ContinuousWave
Whaler
Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
E-TEC Noise Signature; Claims for Fuel Economy of Modern Engines
search | FAQ |
profile | register | author help
|
|
ContinuousWave Whaler Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
E-TEC Noise Signature; Claims for Fuel Economy of Modern Engines
|
| Author | Topic: E-TEC Noise Signature; Claims for Fuel Economy of Modern Engines |
| mkelly |
posted 07-19-2013 09:16 PM ET (US)  
I'm so close to making a decision on the E-TEC 150 for my Whaler and E-TEC 200 for my Dad's 22' Sportcraft. We often have rough seas in Puget Sound and San Juan Islands, and slow running is common. I hope the insurance company renders my dad's Mercury toast so we can get a new engine. Do you know what cost to expect for a new 200? We would need all new controls and gauges. A local dealer quoted me $15,000 all in for a new 150 Yamaha for my Whaler, so I guess the 200 Yamaha would be $17,000-ish. I've heard that the E-TEC's have an unusual sound. What do you think? [Separated from another discussion.] |
| ericflys |
posted 07-19-2013 09:47 PM ET (US)
The E-TEC's are nice engines, and perhaps the best engine for some applications. However if you're in the market for a 150, the new Mercury 150 Fourstroke, will give you all of the nice attributes the jimh stated above, and beat the E-TEC by 20% in every category (price, fuel economy etc) except weight, in which the two are very similar. As for the 200, in my opinion, the new Yami is worth a very close look. I do know some very satisfied customers with all the major manufactures, so it appears you can't go wrong with any of them, however I would probably wouldn't go with the Verado, I would buy one of the others, unless you are a hard core Merc fan, and in that case I would wait until their new 200 comes out, probably within they next year. The Suzuki, Evinrude, Mercury, and Honda 200's are all very long in the tooth in terms of what appears to me to be outboard design cycles. Which means, they are proven performers, but but probably not going to be category leading against a newer design, and those companies will probably release redesigned models in the next few years... Just my two cents. |
| jimh |
posted 07-20-2013 07:34 AM ET (US)
Re the sound of the E-TEC: when running into head seas on a very slow plane, the engine has a very reassuring note. It has a low-pitched growl, like a diesel. Let's do math: at 3,200-RPM, we have each cylinder firing every revolution. That is a firing frequency of 3200/60 = 53-Hz. Since the cylinders fire in staggers of three, the fundamental note is 3 x 53 = 160-Hz. That is the predominant sound at that engine speed. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-21-2013 09:42 AM ET (US)
quote: Not sure what size Whaler mkelly has but Mecury 150 FourStroke is running my Outrage 22 at 44-MPH top end with cruising MPG 4-5 mpg, 21 to 28 mph range for cruising. [Made many other claims of superlative degree of superiority for the engine he has just bought compared to all competitor engines.] |
| jimh |
posted 07-21-2013 09:43 AM ET (US)
Regarding unusual sounds, I just asked Chris about that: Q: Do you think our E-TEC makes an unusual sound from its direct-injection fuel injectors? A: Goodness sakes, No. You know how much I hate noises and sounds. They drive me crazy. The E-TEC does not make any unusual sound. For Eagles: What happened to the 50-MPH top speed you were hoping for? Didn't you already say you hit 47-MPH? And how is that fuel economy? Have you hit 10-MPG yet? |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-21-2013 10:06 AM ET (US)
quote: Hmmm...lets see if I can find the actual numbers talked about.
quote: That was without T-top.
quote: "Them" was ericfly's numbers for his '83 Outrage 18 with Mecury 3.0L FourStroke which, if it's like my neighbor's Outrage, is rated for a 200HP. Here are ericfly's numbers I'm hoping to match...ESPECIALLY the 5.7 mpg at 24 mph.
