Gotta love "new technology"!

Yup - the NEW 'environmentally friendly' 2 stroke technology thats quieter than a 4stroke and uses less fuel and doesn't pollute our waterways, Hard at Work!

Can anyone say "Run Forest - Run".

Gotta wonder how it would go if it ever left the dock - it's not a twin rig - the other is just a "spare"!



WTFWIK

Cheers!

[Dror]

Geez Trouty it's only taken about two and a half years for you to find ONE photo of an E-tec with something wrong, and knowing the extreme bias you have against two stroke outboards, you have probably been looking.
I have an E-tec on my boat and if can show me even the slightest bit of smoke coming out of mine I'll give the thing to you.
With any product it is unlikely that you won't get a problem with a percentage of them and so far the E-tecs have been as good as any.
Oh and if you would like to see some smoke, just start one of the 50hp Yamaha four strokes after it has been sitting for a couple of hours tilted up. Makes a mockery of the supposed "no oil burning" claim of the four strokes.
Rant over.

Cheers, Dror

[Rod]

Interesting post.

As scepticial i have been of the ETEC's i will say they are starting to win me over..SLowerly thou

Just a note to ETEC owners if you are running the special (expensive)ETEC oil you need to have your engine checked on Diognistic's to ensure your engine is tunned or set for that oil. I have been told most of the new ETEC's where programed for standard oil and if you use the good oil they will still smoke a little.

Hope that makes sense..If not than ask and i'll try and explain again..

Trouty they can't be that bad when most of the dealers are simply sold out and have many on back order????

[Brad Y]

Saw a dirty big etec on a brand new 7+metre runabout in Exmouth earlier this month, first time in the water. Took off with no smoke and compared to the four stroke motors.... well lets just say i swear i heard the swell on the reef over the motor.

They have definitely got the edge over other makes around. If i had a couple more grand i would have considered one on the tracker but i wasnt that fortunate. So i stayed with the stardard mercury 2 stroke. And to give it some credit, its quieter than the honda on my grandfathers dinghy.

The 50 merc 4 stroke, blows smoke when you start it after being tilted?

You must be dreaming - you seem to forget - my boat before this one wasa 16 ft Curran River runner with - yep you guessed it a 50 hp 4 stroke Merc Yr 2000 power tilt n trim...

I Put a LOT of hours on that baby and used to even run it on tilt occasionally in shallow water to slide over the mud flats down the Donnelly R - that thing never blew any smoke ever in the years I owned it and best I know it' still going strong down in Walpole for Mark Halse doing his bream tours!

Why are Etecs "sold out & on backorder"?

Dunno beats me, maybe theres a sucker born every minute!

Cheers!

[Dror]

Yep, I must be dreaming because in my post I was talking about the YAMAHA 50hp and you have gone off on a tangent talking about your Merc. I never said anything about Mercs in my post if you care to have a better look.
I have seen the problem with my own eyes. According to Yamaha it is caused by oil running down the bores and past the piston rings if left sitting in this position for a while.

Have you actually been in a boat with an E-tec on it?

I got no problems being a sucker if they are the only people who use E-tecs.

Cheers, Dror

[wizard]

Hi Guys, first of all let me say i have never had any experience with etecs but was talking to a mate the other day regarding his. Hes from Tas and says his is great, but is the only one in Tas that he knows about with no probs. To my way of thinking everybody seems to have been sucked in by bombardiers advertising blitz. Lets face it , any of the manufacturers can put a positive spin on their product and denegrate the others. I too was being semi converted but have seen the light and realise that the way of the future is 4 stroke technology, at least until the di's have proven themselves over the passage of time.

[Brad Y]

Honestly trouty,

Some of the fishing community would have thought someone with the fishing experience of yourself would have been better than to start a petty dispute online.

We see you dont have a high opinion of them, thats cool, its your opinion. I personally dont mind them but another well known fisho around busselton is a bit iffy on them too (not from his personal experience), but there is no real need to push it like its a debate. To those who havent seen or had any troubles with them then they should be allowed their opinion as well, without the petty provoking to start such a debate.

If we were all "master debaters" we might as well write off the privelege of owning etec's and four strokes and two strokes and for that matter a kayak or a pair of sandshoes or thongs. They all get us to where we want to be and thats fishing.

My point made.

Have you actually been in a boat with an E-tec on it?

Not at all, as a matter of principle! - I prefer my fishing trips to be two ways - out AND BACK!

Cheers!

[Mick]

So thats what it looks like, I actually enjoyed the picture, I've probably seen hundreds of etecs over this side of the country over the last couple of years and I have yet to see any blowing any smoke. But by the looks of things an etec with a problem still blows less smoke then a standard 2 banger

[Dror]

Not at all, as a matter of principle! - I prefer my fishing trips to be two ways - out AND BACK!

So your expertise on these motors is based on zero actual experience.
Well you've convinced me. I am going to go and trade mine in immediately.

