E-TEC 225: Long Term Data - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  E-TEC 225: Long Term Data

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   E-TEC 225: Long Term Data

jimh posted 09-27-2013 09:13 AM ET (US)
Using the data from seven trips I have taken between 2011 and 2013, I totaled the gallons, hours, and miles of operation of my 2010 E-TEC 225-HP outboard engine in order to get accumulated data. The results are
MILES = 1528
GALLONS = 499.36
HOURS = 124.34
This results in long-term averages of
MPG = 3.06
MPH = 12.29
GPH = 4.02
Of all this data, the most useful, perhaps, is the figure for gallons per hour. Since this figure was developed from over 124 hours of operation, it represents a reasonable average and includes a lot of different boating situations.
Figures for engine fuel consumption in gallons-per-hour are more useful for making comparisons of engines than figures of miles-per-gallon. Figures for MPG include the influences of the boat and propeller, and do not necessarily reflect only the engine's contribution. Figures for GPH are for just the engine, and tend to isolate the influence of the boat and propeller.
I don't know if my pattern of use conforms to the ICOMIA standard. From my E-TEC engine management module (EMM) I have a report of the amount of time the engine has spent at various engine speeds. This report shows the distribution of engine speeds (over the total life of the engine, not just these seven cruises) as:
64.5 % = 400 to 1,600-RPM
8.6 % = 1,600 to 3,500-RPM
25.8 % = 3,500 to 4,500-RPM
1.2 % = greater than 4,500-RPM
The amount of time the engine runs at low speeds is always a surprise to me. Of no surprise is the extremely small amount of time the engine is running at high throttle settings. I know there is a lot of bravado about top speed of one's boat, but my total time at engine speeds greater than 5,500-RPM (that is, wide open throttle) is only 12-minutes in more than 338-hours of operation. That is 0.06-percent of the total running time, and I suspect that most of that time was accumulated during propeller testing and not in actual day-to-day operation of the boat.

DeeVee posted 09-29-2013 12:34 PM ET (US)
Jim,
Thank you for compiling and presenting the data. I could probably use your 4 GPH number as a general rule of thumb for my 3.3 liter 200 Etec on my Outrage 22, notched transom. It seems like it would have a built in safety margin.
I will have to check my EMM memory as a further basis for comparison.
Doug Vazquez
Peter posted 09-29-2013 12:48 PM ET (US)
Running per the 5 mode ICOMIA duty cycle would yield about 4.4 GPH for a 225. Not far off from your actual results.
jimh posted 09-29-2013 01:42 PM ET (US)
Peter--Thanks for the ICOMIA data of 4.4-GPH. My data is only about 10-percent variance from that figure. I think I might be weighed a bit on the low engine speed range. Seeing the fuel economy at 8 to 10-MPG at displacement speeds may be influencing my choice of engine speeds. Also, I hardly ever run in the engine speed range between 1,500 and 2,500-RPM, as that is not a good engine speed range for my boat.
Sometimes while cruising in scenic areas we just slow down, enjoy the quiet engine, the beautiful scenery, and the outstanding fuel economy. A few years ago, when I had a classic two-stroke-cycle engine, I hated operating at displacement speeds because the fuel economy was terrible, the engine was noisy, blue smoke obscured the view, and I wanted to get back on plane to improve the MPG.
revengewanted posted 10-02-2013 07:50 PM ET (US)
This data caused me to look at my own for comparison over the longer term. My engine is the E-TEC 250HP and the boat is the Revenge 25WT:
GALLONS = 2504
HOURS = 547
GPH = 4.57
Engine RPM breakdown:
58.1 % = 400 to 1,600-RPM
19.9 % = 1,600 to 3,500-RPM
20.9 % = 3,500 to 4,500-RPM
1.1 % = greater than 4,500-RPM
The higher usage at below 3500 RPM is probably because we often travel offshore where the wave conditions cause us to keep our speed down. Outside of that the distributions are similar. But the fuel economy is almost 15% less. So I broke it down by year and found that the first 4 years averaged 4.2 GPH but this recent year was 5.8 Interestingly, I had some electrical issues this summer so perhaps that was the cause.
But regardless, the savings accumulated over the 5 years are significant. The previous twin 135's were averaging 8.6 GPH. That's a savings of about $7K !
george
jimh posted 10-03-2013 07:34 AM ET (US)
George--Thanks for your data.
If you are running in the ocean, I can see that you would be running more often at slower planing speeds than I do in the Great Lakes. And, as I mentioned, seeing the boat getting 8-MPG at a nice displacement speed has influenced our method of operating. Those influences perhaps account for the slower GPH.
jimh posted 11-25-2013 10:44 AM ET (US)
While working with my ICON gauges recently, I discovered that the ICON Pro RPM gauge had been accumulating and recording the engine hours, fuel used, and miles run since it had been installed about two years earlier. This data is available from the ICON gauge in the TRIP or SEASONAL data displays. The gauge had recorded the following data:
Engine Hours = 151.1
Fuel Used (gallons) = 551.5
Odometer (miles) = 1614
This gave long-term averages for my E-TEC 225-HP engine over that period of use as follows:
MPG = 2.92
GPH = 3.6
MPH = 10.7

