ContinuousWave
Whaler
Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Cost of Operation
search | FAQ |
profile | register | author help
|
|
ContinuousWave Whaler Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Cost of Operation
|
| Author | Topic: Cost of Operation |
| jimh |
posted 10-14-2010 05:11 PM ET (US)  
We seem to have many readers who wish to contribute anecdotal information about the cost of operating their motors in terms of consumables like oil and gear case lubricants. If we leave gasoline out of the discussion, we could have a reasonable basis to compare costs. I will begin: I have a two-cycle engine which consumes oil with the fuel. The typical ratio is about 60:1. I have burned about 300-gallons of gasoline, which implies I have probably used 300 / 60 = 5-gallons of two-cycle oil. I use a premium oil which costs roughly $30/per gallon. A reasonable estimate of my operating cost for oil this season would be $150. I am not certain on the exact number of hours underway, but a reasonable estimate would be 80-hours. In any case, my operating time this season is very likely under 100-hours. If I had a four-cycle engine I would need to change the oil only once this season, and I would have done it at winter lay-up. I would estimate that an oil change would cost as follows: 6-quarts of 25W40 Synthetic Oil at $6/quart = $36 TOTAL = $150 As far as I can see, there is no difference in operating costs. There is a considerable advantage to the two-cycle operation because the boat is never out of commission for an oil change. If the operating time varies, the comparison varies. There are two possibilities, more hours per season or less hours per season. For instances with less hours per season, the operating costs for the four-cycle are fixed (because we are going to do an end-of-season oil change before lay-up), so the two-cycle becomes less expensive to operate. For instances with more operating hours per season, the four cycle becomes less expensive, as long as you stay under 100-hours. As soon as you exceed 100-hours in a season, you face a difficult decision: should the boat be laid-up with dirty oil in the engine? Or, should the oil be changed before lay-up. Of course, this is not a problem for boats operated on a year-round basis. But for many boaters in northern areas, there is a strong tendency to store a four-cycle engine with fresh oil. This will tend to drive the operating cost of the four-cycle engine higher, as the oil change interval will effectively become shorter than the 100-hour interval. My conclusion is that if I were to operate a four-cycle engine more than 80-hour but less than 100-hours per season, there would be slight advantage to the four-cycle. The two-cycle operating costs can be cut in half if a reduced oil rate is chosen, an option available on some engines such as the E-TEC. With the reduced oil rate, the two-cycle engines become significantly less expensive to operate than a four-cycle engine. The two-cycle operating costs can also be cut very dramatically by use of less expensive oil. Instead of $30/gallon oil, if oil that costs only $10/gallon were used the operating costs would drop 66-percent, or down to $50 for my example. |
| jharrell |
posted 10-14-2010 06:16 PM ET (US)
The main issue I see is assuming the a dealer visit is needed to perform an oil change on a 4-stroke. Do you take your E-tec to the dealer to replace the spent oil in the reservoir? You are including a $100 labor cost to essentially drain and refill a oil reservoir. I suppose some are not comfortable with draining and refilling oil in an engine, I know for me making the choice between an E-tec and a 4-stroke that the labor cost for changing the oil will not be considered as I will be doing that myself. |
| Stevebaz |
posted 10-14-2010 07:40 PM ET (US)
A minor change on the 4 stroke in looking on my Suzuki DF-70 manual the first oil and filter change is at 50 hours the following oil changes are every 100 hours and the filter is every 200 hours. I do not know how this relates to other Brands, and models, but there are differences. One issue you don’t have is the disposal of old oil and filters. On your 2 stroke you have no fee on the oil service. On the 4 stroke you do at least if you want to protect your warranty. Suzuki branded oil cost me $22.99 for a gallon and $7.35 for the additional quart. The Suzuki filter cost 11.02, we’ll see how much fuel it takes when I get the engine swap completed. I bought the materials from Browns Point Marine a Suzuki Dealer. Steve |
| contender |
posted 10-14-2010 07:46 PM ET (US)
If you purchase a boat, you should not be worried about the cost of fuel and oil unless you are doing it for a living. The boat is entertainment and entertainment cost money, just like football tickets or going snow skiing. You want to have some fun you what to have extras in your life you have to pay the price. Jim you want to save some money you need to learn/teach yourself to change your own oil and filter..... |
| jimh |
posted 10-14-2010 08:52 PM ET (US)
