posted 03-30-2005 08:27 PM ET (US)        

Another advantage to Evinrude. Low weight/horsepower ratios eliminates the redundant kicker issue.

posted 03-30-2005 08:50 PM ET (US)         

Adequate twin, clean HP on an 18 Outrage is getting to be a challenge these days, unles you quickly buy some conventional 2-strokes like the Yamaha or Merc 75/90's. The old Johnson engines are fine too, but don't have the integral oil injection tanks, a real rigging disadvantage.

posted 03-30-2005 10:16 PM ET (US)            

I'm fascinated by the concept of the ETEC design as is Mr Moderator, obviously. It makes the competition between vendors more interesting. The two North American vendors have re-established their competitive position with technology - even if the early technology came from Europe, we engineered it and brought it to market in "America".

posted 03-31-2005 07:37 AM ET (US)            

While the pair of 60 HP E-TECs would meet the minimum HP threshold, they don't meet the minimum displacement threshold so I would not recommend that as a power choice. In my opinion, when considering twins, the displacment factor becomes even more important.

posted 03-31-2005 10:30 AM ET (US)            

A question: Are twin 60HP motors exactly the same as a single 120HP motor, assuming they both weigh the same? It seems to me that two propellers should give you more thrust, and more "hole shot", thus decreasing the actual amount of horsepower needed to plane, cruise, etc. Someone help me with that one...

posted 03-31-2005 10:43 AM ET (US)            

I've been told that 2 stroke engines have a better "hole shot" than the 4 stroke so I assume that means the 2 stroke engine has a different rpm versus engine torque curve shape than the 4 stroke.

posted 03-31-2005 10:57 AM ET (US)            

Here's why:

While 75 HP is the minimum recommended to operate the 18' Outrage, with the added weight of the second "dead" 75 E-TEC you could likely not achieve plane - since it's the minimum HP. I'm not 100 percent convinced yet that twin 90's would achieve plane on one motor, but believe that if propped right (for torque instead of speed) you may be able to do it.

The other thought is the performance with both motors operating. While the twin 75 HP puts you at the recommended max HP of 150, you're fighting extra weight and extra drag of the second motor. "overpowering" slightly to 180 HP helps you overcome this and operate the motors at a lower RPM range, extending the life of the motors.

LHG has twin 115 HP motors on the back of his 18 Outrage. They weigh about 305 pounds each. They're also set back about 8-10 inches, and he has batteries (say, 40 pounds each?) back there. Even if he only has one battery back there, the weight of twin 90 HP E-tecs (at 326 pounds each) with batteries in the console (as they are on mine) should be roughly equal.

I know - this is heavy - lots of weight on the transom! I think that with proper trim techniques, you can overcome the apparent effects of the weight on the transom...however small trim tabs may be necessary to bring the bow down completely in some conditions.

posted 03-31-2005 03:57 PM ET (US)            

I also talked to him about the E-TEC 90 and if he had any problems with any of the engines he has sold. He said NONE... No returns, no problems. I mentioned the problem that one of the forum members here had and he said that is the first one he had heard of.

posted 03-31-2005 04:18 PM ET (US)            

Let's say 8 units, with 1 failure.

posted 03-31-2005 06:06 PM ET (US)            

Matt from Semi-Northern, Sort of Central California.

posted 03-31-2005 06:23 PM ET (US)            

I am a Pack Rat... But no, I won't be hording those E-TEC 150's. I might let you buy one from me... :-)

The dealer told me there is still no date set for delivery on the 150's or even on the 115's.

What did one buzzard say to the other buzzard?
Patience my rear, I want to kill something.
I certainly don't have much patience and I am looking forward to seeing these 150's... along with many of us I'm sure.

posted 03-31-2005 08:09 PM ET (US)            

Larry - The rumor I heard as to why the E-TEC 150 is delayed is that the Evinrude team is still recovering from rib injuries sustained in Miami that were caused by laughing too hard when the weight of the Mercury 4 cylinder Verado was revealed to the public. ;)

Seriously, I wonder whether the delays have something to do with military purchases of the MFE capable variety. I just happened to look at their government products website and note that the product line includes the 115 and 150.

posted 03-31-2005 08:19 PM ET (US)            

