posted 10-07-2010 08:48 AM ET (US)        

If this boat had been powered with a pair of four-cycle engines, and if the recommended oil change service had been performed every 100-hours, these two motors would have had their oil changed 17-times each, or 34-oil changes. They would have had five oil change each, just this season.

posted 10-07-2010 09:27 AM ET (US)            

The Corps (USACE) spends an incredible amount of money maintaining waterways including locks and dams and hydro power plants but treats vehicles and small craft as consumables. From a business perspective it may make some sense but I never appreciated it when I was part of it.

posted 10-07-2010 10:13 AM ET (US)         

What were the two engines serviced for and what was Lockeman's take on the overall "health" of these motors? After that amount of use, it would be interesting to see what mechanicals and techincals were/were not affected by such.

posted 10-07-2010 01:10 PM ET (US)            

We can hash out the financials of two-cycle versus four-cycle again in another thread. There are already prior discussions on this topic which have found little difference in overall cost. The out-of-service time is more significant. If you have to haul a large boat, drag it over to the dealer, and have the oil changed five or six times per year, that is a pain in the neck. Plus you cannot use the boat. Or, do you hire a mechanic at $75,000-per-year with government benefits so the USACE engineers running the boat don't have to spend a couple weeks each year changing the oil?

For most four-cycle outboard motor owners the oil change is a once-a-year procedure, or rather a once-a-year messy, dirty procedure, that is tolerable at that frequency. At a once-every-two-week interval, changing oil in four-cycle outboard motors becomes more of a drudgery.

posted 10-07-2010 01:50 PM ET (US)            

Lastly in your first post: "If this boat had been powered with a pair of four-cycle engines, and if the recommended oil change service had been performed every 100-hours, these two motors would have had their oil changed 17-times each, or 34-oil changes. They would have had five oil change each, just this season."

posted 10-07-2010 02:40 PM ET (US)            

My understanding is that even with the prolonged service interval, you still need to change the filter on a set schedule. Synthetic oil still gets dirty and filters still get clogged.

Doing so loses some of the oil, requiring you to supplement with a small amount of 'fresh' oil at additional cost.

Also, once your motor starts consuming oil (if that happens) you should switch back to standard oil. I rode in a truck burning Mobil1 oil recently - that could be an expensive proposition for the owner.

Anyway, if you find yourself paying $40 or more for a gallon of XD-100 oil, you are likely in a bind. Bought right, you can get it for close to $30 a gallon, sometimes less.

But what I logged on to ask, really, is the same as was asked previously - what was the take on the overall condition of the motors? Anybody use a boroscope to check out the condition of the cylinders?

I think they run the Honda's to about 2,000 hours before cycling them (they being the USCG).

It would be interesting to do a long term comparison of overall condition on these commercially used motors - of all makes.

posted 10-07-2010 02:46 PM ET (US)            

Lastly...yes Dave I think it would be a great article but not gonna be easy. What paramaters would you use, compression, compared to new, DYNO?

posted 10-08-2010 09:51 AM ET (US)            

I think it would be a fun project. :)

How about it? An OptiMax 150 side-by side with an E-TEC 150?

Any dealerships want to partner up for such a comparison? I'd advertise your dealership logo on the same side as your motor; use motor instrumentation to measure fuel flow and use, etc.

I'd even compare a Yamaha F150 to a Honda BF150 or Suzuki, if that's who wants to do the comparison.

posted 10-12-2010 10:35 PM ET (US)            

When the Corps was previously using traditional two-cycle outboard motors they followed the normal service recommendations to the letter, and they'd bring the boat in for routine service several times each season. The E-TEC engines just ran beautifully all year long, no service was needed.

posted 10-13-2010 09:18 AM ET (US)            

How is the Evinrude gearlube so different that does not need to be changed as often as others? It has the same grease points as others.

posted 10-13-2010 09:35 AM ET (US)            

The endurance of these particular E-TEC engines is substantiated by the engine history report obtained from the engine management module. While I have heard anecdotal reports of other brands of engine accumulating high service hours, I have never seen any evidence of this other than some young Coast Guardsman attesting to "thousands of hours."

posted 10-13-2010 09:50 AM ET (US)            

I knew a girl in high school that was given a brand new VW Golf for her 17th birthday. She used to tell her parents she needed an oil change for the car every couple of weeks and then would take the money for cloth shopping. She used to brag that her car has 30k miles on it and never had an oil change.

posted 10-13-2010 11:04 AM ET (US)            

This thread does not prove that the Etec lasts any longer or costs less to maintain then any other DFI 2 stroke (HPDI, Optimax, TLDI). My arguement is that the time that USACE has put on these engines proofs nothing and is not the definitive evidence that Etecs are any better then anything else.

