Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  E-TEC 150 and 115 Fuel Economy Comparison

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   E-TEC 150 and 115 Fuel Economy Comparison
Tohsgib posted 09-05-2011 12:33 PM ET (US)   Profile for Tohsgib   Send Email to Tohsgib  
[Linked below are performance reports made with the] same [model of] boat [but with] different engines. [One] boat has 100-percent of maximum horsepower, and the other fitted with 76.7-percent. Get out the popcorn and let the debate go on!

http://www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE497.pdf

http://www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE412.pdf

contender posted 09-05-2011 12:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for contender  Send Email to contender     
I'm going have to go with the larger engine rig. First the conditions were more favorable for the smaller rig; second, as soon as you start adding weight (two more people, coolers, ice, 6 cases of beer, tackle) the smaller engine will have to work harder to maintain the same speed. Also cutting across the bay down in the keys you do not see anyone putting along at 25-MPH, longer time to get somewhere is lost time fishing, especially in a tournament.
Peter posted 09-05-2011 01:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Good find Nick. Is that buttered popcorn you are eating? I thought we were going to talk about wear and do more math?

This comparison is good regarding wear because the E-TEC 115 and the E-TEC 150 are [family engines] and share the same bore, stroke, pistons, rings, rods, injectors, spark plugs, etc. At the same speed, all of those components in the E-TEC 115 are cycling more frequently to produce the same speed. You also have greater piston velocity and piston travel in the 115 than the 150 per the same boat distance traveled.

For Mr. Harrell who is seemingly fixated on E-TEC injectors here is some math for you. Per the linked report, each of the 4 injectors of the E-TEC 115 running at 4000 RPM is injecting 0.0183 gallons per minute (4.4 Gallons/hour x 1/4 injectors x 1 hour/60 minutes). Per the other report, each injector of the E-TEC 150 running at 3500 RPM is injecting 0.0166 GPM (6.0 gallons/hour x 1/6 injectors x 1 hour/60 minutes. You advocated that fuel flow was a wear factor (I don't disagree), not only is there lower fuel flow through the injector in the 150, there are fewer cycles of the voice coil too.

Owtrayj25 posted 09-05-2011 07:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for Owtrayj25  Send Email to Owtrayj25     
I assume discussion of all issues relative to this comparison are invited for this thread. It has continually advocated by some that different displacement/HP engines will burn equal amounts of fuel to achieve the same speed. (i.e a 150 HP engine will achieve the same fuel economy as a 115 HP engine when the engines push the same load at similar speeds) This comparison seems to refute such assertions. In this comparison, the 115 HP engine actually achieves 16% better fuel economy than the 150 HP engine at optimum or near optimum cruise.
Garrett posted 09-05-2011 07:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for Garrett  Send Email to Garrett     
Well, the results in the boat testing (provided links) clearly show that the 115HP generally has better MPG economy.
Peter posted 09-05-2011 08:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Oops, I got the math wrong. The 115 burns 5.4 GPH at 4000 RPM, not 4.4. So each of the 4 injectors is injecting 0.0225 gallons per minute at 4000 RPM versus 0.0166 (a 35 percent increase in the flow rate).

For Nick's benefit, here i177.photobucket.com/albums/w231/Whaler-Fleet/CW%20Posts/e-tec.jpg a plot of the fuel consumption (GPH) versus speed (MPH) for each of the two motors. The plot helps smooth out datapoint errors and better shows overall trends. The plot shows that both motors are more or less riding on the same fuel to speed curve on that boat despite different displacement and different cylinders running at different RPM. The plot shows that E-TEC 115 has a slight advantage between 10 and 30 MPH which, as Contender points out, is probably not a speed where it would make much of a difference to flats boat owners. By 35 MPH they are

From what I see overall, getting the 150 over the 115 on this flats boat is a no brainer - lower noise, lower wear and tear at any speed with almost the same fuel economy, more reserve power, greater load carrying capacity. The fuel economy gap that existed between lower and higher HP carburated 2-stroke motors was significantly closed with efficient DFI technology.

Peter posted 09-05-2011 10:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Hey Nick. Hope you have another bowl of popcorn ready. Enjoy.

i177.photobucket.com/albums/w231/Whaler-Fleet/CW%20Posts/etec2.jpg

Data is from the Evinrude test reports for the SeaHunter 18 Flats. Pushing the boat between 35 and 45 MPH, the 4 cylinder E-TEC 115 HO (running approx. 4000 to 5000 RPM) is burning MORE gas than the 6 cylinder E-TEC 150 (approx. 3250 to 4250 RPM) while the E-TEC 150 is pushing an extra 125 lbs around at these speeds. This comparison seems to support the assertion that there is little difference in fuel burn between a modern 115 and a modern 150.

Note that the in the reports for the 115s and 150s, the selected "optimum" cruise speed is often quite different so they are NOT doing the same amount of work. When doing the same work, they typically have very similar burn rates.

jharrell posted 09-05-2011 11:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
For Mr. Harrell who is seemingly fixated on E-TEC injectors here is some math for you.

This is getting good, I was hoping you would bring up a 6 cylinder engine with similar displacement per cylinder.

What happened to your famous "less moving parts is better" argument you espouse at any chance against a 4-stroke?

The E-TEC 150 has basically 33% more moving parts! Injectors,pistons,rods,bearings, that almost as bad as going to a 4-stroke!

So you are correct each injector has less cycles and lower fuel rate in the 150, except you just introduced two more failure points in the fuel delivery system.

In systems design the reliability of a component is usually denoted in MTBF or (Mean Time Between Failure) usually in hours of operation.

The E-TEC fuel injectors in this example are ideal for a comparison because according to Peter they are identical there is simply two more in the 150. This means that each injector should have the same MTBF.

I cannot seem to find the actual MTBF for an E-TEC injector, but we can use any reasonable failure rate to demonstrate the percentage increase when they are combined into a single system, lets say 10,000 MTBF.

At 10,000 MTBF an E-TEC injector would have a lambda of 1,000,000 / 10,000 or 100 failures per million hours.

The 4 cylinder E-TEC would therefore have a 400 failures per 1,000,000 hours or a MTBF of 2500 hours on it's injectors while the 150 would have 600 failures per 1,000,000 or 1666 MTBF.

The E-TEC 150 has a surprise, 33% lower MTBF, lower is not better.

Of course my point still stands that "it's complicated", the 35% lower fuel flow offsets the higher total failure rate, but by how much? Does Evinrude have a MTBF plot over fuel flow rate for the injector?

The argument could change as well if the E-TEC cycles the injectors multiple times per stroke and modifies the number of times they do so based on the engine and rpm.

So which has "lower wear and tear", based on raw MTBF the 150 will fail sooner, but I am not willing to stand behind that, there is more to an engine than it's components MTBF. The same goes for RPM, unless you listen to Peter.

However in this case there is a real tangible benefit to the 115 besides weight. 10% better gas mileage at 30mph. Slow down a little and you get 16% better at 25mph.

quote:
Pushing the boat between 35 and 45 MPH, the 4 cylinder E-TEC 115 HO (running approx. 4000 to 5000 RPM) is burning MORE gas than the 6 cylinder E-TEC 150 (approx. 3250 to 4250 RPM) while the E-TEC 150 is pushing an extra 125 lbs around at these speeds.

So now you are going to compare an engine tuned for performance to one tuned for economy, nice. Well since someone who would like purchase an HO wants to go fast, it's getting what looks to be about 20% better mileage at 53mph. What about that 150 HO? Seems to be getting about 30% worse gas mileage at 30mph than it's non HO counter part on closest boats I could find, probably again because it's tuned for performance not mileage:

http://www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE804.pdf

http://www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE391.pdf

Looks like the HO's are on equal footing of you compare them, with the 115 still getting better cruising mileage.

Peter posted 09-06-2011 08:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Mr. Harrell, I'm glad you went through that analysis, you apparently agree with "less is more". LOL.

In the case of the E-TEC 115 versus the E-TEC 150, we do indeed have more moving parts, but they are moving and cycling less. Your MTBF math doesn't account for that but at the end you obviously recognize that the circumstances underwhich the component is operating matters.

Again, my point is that the same components (whether it be the injectors or pistons, for example) in the smaller motor are subject to greater wear for the same work effort. It's that simple. For some reason you don't wish to concede that.

By the way, the E-TEC system does account for injector wear and makes adjustments to the injector coefficients as a function of counts. So the EMM in the 115 would be making those adjustments sooner than in the case of the 150 if each motor is asked to expend the same work effort over time.

The reason for posting fuel versus speed curves is an attempt to eliminate errors and outlier datapoints for either dataset. You can pick any datapoint and make a case for either motor being more fuel efficient, but when you look at the curves as a whole, where both motors are asked to do the same work, they line up pretty darn close. Neither motor has a decided advantage in fuel efficiency, certainly not enough to defend a miser's ultimate decision to buy a 115 over a 150.

Not sure what your point is with the last set of performance reports. The boats are different, the weight loading is different, one is running a 4 blade propeller and the other is a 3 blade. If you are trying to somehow distinguish the 115 HO from the 115, by looking at a 150 HO, this is not a good example. But the 115 HO is essentially the E-TEC 130 so perhaps it would be better to characterize the second graph as 130 V4 versus 150 V6.

Keeper posted 09-06-2011 11:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for Keeper  Send Email to Keeper     
Get a life.
Tohsgib posted 09-06-2011 01:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
I think I put too much of that orange butter salt on my popcorn...kinda salty.

Contender...good point but many places in the keys where you can run a single purpose boat like that have Manatee zones thanks to Jimmy Buffett and those are 25mph. My Donzi has a minimum planing speed of 21mph so many of the places by me are hard to stay legal in.

In my experience V6 engines have a higher destruction rate than their smaller counterparts. I personally believe that twin V4's would last much longer than a large V6. I never blew up an otboard in my life but I grenaded my 225 TWICE. This however might be different with 4 strokes as there are 2 companies out there making V8's.

jharrell posted 09-06-2011 05:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
Mr. Harrell, I'm glad you went through that analysis, you apparently agree with "less is more". LOL.

Nope never said that. My point all along, which I now must repeat once again is that it cannot be known, it could very well be they have very similar reliability, trading lower MTBF for lower fuel flow per injector, along with a 100 other variables.

I am not sure where your coming from now though, if "less is more" then the 115 should have less wear and tear correct?

quote:
By the way, the E-TEC system does account for injector wear and makes adjustments to the injector coefficients as a function of counts. So the EMM in the 115 would be making those adjustments sooner than in the case of the 150 if each motor is asked to expend the same work effort over time.

Counts of cycles or fuel flow or hours of operation? Where is this documented?