quote: Those were the actual numbers talked about on two repowers with the Mercury 150 Four Stroke the mkelly might find useful if he's looking for a 150HP engine. |
| jimh |
posted 07-21-2013 10:37 AM ET (US)
For the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE not VERADO, using Mercury data, we see the 150-HP engine burns 13.4-GPH at full throttle. That suggests the BSFC is going to be 0.56-lbs/HP-hour For the E-TEC, using Evinrude data, we see the 225-HP engine burns 20.1-GPH. That suggests the BSFC is going to be 0.56-lbs/HP-hour We see that the fuel economy of the two engines is just about identical. I did not cherry-pick the performance data; In each case I just used the first report listed on the manufacturer's website of performance reports for the engine model. I used the 225-HP E-TEC because that is the engine I have on my 22-foot Boston Whaler hull. See http://www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE988.pdf http://www.mercurymarine.com/engines/engine-tests/boat-house-bulletin/ ?ID=947& The conclusion I make is that these engines operate with about the same sort of fuel efficiency. It is very straightforward to compare the fuel efficiency with BSFC data rather than with reports of boat speeds and fuel economy. Boat speeds and fuel economy are dependent on boat weight, conditions, propeller choice, and many other variables. |
| jimh |
posted 07-21-2013 10:40 AM ET (US)
Thank you, EaglesPDX, for explaining in detail how your anticipation of going 47 to 50-MPH with your Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 22 and 150-HP was based on a different boat, a smaller Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 18, going 46-MPH. I understand better your method of forecasting speeds to be anticipated Can you elaborate on where you are in your testing and development of the optimum propeller and engine mounting height? I though you were already getting 44-MPH before you began you testing of engine mounting height influence and propeller changes. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-21-2013 11:48 AM ET (US)
[Invented some statement, attributed the statement (which no one made) to someone else, then began to argue with the other person (who did not make the statement). These sorts of inventions are deleted--jimh] |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-21-2013 11:53 AM ET (US)
quote: Fer shure. [From the link below]http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007886.html |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-21-2013 01:26 PM ET (US)
quote: [Picks data from a different engine, not the model cited in his quote. Then suggests that the model cited in the quote burns as much fuel as the completely different engine in the report he cited. This seems to be done only for two possible reasons: complete ignorane or intentionally attempting to confuse the discussion. This reply deleted--jimh] |
| ericflys |
posted 07-21-2013 04:47 PM ET (US)
I'm not sure how it can be suggested that the fuel economy is similar between the two engines. Using the numbers posted here on this forum, the Mercury 150 is is at least 20% more fuel fuel efficient at any throttle setting, and at some (the midrange where the engine is used most) is is more than 20%. The E-TEC's are nice engines as are all the current offering from major manufactures, but it is a dated design, and in terms of efficiency, can't compete with the newer designs. |
| jimh |
posted 07-21-2013 07:13 PM ET (US)
Eric--I just use the fuel flow rate and the rated horsepower to get the BSFC. I picked the test reports completely at random. Using the BSFC isolates everything to the engine. It removes all the other variables. It tells you how efficiently the engine converts fuel to power. That seems to be the question everyone wants to know. When you start making these very unscientific comparisons of uncontrolled tests--like this nonsense that EaglesPDX has just posted that you should pick a boat that is sort like the one you have from the ones tested by Boston Whaler--you bring in many other influences. |
| jimh |
posted 07-21-2013 07:16 PM ET (US)
Eagles--You have chosen a completely different motor for your claim of much higher fuel consumption for an E-TEC 225. No one could be that dumb. You must be trying to throw more confusion into this discussion. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-21-2013 09:09 PM ET (US)
[Explains that he did not understand which engine was being cited. Then changes the topic to begin discussion of what sort of engine is the most fuel efficient. This topic is too broad and too far away from the initial discussion, and has been eliminated--jimh] |
| Peter |
posted 07-21-2013 09:37 PM ET (US)
LOL. I spotted Eagles' mistake almost instantly when I saw the 25 GPH. I'm having trouble seeing how an electronic fuel injected, single overhead cam 8 valve, 4-cylinder, 4-stroke making less than 60 HP per liter (the Mercury 150 FourStroke) was NOT a dated design before the first one was ever produced. The engine in my 1986 Volkswagen was of the same construct -- an EFI, SOHC, 8 valve, 4-cylinder, 4-stroke producing 58 HP per liter. In 1986, there were no DFI 2-strokes. |
| djahncke |
posted 07-21-2013 09:37 PM ET (US)
Eagles, Jim's link points to data on a 225HP E-TEC, your link points to data on a 225HP E-TEC HO. The HO (High Output) model is indeed a different engine. I know I too overlooked that detail when I first looked at the data. |
