lol spaniard ill tell ya what i took a punt on my first tohatsu and if it dont last at least 3 years and then some i will be getting a hondaOriginally Posted by Spaniard_King
lol spaniard ill tell ya what i took a punt on my first tohatsu and if it dont last at least 3 years and then some i will be getting a honda
ill be somewhere up the creek, happy trails..
I don't understand the negativity. Sure we are entitled to be a bit cynical, but guys some of you show total over the top animosity and I don't think its warranted. Its a new product and as such shouldn't be burdened with past associations. Even friggin toyota have had 450,000 cars recalled in Australia, but musn't touch that holy cow. I just don't get it.
If you buy a new TV, its based on last years technology Noelm ( actually its more like 1970s ideas which have been refined) . But its still a new tv with new features and its far better than anything even 5 years old. You wouldn't look twice at a tv model that was 2 yrs old. So why don't you see outboards the same way? I don't get it. Its not as if they are connected to your nether regions, lol.
Every new model is an opportunity for the manufactures to correct any real or perceived problems. So I personally think they should be treated on their own merits. So far, I don't see any other maker integrating so many features in a new ground up design.
Hp is still a function of torque. The longer a motor can hold its torque longer in the rev range, the more hp it will develop at higher rpm. The earlier a motor can develop torque and hold that torque over the rev range, the more hp it will have under the hp curve. Which is why big displacement motors and forced induction motors are fun to drive. Diesels benefit from both hence why they are arguably the best motors to have in constant rpm type service such as in boats.
Extracted from an old post of mine...
The International ICOMIA Standard 28-83 came about in 1983 to regulate the inconsistencies with how outboards were rated at the time – and most were at the crankshaft. 1985 (from memory) was the first year that all outboards had to comply with this standard.
From memory, manufacturers must state a ‘declared power’ and a recommended WOT operating range. The highest power developed within that range cannot exceed the ‘Declared Power’ by either 5 or 6% (can’t remember exactly). Nor can it be under the declared power by more than a certain amount. There are other constraints too, and a 10% figure could be in there somewhere.
Haven’t read the standard for years, but if you want to know for sure Google should produce.
Do you seriously believe what you just wrote Andy?? Nah, forget my comment ... it must be true, a boat did go under...
Errr, bit too early for this don't you think? Let them get some runs on the board first, oh and some longevity... then we can discuss any leapfrogging.
Cheers
Brendon
I googled e-tech gen 2 the other day, wanted to see if I should consider them as boats advertised on boatpoint with e-techs are a lot cheaper becasue they don't turn over, was beginning to wonder if I was being silly in not considering them .... then this came up straight away
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG52hS9EVnw
^ If you do some research on that video and/or read the comments, apparently it was the installation of the engine by the dealer which caused the issue, not the engine itself.
G2s are certainly not the same basic powerplant. Evinrude's success with Etec has been largely to do with their application of direct injection. The G1s were using an adaptation to their existing engine designs, whereas the G2s are an all new engine from the ground up, designed specifically around DI this time (which has never been done with a 2 stroke or any outboard for that matter). The results have been quite incredible so far, we're seeing a lot more torque and appreciably less fuel consumption. I do not expect to see a 4 stroke engine competing with the performance/economy mix of the G2 Etecs for some time. I expect that we'll be seeing 4 stoke displacement increase as time goes on, Mercury were the first to adopt a high displacement policy with their new 4 stroke range for the torque characteristics. although future 4 strokes are going to need to move with the times and adopt DI (like most new gen car engines now) if they want to compete with the G2s.
Took this graph from THT, the G2 not only produces appreciably more torque than the F300, but it's more economical. Note the range in which the G2 returns its best economy- it's ridiculously wide. Whereas, typical of a 4 stroke, the F300 hits its sweet spot and falls off sharply. So you can run the G2 harder and faster while using less fuel than the 4 stroke. Very impressive.
Dealer didn't crimp negative lead properly? Can happen to anyone/ motor. I'd say the computer needs a reset or has been damaged as a result. Would happen to any motor
In any case the owner is now singing its praises- "Anyway I've spent the last two weeks at the coast and put over 50 hours on it and probably traveled and trolled over 175-200 miles without a single error code or issue. I'm very happy with the motor now that the gremlins have been taken care of. I would, without hesitation, buy an Evinrude E-Tec G2 again and I don't have any problems recommending them to everyone".
Hmmmm, first thing I noticed was that the graph does not reference engine speed!!! This removes any means of preliminary judgement regarding the prop selections and possible suitability of such.
Who produced the graph, the boat owner or BRP?
Reviews published with each engine, I believe. Other graphs have been based on performance reports by each manufacturer. Same trend observed with a similarly sized Scout, G2 returned better economy with a wider optimal spread.
Yes we know the formula - I think you missed my "Simply put" wording to give the average boater an insight into the basic relationship between torque, revs and hp.
