big carb vs lighter etec - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  big carb vs lighter etec

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   big carb vs lighter etec

peteinsf posted 04-29-2013 10:44 AM ET (US)
Hi Guys!
OK here is my starting question.
Has anyone swapped out a loop-charged 90deg V6 for a small block etc v6 and had a negative performance result? (thinking 200HP here)
I would hope the combination of 100lbs less weight (200lbs for a twin) and the high tech injection would even out...
Same basic question for the etec 90hp. Any swapped a V4 for the new 3 cyl and not liked the result?
My old posting had "there is no substitute for cubic inches" but with these gas prices lighter and efficient/clean burinig may change my thinking.
My other thought was I seem to always have a cylinder or carb not working @ 100%. I am assuming etec's many advantages will be bringing most v5.5s blocks to run like clean burning v6!
I may go find a eco-boost ford too!
Take care all!
Pete

Whalrman posted 04-29-2013 04:07 PM ET (US)
Hi,need more info. on the hull,ie: dry weight,fuel amount,battery(s) etc. The 175 E-TEC maybe more usefull than the 200 E-TEC unless, you opt for the 200 HO, bigger cubes.
peteinsf posted 04-29-2013 05:13 PM ET (US)
Hi Whalrman,
It was more of a generic question. The published horsepower pre cubic inch on these etec motors range from 0.94 (150HP) to 1.42 (300HP) with everything in between.
What I was after was someone who started with a higher displacement carb motor and switched to a lower displacement etec.
The hope was to get some real world input on how the boat feels and performs.
Historically I prefer the larger displacement motors because they seem to handle changes in sea state and just plow along with out manual hunting for the motors sweet spot(s).
Careful electronic control of a smaller displacement setup might yield the same boat feel at a lower cost and better mileage.
Hope that clarifies.
Pete
Peter posted 04-29-2013 06:50 PM ET (US)
I think it will be difficult to get the data you are hoping for. I've had both carb'd and DFI 2-stroke V6s (Evinrude and Yamaha versions) and the DFI 2-strokes hold the engine speed better. The DFI 2-strokes are more responsive to throttle inputs -- there is less lag. I think that the DFI 2-strokes may have better low end torque than the carb'd versions of the same displacement (or seem so because of the throttle response) so there may not be much difference in the very low RPM range between an old 3L 200 HP looper and a 2.6L 200 HP E-TEC.
Having said that, I would not step down in displacement going from carburated to DFI and expect that the performance would be the same. You won't save much fuel by going with a 2.6L E-TEC 200 instead of a 3.3L E-TEC 200 HO but you will save the 100 lbs while giving up the 3.3L torque band.
The 90 HP V4 looper was 105 cubic inches verus 79 cubic inches in the I3 E-TEC 90. There is no way that DFI and one less cylinder is going to make up for that displacement deficit.
2manyboats posted 04-29-2013 10:14 PM ET (US)
V-4 90 vs 90 E-TEC
On our 24 ft Seark ,that we use for swamp tours, the 2005 60° block 90 ran wot about 35 mph with a 17 inch pitch prop and on our tours with 6 to 8 onboard we got about 3 miles per gal.
Switched to a 2009 90 E-TEC, changed to a 15 pitch prop and now get 32 mph at wot and get between 6 and 7 mpg.
Top speed is not a concern as we never run over 20mph on our tours.
Given we run about 10,000 miles per year in this boat the E-Tec saves us over $5000 per year in gas and oil.
We have a 150 E-TEC on our 26 ft pontoon boat that weighs about 6000lbs empty and carries 24 passengers and it gets about the same mpg as the old 90 did on the smaller boat.
Peter posted 04-30-2013 07:07 AM ET (US)
The 60 degree V4 90 was a 100 HP motor with a 90 HP decal.
