posted 02-08-2014 05:09 AM ET (US)        

Among today's engines I am thinking [of buying] maybe a Honda 200 to 225-HP or an E-TEC. Weight is about 100-lbs more for the Honda, and it looks like it costs a few thousand more. But I hear that fuel consumption is much less on the four-stroke-power-cycle outboard engine. If so, how much difference between an E-TEC [and a Honda], for example?

What about [acceleration of the boat from a standing start to plane], performance, and maintenance costs? Has anyone run these numbers already or have experience?

I'm in the Augusta, Georgia, area, so plenty of motor dealers to choose from. I just wondered what some of you thought.

posted 02-08-2014 09:12 AM ET (US)            

http://www.boatingmag.com/engines/outboards/ boatinglab-tests-outboard-ownership-costs?

That article was also the topic of a prior discussion here, and a summary of the costs was given. See

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/022342.html

Regarding the fuel economy of any outboard engine, the most reasonable basis for comparison is to use the ICOMIA duty cycle to determine the engine usage. The ICOMIA duty cycle is based on a survey of usage of outboard engines by boaters, and operates the engine at a range of speeds. This gives a good comparison of the overall fuel economy. I think it is a better comparison that the usual ones we see presented. Often one sees a particular engine load and engine speed selected as a point of comparison, usually a load and speed in which one particular engine seems more efficient than another. This single data point is then pulled out and highlighted, giving the implication that a certain engine is significantly more fuel efficient than another. I don't think you will find an enormous difference in the fuel economy of modern engines.

That said, however, the naturally aspirated, lean-burn Honda engines do seem to have a small edge in fuel economy, which I attribute to the decades of experience that Honda has gained in production of engines for automobiles, where fuel economy is perhaps of the greatest concern. One must consider the effect of fuel economy on overall costs. In order to obtain a significant cost savings, one has to buy and use a lot of gasoline, and the price of gasoline has to be rather high. If you live in Ireland and pay $9-per-gallon for gasoline, and you operate your boat daily and consume 25-gallons per day, then having marginally better fuel economy may produce some cost savings. If you are buying gasoline for less than $4-per-gallon and only operate the boat for 50-hours per year, the opportunity to save costs by using slightly less fuel is greatly diminished.

The trade-off with all of the four-stroke-power-cycle engines compared to the E-TEC is the necessity of performing oil changes and other required maintenance. That subject has been debated for years. It is my observation that there has been a rationalization by the fans of the four-stroke engines which has caused the drudgery of changing the lubricating oil, the oil filter, and disposing of the used oil to be reduced to a non-concern. The E-TEC will eliminate this often messy task of changing lubricating oil in the engine sump.

Regarding performance, the E-TEC will typically be better. It will be lighter and produce a wider range of power. The gap is narrowing, and modern four-stroke-power-cycle engines are becoming less heavy. Their power output is improving, too.

posted 02-08-2014 11:19 AM ET (US)            

3.75-gallons/1-hour x 60-hours x $4/gallon = $900

If I could change to a different engine and it would improve my fuel economy by ten percent, then I would be able to save perhaps $90 per year.

posted 02-09-2014 07:00 AM ET (US)            

My previous 18 outrage had a 1996 150 Johnson (about 400 pounds weight) which was plenty of juice, but this guardian weighs in (according to what Chuck Bennett sent me) about 500 pounds extra....1250 vs 1750 pounds.

That said, the 200 Rude that's on it IS tall...looks huge, out of proportion, true that...actually. Runs fast enough to make your eyes water, I didn't GPS it when I tested and purchased last month, I would estimate in the 40s, speed wise. Has viper prop. Weight-wise, I've been told it's around 514 pounds, hull seems to handle it fine.

I went back and looked at specs on the Evinrude website..New E-tec 225 is around 524 pounds, and the 150, 175, and 200 are all around 420 pounds, indicative that if these 3 all weigh about the same, I'll probably go with the 200 unless the dealer gives me a great deal on another.

