E-TEC Warranty Exceptions With Certain Jack Plates

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  E-TEC Warranty Exceptions With Certain Jack Plates

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   E-TEC Warranty Exceptions With Certain Jack Plates

Blane posted 09-01-2009 04:20 PM ET (US)
To anyone looking to re-power with a E-TEC: BRP has sent out a memo to dealers warning that the use of two-piece jackplates could lead to warranty exceptions. They would obviously need to attribute damage done to the use of the plate. but it is now detailed in the warranty; probably a good idea to steer clear of them. I had followed the footsteps of some here and bought a 4-inch CMC two-piece manual plate and now have to return it to avoid this battle as the dealer won't install it. Thought this might save someone the hassle I'm dealing with.
Buckda posted 09-01-2009 04:29 PM ET (US)
What was the rationale?
number9 posted 09-01-2009 04:59 PM ET (US)
No knowledge on my part of their rationale, but could easily imagine an improperly adjusted two piece jack plate could lead to stern transom bracket cracks and failure do to stress.
Blane posted 09-01-2009 05:42 PM ET (US)
Number 9 your right on track.
Evinrude sent out a bulletin saying the mounting area for their engines has to be a solid piece for support. A 2 piece mounting area can move or flex which may break or distort the transom brackets on the outboard. Of course should that happen, the factory will not cover the damage.
AtoZ posted 09-01-2009 11:30 PM ET (US)
Has anyone seen this happen?
Tohsgib posted 09-02-2009 11:10 AM ET (US)
Never seen it happen, but I did buy a solid 1/4"+ plate that I mounted between the 2pc plate on mine to make it more solid when holding a 420lb engine.
Blane posted 09-02-2009 12:39 PM ET (US)
BRP must have or they would not have included the clause. At least they are up front about it versus a warranty battle after the fact. Wish the jack plate manufacturers would disclose this though
L H G posted 09-02-2009 01:30 PM ET (US)
Mercurys have been installed on jackplates for 30 years or so, and have never heard of this issue. Nor with Yamaha V-series bass boat engines. I wonder what the problem is with the Evinrude transom mount design?
BBS posted 09-02-2009 02:02 PM ET (US)
The two piece jack plates are comprised of an adjustable port side and an adjustable starboard side, with nothing spanning the two mounts other than the mounting bracket of the outboard. I have a CMC manual jackplate but it is built out of two pieces of aluminum (the 2 piece jacks are actually 4 pieces - 2 on each side). One bolts to the transom and the other bolts to the motor bracket and there is one central bolt that jacks the outer piece up or down in relation to the inner piece. there are two bolts on either side that cinch the two pieces together once the jacking adjustment has been made. I'm thinking the warranty exceptions apply to the first type and not the second?
seahorse posted 09-02-2009 10:31 PM ET (US)
For illustrations and a detailed explanation, ask a dealer to show you Pre-Delivery Bulletin 2008-01 printed December 2008 about jack-plates.
It also states that regardless of the jack-plate manufacturer's claims, do not install a Johnson or Evinrude outboard on a 2 piece mounting surface.
number9 posted 09-02-2009 11:18 PM ET (US)
Does anyone know if BRP has the same warranty exception for non-adjustable two piece setback brackets? It would be helpful if the Pre-Delivery Bulletins and others were available on their website. Thanks.
ratherwhalering posted 09-03-2009 02:23 PM ET (US)
Lovely.
sjohnson posted 09-03-2009 07:30 PM ET (US)
ratherwhalering sums up my feeling exactly. I'm wondering if it's safe now, something I didn't really have a doubt about will now be a worry in the back of my mind.
I've seen some pretty sketchy looking jack plates and setback brackets. All of CMC's models seem really well constructed and it's hard for me to imagine enough torque ever being placed on it to cause distortion in the E-TEC connection plate point. Is this BRP admitting to a weakness in their product and not a reflection or condemnation of jack plates in general? That's the impression I'm left with.
Just curious, how many people with an E-TEC on a jack plate are planning to remove the jack plate? May be a subjective question/poll, but it would give me some comfort if I knew that the fine minds on continuous wave were dismissing this, as I will probably dismiss this and leave my jack plate installed...
