With that said, many recreational operators over-maintain their engines. MOST recreational users could ignore their engine for a decade and have no problems. ACTUAL useage of many recreational engines, measured in hours, is very low. 3 years for an eTec to be looked at? Heck... most of them could go thirty.

Dave

.

posted 01-06-2014 02:41 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I have never made any of those points and those points are a complete fabrication.

---

Sorry, but you have made all of the above claims.Let me refresh you memory:

You said the 300-hour maintenance "may result in lack of required basic maintenance." This is a way of saying it is wrong.

You said that the 300-hour maintenance was "a marketing ploy." This is a way of saying it was done intentionally and done to deceive.

From m-w.com, the definition of ploy:

ploy noun \ˈplȯi\

: a clever trick or plan that is used to get someone to do something or to gain an advantage over someone

posted 01-06-2014 02:54 PM ET (US)            

Please post my entire comment instead of choice picking words. My statement was "In fact I will argue that the 3 year no maintenance ploy has caused much confusion and may result in lack of required basic maintenance such as greasing fittings and prop shaft."

I STICK BY MY STATEMENT AND RESTATE ONCE AGAIN MY POINT.

I have seen no real proof showing why an Evinrude requires less maintenance vs other 2 stroke engines. When questioned on how the filters get changed, things tightened, or how the prop shaft and fittings get greased, I get no answer. Instead I am belittled for questioning the manufacturer when there is no real difference in these systems vs any other brand.

Please give me some proof as to why the engine requires less maintenance and we will discuss the facts like gentlemen.

posted 01-06-2014 02:57 PM ET (US)            

The alternative viewpoint, espoused by OMCRobbert, is apparently to suggest that one ought to make their decision on which maintenance procedure to follow and which manufacturer has recommended properly. The only basis presented to support this view is apparently a notion that OMCRobert knows more about outboard engine maintenance than any manufacturer, and he can determine what procedures to perform when, and which intervals to shorten or lengthen.

This may be a good basis for OMCRobert to use, but I don't see how I can follow that basis, unless I accept the following premise:

OMCRobert knows more about outboard engine maintenance than any outboard engine manufacturer.

I don't believe that it is particularly unusual for me to be hesitant to accept that premise. It really is the opposite of the presumption that I imply in my view. My premise is:

The outboard engine manufacturers know more about the maintenance of their product than I do.

We have reduced the dispute about maintenance to its fundamental assumptions. Let me summarize:

If you think that OMCRobert knows more about about engine maintenance than the outboard engine manufacturers, follow his advice. Otherwise, follow their advice.

posted 01-06-2014 03:05 PM ET (US)            

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ownersManuals.html

The topic of the discussion is not how to perform the procedures, but rather what procedures are needed, and when they should be performed. This information is also given in the owner's manuals.

You seem to be trying to discard your initial argument that the maintenance intervals were wrong. You should focus on that point, as it seems to be the principal difference in our opinions. I invite you to elaborate on what procedures are being performed at the incorrect intervals.

Your secondary claims that Evinrude in particular is wrong, has done this intentionally, and done so with the motive to deceive or trick their customers, is another important part of your claim. You should try to make clearer the basis on which you claim those things.

I think all of your arguments will eventually resolve to the premise that you know more than any outboard engine maker. I cannot debate that point. You could be the smartest guy in the room.

posted 01-06-2014 03:09 PM ET (US)            

All other outboard engine manufacturers (Yamaha, Mercury, Tohatsu, Nissan, Honda, Suzuki) use almost identical materials and very similar systems. All of their systems all require more routine maintenance vs Evinrude.

My question is very simple, why?

posted 01-06-2014 07:29 PM ET (US)            

Oil changes are a profit maker for dealers. Does that enter into the possible reasons? Or is it that the Ram is made to better tolerate longer change intervals?

Lacking the reason the engineers at the various companies choose one interval over another leads to more or less useless conjecture. But, I believe it is an engineering question not a marketing question.

I am hanging my hat on common sense, lacking any better criteria. My common sense tells me BRP does not stretch an oil change interval to sell more units. The cost of warranty service should that interval be found to be excessive is just too high. I don't believe Ram does it for marketing reasons either. I have never seen any sales literature from Ram extolling the virtue of 10,000 mile oil changes. In the overall cost of operation, a lower unit oil change is so miniscule in cost as to be not very visible even to someone as parsimonious as myself.

posted 01-07-2014 08:17 AM ET (US)         

If they recommend intervals that are too long, then their outboard engines will start having failures, their reputation will suffer, and no one will buy their products.