Personally, I could probably get by with a new 150 on the guardian, but that extra juice of a 200 is nice...if I run the motor with some care and reserve, fuel differences are probably fairly insignificant in the bigger scheme of things.

posted 02-09-2014 08:49 AM ET (US)            

Here is an interesting observation by boattest.com about the 90hp E-TEC fuel economy compared to similar 4-stroke engines on pontoon boats.

====================

Observations

Comparison Tests. We have tested 7 pontoon boats over the years with 90-hp 4-stroke engines. Interestingly, when we compared our 4-stroke test numbers from three different brands with the Evinrude 2-stroke numbers, the Evinrude 90s were more fuel-efficient at cruising speeds in five of the seven cases. These are by no means "apples-to-apples" tests and most were done several years ago.

posted 02-09-2014 09:45 AM ET (US)         

A good friend has a 1996ish 24 Guaradian, ex-RCMP, twin 2 stroke 150 Johnsons. He contacted Brunswick about his boat, was told by them he was under powered for a 24 Guardian. His boat is quick up to speed, it has shown 50+ MPH on the speedo (which I know is not very accurate) in a 2-3 foot ocean sea. If he stayed with a 2 stroke, same weight, I don't think he needs any more HP. It is a great boat.

posted 02-09-2014 07:07 PM ET (US)            

Whaler checked the serial number for me...brochure they sent me states the weight is 1750 pounds for the 18.

It runs good with the 200 that's on it, and I could probably get good service out of it. But I really want all new stuff. I was told it had been rebuilt, and the hour meter shows 225 hours, which isn't bad, but I'm redoing the whole boat, so a new motor is my goal.

posted 02-10-2014 10:41 AM ET (US)            

Modern outboards, either 4-stroke or direct-injected 2-strokes, are similar in terms of mileage, and both get much better mileage than the classic 2-strokes, particularly at trolling speeds. Modern outboards are also much quieter, less smelly, and are easier to start in all weather than the classics. Transitional 2-strokes such as the Mercury Optimax and Yamaha HPDI engines have improved mileage and driveability, but they are just as noisy and almost as smelly as the older engines.

The good news is that you have a ton of choices, the more so because you don't have to live within the 150 horsepower maximum of the Outrage version. I agree that the E-TEC 200 looks very good, and the 150HO, now available in a 25" shaft, might also be worthy of consideration. If I was repowering an Outrage 18, limited to 150 HP, that's the way I'd go.

Tim

posted 02-10-2014 11:23 AM ET (US)            

I also re-read that his existing motor tips the scales at 514 pounds - if he's OK with that weight, it really opens up the options, all the way to the E-TEC 250 HO if he wants to really go nuts.

posted 02-10-2014 03:53 PM ET (US)            

Elvis, run what you've got until it drops!

posted 02-11-2014 05:23 AM ET (US)            

This 200 is mounted I believe 3 holes up as Mkelly suggested, and really has a lot of juice. When I purchased the rig last month, we ran it a few miles up and down the river as a test, and it made my eyes water, I d guess at least in the 40 mph range...has a viper prop, not sure what size. I did t Wally care much about the motor speed and all at the time, as long as it ran good...I wanted the boat (ugly but solid) as it has a dive door, something I'd never seen on an 18, and I absolutely love a dive door for snorkeling, diving, etc., and my dog will love it too...

All weights pretty much equal in the E-Tec for 150, 175 and 200, I'd like to do the 200...I'm looking into pricing now to see if there are any deals in all of this Georgia and South Carolina sleet and ice!

posted 02-11-2014 11:19 AM ET (US)            

Sounds like a great boat - always liked the dive doors myself.

posted 02-11-2014 06:27 PM ET (US)            

--forced air induction using supercharging, seen only on one engine family, Brunswick's Mercury-brand VERADO;

--complications in the valve arrangements and timing, generally called cam phasing or variable valve timing, and enhancements to the intake and exhaust manifolds, all with a goal of improving the performance; and,

--very large displacement without the types of performance enhancements mentioned above.