The maintaince period for Etecs is foolish. They require the same maintaince as any other outboard. The propshaft splines need to be greased, water pump does not last any longer, the bolts dont corrode any less..........

posted 10-13-2010 02:26 PM ET (US)            

The lubricants used in the K-25 pumps were novel polymers specially developed to provide necessary lubrication yet be unreactive with UF6 (explosion potential) that they would be prone to come in contact with. Being novel and unreactive with UF6 is a different thing than leaving oil in the pumps over the life of the project.

posted 10-13-2010 03:58 PM ET (US)            

I do agree with you and your story highlights my point entirely and even ties into my VW story. The fact that an engine went 550hours without service is not remarkable for a 2 stroke engine. Just about every outboard can make it to that point today.

Is it good for the engine? Absolutely not

Will it affect the engines lifespan? Yes, but most people will never use that engine long enough to see the death caused by neglect such as that. Outboard engines are rarely worn out, they usually suffer an expensive failure and the cost benefit equation makes it better to repower.

An Optimax or HPDI could do the same thing that the Etec did.

Comparing a 150hp outboard lower unit to Oak Ridge gas diffusion plant machinery is comparing apples to elephants.

posted 10-13-2010 05:00 PM ET (US)            

It is a good post.

No one mentions the fact that most owners of four strokes do not bother with the mandatory checking of the valves at certain intervals. Most manuals say at 20 hours then every 100 or 200 or 500 hours thereafter. This operation cost did not show up in the comparisons.

posted 10-13-2010 05:22 PM ET (US)            

"I thought it was interesting to see 1,700-hours on the E-TEC. I wonder if there is a VERADO in this kind of service with that much running time in three years? Comments from other government users of the VERADO looked like they were trading them in at the end of one season with about 1,000-hours. That is a great deal for Mercury, as they get to sell two or three times as many motors as Evinrude to these high-hour users."

Since Evinrude has less than 8% of the OB motor market, there are most certainly more high hour Verados/Optimax's/Yamahas vs Evinrudes.

posted 10-14-2010 08:53 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

"This thread does not prove that the [E-TEC] lasts any longer or costs less to maintain then any other DFI [two-cycle] (HPDI, Optimax, TLDI)."

---

I am afraid that a purpose has been inferred for this discussion which was never intended. My initial presentation of information makes absolutely no assertion that the data proves anything. I am quite surprised that readers made an inference that the E-TEC engine could last longer than any other DFI engine. The material I presented did not assert that claim in any way. I cannot say that the readers who concluded the E-TEC will last longer than an OptiMax, an HPDI, or a TLDI engine are wrong.

ASIDE to adlert: Thank you for the additional information about the gaseous diffusion plant at Oak Ridge. It was very interesting. Whether or not the devices used an oil based lubricant, I think their design and operational history shows that it is possible for man to design and fabricate mechanical devices which can operate for more than 100-hours before requiring a complete change in lubrication. This was the point of bringing these devices into the discussion. There was a notion introduced into the discussion which seemed to imply that a limit of 100-hours was somehow binding on all mechanical devices for the duration of their operational period without service or change of their lubricants. I made mention of Oak Ridge as an example where 100-hours was not a limiting factor on the duration of operation of a mechanical device. Even limiting the Oak Ridge example to 22-years, I think it still provides a good counter point to the 100-hour limit suggested.

For those who insist on turning this discussion into a financial analysis of the cost of operating a two-cycle engine compared to a four-cycle engine, please stop. Your topic is a fine topic, but it has been discussed at length in previous discussions. If you want to re-open that topic you should start a separate discussion. The topic of this discussion is the longevity of the E-TEC, and by extension, we have a few second-hand or third hand reports from other brands of excellent longevity. We can hash out the financials in another thread.

posted 10-14-2010 10:52 PM ET (US)            

The use of a measurement of hours for the gear case is probably not the most precise measurement of wear and tear. A better measurement would be propeller shaft revolutions. On large ships on which I have visited, I have seen a propeller shaft revolution counter. The speed at which an engine is operated will influence the number of propeller shaft revolutions which occur in a particular time period. Let us examine some variations.

If an engine operates at an average speed of 1,500-RPM for 300 hours, we would expect the input shaft to the gear case to make

1,500-Revolutions/1-minute x 60-minutes/1-hour x 300-hours = 27,000,000 revolutions

If the engine were operated at 4,500-RPM for 300-hours, we would expect the input shaft to make three times as many revolutions, or about 81-million revolutions.

When the manufacturer says to change the lubricant every 300-hours, it is very likely they are planning on the engine operating at an average speed of somewhere in between 1,500-RPM and 4,500-RPM. We might say the average speed could be around 2,500-RPM for 300-hours, or 45-million revolutions.