ASIDE to contender--I change the oil on all my cars myself. My cars are all 15 years old. I use MOBIL-1 synthetic oil and premium MOBIL-1 oil filters. I would not pay a kid $100 to change the oil on my outboard, but in order to make a comparison on an even basis, you have to hire out the labor. If you do not account for the labor costs, why account for any cost? As you say, this is not a business--it's fun. But people insist on having an accounting, so we have to have an accounting on an even basis. |
| WT |
posted 10-14-2010 09:03 PM ET (US)
There is also towing cost to get your boat to the dealer to have the oil changed. I tow 80 miles to my dealer. My Tundra get 12 mpg towing my 170 Montauk. So about 13.33 gallons at $3.10/gallon is $41.32 plus toll bridge fee of $5 is another $46. Sometimes I leave my boat for a few days so that amount then doubles. My dealer charges $125/hour too. This is getting expensive. :-) Warren |
| jharrell |
posted 10-14-2010 09:03 PM ET (US)
You do not have to account for the labor cost of an oil change because there is no requirement I am aware of by outboard manufacturers that the oil cannot be changed by the owner, or am I mistaken? I am sure your E-tec dealer would be more than happy to refill your oil reservoir for a small fee every time it goes empty, but you don't account for that cost? It is true you must dispose of the used 4-stroke oil properly, unlike the convenience of an E-tec which disposes of it through the tail pipe into the environment. My local auto parts store gladly accepts used motor oil for recycling when I visit to purchase the new oil. |
| jimh |
posted 10-14-2010 10:32 PM ET (US)
There are many two-cycle engines whose exhaust emission is cleaner than four-cycle engines. It is difficult to try to argue in favor of a four-cycle engine on the basis of environmental impact. Any careful analysis will show the four-cycle engine produces more environmental impact through the disposal process of the used oil, the dirty rags, and the used filters than is produced by a low-emission two-cycle engine. This is another topic, and I suggest that another thread be started if people wish to have arguments about environmental impact. I will start the thread for you. |
| Tohsgib |
posted 10-15-2010 12:42 AM ET (US)
How many times do we need to rehash this? If I buy my engine for $1000 cheaper than your E-tec...how many years am I ahead of the game? What about interest on my $1000 over those years and lost opportunity cost? What about the $5000 fine you get when you slip and drop that gallon of oil into the water next to the fish & game warden? How about spark plugs that need to be replaced more often and the gas you burn to go buy more oil at bulk & new plugs at your dealer? I can't believe you would actually start a post as troll-like as this personally. |
| Peter |
posted 10-15-2010 08:03 AM ET (US)
quote: This is what I would call "convenient argumentative accounting". If one is going to compare the internal powerhead lubricating costs between a 4-stroke and a 2-stroke, you must include the value of the labor component. Even if you do it yourself, then there is still an opportunity cost which must be accounted for. Classic economics. The problem with most analysis in the defense of the 4-stroke outboard oil and filter change cost is the DIYer never places any value on their time and effort involved in the 4-stroke oil and filter change. |
| jimh |
posted 10-15-2010 08:49 AM ET (US)
Nick writes:
quote: Nick--I didn't start this round. This latest 2010-version of this discussion got started when I simply mentioned that a particular motor had run for 1,730 hours without any significant problems. This seemed to rile up a few folks who then wanted to re-open the discussion on the cost of operation of the motor compared to others. [quote]"If I buy my engine for $1,000 cheaper than your [engine,] how many years am I ahead of the game?" Accounting for differences in the retail sales price of various engines will be quite difficult. This could be the topic of another thread, however I will not start that one. I will just say that the selling price of outboard motors appears to be a very complex arrangement, and it is my impression that almost no two transactions have the same price. |
| Owtrayj25 |
posted 10-15-2010 08:50 AM ET (US)
quote: It's not like folks are clocking-out from their hourly 9-5 job to do an oil change. What is the opportunity cost of changing the oil if I would otherwise be helping my wife clean the house? I'm actually ahead of the game there ;-) |
| jimh |
posted 10-15-2010 08:57 AM ET (US)
Let me put forth the argument that owners of four-cycle engines are actually provided with an extra opportunity to create enjoyment of ownership in their outboard motor by its periodic oil change requirements. In many cases, changing the oil is a simple operation that can be easily performed, and for the owner of a four-cycle outboard it may be the only work they need to do on the engine. You could say that rather than the oil change being drudgery, the oil change was a delightful opportunity to personally take part in the maintenance of the motor. The oil change is not a cost but a reward of ownership. Owners of two-cycle engines are denied this experience, and lose out on their chance to experience this reward of ownership. |
| jharrell |
posted 10-15-2010 10:49 AM ET (US)