Fuel savings between the DFI 2-stroke and carb'd 2-stroke is the same as the difference between night and day. The slower you run the motors, the greater the difference. The ICOMIA standard suggests that idle speed consumes about 40 percent of the operating hour for the average user. Based on my own engine reports, that was about right on the mark. At the under 1000 RPM level, the fuel savings difference between a 2.6L V6 and a 3.3L V6 isn't much, maybe 0.1 GPH.
Even at cruise, the difference in fuel consumption rates between a 2.6L V6 DFI and the 3.3L V6 DFI won't be much. If the boat can handle the weight, then as between the two 200 HP models, the 3.3L is the better way to go.
Peter posted 04-30-2013 08:56 AM ET (US)
If you compare these two reports of an E-TEC 115 and an E-TEC 150 on a Ranger Ghost 183
www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE497.pdf
www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE412.pdf
you should see that the fuel economy is very close and that is not only a difference in displacement 1.7L versus 2.6L but also a difference in the number of cylinders. I would expect that the fuel economy gap between a 2.6L and 3.3L V6 running on the same boat that could handle either size would be less.
peteinsf posted 04-30-2013 07:33 PM ET (US)
Wow Peter,
Great find, they should alway publish the performance reports with two different motor setups on the same hull.
For a 35mph outing the 500rpm delta seems small. For this boat the choice looks to be the need for speed (50s). The V6 does get him out of hole in a big hurry. I do love (really love) going fast but my pocket book with these gas prices may be the end of mt 50+ WOT days.
A more interesting comparison would be a pair of 3cyl 90s vs a 175 or 200/200HO. The engine weight and drag might factor in a bit more.
I know the single vs twin topic is all over the place on here, what might make a big single a bit more tempting now is that a 2013 etec seems I lot more reliable than a 1996 loopers. I have many a day cleaning fouled plugs spitting unburned fuel.

As for buying, I suspect a 175 is a lot less $ than a pair of 90s. Or a single 300 vs a pair of 150s.
Thanks again Peter
Pete
masbama posted 04-30-2013 10:47 PM ET (US)
My buddy changed from a 90hp Yamaha 4 stroke (4 cyl) to a new 90hp 2 stroke Yamaha.(3 cyl)
The 4 stroke had better hole shot and top speed.
Peter posted 05-01-2013 07:14 AM ET (US)
A 4-stroke needs about 20 to 25 percent more displacement than a 2-stroke to generate a similar power curve. The Yamaha 90 4-stroke has 45 percent more displacement than the Yamaha 90 2-stroke -- 1.6L versus 1.1L so it is not at all suprising that it would have better performance. But it also weighs 100+ lbs more than the 90 2-stroke.
If your buddy changed from a 1.7L V4 Evinrude/Johnson V4 90 looper, he would have felt like he lost performance everywhere except for fuel economy.
Buckda posted 05-04-2013 08:09 AM ET (US)

quote:
Historically I prefer the larger displacement motors because they seem to handle changes in sea state and just plow along with out manual hunting for the motors sweet spot(s).
This is true - historically - however, I think a 40 hp E-TEC will 'hunt' less than a 90 HP Evinrude from yesteryear on the same boat in the same conditions. Less to do with HP and much, much more to do with the electronic throttle control. The engine runs at that speed at which you tell it to. Period...unless TOTALLY overwhelmed by loading. My 90 HP E-TEC engines 'hunted' in seas less than ANY combination of carburated motors I've owned. Likewise, I believe that would also be true of a modern, fuel injected and computer controlled 4-stroke. The converse is also true. When you throttle back on a carb'd motor, you get a gentle "spin down" as the extra fuel in the carbs is burned off. With precision metered fuel injection, the throttle back creates a "brake-like" effect - as much as possible on a vehicle without brakes - the immediacy of speed reduction due to drag is quite pronounced.
masbama posted 05-04-2013 12:04 PM ET (US)
"A 4-stroke needs about 20 to 25 percent more displacement than a 2-stroke to generate a similar power curve. The Yamaha 90 4-stroke has 45 percent more displacement than the Yamaha 90 2-stroke -- 1.6L versus 1.1L so it is not at all suprising that it would have better performance. But it also weighs 100+ lbs more than the 90 2-stroke.