If one were to operate the engine at an average speed of only 1,250-RPM, it could take 600-hours to reach 45-million revolutions. If the change of lubricant interval were increased to 600-hours would it be considered negligence to go beyond 300-hours without changing the lubricant?

posted 10-15-2010 10:54 AM ET (US)            

If these were 4-stroke motors with a lot of low speed operation, they would have to be hauled every other week for an oil and possibly a filter change.

posted 10-15-2010 02:08 PM ET (US)            

The difference between 3 star and 4 star is signicant and requires the use of a catolic converter. The current platform can not meet this requirement and will not unless they change over to a wet sump oil system similar to a four stroke.

OB engines are required to meet CARB 4 star rating by 2016. I/Os and Inboard were required as of Jan 1, 2010.

The death of the 2 stroke (even DFI) is on the horizon.

posted 10-15-2010 05:59 PM ET (US)            

The EPA almost without exception follows CARB. Outboard motors of the future will have cats on them.

Off the top of my head, the 4 star emission requirement means cutting emission another 30% over the existing requirement 3 star requirement.

posted 10-16-2010 11:07 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

2011 requires all new boat have [low-permeation] fuel fuel lines and carbon canisters to collect vapor. This is another fact that is little known.

---

Actually the new hose was required on all rigs built and motors installed after January 1st of this year.

posted 10-16-2010 10:16 PM ET (US)            

--cost of operation
--cost of maintenance
--cost to the environment

posted 10-17-2010 04:54 PM ET (US)            

The problem that I have with modern Evinrudes is the marketing gimmicks that people use to explain why Evinrude is the best on the market.

The XD100 oil is expensive and not nearly as common as TCW3. The cost is pretty much equal to standard TCW3 when you figure out the total cost. I would also rather have my engine over oiled vs running lean on high tech oil.

I dont see any benefit in the XD100 oil.

The three year maintaince period is just foolish IMO. Can the engine go 3 years without maintaince? Sure it can but any other 2 stroke engine can do the same thing. A four stroke can even do the same thing if you want to neglect it. I want to lube my driveshaft/propshaft/check for fishing line every year. Prevention goes a long way and this 3 year maintaince gimmick gives the owners a false sense of what is needed.

I do like the self winterization feature but then again it just neglects normal maintaince.

posted 10-17-2010 06:58 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I want to lube my driveshaft/propshaft/check for fishing line every year. Prevention goes a long way and this 3 year maintaince gimmick gives the owners a false sense of what is needed.

---

I think you are over-reacting a bit from not reading the owners manual or other literature completely.

You are asked to pull the prop and lube it annually in salt or brackish water conditions. Also in salt water environments, lubing the grease fittings is suggested. It's in the manual.

The 3 year/300 hour service is for dealer required servicing in normal recreational use in fresh water. For commercial use, salt water use, and high performance use they recommend more frequent intervals.

It's the same as with automotive owners manuals. Some say to change oil at 7500 miles or more often if you do a lot of high speed driving, or a lot of low speed driving, or if you drive on dusty roads, or if you pull a trailer.

posted 10-17-2010 07:05 PM ET (US)            

Yesterday morning was 40 degrees. My E-TEC hadn't been started in 3 weeks. Just a slight turn of the key, and it started instantly. I'm confident that the lubrication was adequate because of the XD-100 viscosity. In fact, BRP recommends ONLY XD-100 for low temperature operation. It pours easily even below 32 degrees.

posted 10-17-2010 07:08 PM ET (US)            

"Prevention goes a long way and this 3 year maintaince gimmick gives the owners a false sense of what is needed."

How is this engine different is any way from any other DFI if the owners manual tells you it needs this stuff? It requires the same maintaince (filter, grease, waterpump.....) as any other engine. You can say three years maintaince free but the small print holds the details.

posted 10-18-2010 09:34 AM ET (US)            

We do maintaince so we dont have issues. If a manufacturer wants to push the limits of normal maintaince its fine but expect me to believe that any other engine couldnt do the same thing.

Does the Etec use a waterpump made of any special material that makes it better then a waterpump in any other engine? Your example calling for yearly replacement is those of high pressure low volume waterpumps. Modern waterpumps are floppy vane high volume low pressure impellers that last much longer.

Respectfully

posted 10-18-2010 09:30 PM ET (US)            

sblack says the following:

quote:

---

"Outboard ignorance is not something to advertise...."

---

I am afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. Please elaborate on "outboard ignorance." I am not familiar with that term.

quote:

---

"The [E-TEC] also [has] a bad habit of getting eel grass and debris in their water take in units."

---

Explain what mechanism the eel grass uses so it knows only to foul the water intakes of E-TEC engines? I would like to know how that happens.

quote:

---

"I have owned a 27 Whaler W/A that had twin 2005 E Tec 250's and their fuel economy was TERRIBLE! The boat averaged a little less than 1 MPG...."

