Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  The Problem With Classic Two-Cycle Motors

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   The Problem With Classic Two-Cycle Motors
jimh posted 11-02-2010 07:53 PM ET (US)   Profile for jimh   Send Email to jimh  
Classic two-cycle motors have the following good and bad characteristics:


The good characteristics
--powerful
--good performance at wide open throttle
--tough
--survives in marine environment

And the bad characteristics
--noisy
--smoky
--rough idle
--rough running
--bad fuel economy
--hard starting
--high emissions

What has occurred with modern two-cycle motors is the good characteristics have been preserved, and the bad characteristics have been eliminated or minimized. That is to say, modern two-cycle motors now have the following characteristics:


--powerful
--good performance at wide open throttle
--tough
--survives in marine environment
--not noisy
--not smoky
--no rough idle
--no rough running
--good fuel economy
--super fast and reliable starting (faster than most cars)
--ultra low emissions (lower than four-cycle engines)

In light of this, is there anyone who thinks that classic two-cycle motors are preferable to modern motors. For the purpose of this discussion we can ignore cost as a factor. Please let me have your informed opinions and views, and I anticipate many anecdotal reports to accompany them. Thank you.

andygere posted 11-02-2010 10:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Jim,
You forget to mention perhaps one of the best characteristics of classic 2-cycle outboard motors: They are light weight.

Modern DFI 2-cycle outboard motors are generally lighter than 4-cycle motors of comparable horsepower, but are not as light as their carbureted counterparts. In the larger horsepower sizes, the weight difference between DFI and carbed 2-cycles is not that significant in terms of the ability of a Classic Boston Whaler to handle that weight on the transom. Where it does become significant is in the smaller horsepower motors, 70 and below. The DFI repower choices for classic 13 foot Whalers is not nearly as good due to a larger weight differential in the 40 hp outboards, which in classic 2-cycle form are the ideal power plant for these little boats. The DFI 2 cycle choices for a classic 15 foot whaler are similarly limited.

So, to answer the question, if I were repowering a classic 13, I'd look for a carbureted 2-cycle 40 hp outboard. For a Montauk or anything bigger, I'd go for a DFI or 4-cycle.

AZdave posted 11-03-2010 01:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for AZdave  Send Email to AZdave     
It is difficult to ignore a decade of anecdotes reporting catastrophic failures of direct injected outboards. The factions have concentrated their efforts at smearing the non-preferred manufacturer. I have a hard time looking at an investment of 10K or more dollars with a preponderance of negative posts. My thanks to bluewaterpirate who reports his own long term experience with a direct injected outboard, in this case a Mercury. I think I will stay with a classic two cycle until I'm required to change. Dave
pcrussell50 posted 11-03-2010 01:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Well, if you take cost out of contention, then you take away a huge advantage that the classics hold.  How about if we assume the modern two-stroke is off warranty?   I would say that in that case, a person with the skills to repair a classic two-stroke is better off with one.  

I take exception to the "harder to start" trait of the classics.  Sure, there are more steps, such as squeezing the primer bulb, and choking a cold start.  But if the motor is healthy with compression, leakdown, and no air leaks in the fuel system, it should start right up. Mine do.  I grant you that a cold classic being choked, may require a few extra rotations of the crank before it lights off, but I would hardly classify that as "harder to start", except in the infinitesimal sense. 

By he way, I do very much love ETECs.  I want a 200hp model to put on a certain padded v-bull boat I have yet to buy. 

-Peter

burning_hXc_soul posted 11-03-2010 02:24 AM ET (US)     Profile for burning_hXc_soul  Send Email to burning_hXc_soul     
I'm not a certified outboard mechanic but I'm a great DIY shadetree mechanic on stuff that isn't run by 8,000 computerized sensors, chips, and other gizmos that require a laptop computer or reader to find faults. I have enough tools to be dangerous and enough knowledge or how your basic motor works to do the majority of repairs that come my way.

I also like how my 1986 75 hp mercury sounds and smokes. It's all part of the experience in my opinion. Just out there cruising down the river or on the lake, not a thought in my head, that loud 2-stroke sound lulling me into oblivion. Kind of like loud pipes on a bike on a winding mountain road I guess you could say. I associate one with the other and like it that way.

jimh posted 11-03-2010 08:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I agree that the following should be added to the good characteristics of classic two-cycle motors:

--excellent power-to-weight ratio
--simple mechanical design
--relatively easy to service

Peter posted 11-03-2010 08:24 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
"In light of this, is there anyone who thinks that classic two-cycle motors are preferable to modern motors. "

Yes. I have a collection of almost modern and classic 2-stroke motors. Preference depends on the application and circumstances.

