Mini-Shootout: 250 OptiMax v E-TEC - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Mini-Shootout: 250 OptiMax v E-TEC

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Mini-Shootout: 250 OptiMax v E-TEC

jimh posted 04-02-2007 11:41 PM ET (US)
POWERBOAT REPORTS just published a mini-shootout between Mercury and Evinrude in the April 2007 issue. The motors were the OptiMax 250 Pro XS and E-TEC 250. The testing was not elaborate or exhaustive. The outcome was interesting. Here is a summary and some comments:
TOP SPEED was about even, the OptiMax hit 53.3 and the E-TEC hit 53.1, or 0.2-MPH slower. The test does not mention the propellers used, but in a photograph the OptiMax has what appears to be a polished stainless steel propeller while the poor E-TEC appears to have a black propeller that looks like it is aluminum. Without some sort of propeller data, it is hard to know if the speed test was legitimate. In any case, the E-TEC gave a good showing against the special XS Pro OptiMax, which, while not mentioned in the article, is widely known to be a specialized motor sold at a premium price.
FUEL ECONOMY was measured at four speeds, 7-MPH, 25-MPH, 30-MPH, and 35-MPH. The E-TEC had a significant advantage at the slowest speed, running nicely at 4.7-MPG compared to the OptiMax's 3.5-MPG, which is a differential of 1.2-MPG or 34-percent better in favor of the E-TEC. This is both the largest differential and the largest percentage difference among all the test speeds.
At slow cruise, 25-MPH the OptiMax was on top 3.5-MPG compared to 3.1-MPG. This is a 13-percent improvement in favor of the OptiMmax. When the boat speed rose to 30-MPH the two engines were about the same, OptiMax 3.2, E-TEC 3.1. At 35-MPH the OptiMax was back on top, 3.1-MPG compared to the E-TEC 2.8. The difference was down to 10-percent.
The results are interesting, and it shows a big advantage to E-TEC at idle speeds. Curiously, engine management module reports from E-TEC motors are showing that almost 50-percent of the operating time for typical outboard motors is at idle speed. This may produce more real-world fuel savings than you might imagine. The OptiMax is more fuel efficient on plane, but only by about 10 to 13 percent, not as large an advantage as the E-TEC had at idle.
NOISE signature was an across the board win for the E-TEC at all speeds. The margin was a nearly constant 5-dB advantage over the OptiMax. Unfortunately, this was the fancy OptiMax Pro XS model, and not the new standard OptiMax G2 or OptiMax "Globe" motors. Those motors are specifically cited by Mercury as having improved noise signatures with reductions of up to 6-dB. We still don't have any idea if the new OptiMax G2 motor has improved the noise signature. The reviewers comments were that the Optimax motors "were certainly not quiet."
PRICE was a win for the OptiMax, even with the premium motor. Based on what the boat builder charges at MRSP, the E-TEC was almost $3,000 more expensive. However, the reviewers noted that this figure was influenced by the boat builder's better deal with Mercury, and that this pricing may not be reflected in other boat deals. The E-TEC motors do come with a soaring MSRP, however the best-deal price is often at a substantial discount from that list price.
WEIGHT was also in favor of the OptiMax. At 512-lbs it was 18-lbs lighter than the E-TEC (530-lbs).
RECOMMENDED MOTOR was hard to the reviewers to decide, as they felt the performance was a toss up. The gave the nod to the OptiMax on the basis of its longer track record, with the exception that if you planned to do a lot of trolling get the E-TEC. I'd just say that based on these EMM reports, we all do a lot more operation at idle speed than we think.
The test boats were identical Angler 230VBX center consoles with set back brackets. The boats have 8-foot 6-inch beams and weigh 3,000-lbs.
tmann45 posted 04-03-2007 07:21 AM ET (US)
Very interesting Jim. Wish they had tested the new G2 motor instead though.
Which motor do you think would win the MPG battle in real world use?
Assume 60-hours of use. 30-hours at 7-mph, 10-hours at 25-mph, 10-hours at 30-mph and 10-hours at 35-mph.