| jimh |
posted 07-21-2013 10:27 PM ET (US)
I hate to mention this, as we have already learned that the perfect motor for this boat is going to be the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE not VERADO, but does anyone have any idea what boat is being re-powered here? |
| Huey01 |
posted 07-21-2013 10:35 PM ET (US)
Hi, a V6 150HP E-TEC idles, which is really where a lot of boaters spend a lot of time, at 0.7L/Hr (or 0.18G/Hr) so I would like to see the new 150HP Merc, that we have also fitted and yes is a fine engine, use 20% less fuel than that-it does not. From my own testing and seems to be backed about by performance reports from Mercury this new 150HP uses 0.90G/Hr so a fair bit more fuel at lower RPM. Also did some digging and using some US boats, boats that we do not get down under, the performance and MPG figures of both these clean tech engines are very similar-yes I am sure some owners, who have gone to the trouble to optimise their set-up might see better numbers than the factory of either brand but they are both very close and nothing like 20% difference. Cheers, Huey. |
| Huey01 |
posted 07-21-2013 10:41 PM ET (US)
Hi, sorry but I forgot to add the thing about noise, which is all very subjective and differs on all different boats. The Merc is quieter at idle on the boats I have run, that is not to say the E-TEC is noisy at all, but Mercury have done a good job on noise reduction on this new 3.0L but at certain cruising RPMs they are very similar and I for one tend to hear more wind noise than outboard noise. I have never personally seen any literature from Mercury about noise levels as per the ICOMIA test cycle but the Evinrude V6 is 79.0dB(A). If someone was that concerned about noise see if you can find out from Mercury what the reading is for this new 150HP-they would have had to test the same way. Cheers, Huey. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-21-2013 11:05 PM ET (US)
[Tries to justify his (probably intentional) mistake of citing the wrong engine. No problem, all the confusion that mistake created as been expunged from the discussion.--jimh] |
| jimh |
posted 07-21-2013 11:53 PM ET (US)
It does not make much sense that the fuel consumption of a particular engine could be very different on different test reports. The full-throttle fuel consumption should be very close on all test reports, unless there is a case of the engine being improperly set up with a propeller that prevents it from reaching its full power engine speed. I did not look at the E-TEC 150-HP reports. Let me pick the first one in the list--that is how I picked all the other reports I used. It was a completely random method. That report shows the E-TEC 150-HP burns 14.9-GPH. In comparison, the Mercury is 13.4. This comparison shows the Mercury FOURSTROKE not VERADO might be more fuel efficient. The BSFC numbers are Mercury = 0.58 Now we are talking about a difference of 0.04, which is a variation of about 5-percent. I can believe that you might see a variation of 5-percent. That seems to me to be within the realm of expected variance. By the way, I see a variance of about 8-percent in my own measurements, just measuring my own engine from day to day with the same instrumentation. What that tells me is that a variance of 8-percent could easily be seen just testing the same engine on different days. Thus, when we see only a 5-percent difference in BSFC between two engines, I don't think there is a big difference in the fuel economy. |
| ericflys |
posted 07-22-2013 12:30 AM ET (US)
Huey01, I didn't make up the 20% more efficient number. If you do a search on this site, for Outrage 18 repowers, the numbers speak for themselves. These are about as good a comparison as you can get, as the boats are the same make and model, and the owners have taken the time to make sure they are set properly. In my case, my boat is heavier, and has more drag (t-top with full window) that the other Outrage 18's that numbers are reported on, and I still come out 20% more efficient. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-22-2013 12:58 AM ET (US)
quote: But per your examples it differed widely for Evinrude 225 E-TEC, even the same engine with different gear cases got very different numbers. I suspect the problem with your approach is full throttle is not the same as full load. Best leave all that home brewed calcs behind and use the verified and useful performance test reports. What's nice about the Whaler performance reports (and Grady White's) is they test various combinations of engines so you can see what is most efficient, fastest etc. As soon as we know mkelly's make of Whaler, we can refer to Whaler tests on the same or similar boats for a good idea. As for difference between a 150HP 3.0L Mercury Four Stroke and a 150HP, 2.6L Evinrude two cycle, the Mercury will be quieter and more fuel efficient. |
| Huey01 |
posted 07-22-2013 02:37 AM ET (US)
Hi ericflys, I never said you made up these figures and I for one have had totally different results and going to both the respective brands websites and comparing, in some cases the same model boat, the fuel burn numbers are very similar but if you are happy with your Merc, that is good and at idle if you are using 20% less than 0.7L/hr that is great too and at idle the hull really does not come into how much an outboard uses. I just got back from water testing a new V4 rigged to a new alloy boat and I thought I would video some idling to show the noise level of this V4 on an alloy boat. I know the OP was asking about the noise of the V6, but this will give an idea that no modern engine is really noisy and in one video you hear more wind noise-and it was not that windy down there just now. The second one is in the shelter of the boating ramp. I hope this works, Cheers, Huey. |