The supercharging method actually forces the engine to make a great deal of extra power just to run the supercharger. For a supercharged engine to make, say, 250-HP, at the propeller shaft, the engine has to probably produce over 300-HP in order to run the supercharger and to overcome the gear loss. This generally leads to the supercharger engines have the worst fuel consumption of any engine. I believe the BOATING magazine test bore that out.

The complex valve timing, intake and exhaust manifold method of enhancement requires a lot of added mechanical complexity. About ten years ago this was seen as something unusual and cutting edge, but, now, so many four-stroke-power-cycle engines in automobiles have this sort of technology the inclusion of it is seen as almost something normal or standard. For world-class engine makers like Honda, having complex cam phasing is nothing out of the ordinary. Use of electrically operated valves in the intake path to modify the tuning of the air path is also being done.

posted 02-17-2014 02:29 PM ET (US)            

In the 1930's the general method used to get more power from a four-stroke-power-cycle engine was to increase its displacement. When in 2014 you use that same method to get more power, you are using a 1930's method. There is nothing wrong with this method. It has been proven to work over the last 85-years. It is really an old-fashioned and proven way to get more power from an engine: increase its displacement.

The only way I can see that my characterization could be wrong is for you to demonstrate that prior to 2014 no engines used larger displacement to create more power. I don't think that can be done, even by you, although I expect you may take a run at it for a while.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember when American automobiles had engines with 500-cubic-inch or 8.1-liter displacement. Now car engines make plenty of power from engines of 122-cubic-inch or 2.0-liter. This has occurred because in the years between 1930 and 2014 the art of building an engine has advanced, and more power output can be obtained from less displacement.

If in 2014 you buy a new engine and it uses no new technology like cam phasing, boosted fuel induction, electronically controlled tuning of intake or exhaust paths, and instead just uses a very large displacement to create its power, you are not getting 2014 technology.

posted 02-18-2014 07:34 AM ET (US)            

Audi (since at least as early as 2005)
BMW
Chevrolet
Ford
Honda
Mazda
Mercedes-Benz
Nissan
Porsche

Toyota has mostly resisted using it claiming that it cannot justify the cost versus benefit.

I think the same is probably true for 4-stroke outboard motors -- the cost probably does not outweigh the marginal benefit for a motor that gets a typical average use of 50 to 100 hours per year. Compare that to the typical automobile engine that runs 400 to 500 hours per year and to which the production volumes are orders of magnitude higher than outboard motors.

posted 02-18-2014 08:57 AM ET (US)            

The engine was very reliable and sweet running. I toured all over Italy and Europe with it in the mid-seventies.

posted 02-18-2014 03:46 PM ET (US)            

I think OMCrobert has tried to make that argument by taking something I said and attempting to construct a parallel argument, with the notion that he is going to score points against me. Sorry, I am all in favor of simpler is better, as long as simpler gives you the same outcome.

For example, consider three engines:

--Engine One has a complex cam phasing arrangement for its valve train

--Engine Two has fixed valve timing for its valve train

--Engine Three has no valve train

posted 02-18-2014 04:57 PM ET (US)            

I simply pointed out that the notion that the power of an engine can be increased only by increasing its displacement was a 1930's method, and in 2014 there are newer methods of increasing the power output of an engine besides making its displacement different.

If you want to argue with me you are going to to have to disagree with what I have said, not what you want me to have said. If you invent things for me to say and then argue against those things you invented, you have a lot better chance of winning the argument with yourself.

posted 02-18-2014 05:04 PM ET (US)            

I simply pointed out that the notion that the power of an engine can be increased only by increasing its displacement was a 1930's method, and in 2014 there are newer methods of increasing the power output of an engine besides making its displacement different.

