posted 01-11-2002 09:29 PM ET (US)     

Everything below, IN QUOTES, is reproduced from a new article published in SOUNDINGS TRADE ONLY, Jan 2002 edition, from an article entitled "Johnson, Evinrude revved up for show season", by Jim Flannery, Staff Writer.
I have picked passages of interest. This is not the whole article.

"Bombardier intends to undertake an 'aggressive' marketing campaign this Spring that will clearly separate and distinguish Johnson from Evinrude, said marketing director Keith Yunger. 'We'll be pulling them apart' he said. 'They are not going to be known as Johnrude anymore'."

"Johnson will keep offering standard carbureted 2-strokes and a new line of 4-strokes to compete in the growing 4-stroke market, Unger said." (lhg note - according to new reports, these are being supplied by Suzuki, as done previously)

"Johnson and Evinrude will be marketed to different kinds of customers."

"Johnson will come across as 'not a lot of flash but substance; salt of the earth; big on family; keeping traditions alive; tough, dependable, traditional', Yunger said."

"Much of the advertising will be geared to the angler market. It's slogans:'Over 80 years of seasoning, with plenty of salt.'
Also 'Johnson and fishing. The words are pretty much synomous.'" (lhg note - recalling OMC/Boston Whaler here?)

"The Evinrude line will consist of 2-strokes with the new, clean, fuel efficient Ficht Ram injection system that OMC introduced to the outboard market."

" 'Evinrude will be marketed to a more technology-saavy customer,' Yunger said: 'High energy; wants the best; up on trends and new technology; doesn't compromise; loves adventure; leaves little to chance; innovative but uncompromising - the technology has to work.' "

"Evinrude advertising stresses 'leaner, meaner, greener.' One slogan, 'Our brother is a jet, Our sister is a bullet train. They try hard to keep up,' refers to Bombardier's involvment in the aerospace and transportation industries."

"Advertising for both lines will stress durability, quality and reliability - qualities Lambert says are possible NOW because Bombardier has invested tens of millions buying and equipping a new plant at Sturtevant (WI), set up demanding quality control systems there and fixed its outsourcing problems." (lhg note - I wonder what this says about previous 2001 and earlier engines?)

And for those interested in what's going on with Ficht, the following is of great interest. Here, also, reading between the lines, (what he isn't saying) is of interest regarding OMC built engines prior to Bombardier taking over!

continuing with the article.....

"Millions in parts dumped" (headline)

"Lambert said Ficht technology is sound, and the problems OMC had with carbon build-up in the early models is no longer a problem. The problem has been parts and hardware. They weren't being manufactured to stipulated tolerances, and too many engine components were being assembled at outsource facilities where defunct OMC had no operational control"

" 'The technology has worked for two years,' Lambert said. 'We didn't do anything on Ficht for the last 10 months.... The surrounding hardware had the issues.'"

"Lambert says 95 to 97 percent of assembly is now done in Sturtevant (where the 2002 models are being made), which has been fitted with new equipment capable of producing and assembling components to far tighter tolerances. He said millions of dollars in inventoried parts (from the prior OMC) have been dumped because they didn't meet strict tolerances. Outsource facilities are being held to these strict tolerances, and in one case Bombardier has invested $10 million in and outsource plant to bring its manufacturing equipment and processes up to par. He said Bombardier also has adopted testing that tries to push the engine to fail, and over the summer it redesigned parts that analysis showed were causing breakdowns. Changes in the crankshaft, engine management module, oil system, connecting rods, starter motor, pistons, tilt and trim, gear case, and other components should improve reliability and durability.' Lambert said." (lhg note - Yikes, what does this mean about 2001 and earlier OMC engines?)

" 'We're paying attention to detail,' said cheif engineer George Broughton. Broughton said his testing suggests the interval between engine failures is five times longer than it used to be. 'That means if you took your (OMC) engine into the dealer once a year to get it fixed, now it's once every five years.' (lhg note - are they trying to sell their new stuff at the direct expense of the 2001 and previous OMC models, and their owners? sounds like it)

" Lambert says Bombardier will continue to pursue the two threads of clean technology - Ficht and 4-stroke, Evinrude and Johnson - as long as the market demands both. 'It's what the consumer wants,' he said."