I have a classic 3.5 HP motor on my 8 foot, 6 inch inflatable dingy and that is preferable over any modern motor. Any modern 3.5 HP motor will weigh more than the 29 lbs that the classic 2-stroke motor weighs. The light weight of this classic 2-stroke motor makes it easy to handle when loading and unloading from the dingy in the water.

I have a classic 150 HP 2-stroke motor on my Outrage 18. It's not noisy. It doesn't have a rough idle. It isn't rough running. It's not hard starting. It's not really smoky either. It's light weight makes it a perfect fit for this boat and its use.

I have a pair of almost modern 2-stroke motors on my Whaler 27 WD. I don't think I would prefer classic 2-stroke motors for this application.

RMS posted 11-03-2010 08:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for RMS  Send Email to RMS     
My objection to any 'modern' engine is the electronics. Electronics can and do fail, and I think their presence in a salt water environment is a mistake for those that travel offshore. Therefore I prefer an old technology motor that doesn't have something which will fail with no warning.

Recently there was an account on ContinuousWave regarding a harrowing voyage off Long Island NY in treacherous seas. I don't know whether the motor on the boat in question is 'modern' or not. I travel the same seas and have twice had an engine fail due to an electronic ignition relay failing. Both incidents happened on clear, calm days, fortunately for my crew and I.

To answer your question Jim, I prefer classic motors to modern motors. Bob

adlert posted 11-03-2010 09:20 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
I think we should also add "reliability" to the good characteristics of both old and new 2-strokes. I feel certain my old, properly maintained 2-strokes are every bit as reliable as the best of the best modern 2-strokes.

I don't mean to needlessly pick your premises apart Jim. I agree with the general validity of your "rough running", "rough idle", and "noisy" descriptions on the bad list for older 2-strokes. These absolutely apply in a broad sense to most of the older 2-strokes that have been made. I would like to point out however that they do not apply across the board. Many may not remember, but some old 2-strokes idled and ran extremely smoothly. They also ran amazingly quietly. When I say old I mean OLD. Pre late '70s going backwards a couple decades.

Back in the day it appears to me that OMC put special effort into acieving those desirable running qualities for many of their engine designs. Frequently they touted these qualities in their brouchures and with stickers like "Super Quiet" applied to exhaust housings. I believe, though don't know, that they even sacrificed other desirable qualities such as higher output/displacement and fuel efficiency to achieve smoother running and lower sound levels. Certainly they have a history of elaborate intake air silencer designs and large water silencing "dams" within exhaust housings.

I have 2 old OMC V4 engines from the early seventies ('72 100 HP, '73 85 HP) that I swear could make you think you're running a DFI or 4-stroke in terms of idle quality, smoothness, and noise level (particularly at speed). The 100 hp is particularly amazing. Each on sits like rock at idle. Even on a garden hose, all you'll hear is one perfectly steady exhaust note for as long as wish to let them run. They never waiver or growl upon acceleration or at cruising speeds. When pulling skiers I can talk with my boating companions and hear the skier talking to me. I've got no quantitative sound readings to offer but as an ex-mechanic who has test driven scores of modern DFIs and 4 stroke engines of similar or same HP I feel certain that my engines and many other similarly old engines are comparable regarding these 3 running qualities. It's quite entertaining actually... Owners of newer rigs will come out with from time to time and are amazed at how smooth and quiet these old machines are.

And yes, they are easy to start. Not fool-proof fuel injection easy of course. But all 3 of my daughters get them going with no problems.

Preferable to modern engines based on proper attribution of characteristics associated with my particular old 2-smokes? That's a tough one when you throw in the beautiful design simplicity, service ease, and lower weight compared to the cleaner burn and efficiency of the modern versions. I'd call it a tie in terms of my overall operational enjoyment but a definite loss for the my environment.

Tohsgib posted 11-03-2010 10:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Do you classic engine guys drive classic cars daily as well? Sure I love my 1980 Corvette. No computer, no EFI, no nothing, just as plain and simple as a 1960. Do I think it is better or more reliable, smoother running, easier to start, idles better, etc than a 2010...ARE YOU CRAZY!!! No offense but you guys with the classic 2 smokes are full of BS. Sell your modern Tahoe and go buy a 1985 Blazer and start a new thread on how great it is over your last modern truck. Once you buy a new modern engine you will probably stay away from this site for a year or 2 to let things "cool off" before you comment on why you waited so long to get rid of that shakey, smokey, hard starting, gas guzzling, LOUD piece of crap you have been nursing to keep running the last 10 years because you are 2 CHEAP and hard headed to upgrade. Once you go modern, you CAN'T go back. Talk all the smack you want, then talk to me in 5 years or whenever you let go of your purse and step up. You may or may not have to comment on the added weight by then as modern engines are getting lighter & lighter but if not you will see that all your posts over the last years are BS as well about the extra weight. I am the king of overweight Whalers and ANYONE who has been to my rendezvous will tell you the weight is fine except for static trim but who cares. Why do you think EVERY Go-Fast boat has all the weight in the stern and bad static trim? Carolina Skiffs have PERFECT static trim, every drive one?