It would be far easier to take no risk and match what everyone else is doing for recommended maintenance. So what they recommend should be conservative.

Maybe what other manufacturers are recommending, given these motors are all built similarly, is way shorter maintenance intervals than necessary? Or Evinrude makes a better product? It has to be one or the other.

posted 01-07-2014 09:11 AM ET (US)            

Having a longer maintenance interval is certainly an advantage for the consumer and a positive for marketing.

Having a shorter maintenance interval is certainly an advantage for the dealerships and selling parts and accessories.

I think that the maintenance schedule is predicated upon several business factors and not strictly an engineering decision.

posted 01-07-2014 11:20 AM ET (US)            

SUZUKI offered a significant advantage to the consumer. The reaction from the other manufacturers was to dismiss the warranty as a marketing ploy, and that SUZUKI would be paying for a lot of repairs. The standard line was that SUZUKI was trying to buy its way onto boat transoms with this offer, that they were underselling the market, and the six-year warranty was not to be seen as something that differentiated their product from other brands. This criticism was usually offered up by die-hard enthusiasts of the other brands who repeated the mantra from the manufacturers.

It did not take long for the criticism of SUZUKI to die down and for the other manufacturers to increase their warranty coverage. For some of those manufacturers, the increased warranty coverage did mean that they were going to be spending a lot of money on making repairs to their products under warranty because their product quality and engineering was not really up to sustaining a six-year warranty coverage. The longer warranty term really resonated with the buying public, in spite of efforts by the other manufacturers to dismiss it.

posted 01-07-2014 12:10 PM ET (US)            

The one car that requires synthetics doesn't for oil change
interval reasons, but to avoid coking in the turbocharger.
And it doesn't require synthetic per se, but rather oil that
meets a particular manufacturer's spec, and in practice all
the oils that meet that spec are synthetic.

posted 01-11-2014 01:12 PM ET (US)            

OMCRobert's characterization is completely wrong. Please start the new thread about the failure of Suzuki to have a good warranty, and I will be pleased to correct you in that discussion.

posted 01-11-2014 02:41 PM ET (US)            

"A lot of time when people are wrong, they are very consistently wrong."

Yet in this very thread he stated the following:

"--Dumb technology, like the QR code, requires the user to invest thousand of dollars in additional devices in order to even use the method, "

Which we all know is wrong.

You know Jimh lost the argument when he does not counter your points and instead focuses on semantics and vocabulary.

I STICK BY MY STATEMENT AND RESTATE ONCE AGAIN MY POINT.

I have seen no real proof showing why an Evinrude requires less maintenance vs other 2 stroke engines. When questioned on how the filters get changed, things tightened, or how the prop shaft and fittings get greased, I get no answer. Instead I am belittled for questioning the manufacturer when there is no real difference in these systems vs any other brand.

Please give me some proof as to why the engine requires less maintenance and we will discuss the facts like gentlemen.

posted 01-11-2014 04:07 PM ET (US)            

I do not have this burden because the fundamental premise I hold is that each manufacturer is fully qualified to set the maintenance schedule for their products. It is on that basis that I accept the recommendation of all the manufacturers on an equal basis. When challenged to "prove" why the E-TEC maintenance schedule is satisfactory, I simply assert this belief. It is obvious that this is a satisfactory argument because this is precisely the argument used by OMCRobert to substantiate his claims for the non-E-TEC engines.

No matter how often OMCRobert asks for information about E-TEC maintenance procedures, I will still direct him, as I have earlier, to read the owner's manual to learn the procedures. There is nothing secret or hidden about the procedures or when they are to be performed. It is all given in the owner's manual.

As I said earlier, the greatest source of confusion about the E-TEC maintenance seems to occur when individuals invent their own understanding of the maintenance intervals. These individuals then take their own invention and criticize it, as if it were the actual maintenance schedule of the manufacturer.

I don't see this discussion going much further because we are now covering the same ground, perhaps for the third or fourth time.