| jimh |
posted 07-22-2013 07:49 AM ET (US)
Eagles--You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. First, you say that we must ignore the test reports I cite because there is too much variation in the fuel flow rate at full throttle. Then you say we must use the test reports you cite for fuel economy comparisons of different boats. That makes no sense. If we are to ignore test reports for fuel flow rate at full throttle because they are inconsistent, we certainly must ignore all the other data in test reports that derive from fuel flow, too. If there was going to be one data point that ought to be consistent in a test report, it would be the fuel flow rate at full throttle. This tends to be easily measured and is an index of only the engine. The notion that fuel flow data is flawed, yet somehow fuel economy data, which is, of course, derived directly from fuel flow rate, is valid makes no sense. The fuel economy data depends on the boat speed. The boat speed depends on my other variables besides the engine BSFC. I point to a simple, engine-only metric for comparison. You suggest complicated metrics, involving many other variables. (I guess I am getting accustomed to claims being made which made no sense, but it still surprises me. I hope you don't mind me pointing out the completely illogical framework of that suggestion. I am baffled by people whose thinking is so flawed.) |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-22-2013 08:05 AM ET (US)
quote: I love the various engine/boat tests and cite them all the time. Very useful. [Suggested that only calculations of BSFC from test data done be someone other than himself were flawed.--jimh] |
| jimh |
posted 07-22-2013 08:39 AM ET (US)
The calculation of BSFC comes directly from the test data. It is just another way of making the comparison. You can omit the calculation entirely and just compare the fuel flow rate, as long as the engine horsepower is the same. Converting to BSFC is just a way to remove the horsepower from the parameter for easier comparison among engines of different horsepower, as I did when I compared the 150-HP Mercury to the 225-HP Evinrude. I showed that their BSFC was just about identical. I cannot believe you are making such an enormous error in logic to suggest that the fuel flow rate is invalid and cannot be used as a basis of comparison. If the fuel flow rate is not a valid measurement, then all of the other data based on the fuel flow rate must be invalid by definition. I think I can simply your logic and remove a lot of the process for readers. In fact, I changed the thread TOPIC as soon as you entered the discussion to reflect your logic: Re-power Whaler: Don't Even Think of Anything but the New Mercury 150 FOURSTROKE not VERADO. That is what your line of thinking really comes down to. I can understand this sort of approach. Since you have invested in the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE not VERADO for your own boat, you have chosen it as the best engine. It is natural to want to encourage others to adopt this same engine. It is a way for you to reinforce the correctness of your own decision. I do not have any problem with people doing that--it is just human nature. However, when you are proselytizing others to follow your choice, you really should try to remain logical and present some sort of cohesive argument. This constant declaration that this de-evolutionary Mercury engine is somehow more sophisticated technically is getting wearisome. The constant argument that its fuel economy is hugely better than competitors' engine is also getting boring. Instead, you ought to focus of some of the real features of the FOURSTROKE not VERADO design. For example, if I were you, I would talk about how simple it is to change the engine oil, how you can do it yourself in just a few minutes, how the oil drains and fill inlets have been engineered to make it easy for the boat owner to change the lubricating oil in just a few minutes. Those are clear advantages to the FOURSTROKE not VERADO compared to competitors' engine. You ought to give us your personal experiences with the ease and simplicity of changing the oil, instead of trying to come up with some irrational argument that says ignore test data when others use it, but believe it when I use it. I am still interested to find out what kind of boat the fellow who started this thread actually has. Usually before declaration of the perfect engine we generally find out what boat is being considered. |
| jimh |
posted 07-22-2013 09:07 AM ET (US)