If your buddy changed from a 1.7L V4 Evinrude/Johnson V4 90 looper, he would have felt like he lost performance everywhere except for fuel economy."
On his boat the added weight had no effect. He lost power and fuel economy but added reliability which was what he wanted. (He had a carbed 4 stroke-gave him nothing but problems)
Tom W Clark posted 05-04-2013 12:15 PM ET (US)

quote:
If your buddy changed from a 1.7L V4 Evinrude/Johnson V4 90 looper, he would have felt like he lost performance everywhere except for fuel economy.
Not really. I've owned and spent time in Montauks with both OMC 90 V-4s and the E-TEC 90 I-3 and there is damn little, if any, difference in hole shot. Top speed will not be the same but the E-TEC will be vastly quieter, cleaner and less thirsty.
Folks who have not spent time with the E-TECs don't really get how instantaneous the computer controlled fuel injection is and how "kick-ass" the throttle response is.
E-TECs just feel like motors of much greater horsepower...until you get to the top end when start to behave like any other outboard of its given horsepower.
The 90 HP E-TEC on this 21 foot Whaler, which is rated for 200 HP, will pop up on plane almost instantly even loaded with four big guys, though it only has a top speed of 34 MPH.
http://home.comcast.net/~tomwclark/Outrage21_QuivettCreek.jpg
Peter posted 05-04-2013 10:13 PM ET (US)
Really. I'm not referring to the cross flow motor but the 60 degree loop charged motor which is why i mentioned "looper". The 60 degree looper is a different animal than the cross flow 90 degree motors, v4 or v6 or even the 90 degree loopers. The 60 degree construct is much quicker in throttle response due to the shorter intake path which bypassed the crankcase. I think their marketing jargon for it was "power path induction."
I've spent a good amount of time with Whalers powered by both, including Montauks and my Outrage 18s with both cross flow and 60 degree looper 150 s. The 60 degree looper is just in a different league when it comes to throttle response.
masbama posted 05-05-2013 01:05 PM ET (US)
My '77 Montauk had a 2002 BRP-Johnson 90hp 2 stroke. If I hit full throttle it felt like the whole boat would jet out of the water. Incredible power.
L H G posted 05-06-2013 01:51 PM ET (US)
Peter has finally given us the resaon why the loop charged, V-6 60 degree Mercs, first introduced in 1976, have always outperformed the 90 degree OMC's, and still do to this day. The small bore OMC 60 degree engine finally came out in 1991. The big bore OMC's never did get lucky enough to get a 60 degree re-design, and are still the old fashioned 90 degrees today.
jimh posted 05-06-2013 04:35 PM ET (US)
Larry--What are you talking about? I read Peter's comment, but cannot make any sense of yours. How does the design of an OMC V6 60-degree engine and its throttle response affect something made by Mercury? And, please, don't trot out your story of how Mercury has patented the angle of 60-degrees.
Peter posted 05-06-2013 09:44 PM ET (US)
The quick throttle response for the 60 degree Eagle/Silverstar Series comes from the placement of the intakes so that they bypass the crankcase. Mercury's intakes do not bypass the crankcase so the Mercury V6s suffer from the same throttle lag that all 2-strokes with intakes flowing through the crankcase suffer from.
You can see the difference by comparing the picture of the 2.5L Mercury block in this link
outboardpowerheads.com/
with the discussion of the power path induction in this link
http://books.google.com/books?id=fOMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124& dq=power+path+induction+evinrude&source=bl&ots=hOfTWJ7X6W& sig=kXajZzYjdDb5cuZ6l1bNr57T2Sk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=21aIUfSuDK7h4AO2xYHgCg& ved=0CEQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=power%20path%20induction%20evinrude&f=false

60 degrees is not the ideal angle for the V4 but the 60 degree V4 OMC produced had the same super quick throttle response because it used the same short intake path that bypassed the crankcase.