I get a 2.7% advantage to the winner. My answers after work or send me email.
Tom
seahorse posted 04-03-2007 08:23 AM ET (US)
Outboard manufacturers use the ICOMIA standard duty cycle when computing either emissions for base fuel economy.
The average fuel consumption in gallons per hour is figured from the following formula"

WOT - 6%
80% speed - 14%
60% speed - 15%
40% speed - 25%
idle - 40%

Take those percentages of the fuel consumption at those various speeds then add up the gallons per hour for the average economy that a normal user will see.
Too bad the Powerboat reports did not publish the performance specs for the whole range so we could calculate the average economy for both motors.
Now you may not believe that those duty cycle figures are accurate, but from years of data collected by the industry and ECU reports from computer controlled motors, it is very close.

seahorse posted 04-03-2007 08:26 AM ET (US)
Let me correct the first sentence of my previous post.
original sentence:
"Outboard manufacturers use the ICOMIA standard duty cycle when computing either emissions for base fuel economy"
should read:
"Outboard manufacturers use the ICOMIA standard duty cycle when computing either the emission output or the average fuel economy of a motor."
jimh posted 04-03-2007 09:47 AM ET (US)
For an arbitrary snap shot of one E-TEC's engine speed profile, see
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ETEC_EngineHistoryReport.html
BUCKDA, a hard-charging guy, spends 63-percent of his time underway at idle with his E-TEC motors. I guess Dave has been doing a lot of fishing with those motors.
Buckda posted 04-03-2007 09:59 AM ET (US)
Nope. I'm just a victim of landowners who influence local laws to designate the water in front of their homes as "no wake zones".
:)
From these results, if I were a bass fisherman, I'd get the XS - these guys spend a lot of their time at WOT or near WOT, and not much time at idle. When they're fishing, they're not trolling - they're bumping along the shoreline with the electric trolling motor to work the weed beds and other cover.
A saltwater or Great Lakes fisherman, on the other hand, may do a significant amount of time trolling down to very slow speeds, although they may also be using a kicker motor for this purpose.
My speed is often limited by conditions on Lake Michigan, but the profile is also subject to some very long cruise-speed segments - St. Joe to Chicago; St. Joe to South Haven; St. Joe to Saugatuck; St. Joe to New Buffalo; etc.
Also - Indian River, etc are very long no-wake zones of more than an hour. My idle to the Big Lake in St. Joe also takes 45 minutes each way.
To JimH's point, I think that is likely true for many of us. Ramps aren't often located near the most valuable real estate (i.e. right near the river mouth or inlet...often you have to traverse several miles of marinas, etc through no-wake zones. At 5 MPH, a 7 mile zone takes more than an hour to traverse. Stop to have a GAM or take a look at another vessel in a marina and you're adding time. I try to limit this a bit by running on one motor for most of the zone.
David Pendleton posted 04-03-2007 11:32 AM ET (US)
Dave, doesn't running one motor more than the other kind of screw up your maintenance schedules?
swist posted 04-03-2007 12:51 PM ET (US)
To me it was counter-intuitive to read the high percentage of time spend at idle or near-idle speeds. It first looked like it couldn't be right, but when I think about all the time in no wake zones, warming up, departing, docking, those statistics are probably right, and obviously much higher for anglers who troll.
It gives a little insight into why the old 2-stroke carbed outboard perhaps wasn't such a great idea. All that time spent at the running condition which is the worst for those engines.
Buckda posted 04-03-2007 03:20 PM ET (US)
David P -
I did my best to remember which motor I idled out on and then idle back in on the other. I was trying to keep the motors within a few operating hours of each other - even when I occasionally troll for salmon (i.e. a few hours on one engine and the rest on the other).
At the end of the season, I was within a few minutes of each to being synched (with no hour meter - taking measurements from EMM).
I don't see how it messes with the maintenance schedule so long as one isn't completely used more than the other - if at the end of the season one has 297 hours and the other has 303, I'll get the 300 hour service on both. A few hours either way doesn't bother me much.