Eric--My observation of many engine reports has shown me that the most fuel efficient engines appear to be the naturally aspirated four-stroke-cycle engines. That is the category of the Mercury Marine 150-HP FOURSTROKE not VERADO engine. I think your suggestion of an improvement of 20-percent is probably a little too much, but there is very likely a fuel economy advantage with naturally aspirated four-stroke-cycle engines compared to other methods, such as supercharging. From what I have seen, HONDA appears to have the most impressive fuel economy with their so-called Lean Burn methods, which, I believe, are methods HONDA developed in the automobile business, where fuel economy is the overwhelmingly import consideration in many applications, and now more than ever with corporate automobile fuel economy (CAFE) standards being raised in the USA. The performance reports from the newer HONDA outboard engines with the Lean Burn enhancements are impressive. Regarding price comparisons, these are much harder to make. Outboard engine sales are akin to buying a seat on an airplane flight. It seems that no two outboard engines or airline seats are ever sold at the same price. I do acknowledge that with Mercury Marine there seems to be a rather permissive attitude about cut-throat price competition, and Mercury Marine appears to be allowing a few dealers to advertise extremely low retail prices and to ship engines all over the country. Other manufacturers seem to actively discourage that sort of sales methods by their dealers. Whether or not that results in higher prices is hard to know for certain, but I believe it probably tends toward that outcome. From many years of reading this forum I have learned that the instant some poor fellow announces he bought a new outboard engine at a particular price, there is a cadre of experts who will immediately tell that fellow he paid too much. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-22-2013 09:26 AM ET (US)
quote: Your problem is using your napkin BSFC calcs from an individual tests where engine gallons per hour at same RPM vary from 25 to 18 gph for same engine, same RPM and applying them universally to the engine in all applications. To do that you would need the factory dynamomter tests and even that would give only potential vs. the boat tests. Then again, your method does show the Mercury 150HP Four Stroke 22% more fuel efficient than the Evindrude 150HP two stroke and those do match actual boat tests Ericflys quoted. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-22-2013 09:28 AM ET (US)
No back to mkelly's mystery Whaler repower. Not much point in continuing until we know which Whaler he is repowering. |
| jimh |
posted 07-22-2013 12:54 PM ET (US)
Eagles--You are too much. You cannot be serious. You introduce some specious data for a different engine. That is your nonsense, not mine. I believe another principle is needed to explain these claims from EaglesPDX. Let me state it clearly: Whenever carefully measured fuel flow data from a manufacturer test report shows that the Evinrude and Mercury burn fuel at the same rate for a particular horsepower, that data is flawed, meaningless, and miscalculated. Whenever carefully measured fuel flow data from a manufacturer test report shows that the Mercury gets enormously better fuel economy that data is precise, accurate, and meaningful. These principles are corollaries developed from the overall principle that I previously stated: The Mercury Marine 150-HP FOURSTROKE not VERADO is the perfect engine for any re-power, so don't even think about other options. If I keep these guiding principles in mind, I can understand your wild claims. Otherwise, they make no sense. |
| L H G |
posted 07-22-2013 05:03 PM ET (US)
[Changed topic to talk about Evinrude advertising.] [Presented speculations about sales volume of Yamaha engines.] [Speculated about the degree of concern one manufacturer of outboard engines has about erosion of sales by loss of customers to rivals]. [Speculated that in the near future there would be no outboard engines used offshore except four-stroke-power-cycle engines.] [Speculated that the use of two-stroke-outboard engines would be limited to certain types of boats and one brand would dominate the market.] [Suggested that other participants are attacking certain brands] |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-22-2013 06:52 PM ET (US)
quote: Well if you call test data from Evinrude specious, who am I to argue. It did show the GPH of the Evinrude 150 at 16.4 GPH. http://www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE946.pdf And the Mercury test data was of your choosing showing 13.4 GPH. http://www.mercurymarine.com/engines/engine-tests/boat-house-bulletin/ ?ID=947& [Claimed that the data in the test reports he selected showed different BSFC than other test reports.] But where is mkelly and what Whaler does he have? |
| jimh |
posted 07-22-2013 10:45 PM ET (US)
For EaglesPDX: My calculations of BSFC are quite well done and consistently done. I think you keep trying to refer to them as being done on a napkin as a way of ridiculing them. This effort is doomed to fail, as the basis of my calculation is very well established by scientific practice and the definition of BSFC. To get BSFC we just need the fuel flow rate. I get that from the manufacturer data. It is in gallons per hour. To convert this to lbs-per-hour I use a density of 6.25-lbs/gallon for gasoline fuel. This may be slightly different that actual, but since I always use this same constant, the calculated BSFC is not affected by any small error. For the horsepower I use the manufacturer's rated power. From this point, calculation of BSFC is just a matter of simple math. There is no error. The numbers I mentioned are completely valid and are based only on the data for fuel flow from the manufacturers and their horsepower rating. You keep trying to bring