Suzuki's timing chain hydraulically auto tensions essentially eliminating all maintenance on it for the lifetime of the motor.

It sound's like the E-TEC injectors do the same thing electronically, eliminating them as a wear and maintenance point for the life of the motor regardless of RPM the engine has run at.

That is if they do what you say, you can take them out of the wear equation completely.

Then whats left is the extra pistons, rings, rods and bearings. Which on the surface would still lower MTBF on the 150, equalizing it's wear characteristics with the 115. Again which comes out on top? This cannot be known given simply a difference in RPM.

quote:
Again, my point is that the same components (whether it be the injectors or pistons, for example) in the smaller motor are subject to greater wear for the same work effort. It's that simple. For some reason you don't wish to concede that.

No all along you have said the engine as a whole has more wear and tear. If any one of those components fail the engine is no longer functional. The is referred to as "Serial Availability", that is there are no major redundant components in a E-TEC that would allow it to continue functioning properly should one fail.

There is absolutely no way you can know for sure that the higher stress on the smaller motors lower number of moving parts outweighs the lower MTBF from more moving parts on the 150. Your view on engine wear is myopic and doesn't take a "System's Thinking" approach necessary to understand reliability of something as complex as a modern engine.

quote:
Not sure what your point is with the last set of performance reports. The boats are different, the weight loading is different, one is running a 4 blade propeller and the other is a 3 blade.

Sorry I wish Evinrude ran the exact same boats as the did on the 115 HO and 150, but that is the closest I could come up with, same hull, one boat is 1300lbs dry with 1 person, the other is 960lbs dry with 2 people. The end result is 130lbs different nearly the same as your examples. Are you saying a 3 blade prop is causing 30% loss in economy?

pcrussell50 posted 09-06-2011 09:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
quote:
It sound's like the E-TEC injectors do the same thing electronically, eliminating them as a wear and maintenance point for the life of the motor regardless of RPM the engine has run at.

This sounds for all the world like what we call in the automotive world, LTFT, (long term fuel trim). Ford and Bosch have had it in their sequential multiport systems since the late 80's, (Ford's system is basically Bosch's, but with in house calibration algorithms/strategies). So these systems, that can adjust air:fuel ratio (AFR) on the fly, have the means to detect which injectors they must pulse longer or shorter to get the desired AFR. The PCM keeps track of this over the long term, and comes up with a LTFT, a dimensionless scalar, that is applied to each injector. The
PCM uses this in the short term to get nearly where it wants to be, AFR-wise, and then fine tunes from there. Over time, as the injectors wear, the LTFT scalar changes.

Great stuff. Glad to see it has made it's way into outboards. Too bad it's not worth paying for, (to me), until "the man" forces me to, or forces me out of boating.

-Peter

jharrell posted 09-06-2011 09:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
LTFT seems to be set by STFT(Short Term Fuel Trim) reaching maximum thresholds. STFT seems to be set by feedback from the various engine sensors adapting to the current situation and engine characteristics.

That is in modern engines the LTFT is much more sophisticated than a simple cycle counter as Peter is suggesting the E-TEC uses.

Is there any more info on how the E-TEC does this and if it truly is just a "dumb" cycle counter?

pcrussell50 posted 09-06-2011 09:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Darn it J, I was trying to illustrate how far away from the scope of this forum we could get. This kind of talk can get me going long. :)

I've been using STFT's on my track car to try and come up with a workable transfer function for this wild mass airflow meter I have. I'm beginning to think eddies and turbulence induced by the relatively overlappy, long and tall cam. But it's only relatively so. I have another meter that works pretty well with the same setup. Its not yet a headscratcher, but headed that way.

I have no idea how the E-TEC's induction scheme works. Is it possible that the V configuration motors have two meters, one for each bank?

-Peter

Peter posted 09-06-2011 10:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Regarding MTBF, here is an interesting read on MTBF www.apcmedia.com/salestools/VAVR-5WGTSB_R0_EN.pdf although in the context of the information technology (IT) world. I think the conclusion is worth repeating here:

quote:
MTBF is a “buzz word” commonly used in the IT industry. Numbers are thrown around without an
understanding of what they truly represent.
While MTBF is an indication of reliability, it does not represent
the expected service life of the product. Ultimately an MTBF value is meaningless if failure is undefined and
assumptions are unrealistic or altogether missing.

.

In the current analysis, the failure hasn't been defined. The simple analysis assumes that the all injectors are operating under the same circumstances so that the failure assumptions are the same. But they are not.

Regarding E-TEC injectors, from a highly knowledgable and respected source:

quote:
All E-TEC injectors have wear parameters built into the software and the engine computer counts the "firings" of each injector and varies its electrical signal to account for predetermined wear patterns over the life of the motor. This combined with the intial production co-efficents make for a super accurate fuel delivery system millions of pulses down the road.
Didn't even have to go outside the world of CW for this information, see continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/005854.html

So to answer your question: yes the system is "dumb" and it works. It's less dumb than than your Suzuki brand's hydraulic chain tensioner. ;)

Your argument is really more along the lines of whether the undisputable increased wear in the components of the smaller motor asked to perform the same work matters. That we really don't know as you tend to advocate. Since it is an unknown as you advocate, I would put my money on the slower running, larger motor. Perhaps you would not. The fuel consumption, if not the same, will not be significantly greater and the noise level will be lower for the same work effort.


jharrell posted 09-06-2011 10:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
In the current analysis, the failure hasn't been defined. The simple analysis assumes that the all injectors are operating under the same circumstances so that the failure assumptions are the same. But they are not.

Wow this is going in circles do I have to repeat this again: "My point all along, which I now must repeat once again is that it cannot be known, it could very well be they have very similar reliability, trading lower MTBF for lower fuel flow per injector, along with a 100 other variables."

Maybe I should just keep cutting and pasting that until you can accept it.

I a not making assumptions, you are! You are the one saying more cycles = more wear PERIOD. My whole point there are many factors that change the wear outcome and therefor the MTBF of the whole engine

The other point your missing is that paper is focused on parallel availability and not serial as is the case with engine components.

You can get a much better understanding of MTBF here less the marketing drivel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate

quote:
Your argument is really more along the lines of whether the undisputable increased wear in the components of the smaller motor asked to perform the same work matters. That we really don't know as you tend to advocate. Since it is an unknown as you advocate, I would put my money on the slower running, larger motor. Perhaps you would not. The fuel consumption, if not the same, will not be significantly greater and the noise level will be lower for the same work effort.

You are all over the map. This is confirmation that in your opinion more moving parts does not matter only the stresses on the individual components. This seems to a be 180 based on passed discussions of 2-stroke vs 4-stroke complexity. I hope you stick to this in the future, I don't agree, but please be consistent from now on.

pcrussell50 posted 09-07-2011 12:59 AM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
quote:
Your argument is really more along the lines of whether the undisputable increased wear in the components of the smaller motor asked to perform the same work matters.

Peter, while you may be dead right, I think this is also where some of the dispute might originate. Since a lot of us drive by the seat of our pants, I'm thinking the lower powered motor would in reality, not be asked by it's operator to perform the same work, (average power output). It would probably be run at about the same rpm as the bigger motor, thus putting out LESS power, and propelling the boat slower, than the 150 would.

Not to throw cold water on the discussion or anything.

-Peter

Peter posted 09-07-2011 07:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
quote:
Peter, while you may be dead right, I think this is also where some of the dispute might originate. Since a lot of us drive by the seat of our pants, I'm thinking the lower powered motor would in reality, not be asked by it's operator to perform the same work, (average power output). It would probably be run at about the same rpm as the bigger motor, thus putting out LESS power, and propelling the boat slower, than the 150 would.

I agree. More likely than not, it would be asked to do less work. That is the way I would operate the smaller motor -- keep the revs down, do less work. This discussion spawned from a different discussion where there was a proposition that the smaller motor would be more fuel efficient such that it would drive a decision to the smaller motor. I provided some performance reports that showed that, when the same work effort is performed, the differences, if any, were tiny and not compelling to drive a purchase decision.one way or the other. That was in the context of two 4-stroke motors. The same appears to be true here for two DFI 2-stroke motors.

Mr. Harrell, you sir, are all over the map. The point, in the other discussion and this one was about wear as a function of RPM for the same work output and I simply demonstrated at least two places where there is increased wear as a function of higher RPM in both pistons (distance traveled) and injectors (number of cycles and quantity of fuel flowing through) for the same work output. I am curious to know why that gets you so agitated.

Tohsgib posted 09-07-2011 11:40 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
This has probably been debated but I am not reading through that dribble again. Question:

A 115 is using it's injectors less than a 150 because the flow of fuel is less. It takes more fuel to run a larger bore or additional cyls engine at any rpm. This over a lifetime the 150's injectors would wear faster than the 115's during it's normal use just because at all speeds it needs more fuel to run than a V4 does...correct?

Not to get off subject but my "problem" with many on this forum is that they still think back in the 80's. The reason they think that is because they have an engine made in the 80's. For many that own an engine that redlines at 5500, 4000rpm is say a normal or slightly high cruise rpm. My point is with engines redlining at 6300-6500, 4800 can now be a normal or slightly high cruise rpm as it is the same % of throttle yet people here sometimes can't see through the blinders on something that simple and have to start rambling about wear and fuel, etc. Frustrating to say the least. Lastly...how many people here have ACTUALLY worn out an engine? My guess would be none, maybe one so who gives a hoot!

Peter posted 09-07-2011 01:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
quote:
A 115 is using it's injectors less than a 150 because the flow of fuel is less. It takes more fuel to run a larger bore or additional cyls engine at any rpm. This over a lifetime the 150's injectors would wear faster than the 115's during it's normal use just because at all speeds it needs more fuel to run than a V4 does...correct?

Yes and no to your compound question. You have to compare on the basis of the work performed being equal otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.

If both the V4 and V6 motors (the 115 and 150 are modular so they have same bore/stroke/injectors) are run at the SAME RPM under proper loading so they both reach their WOT maximum RPM, they will be producing DIFFERENT HP. Look at the performance reports, the V6 boat at 4000 RPM is going faster than the V4 boat at 4000 RPM. That means more work is being done by the V6.

If you look at the lines on the respective reports where the boats are going the same speed you'll see that the V6 turns about 500 RPM less than the V4 to do that. You'll also see that the fuel consumption rate is very similar if not almost identical.

So lets say that at 30 MPH each motor burns fuel at the rate of 10 GPH (the V6 running at 3500 and the V4 running at 4000). That 10 GPH is being injected into the cylinders by either 4 or 6 injectors. In the case of the V4, each of the 4 injector injects 2.50 GPH (2.50 GPH x 4 = 10 GPH). In the case of the V6, each injector injects 1.67 GPH (1.67 GPH x 6 = 10 GPH). So the flow through each of the injectors in the V6 is lower.