"Broughton said Bombardier has adopted Ficht not as an 'interim technology' but a long term solution to emissions. He said the technology already satisfies the clean air standards for 2007, and can be tweaked to meet the next level of clean air standards after that."

" 'I know how to do it,' he says, and it's patented.' " (end of article)

So Evinrude will be Ficht, and Johnson, after 2005, will be 4-stroke. My guess is that by then they will have their own models, and won't be dependent on Suzuki.

posted 01-11-2002 11:30 PM ET (US)            

You calling me a boring slug? I resemble that!

For eleven months I have listened to your relentless and tireless OMC bashing. I have mostly stayed out of the brand arguments apart from telling what good performance I've gotten out of my Johnsons over the years. But now I must say that some points you've made are good, and others I think, less so.

First of all let me say I have been a loyal fan of OMC products since childhood. They have been superb in my opinion and you couldn't pay me to own a Mercury for a variety of good reasons. OK, same old pissing contest right? (I actually think the FORUM members are a nice balance of brand loyalists)

Now having said that, I will be the first to point out that the OMC of old got everything they deserved. But while the Ficht's have been a disaster, OMC did not go down simply because of that. OMC's mistakes go back at least twenty years. OMC was a victim of bad management, bad decisions, not bad designs or engineering.

My uncle, John Carey, (and after his death, his son John Carey Jr.) were the owners of Wright Outboard Inc. here in Seattle, the Johnson distributor for Washington and Alaska from c.1960 to 1993 when OMC yanked all the distributorships and decided to get into that business themselves. (This was one of OMC’s bad moves) So growing up I always enjoyed hearing from John about the business from his point of view.

At those twice or thrice a year family gatherings they would tell me about what was in the works for OMC. It was great fun. I remember in the late 1970's when my cousin John Jr. first told me about this new product that was an outboard with its own mounting that bolted onto the outside of the transom. (eventually called the SeaDrive) He said it would be used on bigger boats that at that time had inboards or I/O's. The future was in big outboards he said and they needed to be submersible if they were going to be put on boats as big as 25-30 feet. This drive would have hydraulic steering and all the cables routed through the transom in sealed hoses.

I thought that was ridiculous. Outboards on a huge 30 cabin cruiser? Well OMC had the right idea, just the wrong delivery. Today bracket mounted outboards are common. A pair of 225's on the back of your 27'? No problem.

It’s been a long time since I bought a new large outboard. 1990 to be precise when I bought my Johnson 150 for the Outrage, a nearly flawless motor. So I am not “up” on all the latest and greatest apart from what I hear here and elsewhere. But my preferences were formed long ago in youth when being on the water meant everything to me during summer vacation.

At the beach some of us had OMC’s and others had Mercury’s. The Mercs were generally agreed to be faster at the top end but when we went water skiing guess what we used. The boat with the Johnson or Evinrude. The neighbor with the 1972 13-Sourpuss had a fast Mercury 50 on it. It was great fun to zoom around in when it ran. Unfortunately that was not to often. The little 35 hp two banger Johnson on my 13-Sport however, never missed a beat. Indeed it was this boat that I learned to water ski behind.

The questions you need to ask yourself when you are considering speed is: What is speed? How often do I run my boat flat out? How often do I accelerate onto a plane? The latter, very rarely in most cases. The former, ever time I go out. Rated horsepower for rated horsepower which motor, Johnson or Mercury, will pop you up the fastest? Johnson every time. Top speed: 50 mph or 52 mph, who cares?

I also have a low tolerance for breakdowns and spending money on mechanics. When do my Johnson’s go in for service? When I can no longer remember when the last time was. Never because something broke. (OK, almost never) There's good reason why Johnson was the best selling outboard not for years but for decades.