in some bogus fuel flow data for a different engine. I cannot use that data because the manufacturer does not have a horsepower rating for that engine. You seem to be confused by the model name containing the figures "225". That is not the horsepower for that model. Check the manufacturer literature and you will see I am correct. This discussion is now becoming rather boring, as it consists of you trying to ignore my clear defeat of all your illogical premises. As I said before, you can either use the manufacturer fuel flow data or not use it. You cannot only use it when it supports your theory, and then insist it must be ignored when it does not support your theory. As I showed by calculation of the BSFC from the manufacturer fuel flow data, there is no significant difference in the ability of the Mercury engine to convert gasoline into horsepower as compared to the Evinrude. As for your new topic, why BSFC is not used in marketing of outboard engines, I will agree that it is not used. The most reasonable explanation (for me) of that choice is that most consumers are not familiar with BSFC. I think your reaction to my BSFC data is a confirmation of that. You seem to be confused by BSFC, and your only reaction seems to be to try to ridicule its use, even though that use is applied consistently and according to the definition of BSFC. As for boat test reports, if we could find a boat test, conducted independent of any manufacturer, done in a consistent and scientific manner, in which a fair and even comparison of engine performance was made, I would be inclined to accept the data. Now there are some real-time, head-to-head comparisons of the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE not VERADO and the Evinrude E-TEC 150. I refer to the filmed and recorded comparisons made by Evinrude in which the Mercury motor loses in every test. These are rather compelling demonstrations of the stronger motor that is the E-TEC. I do understand that their filming by Evinrude does cause it to be hard for Mercury fans to accept the outcomes. However, there an be no doubt which engine in the demonstrations is the strongest and fastest. As I have already said, it does not surprise me that a naturally aspirated four-stroke-cycle engine can produce good fuel economy, and I am willing to accept without the slightest hesitancy a report or reports of very good fuel economy for those types of engines. However, I don't see their fuel economy as being drastically different or hugely better than other engines, and certainly not in the range of 30 to 40-percent better as is often claimed. I think there is perhaps a 10 to 20 percent range in which the best of the naturally aspirated four-stroke-cycle engines could give improved fuel economy compared to competitors' engines. I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention "what Edgewater has done," so I cannot comment on that. Perhaps if you want to introduce Edgewater as the gold standard of fuel economy testing you could at least mention what they have done or point to some resource that explains what they have done. It would be a good topic for another discussion, and I encourage you to start a new thread for that topic. As to where poor mkelly has gone, he probably gave up. He said he was going to buy an E-TEC and asked about its sound signature. Instead he got an earful about the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE not VERADO being the best engine. I am very happy for you that you are so happy with your new engine that you want to tell the world about, but you might want to consider that entering every thread that brings up the topic of re-powering is not always the best way to convey your enthusiasm. And, when you are confronted with contradictory data, you might try to find a better way to respond than ridicule. ALso you seem to be endlessly pretending you don't know that an E-TEC 225 H.O. is not the same as an E-TEC 225. This is becoming annoying and is not helping clarify the situation. |
| jimh |
posted 07-22-2013 10:59 PM ET (US)
Larry--What I do not do is to join discussions about engines and begin to proselytize or boost certain brands. I write very favorably about many brands, including brands that are fierce competitors. What I do see is that a few people seem to only write favorably about one brand. And when they do, they seem to insist that this brand is the best, the leader, the most outstanding, the most advanced, and, amazingly, the least expensive. I do not hold those opinions about any brand. I do not recall ever making a statement like that. I hope this helps you to understand what I am writing. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-22-2013 11:28 PM ET (US)
quote: I'm sure they are works of art but completely useless [for some new purposw which he invents, then assigns that purpose to another participant, then attacks the other participant for trying to use the data for that purpose, which, of course, the other participant never did.] |
| jimh |
posted 07-22-2013 11:54 PM ET (US)
My calculation of BSFC compares the engines--and only the engines--and their efficiency at converting gasoline into horsepower when making their rated power. It is a simple way to see the real efficiency of the engine, rather than the complicated comparison involving the boat speed, which is a result of many factors, like hull, propeller, sea state, trim, and boat weight. |
| mkelly |