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: E-TEC 225: Long Term Data
jimh	posted 09-27-2013 09:13 AM ET (US) Using the data from seven trips I have taken between 2011 and 2013, I totaled the gallons, hours, and miles of operation of my 2010 E-TEC 225-HP outboard engine in order to get accumulated data. The results are MILES = 1528 GALLONS = 499.36 HOURS = 124.34 This results in long-term averages of MPG = 3.06 MPH = 12.29 GPH = 4.02 Of all this data, the most useful, perhaps, is the figure for gallons per hour. Since this figure was developed from over 124 hours of operation, it represents a reasonable average and includes a lot of different boating situations. Figures for engine fuel consumption in gallons-per-hour are more useful for making comparisons of engines than figures of miles-per-gallon. Figures for MPG include the influences of the boat and propeller, and do not necessarily reflect only the engine's contribution. Figures for GPH are for just the engine, and tend to isolate the influence of the boat and propeller. I don't know if my pattern of use conforms to the ICOMIA standard. From my E-TEC engine management module (EMM) I have a report of the amount of time the engine has spent at various engine speeds. This report shows the distribution of engine speeds (over the total life of the engine, not just these seven cruises) as: 64.5 % = 400 to 1,600-RPM 8.6 % = 1,600 to 3,500-RPM 25.8 % = 3,500 to 4,500-RPM 1.2 % = greater than 4,500-RPM The amount of time the engine runs at low speeds is always a surprise to me. Of no surprise is the extremely small amount of time the engine is running at high throttle settings. I know there is a lot of bravado about top speed of one's boat, but my total time at engine speeds greater than 5,500-RPM (that is, wide open throttle) is only 12-minutes in more than 338-hours of operation. That is 0.06-percent of the total running time, and I suspect that most of that time was accumulated during propeller testing and not in actual day-to-day operation of the boat.
DeeVee	posted 09-29-2013 12:34 PM ET (US) Jim, Thank you for compiling and presenting the data. I could probably use your 4 GPH number as a general rule of thumb for my 3.3 liter 200 Etec on my Outrage 22, notched transom. It seems like it would have a built in safety margin. I will have to check my EMM memory as a further basis for comparison. Doug Vazquez
Peter	posted 09-29-2013 12:48 PM ET (US) Running per the 5 mode ICOMIA duty cycle would yield about 4.4 GPH for a 225. Not far off from your actual results.
jimh	posted 09-29-2013 01:42 PM ET (US) Peter--Thanks for the ICOMIA data of 4.4-GPH. My data is only about 10-percent variance from that figure. I think I might be weighed a bit on the low engine speed range. Seeing the fuel economy at 8 to 10-MPG at displacement speeds may be influencing my choice of engine speeds. Also, I hardly ever run in the engine speed range between 1,500 and 2,500-RPM, as that is not a good engine speed range for my boat. Sometimes while cruising in scenic areas we just slow down, enjoy the quiet engine, the beautiful scenery, and the outstanding fuel economy. A few years ago, when I had a classic two-stroke-cycle engine, I hated operating at displacement speeds because the fuel economy was terrible, the engine was noisy, blue smoke obscured the view, and I wanted to get back on plane to improve the MPG.
revengewanted	posted 10-02-2013 07:50 PM ET (US) This data caused me to look at my own for comparison over the longer term. My engine is the E-TEC 250HP and the boat is the Revenge 25WT: GALLONS = 2504 HOURS = 547 GPH = 4.57 Engine RPM breakdown: 58.1 % = 400 to 1,600-RPM 19.9 % = 1,600 to 3,500-RPM 20.9 % = 3,500 to 4,500-RPM 1.1 % = greater than 4,500-RPM The higher usage at below 3500 RPM is probably because we often travel offshore where the wave conditions cause us to keep our speed down. Outside of that the distributions are similar. But the fuel economy is almost 15% less. So I broke it down by year and found that the first 4 years averaged 4.2 GPH but this recent year was 5.8 Interestingly, I had some electrical issues this summer so perhaps that was the cause. But regardless, the savings accumulated over the 5 years are significant. The previous twin 135's were averaging 8.6 GPH. That's a savings of about $7K ! george
jimh	posted 10-03-2013 07:34 AM ET (US) George--Thanks for your data. If you are running in the ocean, I can see that you would be running more often at slower planing speeds than I do in the Great Lakes. And, as I mentioned, seeing the boat getting 8-MPG at a nice displacement speed has influenced our method of operating. Those influences perhaps account for the slower GPH.
jimh	posted 11-25-2013 10:44 AM ET (US) While working with my ICON gauges recently, I discovered that the ICON Pro RPM gauge had been accumulating and recording the engine hours, fuel used, and miles run since it had been installed about two years earlier. This data is available from the ICON gauge in the TRIP or SEASONAL data displays. The gauge had recorded the following data: Engine Hours = 151.1 Fuel Used (gallons) = 551.5 Odometer (miles) = 1614 This gave long-term averages for my E-TEC 225-HP engine over that period of use as follows: MPG = 2.92 GPH = 3.6 MPH = 10.7