posted 10-05-2001 04:18 PM ET (US)         

But after careful examination, I currently would not buy an Optimax, any HP range. They may be higher tech, but I don't like them as well as the EFI's. I assume the same would apply to a Ficht or HPDI, BUT, I have had no direct experience with those brands. They all seem to require frightfully expensive spark plugs, requiring frequent changes. This expense would certainly offset any savings in oil usage, and adds a reliability factor if the routine changes are done.

The two types of Mercury V-6's involved in this comparison (Optimax vs EFI)
are very similar, so I thihnk it's a valid comparison. Both from the exterior look identical, except the Optimax is about 50 lbs heavier. Both have Mercury's tried and proven 2.5 liter 60 degree block, probably the best V-6 ever designed. The Optimax's only put out 150HP, the EFI's 200HP. That's a major difference alone.

In performance on the same Outrage 25 models, the performance of the EFI's were definitely superior in all categories except idle speed exhaust and fuel economy (unable to compare this, however). The EFI's had a better power curve, with as good or better throttle response, were a LOT quieter at all rpms, particularly most used range of 3000-4000RPMs, and of course, were more powerful given the higher HP. In top speed the EFI's would run away from the Optimax's on a given boat. The cost new on these engines is also about the same. The Optimax just can't squeeze the same power out of the same block as an EFI can. Compared to the super quiet EFI's the Optimax's were downright noisy, with an irritating sound, similar to the 200 Yamaha's I've seen and heard.

posted 10-05-2001 04:53 PM ET (US)            

But I think that the point here may be missed somehow: if the Optimax engine design was so reliable, why did they stop producing them for a while? Why did they send "fixes" to the dealers that they then retracted within a short period of time (sometimes days) - essentially, "try this and see if it works?" Why did the dealers have a sit-down conference with the Mercury management in August to complain about the excess workloads caused (in their eyes) by the unreliability of the Optimax engine? Why are they "stacked like cordwood" awaiting repairs? Why did Mercury have to send teams of technicians around to help cut down on the backlog of Optimax repairs? All because they are reliable? Similar to other designs, like EFIs?

The notion that I am angry merely because I had to wait to get in line with repairs is misplaced. I am angry because only 1 dealer in an entire region would even agree to honor the warranty and try to repair the engines. I am angry that I lost a WHOLE summer awaiting a solution (NOT service -- they came to my boat no less than 6 times) and that no-one, not even the factory tech, was able to diagnose the problem -- such that in the end they simply replaced whole systems to try whatever they could until it would run properly (thanks again Alex). I am angry that when I called Mercury they told me to call the local dealers. I am angry that Mercury has repeatedly promised to address my problems, honor my warranties and "get my motors running" and then fail to follow up on their promises (over two weeks since they promised to get back to me last). I am angry that my selling dealer has not lived up to its representations and stood behind me -- and Mercury has not put the squeeze on them to stand behind their product and sale.

I am scared of these motors and unwilling to go offshore with them. Too many other people have had similar experiences with Optimax engines for this to be happenstance. How many others simply haven't had access to a forum to describe their experiences? How come dealers who know nothing of my engines' history won't consider taking them in trade?

I readily admit that I may be more sensitive to the issue because it relates to my boat. However, simply because it is directly relevant to me doesn't discount the validity of my experience to warn others of the possibility of similar fates that await them if they choose the same power option.

To those that have perfectly functioning samples of the design, I wish you tight lines, smooth seas and a sweetly purring motor behind you.

posted 10-05-2001 07:09 PM ET (US)            

The trouble is that we'll never know what the true distribution of problems is. That is probably one of the closest held secrets in the marine industry. Except if required by some Federal regulation to disclose it, I doubt that any outboard maker would willingly publish the field reliability results for their engines, unless they just happened to show practically no defects.

The global open competition of the automobile market has resulted in some amazing quality improvements in their engines. I recall meeting a GM Engineer at the Auto Show (during Media Week) who told me that a new engine design they had in production was so reliable and failure free that they had an offer to their dealers of several thousand dollars cash if they had a failed engine. GM would send them a new engine and pay to install it. The engineers wanted to see one that had failed in service and so far they had not a single engine come back, with over 100,000 in use.

Modern manufacturing techniques can be so precise and consistent that once they get a good design, they can manufacture that design with amazing repeatability. There is very little variation from engine to engine.

I don't think the marine engine makers have achieved anywhere near that level of manufacturing precision. Their production runs are smaller, and the parts suppliers they use probably do not produce parts as consistently as required for global automotive vendors.

Prior to the internet, there really was no way for a consumer to get any feedback on marine product reliabilty, at least not from the marine press. There isn't a advertising-based magazine that would dare to run a feature article that said an engine from a major producer (and major advertiser) was flawed.

The internet provides a way for direct consumer to consumer interaction, and it can contain valuable information.