posted 07-23-2013 12:30 AM ET (US)
My Outrage is 1994 19' Outrage II. |
| mkelly |
posted 07-23-2013 12:40 AM ET (US)
What is your opinion of the H.O. series? I noticed the displacement of the 200 H.O. is quite a bit larger than the standard 200. My guess is same goes with the 150 |
| jimh |
posted 07-23-2013 01:44 AM ET (US)
For the Evinrude E-TEC engine, the H.O. series usually means there is a difference in the gear case ratio, and, in some cases, a difference in the gear case design. The H.O. series usually have lower numeric gear ratios, a sign that the application is intended for high speed craft. Some of the H.O. engines also have special high-speed gear case designs. Typically there is no horsepower specified, but the assumption is the power is greater than the non-H.O. model. The 200 H.O. is a bit of an exception to those general rules. It seems almost like a twin to the 225-HP model, except it sells for a bit lower price. After I bought an E-TEC 225-HP, I began to wonder if I should have bought a 200 H.O. and saved $600. I really do not know exactly what the difference might be. |
| EaglesPDX |
posted 07-23-2013 08:00 AM ET (US)
[Began to talk about a different boat owned by his neighbor, which is not the boat under discussion here.] |
| Peter |
posted 07-23-2013 09:44 AM ET (US)
quote: The 200 HO is just short of about 220 HP at the prop. The 225 is about 239 HP at the prop. For that $600 you bought an extra 20 HP at WOT. The difference at less than WOT will be less, of course. |
| Jamesgt727 |
posted 07-23-2013 04:13 PM ET (US)
Just bought [a Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE not Verado], came on a tri-toon river boat. I didn't see anyone mention the sound. Awesome power, and sound. http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u525/jamesgt727/null_zps605cf48f.jpg |
| mkelly |
posted 07-23-2013 09:58 PM ET (US)
Continuous Wave info says my Outrage 19' II is 18'6" with a 7'2" beam, 1,900 lbs. dry. |
| L H G |
posted 07-24-2013 02:17 AM ET (US)
I have considerable experience [in an OUTRAGE 19 II] powered with a 150 Yamaha. [Following this, no experience was offered, but instead launched into an anti-Evinrude diatribe. Please, contribute your experience, not your usual anti-Evinrude message.--jimh] |
| jimh |
posted 07-24-2013 10:24 AM ET (US)
An OUTRAGE 18 with 150-HP should be able to approach 50-MPH, which is typically plenty of speed. The OUTRAGE 19 II is heavier, so it might only hit about 45 to 48-MPH. These classic Boston Whaler boat hulls are not really designed to be run at speeds above 50-MPH in my opinion. A few people who have much more horsepower than needed on their boat transoms can exceed 50-MPH, but, it you ask them, they seldom ever run at anywhere near those speeds. I don't see any particularly good reason to go above 150-HP for either the OUTRAGE 18 or OUTRAGE 19 II hulls, unless you have some very unusual boating plans, such as carrying extremely heavy loads all the time. |
| jimh |
posted 07-24-2013 10:40 AM ET (US)
James--I am glad you are pleased with the sound of your outboard engine. I am pleased with the sound of my outboard engine, too. I am also very pleased with the power it provides. I don't use the term "awesome" because I am not in awe of it. However, I am very happy with the power produced by the engine. It is my experience that when re-powering with a modern outboard engine from a classic, older, two-stroke cycle, all the new modern engines will provide a marked improvement in the sound characteristics, and they will also deliver smooth and reliable power throughout their engine speed range. In regard to the sound characteristics, a great deal of attention is placed on the sound level at engine idle speed. It is at idle speed where there is the most noticeable difference in sound characteristics. If you plan to operate your engine always as idle speed, it might be useful to compare all the engine sounds at idle speed and pick the engine with the most pleasant sound at idle speed. In my case, I operate at idle speed very rarely. The sound characteristics at speeds above idle are generally harder to differentiate. I don't know of any very consistent and reliable measurements of engine sound at planing speeds. Most of the reports are just by-ear and are more of impressions rather than measurements. I have been operating my Evinrude E-TEC engine for about 300 hours, and during that time I cannot recall a single instance in which the sound it was making was objectionable or too loud. In contrast, my old two-stroke-cycle classic engine used to make so much noise that after a long day of boating it would cause headaches. I think all owners of modern outboard engines are very pleased with the reduced sound of these new engines. Often they are so pleased that they will make extremely enthusiastic statements about the sound, even though they have made no actual measurements of the sound level and rely solely on their impression of the sound to provide a basis for their comments. Attempts to characterize difference among modern engines and their sounds when operating at planing speed are typically not based on any sort of measurements and comparisons of those data, but rather on impressions and recollections. The memory of sound is an interesting problem, as testing has shown that a human can seldom recall sound levels or sound characteristics with much precision in making comparisons of two sounds when the interval of