Anyway, back to your comments above. I forget what his name was, but the guy running OMC in the late 1990’s was trying to cut costs like crazy and the whole outsourcing idea was a disaster. There was nothing wrong with the motor designs, just an initiative to cut costs. Bad move. I hope Bombardier pitches all those parts. The stuff made in Waukegan was great. I suspect the stuff from Sturtevant will be also. It was also this clown who decided the Johnsons should be painted a different color than white. Nice move.

OMC was a relatively small company. Bombardier is HUGE. They have deep pockets. They better have. They’re going to need the money to develop a four stroke outboard. OMC of old did not make an investment into four stroke technology when everyone else was. Buying Suzuki’s and putting their own gearcase on them is all fine and good, but when you can buy the Suzuki labeled motor for $700 to $1000 less your going to lose business. Another bad move.

I am honestly surprised Bombardier went back to Suzuki for four strokes. They should be full speed ahead in terms of trying to develop their own. This would take some years, but still....perhaps they are and are just using the Suzukis to “get them through”.

Bombardier disassociating themselves from the pre-2001 Ficht’s? Of course they are! When something stinks, you step away from it. Note there’s been no complaints about the Johnson’s of that era. Bombardier has stepped in to cover warranties on those Ficht’s at any rate. A gracious move they did not have to do, but again they have deep pockets, smarter management and better business sense. than OMC of old.

posted 01-11-2002 11:51 PM ET (US)            

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Bombardier made 4 stroke before long. They have the engine technology allready. They have introduced a 4 stroke GTX Sea Doo this year. They have also used their own 4 strokes in other applications for years.

posted 01-12-2002 12:13 AM ET (US)            

Larry's personal asides notwithstanding, it really sounds like Bombardier is putting Johnson in a great possition to succeed with the experienced buyer. From the above, it's Evinrude that seems to have the bigger hill to climb.

posted 01-12-2002 01:05 AM ET (US)         

As for not liking the OMC engines, that's a personal opinion, from years of observations and product comparisons. Just a different perspecive, like GM vs Ford, and a minority one at that, since until 1995, OMC out sold Mercury in outboards easily. Like you, I've never been towed in over 30 years of boating.

But beginning 15 months ago, I found the corporate conduct of OMC outrageous, to see a US company, who knew their product was bad, lie to, outwardly misrepresent, and cheat their US customer base, including Dealers, the way they did. So call it OMC bashing if you will, but they deserved it. Like Enron, I guess this is the way they do things as total corporate collapse becomes unavoidable, but it was a disgrace to the entire marine business and it's customers, and did the whole industry a lot of damage. I'm just glad I wasn't one of the people who had to eat their share of the $800,000,000 they left uncollectible to creditors. And now, these comments by Bombardier, not me, who now know the internal engineering situation better than any, seems to confirm that there WERE serious manufacturing problems & deficiencies in those last 3 years or so.

posted 01-12-2002 01:33 AM ET (US)            

...I was being facetious. (Thank you Groucho Marx for that classic line.)

As for the OMC vs. Mercury thing, I don't think it's a minority/majority thing at all but rather a well balanced (and well worn) one like Ford/Chevy. I won't argue with you about bashing OMC management but I will still debate the merits of their designs. You all know I love a good argument anyway. (As an aside, I checked out that Merc vs. Yamaha thread at The Hull Truth you referred to earlier. What a bunch of sophomoric drivel that site has.)

Actually one of your most persuasive arguments for despising OMC was your description, some time ago, of the environmental damage they did at Waukegan. Absolutely horrifying. Like I said, they got what they deserved.

I forgot to mention the other big blunder that helped put OMC under: Trying to be like Brunswick.

Brunswick is big. They own quite a few boat lines, among other things. I really think OMC had "boat manufacture envy" when they started buying up all those boat builders in the 1990's, Stupid. They weren't in a good position to manage all that. For decades they built the best damn outboards in the world and then they think they're going to be a mini-Brunswick marine conglomerate.