Lovely is right...
sj
Tom W Clark posted 09-03-2009 10:16 PM ET (US)
So just sandwich a plate between the jack plate and the motor to tie the two halves together and make everything rigid and solid. How tough can that be?
bikingart posted 09-03-2009 10:24 PM ET (US)
I had a 90 E-TEC installed on my classic Montauk last month using a Bob's Machine Shop two-piece offset bracket and the dealer explained this issue to me. His solution was to have 1/4-inch sheet of aluminum made to connect the the two bracket pieces between the brackets and the motor mount, which I'm told will satisfy any warranty disputes down the road. This was all new to me. It added a view ounces to the installation and added $100 to the cost. The ppearance is barely noticeable. I imagine that one of the larger one piece jack plates would also solve this, but I already had the two-piece bracket on this boat when it went to the dealer.
Art
Buckda posted 09-04-2009 08:40 AM ET (US)
Not even considering removing my Rite Hite jack plates. They are rated to 300 HP each, and I have 90's on them.
Plus, this language does not appear in my warranty. Further, My warranty has expired due to hours of use. I am not worried. There must be some shoddy jack plates out there for BRP to have to make this addition to the warranty language.
seahorse posted 09-04-2009 09:06 AM ET (US)
There must be some shoddy jack plates out there for BRP to have to make this addition to the warranty language

BINGO !

Don't forget the homemade ones out there, too.
number9 posted 09-04-2009 09:17 AM ET (US)
Two piece jack plates.
http://www.vancemfg.com/images/jackplate95.gif
http://i.ebayimg.com/21/!BTpsyGgCGk~$(KGrHgoOKiUEjlLmWrB3BKJn!pZQ3Q~~_1. JPG
http://i5.ebayimg.com/01/i/000/9e/8b/8e43_1.JPG
http://i.ebayimg.com/22/!BZwck!!Bmk~$(KGrHgoOKi4EjlLmZ,1SBKoP32JH3g~~_1. JPG
Plotman posted 09-04-2009 10:22 AM ET (US)
Dave - your Rite-Hites are a 1 piece plate. As in all 4 mounting holes move in unison when you make height adjustments. Doesn't sound like BRP is worried about those.
They simply want all 4 holes to me bolted to something such that they cant move in relation to each other.
Buckda posted 09-04-2009 10:25 AM ET (US)
Compare to: http://www.rmind.com/proddetail.php?prod=200T-6BL and similar, more robust designs.
TransAm posted 09-04-2009 10:38 AM ET (US)
Wow, $199 is a good price for those. I may just have to snap up a couple.
68 WhaleR posted 09-04-2009 11:12 AM ET (US)
I bought two of the Rite-Hite plates for my 18 whaler Outrage. They are super heavy duty! I hope to mount them this coming weekend if I get a chance. I finialy get to work on my center floor wood repair this weekend for a whole day! whoo hoo!
have a good weekend.
Erick
ratherwhalering posted 09-04-2009 11:45 AM ET (US)
I think we are talking about two very different animals here, people. There is a jackplate which by its their very name means it has a solid, one piece mounting area. Set-back brackets (notice the plural form) are two piece mounting brackets that do not have a solid, one piece mounting area.
I have 4-inch set-back brackets. They are rated to 250HP. My 2004 E-TEC has a warranty to 2011 that does not exclude brackets, and the installation was certified by a BRP mechanic. I'm probably not going to add a 1/4 plate to the system.
R T M posted 09-04-2009 03:39 PM ET (US)
(They simply want all 4 holes to me bolted to something such that they cant move in relation to each other)
That is the important issue
Here are plans for a home made bracket that has been used on the racing circuit for the past 3 years.This is the bracket I`m running my 4 stroke 25 Merc on and it has proven itself to me. It gives you a 6" setback. Of course its not as convenient, as one with a single bolt you can turn out on the water. The boat must be on a trailer and the motor is raised up or down with a jack. I have run every conceivable position from the cav. plate 1" above the water to 1/2" below the water. The ideal setup seems to be running the plate just so it is barely dry.
