posted 08-03-2009 09:25 PM ET (US)        

In the 6-day cruise with the carburetor motor we tried to run the boat at the point of optimum fuel economy on plane as much as possible. On the 7-day cruise with the E-TEC we ran the boat primarily at the speed that gave us the best ride in the sea conditions. We did not particularly try to run on plane only at the optimum fuel economy point.

The overall fuel economy average with the carburetor motor was 1.85-MPG. With the E-TEC, the overall fuel economy average was 3.1-MPG.

The improvement in fuel economy was 67-percent.

It is important to note that my fuel flow gauge tends to overstate the fuel used, so the actual fuel economy for the trip was probably even better than 3.1-MPG. I will be installing some more accurate fuel flow instrumentation in the future. I hope to be able to give data with more absolute accuracy. However, this comparative data should be quite accurate.

posted 08-04-2009 12:16 AM ET (US)            

By 6 p.m. Wednesday we were on the Detroit River taking a quick test drive. We ran the motor for about ten minutes, then hauled out.

Thursday the boat was idle, but I was busy refitting all the gear I had removed to simplify the rigging process. I had removed all sorts of stuff so that the rigging could be accomplished very easily. I had to put the boat back together, which took all evening after work

Friday we loaded all our cruising gear, which seemed like 500-lbs of stuff.

Saturday we drove 320 miles to Georgian Bay, launched, and went cruising.

It was really a rush to get all this done in time for vacation. I will have more time in the next few weeks to get speed and RPM data and work on the propeller selection. I expect that a 17-pitch REBEL or CYCLONE (four-blade) will be good starting points.

About the color: I had always been in favor of a white motor, as the boat had a white Evinrude before, which I thought looked very nice. The blue H.O. motor at first was a shock to me, but eventually I became fond of the blue color scheme, too. In the end, I went with my initial preference and got the white motor. (Actually, for model year 2010 a 225-HP with 25-inch shaft is only available in white, so it wasn't much of choice.)

posted 08-04-2009 12:34 AM ET (US)            

We tried to baby the new motor and keep it off wide-open, but about the fifth day of the cruise--we had 25-hours on the motor by then--I did briefly push the throttle to the maximum. We hit 5,700-RPM and were still winding up when I pulled back to go around a hazard.

posted 08-04-2009 07:02 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The old 17-pitch propeller I was running (again, the same propeller to keep the comparison to the previous cruise as congruent as possible) is not the most efficient propeller for pushing the boat when heavily loaded.

---

posted 08-04-2009 07:50 AM ET (US)            

I was not really in favor of mounting one-hole up for the new E-TEC, as my experience with the Whaler Drive seemed to indicate that the mounting height was already rather high with the engine mounted right on the transom. However, Douglas and Dave were very strongly recommending trying one-hole up. I acceded to their recommendation, and the engine went on the boat one-hole up from the lowest position.

The propeller, an older SST 17, had been tested several times before. My comments about were:

"This propeller showed a slight tendency toward ventilation....It could not be run with as much trim out as the baseline propeller."

Cf.: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004799.html

"The SST propeller did not have the holding power of [other propellers tested]. We had to run the engine at lower trim, particularly while getting up on plane, in order to prevent the propeller from loosing grip."

Cf: http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/propellerWDSingle.html

On the new E-TEC and even with mounting higher than before, the propeller seemed to hold better and had less ventilation. I was particularly pleased that it did not ventilate while we were slogging our way upwind in 6-foot confused seas during one ten mile offshore stretch where the Georgian Bay Small Craft Route has to leave the confines of the coastal barrier islands and ventures into open water. These were probably the largest and most confused seas we had ever been in with the boat, and there was no ventilation of the propeller. Of course, we had the engine trimmed way down. But the propeller never blew out. I think the new Magnum Straight Leading Edge (M2 SLE) gear case design may have helped prevent ventilation. The propeller seemed to have more grip than it did before.

posted 08-04-2009 08:27 AM ET (US)            

Congratulations on the new motor. That is a fabulous photo. She sits very well and looks great. You must say who took the photo. You might want to submit it for Jeff's calendar.

posted 08-04-2009 08:32 AM ET (US)            

There are two KNOCK SENSORS, one for each cylinder bank. When knock, or pre-ignition in the combustion chamber is detected, the engine management module (EMM) responds with enrichment of the fuel mix and alteration of the ignition timing. I believe the knock sensor was added to help compensate for the wide variety of gasoline quality being used with the marine engines these days, and also to help handle high load situations where knock can occur due to operating conditions.

The KNOCK SENSOR addition is typical of the continuing research, development, and refinement that Bombardier is providing in the E-TEC engine. The E-TEC is a truly modern engine, with an EMM with millions of transistors. It is a simple matter to take advantage of the power of those millions of transistors and add new features like this knock sensor. This is the true power of the modern engine with modern electronic computer controls. The engine can now adjust itself dynamically to changing situations of fuel and load demands.

posted 08-04-2009 08:42 AM ET (US)            

I took the photograph. The setting is the W or "wall" dock at KILLBEAR MARINA in Pengally Bay, near Parry Sound. The sun was very low and gave great lighting.

