posted 09-19-2007 12:57 AM ET (US)        

I like to think that on CONTINUOUSWAVE we present information that you can rely on, so I cannot let this pass without making a few comments, as my understanding of the E-TEC leads me to believe that this characterization is completely wrong.

Let's look at the engine block. Here is some factual material about the engine blocks used in E-TEC motors:

"The new V4 and V6 models from 115 to 200 HP all share a 60 degree V angle and the same bore and stroke as previous Evinrude 60° V angle engines, but that’s where the similarity ends. The E-Tec models have a newly designed lost foam cast cylinder block with larger air intakes and reed valves, more cooling system area and a larger, more free-flowing exhaust system."

Source: http://www.brp.com/NR/rdonlyres/FB41084E-1331-446F-BE09-BD3E83EB358B/0/ Guide_ETEC115.pdf

Let's look at the fuel injectors: The E-TEC engine has always used a different fuel injector than was used on the OMC-era Ficht engine. The design of the fuel-injector is one of the principal differences in the E-TEC and FICHT engines. The E-TEC fuel injector uses much less electrical power. This helps to reduce the electrical power needed to operate the engine and permits all E-TEC motors to be able to start and operate without a battery. The FICHT injector was a solenoid type injector, and the E-TEC injector is a voice-coil type injector. The voice-coil design of the E-TEC injector also allows for management of the injector motion by modulation of the exciting voltage. This has been exploited to enhance acceleration and deceleration of motion resulting in higher injection pressures. It also reduces the clicking sound of operation that is normally associated with fuel injectors. In addition, for 2008 the E-TEC fuel injector has been redesigned and improved. The injector has a new nozzle design which decreases variation in fuel flow over the life span of the injector. The new injector is also smaller, different in shape, and has a different mount arrangement to the cylinder heads. This also implies that the cylinder head castings have been changed for 2008, as well.

Source: various BRP documents and dealer reports.

Let's look at gear cases: in order to accommodate the increasingly more powerful torque output being produced by the E-TEC, Bombardier redesigned the gear cases being used. Bombardier E-TEC motors use a new MAGNUM gear case. It is not an OMC part from the 1980's. The strength of the gears used in this gear case is amazing. I have personally seen an E-TEC gear case involved in a massive propeller strike. The four-blade stainless steel propeller was twisted and bent, but the internal gears of the MAGNUM gear case survived intact and appeared in perfect condition.

Source: first hand observation and dealer reports. Also please read and view the photographs I took in http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003959.html regarding this new design of the BRP gear case.

Let's look at some internal components of the E-TEC: "Evinrude E-TEC incorporates pistons made from a new alloy, which was developed by NASA. This alloy has proven to be 2 to 3 times stronger at operating temperature than the aluminum alloys pistons are traditionally made with. The pistons used in the 40 through 60 and the 75/90 are what's known as "full-skirt" pistons. The internal design of the block (the intake, exhaust and transfer ports) doesn't require machining "port windows" into the piston. This combined with the new alloy, increase the piston strength and durability."

Source: http://www.evinrude.com/en-US/About.Us/FAQ/E-TEC.htm#Q5

The full-skirt pistons are a significant improvement. Many four-stroke motor devotees like to point to the ported piston designs of two-stroke motors as an area of weakness and inferior design. This is not a problem on the E-TEC 40, 60, 75, and 90.

Let's look at the engine mount: the E-TEC uses a new design trim and tilt system called FasTrak. This system replaces the system used in the 1990's on OMC motors, which replaced the system used in the 1980's on OMC motors.

As far as research and development, Bombardier has done a good job of building on OMC industry leading technology. Among OMC innovations were:

--the first loop-charged induction outboard in 1968
--the first use of lost-foam casting techniques in outboard motors
--the first V6 outboard in 1975

Bombardier has continued the tradition, including the first NMEA-2000 certified engine controller, and I sure other improvements which I am not even aware of.

posted 09-19-2007 11:20 AM ET (US)            

I read the comment from CW's No. 1 Mercury fan and sometimes salesman regarding the use of "old leftover ...transom mounts" to be in reference to the difference between the ordinary or standard transom bracket design which is used by ALL of the outboard manufacturers and the pedestal mount used ONLY on the Verado I6. The comment suggests that there continues to be denial of the fact that the basic pedestal mount design is not new, but rather, something taken from a U.S. patent issued to Volvo back in the 1970s. See continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/verado/veradoMount.html .

posted 09-19-2007 01:41 PM ET (US)            

The current motors have a single hydraulic ram to operate the trim and tilt, while my motor has three rams.