If you were step the V6 up to 4000 RPM, the boat would be moving faster than the 115 at 4000 RPM. That means more fuel, obviously. While I haven't done the math, it would not surprise me to find that the injection rate is the same at 4000 RPM for each of the injectors of the V6 as it is for each injector of the V4.

The redlines on the V4 and V6 are very similar. We are not comparing 5500 to a 6000 RPM redline motors both in the case of the E-TEC or the Yamahas.

I've seen plenty of worn out motors on underpowered boats in my lifetime.

pcrussell50 posted 09-07-2011 02:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
quote:
Lastly...how many people here have ACTUALLY worn out an engine? My guess would be none, maybe one so who gives a hoot!

This has been my point in discouraging people from abandoning their carbureted 2-strokes, which are still (probably), perfectly serviceable.

-Peter

Tohsgib posted 09-07-2011 03:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Peter...people are not abandoning their old engines, they are upgrading to new technology. When I was a kid I lived on an Island and outboard companies changed their decals EVERY year. Many people traded in every few years for a new engine. Basically they received the same old engine with new decals. People still do that today but at least they are getting something more for their money than new decals. The fact that people are still running engines from the 1980's on a regular basis goes to prove how well they were made back then. Think about 1985...how many people did you know driving around with a 1959 outboard on their boat? Back in 1985 I was amazed to see many outboards from 1975 around.
Owtrayj25 posted 09-07-2011 03:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for Owtrayj25  Send Email to Owtrayj25     
Generally, catastrophic failure due to manufacturing defect, neglect, hitting something submerged, etc. happens long before an engine simply "wears out". Most marine engine owners, as most automobile owners, are not worried so much about preventative maintenance, especially when engines get up their in age. There is a big difference in your engine sucking up some debris in the water intake, overheating and puking, and wearing out and puking.
jharrell posted 09-07-2011 07:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
Mr. Harrell, you sir, are all over the map. The point, in the other discussion and this one was about wear as a function of RPM for the same work output and I simply demonstrated at least two places where there is increased wear as a function of higher RPM in both pistons (distance traveled) and injectors (number of cycles and quantity of fuel flowing through) for the same work output. I am curious to know why that gets you so agitated.

It is irritating to have someone shift their position just to win an argument.

Maybe this would clear things up, just answer this directly:

1. Do you believe more moving parts leads to a greater chance of failure? Yes or No?

jharrell posted 09-07-2011 07:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
Just to extremely clear I will rephrase the question so there is no ambiguity as it is based on this discussion comparing two engines utilizing similar components only more of them:

Do you believe all else being equal more moving parts leads to a greater chance of failure? Yes or No?

jimh posted 09-07-2011 08:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
If all else is equal, then by definition the number of moving parts is not significant.
jharrell posted 09-07-2011 08:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
jimh, are you telling me you don't understand the meaning of Ceteris paribus or are you deliberately imploying Denying the antecedent?
Tohsgib posted 09-07-2011 09:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Getting out a new bag of corn...too bad it is not a LONG weekend again!
jimh posted 09-07-2011 10:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
About all I can say to that is:

Si quieres peninsulam amoenam circumspice

The chance of failure should be equal to the sum of the MTBF divided by the number of parts. If all the parts are equal, the outcome is the same no matter how many parts.

jimh posted 09-07-2011 10:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
And "Ceteris paribus"--are you channeling Tom Clark?
Tohsgib posted 09-07-2011 10:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
We NEED Tom Clark to settle this BS. At least we will believe HIM.
captbone posted 09-07-2011 11:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
Chance doesnt go up but overall probability does go up with increased parts.
jimh posted 09-08-2011 07:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
This talk of mean time between failure is a diversion from the main topic. We are supposed to be comparing fuel economy. We should consider that the mean time to the first failure for either engine is sufficiently far enough in the future that we will be able to finish this discussion before either engine fails.
Tohsgib posted 09-08-2011 10:15 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Dunno Jim...they ARE E-Tecs.
jharrell posted 09-08-2011 08:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
The chance of failure should be equal to the sum of the MTBF divided by the number of parts. If all the parts are equal, the outcome is the same no matter how many parts.

Incorrect the MTBF of the system is the product of all individual components MTBF in a serial system such as an engine.

I did the math earlier in the thread, if a single E-TEC injector has a MTBF of 10,000 hours, 4 have a MTBF of 2,500, 6 have a MTBF of 1666.

More can be found here: http://www.eventhelix.com/RealtimeMantra/FaultHandling/ system_reliability_availability.htm

jharrell posted 09-08-2011 08:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
This talk of mean time between failure is a diversion from the main topic. We are supposed to be comparing fuel economy. We should consider that the mean time to the first failure for either engine is sufficiently far enough in the future that we will be able to finish this discussion before either engine fails.

Fuel economy was solved when Tohsgib posted the two reports.

Even if you consider 10% at cruise a "small" difference, the 115 is obviously superior.

The question all along has been, is the 150 still worth it? The proposition was that is was worth it based on "lower noise, lower wear and tear, more reserve power, greater load carrying capacity."

This whole thread was spawned based on the disagreement over the "lower wear and tear" point, otherwise I think there is no disagreement, well maybe the "lower noise" is far fetched. The 150 certainly does have "more reserve power, greater load carrying capacity." and a higher price to go with it.

martyn1075 posted 09-09-2011 11:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
Let's say the boats powered with the motors in comparison were under a rough sea condition. I am guessing that they would both work harder to push through the slop. Would one of the two be more desirable in that situation? Would the 115 be under more stress then the 150 and therefore acheive better gas milage?

Martyn

Peter posted 09-09-2011 04:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
There isn't much to talk about in terms of comparative fuel economy between the V4 E-TEC 115 and V6 E-TEC 150. The graphs showing fuel consumption versus speed previously provided tell the story. The gap between smaller V4 and larger V6 motors, to the extent it exists, is tiny.

If the E-TEC 115 and E-TEC 150 are operated per the industry standard ICOMIA duty cycle the E-TEC 115 consumes 2.3 GPH and the E-TEC 150 consumes 3.2 GPH. That may seem like a big difference until one recognizes that an E-TEC 115 simply does less work than the E-TEC 150 operated according to the ICOMIA duty cycle. See continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006191.html for a chart of hourly fuel consumption for E-TEC motors operated per the ICOMIA duty cycle.

There isn't much to talk about regarding increased noise either. Having had both the V4 and V6 on the very same boat, an Outrage 18, motor noise at cruising speed from the V4 is louder than it is for the V6 because cruising RPM for the V4 is greater at any identical cruise speed including a brisk 30 MPH cruise requiring 4000+ RPM out of the lower power V4 versus 3500 RPM for the higher power V6.

As to the "math", have already pointed out the typical flaws.

As to component wear as a function of the same work effort, there is nothing to debate.

jharrell posted 09-09-2011 06:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
As to component wear as a function of the same work effort, there is nothing to debate.

Except for the number of moving parts...

How about a straight answer on my simple question? Geez, it's like pulling teeth.

Tohsgib posted 09-09-2011 08:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Huh? You had a 140 crossflow and said it was too noisy....what about a 115 4 stroke...c'mon for God's sake.
martyn1075 posted 09-09-2011 11:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
I guess in other words does the 115 have to work harder in a rough sea than the 150? I am assuming that the 150 being larger would benefit more in that regard. Would it therefore get better gas milage? I am not sure. anyone know?

jimh posted 09-10-2011 08:36 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I have my doubts about the rigor of the proposed analysis of the mean time between failure for the engines. It seems too simplistic to base the analysis simply on the number of parts. Under the proposed assumption that "all else being equal" the engine with the fewer parts will always be found to have higher reliability. The failure analysis thus becomes very simplistic. I suspect that it also becomes less rigorous at the same time.

On the topic of higher horsepower engines versus smaller horsepower engines, this is somewhat akin to a recent situation in truck marketing where FORD introduced a V6 direct-injection turbo-charged engine in their trucks as an alternative to the traditional V8. There is a very interesting article on that engine in the August 15, 2011 edition of AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, titled "SIX APPEAL." It explains the initial resistance to the smaller engine that had to be overcome in the customer base. However, in this case the smaller displacement engine actually made more horsepower and torque than the larger engine. This naturally raised concern about its durability and longevity, which FORD answered with their very elaborate promotional campaign of the "torture test" of a sample engine which filled television advertising and enthusiast websites earlier this year.

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110815/OEM06/ 308159983/1254

The ultimate appeal of the smaller discplacement engine: it got better fuel economy.

jharrell posted 09-10-2011 10:55 AM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
I have my doubts about the rigor of the proposed analysis of the mean time between failure for the engines. It seems too simplistic to base the analysis simply on the number of parts.

This was exactly my point. The whole reason for using Ceteris paribus is a hypothetical exercise in logic that does not occur in the real world. You temporarily ignore other factors to make the problem space simple for sake of clarity.

quote:
Under the proposed assumption that "all else being equal" the engine with the fewer parts will always be found to have higher reliability.

Thank you jimh, at least you can give me a straight answer as to your position.

quote:
The failure analysis thus becomes very simplistic. I suspect that it also becomes less rigorous at the same time.

Now apply this line of thinking to the situation where the only difference between two engines is a 500 rpm difference with all else being equal.

Does my point become clear now? Less moving parts is a positive for the 115, less rpm is a positive for the 150, there is obviously an equalization factor, whereby each of the factors taken together cancel each other out to some degree. The question is a matter of degree, but as you said with such a "simplistic" failure analysis there is no way I, nor Peter could possible know which engine has "less wear and tear" based on the situation and variables presented.

Peter posted 09-10-2011 11:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Nick -- When I got this 2nd Outrage 18, it had a loop charged V4 140. I ran it with that motor for a year. My first Outrage 18 had a cross-flow V6 150. I guess if I hadn't had the first Outrage 18 with the V6 150 I wouldn't have known what I was missing with the V4 and would have stuck with it.

Regarding a 4-stroke 115 (or 4-strokes in general), once they are running at speed, they don't seem any quieter than a 2-stroke. But they do sound different because the frequencies of the sounds coming from them are different.

Martyn -- By rough sea operation you probably mean cutting the speed down so as to keep the boat on a slow plane. I think the 150 would do a better job simply because it has more available torque but I don't think it would get better gas mileage.