---

The fuel economy of a 27-foot boat with 500-HP of gasoline-driven engines is probably typically around 1-MPG. Fuel consumption depends greatly on the horsepower being used and the efficiency of the hull being driven.

The fuel economy of a motor is best described by its brake specific fuel consumption. We have seen that in outboard motors the brake specific fuel consumption for direct-injection two-cycle motors tends to be slightly higher than the best possible figures of naturally aspirated four-cycle engines. This is a well-known fact. The naturally aspirated four-cycle motors, however, are generally lacking in low-end torque, reserve power, and strong acceleration. In contrast the direct-injection two-cycle motors excel in those areas. The marginally better fuel economy of the four-cycle comes at a cost of reduced performance and increased maintenance.

posted 10-19-2010 02:45 AM ET (US)            

So to simply respond to your questions on the E-Tec's I owned. As I mentioned, they were terrible in all levels of performance except the hole shot. But who cares how fast you get on plane if you cannot even reach your final destination?

Regarding the high flow water inlates, both the standard and the high performance water intake grates that I was given by Grant Tipton from Bombardier both performed poorly as they would easily draw up Eel Grass and other floating debris leading to engine overheating alarms when we fished through any kelp beds. They are not flush mounted units which is my guess is why this problem would stand out. I also had to unscrew the rear motor cooling stream unit to clear any passed strands of Eel Grass. Whalers are built to fish and I fish mine hard, including Kelp Forests plus long distance trips and the flush Yamaha water intake never give me any trouble of fouling, and it's my experience that E-Tec's do not like this kind of environment. I had worked with Grant Tipton and Michael McBrady from BRP on why one of my twin 250 E Tec's was burning 12.5% more fuel than the other and with the help of our local BRP dealer, we could not find a solution regardless of a new binnacle, gauges, wiring etc., the bottom line was that the twin 250 E-Tec's were burning extra fuel that mounts to a big fuel bill on the long trips where I would normally take my 25 BW Revenge. The last trip I took on the 25 Revenge was to San Nicolas Island from San Diego when we ran 330 miles round trip and burned 170 gallons of fuel on the 225 Yamaha four stroke @ 1.94 MPG. I would not have been able to even consider that trip with the E-Tec's on the 27' BW W/A.

And if you would like some clarification on a 27' Whaler W/A's fuel economy, perhaps you can ask Cap't Billy of the Toy Too who just repowered his Whaler with a set of twin Yamaha 300HP HPDI's who used to get 1-1.25MPG (with the old Yamaha 250's) and is now quoted as getting 40% better fuel economy with his Yamaha's that would put him in the 1.4-1.75 MPG range, better than the 1 MPG you mentioned with a standard 27' Whaler.

My 25 Revenge is the "Smallest boat that makes the longest trips" in my Marina and I will always take that Whaler to San Nicolas Island, San Quintin and everywhere in between for the simple reason that she can make it there safely. Whalers are made to push the limits, not just to sail to their safe boundries. Trailer your Whaler out here and let's make a true run for some true fishing. Not a get together on a Lake Poway. Let's plan a run to San Quintin, Geronimo Island or better yet, Cedros Island. I think I may be able to get Cap't Frank Lo'Preste to help set us up with fuel for the ride home. I'm all in.

Oooh I love this competitition...

All in good spirit Jim...your a Whaler man even if you think I'm a total Putz.

Find more recipes @ www.sportfishingmag.com.

posted 10-19-2010 07:45 AM ET (US)            

Given this is a thread about longevity not performance and that "[o]utboard ignorance is not something to advertise in my opinion when you run 100 miles offshore..." if you have not already done so, you should consider having your 2003 Yamaha F225 checked for exhaust system corrosion. From the accounts that I've read, it can lead to overheating, which is not good if you are 100 miles offshore.

posted 10-19-2010 09:46 AM ET (US)            

When I gave information about changes in fuel economy that resulted from changing my engine to an E-TEC, the only thing that changed was the engine. The boat, propeller, loading, and to the greatest extent the conditions were the same. This permits a reasonable comparison.

I could tell you that I get better fuel economy with my E-TEC than Steve gets with a Yamaha four-cycle, but since that comparison involves a completely different boat it has no meaning. Even among boats that are believed to be identical, variations in the hull condition and the hull weight can produce variation in performance.

posted 10-19-2010 12:30 PM ET (US)            

Long live your E Tec, stay safe and take good care of that Whaler.

posted 10-19-2010 03:26 PM ET (US)            

I should acknowledge Larry's contribution here, too. Thank you for letting us know that Orbital has already solved any Four-Star related emission qualification problem. And ditto for Mercury having the foresight to include provision for a catalytic converter in the VERADO. I would attribute the ability of the OptiMax and VERADO to continue to meet future emission requirements that herein are reported to be the death of the E-TEC as being a result of the massively larger funding that Mercury had allotted for research and development, while Bombardier hangs on by their fingernails and depends of public assistance from Quebec.

posted 10-20-2010 11:54 AM ET (US)            

1700 hours of trouble free operation of an outboard motor is remarkable for motors which are 24 years old. It is entirely unremarkable for motors that are only three years old.