Remember the Johnson and Evinrude trihulls from the 1960's? Well apparently OMC management didn't. They didn't do well building boats in the 60's and they didn't do well building boats in the 90's. If you want to get ahead, you need to learn from your mistakes. Hopefully Bombardier is smarter.

posted 01-12-2002 02:04 AM ET (US)         

I think that OMC pulled of a huge coup, which started the whole buying binge. I think they got Sea Ray to switch from Mercury/Mercruiser to them, a huge loss for Mercury. This involved both outboard and stern drives. So Brunswick got aggressive, and simply bought out Sea Ray by offering him (C. N. Ray) a price he couldn't refuse, I think $400,000,000. A lot of money for one guy in 1990. Then, of course, they immediately dumped OMC engines. I think there are some older Sea Rays out there with OMC stern drives in them.

posted 01-18-2002 12:42 AM ET (US)            

If Johnson gets the 4-strokes, then they will soon be cowl covers for a Rotax. This gives them a fighting chance. But Merc is apparently struggling on their own. Additionally, there is a major diversion, their OptiMax nightmare. Every engineering hour spent on that dead-end is wasted. They will end up a footnote on a timeline. At least they won’t be lonely, as the Ficht will be right next to them.

I believe these mega 2-smokes are marketing driven. Merc and Johnson’s engineers know they are dogs. I will bet they have been talking about 4-strokes for at least ten years. I hope it won’t be too little too late, as I too have romantic childhood memories of both Merc and Johnson.

posted 01-18-2002 05:24 PM ET (US)         

The Fichts we all know were a problem, but the 2001's supposedly were better, and Bombardier thinks their's will be excellent.
So let's give them a chance and see how they do, before running them into the ground ahead of time.

And I don't see any indication that Yamaha is writing off their HPDI's either. They supposedly have been quite good, and a lot of people like them.

So what is the big deal about these engines? Maybe the technology is interim, maybe not, but it had to happen. There are thousands of boats out there that NEED engines like this (lighter weight, high horsepower), and for which they are doing quite well, thank you. Between 115 HP and 225 HP, there is no effective four stroke yet. The Honda 130, a slow seller, is badly overweight and underpowered, the 200 Yamaha weighs the same 590# as the 225, too much for a 200HP outboard. So these DFI's are solving a problem for boat builders and buyers alike
that need these sizes.

I think Honda needs to get moving, and get some modern EFI technology into it's 4-strokes, to catch up with Mercury, particularly (with 30,40,50,60 & 115 EFI's), and also Suzuki and Yamaha! Or they'll never have more than 5% of the market.

posted 01-19-2002 03:27 PM ET (US)            

"When you think four-stroke, you think Honda, right? Well, Suzuki is trying to change that. It's a tough task, though, considering Honda's reputation for building bulletproof engines. Can Suzuki produce outboards that are just as dependable and problem-free? This long-term test of two 90-hp Suzukis should help answer that question."

Suffice to say they had some mechanical problems with their dual Suzies... It also seems that at least according to one reputable source, Honda is the 4-stroke reliability benchmark.

To address the Honda 225 portly figure, consider the following...
Honda 225 4-stroke (complete with the following sub-systems fully integrated TOGETHER, cam timing and lift varation, variable length intake runners, 3-Dimensional mapped spark management, and individually addressable fuel injectors (clearly the most sophisticated system ever supplied for an outboard) tips the scales at 586 pounds (lbs).
Mercury Optimax 225 (and 200 as well), 516 pounds (lbs).

The very overstated portlyness is only 12%.

If the Optimax had any technical or environmental merit it would be under the hood of a four wheeled vehicle. It is a technical curiosity.

Merc had better be testing a V-6, hopefully a Honda so they can get a handle on their competition. They might just follow the lead of a famous Italian carmaker, Ferrari. When after years of finishing behind a Honda powered car in Formula One, they got serious. They hired away Honda's chief F1 engine designer. Within four years they were in the hunt for a world championship. If you can't beat em, buy em...