Lastly...LHG I will take you up on that bet about decibels anytime you want from the other thread now closed. Actually a little research will throw that bet out the window as well.

Peter posted 11-03-2010 10:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I have had modern outboard motors for a number years. The last two motors that I bought were classic 2-strokes. I bought them because they were by far the bang for the buck.

It took several tries by the EPA before they were able to get rid of classic 2-strokes from the market place. When the government has to intervene to steer the market in a particular direction, even when there is a couple of modern choices, that ought to tell you something --- there is NO PROBLEM with classic 2-stroke motors in general.

contender posted 11-03-2010 11:55 AM ET (US)     Profile for contender  Send Email to contender     
Tohsgib: You can not compare a car/trucks to an outboard. An older car/truck (1980 corvette) will not run as good as a 2010? Why not? to be fair you would need to have 2 brand new vettes your, 1980 and a 2010. Would one start better than the other, I doubt it, same gas mileage close, reliable same, ride new one would have better suspension better ride, quite about the same...Same goes for outboards, I will give you better gas mileage and quieter for the newer outboards but not starting, running, and reliability these are about the same....
adlert posted 11-03-2010 12:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Tohsgib, if you are referring to me as being full of BS regarding the smoothness or sound levels associated with my classic 2 stroke engines, I can assure I am not. I don't "nurse" them along either; they are as reliable as hammers. Just regular maintenance you know, the exact same stuff you do minus the oil changes. I have put many, many hours on DFI's and 4 stroke engines and I can afford to buy any engine I choose. I can also afford not to, given how much I enjoy the excellent performance provided by my classic engines and the existence of so many other worthwhile places to spend my money.

As Contender alleges, if your 1980 'vette isn't running or idling smoothly I suspect it needs some attention. A GM 350 can and should run smoothly regardless of how the fuel is being delivered and the ignition timing is being managed.

Tohsgib posted 11-03-2010 12:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Well you guys are killing me. You obviously do not remember driving a carbed 1980's car VS todays. There is no way a carbed 2 strokes starts and runs as easily as my Suzuki. I turn the key, it beeps, I start, it runs. I do not choke, I do not prime the bulb, I do not advance the trottle, etc...it is smooth, quite and smokeless. Meet me at the ramp with ice cold engines and let's talk about it after you owe me the bet. Do You think I do not know what a brand new 2 stroke was like...sure I do and it is night & day compared to now. And as Jim pointed out in his initial post, cost is NOT a factor, just engines and technology alone. I am not saying your engines don't run great or like they should or just out of the box. I am not saying my Vette runs poorly or needs any attention. What I am saying is rationalize all you like...you are wrong in every sense when comparing the 2.
pcrussell50 posted 11-03-2010 02:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Tim! (adlert)

I think you and I are brothers from a different mother, or something. Well said.

It should be no secret by now around here, that I love my V4 cross flow motors. And for all the same reasons you have proposed. I too, can afford pretty much any new motor I want, but I just can't/won't justify it. I hope CWW members don't take this the wrong way, but boating just has to rank pretty high on the list of things that are frivolous luxuries. I treat is as such, and do my best to minimize unneccessary costs. I do the same thing with my car racing hobby.

By the way, far be it from me to be a luddite. I build my own computers and I run OSX, Linux and Windows, often times with all three operating systems on the same machine. My racing car motor is completely digitally sequential fuel injected, and I tune it myself with a laptop. I LOVE fuel injected engines. I would LOVE to have a 200hp E-TEC. In fact, I want one so badly, I might just buy one anyway, even though I don't have a hull to put it on, and I know it would be a frivolous purchase.

None of that changes or diminishes the positive aspects of a good classic, in my opinion.

-Peter

Peter posted 11-03-2010 02:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I get a laugh out of all the pride that the starting capability of an outboard motor brings. I like my purportedly difficult to start 2-strokes. It takes a certain amount of learned SKILL to start them. Not everybody can do it. Those that can do it are among an exclusive club. The starting difficulty was actually a design feature intended to keep the unworthy out of boating and the club exclusive. With the modern motor, they've just ruined that. ;)

adlert posted 11-03-2010 02:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Maybe so Peter. I too would thoroughly enjoy a newer DFI and 4 stroke engine. It would be hard not to, reliable engine management systems are wonderful things and I too have considerable experience working with them. I imagine few would say they would want their old classic back after purchasing a engine equipped with one as long as the new engine provides excellent service too.