Outboard motors rarely wear out; some component usually fails leading to a catastrophic failure of the motor, or the accumulated burden of fixing numerous little problems with old outboard motors causes the owner to replace them.

posted 10-20-2010 03:59 PM ET (US)            

Opposite to Tom's view I find it quite unremarkable that my 24 year old cross flow V4's have gone, or will go many thousands of hours. All of the spinning and sliding parts are bathed in a freshly atomized (read "cool") bath of large quantities of fuel laden with gobs of oil. All of the parts in the crankshaft side of my engines are literally dripping under a constant and fresh stream of cool lubricating fluids 100 % of the time they are spinning. Touch the intake side of the crankcase of an old 2-stroke and it is usually cool, or at very worst tepid to the touch even after a long high speed run. It's a beautiful, sloppy thing. This cool, high-flowing lubricant shower then runs up the engine's side and soaks the tops of the pistons and the entire cylinder walls. Just for good measure, my engines drain some over and out those ever-so-hot exhaust portions of the pistons and cylinder ports keeping them oh so happy.

posted 10-20-2010 04:05 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

1700 hours of trouble free operation of an outboard motor is remarkable for motors which are 24 years old. It is entirely unremarkable for motors that are only three years old.

---

posted 10-20-2010 08:53 PM ET (US)            

I disagree with the notion that 1,730-hours of trouble-free operation is not remarkable. The measuring stick being used for these E-TEC motors seems to be completely different than the one used on other motors. We have had legions of stories about motors that cannot run one season without repairs. Here are two motors that have run a combined 3,400-hours without any repairs and with very minimal scheduled maintenance.

Let me lay this out in more specifics. These motors did NOT have any unscheduled service or replacement to their:

--starter motors
--fuel system modules, fuel pumps, vapor separators,
--carburetors
--gear cases
--alternators, rectifiers, regulators, or charging systems

We have many reports of motors with less than one-tenth the hours of operation where components like those mentioned above have needed service.

Feel free to pay no attention to these engines. Feel free to ignore their 3,400-hours of trouble-free operation. But please do not call in "unremarkable."

posted 10-20-2010 09:42 PM ET (US)            

Now the USCG does some serious training and really puts these motors through the ringer. Lots of the hours are at idle speeds but may are hard use in rough SALT water conditions. That is remarkable.

What does the Army Corps of Engineering do with their boats in the fresh water there? Nothing near the kind of use the USCG sees.

posted 10-20-2010 10:10 PM ET (US)         

I wonder if the repair data on these boats is public record so we could obtain it for some non anecdotal reliability statistics. They have been in service since 2002 with mostly Honda engines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCG_Defender_class_boat

posted 10-22-2010 12:16 AM ET (US)            

The information I am providing here about the E-TEC is absolutely reliable. It comes directly from the engine's themselves via their history report. No second, third or fourth hand recitation. I have the engine reports. The engines speak for themselves.

posted 10-22-2010 02:40 AM ET (US)            

Here in Hawaii they log more than 300 hours a year but I have not had the opportunity to view the hour meters on a SAFE boat yet over here. But, like I said, my mechanic services the Honda motors on the SAFE boats and he has told me that all the older boats have well over 2000 hours logged on the BF225 motors.

Do you doubt reports of high hours on a Honda outboards? Do you have to personally see evidence of this to believe it?

Is it a coincidence that Honda Marine is a perennial winner of the JB Power award or that Honda outboards are widely viewed as very reliable motors?

I know this is a thread about the longevity of a pair of 3 year old ETEC's run in fresh water. You insist that this is remarkable. I have nothing against Evinrude and I am sure ETECS are fine motors but I am just putting things in perspective here.

posted 10-22-2010 05:09 AM ET (US)            

The E-TEC motors that are the topic of discussion here are 2007 model year motors and have only been operated for three or four seasons. The 2002 Honda motors mentioned have had eight years to accumulate running time. It would not be surprising that they have accumulated more running time inasmuch as they are more than twice as old.

At no time have I made any assertion that these E-TEC motors with over 1,700-hours of flawless operation represent any sort of record for running time of an outboard motor. Readers who made that inference should not be confused.

The fact that the E-TEC engines we are discussing have operated flawlessly for 1,700-hours does not necessarily foreclose engines made by other manufacturers from being able to also operate for a similar amount of time. However, as I mentioned in the initial presentation of this information, four-cycle engines will necessarily require a great deal of additional labor and maintenance due to the need to change the lubricating oil and replace components in their oil system like the oil filter.

In general I have to observe that several readers have made several unintended inferences about these E-TEC motors with three or four seasons of flawless operation and over 3,400-hours combined operation. I am not sure why so many readers have replied with remarks which are intended to dismiss or minimize the significance of engines which are capable of running for over 1,700-hours with no maintenance or service other than the manufacturer's recommended 300-hour service items. Based on the blasé reaction of some, you'd have to conclude that all outboard motors run flawlessly for their first 1,700-hours of operation. Is that really the case?

posted 10-22-2010 08:57 AM ET (US)            

Any modern DFI two-cycle outboard should be able to do the exact same thing with the same lack of maintaince.

You [means jimh] also harp of the cost of the maintaince of four-cycle outboards compared to these engines. USACE did not follow the recommended maintaince period of the [manufacturer].

If they had four-cycle outboards what makes you think that they would have followed that [manufacturer's] recommended maintaince period? You can't compare the recommended service period of four-cycle outboards to the 550-hrs that the [E-TEC motors] were run, which is almost double the recommended service period.

I am also confident that a four-cycle outboard could have completed the same amount of hours with the same service--period. It would be bad for the engine but USACE does seem to care. The engine would not just fall apart at 100-hours.

posted 10-23-2010 06:28 AM ET (US)            

We did not boat much together, maybe once or twice a year, but he (or his boat ownership partner) was on that rig from March through November and would put a couple hundred hours on per season. We were talking about the weekend one spring Friday, 1996 I believe, and I said I was headed down to de-winterize my Whaler. He looked at me funny and said "de-winterize, what do you mean?". I said you know, blow out all the fogging/winter store oil, put the props back on, etc. He then said I don't do any of that. I asked when was the last time he had any service to which he replied never and the engine ran like a top.

So I'm thinking 5 seasons with no water pump, spark plug, lower unit oil changes...nothing. So I offered to service his engine, and did all of these things and more. The lower end lube was like black molasses in the winter, plugs moderately fouled, water pump impeller chewed up, but he maintained it was running like a top before they pulled it out of the water before Christmas the year before.

So I figure 1,000-hours over a five year period with four month lay-ups when it was really cold out, with no service at all. Gas in the gas tank; oil in the oil tank...that's it.

posted 10-23-2010 09:16 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

[That these E-TEC motors ran 1,700-hours without any service or repairs other than the minimal scheduled maintenance] [is] not that significant.

---

There is little statistical significance to any report about any single sample result when the population is large. There are thousands of E-TEC outboards, so a report about one or two is not statistically significant. However, what 'bone means to say here is that he has interpreted this outcome in the exact opposite way. He means to say that this sample is not "significant" because he wants us to believe that the entire population of outboard motors will produce this same result. In other words 'bone thinks this outcome is nothing unusual. This is a preposterous conclusion and is supported by no data. To conclude with any certainty that all outboard motors will never need any repair or service for the first 1,700-hours of operation because these two motors did is not supported by the data.

quote:

---

Any modern DFI two-cycle outboard should be able to do the exact same thing with the same lack of [maintenance].

---

'bone restates more clearly his astounding proposition.

quote:

---

You [means jimh] also harp of the cost of the maintaince of four-cycle outboards compared to these engines.

---

I never mentioned the cost of maintenance. Actually I started a separate discussion on the cost of maintenance when others began to introduce that topic into this discussion. Please do not confuse me with the people who wanted to discuss the cost of maintenance. I never made any assertions here about the cost of maintenance.

quote:

---

USACE did not follow the recommended maintaince period of the [manufacturer].

---

It is true that the Army Corps of Engineers in the 2010 season stretched the maintenance interval from 300-hours to 550-hours, a deviation of 1.8:1. However, we see comments regarding four-cycle engines where the oil change interval is suggested to be from 50 to 200 hours, a deviation of 4:1.

quote:

---

If they had four-cycle outboards what makes you think that they would have followed that [manufacturer's] recommended maintaince period?

---

I have not made any assertions about how the USACE would have scheduled maintenance of motors in the future that they might own.

quote:

---

You can't compare the recommended service period of four-cycle outboards to the 550-hrs that the [E-TEC motors] were run, which is almost double the recommended service period.

---

This leaves me completely confused. I don't know why a huge fuss has been made about the 550-hour service interval if we are now told it cannot be compared to anything else.

quote:

---

I am also confident that a four-cycle outboard could have completed the same amount of hours with the same service--period. It would be bad for the engine...

---

This means 'bone now seems to say that four-cycle outboard oil changes can be stretched to 550-hours when the recommended interval (for the type of operation in use here) would be 50-hours. 'bone proposes a deviation from schedule of 11:1, but he has condemned the USACE for a deviation of 1.8:1. To me, a better comparison would be if a four-cycle engine called for service at 50-hours but was run to 80-hours. Would anyone make a fuss about that? No, actually people have proposed running to 200-hours, and seem quite content with that.

quote:

---

....but USACE does seem to care.

---

I think the people at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are very professional. 'bone appears to have made a leap of logic of enormous distance. Because the E-TEC motors were run without a change of their spark plugs or gear case oil for 80-percent more than the recommended interval, he has condemned them all as careless.

quote:

---

The engine would not just fall apart at 100-hours.

---

posted 10-23-2010 09:26 AM ET (US)            

--the E-TEC engines ran for 3,400-hours without needing any repair or service other than the specified 300-hour service, which is just a change of gear case oil, spark plug, and internal filters.

--that 3,400-hours of operation of another type of motor which specifies service every 100-hours would have meant 34 service intervals had occurred.

On the first point I am supported by the avowal of the dealer who provided service for these engines. He has stated there was no other service or repair necessary. I do not believe there is any possible contention about this, unless someone wants to call the dealer a liar.

On the second point I am supported by arithmetic. If service is required every 100-hours, in a period of 3,400-hours you need to perform the service 34 times. If my calculation is wrong, I will be glad to admit my error.

These are the two points I made in my initial article. After making these two observations, this thread has carried on for more than 70 comments in which an astonishing number of alternative theories of the universe have been presented. Frankly, I am amazed by what has happened.

posted 10-23-2010 10:58 AM ET (US)            

Somebody buy me ANY outboard new and supply the fuel and I will run the engine night & day for 1700 hours without ANY service for 71 days nonstop and I will guarantee she will be fine even with 1700 hour oil in the crankcase and gearbox. Neighbors will probably hate me if they already don't.

posted 10-23-2010 11:06 AM ET (US)            

So many places to start.

This entire thread you compare apples to oranges. You wont compare the Evinrude against other DFI engines. You just skip over this fact time and time again. You have bought into Evinrudes marketing and cant see past it. Why couldnt any DFI outboard accomplish the same thing as these Evinrudes?

You will only compare it against four strokes and when you do that you compare the 550 hours against the recommended maintaince period of the four strokes instead of the recommended period for Evinrude.

I have never stated that catastrophic failure will occur by neglecting your maintaince period. In fact I provided a story illistrating the exact opposite. My point stated before and now again is just because it can run that long doesn't mean it should.

In your first post you start off with.

"If this boat had been powered with a pair of four-cycle engines, and if the recommended oil change service had been performed every 100-hours, these two motors would have had their oil changed 17-times each, or 34-oil changes. They would have had five oil change each, just this season."

You started the maintaince vs four stroke issue your first post and the implied cost.

You are shocked that an outboard motor went 1700 hours, this just shows your lack of insight into commercial OB engine use. When someone compares a Evinrude against Honda which have hundreds of documented OB engines with over 2000 hrs on U.S. Coast Guard boats you dismiss the report. You bury your head in the sand and refuse to believe it. The duty cycle of these boats alone is enough proof. They would be swapping these engine annually if they could not do it.

The reason everyone gets up in arms is because your posts are biased and you twist numbers and create ratio/figures to ensure you always come out right. You wont entertain others ideas, thoughts and insight nor will you allow someone to inject logic when it goes against you idea.

posted 10-23-2010 11:13 AM ET (US)            

Nick suggests that oil change intervals could be stretched to 1,700-hours, a variation from the recommended 50-hour interval of 34:1. To accept Nick's assertion that a variation in the service interval of 34:1 would not be harmful, it seems reasonable to conclude that a variation of the service interval of 1.8:1 would similarly not be harmful.

As I mentioned previously, it is possible for the owner of an outboard to modify the service interval as he sees fit, and to adopt his own philosophy about what service should be performed and at what interval. I do not think my announcement that these E-TEC engines ran without any repair or server for a combined 3,400-hours should be interpreted as being contrary to that notion. If owners of particular motors do not want to change the oil in their motor at intervals longer than recommended by the manufacturer, or if they want to use lubricants other than those recommended by the manufacturer, I do not stand in opposition. I never made any statement that could reasonably be interpreted to mean otherwise.

posted 10-23-2010 11:19 AM ET (US)            

This thread has dragged on for 100 posts...but 25 of them are from Jim himself!

posted 10-23-2010 11:23 AM ET (US)            

I don't think I have expressed "shock" [about the engines] at any time. I simply mentioned that two E-TEC motors ran 1,700-hours each in a period of about three and a half years. What shocks me is the reaction of people to this announcement. Let me characterize the reaction; it is either:

--"ho, hum, every motor can do this," which, I have to say, surprises me, as my own experience with outboard motors in the last ten years has shown me that they typically require much more non-scheduled repair and service; In addition to my own experience, we have the many, many reports of unscheduled maintenance, repair, or breakdown of many new motors of all types, contributed here in threads begun by their owners seeking advice, counsel, or retribution; or,

posted 10-23-2010 11:44 AM ET (US)            

In my automobile engine owner's manual it recommends the oil change interval be increased to twice the frequency for operating in certain conditions, and one of the conditions is periods of extended low-speed operation or idle. The USACE operation of their motors is precisely in this sort of routine--lots of slow speed operation. That is how I made the conclusion that the oil change interval might be as frequent as 50-hours. However, in my initial article, I stayed with the 100-hour figure, and calculated that only 34 oil changes would have been necessary.

posted 10-23-2010 11:49 AM ET (US)            

An engine that is run frequently, and for long intervals at each operation are likely to run much longer in terms of hours than recreational use motors that are run infrequently.

Look at a Crown Victoria that is run and maintained by a "normal driver" versus the miles you see on them in Cabs in American cities. I've been in many cabs (in Chicago) where the driver reports 275,000 or more miles on the vehicle. The suspension is loose, the thing feels like it's falling apart, but the engine is running smoothly. Amazing. Not really.

A four stroke outboard in commercial use is likely to outperform (in terms of hours) a four stroke in recreational use, and the same is true in DFI 2-strokes.

I think it's great that these motors have 1,700 hours on them with less than scheduled maintenance.

What do I think it shows? That the E-TEC DFI platform is a reliable, stable platform that can provide good durability. It does not provide a platform for a superiority claim - it just provides evidence/verifiable proof that the motor system is as reliable as others.

At this point, I hope/think Evinrude is beyond the need to justify this point to the public, but these reports are good additional evidence when discussing such matters with other brand faithful who may still be trying to introduce or spread FUD about the E-TEC platform.

posted 10-23-2010 12:29 PM ET (US)         

"(1) Average recreational use. Commercial use, heavy use, or use in salt or polluted water requires more
frequent inspection and maintenance (annual checks are recommended)."

Would USACE use not reasonably be considered "heavy use"?

posted 10-23-2010 12:29 PM ET (US)            

Here is the quote from just a few line above

ho, hum, every motor can do this," which, I have to say, surprises me, as my own experience with outboard motors in the last ten years has shown me that they typically require much more non-scheduled repair and service; In addition to my own experience, we have the many, many reports of unscheduled maintenance, repair, or breakdown of many new motors of all types, contributed here in threads begun by their owners seeking advice, counsel, or retribution; or,

posted 10-23-2010 02:23 PM ET (US)            

It reads quite a bit like this:
Mercury reports that their fourstroke engine runs without service or breakdown for 20,000 hours!

In the fine print, it is clarified that those 20,000 hours were spread over 40 engines. Factual, but unnecessarily misleading which brings into question the marketer's, ahem, author's motive or agenda.

posted 10-23-2010 11:33 PM ET (US)            

And, again, with these E-TEC engines only 2007 models, they have not had a chance to accumulate 1,700-hours in recreational use where they are run only 50-hours per season. If they were typical recreational engines, they might have been run only 200-hours. I can only imagine the hue and cry from the peanut gallery if I posted an article that said an E-TEC had run for 200-hours and this was an example of longevity.

I have no idea what Bombardier considers "heavy use" and exactly what they recommend. They seem to just say to move the maintenance interval up to "annual" based on what jharrell has quoted. I will say I am astonished that jharrell has gone digging through Bombardier literature looking for something to use as a "gotcha" to dispute something I've said. You normally don't get that sort of research from the casual axe-grinder. Very good work.

Most engine manufacturers alter their policies about warranty and maintenance if an engine is used in commercial service. That this is done with the E-TEC is not particularly unusual. Again, taking a cue from my automobile, four-cycle engine maker seem to follow this rule, too.

Again, the facts I have presented here are not really subject to very much dispute. Let's review:

--the engines hours come directly from the engines themselves, via their engine history report;

--the flawless running and lack of unschedule maintenance and repair comes from the dealer and the mechanics, whom I know well.

I also said that if a four-cycle engine manufacturer required oil change at 100-hour intervals, here would have been (a total of) 34 oil changes performed on these two engines with 1,700-hours of running time (each). I am confident in my math. I don't think there is any dispute.

The dispute seems to be all about the concept that this event should have even been worthy of notice. Apparently some people think that engines which run flawlessly for 1,700-hours in three seasons of boating are not worthy of even mentioning. I think this is noteworthy, obviously, which is why I posted my simple announcement about these engines.

posted 10-23-2010 11:45 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Apparently some people think that engines which run flawlessly for 1,700-hours in three seasons of boating are not worthy of even mentioning. I think this is noteworthy, obviously, which is why I posted my simple announcement about these engines.

---

Jim -- I think that sums up this thread very nicely. However, I am a bit discouraged at the thought that you apparently think we should expect flaws to occur in the first three years of ownership of a new E-TEC.