posted 12-02-2007 09:37 AM ET (US)        

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/images/ETEC/ 4fuelRails480x640.jpg

The new style injector, seen here on a just-built E-TEC 250 H.O. motor, is slightly changed:

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/images/ETEC300/ETEC300injectors457x480. jpg

The most obvious difference is that the word "E-TEC" is now embossed onto the top of the injector. I have heard--unofficially--that the injector is going to be used on some other Bombardier products, and those divisions wanted some visual identification on the device to distinguish it as an E-TEC feature. They wanted the E-TEC name embossed on the injector cover.

Another change that can be seen is the deletion of the two cast towers on one side of the injector housing. These were threaded and held machine screws which retained an ignition coil on some models.

posted 12-03-2007 08:03 PM ET (US)            

"The most obvious difference is that the word "E-TEC" is now embossed onto the top of the injector. I have heard--unofficially--that the injector is going to be used on some other Bombardier products, and those divisions wanted some visual identification on the device to distinguish it as an E-TEC feature."

posted 12-05-2007 04:12 AM ET (US)            

I have gone back and looked at the Evinrude site and it appears that the most important aspect of this technology is the injectors. Rather than the more complicated HPDI or high pressure Optimax, it's injectors are markedly different and simplier in how they adomize the fuel/oil mixture and the swirl pattern which result in a cleaner burn.

It is most interesting to me that this technology can inject and burn a gasoline/oil mixture and do it cleaner than a 4 stroke which injects gasoline alone.

It is pretty astounding and I wonder if this BRP technology can be directly applied to 4 stroke/cycle motors everywhere. That would be a huge impact in the marketplace and it seems to be only injector related to get that postive effect.

It would seem to eliminate the emmissions threat that may require additional meansures to stern drives like cathletic converter and everything else.

Any thoughts?

posted 12-05-2007 09:28 PM ET (US)            

Regardless of that, some, alittle or none, isn't it interesting that the E-tec injectors can inject the gasoline and burn it so cleanly without the high pressures needed by other DFIs? That, I think is the critical point.

Three Star rated from the beginning on all models at a time when other DFIs are doing it in a more complex way or dropping models.

Three Star rated from the beginning of this technology and doing it cleaner than 4 stroke which have no issue of any oil in the gasoline.

I wonder if this less complicated injector technology could be licensed to work on 4 strokes anywhere, including conventional stern drive engines (GM engines) and have them burn clean enough to avoid the complication of cathletic converters which are on the horizon.

posted 12-05-2007 10:31 PM ET (US)         

Does anyone know why this is so, other than XSTECH, who I assume would tell us that the secret of the Optimax economy is the additional air injection? If the fuel only E-tec injector is so clean, it sould seem logical that it would get the best fuel economy, but instead it gets the worst. Better fuel economy means even cleaner, since less gasoline is burned to emit pollutants.

posted 12-06-2007 09:18 AM ET (US)            

The amount of fuel burned has nothing to do with the measured emissions output.

Emissions is measured at five mode points. Idle to WOT.

They measure HC and NOx in grams per kilowhatt/ hour.

In general, the leaner a motor runs, the lower the HC output is, but the higher the NOx output is. And the NOx goes up much quicker than the HC goes down. Thus, a higher GPH motor with tend to measure lower in emissions output,(3 Star) where a low GPH motor will then to have a higher measured emissions (2 Star)

However (and here comes the Merc plug) it really comes down to how well (complete/clean) you burn the fuel that you use. This can be affected by porting, head chamber shape, etc,etc. But there are two very important factors in a DI engine that have a great effect on emissions. These are droplet size of the fuel, and control of the fuel plume in stratified and homogenious mode. This is where the air assist Orbital system has the advantage. The droplet size is generaly half the size of other injection systems. This makes the plume easier to light in ultra lean conditions (less lean missfire) and you get a more complete burn. The computer used by Merc is very powerfull. And when coupled with the two stage injector system give very fine control of the fuel plume, both at idle and at high RPM.

posted 12-06-2007 09:36 AM ET (US)            

Data on fuel economy when derived from boat tests includes the influence of the hull and propeller. To compare only the engines would require some sort of dynamometer testing. Perhaps that data is available in the EPA laboratory test information.