I concur that if one looks at most current outboard motors (of all brands) they are using a transom mount which is very similar to the mount used by Bombardier, and the only exception to this is on the larger Verado motors from Mercury.

posted 09-19-2007 02:38 PM ET (US)         

PETER:
<<<Just to keep the facts straight, the FastTrak midsection that is used on the E-TEC has been in use, unchanged as best that I can tell, since sometime around 1990/1991. This midsection is a proven design that works well.>>>

JIMH:
<<<Re the trim tilt system on the E-TEC and its origin in a 1980's OMC motor: the current Bombardier motors use a system which is different than the one used on my 1992 Evinrude. I also notice that my trim and tilt system is different than ones I see on motors from the 1980's. That is how I came to the conclusion I did regarding the trim and tilt systems.>>>

The trim units used on the 115hp and up E-TEC Evinrudes are the same style Showa built units that OMC introduced in 1991 as the Fast-Trac trim-tilts. Still used today, 17 years later, the same style and make is now used by some Yamaha and Honda outboards.

The trim units from the late '70's (about 1978) up through 1990 and on some later economy motors had 3 mounting bolts on each stern bracket and a large diameter pin on the engine's swivel bracket. This was an original OMC design.

The Fast-Trac Japanese built Showa trim units are fastened by an upper swivel bracket pin and a lower pin through both transom brackets, no bolts.

In-line E-TEC motors from 40 to 90 hp use a single piston unit that contains a special biodegradable hydraulic oil in it.

posted 09-19-2007 02:39 PM ET (US)            

Great report and very interesting. I have had several OMC Johnsons from the 80s and they were reliable, dependable engines. It wasn't until the late 90s that they lost themselves in the fuel injection process

It is interesting in your report to see that the industry basically adopted the mounting pattern by OMC to avoid additional drill holes in a transom. During the 70s and 80s it seemed to me that OMC Johnson/Evinrude was a real leader in carburated outboards.

posted 09-19-2007 04:04 PM ET (US)            

http://www.showa1.com/en/product/boat/power_tilt_trim.html

posted 09-20-2007 03:10 AM ET (US)         

crabby posted 09-19-2007 10:39 PM ET (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My 90 hp etec circa 2004 uses two trim cylinders and a single tilt cylinder, much like my old 1986 70 hp Evinrude. >>>>>>

posted 09-20-2007 11:03 AM ET (US)            

Seahorse, would you be able help with a topic that has some puzzled, including myself?

Is there a difference between the 2007/2008, blue E-TECs and the white "Saltwater Edition" E-TECs, as far as stainless/non-stainless components?

I know back in 06, you had mentioned:
"All the motors use the same amount of stainless steel fasteners and a stainless tilt tube. It is the saltwater editions that have the cast stainless steel swivelshaft and steering arm assembly."

Is this still the case?

posted 09-21-2007 08:36 PM ET (US)            

In 2001 the OMC manufacturing operation was spread over many locations both in the United States and in Asia, and the engineering, design, fabrication, machining, and assembly of motors was split between multiple sites. When Bombardier took over they closed most of these facilities and built an entirely new plant in Sturtevant, Wisconsin. The majority of manufacturing and part finishing operations were moved to the new plant, and 95-percent of assembly operations were moved there, too. The location was chosen to be close to the engineering and design center in Waukegan, Illinois. This allowed for much better control and feedback between engineering and production. Although Bombardier continued to manufacture the Johnson and Evinrude motors, the new Bombardier motors were of significantly better quality.

The establishment of a new plant and relocation of almost all manufacturing operation to a new facility also allowed Bombardier to carefully select and hire the best of the former OMC employees and to build a new team spirit for the re-born Evinrude and Johnson product lines.

Bankrupt OMC was a manufacturer in serious trouble, and Bombardier pulled off a very impressive resurrection to gave the famous Evinrude and Johnson brands new life. Even competitor Mercury's CEO, George Buckley, recognized the task ahead for Bombardier when he made his famous remark about how the Bombardier people had better have "their Jesus shoes" on.

posted 09-23-2007 12:17 AM ET (US)         

I still say BRP's track record with the remains of OMC is how to get the most out of spending the least they could get away with. A bottom line type of philosophy. All of the other 5 manufacturers are spending tens of millions delivering new product to the outboard market, building new plants, etc. BRP has yet to show us they are doing that. All their resources seem to go into their bread and butter core product, the SeaDoo and SkiDoo lines.

posted 09-23-2007 07:44 AM ET (US)            

First of all, I'm very sorry about what has happened to the Johnson brand. I've only ever had two brand new outboards, and the first of those was a 25 hp Johnson, and even if it wasn't the best outboard ever (oh, the sound of it...), I still was very proud of it and kindof miss it.

I actually just talked to a Johnson dealer about the future of the brand, he didn't tell me much, he did tell me what I heard before, that a contract between Suzuki and BRP came to an end in 2006, and as such hasn't been renewed. Now if I was a manager at Suzuki making deals with OMC or BRP regarding re-branded four-strokes, I would include an articel in the contract forbidding the customer (OMC/BRP) to bring non-Suzuki four storkes to the market during the time when the contract is valid and for some time after that, perhaps two to four years. If I'm right, BRP doesn't have the right to bring new four storke outboards to the market before, say, next year.

But does BRP want to support two different technologies for outboards? Honda and Suzuki do not. Tohatsu does, but who knows what kind of a deal they have with Brunswick. Yamaha does, but really, from my point of view, the haven't done THAT much for the HPDI line-up in the last few years. Anyone is free to disagree.

What in my opinion speaks for BRP ”re-entering” the four stroke market is the fact that BRP includes Rotax. (I don't know if this has been in the new in the US, but when HD wanted a new motor for their new Buell sportsbike, they teamed up with Rotax.) BRP of course already have four storke marine engines in their jetskies and what-do-you-call-them-boats, even supercharged ones, no less. One would think that would be of some help if wanting to put new four storke outboards on the market.

However, and this could also make a nice case study for an MBA program, if BRP will re-enter the Johnson brand to the outboard market, it's clear they cannot step on the toes of their current main brand Evinrude (ref. all the talk about Optimax vs. Verado). So what will they do, what should they do? I'm just hoping they will not make Johnson a marketing brand for even cheaper four strokes from the far east. Better let the brand RIP... And an also-ran to Honda/Suzuki/Yamaha four strokes would just be soooo boring, would it not?

posted 09-23-2007 09:24 AM ET (US)            

Marketing with two brands was a very traditional (and successful) technique in America in the decades following the 1950's. General Motors was the master of it. They had a succession of brands, all of which were often just about identical mechanically, and differed only by paint colors, styling, and marketing. You could buy cars in a succession of brands, from Chevrolet, to Pontiac, to Buick, to Oldsmobile, to Cadillac, and you really got just about the same product, but dressed slightly differently. At one point it got so ridiculous that Cadillac had a small sedan, the Cimarron, that was clearly just a Chevy with better tail lights and hubcabs. And everyone knew it. (See the hyperlinked article for confirmation.) Even Mercury got into the multiple branding, introducing a Mariner line of motors to coexist with their Mercury brand.

As far as a study for an MBA paper, I am fairly certain that the whole concept of multiple brands was driven by the desire to get as many retail outlets for the product as possible. OMC could have a Johnson dealer on one side of the lake and an Evinrude dealer on the other.

This multiple brand marketing of very similar products now has begun to fade, and you can see it in automobile marketing. General Motors has already eliminated the Oldsmobile brand, and, if their presence at the latest auto show is any indication, Pontiac and Buick brands are receiving much diminished attention. The brands that remain, like Chevrolet and Cadillac, now have very distinctively different products.

In this respect, for Bombardier to stop selling the same outboard motor under two brand names, Johnson and Evinrude, is not a big surprise. And for Bombardier to choose Evinrude as the primary brand is no surprise, either. As I said, even as an 8-year-old in the 1950's I could tell that Evinrude motors were cooler than Johnson motors.

As far as providing a Japanese manufacturer with an entry point into the North American outboard market, I am certain that every word written about Bombardier and Suzuki can be also ascribed to Mercury and Yamaha. Mercury has had a much longer relationship with Yamaha and has been selling their motors under the Mercury brand name for decades. It is only this year, 2007, that Mercury finally stopped buying its four-stroke motors from Yamaha.

As for "dumping" motors, I believe that some of those 4,000 units of Yamaha 225-HP four-stroke motors, which Mercury bought to fill a huge gap in their product line when the Verado motor was not ready for production, are still around and being sold at significantly reduced prices.

As for what value remains in the Johnson brand name and how Bombardier intends to take advantage of it, I cannot say. I do not think it is a serious loss for them. Some owners of Oldsmobile automobiles were quite surprised to discover that they had a Chevrolet engine under their hood instead of an "Oldsmobile Rocket V8," but in the main OMC outboard buyers had never been led to believe there was any special magic in their Johnson-branded motor. They already knew it was just an Evinrude with a different paint job.

posted 09-23-2007 07:15 PM ET (US)            

Ford Group Vice President Derrick Kuzak, as quoted in the DETROIT FREE PRESS on August 24, 2007:

posted 09-24-2007 03:01 AM ET (US)            

Regarding selling Johnson outboards overseas: what do you mean? As BRP sells Johnson outboards at least in the EU, do you think Evinrude should be the North American brand and the rest of us would get Johnson? If so, I really don’t understand why? (After all, we now even get Korean cars branded as Chevy… )

Also, here in the EU we have both Mercury and Mariner outboards, I guess the idea originally was to get more sales, just as Jim said regarding Evinrude and Johnson dealerships.

By the way, check out the look of the Mariner Verado outboards, for example on www.marineroutboards.co.uk. Some may like the full black of Mercury, but given the choice I would go with the Black/Silver/Red Mariner for sure!

Jim, I know you are right, but I’m still feeling some nostalgia. Evinrude and Johnson, they were a team, a dynamic duo, like Batman and Robin, even when it was only a matter of colors and brand name. I guess I’ll have to settle for just Batman…

posted 09-24-2007 04:38 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Evinrude struggles to keep up with continual new product innovation and introductions from Mercury Optimax and Yamaha HPDI

---

Yamaha is down to one model in it's HDPI line, the 200 2.6L HPDI. New product innovation? Yamaha is killing the HPDI faster than it's killing the conventional 2-stroke line. When I was motor shopping a few years ago, none of the dealers had one in stock, nor would they order one for me. Sounds like product innovation to me. Note that warranty on the HPDI is only 2 years, vs. 3 on Yamaha's comparable 4-stroke motors.

posted 09-24-2007 05:44 PM ET (US)         

You will see HPDI's in 150, 175, 200 (2 block sizes), 225, 250 and 300. There is also a brand new "Series 2" 2nd generation V-Max, in 200, 225, 250 and 300 HP. It is interesting to see that Yamaha believes the "Offshore" market (25" and 30" engines) to be moving to all 4-stroke, and not attempting to compete with the Mercury Optimax and the 250/300XS offerings from Mercury racing.

Where is badly needed E-tec "Generation 2", and true 250 and 300 HP models? Evinrude needs better fuel economy, acceleration and top end to compete with the Merc and Yam DFI ongoing Research and Development.

posted 09-25-2007 02:30 AM ET (US)            

One would have to say that at least for that one fisherman product branding really worked!

L H G, a few thoughts that comes to me when reading your reply:

The Yamaha F350 V8 sure must have been a big project, but in a way I think they were smart and managed to get some outside money for that one: the development of the Volvo 4.4 liter V8 used in the XC90 SUV. Base on tech specs the two engines does not seem all that different, for example:

F350 vs. Volvo 4.4:

Displacement: 325.3 ci (5 330 cc) vs. 296.4 (4 414 cc)
Bore x stroke: 3.70 x 3.78 in vs. 3.70 x 3.13 in
‘Rated power’: 350 hp @ 5 500 rpm vs. 311 hp @ 5 850 rpm

I didn’t check, but I’m 99% sure both are 60 degree V8:s.

The Volvo engine was, as you know, the first to come out. Some car magazines were very surprised that Volvo got the green light from Ford to buy the new V8 design form Yamaha, as Ford should not be that short on knowledge on who to design a modern V8 them slews. I think the key to the background is that Volvo got the design from Yamaha for a ‘special price’, as Yamaha saw how they could use some of the work for their outboard division. Synergies…

The US bass boat market is huge, isn't it? It sure seems to me that’s what keeping HPDI alive. And as a result, we also get some V-Max HPDI:s over here, which is nice!

-Seb

posted 09-25-2007 02:28 PM ET (US)         

The difference between Mercury buying 75-115 4-stroke POWERHEADS from Yamaha, and Johnson having Suzuki paint them some white Suzuki 4-strokes, is that the Mercury purchase was a stop gap 2-way deal, where Merc developed and sold the 30-60HP 4-stroke powerheads to Yamaha (40-60 still being sold to Yamaha), while Yamaha developed the 75-115 powerheads to be sold to Merc. During this time MERCURY WAS BRINGING THEIR OWN 75-115's into development. Bombardier did no such thing, with no R & D spent for successor 4-strokes of their own once the 1-way Suzuki deal ended. A dead end, and let down and death blow for Johnson, whereas Mercury is alive and well in the 4-stroke business on a long term basis, and actually having jumped into the lead in 4-stroke engine technology. I understand a 350HP Verado L6 is just around the corner, a full 200# lighter than the Yamaha 350, and faster accelerating. Nor does Yamaha have any 275 or 300 HP 4-stroke offerings. I have also wondered if Mercury has any plans for a 3.4 liter Verado platform V-8. If so, that could be good for an easy 400 HP.

posted 09-29-2007 04:32 PM ET (US)            

Simply not true. The Bass and Walleye Mag, 200 DFI shootout, declared the E-TEC 200 HO as the winner in top end speed.
This was against Yamaha's V-Max, HPDI 200, and Merc's 200 Opti.
I know what you're thinking, if Merc made a Pro XS 200, maybe the results would've been different. But the fact is, the regular Opti 200 is the only 200 DFI they have. So as of now, the 200 DFI top end speed title, goes to Evinrude.

I couldn't resist one other thing...;-)
LHG stated:
"Then there is Yamaha's considerable R & D on the new 350 V8, which, incidentally is now standand with Yamaha's own "Command Link" DTS. Another area of technology where Evinrude is seriously behind Merc, Yamaha and Suzuki. There may be, however, a vendor out there offering this technology they can buy it from, similar to what they do with the power trim units."

I guess the same comparison could be made to the DFI technology currently being used. Yamaha and Evinrude developed, and produce their own DFI systems. This is an area that Merc must have been overwhelmed by, as they have had to rely on Orbital Systems of Autralia, to provide them with the DFI system they use.

posted 09-30-2007 11:19 AM ET (US)            

You are correct. I owned a 1971 Evinrude 100 for 15 years oowering my 1965 Sakonnet.

It had the old Morse MT-1 to actuate the switch that shifted the gears. The system was designed so that if there was a power failure to the shift solenoid at the lower unit, the engine was in forward gear.

It was a really nice smooth system. Virtually effortless shifts.

posted 10-02-2007 11:39 PM ET (US)            

And with respect to Bombardier, wouldn't that have to be L'Alouette Quarante (Lark Forty) for a model name?

But all joking aside, the shifting, even in a Verado with DTS, is still mechanical. There is an electric actuator connected to create the mechanical movement that accomplishes the shift. The new invention in the DTS is the digital control link. The electrical actuator is controlled by a digital system. But there is nothing special about that, either.

What is special about DTS is the ability to install supervision or intelligence into the digital realm of the controls. This enables the rather nice shadow-control feature where two levers can control three engines. It also puts in safe guards about what speed ranges can be tolerated for shifting in and out of gear. And it can implement automatic synchronization. That part of DTS earns a tip of the hat, not the simple fact that it is electrical or digital.

The fact that the Verado shifts smoothly really has nothing to do with DTS, either. That smoothness is another mechanical improvement. Mercury redesigned their gear cases to take that CLUNK out of them. You don't remove CLUNK with electronics; you fix it with better gears and clutches.

posted 10-03-2007 08:26 AM ET (US)            

No, Merc never bought Orbital.

posted 10-08-2007 08:29 PM ET (US)            

One of the sources of the additional weight of the REVOLUTION4 is the hub snout or extension. As compared to any of the other dozen or so propellers I have tried, the REVOLUTION4 has a very long extension of the hub aft beyond the blades. This portion of the propeller is not really subject to any stress--at least as far as I can see--but on the REVOLUTION4 this part of the hub is made from the same thick stainless steel that anchors the base of the blades. It has to add two or three pounds to the weight of the propeller.

I think you could manufacture a propeller with blade shape and size similar to the REVOLUTION4 and cut the weight down quite a bit.

Mercury seems to have recognized that some of their propellers need some help and have made improvements to the FLO-TORQ mounting system which helps to reduce the CLUNK. The FLO-TORQ IV hub is an improvement, but it is expensive (about three times the cost) and is only made for Mercury propeller shafts.

Ironically, I just spent three days underway with a Mercury propeller and a FLO-TORQ II hub on my OMC gear case. The propeller was a three-blade MIRAGEplus, which weighs quite a bit less than the four-blade REVOLUTION4, But even with the lighter weight, the Mercury MIRAGEplus makes quite a clunk when shifting. In contrast, there is no clunk when using an OMC SST propeller of similar size and weight. I attribute the difference to the rubber cushioned hub, which makes for smoother shifts than the FLO-TORQ II.

posted 10-09-2007 10:09 AM ET (US)            

I will come to the defense of the Rev 4 propeller, at least for use with twin outboards. It definitely carries a heavy boat like the 27 Whaler WD well with little blow out in rough seas. It's very different than the Mirage Plus which I have now found on two different Whalers, the 27 WD and now the 18 Outrage to be exact, to be just an absolutely lousy rough water propeller.