Here are the plans to Bob Dillons Jackplate. It is good for 35hp OMC.
http://www.dillon-racing.com/jackplate/index.htm
The only change I made is to bolt a piece of 1/4" aluminum plate behind the motor board, making it a one piece unit. If you don`t want to attempt to do it yourself, a machine shop could build it for a few bucks. If I had a boat with a big V6 I would still build my own. Still very simple. All is needed is 2 pieces of 16" X 4" X5/8" channel aluminum, This would be a one piece jackplate built on the same principle as Bob Dillons bracket. On a radiused transom, you would need two aluminum shims to fill in the space on the outside of the bracket. This would be overkill with any outboard.
rich/Binkie

R T M posted 09-04-2009 03:55 PM ET (US)
[Nine minute home movie shot from hundreds of feet away] of Bob Dillon's brackets in use, just to show that homeade is not automatically inferior. These boats run 50mph and take quite a beating. They run stock 31 cu in Evinrudes with custom Ron Hill props over the hub exhaust.

rich/Binkie
jimh posted 09-05-2009 05:33 AM ET (US)
Thanks for the information. It seems reasonable that the engine mount of the motor should not have to provide rigidity to the device it is mounted to. It's supposed to be the other way around!
R T M posted 09-05-2009 04:45 PM ET (US)
On a race boat website discussion forum, I was asking how to get more performance out of my antique Chrysler racing engine setup. I was told that I need to raise it higher than normal,as the engine was designed with so prop so far out back, that is was like it was installed on a setback bracket. Here is a picture:
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c191/floridaboy2053/ Whaler%20with%20Mercury/chrys3.jpg
I did not notice this before. I measured and from the front of the prop it measures 23" to the stern, The engine is clamped and bolted to the transom. Then I measured the same way on my 13 foot Whaler with a 25 Merc 4 stroke, and came up with 25", only 2 inches difference, and the motor sits on a 6" setback bracket. Was this built in 'setback' intended by Chrysler engineers, back in the day? Who knows. They did not have overwhelming success against Mercury, anyway. What I`m getting at is I understand that the whole advantage of setback brackets is to get the prop in clean undisturbed water. So why doesn't outboard motor designers design their motors with the props further aft, a redesigned clamp with more holes, for higher mounting, and a lower water pickup. I`m not thinking of high performance units, just fishing units. A motor designed like this would probably give you the same advantage as a 6" setback bracket.
rich/Binkie.
Tohsgib posted 09-05-2009 11:44 PM ET (US)
Again...if rated for 250-300hp, I can NOT see how a 60-115hp would be a problem.
Slippery Eel posted 09-08-2009 02:27 PM ET (US)
That policy was not in place when my BRP dealer installed both my CMC 4" setback and my new 90 E-TEC. I'm not changing mine.

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: E-TEC Warranty Exceptions With Certain Jack Plates
Blane	posted 09-01-2009 04:20 PM ET (US) To anyone looking to re-power with a E-TEC: BRP has sent out a memo to dealers warning that the use of two-piece jackplates could lead to warranty exceptions. They would obviously need to attribute damage done to the use of the plate. but it is now detailed in the warranty; probably a good idea to steer clear of them. I had followed the footsteps of some here and bought a 4-inch CMC two-piece manual plate and now have to return it to avoid this battle as the dealer won't install it. Thought this might save someone the hassle I'm dealing with.
Buckda	posted 09-01-2009 04:29 PM ET (US) What was the rationale?
number9	posted 09-01-2009 04:59 PM ET (US) No knowledge on my part of their rationale, but could easily imagine an improperly adjusted two piece jack plate could lead to stern transom bracket cracks and failure do to stress.
Blane	posted 09-01-2009 05:42 PM ET (US) Number 9 your right on track. Evinrude sent out a bulletin saying the mounting area for their engines has to be a solid piece for support. A 2 piece mounting area can move or flex which may break or distort the transom brackets on the outboard. Of course should that happen, the factory will not cover the damage.
AtoZ	posted 09-01-2009 11:30 PM ET (US) Has anyone seen this happen?
Tohsgib	posted 09-02-2009 11:10 AM ET (US) Never seen it happen, but I did buy a solid 1/4"+ plate that I mounted between the 2pc plate on mine to make it more solid when holding a 420lb engine.
Blane	posted 09-02-2009 12:39 PM ET (US) BRP must have or they would not have included the clause. At least they are up front about it versus a warranty battle after the fact. Wish the jack plate manufacturers would disclose this though
L H G	posted 09-02-2009 01:30 PM ET (US) Mercurys have been installed on jackplates for 30 years or so, and have never heard of this issue. Nor with Yamaha V-series bass boat engines. I wonder what the problem is with the Evinrude transom mount design?