Fuel economy comparisons also have shown an advantage for the E-TEC engine at certain speed ranges, notably at idle or slow speed operation.

In the overall cost of boating, a variation in fuel economy of a few percent at selected engine operating speeds may not be a factor whose weight is sufficient to over ride all others.

posted 12-06-2007 10:52 AM ET (US)            

http://www.orbeng.com.au/orbital/directinjection/csbpr.htm

Bombardier, the world's leading personal watercraft (PWC) manufacturer, launched its Sea-Doo™ GTX™ DI and Sea-Doo™ RX DI models in 2000. These were the first personal watercrafts to employ Orbital OCP™ technology, leading the way to cleaner waterways and better fuel efficiency. This was followed by further Orbital DI models including a range of sports boats some of which employed OptiMax™ engines from Mercury Marine.

Sea-Doo™ engines, when equipped with OCP technology, operate up to 70% cleaner and provide at least 30% improvement in fuel efficiency over traditional carburetted 2-strokes. Sea-Doo™ watercrafts include a number of value-added features made possible by Orbital's smart usage of electronics and software. One example is the exclusive "Learning Key", a specially encoded lanyard key which restricts vehicle speed for beginners and other less experienced riders. Another innovation on the Sea-Doo™ is the detonation sensor, where Orbital software protects the engine from damage if, for example, incorrect fuel is used.

The Sea-Doo™ DI range has won several industry awards including Watercraft World's "Watercraft of the Year" for 2000.

posted 12-06-2007 10:56 AM ET (US)            

http://www.orbeng.com.au/orbital/directinjection/motorcycle2s.htm

The technology developed and introduced for the marine market has been simplified for 2 stroke scooter and motorcycle application. The scooter market is very cost sensitive and specific development has been undertaken to achieve the low cost systems required.

Since 2000, Orbital's motorcycle system has been in production on European 2 stroke scooters, followed by introduction on the Taiwan domestic market on 2005.

Further product is scheduled for release in India on 3 wheeler autorickshaws.

Direct injection on the 2 stroke scooter offers the following benefits to the end user:

lower exhaust emissions
improved fuel economy
enhanced performance
The one Orbital motorcycle system is capable of providing the performance, fuel economy and emission control to suit the various global market requirements.

In the European market, the Orbital systems enable the manufacturers to maintain the performance level of the traditional 2 stroke engine whilst meeting the ever increasing emission control requirements.

In India and other key Asian countries, the key requirement is improved fuel economy. The Orbital systems achieve between 30 to 40% fuel economy improvement on the autorickshaw, and localisation of supply has been implemented to achieve the cost targets required in this region.

More recent developments have been to address the requirements of the niche very high performance market such as Enduro and Trail motorcycles. The Orbital systems have achieved emission control with performance levels up to 140 kW/litre and 160 nm/litre.

In addition, the system can enable 'multi-fuel' capability for spark ignition of diesel, kerosene and/or gasoline for motorcycle applications.

posted 12-06-2007 11:20 AM ET (US)            

"The technology developed and introduced for the marine market has been simplified for 2 stroke scooter and motorcycle application".

So after having been simplified, is it still the same technology that you see on an Optimax? In other words, does it have the noisy belt driven air compressor injection system?

posted 12-06-2007 10:01 PM ET (US)            

ENGINE
Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rotax® twin-cylinder,
Orbital¥ Direct injection
with R.A.V.E. exhaust

posted 12-06-2007 11:39 PM ET (US)            

Bombardier developed and patented the E-TEC injector. They also developed and patented the electronic control circuitry they use. This circuitry is quite ingenious. It utilizes some of the energy stored in the magnetic field of the injector coil to power the movement of the injector in the returning direction when the field changes polarity. All of this was developed by Evinrude engineers and patented.