In terms of making a decision about who is winning an argument, I must observe that when one participant declares his opponent has lost, it is not a compelling argument. This argument is likely to be asserted no matter what the actual outcome. Continual repetition of this claim does not strengthen the position.

posted 01-11-2014 05:14 PM ET (US)            

Why don't you identify the "systems" that you believe have no "real difference" then explain to us how they are not different. With the many years of experience I've had with Yamahas and OMC/BRP Evinrude and Johnson outboards, I'm curious to know what system is not different because they sure look quite different to me.

posted 01-11-2014 06:13 PM ET (US)            

The trim systems
Lower units
Steering swivel assemble
Cooling system
Charging systems
Shifting and throttle systems

posted 01-11-2014 07:42 PM ET (US)            

Then you follow up with more generalities -- "Any carb 2 stroke is very, very similar with all manufacturers doing just about everything the same." I'd like to understand that too now that you've put it on the table.

Besides fuel injected Evinrudes and Yamahas, I've owned carb'd 2-stroke Yamahas and Evinrude/Johnsons. They sure don't look like they have the same oil injection systems to me. Where is the Yamaha under cowl oil reservoir with the sometimes sticky float switch located in the Evinrude and Johnson carb'd 2-strokes? The must have done a great job of hiding it somewhere because I haven't seen it anywhere under the cowl all these years.

Where is the carb'd Johnson 150's optical ignition system located on the carb'd Yamaha 150? How about the vapor separator on the carb'd Johnson 150, where is that on the carb'd Yamaha 150? How many screws does it take to hold the air silencer on the Johnson 150 versus the Yamaha 150?

Which way does the shift shaft move on a carb'd Johnson 150 versus a carb'd Yamaha 150?

Getting back to the modern era -- What's the gearcase lube capacity of a QR code bearing Mercury 150 FourStroke?

How about Mercury's current belt driven alternator charging system? Where's the belt driven alternator and belt on an Evinrude?

posted 01-11-2014 08:39 PM ET (US)            

For decades the stator, regulator and rectifier were the standard. If the rare engine that use the alternator use the same concept. Beside the electronics one you break it down the basics it is all the same.

posted 01-12-2014 11:18 AM ET (US)            

Because the other engines don't really need it either, and because they are not engineering up a "scheme" by which many folks without mechanical aptitude take their engines into a dealer to have him grease the shaft without any real reason to do so every year?

It's a reflection of what's actually required for reasonable maintenance versus overmaintaining,, which is what's good for the dealer (and not bad for the engine).

It's just a choice. That's all.

If you want to do more so you feel good, or have a "more perfect" engine, feel free. That's a choice too.

My own choice for my very low tech and perfectly running Yamaha 90 2 stroke is to essentialy ignore it. Good fuel, a squirt of grease into the zerks when things begin to bind, flush after saltwater use, and sometimes I even fog it at the end of the season. Sometimes not. Prop has not been off in eons. I think I did the water pump a decade ago. Lower unit oil is checked religiously every five years. Tighten loose bolts? You must be kidding. This has resulted in absolutely perfect reliability for about 15 years of hard use to date.

Pushing the published intercal off three years on a eTec? (yawn...) Yeah... so what?

Dave

.

posted 01-12-2014 01:43 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Why doesn't Evinrude need to grease the prop shaft and drive shaft as much as everyone else?

---

My reply is not going to be an answer to this question. I want to examine the question itself.

First, the question presents a premise, which may or may not be true: there is some difference in the recommended interval at which the propeller shaft should be greased. In order to accept this premise, I would need to see citations to the following:

--a citation and quotation of where Evinrude specifies the interval for greasing the propeller shaft

--similar citations for Honda, Mercury, Yamaha, Tohatsu, and Suzuki

There is nothing given in the premise as it has been made that tends to substantiate the underlying claim. This is a good example of what I described earlier, which is a method of argument in which people invent a position for one manufacturer to hold, then attack it as if the position were actually held by the manufacturer. This premise expands on that theme by also inventing a completely uniform position to be held by all other manufacturers. Yet, in truth, we have nothing presented to substantiate this. For all I know--I have not made a thorough study of this--there is no basis at all for this premise.