Behind the boat is a marshy area that has a large population of bullfrogs, mosquitoes, and at least one large black water snake, which we met when it was coiled up amid my black dock lines.

posted 08-04-2009 12:11 PM ET (US)            

That new Etec is purportioned beautifully on your 22wt. Looking forward to more perfomance reports and pictures. Wishing you many happy hours of boating.

posted 08-04-2009 01:11 PM ET (US)            

Congratulations on your new ETEC. It look great on your boat. Sort of like mine :)

posted 08-04-2009 01:21 PM ET (US)            

While that may be intuitively true and there may be a small effect as described, I can tell you from experience that at least on the 90 HP model, you can still lose traction and ventilate the propellers in challenging sea conditions.

The benefit of two motors is that when one loses traction, the other one is still pushing away.

posted 08-04-2009 06:23 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I believe the knock sensor was added to help compensate for the wide variety of gasoline quality being used with the marine engines these days, and also to help handle high load situations where knock can occur due to operating conditions.

The KNOCK SENSOR addition is typical of the continuing research, development, and refinement that Bombardier is providing in the E-TEC engine.

---

posted 08-04-2009 09:05 PM ET (US)            

The boat looks great with the E-TEC. I think the non-HO was the right choice for your boat.

Good luck with it.

posted 08-04-2009 11:25 PM ET (US)            

LOOKING GOOD!!!! She's awesome

posted 08-05-2009 10:40 PM ET (US)            

That is a mighty impressive increase. Do you have a sense if the biggest savings was from time spent at idle, or when cruising.

Put another way, what did your fuel flow meter show as your best MPG while on plane, and how does that compare to your old engine at a similar speed?

I know the etecs are amazing at idle speeds compared to old two-strokes.

posted 08-05-2009 11:12 PM ET (US)            

Average Fuel Mileage: Proper Weighting Factors
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/averageMPG.html

The weighing of the overall average is in proportion to the amount of fuel burned at each rate. This mean, if carried to extreme, that an engine that burned no fuel at all at idle, would hardly have its total fuel economy affected by that fantastic fuel economy. It seems counter-intuitive, but the better the fuel economy at a particular engine speed becomes, the less it affects the average because less fuel is burned there.

Most of the fuel we consumed was burned at cruising speeds. What I see with the E-TEC is a much broader range of boat speed and engine speed combinations that will produce excellent fuel economy. In contrast, the carburetor motor needed to run in a rather narrow speed range to get good fuel economy.

The carburetor motor, under the loading we had in these cruises, would peak to about 2.0-MPG at optimum cruising speed. In contrast, the E-TEC would peak to about 2.7-MPG and generally be well above 2.4-MPG all the time.

At idle speeds, the carburetor motor was miserable, and its fuel economy would be 1.5-MPG many times. On the other hand, the E-TEC would register as high as 40-MPG when coasting along at idle speeds.

The 67-percent overall improvement really stunned me. I would have been glad to get a 30- to 40-percent overall average improvement, which would have been more in line with what Bombardier suggests.

posted 08-06-2009 08:58 AM ET (US)            

This is really true of all stratified charge DFI 2-strokes. They are more efficient at slow off-plane speeds than they are on-plane. In contrast, with carbureted 2-strokes, they are usually more efficient at moderate on-plane speeds than they are at any off-plane speeds.

posted 08-06-2009 06:17 PM ET (US)            

Prop: I still need to dial in my prop but now it is more motor height. I have the 17 inch Rebel and am seeing the best numbers compared to the other props I trialed (15 inch Rebel, 19 inch Viper, 17 inch Viper, 21 inch old SST). But my engine is mounted three holes up. Performance is good in smooth water but in a chop or seaway the prop loses it's grip and I want to drop the motor down to just a single hole up.

Fuel economy: I have a single I-Command guage reading fuel flow from the engine. My numbers are no where near the numbers you reported with the 250HO at low speeds. You may find once you go for the I-Command setup that the numbers reported by your inline fuel flowmeters do not quite agree with the onboard sensors.

posted 08-06-2009 08:27 PM ET (US)            

One influence in deciding to re-power with a new engine was the transition back to our old engine after having an E-TEC on the transom for a week or two. Last fall we had a chance to "test drive" an E-TEC. This spring we put our old motor back on the boat and spent 6-days underway with it. This turned out to be one of the best sales incentives for going back to the E-TEC.