Historically OMC looked at the Orbital Combustion Process for use in an outboard, but they did not follow through with it. Instead they switched to a different technology, the Ficht injector. OMC developed outboards with Ficht technology, which was owned by a German firm (named Ficht, obviously). Eventually, OMC bought the injector technology from Ficht, so they no longer had to license it.

The E-TEC was developed in-house at Evinrude. It is a different type of injector than the Ficht, at least as far as the coil design. As for the precise details of the portion of the injector that actually move or pushes the fuel out of the injector nozzle, I can't speak to that. It might be related to the Ficht design--someone more familiar than me will have to elaborate.

There has been a long standing effort by people who want to defame Evinrude as a brand to try to call the E-TEC injector just a "marketing" name change from Ficht. Apparently they believe that there is a lot of negativity about the name Ficht which they want to associate with the name E-TEC.

We need to look at these attempts in two ways. First, is there something about Ficht which was so awful that it can pack a punch? And second, is there really no difference between E-TEC and Ficht other than the name?

There is some history of engine failures associated with OMC era Evinrude motors with the Ficht injectors. These failures are often cited as leading directly to the demise of OMC. In the mind of some boaters, the name Ficht probably does have negative connotation. At least that's true among the mudslingers who want to paint E-TEC with the Ficht name. The irony in this is that many owners of Ficht engines built in the Bombardier era of production are very happy with their motors and have gotten years of fine service from them with no problems.

Next, it seems to me be intentionally misleading to try to assert that E-TEC is just a Ficht engine with a name change. The E-TEC engine adds many new features which were never seen in a Ficht, and it uses a different fuel injector as well. In my opinion, an E-TEC is called an E-TEC because it is a significantly different engine than a Ficht, and there is no reasonable basis to try to claim the name is just "marketing" and nothing else. Anyone who tries to defame the E-TEC as "just marketing" is trying to spread FUD.

posted 12-07-2007 09:50 AM ET (US)            

7,164,984 Method and system for fuel injector time delay installation

posted 12-07-2007 12:47 PM ET (US)            

I also believe that the engine management module tracks the age of each injector, and additional compensations are applied to the injector as it ages. The compensations are probably based on some algorithm of predicted wear based on testing. In this way, the engine performance can be maintained over a longer period of time, even though there is some inevitable mechanical wear in the injector.

posted 12-07-2007 01:37 PM ET (US)            

United States Patent 7113862

posted 12-07-2007 01:42 PM ET (US)            

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7113862-description.html

posted 12-07-2007 01:54 PM ET (US)            

I found this section most interesting:

"The advanced fuel injector are very complicated and difficult to manufacture and therefore it is very difficult to have consistent operating characteristics between injectors even though they are intended to be substantially identical. Further, although varying pulse width of a control signal is used to vary the amount of fuel an injector provides to a cylinder (hereinafter referred to as fuel flow or flow rate), a performance curve of these complicated fuel injectors (fuel flow vs. pulse width) cannot be accurately defined by a second-order polynomial as can some older types of fuel injectors. Instead, the advanced fuel injectors must be defined by a third-order polynomial. Consequently, determining the pulse width for a desired RPM by extrapolating between sample data points does not provide satisfactory performance. By calculating the pulse width for each fuel injector individually for each desired RPM setting, substantially increased effectiveness of these advanced complicated fuel injectors can be achieved."

posted 12-07-2007 02:00 PM ET (US)            

"Accordingly, each fuel injector is tested on a test flow bench by applying a signal pulse having a selected minimum width and then measuring the fuel flow rate. The pulse width is then increased a known amount and the resulting fuel flow rate again is measured. The process is repeated a number of times, such as 8 to 10 times, to obtain a series of data points which relate pulse width to a fuel flow rate.

posted 12-07-2007 05:40 PM ET (US)            

XS Tech has helped quite a few here with questions about their Mercury motors. While I read his posts with the filter on, given his predisposition to Mercury motors, I do value his numerous contributions; especially from a technical perspective.