Dave
seahorse posted 04-03-2007 07:47 PM ET (US)
Dave,
Even bass boaters with their high speed runs still average close to 35-40% at idle.
tmann45 posted 04-03-2007 08:06 PM ET (US)
For my 'real world'use example the ETEC would use 347 gal and the Opti would use 338 gal, a 9-gal difference, advantage Opti.
jimh posted 04-03-2007 11:32 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the computed fuel usage, a 2.6-percent advantage to the OptiMax.
Some of the variation in the fuel economy between the motors is very likely influenced by the propeller being used. To get best fuel economy at cruise you often have to use a propeller which is optimized for that speed range. A propeller which gives great fuel economy at 25- to 30-MPH may not deliver the best top speed.
Also, the reviewers did not reveal much detail of their techniques for fuel consumption measurements. When the differences are slight, a percent or two, it becomes more important to have faith in the measurement technique being accurate to at least ten times that margin. For some reason I don't really believe that fuel consumption can be measured this accurately by the usual methods employed by the usual boat test reviewers.
Backfire posted 04-03-2007 11:44 PM ET (US)
If you think about it, all the P/C, Enviro, congestion, changes that have caused long idle zones, are fairly new. Yesteryear engines,"It gives a little insight into why the old 2-stroke carbed outboard perhaps wasn't such a great idea. All that time spent at the running condition which is the worst for those engines" (why?). While not tops in fuel economy compared to today's engines, certainly easily idled/trolled as long as there was fuel in the tank. Blanket statments are so often in error. My 1963 18 Johnson being one example, and of course there were no four strokes, no electronic ignition, etc. Was the 300 HP V-8 a troller?, no. The smaller the engine the greater % of full throttle, going to and from at wide open. Many different products for many different uses. It is the customer's responsibility to choose wisely, flat bottom or flats boat, Jeep or SUV, etc..
Backfire
fourdfish posted 04-04-2007 12:09 AM ET (US)
My 200hp ETEC starts and idles at just about 420-450rpms.
at this speed the engine is extremely quiet. It burns very little gas at this speed. Does anyone know if any other engines can idle at this rpm range??
jimh posted 04-04-2007 12:20 AM ET (US)
Tom--Thanks for the data you computed. Your answer surprised a lot of readers, I bet. I want to investigate it further. I think there is a slight bias in perception regarding the fuel economy differences.
When the boat is going 7-MPH, one motor gets 4.7-MPG and the other 3.5-MPG. This sounds like a big difference, a 34-percent variation. Let's look at it in terms of the time and money dimensions.
If we troll at 7-MPH for 30 hours, we go 210 miles. So the two motors use the following amounts of fuel: 210/4.7 = 44.6 gallons and 210/3.5 = 60 gallons. That is a difference of 15.4-gallons. If fuel is $3/gallon, the cost difference is $46.20.
At the other end of the data, at high speed planing the boats are burning a lot more gallons per hour. Let's look at that case.
If we cruise at 35-MPH for ten hours, we go 350-miles. The two motors use the following amounts of fuel: 350/3.1 = 112.9 gallons and 350/2.8 = 125 gallons. That is a difference of 12.1-gallons. If fuel is $3/gallon, the cost difference is $36.30.
What happens is that the cost difference is much closer than you would think just based on the MPG comparison. The slow speed numbers look like they are really different, but, even with a triple weighting, they don't add up to much fuel savings when offset by the high-speed numbers. At high speed the boat is burning fuel a lot faster, so even though the difference in fuel economy looks small in terms of MPG, it burns up more money because the rate of fuel flow is so much higher.
It would be handy to have a spread sheet that factored in the fuel economy at various speeds and alloted time for each speed, then predicted the overall cost comparison of two motors.