I really like my old motor. I had worked on it. I had made repairs to it. I had diagnosed problems with it and fixed those problems myself. I knew a lot about the motor, how it worked, and I was confident in it. I had perfected the motor. It ran about as well as a 1992 carburetor outboard V6 motor could run. There was a certain pleasure in seeing it operate so well, even though it was 17-years old. Like many here, I do take some pleasure in restoring and maintaining a classic product. My motor ran better than when I got it. I felt like it would run like that for years. There was nothing really wrong with it.

However, the E-TEC motor is a better motor. It starts better. It idles better. It does not shake. It does not need to warm up. It gets much better fuel economy. It is quieter. The gear case is smoother--the shifts are fantastically smooth. The performance is the same--225-HP is 225-HP--although the E-TEC runs better over a wider range of engine speeds. Overall, the E-TEC is a better motor than my 1992 V6 carburetor motor.

A crucial influence in the purchase decision was the appearance of a buyer for my old motor--a buyer with cash in hand and a reasonable offer. I could not see any way I could justify owning TWO 225-HP motors, so before I could buy an E-TEC, I had to sell my current motor.

I also feel like at the present the price of gasoline is temporarily at a low. In 2008 we were paying $5.75/gallon for fuel on the water in our favorite cruising grounds. This taught me a lesson: gasoline is likely to become more expensive. Improving fuel economy is an important benefit that comes along with all the other benefits of the new motor.

Also, I am 59-years-old. I don't expect that I will continue boating in the manner I am now forever. Sleeping in the cuddy of a 22-footer is not exactly the habit of too many 70-year-olds. I figured that I might as well treat myself to a new motor. I drive old clunker cars all year, so why not splurge on a new motor?

posted 09-05-2009 08:36 AM ET (US)            

For fuel consumption, I relied on the I-Command digital instrumentation connected to the E-TEC via a NMEA-2000 network. I believe this measurement of fuel flow is more accurate than the flow measured by my NAVMAN 3100 FUEL instrument. The NAVMAN 3100 FUEL instrument uses an turbine sensor in the actual fuel line to provide measurement of flow. The I-Command flow rate was set to use the data from the E-TEC engine's EMM. After a recent calibration of the NAVMAN flow rate (in which I used the I-Command as a standard of reference), the two instruments report similar fuel consumption rates when averaged over a long term and over various flow rates. The NAVMAN understates fuel flow at low flow rates, where it defaults to a reading of 0.1-Gallon/Hour, and it also overstates fuel flow at high flow rates, which is probably a function of the calibration setting used. In any case, on this trip the difference in fuel used as measured by the two instruments amounted to 1.2-gallons in 86.9 gallons used, a variance of only 1.5-percent.

Another influence on the fuel economy was the presence of current and wind. As we were in a river for much of the time, boat speed was affected by current, which was typically at least 1.5-MPH and often higher. Wind and waves were also a factor. Because we made a 250-mile trip of out and back, the influence of the current, wind, and waves, should be somewhat neutral, although probably not precisely.

The overall fuel data for the 250-mile trip was as follows:

MILES = 249.5
GALLONS = 86.9
HOURS = 15.9

Averages
MPG = 2.9
MPH = 15.7
GPH = 5.5

The average speed on this trip was quite high. It was influenced by a 100-mile run we made where we were on-plane all the way and running at speeds from 25 to 40-MPH, a fast trip back to our launching site to get home. During this segment we burned 37.6-gallons for 2.7-MPG, and we were running against the current and upwind the whole way. On this long, high-speed run we used 43-percent of the fuel for the whole trip, which reduced the overall average fuel economy somewhat compared to our last trip, where we idled along for many hours enjoying the scenery and getting fantastic fuel economy for more of the time. However, an overall fuel economy of 2.9 is still a very substantial improvement over the prior engine, which seldom could muster more than 1.8-MPG on a long term average under the best of conditions. The improvement is still 61-percent, an impressive figure.

The cost of marine fuel for us was in the range of $1.20-CA/liter, which converts to $4.54-CA/gallon, and with currency conversion of roughly 7-percent yields $4.25-US/gallon. To assess the savings, we figure the old engine would have burned

250-miles x 1-gallon/1.8-miles = 139-gallons

The new engine burned only 87 gallons, saving 52-gallons. At the cost of fuel in the region, this saved

52-gallons x $4.25/gallon = $221

So far the new E-TEC motor has saved me about $550 in fuel in just two trips. Of course, if you bought all your boat fuel at lower prices, for example if you only bought fuel on the highway and paid substantially less, the savings would not be as great. For our style of boating, however, we generally have to buy a majority of our fuel on the water, and often in Canada, and often in remote regions or in resort areas. This drives our fuel costs higher than someone who fuels in the U.S. at a highway gas station.

posted 09-05-2009 11:52 AM ET (US)            

149-miles and 49.5 gallons.

This implies that if not for the long high speed run, the fuel economy for the trip was averaging 3-MPG, which is just about what we achieved on the earlier trip.