But, for some odd reason, because the darn thing is a two-stroke engine--just like all the two-stroke engines that have run for years and years in recreational outboard use, just like the 13-year-old engine on my boat or the 14-year-old engines on LHG's boat--because this thing is a two-stroke engine somehow all of these advantages get looked over like they didn't mean a thing. All of a sudden if you're a four-stroke engine it is OK to be really huge, it's OK to be very heavy, it's OK to need regular oil changes and adjustments, it's OK to add 200 parts to the cylinder heads, it's OK to have exotic variable valve timing, it's OK to have 24 valves, etc.

posted 03-31-2005 08:44 PM ET (US)            

They didn't have a 60 HP in stock, only 75s and 90s which I checked out flipping off the cool new lids. Nice looking engine layout. I can actually see the spark plugs! I could probably change them all by myself! Gee, I love 2 strokes!

They phoned the factory and found out the promise for delivery of the 60 HP ETEC is end of June because "they're having problems with the cylinder liners" on the larger engines and the engineers have stopped production of the 60s until the problem is resolved.

They suggested I use two 75s for the Outrage 18 until I asked them to check the weight of the 75. Then they told me there was going to be a 2 cylinder 70 HP ETEC.

posted 03-31-2005 11:47 PM ET (US)            

Many people in the business that I talk to still maintain that the 4 Strokes are eventually going to need to install a Catalytic Converter to meet future EPA standards. (especially CA)

Just look at the infomercial. 58,000 parts per million of CO at idle for the Verado and 600 parts per million for the E-TEC. That's a huge difference.

Question:
What esle can the 4 Strokes do to get those idle emissions down to the E-TEC's without putting on a Catalytic Converter?

Peter,
That is a great idea. That would be a beefy 150....

posted 04-01-2005 02:34 PM ET (US)         

Note: all weight figures are from current catalogs, on 20" engines.

As for Peter's idea, since the Mercury 250 Optimax is 30# lighter than the 250 E-Tec, Mercury could also bring out a nice 3.0 liter 150 HP version of this engine, and still be lighter than the Verado 150-175. Generally, "cheater" drop-down versions of large cube engines are fuel pigs. This has often been done in the 20" bass boat market. Currently, Mercury just offered a new 3.0 liter "cheater" 200 EFI for that market, on a block that can easily produce up to a true 277 HP, but don't expect it to be economical to run when compared to the 2.5 liter 200 EFI. But I'll bet it really moves out on a boat rated for 200HP.

posted 04-01-2005 03:40 PM ET (US)            

The point of the exercise was to show the vulnerability that excessive weight has in an outboard design. The new 4 cylinder 4-stroke Mercury's excessive weight has made Mercury's new products quite vulnerable to easy competitive attack from a variety of directions.

posted 04-01-2005 03:51 PM ET (US)            

Don't you just love America? The best thing about capitalism is that if there is demand for your product, you can sell it. I GUARANTEE that good, clean versions of 4-strokes and 2-strokes will continue to exist, side by side, for years to come. It's why they make cars in different models and colors!

One observation: I don't think it is fair to compare an Optimax to an E-TEC as "apples to apples clean 2 strokes". I like the optimax line, and think they will continue to sell. However, the E-TEC's are quieter, smoke free, more fuel efficient, and hypothetically require less maintence (but with a nod to LHG, we don't really know yet do we?). I agree with LHG that "most buyers want 4 strokes", but I also agree that is generally because "old style" 2 strokes were loud, noisy, polluting, etc. "new style" 2 strokes such as the first generation DFI motors addressed some of these issues, and the E-TEC addresses all of them, including the DFI elecrical load issues. The big question will be if Bombardier's "infomercials" etc. can get people to buy 'em. Witness LHG's opinion -- he is far from alone.

As for me, I will buy an E-TEC 150 for my OR18 when they become available, unless Kriz and JimH buy them all and put them on ebay for a premium ; ) I will have a 1990 150hp black max for sale that day -- great, bombproof two stroke that someone else will love for another 5-10 years. Capitalism at it's finest.

p.s. this forum makes me laugh at least twice a day, and that is a very good thing

posted 04-01-2005 08:41 PM ET (US)            

The 150 Optimax is NOT Carb 3 rated. Not clean enough for California.