But of course there is nothing to stop Larry if he wants to keep living the fantasy that there is something magical about 60 degree V block.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: big carb vs lighter etec
peteinsf	posted 04-29-2013 10:44 AM ET (US) Hi Guys! OK here is my starting question. Has anyone swapped out a loop-charged 90deg V6 for a small block etc v6 and had a negative performance result? (thinking 200HP here) I would hope the combination of 100lbs less weight (200lbs for a twin) and the high tech injection would even out... Same basic question for the etec 90hp. Any swapped a V4 for the new 3 cyl and not liked the result? My old posting had "there is no substitute for cubic inches" but with these gas prices lighter and efficient/clean burinig may change my thinking. My other thought was I seem to always have a cylinder or carb not working @ 100%. I am assuming etec's many advantages will be bringing most v5.5s blocks to run like clean burning v6! I may go find a eco-boost ford too! Take care all! Pete
Whalrman	posted 04-29-2013 04:07 PM ET (US) Hi,need more info. on the hull,ie: dry weight,fuel amount,battery(s) etc. The 175 E-TEC maybe more usefull than the 200 E-TEC unless, you opt for the 200 HO, bigger cubes.
peteinsf	posted 04-29-2013 05:13 PM ET (US) Hi Whalrman, It was more of a generic question. The published horsepower pre cubic inch on these etec motors range from 0.94 (150HP) to 1.42 (300HP) with everything in between. What I was after was someone who started with a higher displacement carb motor and switched to a lower displacement etec. The hope was to get some real world input on how the boat feels and performs. Historically I prefer the larger displacement motors because they seem to handle changes in sea state and just plow along with out manual hunting for the motors sweet spot(s). Careful electronic control of a smaller displacement setup might yield the same boat feel at a lower cost and better mileage. Hope that clarifies. Pete
Peter	posted 04-29-2013 06:50 PM ET (US) I think it will be difficult to get the data you are hoping for. I've had both carb'd and DFI 2-stroke V6s (Evinrude and Yamaha versions) and the DFI 2-strokes hold the engine speed better. The DFI 2-strokes are more responsive to throttle inputs -- there is less lag. I think that the DFI 2-strokes may have better low end torque than the carb'd versions of the same displacement (or seem so because of the throttle response) so there may not be much difference in the very low RPM range between an old 3L 200 HP looper and a 2.6L 200 HP E-TEC. Having said that, I would not step down in displacement going from carburated to DFI and expect that the performance would be the same. You won't save much fuel by going with a 2.6L E-TEC 200 instead of a 3.3L E-TEC 200 HO but you will save the 100 lbs while giving up the 3.3L torque band. The 90 HP V4 looper was 105 cubic inches verus 79 cubic inches in the I3 E-TEC 90. There is no way that DFI and one less cylinder is going to make up for that displacement deficit.
2manyboats	posted 04-29-2013 10:14 PM ET (US) V-4 90 vs 90 E-TEC On our 24 ft Seark ,that we use for swamp tours, the 2005 60° block 90 ran wot about 35 mph with a 17 inch pitch prop and on our tours with 6 to 8 onboard we got about 3 miles per gal. Switched to a 2009 90 E-TEC, changed to a 15 pitch prop and now get 32 mph at wot and get between 6 and 7 mpg. Top speed is not a concern as we never run over 20mph on our tours. Given we run about 10,000 miles per year in this boat the E-Tec saves us over $5000 per year in gas and oil. We have a 150 E-TEC on our 26 ft pontoon boat that weighs about 6000lbs empty and carries 24 passengers and it gets about the same mpg as the old 90 did on the smaller boat.