jimh, I was not making a statement on emissions, simply conceding the fact than an E-tec disposes of oil through the tailpipe, where a 4-stroke does not and it instead must be disposed of. Does anyone deny where the oil in an Etec goes? Peter, Where is the opportunity cost for refilling an Etec oil reservoir? How many times must the Etec oil tank be refilled by the owner in the 100hour window and how much of the owners time is lost there? To be sure it is an easy operation to refill th Etec oil reservoir, but it is also an easy operation to drain and refill a 4-stroke oil reservoir. The 4-stroke takes more time, but is done less often. My argument is why account for 4-stroke oil reservoir labor and not the Etecs either in real dollars or opportunity cost? As a reference here is a link to Suzuki's maintenance schedule, note that the oil filter only need be changed every 200 hours: http://www.powersourcemarine.com/suzuki_maintenance_schedule.html |
| Peter |
posted 10-15-2010 11:23 AM ET (US)
The labor effort for the lubricating function of both formats have an opportunity cost associated with them. But no matter how you look at it, the opportunity cost for the 4-stroke is higher. Silly me. I failed to see that the oil and filter change effort is an opportunity to bond with the 4-stroke outboard. Looking at it that way, I'm surprised that a 4-stroke outboard can be had so cheaply given that one look at the maintenance schedule shows they they are more valuable opportunities to bond with both your new outboard and the dealer than ever before. ;) |
| Keeper |
posted 10-15-2010 11:31 AM ET (US)
It's gonna be a loooong Winter. =) |
| Peter |
posted 10-15-2010 12:38 PM ET (US)
We're just getting warmed up. ;) |
| Stevebaz |
posted 10-15-2010 12:42 PM ET (US)
Man I'm glad I bought the Suzuki I wouldn't want to miss the bonding moments of 4 stroke ownership. I will miss the pretty oil sheen rainbows on the still morning waters though. With all you’re missing with the E-tec they should price it by the pound instead of the horse power you would come out way ahead. The price of maintenance is trivial compared to the cost to step up to the plate. I will contend that I expect that the loss bonding time is better spent riding around on the water than wiping up love in the driveway. Steve |
| Tohsgib |
posted 10-15-2010 01:36 PM ET (US)
Jim...I did not mean just now. I meant how many times do we need to rehash this topic. You as the administrator should know that a deep search would probably reveal about 10-15 threads on this same topic with basically the same outcome....LHG is right, we should all own vintage ole school Mercs and screw everyone and everything else. |
| jharrell |
posted 10-15-2010 01:40 PM ET (US)
Peter, Why is the opportunity cost always higher with a 4-stroke can you please elaborate? I have never owned and Etec, but have owned and do own non-oil injected two-stroke outboards. I can change the oil in my automobile in about 30minutes, it would less if I did not need to change the filter. Mixing and adding two-stroke oil to my gas adds roughly 10 minutes to every gas fill-up for my boat. How does the Etec compare, how often and how much time is spent filling the reservoir? If it is less then 30minutes per 100 hours, then the Etec is ahead, but by how much? I am not the one who made a ridiculous reference to "bonding" with my outboard, I am trying to compare actual time and oney spent maintaining each. I am still not sure why a dealer visit and real labor charge is being accounted for with a 4-stroke, it is not a requirement, simply an option. |
| Perry |
posted 10-15-2010 05:22 PM ET (US)
If you take your 4 stroke motor to the dealer for an oil change as Jim stated earlier in this thread, the cost of operation would be about the same as a DFI 2 stroke. If you change the oil in a 4 stroke yourself (like most people here do) that drops the cost way down and would tip the scale in favor of the 4 stroke motor in cost of operation. |
| jimh |
posted 10-15-2010 05:46 PM ET (US)
The suggestion that a two-cycle engine operator would hire someone to fill the oil reservoir is ridiculous. Will we hear next that they will have to hire a chase boat to follow them around with extra oil? Come on, four-stroke fans, try to keep this serious. In modern two-cycle engines the oil is not mixed with the gasoline. Oil is kept in a reservoir and distributed to various places in the engine by a pump and manifold system. There is no time spent in the operation of a modern two-cycle engine measuring oil and adding it to a fuel tank. That is 1970's technology. |
| jimh |
posted 10-15-2010 05:50 PM ET (US)
Four-cycle engines require the operator to check the oil sump level prior to engine operation. In some engines, if the engine has been tilted up to a non-operating position, the manufacturer requires a wait period for engine lubricating oil to drain into the sump before the oil level is checked. Typically checking of the oil level requires removal of the engine cowling. The oil level must be check. If low, the operator must add oil. When the oil level is correct, the cowling must be replaced, This procedure is recommended before each engine use. This sort of tedium perhaps should also be considered in the overall cost of operation. If this advice is not followed, we may hear charges of "neglect" made by proponents of strict adherence to manufacturer's guidelines. |