Last month I made this Quick Reference Guide up for the Outrage 18's.

http://users.sisqtel.net/jkriz/drawings/Outrage18-QRG.html

posted 04-01-2005 09:31 PM ET (US)            

Here is a clip from the thread I was referring to: I test drove Sal's boat today after installing the new motor. I started off with a 13 3/4 x 17 ss yamaha prop. Top speed was 46 mph with the engine bouncing off the rev limiter. Next up was a 14 x 19 Merc vengance ss prop. Top speed increased to 50.5 mph at 5800 rpm's. All speed readings came directly from Sal's fixed mount gps reading miles per hour"

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/001837.html

posted 04-01-2005 10:10 PM ET (US)            

After I wrote this about the E-TEC, I thought the same attributes apply to the OptiMax, too. These fine engines deserve to be considered in light of their weight and performance. (The only areas where they are lacking is in noise and smoothness.) Where this fascination with the four-stroke comes from, I don't understand.

Trolling at idle for ten years with an 8-HP four-stroke is not quite the same as running at 80-percent throttle with a 250-HP four-stroke, with 24-valves, with four camshafts, with variable valve timing, with superchargers, etc., for ten years.

These comparisons to automotive engines are not particularly applicable. Most people do not drive up hill at 80-percent throttle while towing a trailer for hours and hours on end with their four-stroke automotive engines.

The V-6 3.1-liter four-stroke automotive engine in my passenger car runs about 2000-RPM and is loafing along in overdrive on level ground most of its life. It goes 55-MPH and gets about 30-MPG. That is a fuel consumption of about

55 Miles/Hour / 30 Miles/Gallon = 1.8 gallons/hour

By the typical fuel consumption rate for all internal combustion engines of 0.5 pounds of gasoline/hour/HP, that implies that I am using about

1.8 gallons/hour / 0.5 pounds/hour/HP * 6 pounds/gallon = 21.6 HP

to drive my car at 55-MPH on level ground.

I can assure you that if I operated a 225-HP outboard at a throttle setting where it was only producing 21.6-HP, I could expect it to last the equivalent of 100,000 miles or

100,000 miles / 55-MPH = 1,818 hours

However, I don't think that in typical boating I am going to be using my four-stroke 225-HP engine at a throttle setting that produces about 21.6-HP. I am going to be cruising at 25-30-MPH or faster and running it closer to 60-80 percent of throttle most of the time, and I will be producing about 100-150-HP to do this.

Thus I reject the notion that a car which runs for 100,000 miles with its four-stroke engine is an applicable comparison for a boat cruising along at 25-30 MPH.

posted 04-02-2005 01:18 PM ET (US)            

Thanks for your input. It doesn't solve my problem but does provide food for thought. Revs on twin 60s/70s would be an issue. Cubes on the E-TEC engines would be an issue. Both issues work to shorten the life of the engines and increase fuel costs.

Come to think of it, I don't REALLY have a problem since the Outrage arrived with a 1986 vintage 140 HP Evinrude that the former said has been bullet proof and the VRO has been zero maintenance. However, it does smoke and it does drink and it is noisy - kind of like a teenager. Strong like a teenager too!

Think I'll run the 'Rude for this summer and if I like the size of the Outrage then repower over the winter. I can always opt for a nice light Suzuki 140 and Sheila's kicker.

Meanwhile the 15 Sport sulks in the garage having done nothing to deserve it's fate except be the sweetest little boat in my world for 20 years.

posted 04-02-2005 03:35 PM ET (US)         

1. Twin 60's may be a little light for an 18 Outrage, although pefectly reasonable, and Roarque has decided to stay with what he has.

2. E-TEC 60's are still held up in production due to "cylinder liner problems on the larger engines" (which LARGER engines?), but the same weight 3-star EFI 60 HP 4-strokes, Smartcraft enabled, as designed and produced by Mercury, and also sold by Yamaha, have been around for 3 years now, and seem to be trouble free, with no cylinder liner problems. But we are still wondering why 4-strokes are selling so well and think the buyers of same are basically stupid.

And, unrelated to his original question, we have learned:

2. Mercury's 2.5 liter 150 Optimax, based on Whaler's own testing, is shown to be a real poor performer when compared to several Japanese same HP and same displacement 4-strokes, which are also 3-star rated. Are we still wondering why 4-strokes are capturing the marketplace?

3. The yet non-existant Etec 150 performs just as well as the Yamaha and Honda 150's., even though the same cube Optimax won't. We don't know where the Yamaha 150 HPDI fits in.