exposure to the two sounds is longer than about ten seconds. One way I can compare the sound of my engine to other engines at slow speeds is when I pass near boats with other engines. For example, recently I passed near a boat. We were both operating at low speed in a no-wake zone. As the other boat passed by me, the sound of its engine was clearly heard, and the sound of the other engine actually became louder than the sound of my own engine. The other boat was powered by a very recent model of Mercury Marine outboard engine, the OptiMax. From this simultaneous comparison of the two sounds in real time, it was my impression that the Mercury Marine OptiMax was louder than my engine. I also noticed the sound characteristics as being a bit harsh. I do not have any measurements of the levels, but, since it was a real-time and direct comparison, I am reasonably confident in saying the OptiMax sound was louder than my engine. |
| prj |
posted 07-24-2013 11:45 AM ET (US)
quote: If by "approach 50 MPH" you mean attain top speeds of 45-46 MPH, I agree. But I don't believe I have seen anyone report hitting 49 MPH in an Outrage-18 with a 150 HP V6 with a solid and detailed account. Sure, we may have read "I hit 50 in my Outrage" or similar non-specific anecdotes. But no one has provided a well documented performance report with RPM and speed data showing such a feat. I've been paying attention, because my V4 130 HP Yamaha has topped out at 44.5/45.5 MPH, a number suggesting that 2 more cylinders and 20 more horses could attain 50. Alas, it doesn't appear so. Middle 40's looks to be the sweet spot for a 150 HP engine on an 18-Outrage. How that additional 650 pounds for the third liner of the Outrage-19 II affects speeds is something that mkelly might report for future use. |
| Peter |
posted 07-24-2013 03:41 PM ET (US)
The only times either of my two Outrage 18s with 150 HP Johnsons on the transom reached or exceeded 50 MPH was when they were on the trailer behind my tow vehicle on the highway. In the water, mid-40s was typical top speed on both boats. |
| L H G |
posted 07-24-2013 05:09 PM ET (US)
The 19 Outrage II is a heavier boat, and the one I know does 43 mph with a Yamaha 150 2-stroke. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 07-24-2013 05:20 PM ET (US)
This Outrage 18 does 46.2 MPH with full fuel and a very heavy load. With 500 pounds less weight, it will break 50 MPH easily. With the motor raised another hole or two and an 18" Viper installed in place of the existing 17" it should do 51-52 MPH |
| prj |
posted 07-24-2013 05:28 PM ET (US)
quote: This is great. When he actually does it and provides a detailed performance report he may in fact be the very first. Until then, it just looks like every other anecdotal "My 18 easily does 50 MPH with a 150" guy. |
| jimh |
posted 07-26-2013 01:09 AM ET (US)
Tom--I completely accept your data. I input the information you gave into my Crouch's Calculator. It predicted the boat weight. When I reduced that weight by 500-lbs, the calculator predicted a speed of 52-MPH. |
| prj |
posted 07-26-2013 11:04 AM ET (US)
Indeed, these desktop calculations that the E-TEC 150 will produce a top speed of 52 MPH on an Outrage-18 are quite heartening. Perhaps someone, somewhere will actually complete a thorough and detailed performance report and give us the actual, rather than theoretical speed numbers. However, until that performance report is published, the prediction of 52 MPH is almost 5 mph, or 10% faster than any other performance report for that rig I've seen. There are several potential reasons for this. The weight input into the Crouch Calculator may be understated, the HP input may be overstated or the previously tested and reported rigs may be poorly set up. |
| jimh |
posted 07-26-2013 02:38 PM ET (US)
Another characteristic of the Evinrude engines sold with the High-Output or H.O. designation is the oiling rate. Because these high-output engines are anticipated to be used on boats run at high speeds for long times, the control system of the engine does not permit the oiling rate to be adjusted to leaner oil ratios. Most E-TEC engines can be set for leaner oil rate if a specific lubricant is used. The H.O. engines, as a rule, cannot be set to the leaner oil rate. This may not apply to every one, but I believe it does to most of the higher horsepower models. It is something to keep in mind when selecting an E-TEC model. |
| cjuall |
posted 07-26-2013 02:46 PM ET (US)
I recently re-powered my 1990 outrage 19 with a new E-Tec 135 H.O. and love its' performance. I've always been a Yamaha guy and have had Yammy's on all of my Whalers but this E-Tec is impressive. As for performance...I've hit 48 with just me in the boat and 1/4 tank of fuel. I'll try to capture some exact numbers but the fuel consumption seems awesome at high speed (just below 5gph at over 40mph as I recall). I'll get some real numbers and post them. https://chrisbostonwhalerpage.shutterfly.com/ |
| Mike Kub |
posted 07-26-2013 07:18 PM ET (US)
cjuall,your mileage would be 8mpg.This is as amazing as a 150 fourstroke Merc pushing a 22'Outrage over 40mph.Ispoke adversely re. the Merc earlier and want to now apologize to that engine.Peace |
| Marko888 |
posted 07-26-2013 08:58 PM ET (US)
CJuall Your Outrage looks stunning with all the work you have done, and that E-TEC looks great too. Very nicely done! |
| |
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.