| jharrell |
posted 10-15-2010 08:21 PM ET (US)
I find the suggestion that the operator is required to hire someone to drain and refill a 4-stroke oil reservoir ridiculous for such a simple procedure, yet the moderator seems to think it must be included in the cost of ownership for a 4-stroke. I guess what one person thinks is ridiculous is a matter of opinion and should not be taken as fact. |
| Perry |
posted 10-15-2010 09:29 PM ET (US)
It makes ownership of 4 stroke motors appear to be more expensive to operate. |
| andygere |
posted 10-16-2010 12:39 AM ET (US)
If you keep your boat in the water, changing the oil in the outboard motor is a major pain in the a$$. Not having to change the oil was one of the major reasons I bought a DFI 2-stroke outboard instead of a 4-stroke. I have added oil to my E-TEC 200 exactly one time this year. Using XD-100 oil, the consumption rate is extremely low. |
| jimh |
posted 10-16-2010 08:36 AM ET (US)
Suggesting that there should be no cost assigned to perform routine maintenance procedures is a good way to make an analysis of cost favor one engine over another. It is easy to see who wants to favor one engine over another--it is the people who do not want to assign any cost to their task. The more labor you ignore the less cost there will be. It is quite common that owners of four-cycle engines hire out the labor of the oil change. It is very uncommon--unheard of, really--that owners of two-cycle motors hire someone to pour oil from a container into their on-deck oil reservoir tank. This simple observation of past practice is the best indicator of which task requires an accounting for cost. Andy--Thank you for the very cogent observation regarding the added difficulty to perform an oil change on a four-cycle motor if the boat is kept in the water. You have made an excellent observation. |
| Tohsgib |
posted 10-16-2010 10:55 AM ET (US)
Do you check the oil in your car EVERY time you use it? Your manual probably says to do so as well. Changing a blown pwerhead is a major pain in the a$$ as well but yet people still buy 2 strokes. BRP warranty does not cover scorched cylinders if I remember correctly from this forum. 4 strokes don't explode if they run lean. I think that is big cost to consider as well. If ya really want to nit pick, what about the fact that you have to go digging through your center console or run back to the garage to get the oil to fill your reservois? I bet I can check my oil faster. |
| Perry |
posted 10-16-2010 12:51 PM ET (US)
quote: What do consider "quite common"? Have you conducted a poll? |
| jimh |
posted 10-16-2010 05:09 PM ET (US)
I reached the conclusion that it was common for owner's of four-cycle engines to hire out the labor for changing the oil because almost every boat dealer service department performs this type of work and often has a standard price quote listed for it. In comparison, I have never seen a boat dealer that has a labor rate for traveling to a customer's boat to add two cycle oil to the on-deck reservoir. It was proposed that if the cost of labor for an oil change on a four-cycle engine was to be accounted for with hired labor, that the cost of adding two-cycle oil to a reservoir would also have to be accounted for. I consider this suggestion to be ridiculous, that is, I intend to ridicule it. As I am doing here. Are you suggesting that hiring of labor for changing of four-cycle oil is as rare or as uncommon as hiring labor to pour oil from a two-cycle oil container into a reservoir on-deck? |
| jimh |
posted 10-16-2010 05:17 PM ET (US)
It really does not matter much if an owner of a motor hires himself (at no cost) to perform routine maintenance and service or if he hires it done. The work still has to be performed. There is simply more work to be performed with four-cycle engines, unless I am mistaken, than there is with two-cycle engines. As I already mentioned, creating more work to be done may actually be seen as a bonus for people who enjoy doing some work on their engines themselves. Owners of four-cycle engines should not try to hide the work from view. Let it be known there is more work, and be proud you are doing it yourself. Let your engine maintenance skill shine! |
| Perry |
posted 10-16-2010 08:02 PM ET (US)
quote: I never once mentioned filling a 2 stroke reservoir. I just wondered how you can say it is quite common that owners of four-cycle engines hire out the labor of the oil change without doing some kind of scientific research or polling. I don't know of anyone at the marina where I keep my boat that takes their boat to a dealer to have an oil change. Just because a dealer has a price for a certain service doesn't mean that it is quite common that customers pay for this service. |
| Perry |
posted 10-16-2010 08:05 PM ET (US)
BTW, it takes me about 20 m inutes to change the oil in my 4 stroke motor once a year. If my time is worth $50 an hour, it still doesn't account for much money. |
| jharrell |
posted 10-16-2010 10:00 PM ET (US)