BBS	posted 09-02-2009 02:02 PM ET (US) The two piece jack plates are comprised of an adjustable port side and an adjustable starboard side, with nothing spanning the two mounts other than the mounting bracket of the outboard. I have a CMC manual jackplate but it is built out of two pieces of aluminum (the 2 piece jacks are actually 4 pieces - 2 on each side). One bolts to the transom and the other bolts to the motor bracket and there is one central bolt that jacks the outer piece up or down in relation to the inner piece. there are two bolts on either side that cinch the two pieces together once the jacking adjustment has been made. I'm thinking the warranty exceptions apply to the first type and not the second?
seahorse	posted 09-02-2009 10:31 PM ET (US) For illustrations and a detailed explanation, ask a dealer to show you Pre-Delivery Bulletin 2008-01 printed December 2008 about jack-plates. It also states that regardless of the jack-plate manufacturer's claims, do not install a Johnson or Evinrude outboard on a 2 piece mounting surface.
number9	posted 09-02-2009 11:18 PM ET (US) Does anyone know if BRP has the same warranty exception for non-adjustable two piece setback brackets? It would be helpful if the Pre-Delivery Bulletins and others were available on their website. Thanks.
ratherwhalering	posted 09-03-2009 02:23 PM ET (US) Lovely.
sjohnson	posted 09-03-2009 07:30 PM ET (US) ratherwhalering sums up my feeling exactly. I'm wondering if it's safe now, something I didn't really have a doubt about will now be a worry in the back of my mind. I've seen some pretty sketchy looking jack plates and setback brackets. All of CMC's models seem really well constructed and it's hard for me to imagine enough torque ever being placed on it to cause distortion in the E-TEC connection plate point. Is this BRP admitting to a weakness in their product and not a reflection or condemnation of jack plates in general? That's the impression I'm left with. Just curious, how many people with an E-TEC on a jack plate are planning to remove the jack plate? May be a subjective question/poll, but it would give me some comfort if I knew that the fine minds on continuous wave were dismissing this, as I will probably dismiss this and leave my jack plate installed... Lovely is right... sj
Tom W Clark	posted 09-03-2009 10:16 PM ET (US) So just sandwich a plate between the jack plate and the motor to tie the two halves together and make everything rigid and solid. How tough can that be?
bikingart	posted 09-03-2009 10:24 PM ET (US) I had a 90 E-TEC installed on my classic Montauk last month using a Bob's Machine Shop two-piece offset bracket and the dealer explained this issue to me. His solution was to have 1/4-inch sheet of aluminum made to connect the the two bracket pieces between the brackets and the motor mount, which I'm told will satisfy any warranty disputes down the road. This was all new to me. It added a view ounces to the installation and added $100 to the cost. The ppearance is barely noticeable. I imagine that one of the larger one piece jack plates would also solve this, but I already had the two-piece bracket on this boat when it went to the dealer. Art
Buckda	posted 09-04-2009 08:40 AM ET (US) Not even considering removing my Rite Hite jack plates. They are rated to 300 HP each, and I have 90's on them. Plus, this language does not appear in my warranty. Further, My warranty has expired due to hours of use. I am not worried. There must be some shoddy jack plates out there for BRP to have to make this addition to the warranty language.
seahorse	posted 09-04-2009 09:06 AM ET (US) There must be some shoddy jack plates out there for BRP to have to make this addition to the warranty language BINGO ! Don't forget the homemade ones out there, too.
number9	posted 09-04-2009 09:17 AM ET (US) Two piece jack plates. http://www.vancemfg.com/images/jackplate95.gif http://i.ebayimg.com/21/!BTpsyGgCGk~$(KGrHgoOKiUEjlLmWrB3BKJn!pZQ3Q~~_1. JPG http://i5.ebayimg.com/01/i/000/9e/8b/8e43_1.JPG http://i.ebayimg.com/22/!BZwck!!Bmk~$(KGrHgoOKi4EjlLmZ,1SBKoP32JH3g~~_1. JPG
Plotman	posted 09-04-2009 10:22 AM ET (US) Dave - your Rite-Hites are a 1 piece plate. As in all 4 mounting holes move in unison when you make height adjustments. Doesn't sound like BRP is worried about those. They simply want all 4 holes to me bolted to something such that they cant move in relation to each other.
Buckda	posted 09-04-2009 10:25 AM ET (US) Compare to: http://www.rmind.com/proddetail.php?prod=200T-6BL and similar, more robust designs.