Other than some folks here calling each other names, etc. This has been an extremely interesting thread to read.

posted 12-07-2007 09:26 PM ET (US)            

Compared to the Ficht Injector, the 2003-era E-TEC injector:

--is smaller
--is lighter
--has 25-percent fewer parts
--has 50-percent fewer parts with critical tolerances
--has a die-cast alloy outer housing
--uses a heavy non-moving permanent magnet (instead of fixed electro-magnet in the Ficht)
--uses a lightweight moving voice coil (instead of metal solenoid in the Ficht)
--can operate at up to 10,000-RPM (compared with 7,500-RPM for Ficht)
--can produce up to 80-HP per cylinder (compared to 45-HP for Ficht)
--operates in 0.0025 seconds (compared with 0.0050 seconds for Ficht)
--can produce fuel pressure of over 600-PSI (compared to 450-PSI for Ficht)

These are just the differences between the injectors in the older Ficht engines and the c.2003 E-TEC engines. Again, there are many other improvements and features in the rest of the engine system which further differentiate the E-TEC from the older Ficht motors. Please keep this mind the next time you read someone saying that the E-TEC is just a marketing ploy to re-name Ficht.

Now there are some differences in the 2008 E-TEC injector from the c.2003 E-TEC injector. I am trying to get more information about the details. It appears that at a minimum the 2008 E-TEC injector:

--has a different shape and angle of the nose which enters into the cylinder; this prevents it from being used on older motors. The cylinder head has to be machined for this new design in the injector.

--has a check valve with a ball valve in the plunger which is supposed to improve the precision and consistency of the fuel delivery, particularly at higher speeds. Higher speed operation, by the way, may be related to applications other than outboard motors, which may need even higher crankshaft speeds from the engine. An engine speed of 10,000-RPM is not unusual in some applications in which Bombardier manufacturers engines and products.

--has eliminated the castings for attachment of the spark coil. This is probably related to the coincident announcement of an entirely new inductive ignition system for the E-TEC in 2008, replacing the capacitor discharge ignition. Again, more details are being sought about this innovation in the E-TEC ignition system, and when this information is available it will be presented in a separate article.

--appears (to me) to be slightly smaller and slightly different in shape.

--has the E-TEC name embossed on the housing.

posted 12-08-2007 08:06 AM ET (US)            

With respect to wall wetting management, don't forget to mention the W shaped piston bowl, see U.S. Patent 6,892,693 for a "Piston for spark-ignited direct fuel injection engine".

Then there is also U.S. Patent 7,267,533 for a "Plunger assembly for use in reciprocating fluid pump employing reversing polarity motor".

This is a bit off subject but as I came across the above patents I also came across this.... U.S. Patent 6,964,254 for "Apparatus and method of conditioning an engine for storage". I guess we won't be seeing the E-TEC's auto-storage (winterization) method being used on an Optimax anytime soon, about 2024 by my calculation.

posted 12-08-2007 09:57 AM ET (US)            

[Unattributed quotation follows, which appears to be taken from page 10 of the SAE paper mentioned above, "Optimization of the E-TEC™ Combustion System for Direct-Injected Two-Stroke Engines Toward 3-Star Emissions," by Sebastian Strauss, Yangbing Zeng and David T. Montgomery, Boats and Outboard Engines Division Bombardier Recreational Products--jimh]

"The shape of the bowl mimics the torroidal vortex that is
formed at the leading edge of the fuel spray as a result
of the entrainment flow. It thus helps to maintain the
spray induced flow structures and improves mixing. The
surface area of the bowl is increased significantly and
the raised tip in the middle has a comparatively high
surface temperature. The bowl depth increased, thus
increasing impingement distance and helping to shield
residual hydrocarbons from being scavenged out."

posted 12-08-2007 11:01 AM ET (US)            

The more I read about the technology of the E-TEC the more I become aware of just how different it is from the Ficht era motors. When E-TEC first appeared there was some confusion about its legitimacy as a new technology. Initially there was not as much information available about the E-TEC technology as we have access to now. It is clear that the E-TEC was created as a result of some excellent research and development by Evinrude engineers who were able to make significant refinements in direct-injection technology, particularly with regard to exhaust gas emissions.

posted 12-09-2007 09:04 PM ET (US)            

Easy.