Peter	posted 04-30-2013 07:07 AM ET (US) The 60 degree V4 90 was a 100 HP motor with a 90 HP decal. Fuel savings between the DFI 2-stroke and carb'd 2-stroke is the same as the difference between night and day. The slower you run the motors, the greater the difference. The ICOMIA standard suggests that idle speed consumes about 40 percent of the operating hour for the average user. Based on my own engine reports, that was about right on the mark. At the under 1000 RPM level, the fuel savings difference between a 2.6L V6 and a 3.3L V6 isn't much, maybe 0.1 GPH. Even at cruise, the difference in fuel consumption rates between a 2.6L V6 DFI and the 3.3L V6 DFI won't be much. If the boat can handle the weight, then as between the two 200 HP models, the 3.3L is the better way to go.
Peter	posted 04-30-2013 08:56 AM ET (US) If you compare these two reports of an E-TEC 115 and an E-TEC 150 on a Ranger Ghost 183 www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE497.pdf www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE412.pdf you should see that the fuel economy is very close and that is not only a difference in displacement 1.7L versus 2.6L but also a difference in the number of cylinders. I would expect that the fuel economy gap between a 2.6L and 3.3L V6 running on the same boat that could handle either size would be less.
peteinsf	posted 04-30-2013 07:33 PM ET (US) Wow Peter, Great find, they should alway publish the performance reports with two different motor setups on the same hull. For a 35mph outing the 500rpm delta seems small. For this boat the choice looks to be the need for speed (50s). The V6 does get him out of hole in a big hurry. I do love (really love) going fast but my pocket book with these gas prices may be the end of mt 50+ WOT days. A more interesting comparison would be a pair of 3cyl 90s vs a 175 or 200/200HO. The engine weight and drag might factor in a bit more. I know the single vs twin topic is all over the place on here, what might make a big single a bit more tempting now is that a 2013 etec seems I lot more reliable than a 1996 loopers. I have many a day cleaning fouled plugs spitting unburned fuel. As for buying, I suspect a 175 is a lot less $ than a pair of 90s. Or a single 300 vs a pair of 150s. Thanks again Peter Pete
masbama	posted 04-30-2013 10:47 PM ET (US) My buddy changed from a 90hp Yamaha 4 stroke (4 cyl) to a new 90hp 2 stroke Yamaha.(3 cyl) The 4 stroke had better hole shot and top speed.
Peter	posted 05-01-2013 07:14 AM ET (US) A 4-stroke needs about 20 to 25 percent more displacement than a 2-stroke to generate a similar power curve. The Yamaha 90 4-stroke has 45 percent more displacement than the Yamaha 90 2-stroke -- 1.6L versus 1.1L so it is not at all suprising that it would have better performance. But it also weighs 100+ lbs more than the 90 2-stroke. If your buddy changed from a 1.7L V4 Evinrude/Johnson V4 90 looper, he would have felt like he lost performance everywhere except for fuel economy.
Buckda	posted 05-04-2013 08:09 AM ET (US) quote: Historically I prefer the larger displacement motors because they seem to handle changes in sea state and just plow along with out manual hunting for the motors sweet spot(s). This is true - historically - however, I think a 40 hp E-TEC will 'hunt' less than a 90 HP Evinrude from yesteryear on the same boat in the same conditions. Less to do with HP and much, much more to do with the electronic throttle control. The engine runs at that speed at which you tell it to. Period...unless TOTALLY overwhelmed by loading. My 90 HP E-TEC engines 'hunted' in seas less than ANY combination of carburated motors I've owned. Likewise, I believe that would also be true of a modern, fuel injected and computer controlled 4-stroke. The converse is also true. When you throttle back on a carb'd motor, you get a gentle "spin down" as the extra fuel in the carbs is burned off. With precision metered fuel injection, the throttle back creates a "brake-like" effect - as much as possible on a vehicle without brakes - the immediacy of speed reduction due to drag is quite pronounced.