Honestly, I was surprised that overall the OptiMax came out ahead, as the E-TEC held a big lead at the low speed end, and the weighting was favoring the low speed so much.
swist posted 04-04-2007 09:20 AM ET (US)
It may be a blanket statement, but it in my experience it is true that older 2-stroke outboards were not designed with idling in mind - mainly in the pre-VRO days when 50:1 or even 25:1 oil mix was coming into the engine at any speed. Plugs fouled easily and smell and smoke abounded. I would agree that the percentage of time at idle as a statistic across all engines was probably lower than it is now.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Mini-Shootout: 250 OptiMax v E-TEC
jimh	posted 04-02-2007 11:41 PM ET (US) POWERBOAT REPORTS just published a mini-shootout between Mercury and Evinrude in the April 2007 issue. The motors were the OptiMax 250 Pro XS and E-TEC 250. The testing was not elaborate or exhaustive. The outcome was interesting. Here is a summary and some comments: TOP SPEED was about even, the OptiMax hit 53.3 and the E-TEC hit 53.1, or 0.2-MPH slower. The test does not mention the propellers used, but in a photograph the OptiMax has what appears to be a polished stainless steel propeller while the poor E-TEC appears to have a black propeller that looks like it is aluminum. Without some sort of propeller data, it is hard to know if the speed test was legitimate. In any case, the E-TEC gave a good showing against the special XS Pro OptiMax, which, while not mentioned in the article, is widely known to be a specialized motor sold at a premium price. FUEL ECONOMY was measured at four speeds, 7-MPH, 25-MPH, 30-MPH, and 35-MPH. The E-TEC had a significant advantage at the slowest speed, running nicely at 4.7-MPG compared to the OptiMax's 3.5-MPG, which is a differential of 1.2-MPG or 34-percent better in favor of the E-TEC. This is both the largest differential and the largest percentage difference among all the test speeds. At slow cruise, 25-MPH the OptiMax was on top 3.5-MPG compared to 3.1-MPG. This is a 13-percent improvement in favor of the OptiMmax. When the boat speed rose to 30-MPH the two engines were about the same, OptiMax 3.2, E-TEC 3.1. At 35-MPH the OptiMax was back on top, 3.1-MPG compared to the E-TEC 2.8. The difference was down to 10-percent. The results are interesting, and it shows a big advantage to E-TEC at idle speeds. Curiously, engine management module reports from E-TEC motors are showing that almost 50-percent of the operating time for typical outboard motors is at idle speed. This may produce more real-world fuel savings than you might imagine. The OptiMax is more fuel efficient on plane, but only by about 10 to 13 percent, not as large an advantage as the E-TEC had at idle. NOISE signature was an across the board win for the E-TEC at all speeds. The margin was a nearly constant 5-dB advantage over the OptiMax. Unfortunately, this was the fancy OptiMax Pro XS model, and not the new standard OptiMax G2 or OptiMax "Globe" motors. Those motors are specifically cited by Mercury as having improved noise signatures with reductions of up to 6-dB. We still don't have any idea if the new OptiMax G2 motor has improved the noise signature. The reviewers comments were that the Optimax motors "were certainly not quiet." PRICE was a win for the OptiMax, even with the premium motor. Based on what the boat builder charges at MRSP, the E-TEC was almost $3,000 more expensive. However, the reviewers noted that this figure was influenced by the boat builder's better deal with Mercury, and that this pricing may not be reflected in other boat deals. The E-TEC motors do come with a soaring MSRP, however the best-deal price is often at a substantial discount from that list price. WEIGHT was also in favor of the OptiMax. At 512-lbs it was 18-lbs lighter than the E-TEC (530-lbs). RECOMMENDED MOTOR was hard to the reviewers to decide, as they felt the performance was a toss up. The gave the nod to the OptiMax on the basis of its longer track record, with the exception that if you planned to do a lot of trolling get the E-TEC. I'd just say that based on these EMM reports, we all do a lot more operation at idle speed than we think. The test boats were identical Angler 230VBX center consoles with set back brackets. The boats have 8-foot 6-inch beams and weigh 3,000-lbs.
tmann45	posted 04-03-2007 07:21 AM ET (US) Very interesting Jim. Wish they had tested the new G2 motor instead though. Which motor do you think would win the MPG battle in real world use? Assume 60-hours of use. 30-hours at 7-mph, 10-hours at 25-mph, 10-hours at 30-mph and 10-hours at 35-mph. I get a 2.7% advantage to the winner. My answers after work or send me email. Tom
seahorse	posted 04-03-2007 08:23 AM ET (US) Outboard manufacturers use the ICOMIA standard duty cycle when computing either emissions for base fuel economy. The average fuel consumption in gallons per hour is figured from the following formula" WOT - 6% 80% speed - 14% 60% speed - 15% 40% speed - 25% idle - 40% Take those percentages of the fuel consumption at those various speeds then add up the gallons per hour for the average economy that a normal user will see. Too bad the Powerboat reports did not publish the performance specs for the whole range so we could calculate the average economy for both motors. Now you may not believe that those duty cycle figures are accurate, but from years of data collected by the industry and ECU reports from computer controlled motors, it is very close.
seahorse	posted 04-03-2007 08:26 AM ET (US) Let me correct the first sentence of my previous post. original sentence: "Outboard manufacturers use the ICOMIA standard duty cycle when computing either emissions for base fuel economy" should read: "Outboard manufacturers use the ICOMIA standard duty cycle when computing either the emission output or the average fuel economy of a motor."
jimh	posted 04-03-2007 09:47 AM ET (US) For an arbitrary snap shot of one E-TEC's engine speed profile, see http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ETEC_EngineHistoryReport.html BUCKDA, a hard-charging guy, spends 63-percent of his time underway at idle with his E-TEC motors. I guess Dave has been doing a lot of fishing with those motors.
Buckda	posted 04-03-2007 09:59 AM ET (US) Nope. I'm just a victim of landowners who influence local laws to designate the water in front of their homes as "no wake zones". :) From these results, if I were a bass fisherman, I'd get the XS - these guys spend a lot of their time at WOT or near WOT, and not much time at idle. When they're fishing, they're not trolling - they're bumping along the shoreline with the electric trolling motor to work the weed beds and other cover. A saltwater or Great Lakes fisherman, on the other hand, may do a significant amount of time trolling down to very slow speeds, although they may also be using a kicker motor for this purpose. My speed is often limited by conditions on Lake Michigan, but the profile is also subject to some very long cruise-speed segments - St. Joe to Chicago; St. Joe to South Haven; St. Joe to Saugatuck; St. Joe to New Buffalo; etc. Also - Indian River, etc are very long no-wake zones of more than an hour. My idle to the Big Lake in St. Joe also takes 45 minutes each way. To JimH's point, I think that is likely true for many of us. Ramps aren't often located near the most valuable real estate (i.e. right near the river mouth or inlet...often you have to traverse several miles of marinas, etc through no-wake zones. At 5 MPH, a 7 mile zone takes more than an hour to traverse. Stop to have a GAM or take a look at another vessel in a marina and you're adding time. I try to limit this a bit by running on one motor for most of the zone.
David Pendleton	posted 04-03-2007 11:32 AM ET (US) Dave, doesn't running one motor more than the other kind of screw up your maintenance schedules?
swist	posted 04-03-2007 12:51 PM ET (US) To me it was counter-intuitive to read the high percentage of time spend at idle or near-idle speeds. It first looked like it couldn't be right, but when I think about all the time in no wake zones, warming up, departing, docking, those statistics are probably right, and obviously much higher for anglers who troll. It gives a little insight into why the old 2-stroke carbed outboard perhaps wasn't such a great idea. All that time spent at the running condition which is the worst for those engines.
Buckda	posted 04-03-2007 03:20 PM ET (US) David P - I did my best to remember which motor I idled out on and then idle back in on the other. I was trying to keep the motors within a few operating hours of each other - even when I occasionally troll for salmon (i.e. a few hours on one engine and the rest on the other). At the end of the season, I was within a few minutes of each to being synched (with no hour meter - taking measurements from EMM). I don't see how it messes with the maintenance schedule so long as one isn't completely used more than the other - if at the end of the season one has 297 hours and the other has 303, I'll get the 300 hour service on both. A few hours either way doesn't bother me much. Dave
seahorse	posted 04-03-2007 07:47 PM ET (US) Dave, Even bass boaters with their high speed runs still average close to 35-40% at idle.
tmann45	posted 04-03-2007 08:06 PM ET (US) For my 'real world'use example the ETEC would use 347 gal and the Opti would use 338 gal, a 9-gal difference, advantage Opti.
jimh	posted 04-03-2007 11:32 PM ET (US) Thanks for the computed fuel usage, a 2.6-percent advantage to the OptiMax. Some of the variation in the fuel economy between the motors is very likely influenced by the propeller being used. To get best fuel economy at cruise you often have to use a propeller which is optimized for that speed range. A propeller which gives great fuel economy at 25- to 30-MPH may not deliver the best top speed. Also, the reviewers did not reveal much detail of their techniques for fuel consumption measurements. When the differences are slight, a percent or two, it becomes more important to have faith in the measurement technique being accurate to at least ten times that margin. For some reason I don't really believe that fuel consumption can be measured this accurately by the usual methods employed by the usual boat test reviewers.
Backfire	posted 04-03-2007 11:44 PM ET (US) If you think about it, all the P/C, Enviro, congestion, changes that have caused long idle zones, are fairly new. Yesteryear engines,"It gives a little insight into why the old 2-stroke carbed outboard perhaps wasn't such a great idea. All that time spent at the running condition which is the worst for those engines" (why?). While not tops in fuel economy compared to today's engines, certainly easily idled/trolled as long as there was fuel in the tank. Blanket statments are so often in error. My 1963 18 Johnson being one example, and of course there were no four strokes, no electronic ignition, etc. Was the 300 HP V-8 a troller?, no. The smaller the engine the greater % of full throttle, going to and from at wide open. Many different products for many different uses. It is the customer's responsibility to choose wisely, flat bottom or flats boat, Jeep or SUV, etc.. Backfire
fourdfish	posted 04-04-2007 12:09 AM ET (US) My 200hp ETEC starts and idles at just about 420-450rpms. at this speed the engine is extremely quiet. It burns very little gas at this speed. Does anyone know if any other engines can idle at this rpm range??
jimh	posted 04-04-2007 12:20 AM ET (US) Tom--Thanks for the data you computed. Your answer surprised a lot of readers, I bet. I want to investigate it further. I think there is a slight bias in perception regarding the fuel economy differences. When the boat is going 7-MPH, one motor gets 4.7-MPG and the other 3.5-MPG. This sounds like a big difference, a 34-percent variation. Let's look at it in terms of the time and money dimensions. If we troll at 7-MPH for 30 hours, we go 210 miles. So the two motors use the following amounts of fuel: 210/4.7 = 44.6 gallons and 210/3.5 = 60 gallons. That is a difference of 15.4-gallons. If fuel is $3/gallon, the cost difference is $46.20. At the other end of the data, at high speed planing the boats are burning a lot more gallons per hour. Let's look at that case. If we cruise at 35-MPH for ten hours, we go 350-miles. The two motors use the following amounts of fuel: 350/3.1 = 112.9 gallons and 350/2.8 = 125 gallons. That is a difference of 12.1-gallons. If fuel is $3/gallon, the cost difference is $36.30. What happens is that the cost difference is much closer than you would think just based on the MPG comparison. The slow speed numbers look like they are really different, but, even with a triple weighting, they don't add up to much fuel savings when offset by the high-speed numbers. At high speed the boat is burning fuel a lot faster, so even though the difference in fuel economy looks small in terms of MPG, it burns up more money because the rate of fuel flow is so much higher. It would be handy to have a spread sheet that factored in the fuel economy at various speeds and alloted time for each speed, then predicted the overall cost comparison of two motors. Honestly, I was surprised that overall the OptiMax came out ahead, as the E-TEC held a big lead at the low speed end, and the weighting was favoring the low speed so much.
swist	posted 04-04-2007 09:20 AM ET (US) It may be a blanket statement, but it in my experience it is true that older 2-stroke outboards were not designed with idling in mind - mainly in the pre-VRO days when 50:1 or even 25:1 oil mix was coming into the engine at any speed. Plugs fouled easily and smell and smoke abounded. I would agree that the percentage of time at idle as a statistic across all engines was probably lower than it is now.