Perhaps we should stick to the facts. Both 4-strokes and 2-strokes have oil reservoirs that must be refilled at certain intervals in order to function properly prevent the warranty from being void. NO outboard requires a dealer visit to refill the oil reservoir. It is just as ridiculous to suggest a dealer visit is REQUIRED for a 4-stroke as it is for a 2-stroke. Now we can can compare time spent refilling each type of reservoir to get a better understanding of which motor requires less maintenance OR we can compare dealer cost for each maintenance operation. To compare the cost of maintenance done by the operator for 2-stroke to dealer costs for the 4-stroke is disingenuous, and shows the moderators obvious bias towards the particular brand of 2-stroke. You can hire a professional to do many maintenance chores on your boat. Some people choose pay marinas to clean the boat and refill the fuel(and 2 -stroke oil), this however should not be considered as a REQUIRED cost when comparing boats or engines. |
| jimh |
posted 10-16-2010 10:11 PM ET (US)
It only takes about 30-seconds to pour oil into the reservoir of a two-cycle engine, so even at $100-per-hour, that is only a labor cost of $0.83. Even to buy into the absurd argument that the cost of refilling the oil reservoir must be hired out, it still comes in much less than the oil change cost of $150. |
| jharrell |
posted 10-16-2010 10:32 PM ET (US)
The moderator seems very sure that a 4-stroke is still more work than a 2-stroke even if the maintenance is performed by the operator. However the moderator nor anyone else has answered my question as to how much time is spent during a 100hour interval refilling the E-tec oil reservoir. From personal experience the drain refill operation on a 4-stroke takes me roughly 30 minutes to perform. Another poster has said it takes them 20 minutes. I think my point is clear even if the E-tec comes out ahead by a few minutes of operator time, then it must be considered that the oil cost is higher for a 2-stroke. Oh yeah unless you take it to the dealer... It seems the moderator however is rather proud his ridicule of 4-stroke owners who perform their own oil change, hiding such work from view, considering that to be some form of enjoyment for them, secretly toiling through the long minutes needed to drain and properly dispose of their oil, while he simply watches the oil in his E-tec magically disappear into thin air, so he can merrilly refill the reservoir with expensive new oil again and again in plain view, shining for all to see. |
| jimh |
posted 10-16-2010 10:35 PM ET (US)
quote: jharrel says I lack candor--"disingenuous"--but I have made absolutely no secret of my ownership of a two-cycle engine. I declared such in the very first post of this discussion. It is completely wrong to say I lack candor--I have made an honest presentation of all my comments. I have mislead no one. To suggest that adding two-cycle oil to a reservoir is "maintenance" of the same order as changing four-stroke oil is a very weak argument, and it shows the obvious bias of jharrell (or anyone who would make that argument) toward the four-cycle engine. It sounds to me like grasping at straws. |
| jharrell |
posted 10-16-2010 10:53 PM ET (US)
Your lack of candor is in suggesting the dealer trip a required cost for a 4-stroke, which it is not. 30 seconds is very impressive. So if it truly a 30 second operation from start to finish, then an E-tec saves the Operator what 27-28 minutes per season, while costing the operator about $100 more in oil. |
| jimh |
posted 10-17-2010 12:50 AM ET (US)
I have never suggested that owner's of a four-cycle engine must haul their engine to a dealer to have its oil changed. I simply included the cost of the dealer's labor as a reasonable basis to compare costs. Please recall that other people--not me--insisted that we must have an accounting of the operating costs of two-cycle engines compared to four-cycle engines. If we are to account for costs of operating the engine, we have to account for the required maintenance procedures. If we do not have a reasonable accounting for these costs, we cannot make a true comparison. A number of false arguments have been proposed. First, it has been proposed that work performed by the owner is to be considered free of cost. This is not a reasonable basis for comparison. Second, it has been proposed that the work which must be performed be selected from the required work, and only certain portions of the recommended work actually be done. Both of these false arguments have the effect of reducing the cost of operation. These are silly arguments. Of course you can reduce costs if you include free labor. Of course you can reduce costs if you neglect to perform certain procedures. Finally, it has been proposed that routine procedures related to operating the motor such as replacing consumable items like oil must be performed by a dealer at the dealer's repair technician shop labor rate. Perhaps next we will hear that we should hire someone to push the throttle for us. If it makes an owner of a particular motor feel better to invent reasons to ignore costs of operating that motor, it may be a good basis for that owner, but it is not a realistic analysis of the true costs. |
| |
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.