masbama	posted 05-04-2013 12:04 PM ET (US) "A 4-stroke needs about 20 to 25 percent more displacement than a 2-stroke to generate a similar power curve. The Yamaha 90 4-stroke has 45 percent more displacement than the Yamaha 90 2-stroke -- 1.6L versus 1.1L so it is not at all suprising that it would have better performance. But it also weighs 100+ lbs more than the 90 2-stroke. If your buddy changed from a 1.7L V4 Evinrude/Johnson V4 90 looper, he would have felt like he lost performance everywhere except for fuel economy." On his boat the added weight had no effect. He lost power and fuel economy but added reliability which was what he wanted. (He had a carbed 4 stroke-gave him nothing but problems)
Tom W Clark	posted 05-04-2013 12:15 PM ET (US) quote: If your buddy changed from a 1.7L V4 Evinrude/Johnson V4 90 looper, he would have felt like he lost performance everywhere except for fuel economy. Not really. I've owned and spent time in Montauks with both OMC 90 V-4s and the E-TEC 90 I-3 and there is damn little, if any, difference in hole shot. Top speed will not be the same but the E-TEC will be vastly quieter, cleaner and less thirsty. Folks who have not spent time with the E-TECs don't really get how instantaneous the computer controlled fuel injection is and how "kick-ass" the throttle response is. E-TECs just feel like motors of much greater horsepower...until you get to the top end when start to behave like any other outboard of its given horsepower. The 90 HP E-TEC on this 21 foot Whaler, which is rated for 200 HP, will pop up on plane almost instantly even loaded with four big guys, though it only has a top speed of 34 MPH. http://home.comcast.net/~tomwclark/Outrage21_QuivettCreek.jpg
Peter	posted 05-04-2013 10:13 PM ET (US) Really. I'm not referring to the cross flow motor but the 60 degree loop charged motor which is why i mentioned "looper". The 60 degree looper is a different animal than the cross flow 90 degree motors, v4 or v6 or even the 90 degree loopers. The 60 degree construct is much quicker in throttle response due to the shorter intake path which bypassed the crankcase. I think their marketing jargon for it was "power path induction." I've spent a good amount of time with Whalers powered by both, including Montauks and my Outrage 18s with both cross flow and 60 degree looper 150 s. The 60 degree looper is just in a different league when it comes to throttle response.
masbama	posted 05-05-2013 01:05 PM ET (US) My '77 Montauk had a 2002 BRP-Johnson 90hp 2 stroke. If I hit full throttle it felt like the whole boat would jet out of the water. Incredible power.
L H G	posted 05-06-2013 01:51 PM ET (US) Peter has finally given us the resaon why the loop charged, V-6 60 degree Mercs, first introduced in 1976, have always outperformed the 90 degree OMC's, and still do to this day. The small bore OMC 60 degree engine finally came out in 1991. The big bore OMC's never did get lucky enough to get a 60 degree re-design, and are still the old fashioned 90 degrees today.
jimh	posted 05-06-2013 04:35 PM ET (US) Larry--What are you talking about? I read Peter's comment, but cannot make any sense of yours. How does the design of an OMC V6 60-degree engine and its throttle response affect something made by Mercury? And, please, don't trot out your story of how Mercury has patented the angle of 60-degrees.
Peter	posted 05-06-2013 09:44 PM ET (US) The quick throttle response for the 60 degree Eagle/Silverstar Series comes from the placement of the intakes so that they bypass the crankcase. Mercury's intakes do not bypass the crankcase so the Mercury V6s suffer from the same throttle lag that all 2-strokes with intakes flowing through the crankcase suffer from. You can see the difference by comparing the picture of the 2.5L Mercury block in this link outboardpowerheads.com/ with the discussion of the power path induction in this link http://books.google.com/books?id=fOMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124& dq=power+path+induction+evinrude&source=bl&ots=hOfTWJ7X6W& sig=kXajZzYjdDb5cuZ6l1bNr57T2Sk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=21aIUfSuDK7h4AO2xYHgCg& ved=0CEQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=power%20path%20induction%20evinrude&f=false 60 degrees is not the ideal angle for the V4 but the 60 degree V4 OMC produced had the same super quick throttle response because it used the same short intake path that bypassed the crankcase. But of course there is nothing to stop Larry if he wants to keep living the fantasy that there is something magical about 60 degree V block.