I agree with the assessment that the "all else being equal" question is too simplistic. Maybe Mr. Harrell could define for us what "all else being equal" means in the context of an E-TEC 115 and an E-TEC 150 on the same boat? I'm not sure how there can be an "all else being equal" between a V4 115 and a V6 150 on the same boat or even on different boats. Is the all else being equal that the two motors are pushing the boat at the same speed? In that case, how can all else be equal because the same components found in each motor are subject to different operating conditions? Or is all else being equal that the same components found in each motor are running at the same speed and effort? In that case, the two motors are doing different amounts of workoutputs, so that isn't all else being equal either.

Regarding the Ecoboost, the comparison to the V8 isn't quite apples to apples. If Ford modified the V8 to have direct fuel injection, its power and fuel economy would improve. For example, one of my cars has a direct injected 3.2L V6. The prior version of that car, which I also owned, had a 2.8L EFI V6. The 3.2L makes about 65 HP more than the 2.8L, the car is bigger and heavier yet it gets about 2 MPG better fuel economy. Throttle response is noticibly better.

The appeal of the turbo is that it turns the motor into something equivalent to a variable displacement motor (like the old Cadillac V8-6-4, remember that gem). Coupled with DFI, the manufacturers can really squeeze down the amount of fuel being used by the motor at idle which is where they get big fuel efficiency gains because the turbo motor acts like a small displacement motor at idle. Years ago I had a 1.8L 4-cylinder EFI motor that made 105 HP and returned 32 MPG on the highway. I now have a similar sized car (actually weighs about 1000 lbs more) with 2.0L turbo 4-cylinder DFI motor that makes 200 HP but also returns 32 MPG and the same MPG around town as the older car but with a night and day difference in "zip". With the combination of turbocharging and DFI, Ford is catching up to where other manufacturers have been for the last 5 to 7 years.


jharrell posted 09-10-2011 11:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
Maybe Mr. Harrell could define for us what "all else being equal" means in the context of an E-TEC 115 and an E-TEC 150

You don't get it Ceteris paribus purposely removes context for short time leaving only the antecedent and consequent to deal with.

Once you get past that you can reintroduce the context to examine the other factors.

Now how about an answer?

martyn1075 posted 09-10-2011 11:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
My popcorn bag is empty. My only concern was if you are going to stress your engine due to the load that your boating is demanding over time perhaps that could be an issue with the smaller 115hp. jimh pointed to the Ford example which makes sense does it apply to the marine environment quite possibly although perhaps a bit more violent environment in the ocean overall.

In that case if there is any truth to the statement above the slightly better gas milage from 115 might achieve would be over shadowed by long gevity of a more powerful engine thats all I am saying.

I know a few that use twin 115hp's rather than one larger engine on their boats (not Boston Whalers) They rave up and down about the 115's used as twins in regards to gas milage top end speed etc.

A good debate in a separate thread to get the popcorn rolling again might be comparing twin 115hp on a 22 outrage vs one large base Yamaha.

jharrell posted 09-10-2011 12:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
perhaps that could be an issue with the smaller 115hp

It could also be an issue with the 150 as well, I see nothing the definitively gives either engine the advantage in in longevity.

The 150 is running at a lower rpm the 115 is a simpler design with less parts to go wrong. Either factor could make the 115 have more longevity, or the 150.

It's a crap shoot either way, the deciding factor for me if I had to choose would be is the better mileage of the 115 worth more than the load carrying and top speed, weight and cost of the 150?

martyn1075 posted 09-10-2011 01:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
In that case the 115hp would be the better economical sensible choice. If you wanted more top end speed and were not too concerned about gas milagle at wot then 150 would benifit. I think I might favor the 115 on my boat. I put a 50hp on a 17 standard the boat could handle much more but it was a very sensible choice overall price, efficancy, and weight.
Peter posted 09-10-2011 01:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
You're right, I don't get it. You've simplified your query so much so to make some point that it really makes no sense in any context relating to outboard motors used on boats.

In the abstract, which is apparently where you want to be, if the population of the SAME items subject to the SAME conditions has a certain determined failure rate, then if the population of the SAME items subject to the SAME conditions increases, there will be a greater total number of items that fail consistent with the determined failure rate. I don't think you need me to answer that for you, its right in the failure rate analysis of your Wikipedia link. But your failure rate analysis in the context of the discussion deviates from the Wikipedia failure rate analysis because it does not recognize that the entire population of items (in this case 4 injectors in a 115 cycling more frequently to provide the same fuel as 6 injectors in a 150) DO NOT all experience the same conditions and thus their failure rates will be different.

My only point, which you time and time again wish to divert attention away from with an abstract argument, is component wear FOR THE SAME OVERALL WORK ACCOMPLISHED BY BOTH OUTBOARD MOTORS IN THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME.

It seems that we need to take the discussion to a greater extreme to examine Mr. Harrell's hypothesis. Let's say that the same boat is equipped with a 3-cylinder 90 E-TEC and a 150 E-TEC (both have same pistons) both motors operated so as to achieve the same boat speed that can be achieved by the 90 at WOT (forget about acceleration or load carrying capacity). In other words, both motors are producing 90 HP continuously. In such a case, the 90 is turning approximately 1000 RPM more than the 150 to produce 90 HP. Are you telling us that because the 90 has 1/2 the moving parts that the pistons (same bore and stroke as the 150) or injectors would have the same wear as the 150 producing 90 HP continuously, say over the course of 1000 hours? Under the analysis, it should be the same longevity "crapshoot" for both motors under those conditions. Do I have that right?

pcrussell50 posted 09-10-2011 02:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Pete, I predict J's answer must still be, "we don't know". The 90 is obviously working much harder than the 150. The 150 is more complex, with more parts. But we _still_ don't have a rigorous rule that relates the chances of failure of one to the other. So in this case, I think I see J's point, even though I think he and I disagree on politics.

Now, to continue your example, if both motors were operated continuously, or nearly so, under the conditions you describe, I can see the 90 wearing out it's rings and bore faster than the 150, and the 150 having more exposure to chance-failures, or premature demise of a bad part that slipped through QC. Depending on what expensive ancillary part fails, it might actually be cheaper to bore and re-ring the 90, assuming the hideously expensive ancillary systsems of its DFI are still good. Apparently, back in the carbureted 2-stroke-days, boring and re-ringing was a routine yawn of a job. In today's throwaway society, maybe not so much anymore.

I find it ironic that the folks who disagree with my politics are more supportive of throwaway technology, than they are the "reduce-recycle-REUSE" philosophy you often see on their bumper stickers, while I actually live it... without the bumper sticker.

-Peter

captbone posted 09-10-2011 04:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
Going back to Nick's orginal arguement I ask if anyone has proof that running at higher RPM does shorten the life of an engine. We have established the duty cycle as increasing with RPM but we dont see any other evidence that it increase failures, engine wear or shortens the life of an OB.

The point can be made exactly the opposite as you go from running at 2000rpm to 4000rpm (sub-planing vs planing). The higher rpm would have a decrease in stress on the engine.

The difference between running an engine at 3500 vs another one at 4500 is very small (if any) in terms of engine life. Since the average consumer (which includes 99% of CW board members) will never come near "wearing an engine out" it almost becomes a non-issue in the 115hp vs 150hp arguement.

jimh posted 09-10-2011 05:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
It would be much simpler logistically and argumentatively if jharrell would just simply expound and present his ultimate argument instead of trying to draw it out of his opponents by setting up a long series of hypothetical assumptions that must be considered.

I do find that the logic or argument of reductio ad absurdum (or reduced to the absurd) is more persuasive. Will a 90-HP engine running continuously at its maximum power last longer than a 150-HP engine running at 90-HP? I doubt it.

pcrussell50 posted 09-10-2011 06:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
J obviously likes to dabble in rhetoric and debate, and his skills at such are enviable.

I doubt he would deny that the 90 would wear it's rings and bores faster than the 150, under the scenario given. But he might counter that the 150, with more parts, might be more susceptible to a singular catastrophic component failure, (as opposed to a wear-related failure). Those two possibilities have an effect of countering each other. What is unknown is, to what degree this is so. J, does that more less sum up your stance?

-Peter

captbone posted 09-10-2011 06:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
Using the basis that both engines are propped correctly and they are operated within reason (such as a 115-150hp), there will be no observable difference in engine life.

The agruement is of the 90hp is not valid because you are using speed as the base line. If you choose to power the boat with a smaller OB you must understand that there are of certain trade offs (speed). Propped correctly and operated within reason the 90hp will live just as long as the 150hp.

You can put a 15hp on the same boat and as long as it is run within reason and propped correctly, it will last just as long as the 150hp.

The owner just has to accept the trade off (speed) with choosing a lower HP.

martyn1075 posted 09-10-2011 07:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
captbone...thats true it does get back to the basics of maintenance and proper use. One could go as low as 9.9 engine but we are getting a bit silly now. I don't think it really hurts to put a larger base motor then one that is the eoncomy buster providing its not underpowered. Used properly I would think you would be fine. If you are a speed demon and or, are moving in rough water all the time I might be inclined to the 150 rather than the 115. Maybe thats just a comfort zone approach rather then the specs talking but the 150 is the next step up on the 115 it must be more robust then its little brother or why else would they offer it.

If engines are broken in properly from the start using a engine especially a modern engine at 3000 rmp vs 4000 rpm should not matter at all. I might see using a engine at low speeds when the boat is not planing or at high speeds 5500-6000 all the time might burn a engine out sooner.

captbone posted 09-10-2011 08:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
If you pretend like your 90hp is a 150hp and try to cruise at 30mph (@5000) then the life will be less.

But if you realize you did not buy a 150hp and accept the 90hps cruising speed then there is no difference in engine life. If comes down to the operator.

Comparing economy simply comes down to MPG. Life span should be identical regardless of HP if they are operated and maintained correctly.

jharrell posted 09-10-2011 09:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
It would be much simpler logistically and argumentatively if jharrell would just simply expound and present his ultimate argument instead of trying to draw it out of his opponents by setting up a long series of hypothetical assumptions that must be considered.

jimh, I am not sure how you can say I haven't? My first 2 post in this thread went over the entirety of my argument, the problem was the "more moving parts" factor was simply ignored as though it didn't exist.

The only way I could see to get and acknowledgement of the "more moving parts" factor was to reduce my question to that at the exclusion of all else, and look how difficult that was to extract such a simple answer.

quote:
In the abstract, which is apparently where you want to be, if the population of the SAME items subject to the SAME conditions has a certain determined failure rate, then if the population of the SAME items subject to the SAME conditions increases, there will be a greater total number of items that fail consistent with the determined failure rate.

I think this is the longest and most obfuscated "yes" to any question I have ever heard. Please correct me if you didn't mean the affirmative to my question.

quote:
DO NOT all experience the same conditions and thus their failure rates will be different.

Peter, you simply don't understand and are missing the point of Ceteris paribus. I have said all along they are not experiencing the same conditions, if they where then the 150 loses by virtue of more moving parts, that is if your answer is a "yes".

Since the 150 is running at a lower RPM this offsets it's disadvantage in parts, but does it offset enough to make it have a advantage over the 115? How the hell do you know?

quote:
It seems that we need to take the discussion to a greater extreme to examine Mr. Harrell's hypothesis. Let's say that the same boat is equipped with a 3-cylinder 90 E-TEC and a 150 E-TEC (both have same pistons) both motors operated so as to achieve the same boat speed that can be achieved by the 90 at WOT (forget about acceleration or load carrying capacity). In other words, both motors are producing 90 HP continuously. In such a case, the 90 is turning approximately 1000 RPM more than the 150 to produce 90 HP. Are you telling us that because the 90 has 1/2 the moving parts that the pistons (same bore and stroke as the 150) or injectors would have the same wear as the 150 producing 90 HP continuously, say over the course of 1000 hours? Under the analysis, it should be the same longevity "crapshoot" for both motors under those conditions. Do I have that right?

In the last thread were this all started you criticized me for bringing up an "extreme condition" which was extended periods of trolling. You essentially said that argument "doesn't count", as it meant lower rpm could be worse than higher! Now here you bring up the other extreme, an engine running full WOT compared to one operating in it's cruise range. The original argument was about two engines running fully within their cruise range, this one is not. I as far what I think, pcrussell50 summed it up nicely, thanks.


jimh posted 09-11-2011 09:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Back to the MTBF analysis:

An argument has previously been made on occasion that having twin engines on a boat would lead to lower reliability, that is a shorter MTBF, because with two engines there would be twice as many chances for failure. However, I think this argument ignores the arrangement of the engines. The engines operate in parallel, so the MTBF of a twin engine system should not be half of the single engine system, but rather the same as the single engine. And the twin engine system is fault tolerant--it can continue to operate on one engine.

The single v. twin engine analysis is a good example of how one can be fooled by a simplistic analysis of a system. Are we being fooled by an analysis of the 115-HP v. 150-HP MTBF that is too simplistic?

jharrell posted 09-11-2011 11:15 AM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
The single v. twin engine analysis is a good example of how one can be fooled by a simplistic analysis of a system.

Of course this discussion was not about twins, it was about a single larger motor with more moving parts which has no redundancy within it's system.

What is the primary reason one would desire twins on a boat over a single large engine? I think everyone is well aware the primary reason is redundancy.

This is referred to as "parallel availability" vs the "serial availability" of the single engine and it's sub components and is discussed in detail on the web site I linked.

These are the relevant quotes that distinguish the to situations:

For the single engines components:
"the combined availability of two components in series is always lower than the availability of its individual components."

For twin engines as a system:
"the combined availability of two components in parallel is always much higher than the availability of its individual components."

Would I remind you that on more than one occasion you have brought up the fact that a 4-stroke has more moving parts than a E-TEC and have specified it as an advantage for the E-TEC without qualifying that it is just a "simplistic analysis of a system"

For instance in this post you propose the less moving parts of an E-TEC compared to modern 4-stroke should "cause an increase in reliability, and a decrease in maintenance": http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003074.html

Now you seem to be flip flopping, proposing that the problem is more complex than that. Which by the way has been my point consistently from the beginning. Perhaps your view on the complexity of a 4-stroke has changed over the years as well?

Peter posted 09-11-2011 11:39 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
quote:
Since the 150 is running at a lower RPM this offsets it's disadvantage in parts.

Although obscured by diversions to overly simplistic MTBF and failure rate analysis, I will take "offset" in the above statement as that we are in agreement there will be greater identical component wear (injectors, pistons) in the case of the E-TEC 115 versus the E-TEC 150 when both asked to produce the same HP to push the same boat to 30 MPH. That was my point all along (together with lower noise, more load carrying capacity). Fuel economy difference at any given speed is tiny. Initial cost and scheduled maintenance cost (2 additional spark plugs to change) on the 150 is higher. Pick your poison.

Regarding the E-TEC 90, we could reduce the speed of the boat (use Nick's flats boat as an example which would have a top speed of 38 MPH with a 90) to 30 MPH (not extreme). At that speed, the E-TEC 90 would operate at 4500 RPM versus 3500 RPM for the 150. Or we could slow the speed down to 25 MPH. The answer would not be any different. More identical component wear for the same work effort. While there is 1/2 as many pistons and injectors, I am not advocating that there is twice as much wear over the same time period operating under the same total output.

Besides being just another diversion from the wear discussion, your extreme idle condition in the other thread was simply off the mark. Both the F115 and F150 be exposed to the same oil dilution problem running at idle. Any motor from the F4 through F350 would also.

Similar to the twin versus single outboard situation and the simplistic MTBF system analysis, the undefined failure of an injector, for example, does not necessarily lead to a total system failure of the outboard. There have been many accounts of motors still operating on less than all of their injectors, whether it be 2-stroke or 4-stroke, meaning that a component failure or malfunction does not render the total system inoperative. Having more injectors to perform the task means that the loss of one may have less impact to the total system. Hardly different from the case where a single sparkplug does not fire. On a V6 it's less noticible than on a V4.

Captbone -- With this statement

quote:
Life span should be identical regardless of HP if they are operated and maintained correctly

I know someone that would like to debate that with you. Good luck. LOL.

jimh posted 09-11-2011 11:55 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
jharrell has pulled a quote from me from seven years ago and now wants me to defend it in light of his current sophistries. I don't think there is much for me to defend. I simply observed that a device with fewer components "should cause a decrease in maintenance and an increase in reliability." Whether or not one obtains that depends greatly on the device.

In the case of the subject being discussed when I made that statement, the E-TEC outboard engine, it is true that there is less maintenance. I suppose we could argue if it were caused by fewer parts. The increase in reliability is yet to be known precisely. If there is contradictory evidence that makes my statement of seven years ago to be completely wrong about the E-TEC, I am open minded and would consider the new evidence. However, as far as I can tell, there is no good evidence of outboard engine reliability, and all inferences are made from anecdotal reports, which for me are not particularly persuasive, albeit they are enormously interesting to read.

Somewhat correlated to my comment of seven years ago which is now become our topic of discussion, I note that I mentioned transistors. Transistors are devices which are now being manufactured in fantastically large and complex assemblies, yet have continued to remain reliable. This has occurred only from enormous improvement in manufacturing quality. In 1950 you could not have made a silicon chip assembly with a billion transistors and expected them all to function. In 2011 you can. The underlying analysis of the relationship to complexity and reliability has not changed. What has allowed the manufacture of a chip with a billion transistors is much higher quality manufacturing.

We now apply this same thinking to mechanical devices like outboard engines. In order that a more complicated device with more components can have the same reliability of a simpler device with fewer components, it seems inherent in the analysis that the manufacturing quality of the more complex device must be very high. If the two devices possess the exact same quality, then, I don't see how you can construct a crafty logical twist or a mathematical manipulation which will prove the more complex device lasts longer.

jharrell posted 09-11-2011 12:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
I will take "offset" in the above statement as that we are in agreement there will be greater identical component wear (injectors, pistons) in the case of the E-TEC 115 versus the E-TEC 150 when both asked to produce the same HP to push the same boat to 30 MPH.

Yes I will agree the individual components experience greater wear, see that wasn't so hard was it?

However an engine is the sum of it's components correct? Since you proposed "wear and tear" which is normally about extending the longevity of the engine and reducing repairs and you agree that more moving parts increases the likelihood of a failed component that shouldn't it be considered in the "wear and tear" argument?

quote:
Regarding the E-TEC 90, we could reduce the speed of the boat (use Nick's flats boat as an example which would have a top speed of 38 MPH with a 90) to 30 MPH (not extreme). At that speed, the E-TEC 90 would operate at 4500 RPM versus 3500 RPM for the 150. Or we could slow the speed down to 25 MPH. The answer would not be any different. More identical component wear for the same work effort. While there is 1/2 as many pistons and injectors, I am not advocating that there is twice as much wear over the same time period operating under the same total output.

Half as many parts is a big plus in my book. Running at lower RPM is also a plus, in this case now you have moved the goal posts again to two engines operating in their cruise range, the 90 could definitely be at an advantage, unless like you propose we take an "overly simplistic" approach and only look at rpm. Once you start contrasting a 90 with a 150 the weight and cost factor start to become a bigger part of the overall equation as well, unless again you want to limit this to a "overly simplistic" argument.

quote:
Besides being just another diversion from the wear discussion, your extreme idle condition in the other thread was simply off the mark. Both the F115 and F150 be exposed to the same oil dilution problem running at idle. Any motor from the F4 through F350 would also.

Really an F4 runs at idle while trolling? Isn't that one of the points of a kicker for trolling that it will run at a higher rpm and not suffer from oil dilution or as much carbon build up in the case of a 2-stroke? This is simply the opposite of your argument where a large motor is operating at the low "extreme" rpm while the compared motor (the kicker) is running within it's ideal rpm band.

quote:
Similar to the twin versus single outboard situation and the simplistic MTBF system analysis, the undefined failure of an injector, for example, does not necessarily lead to a total system failure of the outboard. There have been many accounts of motors still operating on less than all of their injectors, whether it be 2-stroke or 4-stroke, meaning that a component failure or malfunction does not render the total system inoperative.

There have been many accounts of a single E-TEC injector failing leading to a lean condition causing total destruction of the power head.

I would not consider the other 5 injectors as "backup" for the failed one. If you are lucky the engine will function improperly but perhaps be usable for a short time. There however is a very good possibility of destroying your engine if run in that condition.

This is completely different than a twin engine situation. You are however correct that it is a not a simple black and white issue (my point all along), too bad you cannot apply this line of thinking to your one-dimensional argument of "more rpm".

I also wonder why jimh has not questioned you about: "Are we being fooled by an analysis of the 115-HP v. 150-HP RPM that is too simplistic?".

jharrell posted 09-11-2011 12:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
jharrell has pulled a quote from me from seven years ago and now wants me to defend it in light of his current sophistries. I don't think there is much for me to defend. I simply observed that a device with fewer components "should cause a decrease in maintenance and an increase in reliability." Whether or not one obtains that depends greatly on the device.

I can point to newer post where you tout it as advantage if you would like, here is one where we had a discussion of the topic last year:

"I do agree that adding complexity to a two-stroke-cycle engine does seem at odds with its fundamental attraction, its simplicity." http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007403.html

Shouldn't this be at least taken into consideration in this discussion?

Tohsgib posted 09-11-2011 12:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
First off this is a comparison of E-Tecs, 4 strokes should not even be mentioned here.

Second as already pointed out "Having more injectors to perform the task means that the loss of one may have less impact to the total system." Let me know how that works out for you Peter. You drop an injector you drop lubrication and engine goes BOOM! Remember your injectors are the same as a carb to an older engine. One goes lean and one goes boom.

Tohsgib posted 09-11-2011 12:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Only 35 more posts to break 100....c'mon you can do it!
jimh posted 09-11-2011 01:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The root of our discussion involves developing a suitable theoretical model to use for analysis of an actual physical device. Developing an accurate model in theory is typically difficult, and in some cases extremely difficult. Even very simple devices which have no moving parts may be extremely difficult to properly model.

I am quite willing to stipulate that a theoretical model of outboard engine construction and reliability has not yet been provided or demonstrated in this discussion.

In contrast to theoretical modeling and analysis, we have actual testing and measurement. However, the conduct of an accurate comparison test is also difficult. Proper test procedure requires very careful attention to controls so that differences in measurements are due to actual differences in the test samples and not to test error. Performance tests of outboard engines are often not particularly well controlled and other variables besides the test variable can influence the outcome.

Thus I am back to simple paradigms, like "simpler is better." And I use my own simple logic to justify itself! How's that for an analysis?

Tohsgib posted 09-11-2011 02:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Brilliant! Simply smashing!
Peter posted 09-11-2011 10:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
"You drop an injector you drop lubrication and engine goes BOOM! Remember your injectors are the same as a carb to an older engine."

Nick -- I think all the popcorn popping must have gone to your head. ;) The lubrication system and the fuel injection system are separate in a DFI 2-stroke. Unlike a carburated or EFI 2-stroke, fuel and oil flow along separate paths. Contrary to the carburated or EFI 2-stroke, if fuel stops flowing through the injector, that does not stop oil flowing through the oil injection system. Also, unlike the carburated or EFI 2-stroke, the lubricating oil is not diluted by fuel.

jimh posted 09-12-2011 09:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I think the best comparison for seeing the difference in fuel consumption between two engines would be to run them on the same dynamometer, put the same load on them, and measure their fuel consumption. This sort of test ought to eliminate most other variables; the test variable would be just the engine, and not the boats, the weather, the propellers, and all the other factors.

I don't know what sort of result to anticipate. If we have the 115-HP and 150-HP engine both running at a 90-HP load, will there be a significant difference in their fuel consumption? There may be a difference in their engine speed. I suspect the 115-HP engine may have to run faster to make 90-HP. Is there any reliable source of data like this?

Tohsgib posted 09-12-2011 11:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Are there 2 sets of injectors on an E-Tec? Where is the oil being injected if not through the fuel injector? Whne my carb went lean, my oil injection was working just fine but my engine went boom!...TWICE!
jharrell posted 09-12-2011 12:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
First off this is a comparison of E-Tecs, 4 strokes should not even be mentioned here.

The only reason I did is that it has been brought many times in the past that "less moving parts" is direct advantage for 2-strokes over 4-strokes. Yet here in this discussion the main proponents of that point of view refuse to acknowledge their own reasoning as it doesn't support their current argument.

quote:
In contrast to theoretical modeling and analysis, we have actual testing and measurement.

Measuring RPM is no better than measuring the number of moving parts, they both provide a number, the effects of that number cannot be modeled accurately as you have stated. This is convoluted further when combining both those facts into a single system, making it even more difficult to have an accurate analysis. Therefore the engine with "less wear and tear" is not the 115 or the 150, it is unknown.

This is essentially my argument in a nutshell.

I may have read your post wrong, as it was not clear which subject you are referring to. Perhaps you are referring to the fuel usage instead, if so the data shows a clear advantage to the 115 even if only around 10% at cruise, this on nearly identical setups. However there are many other possible variables as you have stated that could affect fuel consumption.

If you consider the fuel consumption aspect as also a unknown, then whats left when choosing between these two engines are the well know facts:


1. The 115 is cheaper.
2. The 115 is lighter.
3. The 150 has more reserve power.
4. The 150 has more load carrying ability.


jharrell posted 09-12-2011 01:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
Are there 2 sets of injectors on an E-Tec? Where is the oil being injected if not through the fuel injector? Whne my carb went lean, my oil injection was working just fine but my engine went boom!...TWICE!

Peter is right on this one, The oil is injected at various lubrication points in the engine and through various channels make it's way to the combustion chamber to be burned.

I am not sure of the details on how oil is scavenged on the E-TEC but somehow it is "injected" into the combustion chamber, this may be at least partially introducing some oil into the fuel injector to do so. However if an injector goes bad the main lubrication system is still functional.

You are correct though a lean carb, or a malfunctioning injector will toast an engine, not necessarily because of lack of oil, but because the lean condition raises the combustion temps too high and the engine cannot dissipate this heat quickly enough.

This is why a 4-stroke is less susceptible to lean conditions, it has the extra stroke of downtime and a wet sump that let it dissipate this excess heat more gracefully. That is why an E-TEC needs NASA alloy for it's pistons and cannot lean out above 2200 rpm, where a Honda or Suzuki can run lean all the way up around 4000.

Tohsgib posted 09-12-2011 01:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Suzuki cuts it down to 3k if anything goes wrong. iT also won't go above 3k in neutral which should be on all engines.

So Peter gets a check on the oil but now we have another point of worry. Not only do we have to worry about the fuel but alos when/where the oil is injected. Then again technology has come a LONG way since OMC first introduced VRO in the early 80's when we still had dials on our car stereos.

jharrell posted 09-12-2011 01:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
Suzuki cuts it down to 3k if anything goes wrong.

The E-TEC will cut down to the 3's if it detects a problem. Hopefully it will in time, here is an example of one that didn't twice: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003011.html

Also there are additional moving parts on the 150 besides the 2 more injectors, if a rod bearing goes the engines won't cut down, it's dead in the water.

Peter posted 09-12-2011 02:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
quote:
or a malfunctioning injector will toast an engine

You state this with absolute certainty which I find interesting in light of the claims that there are all these unknowns. Does a single reference from the early production era make it certain?

quote:
Measuring RPM is no better than measuring the number of moving parts

I agree with this if it is only RPM. But we were not looking at only RPM in the example. We were looking at:

1) fuel flowing in,

2) RPM turned by the fuel processor (the powerhead), and

3) the output (the load).

That gives quite a bit of information from which some reasonable conclusions can be drawn.

What we saw and could conclude from the data for the same output in the examples:

1. 115 turned an additional 500 RPM than the 150 for a particular output,

2. The 4 115 injectors must cycle more frequently and process more fuel per unit time than the 6 150 injectors, and

3. 4 pistons of 115 must travel in cylinders at greater velocity than 6 pistons of 150 to provide sufficient number of combustion events.

Regarding the extra rods and rod bearings -- same old, same old, -- all traveling slower with less unit loading to produce the same work effort. No different than pistons.

martyn1075 posted 09-12-2011 03:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
I think I will turn in my popcorn for a couple of Tylenol. This is getting complicated.

quote:
Pick your poison.

I agree! both are very good engines but good engines can still break down. If you maintain it, well your chances are pretty good over a long period of time but when your time is up its up. In other words when it breaks it will break. Some are just lemons which results in bad luck or a bad company product. Other than that based on what this thread has produced I see no reason for one to be the better choice or one that can prove to be more heavy duty.

What I have also learned from all this is although a large rated engine (150) may appear to be bigger perhaps more robust it actually may not make a difference in a (115) modern style engine that is manipulated to handle just as much as the (150) It seems strange why they would offer the 150 if that really is the case but there must be a market for it. The whole Ford V6 Ecoboost vs a plain V8 argument seems to be another example of a smaller block engine that can post numbers similar to a V8. Mind you the V6 may be more complicated and more moving parts to deal with.

jharrell posted 09-12-2011 05:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
You state this with absolute certainty which I find interesting in light of the claims that there are all these unknowns.

Your right I misspoke, my intention wasn't to convey absolute certainty, since nothing is certain, I was careful to word this correctly in my other post:

quote:
If you are lucky the engine will function improperly but perhaps be usable for a short time. There however is a very good possibility of destroying your engine if run in that condition.

And

quote:
The E-TEC will cut down to the 3's if it detects a problem. Hopefully it will in time, here is an example of one that didn't twice:

Are you willing to retract any of your "absolute certainty" statements?

quote:
Does a single reference from the early production era make it certain?

Are you claiming it is impossible for a injector to malfunction and lean out causing catastrophic failure in more recent production engines?

quote:
Regarding the extra rods and rod bearings -- same old, same old, -- all traveling slower with less unit loading to produce the same work effort. No different than pistons.

OR less of them in the 115 right?

Back in 2005 you attributed the increased number of moving parts in a Verado as a "penalty" when compared to an E-TEC, has your opinion now changed?:

"Seems to me one can get substantially all of the benefits of supercharging without the increased complexity of additional moving parts and fuel efficiency and weight penalties"

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/009927.html

Peter posted 09-13-2011 05:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
While the Verado 275 is really off topic regarding a comparison of the E-TEC 115 to the E-TEC 150 as we have been doing, my opinion regarding its weight and complexity hasn't changed. I observe that the Verado 275 referenced in that article has 6 cylinders and the E-TEC with HP in that range (250 at that time) also has 6 cylinders. Of course the E-TEC doesn't have the supercharger or valve assembly or a whole bunch of other parts that the Verado has. All the extra parts of the 6 cylinder Verado causes it to weigh about 120 lbs more than the large 6 cylinder E-TEC. That 120 lb of additional weight keeps the Verado from being a viable repower choice for some boat transoms. Apparently, those extra parts cause it to burn more fuel at WOT. It doesn't attain the 3-STAR CARB emissions rating. The extra parts don't allow the motor to turn slower at the same boat speed. The extra parts don't provide greater load carrying capacity.

In contrast, in the E-TEC 115 to 150 comparison (which is really different than the Verado to E-TEC comparison because its comparing different HP levels), the extra parts provide greater load carrying capacity. They allow the motor speed to be reduced relative to the same output. In that situation, the extra identical parts (components associated with 2 extra cylinders) are sharing the load and contributing to the output.

The whole sentence from 2005 which you quote says:

quote:
Seems to me one can get substantially all of the benefits of supercharging without the increased complexity of additional moving parts and fuel efficiency and weight penalties by simply increasing the displacement of an outboard, 2 or 4-stroke.

And that is exactly what Yamaha, a leader in the 4-stroke outboard world, did about 5 years later with its 4.2L V6. And it looks like that is what Mercury is about to do with its 3.0L 4-cylinder 150 HP 4-stroke which JimH has dubbed the "VALURADO" 5+ years after the Verado 150 came to market.

Besides misreading the quote ("penalties" was associated with fuel efficiency and weight, "increased complexity" was associated with additional moving parts) was there a reason you left the last part of the sentence out of the quote?

coolarrow posted 09-13-2011 01:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for coolarrow  Send Email to coolarrow     
I once owned a 73 harley painted mercedes green. I got alot of attention and was constantly being approached about selling it. This one guy offered cash and a new honda shadow in trade. I grinned and said, "I hear you meet alot of nice people on hondas". He didn't think it was funny but I could not stop laughing. You go ahead and get that 115, and I will wave at you as I go by with my 1989 black max, that I know how to work on by the way. I admire the intellectual subterfuge and occasional latin, however the ultimate arguement comes from simpletons like me. You will never get laid in a ford pinto. Love it, love it.
Tohsgib posted 09-13-2011 02:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
I bet many people have consumated their relationship in Pintos...especially the wagon.
coolarrow posted 09-13-2011 02:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for coolarrow  Send Email to coolarrow     
which is faster and has better fuel economy. The ford pinto or the e-tec 115. The ford pinto would sacrifice moving parts for power and yet the pinto run at ideal cruising speed of the 115 might deliver lifelong power. Now, drop a 327 in that pinto and you move into the territory of the six cylinder 150. I will pause while ingesting some popcorn covered in a mellifluous butter like substance. When we talk about chicken nuggets, we can say parts is parts, however in the parlance of our caste, let me note that size does matter, so take a second job to pay for that extra gas and forget about that girl motor. oppressor libre!
pcrussell50 posted 09-14-2011 12:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
The Pinto is a Ford. The 327 is a Chevy motor. Such a swap would take some nontrivial fabrication skills. BUT, if done right, it could be every bit as reliable as putting a 302 into a Pinto... which was a Ford motor. In fact, I half wonder if Ford actually offered a few Pintos with a 302? The Mustang II was a Pinto, and it definitely as offered with a 302.

-Peter

jharrell posted 09-14-2011 01:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
Of course the E-TEC doesn't have the supercharger or valve assembly or a whole bunch of other parts that the Verado has.

Which is more "complex" a pulley driven air pump with a couple of spinning lobes running what 5-10 psi, or two extra Nasa alloy pistons,rods running 500-1000psi with two extra Lorentz voice coil injectors? Superchargers predate direct injection by nearly 60 years.

quote:
The extra parts don't allow the motor to turn slower at the same boat speed. The extra parts don't provide greater load carrying capacity.

A 4 cylinder Verado 150 will turn the same speed as as 4 cylinder naturally aspirated 115hp 4-stroke?

quote:
Besides misreading the quote ("penalties" was associated with fuel efficiency and weight, "increased complexity" was associated with additional moving parts) was there a reason you left the last part of the sentence out of the quote?

So "increased complexity" was meant as a plus for the Verado? Please clarify why you noted "increased complexity" if it is not meant as a negative attribute?

Why do you mention increased complexity at all in the case of a Verado vs an E-TEC, but you will not mention it here when comparing a 115 E-TEC to the more complex 150 E-TEC?

coolarrow posted 09-14-2011 01:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for coolarrow  Send Email to coolarrow     
A pinto with a 302 would struggle against the 150 V6 I am sure of it
Tohsgib posted 09-14-2011 02:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Not a new Boss 302...450-500hp or so.
Brooksinct posted 09-14-2011 02:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for Brooksinct  Send Email to Brooksinct     
Did anyone even look at the fact that the tests were done with almost 20 degree difference in air temp and totally different water conditions?
coolarrow posted 09-14-2011 02:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for coolarrow  Send Email to coolarrow     
cetaceans are mammals so water temp should not be a factor. Now wheres that popcorn?
Tohsgib posted 09-14-2011 02:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Yeah...they favored the 150. 16 degrees with a modern engine is not huge like it used to be. Does your car go much faster when it is 16 degrees cooler outside? As for the rough part, I doubt they did not seek sheltered areas to do their testing or why bother.
Tohsgib posted 09-14-2011 02:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
LAstly...most boats go faster in chop than on smooth water as it gets more lift and less suction.
Peter posted 09-14-2011 04:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Mr. Harrell -- You've gone way past the component wear discussion where you've agreed that there is increased common component wear between the two E-TEC motors for the same output. I understand your position where you think on the basis of probability that more of the same components may offset the lower wear on those components in terms of system reliability.

The Verado, which has many additional and different components not found on an E-TEC, is irrelevant to the narrow discussion about the merits of the two different HP E-TECs on the same boat. It's clear from some of the recent commentary that we've beat the E-TEC topic to death and then some. As far as I can see there is nothing left to discuss and we will simply have to agree to disagree.

In all the advantages of the 150 over the 115 I never brought up the (I will put it in more family friendly terms) "cool factor" of having more HP on the transom. That should favorably outweigh every other technical consideration. ;)

Tohsgib posted 09-14-2011 10:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
We have NOT beat this to death just yet...9 more posts!
onlyawhaler posted 09-15-2011 02:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for onlyawhaler  Send Email to onlyawhaler     
Humm, looks like the main storm front has pushed through on this topic.

More power = more fun
More fun = What guys do
More guys = Like more power

Get the bigger engine, every time
Go big or go home
None of us go boating or own Whalers to "save money"
Max out the transom, quit stepping over the "fun" dollars to pick up "I gotta save" dimes

Have fun

Sterling
Onlyawhaler

captbone posted 09-15-2011 09:07 AM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
Agreed! We should only overpower our boats from now on. More power = more fun = more women.
coolarrow posted 09-15-2011 10:19 AM ET (US)     Profile for coolarrow  Send Email to coolarrow     
Love it. The wisdom! Headin into some soft chop with my outrage 18 yesterday. The gettin up on plane and holding at about 25 mph barely over 3000 rpm. Wind in my face, sun comin up. Stripers are in the jumps. Wasn't very complicated. I think they call it pleasure boating. The twin tower of power on my 22, now thats another story. Stay tuned cetaceans.
jharrell posted 09-15-2011 10:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
he Verado, which has many additional and different components not found on an E-TEC, is irrelevant to the narrow discussion about the merits of the two different HP E-TECs on the same boat. It's clear from some of the recent commentary that we've beat the E-TEC topic to death and then some.

Bringing the Verado in is very relevant since your previous criticism of it revolves around it's increased cost, weight and complexity, they same ones you will not allow me here, the same attributes the E-TEC 150 has over the E-TEC 115.

Your just applying a double standard here and won't admit it. You deride the Verado for being "more complex" than an normally aspirated engine, yet a give the V6 E-TEC a free pass over the obviously simpler V4.

Let me ask you this, even though I doubt you will answer. Which Mercury engine would you recommend in this situation?

The 115 "Veradito" and the 150 Verado are nearly identical engines except the 150 is supercharged. They are in exactly the same boat as the 115 E-TEC vs 150 E-TEC the only difference being that Mercury used a supercharger to gain the extra power and the E-TEC added two extra cylinders and injectors.

I can agree with the "cool factor" it is always nice to max out the horsepower for the way it "feels" and when it comes to something as impractical as a recreational boat that many times trumps all other reasoning. I have to say I am very tempted to repower my classic Montauk with the very impractical but cool rebuilt 115 tower of power just like LHG's beauty. I guess we have some common ground.

captbone posted 09-15-2011 10:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
Using this same frame of mind, no one should buy the Evinrude 115 or 150 and instead should buy the 130hp and 200hp versions of the same block. The same for the Evinrude 225/250 and instead everyone should purchase the 300hp.
Peter posted 09-15-2011 12:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
This is way outside of the discussion on the topic but the Verado complexity is really quite different than adding or substracting commonly used components (pistons, injectors, for example) to make a V4 or a V6. Acknowledging the complexity of the Verado, Mercury doesn't even refer to it as an outboard motor, but rather as a "propulsion system". The product line is distinquished from outboards.

When the Verado came out, the Verado complexity divided the Mercury servicing dealers into two groups: (1) those that were qualified to service everything but Verados and (2) those that are qualified to service everything including Verados. What that meant is that those dealers that fit into category (2) had to make additional investments in parts, tooling and training to support the Verado product line.

So I see the Verado as being quite different from merely adding common pistons, injectors, etc., used in both a V4 E-TEC and a V6 E-TEC. Whether the motor has 3, 4 or 6 cylinders would not require a servicing dealer to make substantial investments in parts, tooling or training, if any. All of those parts fit together and work in the same way. If you know how the V4 works, it doesn't take much to know how the V6 works. The systems are the same.

The query of the 115 Veradito versus 150 Verado is interesting one. We need some data to see what goes on in terms of fuel consumption, engine speeds, etc. at the same boat speed on the same boat. I suspect that it would show yet another aspect of the greater complexity of the Verado system.

Tohsgib posted 09-15-2011 02:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Captbone....I usually agree on those points but am starting to believe that the lower stressed engine is the better deal. I strongly believe that a 200 E-Tec will not last as long as it's 150hp brother but that is a whole nuther argument. It is true in the I/O market. A 330hp will last WAAAYYY longer than a 420hp 454....supposably about 5-7 times longer.
captbone posted 09-15-2011 03:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
Nick

I agree and just am using that to illustrate that one theory does not work for everything. A 115 maybe a better choice longevity wise on a 20ft over say the 200hp small block because of that exact reason. The 115 is not stressed as much as the 130 version so it is easier on the components as compared to the 200hp version which is at its max. Even though the 200hp is running at less rpm, does that counter act the other stresses?

captbone posted 09-15-2011 03:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for captbone  Send Email to captbone     
100 posts just to round it out.
Tohsgib posted 09-15-2011 09:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
COOL!!! 100 posts on a bullcrap thread. Gotta love America!
jimh posted 09-15-2011 10:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I have to tip my hat to Peter. He drove a large wooden stake through the heart of the VERADO argument when he cited Mercury's own words, "Propulsion System." That even made L H G laugh, I bet.
Tohsgib posted 09-16-2011 11:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
The Verado just came out with a new lower unit that is MUCH larger than the last. It probably makes it look better on the trailer but it also adds weight. Now it is a giant Prawn with big feet.
Peter posted 09-16-2011 03:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Really subject matter for a new bowl of popcorn but I tried to find some comparative data on the Veradito 115 outboard versus the Verado 150 propulsion system but couldn't find anything meaningful. I think it is unlikely that we would find reports of the Veradito 115 and the Verado 150 on the Ranger flats boat or equivalent. There is a 111 lbs (510 lbs - 399 lbs) difference between them. On an 18 foot flats boat, that weight difference, as well as the 510 lbs on the transom, is pretty substantial. But if you were going to load up a transom with 510 lbs, then heck for 3 lbs less than the Verado 150, you could put a 3.4L E-TEC 250 HO on the transom of the flats boat and really impress the ladies in many ways ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKnWAInDYY8 ). ;)

What is the effect of the "increased complexity" (if you can say adding two cylinders makes it increasingly complex) of the E-TEC 150 versus the E-TEC 115? First, it causes only a 50 lb weight increase. For that 50 lb weight increase, the WOT HP per displacement ratio goes down (67 HP per liter to 57 HP per liter) and the WOT HP per cylinder ratio goes down (28.8 HP per cylinder to 25 HP per cylinder). I did a quick calculation and determined that the Ranger flats boat needs something between 50 and 55 HP to go 30 MPH once on plane. If we assume 55 HP at 30 MPH, then the E-TEC 150 needs to produce about 9 HP per cylinder and 21 HP per liter, net. The 115 needs to produce produce 13 HP per cylinder and 32 HP per liter. So the 50 lbs of increased complexity basically spreads the load out and each the internals do a smaller share of the total work.