But who compares o/b's of similar displacement - we could end up with various hp outputs which is pointless?
When we go shopping for an o/b, the comparison is generally done on rated hp.
I've been in a few friends 60hp 4 stroke boats and I've gotta say I'm unimpressed with their holeshot - to bad if you wanted to get away from a breaker in a hurry.
Moreover, most of the comments surrounding the 2 stroke vs 4 stroke comparison are based on some carby fed 2 stroke vs a modern day injected 4 stroke after a re-power - so the comparisons or comments aren't valid in my book. But if you can link to a like for like comparison I'm happy to read.
I can't say I've been in a 4 stroke o/b power boat in snotty swelly conditions - but I've got a couple of 496 cubic inch mercruiser big block inboards with just under 500ft/lb torque each in one of my boats and your still on and off the throttle in swelly conditions. So I'm curious as to whether its a petrol powered motor thing - because, in my experience, diesels being governed motors don't have this issue.
Thanks for posting this.
I have similar experience in my much smaller V6 "truck" engined inboard. Didn't want to say so because I lack the helm hours alot of you blokes have and thought experience is a factor.
I like my old school banger but some electronics to vary throttle and keep constant speed over ground I would love - in those less than ideal conditions.
You have 2 496's ? ...no wonder you are called Juggernaut. ..
No, didn't miss it, nor was I having a go, was just trying to give everyone a chance to use the formula with the correct conversion constant - to use the units we use/see everyday.... I think you missed my "Simply put" wording to give the average boater an insight into the basic relationship between torque, revs and hp....
Previously, that's all there was, so no, it was not pointless. And it was E-TEC doing all the comparisons, mostly against Yamaha from what I recall, especially b/w the 3.3L V6 yams and the 3.3 & 3.4L V6 E-TECS. And yes, E-TEC's had more peak torque for same nominal HP, when looking at the various EPA data (12.5% more for std 250's.)
When E-TEC published their 225 P&T comparison chart, strangely their 225 had more power and more torque than the EPA test data, what's more, the yam 'in their graph' had less than the yam EPA data for both torque and power!!! We can only draw one conclusion from that can't we??!
Funnily enough, the comparisons stopped when the 4.2L yams came out, because the yams then had more peak torque (from their much bigger displacement).
See attachment with my previous post. This is raw EPA data (well at 2011), no manufacturer BS.
Enter Gen 2, and they may be again ahead, but until I see EPA data, I can't say.
Never implied this, the cc's just used to be similar. See above comments.
Depends on a few things... were they underpowered? ... Were they overpropped/propped correctly? Even a 2/ boat can be as you described - should both/either of these conditions exist.
Point taken. As DI 2/'s get better, any difference 'if still present' will reduce. Can't comment personally, never owned a DI 2/, and all the ones I have driven were in pretty calm waters.... Moreover, most of the comments surrounding the 2 stroke vs 4 stroke comparison are based on some carby fed 2 stroke vs a modern day injected 4 stroke after a re-power - so the comparisons or comments aren't valid in my book. But if you can link to a like for like comparison I'm happy to read.
If Torque Curves were available everyone would have a much better idea before they even got in a boat. However, keep in mind that a boat is not a car/4wd etc, even a mediocre prop selection could mute a nice strong flat torque curve.
Prop selection can play a huge part in this. Diesels have much more torque, and don't suffer as much 'in seas', but as the seas increase relative to boat/engine size - they still can suffer.
Cheers
Brendon
I have had the same boat with carby 2 strokes, DFI 2 strokes, and 4 strokes, so I think I might have a pretty good idea on how the different operating systems compare, don't care if it's "snotty" or not, and by far the best to own and operate are the 4 strokes. The carby 2 strokes were OK, but you had to "fiddle" with the choke and so on, especially if the boat wasn't used for a while, didn't like trolling much either, the DFI 2 strokes were OK, but still suffered with the die out on the back of a swell, requiring a handful of throttle, then the boat would just take off, requiring pulling back again, then on again, the 4 strokes do not suffer anywhere near as much in this regard, sure they die off a bit, but seem to just "plod" along at a very steady speed, I don't care about torque curves or theories, it's simply how it is! No brands are mentioned on purpose, as this is not a brand trumpet blowing exercise, and don't worry about crossing bars and stuff, talk like that should be confined to bars, in the pub!
Moreover, most of the comments surrounding the 2 stroke vs 4 stroke comparison are based on some carby fed 2 stroke vs a modern day injected 4 stroke after a re-power - so the comparisons or comments aren't valid in my book. But if you can link to a like for like comparison I'm happy to read.
A recent top speed run (she ain't fast) on a nice day. The rpm overspeed alarms were going off in this run. WOT rpm for these motors is in the range of 4,200 to 4,600 rpm - so i don't think I'm overpropped.
Peak torque at 3,200rpm and max power (370hp each) at 4,600rpm
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote