posted 02-26-2014 10:18 AM ET (US)        

There is a notion--perhaps a widely held notion--that the H.O. engines produce more power than a standard engine, as, for example, a 200 H.O. might produce more power than a standard 200-HP engine.

posted 02-26-2014 11:20 AM ET (US)         

http://www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/en-US/2014_Evinrude_Catalog.pdf

It is also clearly designated under the comparison tab of each engine, order to compare horsepower. They also only compare the engine with other manufacturers engines matching the the same horsepower rating, further confirming the stated horsepower.

Lastly they are legally required to report the power rating to the EPA in order to pass emissions and sell the engine in the United States. This data is publicly available and can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm#marinesi

In all cases the EPA data shows a rated power exactly matching the number on the cowling of the HO models. So there are two possibilities:

1. Evinrude is misreporting the rated power to the EPA and therefore out of compliance with the emission regulations and possibly breaking the law.

2. They are correctly reporting the the rated power and the number on the cowling matches this rated power as it does with every other outboard produced.

As to why Evinrude won't state the rated power on their main specification page (Except for the HO 90)? I could only speculate it is some sort of marketing ploy, poorly executed at that, since it is inconsistent, vague and confusing to readers such as jimh who might take it as canon. Since it was vaguely stated I simply looked for other Evinrude literature and at the EPA data since they are legally bound to state it and I easily found it.

posted 02-26-2014 11:38 AM ET (US)         

From this article, jimh suggests:

quote:

---

There are many anecdotes about the old days and Mercury horsepower ratings, but I think they're mostly nostalgia. In modern engines there are emission ratings to meet, and you can't rally cheat on the horsepower very effectively. The influence of EPA emission regulations has tended to stop the misleading power ratings. However, it has not stopped the Mercury fans from trying to continue the tradition. They seldom miss an opportunity to suggest or imply or hint or allude that Mercury horsepower is more powerful than other horsepower.

---

posted 02-26-2014 12:01 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Evinrude clearly designates an exact horsepower in their catalog (which is literature), page 43, row "Horsepower":

http://www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/en-US/2014_Evinrude_Catalog.pdf

---

I had not seen that literature before. The beautiful layout and photographs are very nice, perhaps worthy of their own thread of discussion of photography, but I will leave that for another time.

Regarding the specification table, the horsepower is listed for standard models as just a figure, say "200" while the horsepower for the H.O. model is listed as "200 H.O." As far as I can tell, that still leaves it open to some interpretation.

I really do not know what the horsepower of the 200 H.O. actually is, but I am led to believe it is more than 200 by implication of Evinrude and many others.

Regarding the data reported to the EPA, I would request that we be given an excerpt of the data rather than a pointer to the entire collection of data. If there is something in the data that substantiates a claim, please just present the excerpted data. The concept that somewhere in all that data there is some data that proves some point may be fine, but I need a more specific example. Just excerpt the data, for example, for the E-TEC 200 standard engine and the 200 H.O. engine, and we can see what you are talking about. This will be much better than to just refer to the entire compendium of EPA data.

I think you can also get a good sense from the mandatory EPA label on the engine. For example, about six years ago I tested an E-TEC 250 H.O. model. On the engine there was an EPA sticker. The sticker stated the horsepower in units of kilowatts. Converting that to horsepower showed the engine produced 249.9-HP for the EPA emission label rating. See

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ETEC250HO.html

But a careful reading of all the references cited in the EPA and other horsepower rating methods leaves some room for a manufacturer to have options in the rating. As has been discussed ad nauseum, there is a bit of tolerance range allowed, both above and below the rated power. The rated power is not required to be the absolute peak power output.

My personal interpretation--since people are giving their personal interpretations on this topic--is the H.O. models are intended to be operated at high throttle settings for a greater percentage of run time than the standard engines, and they include some added features to help the engine operate under those higher stress conditions. For example, on some H.O. models of Evinrude E-TEC there are extra oil distribution pumps used. Those are probably there to facilitate operation at high throttle for more of the run time.

jharrel also suggests:

quote:

---

The term "High Output" might mean any number of things such as greater torque throughout the RPM range. This has always been my assumption since nearly all HO engines have a larger displacement with a lower HP/liter. The phrase "There is no replacement for displacement" comes to mind.

---

I agree. The distinction in power for the H.O. models could be that the rated power output is produced over a wider range of engine speeds than the standard models. This characteristic is certainly desirable.

posted 02-26-2014 01:49 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

Regarding the specification table, the horsepower is listed for standard models as just a figure, say "200" while the horsepower for the H.O. model is listed as "200 H.O." As far as I can tell, that still leaves it open to some interpretation.

---

This is hard for me to understand. The table row is labeled "Horsepower". H.O. is no unit of measure for power I am familiar with, and since Evinrude defines it in the rest of the literature to mean "High Output" one can only assume it means the same in that table row and is not a new power unit.

Therefor the most straightforward interpretation is:

"The engine horsepower is rated at X horsepower, but remember this is a high output model so it could have better performance characteristics than the other engines listed in this document at the same horsepower."

Instead of: "This model has X High Output power units, which are a new unit of power invented by Evinrude, and is not rated in horsepower even though this is the designated horsepower table row."

quote:

---

But a careful reading of all the references cited in the EPA and other horsepower rating methods leaves some room for a manufacturer to have options in the rating. As has been discussed ad nauseum, there is a bit of tolerance range allowed, both above and below the rated power. The rated power is not required to be the absolute peak power output

---

posted 02-26-2014 02:00 PM ET (US)         

They note this at the 1:14 mark of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jNazKGMV-Y

Since this equals rated HP + 10%, I interpret this to indicate the HO models might typically produce 10% over the rated horsepower, as per the typical rating standard of the industry.

posted 02-26-2014 02:56 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

It should be noted that there are many ways to comply with EPA regulations, including fleet averaging techniques.

---

Again any manufacturer can utilize these same techniques.

So when say comparing engines based on HP/liter there would be no reason to eliminate Evinrudes HO line from the data while including all others, unless one were trying to cherry pick data.

posted 02-26-2014 03:51 PM ET (US)            

Model	Nom HP	Config	Disp (cc)	HP	RPM HP	Range L	Range H	Range Mid
150	150	60 deg V6	2589	150	5650	5300	6000	5650
150HO	150	60 deg V6	2589	NA	NA	5300	6000	5650
175	175	60 deg V6	2592	175	5350	4850	5850	5350
200	200	60 deg V6	2589	200	5350	4850	5850	5350
200HO	200	90 deg V6	3279	NA	NA	4500	5800	5150
225	225	90 deg V6	3279	225	5150	4500	5800	5150
225HO	225	90 deg V6	3279	NA	NA	4500	5800	5150
250	250	90 deg V6	3279	250	5150	4500	5800	5150
250HO	250	90 deg V6	3441	NA	NA	4500	6000	5250
300	300	90 deg V6	3441	300	5500	4500	6000	5250

posted 02-26-2014 04:21 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

I think Marko is right on with his guess of HO models being 10% over the nominal horsepower.

---

I would not classify a "guess" as a reasonable method in determining horsepower. However, 3 reasonable, widely excepted methods of determining horsepower of an outboard engine, mainly manufacturers engine cowl, manufacturers published literature and manufacturers certified data presented to the EPA, have been presented and for some reason dismissed. It seems jimh is going to continue this fishing expedition until he hauls in a catch that supports his conclusion.

I might suggest that the only acceptable method left would be to purchase or otherwise locate a Etec 200 H.O. and have it dyno tested. That would produce the most factual and reliable data.

posted 02-26-2014 06:02 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Like all Evinrude E-TEC H.O. models, the Evinrude E-TEC 90 H.O. is intended to outperform the competition, producing 10 percent more than its decal rating, and is intended to outperform any competitive 90 HP offering.

---

posted 02-26-2014 06:11 PM ET (US)         

To bad other manufacturers do not state their percentage offset from the rated horsepower. We are instead left to guess based on similar traits to the E-TEC HO line, such as increased displacement and lower HP/liter relative to other engines of the same rated horsepower with similar designs.

posted 02-26-2014 07:26 PM ET (US)            

The 90 HO is not in the EPA data, but all of the other HO models I saw were exactly the same as the 'regular' models.

"They have taken their regular model 115 HP v4, 1.7L engine and simply attached a 90 H.O. sticker tot he cowl, and then stand with their chest out claiming it will outperform all other 90 HP engines."

posted 02-26-2014 07:33 PM ET (US)         

90 HO is approximately the same price as the regular 115 HP

posted 02-27-2014 10:39 AM ET (US)            

If I purchase a "regular" Evinrude 225 for my Outrage which has a transom rating of 225hp max, then am I getting a 225hp rated motor? Or not? Is it less?

Taking it specifically to the 225HO version, am I buying a motor that really offers about 10% hp more than the regular 225?

I have checked the specs, they are the same displacement.

Does this mean that a 225HO actually has about 247 HP?

If it does, it appears by purchasing the 225HO, it puts one in a good position of being able to "overpower" a bit legally, not worry about insurance and appears to be about the same as buying a "regular" 250hp Evinrude

I appreciate any comments on that as I would consider doing this if these are the real numbers. Boating up here at altitude takes away HP and any gains really help

posted 02-27-2014 11:28 AM ET (US)            

Regarding the power and the EPA, I have been operating under this assumption:

--the EPA regulates emission based on horsepower

--the more horsepower produced, the more emission allowed

The implication of this--at least what I infer--is that the certification is based on a particular engine making a particular power output. For each unit of power produced by that engine, the engine is allowed to produce a certain amount of the regulated emission products. At this point there is a bit of confusion. Each individual model does not have to meet a particular standard. Instead, the total sales mix of the manufacturer has to meet the standard. So all the engine models are weighted by their portion of the total sales, and all of the emissions they make are similarly weighted, and the grand total has to meed some level of reduction in emissions based on a certain arbitrary base year of comparison. Somewhere in all of these calculations the factor of the horsepower comes into play. So the manufacturers cannot fudge the horsepower.

If manufacturers, for the purpose of EPA compliance, could fudge the horsepower, I think they would want to overstate the horsepower. The more power they could claim being produced, the more emissions they could create. For example, an engine that was only marginally meeting the emission levels needed could be claimed to make more power than it actually did. By claiming more power, more emissions would be allowed. The manufacturer could get a marginal engine to seem more compliant by claiming more horsepower.

I do not see an incentive for manufacturers to fudge the horsepower in the other direction, that is, to understate the horsepower. The more power an engine produces the more emission allowed. That suggests that an engine making more power than being claimed would have to be even "cleaner" in its emission than required. If we assume that meeting the required emission level is a challenge, it does not seem likely that a manufacturer would make their task harder by trying to under-rate the power.

So, in my view, the EPA power output rating for an engine tends to be constrained by two forces. The EPA would seem to be on guard for engines that were over-rated because it would be counter to their goal of achieving reduced emissions. The manufacturers would seem to be reluctant to under-rate their engines because it would make compliance with the EPA more difficult. The outcome of my view is that the power rating data for an engine as certified for EPA is probably completely accurate on the low-side. That is, there are not "200" HP engines that really only make 180-HP at best. On the high-side, there could be some room for a "200" HP engine to make more than 200-HP, if the manufacturer had a really clean engine and it could still meet emissions, even though it was making more than 200-HP. Now, not being an expert, I may be completely wrong about this. But that is my simple view.

posted 02-27-2014 11:30 AM ET (US)            

Yamaha VF225LA at 241.4 hp, although they are also listed at 221.3 and 221.9 hp on two other lines. These are the 4.2 liter bass boat engines.

Yamaha F225XCA at 236.0 hp, these are the 4.2 liter Offshore models.

Honda BF225A at 225.3 hp.

posted 02-27-2014 12:05 PM ET (US)            

Manufacturer Name Engine Family Model Year Industry Service Class Marine Generator? Useful Life Displacement Displacement Units Pollutant Units CO FEL CO Standard CO Certification Level HC NOx FEL HC NOX Standard HC NOX Certification Level CO2 Result CH4 Result

but nothing about horsepower. It's probably right in front of me, but I can't find it. Thanks.

posted 02-27-2014 12:21 PM ET (US)            

Regarding horsepower, I want to note there are three figures in play:

--the cowling decal

--the EPA certified power

--the peak power of the engine at some certain engine speed or range

posted 02-27-2014 12:22 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

The more power they could claim being produced, the more emissions they could create.

---

This is incorrect, emission are rated in grams per kilowatt hour. In fact the formula used actually allows more emissions per kilowatt for a lower power engine.

You are confusing total emissions produced by an engine with what the government cares about which is how much emissions are created per unit of power, that is how efficient it is.

posted 02-27-2014 12:33 PM ET (US)            

I called Evinrude directly a few minutes ago, just to ask.
I asked for Tech Services and asked the question, " what is the horsepower difference between a regular 225 and a 225 HO.

Simple direct question.

The simple answer back was the 225HO makes about 24-25 MORE horsepower than the regular 225. I quote from him, "its basically the output of the 250"

I didn't asked about EPA certification, how they can get away with it, just the numbers. That's what was said.

Very interesting in a repower situation

posted 02-27-2014 12:47 PM ET (US)         

So what we know so far about Evinrude HO based on information directly Evinrude and the know applicable regulations:

1. They are rated in horsepower as is every other outboard.
2. The rating is on the decal as is every other outboard.
3. The actual horsepower is 10% more than the rated, other outboards are also allowed to do this.

I think we have reasonably determined the power output of the HO engines.

posted 02-27-2014 01:19 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The more power they could claim being produced, the more emissions they could create.

---

This is precisely correct. If the EPA tests an engine that is 200-HP, this engine is allowed to create a certain amount of emission, based on the 200-HP horsepower. If it tests a 225-HP engine, that engine gets to create more emission. More horsepower, more emission, because emission is measured by horsepower.

jharrels counters:

quote:

---

This is incorrect, emission are rated in grams per kilowatt hour.

---

His statement does not contradict mine, it confirms mine. The more power the more emissions.

posted 02-27-2014 01:57 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

...24-25 MORE horsepower

---

That's 11 percent more horsepower, not 10 percent more.

posted 02-27-2014 02:25 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

This is precisely correct. If the EPA tests an engine that is 200-HP, this engine is allowed to create a certain amount of emission, based on the 200-HP horsepower. If it tests a 225-HP engine, that engine gets to create more emission. More horsepower, more emission, because emission is measured by horsepower.

---

No larger engines engines are not allowed more grams-per-kilowatt. Emissions are measured in g/kw-hr, they are not measured in grams, kilowatts or hours individually.

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

quote:

---

Or is my arithmetic wrong?

---

No, you are right, I missed it.

Now things get really confusing. In their publication Evinrude states 10% for all HO engines, yet one of their phone operators reports 11%.

posted 02-27-2014 02:48 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The more power they could claim being produced, the more emissions they could create.

---

is needless and a distraction. Let me try to settle it.

Let us suppose that the rate of allowed emission is 1-lb-per-HP-per-hour

(Since Tom Clark has entered the discussion, I have to tell Tom that "HP" is an abbreviation for horsepower and "lbs" for pounds. I am doing this because I am afraid Tom will change the subject and ask me what those abbreviations I "invented" mean.)

If a particular engine is claimed to be a 200-HP engine, it gets to produce 200-lbs of emission.

If that engine were really a 180-HP engine, it would only get to produce 180-lbs of emission.

By claiming an engine is making more power, a manufacturer could create an advantage. In my example, an engine of only 180-HP but claimed to be 200-HP would be allowed to create 200-lbs of emission [in one hour] and still be certified as compliant, but in actuality it should only be making 180-lbs of emission [in one hour], as would be required if the horsepower were accurately stated. Because of this, I am sure the EPA must be on watch for such deceptions. (My basis for this is a general belief that a regulatory agency can probably figure out how it could be cheated by the manufacturers it regulates and can watch for such cheating. Whether or not that is acceptable to everyone can become a sidebar topic in a separate discussion.)

As jharrel notes, the rate of emission-per-HP-hour varies with different ranges of horsepower. I think there are only two categories. The only time being in one category or the other might matter would occur if an engine were right at the dividing line. It might be advantageous to stay in the category that allows more emissions-per-HP-per-hour. jharrel suggests that is the lower-power category. I assume he knows something, so I won't require that he cite chapter and verse about it.

quote:

---

[Ten] 20hp motors are allowed to produce more total emissions than a single 200, therefore it is desirable to lower your stated horsepower for emissions compliance purposes.

---

This is not a good example. We are not comparing multiples of one engine which happens to fall into a different rating class to a single engine in another rating class. I am not sure what inference is to be drawn from this example regarding how one might gain an advantage in rating a 200-HP engine.

posted 02-27-2014 03:15 PM ET (US)            

I believe the fundamental problem for jharrel in my statement

quote:

---

The more power they could claim being produced, the more emissions they could create.

---

posted 02-27-2014 03:18 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

As jharrel notes, the rate of emission-per-HP-hour varies with different ranges of horsepower. I think there are only two categories.

---

The formula takes the average power in kW of engine family.

The formula is structured such that the higher the power less emissions per-kwh are allowed. For instance the 200hp range of engines may only put out 16.1 g/kw-hr or less to be 3 star rated while a 90 may put out 17.

The forumla currently used is here: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/macs/mac0301/mac0301.pdf

I will concede though the greater g/kw-hr allowed on a smaller engine would not offset the difference in emission created by an underrated engine.

posted 02-27-2014 03:19 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

What is a reasonable method to determine the power output of an E-TEC H.O. model?

---

As I have followed the discussion so far, I believe the leading answer is to take the cowling decal figure, "200" and multiply it by a factor of 1.1 or 1.11.

I believe the basis for this is to be attributed to:

--some published statements from Evinrude

--some telephone comments by a representative

posted 02-27-2014 03:29 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

I do not think the regulated emissions are measured in anything except weight. If one has a certain amount of CarbonDioxide, one says, "I have 10-lbs of CabonDioxide." One does not say, "I have 10-lbs of CarbonDioxide per hour."

---

In the case of the EPA they measure the grams of pollutant emitted, which is a unit of weight. They also measure the time needed for the engine to emit the pollutant, measured in denoted as hours, they also measure the power the engine outputted during this time, noted in kilowatts.

The unit of measure for pollutants is grams-per-kilowatt-hours.

posted 02-27-2014 03:37 PM ET (US)            

These units are much better understood by most readers in the USA. If I tell someone I have an engine that makes 168-kW, most people will have no idea what I am talking about. If I say the engine weighs 238-kg, most people will have no idea what I am talking about.

posted 02-27-2014 03:45 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

As I have followed the discussion so far, I believe the leading answer is to take the cowling decal figure, "200" and multiply it by a factor of 1.1 or 1.11.

---

I would hope it is 1.1 and not 1.11 as it would not be in compliance with ICOMIA 28-83 and therefore not within EPA compliance.

I think however it's pretty obvious the decal number on a HO is a rating and the units used are horsepower and therefore the HO is rated for horsepower.

quote:

---

I understand the units of measurement for the EPA are scientific units, but to make the example easier to understand, I just used familiar units like horsepower and pounds.

---

posted 02-27-2014 05:46 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

So an acceptable figure of horsepower for the 200 H.O. would be 220-HP? Is that right?

---

Acceptable by who...a participant or 2 in a blog discussion? Is this a new metric for determining engine HP?

So far, 4 methods have been introduced as measures for determining engine HP, including that of the Evinrude 200 H.O.

Cowl
Manufacturer Literature (which is confusing and contradictory)
Certified data presented to the EPA by the engine manufacturer
Dyno test.

There seems to be some mysterious motivation by jimh for acceptance of a HP rating for an engine by other members of a discussion forum. This is rather odd. I think it has been accepted that Evinrude H.O. engines produce more horsepower that what is presented in their literature, and on their engine cowl. One reason for the broad acceptance of this notion is that, with only a few exceptions, Evinrude simply took a the next larger displacement engine from their lineup, and assigned a lower HP for that engine. Evinrude then suggested this simple, bait and switch technique is a "game changer".

So, now we know the HO branded engines produce more HP than their cowl indicates...perhaps as much as 10% more. I think that is probably sufficient to satisfy most folks curiosity, yet jimh wishes to quibble about a few HP here and there.

posted 02-28-2014 08:05 AM ET (US)            

It's not a technological advance, but rather a clever marketing of the technology already included in modern electronically-controlled motors, which allows horsepower to be adjusted over a range with no more than a software load change.

posted 02-28-2014 08:43 AM ET (US)            

There are a lot more weighty questions on which one cannot get complete agreement from everyone in the universe, so I don't know that limiting the scope to just the people involved in this discussion about the E-TEC H.O. horsepower is going to be indicative of a fatal flaw in the scope of the discussion.

Is TransAm suggesting that there is no correct answer that could ever be determined in the context of having this discussion? In other words, is the horsepower of an E-TEC H.O. something that can never be known in a manner that is satisfactory for everyone?

I tend to agree with that notion, by the way. That is why I did not include the E-TEC H.O. in my survey: I did not know the horsepower of the E-TEC H.O., and I figured that any value I gave it would only provoke controversy.

posted 02-28-2014 09:23 AM ET (US)            

The people who want to insist that an E-TEC H.O. only makes the horsepower shown on its decal seem to want this outcome so they can then demonstrate that the power output per liter of displacement of the H.O. or high-output models is actually less than the standard model engines, and, having established this, want to suggest for the purpose of ridicule that the engines should be called low-output. I don't really understand this motive, except perhaps they are among a group of people who like to bash the E-TEC engine in general.

I am also confused by these same people because they tend to champion another engine of another manufacturer that produces very low power per liter of displacement as being a great engine, and equate having a low power output per liter of displacement as being advantageous.

This leaves me wondering how to know when the value of power output per liter of displacement is supposed to be good: is it better for it to be high? Or to be low? Or is there some mechanism that changes with the brand?

posted 02-28-2014 10:34 AM ET (US)            

I think your points about displacement/output and horsepower are so far skewed that it works against your point. In several of these recent threads we have talked about you cherry picking data from Evinrude while doing the opposite for Four Stroke outboard engines and other brands.

Everyone on this forum (which we enjoy and are grateful for because we are whaler fans) tolerates your skewed and biased views but we do challenge things that are so obviously skewed to ensure this information does not get passed off as fact.

You talked about high output out of low displacement like it is the only factor or always a positive. How about weight? You completely left out the Verado out of your other discussion it would render your findings null and would not make Evinrude come out on top. When you start looking at Yamaha SHO, Verado, and the Pro XS series and compare head to head in an honest method then we will not shake our heads.

I think that just about every person here agrees that the Evinrude HO series puts out more horsepower vs the sticker on the back or the other plain model. The issue comes around when you try to create a formula to determine the horsepower this based on no facts, hearsay, and pure internet speculation. The issue also comes around because in the past you have put so much weight onto the EPA ratings only to have it hurt your point now. You cant have it both ways.

I am shocked that you are confused that in certain situations people want low output out of an engine. It depends on the application and traditionally durability has been tied to a robust and overbuilt design. The lower output does not stress the engine as much and in turn normally means a longer life. It is not always black and white and your attempt to create a hype about output/displacement.

posted 02-28-2014 11:43 AM ET (US)            

--no data was "cherry picked"

--there was no secret agenda

--no horsepower was assigned by me or invented by me to be the horsepower of the E-TEC H.O.

I did not include the H.O. engines from E-TEC because I did not have a clear indication from the manufacturer about their power. Yet OMCrobert has accused me of precisely doing that. I have, in fact, precisely done the opposite. I have not given any rating to the E-TEC H.O. I started this discussion so I could find a method of knowing their power output.

I have not expressed any sort of judgement about the measurement of power output as a function of displacement. I have not declared one or the other to be good or bad. I have just listed them, and noted some high and low values, and noted some correlations among groups. I am depending on the wisdom of the many experts who participate here to inform which trend is better.

posted 02-28-2014 12:17 PM ET (US)            

I have absolute faith in the data contained in the EPA report. My basis for that is the submitters of the data are submitting it for compliance with federal regulations, and I do not believe there is any data being submitted that is false.

The survey has not used any EPA data because it is very tedious for me to get that data. The survey used data from manufacturer's websites. This was mentioned at the very outset. All the data came from the manufacturers.

Re this statement from OMCrobert:

quote:

---

You talked about high output out of low displacement like it is the only factor or always a positive. How about weight? You completely left out the Verado out of your other discussion it would render your findings null and would not make Evinrude come out on top. When you start looking at Yamaha SHO, Verado, and the Pro XS series and compare head to head in an honest method then we will not shake our heads.

---

I have never made any statement that the power output as a function of displacement was the ONLY factor to be considered. This is a false accusation. It was the only factor considered in this survey. The survey makes that clear. Are you suggesting the idea of publishing data about one characteristic is taboo?

I did not include weight in the survey because that was not the parameter being studied. Perhaps a new survey that studied power as a function of weight may be done. I don't have much interest it that, so feel free to undertake it.

I left out the Verado because, as I mentioned, it makes many models of different horsepower from the same displacement, so there is not much of a trend for power output to be a function of displacement. In the Verado the power output is a function of boost pressure. However, I included the Verado once it was demanded to be in the survey. So far the only interesting data I have seen from the Verado is how much boost is being applied in the 200-HP engine. That surprised me because I would have thought the 300-HP engine had the most. (See my other comments about the Verado in the thread that is discussing the survey. This thread is trying to discuss the power of the E-TEC H.O.)

There is nothing about inclusion of the Verado that renders any other data to be "null." The Verado data just shows you can dial up any horsepower you want from a supercharged engine by changing the boost. This was already known. The rest of the data about non-Verado engines continues to have the same significance it had when the Verado data was not part of the survey.

I included the OptiMax ProXS models when they offered a different power output level than the standard models of OptiMax. It seems that there is no difference in power and displacement between Optimax plain and OptiMax Pro XS. I believe I already explained that entering the same engine power and displacements multiple times because the manufacturer gives many model designators to these engines only works to skew the average of the family toward those particular models. If there is no difference between models other than the model name or cowling ornaments, then there is no reason to include them. I have applied the same logic to other cases. For example, I don't enter three different models of the E-TEC of the same power and displacement because they are made in three different cowling colors.

The distinction of the E-TEC having the most power per liter of displacement was not considered by me to represent something particularly "on top." As I said, I have not suggested in any way there is something good or bad about having high or low power per liter of displacement. There are really no judgmental remarks made by me on that topic. In all cases in my comments on the survey I just point out averages, high values, and low values, and I do so without passing any sort of judgement. I also pointed out some correlations, and postulated a possible reason. But I did not make any sort of judgmental remarks about the correlation, other than to express my surprise that it existed so clearly.

posted 02-28-2014 12:27 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

No disrespect intended as I do enjoy this forum but you certainly like to be the center of attention or the man with all the answers.

---

This accusation is actually self-fulling, because it is people like OMCrobert who have tried to change the discussion to a discussion about me and to speculate about my way of thinking or my secret agendas, rather than to talk about outboard engines. I am afraid it is OMCrobert (and others) who have tried to change the focus of the discussion away from the actual data in the discussion and to make the discussion a personal smear campaign. This is a very good method of attack for a side of the argument that has no good data to back up their claims. They simply attack the person putting forth a proposition, rather than to attack the proposition itself. In the survey I published there is only one proposition: the power output of an engine can be gauged as a function of displacement, and the information presented in a organize manner.

posted 02-28-2014 06:01 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

As I said, I have not suggested in any way there is something good or bad about having high or low power per liter of displacement. There are really no judgmental remarks made by me on that topic.

---

quote:

---

In some four-stroke engine designs, you will find that very large displacement is being used to get a wide range of power output. 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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Not judgemental in the least.

posted 02-28-2014 07:45 PM ET (US)            

When you use the term "everyone on this forum" you include people who do not agree with you and who don't enjoy your endless sniping and personal attacks. In the future please do not include me as a person who shares your viewpoint. Terms like everyone, always, no one, never should be avoided.

posted 03-01-2014 12:21 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The survey has not used any EPA data because it is very tedious for me to get that data.

---

Manufacturer Engine Family MaxPwr RPM Max HP Engine Model Disp (cc)
BRP Inc. ABCXM0158222 147.1 5350 197.3 E200DPLSDC 2592
BRP Inc. ABCXM0200223 183.87 5150 246.6 E250DPXSOR 3279
BRP US Inc. 9BCXM0053221 47.81 5750 64.1 E65WDRLS 864
BRP US Inc. 8BCXM0053221 48.47 5750 65.0 E65WDRLSC 864
BRP US Inc. 8BCXM0079221 65.74 5000 88.2 E90DPLSR 1296
BRP US Inc. 9BCXM0079221 66.19 5000 88.8 E90DPLSR 1296
BRP US Inc. 8BCXM0105222 85.76 5750 115.0 E115DPLS 1755
BRP US Inc. BBCXM0105222 88 5750 118.0 E130D 1727
BRP US Inc. 9BCXM0105222 95.61 5750 128.2 E130D 1755
BRP US Inc. BBCXM0158222 138.96 5350 186.3 E200DPLSD 2592
BRP US Inc. 8BCXM0158222 149.14 5250 200.0 E200DPLSDC 2592
BRP US Inc. BBCXM0200223 175 5150 234.7 E250DPXSO 3279
BRP US Inc. 9BCXM0200223 183.87 5150 246.6 E250DPXSOR 3279
BRP US Inc. BBCXM0210220 206.04 5500 276.3 E300D 3441
BRP US Inc. 9BCXM0210220 220.65 5500 295.9 E300D 3441
Honda Motor BHNXM1.502G0 56 5500 75.1 BF75D 1497
Honda Motor 7HNXM2.252G0 85.8 5500 115.1 BF115A 2254
Honda Motor 8HNXM2.252G0 85.8 5500 115.1 BF115A 2254
Honda Motor 9HNXM2.252G0 85.8 5500 115.1 BF115A 2254
Honda Motor AHNXM2.252G0 86 5500 115.3 BF115A 2254
Honda Motor 7HNXM2.352G0 100.7 5500 135.0 BF135A 2354
Honda Motor AHNXM2.352G0 101 5500 135.4 BF135A 2354
Honda Motor BHNXM2.352G0 112 5500 150.2 BF150A 2354
Honda Motor BHNXM3.472G1 130 5500 174.3 BF175A 3472
Honda Motor 9HNXM3.472G1 149.1 5500 199.9 BF200A 3471
Mercury Marine 7M9XM01.73GE 66.19 5500 88.8 1F90413HD 1732
Mercury Marine 7M9XM00851C1 66.22 5250 88.8 1-075412YD 1386
Mercury Marine 9M9XM01.52C2 84.58 5375 113.4 1115D83HY 1522
Mercury Marine 9M9XM01.52C0 84.61 5375 113.5 1115D73CE 1522
Mercury Marine AM9XM02.52C3 99.3 5250 133.2 1135D73YD 2507
Mercury Marine 7M9XM02.51C1 110.36 5300 148.0 1150413FY 2507
Mercury Marine 7M9XM01.73G0 130.55 6100 175.1 1760V231E 1732
Mercury Marine 7M9XM03.02C0 138 5800 185.1 19JP48KDH 3044
Mercury Marine AM9XM01.73G0 147.1 6100 197.3 1201V23EE 1732
Mercury Marine AM9XM02.52C0 147.1 6250 197.3 1920362YH 2507
Mercury Marine BM9XM03.02C0 165.54 5375 222.0 1225D83AE 3044
Mercury Marine 7M9XM03.02C0 165.54 5375 222.0 1225D83AD 3044
Mercury Marine 7M9XM03.02C3 183.86 5500 246.6 1250P73HD 3044
Mercury Marine 7M9XM02.62G0 205.15 6100 275.1 1275F831E 2598
Mercury Marine 7M9XM02.62G0 220.06 6100 295.1 1276V23EE 2598
SUZUKI MOTOR BSKXM1.502K9 51.48 5500 69.0 DF70A 1502
SUZUKI MOTOR 8SKXM2.042K8 66.19 5000 88.8 DF90 1950
SUZUKI MOTOR BSKXM2.042K8 84.58 5500 113.4 DF115 1950
SUZUKI MOTOR BSKXM2.872K8 110.33 5500 148.0 DF150 2867
SUZUKI MOTOR BSKXM4.032K8 147.1 5500 197.3 DF200 3614
Tohatsu Corporation A1TXM1.2722C 66.2 5500 88.8 MD75 1267
Tohatsu Corporation 91TXM1.2722A 66.2 5500 88.8 MD90B 1267
Tohatsu Corporation 71TXM1.7722A 84.6 5500 113.4 MD115A 1769
Yamaha Motor Co. AYMXM.9962GC 52.08 6300 69.8 F70LA 996
Yamaha Motor Co. AYMXM1.602GC 68.1 5501 91.3 F90TLR 1596
Yamaha Motor Co. AYMXM1.742GA 81.95 5501 109.9 F115AET1L 1741
Yamaha Motor Co. AYMXM2.602CA 147.11 4991 197.3 Z200TXRY 2596
Yamaha Motor Co. AYMXM4.172GA 156.47 6000 209.8 VF200LA 4169
Yamaha Motor Co. 7YMXM.8491CA 47.28 5500 63.4 70BETOL 849
Yamaha Motor Co. 7YMXM1.141CA 55.48 5000 74.4 E75BMHDL 1140
Yamaha Motor Co. 7YMXM1.602GA 59.2 5500 79.4 F80TLRX 1596
Yamaha Motor Co. 7YMXM1.141CB 62.12 5000 83.3 90AETOL 1140
Yamaha Motor Co. 7YMXM1.602GC 68.1 5500 91.3 F90TLR 1596
Yamaha Motor Co. 8YMXM1.602GC 68.1 5500 91.3 F90TLR 1596
Yamaha Motor Co. 7YMXM1.742GA 79.87 5500 107.1 F115TLRB 1741
Yamaha Motor Co. 9YMXM1.731CA 87.14 5000 116.9 E115AETL 1730
Yamaha Motor Co. 8YMXM2.672GA 104.49 5000 140.1 F150BETX 2670
Yamaha Motor Co. 9YMXM2.672GA 119 5501 159.6 F150AET1X 2670
Yamaha Motor Co. 8YMXM2.672GA 119.4 5500 160.1 F150TLRC 2670
Yamaha Motor Co. 7YMXM2.601CA 119.48 5000 160.2 150GETOL 2596
Yamaha Motor Co. 7YMXM2.601CC 141.91 5000 190.3 200FETOX 2596
Yamaha Motor Co. 9YMXM3.352GA 155.37 5500 208.4 F225TXRC 3352
Yamaha Motor Co. 9YMXM3.342CB 206.2 5150 276.5 Z300TURC 3342
Yamaha Motor Co. 8YMXM5.332GA 220.8 5500 296.1 F300TXR 5330
Yamaha Motor Co. 8YMXM5.332GA 245.1 5500 328.7 F350TXR 5330
Yamaha Motor Co. 9YMXM5.332GA 250.1 5500 335.4 F350AET1X 5330

Engine Family Model Disp(cc) PWR (kW) @ HP @ Rated Speed Max Torque (Nm) @ Rated Speed
Honda
AHNXM2.252G0 BF115A 2254 86 115.3 5500 168.7 4500
AHNXM2.252G0 BF115A 2254 86 115.3 5500 168.7 4500
AHNXM2.252G0 BF115A 2254 86 115.3 5500 168.7 4500
AHNXM2.252G0 BF115A 2254 86 115.3 5500 168.7 4500
8HNXM2.252G0 BF115A 2254 85.8 115.1 5500 168.7 4500
BHNXM2.352G0 BF115D 2354 86 115.3 5250 194 4000
BHNXM2.352G0 BF115D 2354 86 115.3 5250 194 4000
AHNXM2.352G0 BF135A 2354 101 135.4 5500 196 4500
AHNXM2.352G0 BF135A 2354 101 135.4 5500 196 4500
AHNXM2.352G0 BF135A 2354 101 135.4 5500 196 4500
AHNXM2.352G0 BF135A 2354 101 135.4 5500 196 4500
BHNXM2.352G0 BF135A 2354 101 135.4 5500 196 4500
BHNXM2.352G0 BF135A 2354 101 135.4 5500 196 4500
8HNXM2.352G0 BF135A 2354 100.7 135.0 5500 196 4500
BHNXM3.472G1 BF175A 3471 130 174.3 5500 265 4000
AHNXM3.472G1 BF175A 3471 130 174.3 5500 265 4000
AHNXM3.472G1 BF175A 3471 130 174.3 5500 265 4000
AHNXM3.472G1 BF175A 3471 130 174.3 5500 265 4000
AHNXM3.472G1 BF175A 3471 130 174.3 5500 265 4000
8HNXM3.472G1 BF200A 3471 149.1 199.9 5500 295 4000
AHNXM3.472G1 BF200A 3471 149 199.8 5500 292 4000
AHNXM3.472G1 BF200A 3471 149 199.8 5500 292 4000
AHNXM3.472G1 BF200A 3471 149 199.8 5500 292 4000
AHNXM3.472G1 BF200A 3471 149 199.8 5500 292 4000
BHNXM3.472G1 BF200A 3471 149 199.8 5500 292 4000
AHNXM3.472G1 BF225A 3471 168 225.3 5500 295 4000
AHNXM3.472G1 BF225A 3471 168 225.3 5500 295 4000
AHNXM3.472G1 BF225A 3471 168 225.3 5500 295 4000
AHNXM3.472G1 BF225A 3471 168 225.3 5500 295 4000
BHNXM3.472G1 BF225A 3471 168 225.3 5500 295 4000
8HNXM3.472G1 BF225A 3471 167.8 225.0 5500 295 4000
7HNXM1.592G0 BF75A 1590 55.9 75.0 5500 117.6 4000
BHNXM1.502G0 BF75D 1497 56 75.1 5500 118 4000
8HNXM1.502G0 BF75D 1497 55.9 75.0 5500 118 4000
AHNXM1.502G0 BF75D 1497 56 75.1 5500 118 4000
AHNXM1.502G0 BF75D 1497 56 75.1 5500 118 4000
AHNXM1.502G0 BF75D 1497 56 75.1 5500 118 4000
AHNXM1.502G0 BF75D 1497 56 75.1 5500 118 4000
7HNXM1.592G0 BF90A 1590 67.1 90.0 5500 125.5 4500
8HNXM1.502G0 BF90D 1497 67.1 90.0 5800 123 4500
AHNXM1.502G0 BF90D 1497 67 89.8 5800 123 4500
AHNXM1.502G0 BF90D 1497 67 89.8 5800 123 4500
AHNXM1.502G0 BF90D 1497 67 89.8 5800 123 4500
AHNXM1.502G0 BF90D 1497 67 89.8 5800 123 4500
BHNXM1.502G0 BF90D 1497 67 89.8 5800 123 4500
BSKXM2.042K8 DF100 1950 73.55 98.6 5500 150 4000
Suzuki
BSKXM2.042K8 DF115/DF115Z 1950 84.58 113.4 5500 159 4500
BSKXM2.042K8 DF140/DF140Z 2044 102.97 138.1 6000 165 4500
9SKXM2.872K8 DF150/DF150Z 2867 110.33 148.0 5500 235.2 4500
BSKXM2.872K8 DF150/DF150Z 2867 110.33 148.0 5500 235.2 4500
9SKXM2.872K8 DF175/DF175Z 2867 128.71 172.6 5800 245 4500
BSKXM2.872K8 DF175/DF175Z 2867 128.71 172.6 5800 245 4500
9SKXM4.032K8 DF200/DF200Z 3614 147.1 197.3 5500 307.7 3500
BSKXM4.032K8 DF200/DF200Z 3614 147.1 197.3 5500 307.7 3500
BSKXM4.032K8 DF200/DF200Z 3614 147.1 197.3 5500 307.7 3500
9SKXM4.032K8 DF225/DF225Z 3614 165.49 221.9 5500 311.6 4500
BSKXM4.032K8 DF225/DF225Z 3614 165.49 221.9 5500 311.6 4500
BSKXM4.032K8 DF225/DF225Z 3614 165.49 221.9 5500 311.6 4500
9SKXM4.032K8 DF250/DF250Z 3614 183.88 246.6 5800 313.6 4500
BSKXM4.032K8 DF250/DF250Z 3614 183.88 246.6 5800 313.6 4500
BSKXM4.032K8 DF250/DF250Z 3614 183.88 246.6 5800 313.6 4500
9SKXM4.032K8 DF250S 4028 183.88 246.6 5800 343.2 4000
BSKXM4.032K8 DF250S 4028 183.88 246.6 5800 343.2 4000
BSKXM4.032K8 DF250S 4028 183.88 246.6 5800 343.2 4000
9SKXM4.032K8 DF300/DF300Z 4028 220.65 295.9 6000 343.2 4500
BSKXM4.032K8 DF300/DF300Z 4028 220.65 295.9 6000 343.2 4500
BSKXM1.502K9 DF70A 1502 51.49 69.0 5500 118.1 4200
BSKXM1.502K9 DF80A 1502 58.84 78.9 5500 122.6 4200
BSKXM1.502K9 DF90A 1502 66.2 88.8 5800 123.6 4200
E-TEC
BBCXM0105222 E115D 1727 85 114.0 5750 141 5750
BBCXM0105222 E115D 1727 84.6 113.4 5750 280.99 5750
BBCXM0105222 E115D 1727 84.6 113.4 5750 280.99 5750
BBCXM0105222 E115D 1727 84.6 113.4 5750 280.99 5750
BBCXM0105222 E115D 1727 84.6 113.4 5750 280.99 5750
BBCXM0105222 E115D 1727 84.6 113.4 5750 280.99 5750
BBCXM0105222 E115H 1727 85 114.0 5750 141 5750
BBCXM0105222 E115H 1727 84.6 113.4 5750 280.99 5750
BBCXM0105222 E115H 1727 84.6 113.4 5750 280.99 5750
BBCXM0105222 E115H 1727 84.6 113.4 5750 280.99 5750
BBCXM0105222 E115H 1727 84.6 113.4 5750 280.99 5750
BBCXM0105222 E115H 1727 84.6 113.4 5750 280.99 5750
BBCXM0105222 E130D 1727 96 128.7 5750 159 5750
BBCXM0105222 E130D 1727 95.6 128.2 5750 317.53 5750
BBCXM0105222 E130D 1727 95.6 128.2 5750 317.53 5750
BBCXM0105222 E130D 1727 95.6 128.2 5750 317.53 5750
BBCXM0105222 E130D 1727 95.6 128.2 5750 317.53 5750
BBCXM0105222 E130D 1727 95.6 128.2 5750 317.53 5750
BBCXM0158222 E150D 2592 110.32 147.9 5350 365.7 5350
BBCXM0158222 E150D 2592 110.32 147.9 5350 365.7 5350
BBCXM0158222 E150D 2592 110.32 147.9 5350 365.7 5350
BBCXM0158222 E150D 2592 110.32 147.9 5350 365.7 5350
BBCXM0158222 E150D 2592 110.32 147.9 5350 365.7 5350
BBCXM0158222 E150D 2592 110 147.5 5350 197 5350
BBCXM0158222 E150H 2592 110.32 147.9 5350 365.7 5350
BBCXM0158222 E150H 2592 110.32 147.9 5350 365.7 5350
BBCXM0158222 E150H 2592 110.32 147.9 5350 365.7 5350
BBCXM0158222 E150H 2592 110.32 147.9 5350 365.7 5350
BBCXM0158222 E150H 2592 110.32 147.9 5350 365.7 5350
BBCXM0158222 E150H 2592 110 147.5 5350 197 5350
BBCXM0158222 E175D 2592 129 173.0 5350 230 5350
BBCXM0158222 E175D 2592 128.71 172.6 5350 426.65 5350
BBCXM0158222 E175D 2592 128.71 172.6 5350 426.65 5350
BBCXM0158222 E175D 2592 128.71 172.6 5350 426.65 5350
BBCXM0158222 E175D 2592 128.71 172.6 5350 426.65 5350
BBCXM0158222 E175D 2592 128.71 172.6 5350 426.65 5350
BBCXM0200223 E200D 3279 147.1 197.3 5150 506.53 5150
BBCXM0200223 E200D 3279 147.1 197.3 5150 506.53 5150
BBCXM0200223 E200D 3279 147.1 197.3 5150 506.53 5150
BBCXM0200223 E200D 3279 147.1 197.3 5150 506.53 5150
BBCXM0200223 E200D 3279 147.1 197.3 5150 506.53 5150
BBCXM0200223 E200D 3279 147 197.1 5150 273 5150
BBCXM0158222 E200DC 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DC 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DC 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DC 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DC 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DC 2592 147 197.1 5350 263 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DP 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DP 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DP 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DP 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DP 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DP 2592 147 197.1 5350 263 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DS 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DS 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DS 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DS 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DS 2592 147.1 197.3 5350 487.6 5350
BBCXM0158222 E200DS 2592 147 197.1 5350 263 5350
BBCXM0200223 E200H 3279 147.1 197.3 5150 506.53 5150
BBCXM0200223 E200H 3279 147.1 197.3 5150 506.53 5150
BBCXM0200223 E200H 3279 147.1 197.3 5150 506.53 5150
BBCXM0200223 E200H 3279 147.1 197.3 5150 506.53 5150
BBCXM0200223 E200H 3279 147.1 197.3 5150 506.53 5150
BBCXM0200223 E200H 3279 147 197.1 5150 273 5150
BBCXM0200223 E225D 3279 165.49 221.9 5150 566.48 5150
BBCXM0200223 E225D 3279 165.49 221.9 5150 566.48 5150
BBCXM0200223 E225D 3279 165.49 221.9 5150 566.48 5150
BBCXM0200223 E225D 3279 165.49 221.9 5150 566.48 5150
BBCXM0200223 E225D 3279 165.49 221.9 5150 566.48 5150
BBCXM0200223 E225D 3279 165 221.3 5150 307 5150
BBCXM0200223 E225H 3279 165.49 221.9 5150 566.48 5150
BBCXM0200223 E225H 3279 165.49 221.9 5150 566.48 5150
BBCXM0200223 E225H 3279 165.49 221.9 5150 566.48 5150
BBCXM0200223 E225H 3279 165.49 221.9 5150 566.48 5150
BBCXM0200223 E225H 3279 165.49 221.9 5150 566.48 5150
BBCXM0200223 E225H 3279 165 221.3 5150 307 5150
BBCXM0200223 E250AH 3441 183.87 246.6 5250 573.33 5250
BBCXM0200223 E250DC 3279 184 246.7 5150 341 5150
BBCXM0200223 E250DC 3279 183.87 246.6 5150 629.42 5150
BBCXM0200223 E250DC 3279 183.87 246.6 5150 629.42 5150
BBCXM0200223 E250DC 3279 183.87 246.6 5150 629.42 5150
BBCXM0200223 E250DC 3279 183.87 246.6 5150 629.42 5150
BBCXM0200223 E250DC 3279 183.87 246.6 5150 629.42 5150
BBCXM0200223 E250DH 3441 184 246.7 5250 334 5250
BBCXM0200223 E250DH 3441 183.87 246.6 5250 573.33 5250
BBCXM0200223 E250DH 3441 183.87 246.6 5250 573.33 5250
BBCXM0200223 E250DH 3441 183.87 246.6 5250 573.33 5250
BBCXM0200223 E250DH 3441 183.87 246.6 5250 573.33 5250
BBCXM0200223 E250DH 3441 183.87 246.6 5250 573.33 5250
BBCXM0200223 E250DP 3279 184 246.7 5150 341 5150
BBCXM0200223 E250DP 3279 183.87 246.6 5150 629.42 5150
BBCXM0200223 E250DP 3279 183.87 246.6 5150 629.42 5150
BBCXM0200223 E250DP 3279 183.87 246.6 5150 629.42 5150
BBCXM0200223 E250DP 3279 183.87 246.6 5150 629.42 5150
BBCXM0200223 E250DP 3279 183.87 246.6 5150 629.42 5150
BBCXM0200223 E250H 3441 184 246.7 5250 334 5250
BBCXM0200223 E250H 3441 183.87 246.6 5250 573.33 5250
BBCXM0200223 E250H 3441 183.87 246.6 5250 573.33 5250
BBCXM0200223 E250H 3441 183.87 246.6 5250 573.33 5250
BBCXM0200223 E250H 3441 183.87 246.6 5250 573.33 5250
BBCXM0200223 E250H 3441 183.87 246.6 5250 573.33 5250
BBCXM0210220 E300D 3441 221 296.4 5500 383 5500
BBCXM0210220 E300D 3441 220.65 295.9 5500 707.24 5500
BBCXM0210220 E300D 3441 220.65 295.9 5500 707.24 5500
BBCXM0210220 E300D 3441 220.65 295.9 5500 707.24 5500
BBCXM0210220 E300D 3441 220.65 295.9 5500 707.24 5500
BBCXM0210220 E300D 3441 220.65 295.9 5500 707.24 5500
BBCXM0079221 E75D 1296 55.16 74.0 5000 210.7 5000
BBCXM0079221 E75D 1296 55.16 74.0 5000 210.7 5000
BBCXM0079221 E75D 1296 55.16 74.0 5000 210.7 5000
BBCXM0079221 E75D 1296 55.16 74.0 5000 210.7 5000
BBCXM0079221 E75D 1296 55.16 74.0 5000 210.7 5000
BBCXM0079221 E75D 1296 55 73.8 5000 105 5000
BBCXM0079221 E90D 1296 66.19 88.8 5000 252.84 5000
BBCXM0079221 E90D 1296 66.19 88.8 5000 252.84 5000
BBCXM0079221 E90D 1296 66.19 88.8 5000 252.84 5000
BBCXM0079221 E90D 1296 66.19 88.8 5000 252.84 5000
BBCXM0079221 E90D 1296 66.19 88.8 5000 252.84 5000
BBCXM0079221 E90D 1296 66 88.5 5000 126 5000
BBCXM0079221 E90W 1296 66.19 88.8 5000 252.84 5000
BBCXM0079221 E90W 1296 66.19 88.8 5000 252.84 5000
BBCXM0079221 E90W 1296 66.19 88.8 5000 252.84 5000
BBCXM0079221 E90W 1296 66.19 88.8 5000 252.84 5000
BBCXM0079221 E90W 1296 66.19 88.8 5000 252.84 5000
BBCXM0079221 E90W 1296 66 88.5 5000 126 5000
Yamaha
AYMXM1.742GA F115AET1L 1741 88 118.0 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115AET1L 1741 84.6 113.4 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115AET1X 1741 88 118.0 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115AET1X 1741 84.6 113.4 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115AETL 1741 88 118.0 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115AETL 1741 84.6 113.4 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115AETX 1741 88 118.0 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115AETX 1741 84.6 113.4 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115J 1741 88 118.0 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115J 1741 84.6 113.4 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115L 1741 88 118.0 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115L 1741 84.6 113.4 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115TJR 1741 88 118.0 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115TJR 1741 84.6 113.4 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115TLR 1741 88 118.0 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115TLR 1741 84.6 113.4 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115TXR 1741 88 118.0 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115TXR 1741 84.6 113.4 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115X 1741 88 118.0 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA F115X 1741 84.6 113.4 5500 151 4500
AYMXM2.672GA F150AET1L 2670 119 159.6 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150AET1L 2670 110.3 147.9 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150AET1X 2670 119 159.6 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150AET1X 2670 110.3 147.9 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150AETX 2670 119 159.6 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150AETX 2670 110.3 147.9 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150BETX 2670 119 159.6 5000 206 4500
AYMXM2.672GA F150BETX 2670 110.3 147.9 5000 206 4500
AYMXM2.672GA F150L 2670 119 159.6 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150L 2670 110.3 147.9 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150TJR 2670 119 159.6 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150TJR 2670 110.3 147.9 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150TLR 2670 119 159.6 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150TLR 2670 110.3 147.9 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150TXR 2670 119 159.6 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150TXR 2670 110.3 147.9 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150X 2670 119 159.6 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA F150X 2670 110.3 147.9 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F200AETX 3352 147.1 197.3 5500 281 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F200AETX 3352 147 197.1 5500 281 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F200TXR 3352 147.1 197.3 5500 281 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F200TXR 3352 147 197.1 5500 281 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F200X 3352 147.1 197.3 5500 281 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F200X 3352 147 197.1 5500 281 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F225AETX 3352 165.5 221.9 5500 294 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F225AETX 3352 165 221.3 5500 294 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F225CET1L 3352 165.5 221.9 5500 323 3600
AYMXM3.352GA F225CET1L 3352 165 221.3 5500 323 3600
AYMXM4.172GA F225FETX 4169 176 236.0 6000 358 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F225L 3352 165.5 221.9 5500 323 3600
AYMXM3.352GA F225L 3352 165 221.3 5500 323 3600
AYMXM3.352GA F225TLR 3352 165.5 221.9 5500 323 3600
AYMXM3.352GA F225TLR 3352 165 221.3 5500 323 3600
AYMXM3.352GA F225TXR 3352 165.5 221.9 5500 294 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F225TXR 3352 165 221.3 5500 294 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F225X 3352 165.5 221.9 5500 294 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F225X 3352 165 221.3 5500 294 4500
AYMXM4.172GA F225XCA 4169 176 236.0 6000 358 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F250BET1U 3352 183.9 246.6 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250BET1U 3352 179 240.0 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250BET1X 3352 183.9 246.6 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250BET1X 3352 179 240.0 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250BETX 3352 183.9 246.6 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250BETX 3352 179 240.0 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250BTUR 3352 183.9 246.6 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250BTUR 3352 179 240.0 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250BTXR 3352 183.9 246.6 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250BTXR 3352 179 240.0 5500 303 4000
AYMXM4.172GA F250DET1U 4169 197 264.2 6000 380 4500
AYMXM4.172GA F250DET1X 4169 197 264.2 6000 380 4500
AYMXM4.172GA F250DETU 4169 197 264.2 6000 380 4500
AYMXM4.172GA F250DETX 4169 197 264.2 6000 380 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F250TUR 3352 183.9 246.6 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250TUR 3352 179 240.0 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250TXR 3352 183.9 246.6 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250TXR 3352 179 240.0 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250UC 3352 183.9 246.6 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250UC 3352 179 240.0 5500 303 4000
AYMXM4.172GA F250UCA 4169 197 264.2 6000 380 4500
AYMXM3.352GA F250XC 3352 183.9 246.6 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA F250XC 3352 179 240.0 5500 303 4000
AYMXM4.172GA F250XCA 4169 197 264.2 6000 380 4500
AYMXM4.172GA F300BET1U 4169 215 288.3 6000 400 5000
AYMXM4.172GA F300BET1X 4169 215 288.3 6000 400 5000
AYMXM4.172GA F300BETU 4169 215 288.3 6000 400 5000
AYMXM4.172GA F300BETX 4169 215 288.3 6000 400 5000
AYMXM5.332GA F300TUR 5330 221 296.4 5500 451 4000
AYMXM5.332GA F300TUR 5330 220.7 296.0 5500 451 4000
AYMXM5.332GA F300TXR 5330 221 296.4 5500 451 4000
AYMXM5.332GA F300TXR 5330 220.7 296.0 5500 451 4000
AYMXM4.172GA F300UCA 4169 215 288.3 6000 400 5000
AYMXM4.172GA F300XCA 4169 215 288.3 6000 400 5000
AYMXM.9962GC F70AETL 996 50 67.1 6300 83.2 5300
AYMXM.9962GC F70LA 996 50 67.1 6300 83.2 5300
AYMXM1.602GC F75BETL 1596 57 76.4 5500 122.7 4000
AYMXM1.602GC F75BETL 1596 55.2 74.0 5500 122.7 4000
AYMXM1.602GC F75L 1596 57 76.4 5500 122.7 4000
AYMXM1.602GC F75L 1596 55.2 74.0 5500 122.7 4000
AYMXM1.602GC F75TLR 1596 57 76.4 5500 122.7 4000
AYMXM1.602GC F75TLR 1596 55.2 74.0 5500 122.7 4000
AYMXM1.602GC F90BETL 1596 68 91.2 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90BETL 1596 66.2 88.8 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90BETX 1596 68 91.2 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90BETX 1596 66.2 88.8 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90J 1596 68 91.2 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90J 1596 66.2 88.8 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90L 1596 68 91.2 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90L 1596 66.2 88.8 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90TJR 1596 68 91.2 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90TJR 1596 66.2 88.8 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90TLR 1596 68 91.2 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90TLR 1596 66.2 88.8 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90TXR 1596 68 91.2 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90TXR 1596 66.2 88.8 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90X 1596 68 91.2 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.602GC F90X 1596 66.2 88.8 5500 126.9 4500
AYMXM1.742GA FL115AET1X 1741 88 118.0 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA FL115AET1X 1741 84.6 113.4 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA FL115AETX 1741 88 118.0 5500 151 4500
AYMXM1.742GA FL115AETX 1741 84.6 113.4 5500 151 4500
AYMXM2.672GA FL150AET1X 2670 119 159.6 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA FL150AET1X 2670 110.3 147.9 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA FL150AETX 2670 119 159.6 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA FL150AETX 2670 110.3 147.9 5500 228.7 4000
AYMXM2.672GA FL150BETX 2670 119 159.6 5000 206 4500
AYMXM2.672GA FL150BETX 2670 110.3 147.9 5000 206 4500
AYMXM3.352GA FL200AETX 3352 147.1 197.3 5500 281 4500
AYMXM3.352GA FL200AETX 3352 147 197.1 5500 281 4500
AYMXM3.352GA FL225AETX 3352 165.5 221.9 5500 294 4500
AYMXM3.352GA FL225AETX 3352 165 221.3 5500 294 4500
AYMXM4.172GA FL225FETX 4169 176 236.0 6000 358 4500
AYMXM3.352GA FL250BET1U 3352 183.9 246.6 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA FL250BET1U 3352 179 240.0 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA FL250BET1X 3352 183.9 246.6 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA FL250BET1X 3352 179 240.0 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA FL250BETX 3352 183.9 246.6 5500 303 4000
AYMXM3.352GA FL250BETX 3352 179 240.0 5500 303 4000
AYMXM4.172GA FL250DETU 4169 197 264.2 6000 380 4500
AYMXM4.172GA FL250DETX 4169 197 264.2 6000 380 4500
AYMXM4.172GA FL300BET1U 4169 215 288.3 6000 400 5000
AYMXM4.172GA FL300BET1X 4169 215 288.3 6000 400 5000
AYMXM4.172GA FL300BETU 4169 215 288.3 6000 400 5000
AYMXM4.172GA FL300BETX 4169 215 288.3 6000 400 5000
AYMXM5.332GA FL350AET1U 5330 262 351.3 5500 464 4000
AYMXM5.332GA FL350AET1U 5330 257.4 345.2 5500 464 4000
AYMXM5.332GA FL350AET1X 5330 262 351.3 5500 464 4000
AYMXM5.332GA FL350AET1X 5330 257.4 345.2 5500 464 4000
AYMXM5.332GA FL350AETU 5330 262 351.3 5500 464.1 4000
AYMXM5.332GA FL350AETU 5330 257.4 345.2 5500 464.1 4000
AYMXM5.332GA FL350AETX 5330 262 351.3 5500 464.1 4000
AYMXM5.332GA FL350AETX 5330 257.4 345.2 5500 464.1 4000

posted 03-01-2014 07:28 PM ET (US)            

When I asked the Evinrude rep in the Evinrude booth at the NYC boat show about 5 or 6 years ago what is the difference between the Evinrude E-TEC 200 and the Evinrude E-TEC 200 H.O., besides explaining the physical differences the rep told me that the Evinrude E-TEC 200 H.O. model was 218 HP at the prop. I was further told that this has always been the output of the 3.3L 200 model, even when it didn't have the H.O. badge.

posted 03-01-2014 07:50 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

When I asked the Evinrude rep in the Evinrude booth at the NYC boat show about 5 or 6 years ago what is the difference between the Evinrude E-TEC 200 and the Evinrude E-TEC 200 H.O., besides explaining the physical differences the rep told me that the Evinrude E-TEC 200 H.O. model was 218 HP at the prop. I was further told that this has always been the output of the 3.3L 200 model, even when it didn't have the H.O. badge.

---

posted 03-02-2014 09:55 AM ET (US)         

All these numbers put out today for various reasons are subjective to a degree, since the numbers all come from the manufacturers who use their own methods and motivations to pronounce them, like they did with cars back in the 60's.

In reality, if you had good honest HP and torque curves, and you wanted/needed say a 200HP motor, you could see which 200 HP motor had the most HP/Torque over the broadest RPM range, rather than the peak, which it may only produce for say 200RPM.

Then if your motivation for purchasing a motor was emissions, you should look at the emissions curve. How many grams or pounds does an engine put out at a given RPM.

Emissions was not Jim's original question in this thread.

The only real data for measuring HP and torque of an engine would be their HP & Torque curves as rated by an independent dyno lab on any engine. If they were independently assessed under the same conditions- at the same altitude, air temperature, on the same dyno, the numbers you get would be good for comparison purposes.

Since this ain't gonna happen, you get to use what is put out in advertising and verbally by each manufacturer. Slanted this way and that.

Don

posted 03-02-2014 10:29 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I can't believe you would succumb to a poor scientific method because of "tedious", so let me help you out.

---

There is nothing about the data I used that represents any sort of poor scientific method. I got all of my data from the manufacturers themselves, which is precisely where the EPA got all of their data--from the manufacturers. I have already expressed my complete confidence in the EPA data as being accurate, as I explained when I noted that the data is submitted in compliance with the EPA regulatory authority. In the same manner, the data on the websites is subject to similar regulatory authority, the general notion of truth in advertising, and somewhere there is probably some reference to compliance with an industry standard published by ICOMIA.

As I already pointed out, the horsepower in the EPA certification is the horsepower as specified by the EPA for certification of the engine with emission regulations. It is not an assumption of my survey or a requirement for my survey to include the EPA data. I explicitly said where I got the data: I got it from the manufacturer websites. I visited the website for Evinrude, and in the specification sections of the website, I found no rating for horsepower for the H.O. models.

If tmann45 wants to conduct a different survey, in which he uses the horsepower data from EPA emission testing certification, as provided by the manufacturers to the EPA, that is quite okay with me. But I don't see that by providing a survey in which I gathered data provided by the manufacturers about the horsepower of their engines on their websites somehow renders my survey to be less scientific in its method.

Indeed, the entire purpose of this discussion is to derive a method of obtaining information about the power of the Evinrude E-TEC H.O. models. As I have pointed out, now so many times that it hardly bears repeating, I got the data about the power of the Evinrude E-TEC H.O. models from Evinrude, themselves, from their website, and they only would tell me the engines were "Factory tuned for high performance," or something like that.

I then sought guidance about this, and it was suggested that I arbitrarily multiple all the cowling decals on the H.O. motors by 1.1 to obtain an accurate horsepower. Please note that I did not suggest this. This was suggested to me. I find that guidance to be a bit on shaky ground. The notion that the Evinrude E-TEC H.O. models might produce more power than their cowling decal had already occurred to me, before anyone here suggested it. But I rejected the idea of just arbitrarily implementing or assigning a horsepower rating of 1.1-times the cowling decal. Now, apparently, because I did that, I am branded as being "unscientific." I don't think that is a fair portrayal.

posted 03-02-2014 11:08 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Since this ain't gonna happen, you get to use what is put out in advertising and verbally by each manufacturer. Slanted this way and that.

---

I agree with Don. In the case of the E-TEC H.O. it seems like Evinrude is being rather cagy about declaration of a precise power output, at least on their website. They apparently are less reserved about declaration of horsepower in face-to-face communication or telephone communication.

posted 03-02-2014 11:29 PM ET (US)            

With the E-TEC 250 H.O the top speed reached was 46.5-MPH.

With the standard E-TEC 225-HP the top speed is 43-MPH, and I think that is a really high number. I have not seen that repeated in a very long time. But the 225-HP did hit that speed on one test. Let's use that for the first pass:

Using my implementation of Crouch's principles in my Crouch's Calculator, I first deduce the hull weight at 3,943-lbs using the 43-MPH and 225-HP data. Then I compute the power to push that hull to 46.5-HP. The calculator says 263-HP.

The comparison is not particularly rigorous, as the tests were made months apart, but the results do tend to align with the advice I was given earlier that the H.O. models produce more than their decal horsepower.

If I lower the 225-HP speed to 42-MPH, which seems like about what I get most of the time these days on a good run, then the 250 H.O with a speed of 46.5-MPH calculates out to 275.8-HP. (The hull weight is 4,133-lbs.)

Again, there is not enormous rigor in this comparison, but it is the only data I have handy that uses actual boat tests to compare. Perhaps a reader can find some other published data using the same boat and both an H.O. and non-H.O. E-TEC to provide some grist for the mill.

Cf.: http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ETEC250HO.html
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006964.html
http://continuouswave.com/cgi-bin/crouchcalc.pl

posted 03-03-2014 09:47 AM ET (US)            

Were you ever going to come up with your measurement of the power output of the E-TEC 200 H.O.?

Or are you just going to keep jumping in with criticism that I read "Factory tuned for high performance" as not containing a specific horsepower? Please tell me how to figure the horsepower from that specification.

posted 03-03-2014 10:23 AM ET (US)            

I guess you missed it. The only real way is to put the engine on a dyno. Your foolish way of calculating by 1.1 or trying to come up with a mathematical formual just proves that you dont understand the difference/variation of engines and horsepower output from day to day or even engine to engine.

Any time I look at the specs for the 200HO, I dont see anything that say 220hp or any number beside 200hp? Am I missing where the factory says any horsepower number beside 200hp?

posted 03-03-2014 12:42 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The only real way is to put the engine on a dyno.

---

I agree. This was already proposed, and I was in agreement. You and I agree on this. This actually makes me very happy. You agree that it is impossible to know the power output of the E-TEC H.O., which was why I never included it in my survey! Hooray. OMCrobert, thank you for supporting my judgement.

But, oh, no, wait. OMCrobert says:

quote:

---

Your foolish way of calculating by 1.1 or trying to come up with a mathematical formual just proves that you dont understand the difference/variation of engines and horsepower output from day to day or even engine to engine.

---

I don't follow you. I am very aware of the potential for difference to occur in engine output due to many factors, including variations in manufacturing, and certainly from variations in testing. That is why in my suggestion of using boat tests, I explicitly said:

quote:

---

To account for the possibility of variation in production from engine to engine, it would be best to run ten different engines of each model. That should permit some averaging of results that might help even out any variation in production of a particular model. Of course, you would have to carefully control the environmental conditions so the weather did not influence the results.

---

OMCrobert must not have read that. Here he comes accussing me of saying something that is precisely the opposite of what I actually said.

posted 03-03-2014 01:44 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

I agree. This was already proposed, and I was in agreement. You and I agree on this. This actually makes me very happy. You agree that it is impossible to know the power output of the E-TEC H.O., which was why I never included it in my survey!

---

posted 03-03-2014 02:25 PM ET (US)            

"I believe the leading answer is to take the cowling decal figure, "200" and multiply it by a factor of 1.1 or 1.11."
-Jimh

posted 03-03-2014 02:38 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

As I have followed the discussion so far, I believe the leading answer is to take the cowling decal figure, "200" and multiply it by a factor of 1.1 or 1.11.

I believe the basis for this is to be attributed to:

--some published statements from Evinrude

--some telephone comments by a representative

Is there any other method being suggested?

---

This should clear up the origin of the method of calculating the power by using a factor of 1.1-times the cowling decal. Again, OMCrobert, you seem to be intentionally trying to mislead people about my statement.

OMCrobert repeats himself:

quote:

---

I respectfully stand by my comment of the foolish way of calculating by 1.1 or trying to come up with a mathematical formual just proves that you [jimh] dont understand the difference/variation of engines and horsepower output from day to day or even engine to engine.

---

You are welcome to continue to hold your own opinion, even if you offer no reasonable basis for it or when it represents a confusing mixture of people and statements.

posted 03-03-2014 02:51 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Since Jimh agrees that the only real and accurate way to determine to the engine horsepower is to see the performance sheet from a calibrated dyno....

---

Not quite. I said that testing on a dynamometer is one way to learn the horsepower. And I am certain that the manufacturers tested their engines on a dynamometer and measured their horsepower. That is where they got the power information they included on their website. So when I accept that information, I believe I am accepting power data from dynamometer testing.

I never said I had to personally see any particular piece of paper. I just have to personally see the power listed on the manufacturer's website. I don't know why Evinrude is so cagy about the H.O. models, but they do not tell me their power on their website. They only tell me they are "Factory tuned for high-performance. When they tell me the standard 200 model makes 200-HP, and the High-Output 200 is "Factory tuned for high performance," I make an inference the high-output model might be more than 200-HP, but I don't know exactly what the number is. I cannot really put a number to it if I don't know what it is. I cannot include it in my survey if I do not know what it is. I am looking for a basis to know the power.

By the way, it looks like multiplying the cowling decal by 1.1-times is no longer the leading answer to my question. I have just been told by OMCrobert--about four times now--that method is foolish.

posted 03-03-2014 02:51 PM ET (US)            

Each one is different and the difference between a 200 and 200HO is different from a 250 and 250HO and so on. It is not linear and not the same across the board.

Do you think that the HO equal X amount of HP over an above for each engine? It certainly does not because the higher hp engine could be already be using the modification to get to the upper horsepower that the lower HP HO model on the same block is using.

Everything that you are quoting still mean nothing and provides no proof since it is not backed up.

"I believe the basis for this is to be attributed to:"

--some published statements from Evinrude

--some telephone comments by a representative

posted 03-03-2014 03:03 PM ET (US)            

You proposed a method where every individual engine is individually tested by me on a dynamometer. I accept that method as a way to find the horsepower of an engine, but, if you will read my comment in reply, I rejected it as too cumbrous and limiting. I agree that horsepower could be known that way, but it is not a practical way.

posted 03-03-2014 03:22 PM ET (US)            

Your thinking and theory are flawed because you are basing all of your theory off of marketing and rumor from Evinrude. You have not one single piece of evidence to prove your 10% theory other then internet speculation and a third party conversation with someone that is pushing the marketing for the gain of Evinrude.

I dont disagree that the HO produces more power, what I disagree with is the idea that you can determine it without placing the dyno on the engine and will a formula based on nothing.

posted 03-03-2014 03:33 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

Sorry, that is not consistent. For engines which the manufacturer has declared the horsepower, I just used that horsepower. For the engine whose manufacturers do not clearly declare their horsepower, I did not use them in the survey.

---

Evinrude declares the rated horsepower on the decal, they stated this in their press release (decal rating). They also stated the rated horsepower thier catalog. The rated horsepower was also submitted to the EPA for emissions compliance.

posted 03-03-2014 04:05 PM ET (US)            

Jimh- Oct 11, 2007

"There is no "ten percent" rule. The ten percent variation only applies to manufacturing tolerances for production motors. The rated power is limited to six percent. Read the industry standard:
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ICOMIA28-83.html

and show me where it says that a manufacturer can rate the motor ten percent higher than its actual horsepower. It does not allow that. The "rated power" is recommended to be presented so that there is no more than a 6% difference between the rated power and the peak power which occurs in the full throttle speed range.