Contrast that to effect that the "increased complexity", namely adding a supercharge system has in the case of the Verado 150 propulsion system versus Veradito 115 outboard. The 111 extra pounds of increased complexity ultimately intensifies the load rather than spreads it out. WOT HP per cylinder goes up from 28.8 HP per cylinder to 37.5 HP and WOT HP per displacement goes up from 67 HP per liter to 88 HP per liter. At a 55 HP output, both the Veradito and Verado must produce approximately the same HP per cylinder (13) and HP per displacement (32), but they likely do it at different RPM.

So I really don't see how the Veradito 115/Verado 150 is comparable to the E-TEC 115/E-TEC 150 situation. If forced to make a choice between the Veradito 115 and Verado 150 on a flats boat and if acceleration, higher top speed, reserve load carrying capacity and the electronic controls were not important, and longevity was a concern, I might choose the Veradito. But if stuck in the Mercury 4-stroke world, I would probably choose the new Valurado because they are getting rid of parts (finally learning that less is more). ;)

jharrell posted 09-16-2011 07:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
(if you can say adding two cylinders makes it increasingly complex)

Wow, just wow. Hard to respond in light of such "logic". If this is truly what you believe I will not be able to convince you of anything else no matter how good my arguments. You could argue that 2 more cylinders is not as complex as a supercharger, but to question whether it adds any complexity at all? Now I question your sanity.

On one hand you have both Peter and jimh posting the words "more moving parts" in respect to 4-strokes and supercharged engines as a factor to consider, and then here in this post they somehow trying to change the meaning of "more moving parts" to something else, it's funny, but ridiculous. I guess in the Evinrude world pistons,rods, bearings and injectors are not considered moving parts.

Now it makes sense why Peter and jimh favor the E-TEC so much, they believe it has no moving parts! That would be a truly amazing engine, I would probably have as much devotion if I saw them in such a light.

quote:
The 111 extra pounds of increased complexity ultimately intensifies the load rather than spreads it out.

This is the argument I made in the Yamaha thread and you would not accept it. The 150 Yamaha has a higher per cylinder load than the 115, I did the math, 3750 lbf for the 115 vs 4922 lbf for the 150. Now all the sudden it is a valid argument, and you would choose the 115 instead? My God man be consistent, debating with you is like herding cats.

Peter posted 09-16-2011 11:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
It's absolutely without question that there are more parts and moving parts in a 4-stroke than a 2-stroke. It's absolutely a factor to consider. Those extra parts add weight, in some cases nearly 100 lbs, and maintenance too.

By the way, Mr. Harrell, the analysis that I did for you with respect to the two E-TECs and Veradito/Verado is not limited whatsoever to the E-TECs nor are the more parts/less parts arguments. Same analysis works for the carb'd Evinrude, Johnson, Yamaha, Mercury 115 4 cylinder 2-strokes and their respective 6 cylinder 150 2-strokes. The same analysis applies to the 3-cylinder Mercury 115 Optimax and the 6 cylinder 150 Optimax with even greater difference. Yes, it even applied to Suzuki back when they use to make 2-stroke outboards. So this analysis is not unique to E-TECs at all but when we express it in the context of an E-TEC you seem to get all bent out of shape. Why is that?

In the case of the Yamahas, I would choose the 150, just as I would chose the new Mercury Valurado 150 over the Veradito 115. Nothing's changed. Both motors have more displacement and are not working as hard as a 115 to provide the same cruise speed while getting substantially same fuel economy.

As recently stated in an article about the 3L Valurado 150 4-stroke

quote:
Mercury says that robust displacement enhances durability, because the motor can almost loaf along and still make competitive power, which in this class is really 164.9 horsepower, not 150.
See http://features.boats.com/boat-content/2011/09/new-mercury-150-fourstroke-outboard-debuts/#ixzz1YAxHx5ia

I read Mercury's "loaf along" as a motor turning slower is beneficial to durability (wear). It seems you'd still rather take a position to the contrary.

martyn1075 posted 09-17-2011 12:09 AM ET (US)     Profile for martyn1075  Send Email to martyn1075     
quote:
Now it is a giant Prawn with big feet.

LMAO!
jharrell posted 09-17-2011 08:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
It's absolutely without question that there are more parts and moving parts in a 4-stroke than a 2-stroke. It's absolutely a factor to consider. Those extra parts add weight, in some cases nearly 100 lbs, and maintenance too.

But it is not a factor from a V4 E-TEC to a V6 E-TEC? How do you reconcile this?

quote:
not working as hard as a 115 to provide the same cruise speed while getting substantially same fuel economy.

If they are going the same speed on the same boat they are by definition working same amount. To go the same speed they need to be putting out the same power. The definition of power is "the rate at which work is performed".

quote:
I read Mercury's "loaf along" as a motor turning slower is beneficial to durability (wear). It seems you'd still rather take a position to the contrary.

Since now you are agreeing with Mercury's marketing literature, then you must think the new 4-stroke 150 is superior to the E-TEC 150 as well. After all it has more "robust displacement" than the E-TEC, and being that it is a 4-stroke the injectors are low pressure and cycle half the amount of the E-TEC, not only that it pistons fire half the amount of the E-TEC's causing much lower stresses on the engine. It only weighs 37 lbs more than the E-TEC, similar to the difference from the 115 E-TEC. It seems to have all the attributes that you consider superior.

Maybe I should just listen to you Peter when repowering my Montauk. I was considering either the E-TEC 90 or the Suzuki 90. The E-TEC is 20 lbs lighter, but you keep saying that doesn't really matter, at least from 115 to 150. The Suzuki is a 4 cylinder larger displacement motor, whereas the E-TEC is 3 cylinders. So the HP per displacement ratio goes down and the HP per cylinder ratio goes down, which as you said a few post back is a good thing. Now it does look like the E-TEC 90 runs at a lower RPM than the Suzuki at the same speed, after all the E-TEC is a 2:1 ratio vs 2.59:1 on the Suzuki, but the Suzuki being a 4-stroke means it's injectors and cylinder firing is happening half the amount the E-TEC is, which again you said injector cycling more often is not a good thing. It also seems the Suzuki is getting much better fuel economy than the E-TEC, perhaps you can plot that for me in a graph?

http://www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE670.pdf

http://suzukimarine.com/uploads/Pro-Lite_Flats_18_DF90A.pdf

What say you, the Suzuki is the obvious choice right?

ericflys posted 09-17-2011 10:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for ericflys  Send Email to ericflys     
This thread has been entertaining. Without trying to get too much off topic, I have a few observations. Where I live (Sitka, AK) many outboards in the 150+ HP range are used commercially. The motors on the charter boats can be used over 300+ hours in a season, and depending on the operator, used very hard(easy to do if you're the captain and don't own the boat, and don't have to pay for the engines or gas). My observations (by no means a scientific study) are that motors that have been run hard (high RPM, reasonable weight boat) are lasting to around 1200-2000hrs depending on brand. The motors that are run at middle to low RPM's are lasting around 5500hrs. There is not an ETEC dealer in my town and hasn't been for over a decade, so I cannot say for certain that the same observations would hold true for an ETEC but when my observations cover the other four major brands I assume the same would hold true for an ETEC. Also in my observations, it doesn't seem to matter whether or not the motor is a two stroke or four, just how hard they are run. I think the average boater will probably go through an outboard based on it deteriorating due to age rather than hours or how hard it was run, because most of us simply don't put these kind of hours on an outboard. Does anyone else have an observations on the life of these motors based on hours and how hard they are run?
Peter posted 09-18-2011 12:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
"What say you, the Suzuki is the obvious choice right?"

For a guy who likes to mix apples and oranges together and one who has been talking about it being first on his list (for what a year, year and a half, two years now?), I think a Suzuki DF90 would look good on your transom. When you get one I would really like to hear all about how they get 5 percent negative slip with the propeller at WOT as they do in their performance report.

Tohsgib posted 09-18-2011 10:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
I get mius 10% slip on my Suzuki because it is special.
jharrell posted 09-18-2011 10:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
quote:
For a guy who likes to mix apples and oranges together and one who has been talking about it being first on his list (for what a year, year and a half, two years now?), I think a Suzuki DF90 would look good on your transom.

For one who brings motorcycle engines and 50 horse engines running WOT into the argument when it suits him I would think comparing two 90 horse outboards would not be out of bounds, more double standards from you, no surprise.

I have been holding off for some time repowering since my my old Merc 90 is still running fine even though it guzzels gas. I decided to redo everything else around it first after getting a cheap kicker for backup. Is there something wrong with this?

I will repower probably next year and don't get me wrong I am torn between the E-TEC and the Suzuki. Rope starting the E-TEC is a big plus in my book and 20 lbs can't hurt, but the fuel consumption on the Suzuki is hard to dismiss.

Unlike you I don't think less cylinders working harder or injetors firing faster automatically make the E-TEC 90 have more "wear and tear". Based on all the reports here both Suzuki and E-TEC seems to be long lasting reliable engines.

quote:
When you get one I would really like to hear all about how they get 5 percent negative slip with the propeller at WOT as they do in their performance report.

Probably the same way Evinrude got negative slip at 5000 and 36.9 mph on the E-TEC. Cupping, current, wind?

Tohsgib posted 09-23-2011 12:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
I guess we are done with this one and moved on to the E-Tec 90 thread. Not bad 113 post of mostly pure BS.
coolarrow posted 09-23-2011 01:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for coolarrow  Send Email to coolarrow     
I would add to ericflys comment. I worked marine construction and I would agree that how you run these motors is everything.I would also like to say that the popcorn and beer consumed over this thread is worthy of sponsorship by a major brewery at the least The negative 10% slip was my favorite. Well done boys.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.