3. A 3.3 liter, 2-stroke 150HP engine is a ridiculuous proposal.

4. The Evinrude affiliated people here continue to trash the Mercury Verado's, and most other 4-strokes as well, or anybody defending them, a lesson well learned from observing the now infamous infomercial commercial.

posted 04-02-2005 05:51 PM ET (US)            

I'm all for a successful technology advancement, but the Verado appears to hit the wallet in the performance tests for 225Hp engines on the Ventura 21. Where's the efficient technology?

See below:
http://www.whaler.com/Rec/pdfs/210VenturaEng.pdf

Note the Verado plotted numbers do not equal the chart that Boston Whaler supplies. By the chart, it appears that the Verado gets 1.7 MPG and the Optimax 225 get 3.2 MPG at 4000 RPM.

posted 04-02-2005 10:45 PM ET (US)            

In any case, the hypothetical low reving 150 E-TEC HD would appear to have numerous advantages. Because it need not rev as high to make 150 HP, it probably wouldn't need to use as much oil for lubrication as say a higher reving, smaller displacement 2-stroke motor. Ridiculous?

Due to its low reving nature, the hypothetical 150 E-TEC HD might be much quieter than the Verado and other 4-strokes at all operational speeds except for idle. As indicated by PowerBoat Reports, the E-TEC produces a sound pressure level of 85 dB at 4000 RPM (WOT for the hypothetical 150 E-TEC HD). The Verado 6 cylinder (no data on the 4 cylinder yet) produces a sound pressure level of 92 dB at 6250. It would be a reasonable assumption that the 4 cylinder running at 6250 RPM would produce the same sound level as the 6 cylinder or about 92 dB. Last time I checked 85 dB was quieter than 92 dB. Ridiculous?

Because it need not rev as high to produce the same boat speed at all throttle settings, it would probably last far longer. Lasting longer is better than lasting shorter last time I checked. Ridiculous?

The only disadvantage to the consumer that it seems to have is that it would be quite heavy by conventional 150 HP standards. Ridiculous? Perhaps.

The disadvantage to the manufacturers is that it would probably never wear out in normal use and so it would not need replacing. Instead of thinking in terms of repowering a boat at some point in its life, you might need to start thinking in terms of reboating the E-TEC 150 HD sometime in its life (except for the case of long life Whalers where the life expectancy of the E-TEC 150 HD would be a very good match for the life expectancy of a Whaler). That is certainly ridiculous from the OB manufacturer's perspective.

With a simple governing modification probably not costing more than a few dollars (as compared to millions of dollars invested by Mercury), Evinrude could have a 150 2-stroke with 4-stroke qualities that would be much more than a headache for the very heavy 4-stroke 4-cylinder Verado. When you think about it, using a 3.3L 2-stroke as the foundation for a 150 is really no different than the approach American car manufacturers took for decades with their use of large displacement, low HP, low stress V8s producing less than 1/2 HP per cubic inch of displacement. Would you say those designs were ridiculous?

To point out the excessive weight of the 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder Verado in an objective fashion is not trashing the Verado, it is merely calling attention to what appears to be a huge weakness in the design. One way or another, weight still matters. If the effect of it doesn't matter on the static trim or boat balance or fuel economy, then, as I've said before, the excessive weight matters in that it leaves the competition door wide open to all kinds of less expensive and quite possibly better alternatives, including one you alone seem to suggest is ridiculous.

The so called ridiculous hypothetical 3.3L 150 E-TEC is really no different in concept than the the practice of overpowering a classic 18 Outrage with a pair of 6 cylinder 115s (combination weighs 200 lbs more than a single 150 or 100 lbs more than a pair of 75s) except that in following the hypothetical, the 115s are governed so as not to produce more than 75 HP each by limiting the throttle opening and revs.

Still think its ridiculous?

posted 04-03-2005 12:34 AM ET (US)            

That Ventura performance chart (see link above) is definitely off kilter from the tabular data in the Verado section.

The Verado fuel economy seems to hold up very well at mid-throttle, but it drops significantly at WOT. The E-TEC seems to be just the opposite, getting its best fuel economy at WOT or at idle speeds, and falling off the mark in the mid-range. The four-strokes seem to have very good fuel economy across their RPM range.

The Verado engine is not so much an engine choice as a whole new "power system" choice, because you also get the fly-by-wire controls, the power steering, and the all-digital instrumentation. It moves the outboard powered boat to a new level of performance, which, of course, comes at a price.