This is not the first E-tec bashing thread that you have started and it is as pointless as the others, because despite the results of all the independent tests conducted around the world, you know better than all of them.
Despite the smear campaign of people such as yourself towards the E-tec, consumers are smart enough to do there own research based on the facts and figures available to them and make their own mind up about which outboard suits them best, and an increasing number have chosen the E-tec.
Fortunately we live in age where outboards are far more advanced than they were 10 or 15 years ago. So weather someone chooses one of the new four strokes or one of the new generation direct injection two strokes, they can take comfort in the fact that they have an outboard that is as good as is currently available in terms of fuel consumption, noise and emmissions.
I distinctly remember when the first four stroke outboards were released that there was a large number of people who said that they would never put one on their boat because it had too many moving parts and was too complicated. It's amazing how many of those individuals are now staunch advocates of the four strokes and have now become resistant to the next new technology that comes out. Some people will always be dismissive of new developments and there is probably nothing that will change their mind. It's just human nature.

Cheers, Dror

[Doc_Hollywood]

Have to agree with Dror, technology is going ahead in leaps and bounds.
After having 4 strokes on my previous boats i was a staunch advocate for them especially after being in mates 2 strokers and seeing how much fuel, oil etc was wasted, a marine mechanic quoted around 40% unused out the exhaust. But thats old tech. Now out of necessity I had to put a HPDI two stroke on the prostrike to get it on the water. I was a little miffed but the yard said if I didnt like it they would swap it over at no cost to me when the 4 stroke was available.
So as most of you know i still have it on the back and most people that have been on it wouldnt know if it was a 2 or 4 stroke because there is no smoke and little noise (except when we are going a wee bit fast). And i think of the top of my head it uses only about 1 litre of oil for around 50 litre of fuel (dont quote me) I think i have only bought 5 llitres of oil since i have had it.

[Rod]

Atcually Leo it uses about 1 liter of oil to about 120:1 down to 50:1 so its not that much

And to be fair Dror the Merc that Trouty talks about is manufactured by Yamaha but having said that Trouty if yours didn't smoke at start up then you where lucky. As Dror said the Yam's have a serous issue where oil seeps pest the rings and cause's the engine to smoke at start up I've sold hundreds of these things and frankly its just fact

As i said i origainally had issues with the ETEC's but i would be nothing other than STUPID and IGNORANT if i didn't keep re-assessing technology as time goes on and i will say i'm reasonably impressed with the ETEC's at the moment..I see alot of motor issues everyday and talk to dealers all accross the country and i personially beleive i have excellent knowledge of most things boating ...IMHO

And one last point Trouty what was actually wrong with that motor? Any Jurno could get the same result by simply spiking the fuel with extra oil and believe me companies do that sort of thing just to slur a competitors product

[bubba]

Well I think I can comment on this better thn most! My last motor was a 50 4st Yam and my new is a 90 ETEC.
When you turn of the Yam in lowest Tilt position the cylinder oil pools and causes smoke discharge on startup. YUCKY.. I actually thought it was a blown ring for the first month. I contact Yamaha and they said I ahad to have the motor in a positive trim position to stop this happening. DESIGN FLAW!!

My 90 ETEC blows no smoke AT ALL and is quieter than my 50 Yam .. Put that in your hippy pipe and smoke it Trouty ...

your hippy pipe

I always know when I've won a debate by when the opposition starts to attack me personally and not what I type!

So far the defenders of injected 2 stroke technology, are either owners of one:-

"I must defend my poor purchase / choice decision"

or

Retailers of said same engines:-

"I must defend the product I sell or lose my income"

I.e. both have a "vested interest".

Me I don't believe in the technology whether it's a Merc optibomb
or a Failed OMC / Bombadier Eterd.

My lack of faith in the technology is in the number of posts I see emanating from a far larger market, in the USA on their boating forums of people who have major issues with the products.

I don't own one (so therefore have to defend it) nor do i sell them so likewise have to defend them.

So - I am of the firmly held conviction / belief (rightly or wrongly) that the technology itself is fundamentally flawed!

So much so it caused the demise of OMC corp the longest running outboard manufacturing co in the world, taking down cutomers left with no warranty or spares, and thousands of loyal mom n pop boat servicing / sales business around the world.

Back then it was called "Ficht", but it was essentily the same thing - with oil injected into the cylinders instead of mixed with fuel & scavenged thru the sump via ports into the cylinder wall in order to lubricate the top and bottom end (cylinder rings and crank mains & bigend journals / bearings).

Basically what I believe has happened is this!

1. 2 strokes were designed and built to have their oil delivered in the fuel to lubricate the entire engine via sump scavenging. This was a proven & reliable technology that persevered for near on 100 years

2. Clean air legislation, required reduced emissions so engineers started monkeying with a proven successful design - to get emissions outputs that would meet or exceed clean air (CARB 2006) regs.

3. They did this by removing oil from the fuel mix - and injecting it direct into the cylinder thru an injector in the head using computers timed to do so while the piston is in a compression position such that all (i.e. exhaust if it's a fuel & oil injectyed 2 stroke) port/s are CLOSED. In doing so - they fundamentally ALTER the timing in the cycle of when the oil has previously been delivered to 2 stroke engines for the last 100 years when they were reliable proven performers!