Model year.

posted 12-09-2007 09:32 PM ET (US)            

And, yes, when a new model comes out, the old model is obsolete.

posted 12-10-2007 09:42 AM ET (US)            

--the 2008 E-TEC injector cannot be retrofitted on older engines; this is due to the design of the injector head that enters the cylinder head.

--the 2008 E-TEC injector has different internals than the previous E-TEC injector; there is a ball check valve in the fuel path which is said to improve the consistency and precision of the fuel injection at very high speeds.

When a product is obsolete it does not mean that it suddenly stops working or suddenly loses the qualities and characteristics it possessed when new. Obsolete means "not current;" obsolete does not mean "discard due to failure."

posted 12-10-2007 10:55 AM ET (US)            

LOL, you know the answer to that question. OMC used and now BRP uses the model year code system "INTRODUCES". This is a two letter code at the end of the model designation.

I-N-T-R-O-D-U-C-E-S
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0

For example, the model designation of my 1985 Johnson 140 was J140TXCO. The "CO" at the end of the model code or designation stands for 85 as in model year 1985.

The model designation of my 2003 Johnson 150 ends with "ST"

The model designation of my 2002 Evinrudes end with "SN".

posted 12-10-2007 12:09 PM ET (US)            

The prior representations made herein that the new injector is only found on 2008 model year motors is confirmed by looking at the on-line parts catalog. The injector for the 2008 E-TEC 225 has a different part number than the injector for the 2005 though 2007 model years. The drawing for 2008 is also different. Particularly noticible in the drawing for 2008 is that the housing says "E-TEC", which is not shown in the drawings for 2005 to 2007 model years.

So with respect to the other question --"Are there 2007 model E-Tecs with the new injector?" -- the answer seems to be a fairly clear NO. There appears to be a nice bright, consistent line drawn down the 2007 to 2008 model year divide.

posted 12-10-2007 12:14 PM ET (US)            

Thank you for clarifying that.

When will the last 2007 model E-Tec be manufactured?

When will the first 2008 model E-Tec be manufactured?

posted 12-10-2007 02:26 PM ET (US)            

I think your reasoning about the applicability of the E-Tec injector is sound. It may well find itself in use on other pieces of equipment, say, snow machines. But because we talk about Boston Whalers here and, by extension, the power plants that propel them, I don't see (or have) a lot of interest in snow machines. That may explain the lack of comments about the E-Tec injector in use on pieces of BRP equipment that have nothing to do with Boston Whalers.

Now, you say you saw a 2008 model E-Tec in May of this year? Peter said the model year change over was in July. Furthermore, he said he is only "guessing" that the E-Tecs being made now are 2008 models. Might they be 2009 models? I am confused.

You also say the new E-Tec injector was originally manufactured without the "E-TEC" embossed on the cover of it? But Peter has said we can tell if the old injectors are on a motor by the lack of said embossed name. Now I am more confused.

posted 12-10-2007 02:42 PM ET (US)            

NO! That is NOT what I said. What I said was:

"[I]f you pop the cowl off of an E-TEC and see that the injectors say "E-TEC" as shown in the picture, apparently that E-TEC has the new injectors and any other modifications that go along with the use of those newly minted injectors."

Restated: If you see the "E-TEC" on the injector, you've got the GEN II injector.

posted 12-10-2007 06:22 PM ET (US)            

Who cares? Really?

Any of you think the changes are such you could tell a difference if you had a chance to operate separate boats with each injector?

posted 12-10-2007 06:58 PM ET (US)            

Evinrude sure made that a simple task....

Refresh my memory now, how does one go about selecting the most up to date motor when purchasing an outboard from a manufacturer who has done away with the model year designations?

posted 12-10-2007 07:22 PM ET (US)            

>>>>>>Can somebody tell me how one knows if they have an E-Tec motor with the new or old injector? Can somebody tell me what month and year this change occurred?<<<<<<<<
<
<

The older version injector had the ignition coil mounted on it. The newer style does not have any threaded bosses for it. Now that is simple, isn't it????

posted 12-10-2007 09:06 PM ET (US)            

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/005854.html