Furthermore, emission regulations are all based on a certain amount of emission for a certain horsepower. If manufacturers can easily "dial up" the horsepower (for marketing purposes) they would also be able to increase the allowable emission output.

posted 03-03-2014 04:10 PM ET (US)            

Jimh- "The least-biased testing data that I know of is the data provided to the EPA for engine certification. Yet, even that data is routinely considered to be unreliable by skeptics for whom the data does reinforce their prior beliefs."

posted 03-04-2014 01:23 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The Evinrude 225 H.O. is not sold with a horsepower rating. It is sold with a kW rating that converts to about 247-HP. But there is no horsepower decal on the side. It says "225 H.O." not "225-HP". It is not an exception to the ICOMIA 28-83 rating rule.

---

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/015129.html

I also note that 225 + 10 percent = 247.5

posted 03-04-2014 08:54 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

His standpoint has now changed and the EPA data is to be thrown out?

---

I have never changed my view about the EPA emission test data. I have repeatedly expressed my faith in its accuracy.

ASIDE to OMCrobert: You have invented some statement for me to have said. Please stop inventing positions that I do not hold. It is a waste of time for all participants to read your inventions, and I am becoming weary of defending myself against accusations of things I have never said.

These accusations are repetitive and boring. I will repeat, my view of the EPA data.

quote:

---

I have absolute faith in the data contained in the EPA report. My basis for that is the submitters of the data are submitting it for compliance with federal regulations, and I do not believe there is any data being submitted that is false.

The survey has not used any EPA data because it is very tedious for me to get that data. The survey used data from manufacturer's websites. This was mentioned at the very outset. All the data came from the manufacturers.

---

I will explain again why I am reluctant to use the EPA data for just one engine family

quote:

---

I cannot use the EPA data for the Evinrude H.O. unless I were to revise my entire survey and use that data for all engines, but I cannot do this because of the obscurity in the data about the Mercury engines.

---

These statements explain my position regarding the EPA emission testing power and the survey. If I am to use the EPA data for one engine, I should use it for all engines. I cannot use the data for Mercury engines because I cannot tell their model designators from the EPA data. It is also tedious for me to collect the data from the survey. Since the data in the survey comes from the manufacturers and the data on their websites comes from the manufacturers, I do not see any difference in the reliability of the source, since the source is the same in both cases; the manufacturers.

posted 03-04-2014 09:19 AM ET (US)            

In the past I have observed that the power declared on the EPA compliance sticker in kilowatts, if converted to horsepower, when compared to the figures of the cowling decals which are presumed to be horsepower would have the following relationships:

--on the standard models there would be a good correlation between the two power levels, with only a small variation, perhaps a percent or two at most;

--on the H.O. models, there would be a good correlation between the two power levels, with the power of the EPA sticker being higher than the decal power by a ratio of approximately 1.1:1.

That was the past. In the present, in 2014, I do not believe that his old relationship continues in all cases, with the change being that the H.O. models now seem to have more direct correlation to the standard models in the EPA sticker power and the cowling decal power.

I have not actually gone around to dealers to look at these EPA stickers myself, but I think you can deduce what they EPA sticker is going to say from the EPA data. In the discussion we have an excerpt of the EPA data. I assume the excerpt is accurate. Here is an engine from that excerpt:

BBCXM0200223 E250H 3441 183.87 246.6 5250 573.33 5250

I believe this is an E-TEC 250 H.O. model. Again, I am depending on someone else to have correctly and honestly gathered this data from EPA and correctly and honestly made the conversion to HP from kW, but, assuming these things are honestly done, I believe that the EPA sticker is going to say that its power in kW converts to 246.6-HP. I believe the implication is as follows:

A 2014 E-TEC 250 H.O. will have an EPA sticker that declares it make 246.5-HP for the basis of meeting the EPA certification.

This tends to contradict the notion put forth, based on practices occurring seven years ago on some Evinrude engines and reported anecdotally, that the EPA sticker is will have a markedly different power rating than the cowling decal on H.O. models.

posted 03-04-2014 09:32 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I dont disagree that the HO produces more power [than the standard models of the same cowling decal figures]....

---

I believe that the double negative logic suggests this could be read as:

"I agree the H.O. produces more power [than the standard models of the same cowling decal figures]...."

posted 03-04-2014 10:00 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

So you are accepting the EPA calibrations for horsepower for very specific engines and ignoring it for others?

---

posted 03-04-2014 10:20 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I think we [OMCrobert and I] agree on that [the E-TEC H.O puts out more power than its cowling decal].

---

Regarding features of the E-TEC H.O., I said:

quote:

---

My personal interpretation--since people are giving their personal interpretations on this topic--is the H.O. models are intended to be operated at high throttle settings for a greater percentage of run time than the standard engines, and they include some added features to help the engine operate under those higher stress conditions. For example, on some H.O. models of Evinrude E-TEC there are extra oil distribution pumps used. Those are probably there to facilitate operation at high throttle for more of the run time.

---

Regarding the power:

quote:

---

As for how the cowling decal compares to the EPA certified power, in the case of the E-TEC there seems to be a very strong correlation. As I mentioned earlier, in 2008 a 250 H.O. was carrying an EPA sticker that said 249.9-HP.

---

I also said:

quote:

---

I agree [with jharrell's statement about wider range of torque]. The distinction in power for the H.O. models could be that the rated power output is produced over a wider range of engine speeds than the standard models. This characteristic is certainly desirable.

---

But, I cannot tell Kevin the power output of the E-TEC H.O. engines according to Evinrude, because Evinrude never really clearly and unambiguously states the horsepower. Evinrude does state the horsepower for the standard models, in a clear an unambiguous way., but they seem to remain intentionally vague about the H.O. models. I could tell Kevin the power output that I think they have.

As I said at the beginning of the thread, I want find a way to know the power output of the E-TEC H.O. by some method or process. I do not consider a reasonable basis to just make up a figure based on what I think the horsepower is supposed to be.

posted 03-04-2014 10:21 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

There may be over 100 posts in this thread, but 44 of them are Jim's.

---

posted 03-04-2014 10:33 PM ET (US)            

To be clear, are you now saying the EPA power rating is the actually horsepower of the engine or are you saying it is not the actually horsepower of the engine?

posted 03-05-2014 09:16 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

After a lot of discussion I think I'll revert to using the inaccurate but useful device of "Rule of Thumb" and call that good enough for me. E-TEC H.O. hp output is equal to 1.1 X cowling HP.

---

posted 03-05-2014 09:34 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

You have been playing both sides of the fence and flip-flopping so much it is confusing.

---

I asked a question. I got many replies. Many methods were suggested by which we were to know the power of the E-TEC H.O. models. I have been considering the suggestions.

In a very recent post, I collected all of the comments I have made in the course of the discussion and excerpted them. I do not see anything in my progression of comments that seems to be inconsistent.

I agree that there is confusion.

The horsepower of an E-TEC H.O. can be described as follows :

A = the actual horsepower of the E-TEC H.O. engines

M = the horsepower used in Marketing the engine

E = the horsepower declared by Evinrude in the EPA certification

S₁ = the horsepower suggested by people in the first group, who think it is more than the cowling decal

S₂ = the horsepower suggested by people in the second group, who think it is the same as the cowling decal

You could describe the subject of horsepower of the E-TEC H.O. as

Average perceived horsepower = 0.20 x (A + M +E +S₁ +S₂)

posted 03-05-2014 12:49 PM ET (US)            

I think this is being done in some instances in order to be obtuse. The proposal of a method to know some value, but the failure to demonstrate how the method actually works to obtain the value desired, suggests to me the person proposing the method has either:

--no faith in his own method

--cannot perform the calculations needed

I must insist that if someone wants to propose a method to know the power of the E-TEC H.O., they must follow their own method and show the outcome. On that basis, I must reply to Dick's suggestion in this manner:

posted 03-05-2014 12:59 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Or how about: Actual Horsepower = Cowling Horsepower ± (.1 x Cowling Horsepower)

---

I think you have incorrectly reduced my equation. You also added a new value, Cowling Horsepower, which was not shown in the original.

The original equation could be re-written to show that

S₂ = Cowling decal horsepower or CowlHP

and then S₁ would be

S₁ = CowlHP + HO

Where HO is the High-output variable. My method then becomes

Average perceived horsepower = 0.2 x (A + M +E + CowlHP + [CowlHP+ HO])

This equation cannot be solved because we have two unknowns:

--the actual horsepower, A

--the average perceived horsepower of all interested parties

There is also some concern about M, the horsepower used in Marketing the H.O. This seems to be a variable that changes with time.

posted 03-05-2014 01:13 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

So, it would seem the best "Method to Know the Power of E-TEC H.O. Models" is to simply read the kW rating for the motor in question.

---

I think this is a good method to learn the power of the H.O. models as used in certifying them for EPA emission compliance. I feel confident that they must make that much power at some setting of their throttle.

As I expressed earlier, I lack sufficient familiarity with the EPA certification process to know what allowance it provides for the EPA horsepower to differ from the peak horsepower produced. I my view, this area needs more investigation. Perhaps someone who has actually been involved in certifying an outboard engine for compliance with EPA regulations could tell us. I cannot.

posted 03-05-2014 01:20 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Jimh
You suggest that I write the letter. I would if I cared about the answer. It is you and a few others that are invested in this line of posts. For me I am following this because it beats going out in the cold.
Dick

---

Dick--You seem to presume that I am more interested in your method than you are yourself. Funny you should mention that, because I have gotten that same response from another person who proposed a method, but refused to demonstrate how it worked, and insisted I must do it for him.

posted 03-05-2014 02:49 PM ET (US)            

S = Supposition of horsepower by bored, semi-retired forum moderator
E₁ = Evinrude fanboy claim of excess horsepower
E₂ = Empircal reports of “perceived” excess horsepower by Evinrude fanboys
C = Certified horsepower in EPA submissions
O = Outlandish speculative horsepower figures derived from reverse Crouch figure calculations
W = Weak-TEC horsepower figures provided by Evinrude skeptics
L = Laughable “calculations” of horsepower through calculation of “A. M.E.S.S.”

posted 03-06-2014 03:08 PM ET (US)            

They don't give it away for free. There is a significant retail list price difference between a regular 250 E-Tec motor and a 250 HO version. Or any other regular version vs an HO version.

They charge for it. How that comes out in the market place depends on your local dealer and your negotiating skills

Sterling
Onlyawhaler

posted 03-06-2014 04:05 PM ET (US)            

Horsepower is proportional to MSRP.