4. They also reduce the % of oil in the system. When 2 strokes first came out they ran MUCH higher densitys of lubrication oil -starting around 12.5:1, progressing to 25:1, then 50:1 - now with synthetic oils 100:1, and more recently with computer controlled injection timing mixes as low as 120:1

We are talking here about removing lubricating oil from a proven reliable performing design of 100 years duration in the factor of ~ 350% reductions.

Why?

Because we need to meet clean air regs and 2 strokes by nature of their design were NOT very good at burning all their oil...a LOT used to pass out the exhaust as unburnt tcw 2 or later TCW 3 oil droplets & ash + gasses.

So - by reducing the oil amount to a point where a relatively innefficient engine design, now "meets" the strict reduced emissions standards, we got to the point with FICHT, where oil shortage was significantly reducing expected engine wear life from the vicinity of 5000 - 6000 hours, down to seriously short life spans of 1200 - 1500 hours!

Hey - isn't that something like a factor of 350% engine longevity reduction?

Any lights flickering on yet? (Clue: oil reduction = engine life reduction!)

We will all know whether or not Etec have engineered this better than OMC when significant quantities of their product have achieved 5000 - 6000 hours trouble free operation. (at the usual recreational angler usage of 100 odd hours per year this could be anywhere from 20 - 50 years!. However for those who use their engines commercially SOME may do this in just 3 or 4 years!

Whens the warranty run out? Yup - 3 years! Are we seeing engines built to just last the warranty period?

So- the pro's are the ones beta testing Etecs for Bombadier and likely will wear the cost, if it all goes horribly wrong, and they start failing prematurely in significnt numbers as I strongly suspect they well might!. (Again by what posts I'm already starting to see in appear in the USA forums from pro users who add significant numbers of hours to their OB's / annum).

So...

With increasingly stringent clean air regs (new ones for 2008) just how much MORE can we reduce the lubricating oil in a 2 cycle engine before it just won't plumb run anymore, long enough to get past the warranty period?????

I mean - in years gone by 'teflon' was promoted as the worlds greatest new miracle lubricant and added to oil to impregnate the pores in the steel cylinder walls and significantly reduce engine wear! Advertisements on TV etc claimed and showed - you could hole the sump in your car and yet keep driving to the nearest service station to effect repairs on no oil!

This achieved without destroying your engine thru lack of lubricating oil, due to the miraculous lubricating properties of teflon impregnated in the steel walls from adding the miracle goop to your sump at oil change time or buying oil with suspended teflon particles in it!

So - 4 stroke engines COULD be made to run with probably far less oil than the current 2 strokes use even now...

BUT Teflon is now known to be a carcinogen - not good in the air we breath or our cooking utensils any longer etc...

So - back to outboards...

4 strokes don't remove the oil to achieve their emissions test results, they just put it in a sump below the pistons where it does NOT take part in the combustion process. It is pumped throughout the engione by an oil pump thru a series of oil capilliary tubes cast into the various parts in order to perform it's lubrication job! It generally isn't passed out of the exhaust pipe..(unless theres something seriously wrong with the engine i.e. oil rings worn out!!)

All of the oil that goes into a 2 stroke that isn't burnt at combustion DOES still go out the exhaust as ash or unburnt TCW3 into our freshwater and inland waterways. This is NOT good IMHO for the future survival of our fishstocks. The lead it contains bioaccumulates and ends up in the bream you guys occasionally like to eat! Again -not good for the envirnment or the people living within it.

2 strokes were designed to be lubricated with oil in suspension in the atomised fuel delivery system....theres no sump or oil pump or cappiliary tube lines, to carry oil to the vital working parts!

So just how much oil can we remove from an oil thristy design, in order to meet strict emissions outputs requirements from a design that is fundamentaly inefficient at doing this - before we get to a point where there just isn't enough damn oil left to do the lubrication job properly?

I believe we got to that point, with FICHT technology and it sent OMC to the wall, and took a lot of good boating industry people along with it thru no fault of their own!

Why persevere with an outdated engine design technology if not for the sole purpose of trying to achieve a $ return on the substantial investements in new tooling, that OMC spent (and Bombadier aquired at pennies on the pound subsequently due to OMC insolvency), by perpetuating a technology until enough $ profits are made and the tooling worn out, before they then go and try some other technology that has the development potential to yeild ongoing benefits with research and engineering?.

I myself believe, that 2 stroke technlogy, is already beyond its effective use bye date, and that theres nothing more to be gained / extracted from it, by further engineering modifications to try and keep impriving it's outdated design inneficiency's!

That is my opinion and basic reasoning.

That's all it is, - my reasoned opinion!.

Any and all are entitled to take or leave what ever they want from it - to reject it out of hand or to ignore it totally!

That is after all everyone elses prerogative is it not?

I don't see however that it should prevent me from expressing my reasoned opinion, or posting photo's of supporting evidence that back up my contention / position / opinion.

Cheers!