The next aspect of this question is also troubling. Even if we allow the initial premise to be true, that is, there is a recommendation for performing some maintenance by Evinrude that is at an interval different from all the other manufacturers of outboard engines, we have to consider the implied conclusion contained in this question: the interval of all the other manufacturers must be correct and the interval specified by Evinrude must be wrong. Here again we have a significant premise presented without any sort of justification. It seems to me that the basis for accepting the maintenance interval specified by the non-Evinrude makers (if indeed they actually all follow the same recommendation) must be that they know best how to maintain their engines. How can we then say that Evinrude must not know best how to maintain their engines? What we are being asked to assume and to agree with is a notion that the non-Evinrude engine makers know better how to maintain an Evinrude engine than Evinrude itself does. However, there is nothing in this claim that could not be just as easily reversed. We could say, with the same authority, that Evinrude knows better how to maintain the non-Evinrude engines, and on that basis their recommendations must be accepted over those of the actual manufacturer. Of course, there will be little enthusiasm for accepting that position, but, logically, it is just a sound as the implied assumption of the question.

A further aspect this question assumes that all of the elements of the engine involved in the maintenance are the same. This is an unreasonable assumption. In the case of the lubrication of a propeller shaft, there could be differences in the lubrication being used, the metals of the propeller shaft, and the metals of the propeller hub. There has been an attempt to reject this common sense reasoning by suggesting that there is a general equivalence among all the outboard engines of all things. In this case that notion is expressed by observing that they all use some sort of lubrication on the propeller shaft to prevent corrosion and adhesion of the metals. To accept this notion requires that one believe all lubricants or anti-corrosion coatings are identical and all metals are identical. There is no reasonable basis for this assumption. It quite reasonable to assume that there are differences in the lubricants or metals, and those differences account for the differences in the recommended maintenance intervals.

I cannot answer this question because the question is built upon three premises which are not proven with any sort of evidence or substantiation. Before the question can be answered, these three premises have to be built and established as true.

posted 01-12-2014 05:10 PM ET (US)            

I still have not received a good answer for why Evinrude does not need to do some of these things.

posted 01-12-2014 06:17 PM ET (US)            

Once again:

Take this from someone who maintains a fleet of 6 jets, some of which fly hundreds of hours a year, and others that fly 12 hours a year. These machies are far more complex than simple outboard engines, and we have "rules" regarding how we maintain and inspect them.

There's such a thing as over-maintainence, such a thing as under-maintainence, and such a thing as correct maintainence. Correct maintaince is usually based on tracking trends (oil samples, wear limits as measured using precision tools, and statistical analysis based on the individual operating characteristics of a fleet).

It's EASY to make up rules that end up with many operators over-maintaining equipment. Yearly spark plug changes, for example. How many hours were run in a year? Five? Five hundred? Yearly spark plug changes is a very simplistic rule that would *certainly* result in very few spark plug problems. But to gain that, if the recommendation is followed, tens of thousands of spark plugs are changed without any reason to do so at all. Why does the manufacturer do this? (A): It's easy to publish, (B): has no adverse impact on the engine, and (C): is a profit center for the maintainers and parts suppliers. How about the engine that ran one hour last year? Does it need a YEARLY spark plug change? What's a year of use? One year? One six month season? There's no such thing as a
standard year of use" and to use "years" as any sort of metric is really really really.... stupid. It's a dumbed down answer for a dumbed down consumer base.

What would be better? Well, for a fleet owner running hundreds of engines, they would look at hours of yearly use, cost per plug exchange, track history of failures, and would develop your own maintenance interval based on their findings. My bet is that for the number of hours put on these engines for the typical recreational user, that analysis would put plug changes out at five to ten years. Yearly plug changes are good for spark plug sales. To think they are "required" is silly.

The short answer is that there is no magic "number of years" to do any of this maintainence. All you can do is to analyze historical trends based on test, project that agaist anticipated hourly use, bias that with additional data regarding any extreme conditions expected, and then to suggest recommendations based on that experience and evidence.

Publishing "X hours of use" would be more sensible, and that's exactly how we maintain jets. Not per year, per hour of use.

All you are seeing here is a demonstration that different manufacturers make different decisions based on their own matrix of data, required reliabilty levels, cost/benefit ratio, and confidence in their hardware. Frankly, none of the manufacturers recommendations are carved in stone and any thinking owner will bias maintenance towards their own use and environment.

The empirical question is always "Does it work?" Evinrude's factory recommendations WORK. So, that pretty much sums it up. "Why does it work?" is another question. If we take it for granted that it DOES work (which it does), there's no reason to ask "why" when the real question is what motivates other manufacturers to specify MORE when it's DEMONSTRABLY not required.

Dave

.

posted 01-12-2014 07:01 PM ET (US)            

So then I guess we are to conclude from your wisdom that its not an Evinrude ploy marketing because Evinrude is just being honest specifying the appropriate maintenance frequency that could be used for all outboard motors. But then we must also conclude that other manufacturers are involved in a ploy of their own to enrich themselves and their dealer network at the expense of the ultimate user by specifying unnecessarily frequent maintanence which the unwary will follow. So which is it?

posted 01-12-2014 07:38 PM ET (US)            

Evinrude is using the ploy to pretend their engines need less maintance and a corner stone of marketing. While other manufacturers are using it to sell more parts and get customers in the dealership.

Same ploy they all all use to charge more for increase horsepower while using the same block. Example- 135HO costing less than the 200hp LO based off the 2.6 liter block.

posted 01-12-2014 07:38 PM ET (US)            

Evinrude is using the ploy to pretend their engines need less maintance and a corner stone of marketing. While other manufacturers are using it to sell more parts and get customers in the dealership.

Same ploy they all all use to charge more for increase horsepower while using the same block. Example- 135HO costing less than the 200hp LO based off the 2.6 liter block.

posted 01-13-2014 09:02 AM ET (US)            

Nothing that really has to do with the fact that the block is increasing HP. Engine manufacturers have us trained that more HP equal high purchasing price.

I loved when the difference between an older 20hp carb 2 cylinder and a 30hp is a larger diameter hole in the intake and a large venturi on the carb.

posted 01-13-2014 11:40 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Engine manufacturers have us trained that more HP equal high purchasing price.

---

posted 01-13-2014 11:56 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Grease propeller shaft splines with recommended
lubricant, and re-install propeller.

---

I also found the following in the chapter RIGGING AND ACCESSORIES, under the subheading PROPELLER:

quote:

---

Apply Triple-Guard grease to the entire propeller
shaft before installing the propeller. At least annually,
remove the propeller and check for debris. Clean the shaft
and regrease it before reinstalling a propeller.

---

I believe the recommendation of Evinrude with regard to the E-TEC propeller shaft lubrication can be described as follows:

--grease the shaft after any winterization procedure

--grease the shaft annually at a minimum

--grease the shaft when installing a new propeller

I have not researched what all other outboard engine manufacturers recommend for greasing of the propeller shaft. I suspect they will be very similar. I cannot imagine they could call for more frequent lubrication of the propeller shaft

As a result of this investigation, I find that the original premise of OMCRobert's question is completely in error. His question is misleading because its initial premise is wrong.

This demonstrates precisely what I postulated would be found: people who like to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about a product tend to invent characteristics of the product they are attacking which are not true. They then attack these self-invented characteristics of the product, and suggest that those characteristics are deficient or will be a problem.

posted 01-13-2014 04:02 PM ET (US)            

And based on what RidgeRunner posted about the Optimax
maintenance schedule, if you run 200 hours a year, Optimax
will need two spline greasings, E-TEC just one.

posted 01-13-2014 04:27 PM ET (US)            

That leads back to the original question. Why doesn't the Evinrude require that to be done when other brands do? What makes their splines not require the extra maintance since there is no difference in material or design?

posted 01-13-2014 11:23 PM ET (US)            

You're being deliberately obtuse. Just a hint: It's making the friendly forum that we've enjoyed for year a lot less fun... So give it a rest.

Ever consider that shafts don't really NEED to be greased on any schedule if they are reasonably matched in alloy compatability to their respective components, have zincs in the electrolytic chain if appropriate, and a high quality waterprooof antisieze is used in assembly? I've taken props ranging from outboard to tugboat sized off shafts that have been wholly immersed in saltwater for *decades* with simple hand tools and found the antisieze compound to be fresh and intact. This is not rocket science. The more you diassemble stuff like this the more opportunity you have to screw it up. You don't need to grease these every year.

Dave

.

posted 01-14-2014 09:41 AM ET (US)            

You are actually in agreement with me. I agree there is no difference and that the Evinrude does in reality not require any less/more maintaince vs other brands. That is my whole point.

You said the following.

quote (of Dave Sutton):

---

The truth is that metal is metal, lubricant is lubricant, and that seals are seals. None of it is magic. No near-identical mechanical systems will have widely disparate maintenance intervals associated with their use in similar conditions. Every manufacturer works within the same paradigm of materials and design. That's just basic engineering. They are not going to be much diofferent from one another.
The bottom line is that ANY of the modern engines can be maintained on the same interval as any other manufacturers similar product, with similar results. There's no doubt that the modern generations of engines are tightly engineered systems that can be run turnkey without much more than fuel and lubricant for the lives of most owners. If different manufacturers wish to print up different maintenance intervals, "who cares"? Any sensible owner will balance his own operating conditions and tempo and will maintain based on that real world use. Use it two weeks each summer on a freshwater lake? Use it 365 days a year in New York Harbor running crews back and forth to a work barge? Use it in Antarctica in brash ice every day on a Zodiac? Use it in Florida on a flats boat as a guide? The same engine will require a different interval, and sensible operators will take the right steps.

With that said, many recreational operators over-maintain their engines. MOST recreational users could ignore their engine for a decade and have no problems. ACTUAL useage of many recreational engines, measured in hours, is very low. 3 years for an eTec to be looked at? Heck... most of them could go thirty.

---

I agree with everything you said. I am sure you knowledge of things like this come from a lifetime of experience working on and around the marine industry.

When I make statements like you do, I [was] replied to with the following. [Here a portion of an earlier reply by jimh was quoted, but in a misleading way, with misuse of quotation marks. I have corrected this by clearly indicating the quoted parts, and also by including the omitted portions of the material quoted which reveal that parts of the quoted material were logical conclusions based on the arguments being made by OMCRObert himself.--jimh]

quote (of jimh):

---

I accept the recommended maintenance schedule of outboard engine manufacturers. The entire basis for this is my belief those manufacturers know more about their product than I do. If they tell me to perform a particular maintenance procedure at a particular interval, that recommendation carries the weight and imprimatur of the manufacturer. That is the basis on which I accept it. I do this for all the brands. I don't try to quibble that brand X is right and brand-Z is wrong.

The alternative viewpoint, espoused by OMCRobbert, is apparently to suggest that one ought to make their decision on which maintenance procedure to follow and which manufacturer has recommended properly. The only basis presented to support this view is apparently a notion that OMCRobert knows more about outboard engine maintenance than any manufacturer, and he can determine what procedures to perform when, and which intervals to shorten or lengthen.

This may be a good basis for OMCRobert to use, but I don't see how I can follow that basis, unless I accept the following premise:

OMCRobert knows more about outboard engine maintenance than any outboard engine manufacturer.

I don't believe that it is particularly unusual for me to be hesitant to accept that premise. It really is the opposite of the presumption that I imply in my view. My premise is:

The outboard engine manufacturers know more about the maintenance of their product than I do.

We have reduced the dispute about maintenance to its fundamental assumptions. Let me summarize:

If you think that OMCRobert knows more about about engine maintenance than the outboard engine manufacturers, follow his advice. Otherwise, follow their advice.

---

I am having a friendly discussion but sadly my point of view is in the minority and I am the target because of it.

I ask you to look to the first reply in this thread. It is mine and I still stand by it.

posted 01-14-2014 10:35 AM ET (US)            

From that point on in the discussion, a completely different purpose was put forth. A crusade was begun to try to defame Evinrude, insisting that they, Evinrude, were publishing misleading information about their engines.

By the conclusion of the thread, we have seen that it is not Evinrude that is publishing misleading information, but actually the people accusing Evinrude are guilty of publishing misleading information, of creating confusion, and being participants in a ploy, a campaign of deception, to deceive others. This is a bit of irony. We have found the FUD-meisters to be guilty of precisely what they have tried to accuse Evinrude of doing.

Normally, I would toss most of this palaver into the trash, but it has been so instructive to see how the accusers are guilty of precisely what offense they have claimed was purported to have been made by others, that the irony is too delicious. I will let this stand as a good example.