Tom also makes a good point, that it can be difficult to judge the authority of some opinion-makers. As New Yorker Magazine postulated, on the internet, no one knows you're a dog.

I tend to think that "people are what they write." By this I mean that after a person has posted or written a fair amount of material, it is not too hard to gauge their credentials. I think everyone makes their own evaluation of what people say, and assigns weight to it as they see fit. There has been plenty of content posted on this website that I thought about editing or removing, but ultimately I have decided that it is more effective to leave 99.99% of it alone, as people tend to eventually reveal themselves by their own words, and create, for good or bad, their own reputation.

As for Mercury and their Optimax engines, I tend to think that they must be producing a good product--I mean they can't ALL be bad or NO ONE would buy them--but that they have had some inconsistencies in the production that have resulted in there being a few dogs out in the field.

I don't think it is unusual for this to have happened, given the problems of small production runs, new technology, supplier problems, etc. Someone is going to get a bad engine now and then.

What is more important are the steps they take to correct it and how they treat the consumer.

The consumer is willing to forgive the engine maker for making a bad engine once in a while, but the consumer is not willing to forgive or forget getting bad support and service when they try to get the bad engine corrected.

posted 10-05-2001 10:59 PM ET (US)            

This chord goes back to the discussion of some marine engines that have ties to the automobile manufacturing world. Some implied that these engines might not be as good as marine engines that have no ties to the R&D in automotive engines and are designed from scratch for the marine environment.

Case in point, Honda. Honda uses many internal components that have been tested and proven over time in their engines such as the cranks, valves, etc. while using engine blocks and heads that are designed for the marine environment. These parts are of consistent quality and finish. And has been a major factor in Honda obtaining a reputation for reliability.

Diesels have had direct fuel injection for decades. Quite honestly the two stroke marine engine is not very far off from being a diesel with the exception of the ignition and lubrication systems. Instead of spark plugs of a two-stroke there may be a glow plug with the heat of compression in a diesel, or just the heat of compression. The diesel also uses splash lubrication and rings for the cylinders while the two-stroke introduces the lubricating oil with the fuel. And the fuel-oil mix for a two-stroke is not that far from diesel oil.

So it would seem that DFI would be a logical direction for two-stroke technology to follow. Maybe these guys should hook up with some automotive and truck engine manufacturers like Isuzu, GM Detroit, Cummings, and Volvo. They then would be able use some of their expertise, R&D, and maybe engine components.

posted 10-06-2001 07:36 AM ET (US)            

“Case in point, Honda…engine blocks and heads that are designed for the marine environment”. Actually the B115 and B130 outboards are engines right from the Honda Accord. Marinized yes, but just like any other automotive engine that’s been recruited for marine duty. Certainly not a clean-sheet-of-paper marine engine design.

“….the two stroke marine engine is not very far off from being a diesel…” You forgot about robust construction to withstand the heat of compression fuel ignition and the resulting torque.

“…diesel also uses splash lubrication and rings for the cylinders…” Lawn mower engines use splash lubrication. Diesels, like all modern 4-cycle automotive and marine engines use a pressurized lubrication system. Diesel engine connecting rods have rifle drilled oil passages from the big end bearing to the piston pin. Turbocharged diesels have piston-cooling nozzels that direct oil to the underside of the piston to provide cooling and lubrication.

posted 10-06-2001 12:13 PM ET (US)            

Most these staments were made in general as to the close resemblence to the delivery systems that is DFI and where the longest R&D has been for those systems.

The Pressurized oil system is for the bearings not for the cylinders that is one reason for wet sumps. You must be thinking of dry sumps. Also it is true about the use of pressized for nozzles for the underside of a turbo charged diesel, but I only made statments about diesels in general, not all diesels are turbocharged or supercharged.

I run a B90 which uses componets from the CIVIC engine and the engine block and heads are not the same as in the automobile, of wich I have had two- a CIVIC wagon and a CRX at different times in my life. I am sure by now I can tell the difference between the two.

While emission standards are enforce for gas powered automobiles diesels are exempt. I may be at fault in thinking that these air quality standards would also include marine engines.

Certianly the days of Iron engine blocks and heads for diesels may be numbered with the new alloys that are avalible today. Remember when they first intoduced the aluminum engine block, I belive the same setiments you have mentioned were voiced back then.

I guess I must have gotten the pressurized fuel delivery system somewhat right with the use of injectors, which in essence is a DFI system, since you failed to remark on that point.

Thank you for sharing your engineering expertise with me.

posted 10-06-2001 12:32 PM ET (US)            

The spray nozzles you mentioned are use for the cooling of the piston spraying on the underside, not for the cylinder walls.

Having worked on Catapellers, Detroits, Allsions, Bermister Waynes, Peelstick and Selzers, I hope I would have an understanding of the diesel engine.

posted 10-16-2001 06:03 AM ET (US)         

Consumers report to be least satisfied with time dealerships took to service boats