TransAm	posted 09-04-2009 10:38 AM ET (US) Wow, $199 is a good price for those. I may just have to snap up a couple.
68 WhaleR	posted 09-04-2009 11:12 AM ET (US) I bought two of the Rite-Hite plates for my 18 whaler Outrage. They are super heavy duty! I hope to mount them this coming weekend if I get a chance. I finialy get to work on my center floor wood repair this weekend for a whole day! whoo hoo! have a good weekend. Erick
ratherwhalering	posted 09-04-2009 11:45 AM ET (US) I think we are talking about two very different animals here, people. There is a jackplate which by its their very name means it has a solid, one piece mounting area. Set-back brackets (notice the plural form) are two piece mounting brackets that do not have a solid, one piece mounting area. I have 4-inch set-back brackets. They are rated to 250HP. My 2004 E-TEC has a warranty to 2011 that does not exclude brackets, and the installation was certified by a BRP mechanic. I'm probably not going to add a 1/4 plate to the system.
R T M	posted 09-04-2009 03:39 PM ET (US) (They simply want all 4 holes to me bolted to something such that they cant move in relation to each other) That is the important issue Here are plans for a home made bracket that has been used on the racing circuit for the past 3 years.This is the bracket I`m running my 4 stroke 25 Merc on and it has proven itself to me. It gives you a 6" setback. Of course its not as convenient, as one with a single bolt you can turn out on the water. The boat must be on a trailer and the motor is raised up or down with a jack. I have run every conceivable position from the cav. plate 1" above the water to 1/2" below the water. The ideal setup seems to be running the plate just so it is barely dry. Here are the plans to Bob Dillons Jackplate. It is good for 35hp OMC. http://www.dillon-racing.com/jackplate/index.htm The only change I made is to bolt a piece of 1/4" aluminum plate behind the motor board, making it a one piece unit. If you don`t want to attempt to do it yourself, a machine shop could build it for a few bucks. If I had a boat with a big V6 I would still build my own. Still very simple. All is needed is 2 pieces of 16" X 4" X5/8" channel aluminum, This would be a one piece jackplate built on the same principle as Bob Dillons bracket. On a radiused transom, you would need two aluminum shims to fill in the space on the outside of the bracket. This would be overkill with any outboard. rich/Binkie
R T M	posted 09-04-2009 03:55 PM ET (US) [Nine minute home movie shot from hundreds of feet away] of Bob Dillon's brackets in use, just to show that homeade is not automatically inferior. These boats run 50mph and take quite a beating. They run stock 31 cu in Evinrudes with custom Ron Hill props over the hub exhaust. rich/Binkie
jimh	posted 09-05-2009 05:33 AM ET (US) Thanks for the information. It seems reasonable that the engine mount of the motor should not have to provide rigidity to the device it is mounted to. It's supposed to be the other way around!
R T M	posted 09-05-2009 04:45 PM ET (US) On a race boat website discussion forum, I was asking how to get more performance out of my antique Chrysler racing engine setup. I was told that I need to raise it higher than normal,as the engine was designed with so prop so far out back, that is was like it was installed on a setback bracket. Here is a picture: http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c191/floridaboy2053/ Whaler%20with%20Mercury/chrys3.jpg I did not notice this before. I measured and from the front of the prop it measures 23" to the stern, The engine is clamped and bolted to the transom. Then I measured the same way on my 13 foot Whaler with a 25 Merc 4 stroke, and came up with 25", only 2 inches difference, and the motor sits on a 6" setback bracket. Was this built in 'setback' intended by Chrysler engineers, back in the day? Who knows. They did not have overwhelming success against Mercury, anyway. What I`m getting at is I understand that the whole advantage of setback brackets is to get the prop in clean undisturbed water. So why doesn't outboard motor designers design their motors with the props further aft, a redesigned clamp with more holes, for higher mounting, and a lower water pickup. I`m not thinking of high performance units, just fishing units. A motor designed like this would probably give you the same advantage as a 6" setback bracket. rich/Binkie.
Tohsgib	posted 09-05-2009 11:44 PM ET (US) Again...if rated for 250-300hp, I can NOT see how a 60-115hp would be a problem.
Slippery Eel	posted 09-08-2009 02:27 PM ET (US) That policy was not in place when my BRP dealer installed both my CMC 4" setback and my new 90 E-TEC. I'm not changing mine.