If you want to argue with me you are going to to have to disagree with what I have said, not what you want me to have said. If you invent things for me to say and then argue against those things you invented, you have a lot better chance of winning the argument with yourself.

posted 02-18-2014 05:05 PM ET (US)            

"The old saying, "there is no replacement for displacement," is really no longer true, but if you limit your four-stroke-power-cycle engine design to 1930's technology, it will be."

posted 02-18-2014 05:22 PM ET (US)            

What you will find under the cowling of some 2014 four-stroke-power-cycle outboard engines is the basic engine is similar to 1930's engines in that the only way to get more power has been to increase displacement. You see this in many of the early generation four-stroke-power-cycle outboards such as the Yamaha F225 of c.2002. That engine was about as plain-jane as you could get, and its performance suffered. Suzuki tended to improve performance by increasing the displacement. Their engines were larger displacement, but they still tended to suffer in performance.

Suzuki has evolved, and their engines use other methods to enhance performance, although they still tend to use a high displacement to give them a head start.

For a manufacturer to come out with a new engine in c.2014 that has none of the typical performance enhancements--see my listings above for what I consider performance enhancements--you have to face the fact that you are getting an engine with 1930's technology as its basic approach to generating power.

As I said before, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with older technology, and making larger displacement does lead to more power as a general rule, but in 2014 that is not the only way to get more power.

Again, if you want to disagree with me, just show me a four-stroke-power-cycle engine from the 1930's with complex cam phasing, electronically tuned input manifolds, and supercharging.

posted 02-18-2014 05:35 PM ET (US)            

You can not compare a modern four stroke outboard to 1930s technology. Please "show me a four-stroke-power-cycle engine from the 1930's with complex cam phasing, electronically tuned input manifolds."

I edited out supercharging because that like any forced induction engine could warrant no increase in displacement and would not make sense in this argument since it is about making more power without it.

I can see that this will just be another round and round discussion but I stick to my point that comparing a modern four stroke outboard engine to 1930s technology is nonsense. I feel your arguement and hidden tone is to put down four stroke technology since you own and operate a DFI two stroke.

posted 02-18-2014 06:42 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

Yes, the E-TEC is a two-stroke-power-cycle engine. If that dates to 1902, that is the epoch. Did you think the four-stroke-power-cycle was something invented in 2014?

---

I never mentioned the invention date of the four-stroke, infact you are the one who brought up the epoch in which certain four-stroke technology was developed. Since you did, I thought it might be relevant to post when certain technology used in the E-Tec was invented to give perspective on your remarks.

When you say

quote:

---

Getting performance by using a large displacement engine is really technology from the 1930's, but it still works.

---

One could also say

quote:

---

Getting performance by using a two-stroke engine is really technology from the 1890's, but it still works.

---

Both statements are correct.

posted 02-19-2014 12:02 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

...I stick to my point that comparing a modern four stroke outboard engine to 1930s technology is nonsense.

---

You should stick to that point and look for someone to argue with about it, because I am not arguing about that point and I am not making any claim that conflicts with that point.

posted 02-19-2014 09:43 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I feel your arguement and hidden tone is to put down four stroke technology since you own and operate a DFI two stroke.

---

There are two problems with this accusation. First, "arguement" is misspelled. But let's overlook that.

Next, the agenda: there is an agenda here. The agenda is to get accurate information.

As for what engine I own, I have to remind OMCrobert of the many times I have mentioned my theory of what engine to own: own the engine sold by the dealer with whom you feel most comfortable doing business and and with whom you can anticipate having a good long-term relationship. I happen to have the good fortune of finding a great dealer that is very local to me. That dealer has been in business at the same location for over 90-years. That dealer has been selling the same brand for 90-years. That dealer is a certified top-level "Platinum" service center for the brand. That dealer and its service department is held in the highest regard by engine brand maker. That dealer has won my confidence and my business. If that dealer sold 225-HP four-stroke-power-cycle outboards there would probably be one on the transom of my boat.