Not wanting to kill you Nick! I don't think however that having to raise my throttle a bit and push that key in a few times to start my cold engine is going to make me much worse for the wear either. I'm in such fine physical shape I'd even call those tasks easy. Incidentally, in my mind I'm apparently never wrong on any points. You can ask my wife.

adlert posted 11-03-2010 02:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Whoa Peter, this is starting to freak me out. I hadn't seen your last post when I wrote mine.
L H G posted 11-03-2010 03:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Except for Fisher's brief foray into Bearcat 4-strokes, all of these classic Boston Whalers we love so much were designed for 2-stroke outboards, originally OMC and Mercury, and then later, Yamaha. Classic 2-stroke of any brand look best on these old boats - a better, more valuable, classic package for those that appreciate things like this.

Which looks best - A beautiful, well maintained classic Montauk with a well kept 2-stroke Mercury 90 "Tower" or OMC 90 HP V-4, or a slick plastic covered 90 Evinrude E-tec? No comparison in my opinion.

contender posted 11-04-2010 11:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for contender  Send Email to contender     
Jim: I purchased a 2007 25 Yamaha(brand new) about 2 years ago for my sons 11 Whaler. I have never had an engine that was so hard to start, once the engine starts for the 1st time the rest of day it is ok, but the 1st time it is female dog. The best (hands down) 2 stroke I have ever owned is a 1966 33hp Evinrude, it did not idle rough, and would start 1st time every time, never had problem with it, easy to work on, and If I could fine a new one today I would purchase it in a heart beat...
jimh posted 11-05-2010 07:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I only know Dick Fisher from his reputation, but from what I know of the man, he was a perfectionist and very demanding. If Dick Fisher were presented with a choice of engine power for a Boston Whaler boat in 2010 and the choices were:

--an 2011 E-TEC 90-HP or,
--a c.1970 Mercury 90-HP

there is little doubt in my mind which one Dick Fisher would choose: the modern, sophisticated, high-efficiency, low-emission E-TEC. To think otherwise is to discard just about everything we know of Dick Fisher. Dick Fisher was a guy who pushed things forward, not a guy who lived in the past.

Tohsgib posted 11-06-2010 12:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
That is exactly why I have a 12' stautue of Mr. Fisher in my livingroom. God I love that man...Please rest his soul in peace.
adlert posted 11-06-2010 01:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Well that hardly seems fair, bringing The Man's opinion from the grave into this discussion! Based on your first post Jim I thought we had the option to stay stuck in the past if we deemed it sufficiently tolerable...
jimh posted 11-06-2010 05:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Don't be so harsh on Larry for invoking Dick Fisher's name in this discussion and trying to link it to his anti-E-TEC point of view.
Tom W Clark posted 11-06-2010 06:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Dick Fisher was not only a perfectionist but he was also a visionary.

He was ahead of his time, so far ahead that he introduced the mass produced four stroke outboard motor several decades before it would be fully embraced by the boating public.

adlert posted 11-06-2010 09:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
I am so screwed. For so many years I've managed to shield myself from the reality that newer engines perform better than older engines simply by compartmentalizing the obvious truths, and pushing them into a closet so I don't have to deal with it all. Now that Mr. Fisher's current views (which I would not disagree with) have been brought into the lime light and thrust upon me, the closet door is open and I'm forced to deal with the hard cold facts.

I only have two choices obviously. I'd love to continue enjoying my current engines. They've been so incredibly cheap to own, silky smooth, super strong, rock solid reliable, simplistic and light weight, albeit a bit thirstier and dirtier than the engines now standing on their shoulders 30 years later. They’ve been with me for decades and served as the foundation for most of my family’s happiest times. Hell, in my kid’s minds, they ARE family.

And yet now I'm forced to live with the vision of Mr. Fisher, a boat designing god who without even knowing me, has given me and my family thousands of fantastic memories and thousands of hours of ultra-high quality life experiences looking down on me with a disappointed look on his face, shaking his head from side to side and muttering...”Are you seriously still raising your throttle and pushing your ignition key in to start that inefficient engine that came with your boat? For about 7 thousand dollars you could put that thing in the landfill and be getting 7 mpg versus the 5.5 you're getting now..."

I know...price doesn't matter. Regardless, now that the truth is out of my closet and Dick Fisher's scorn is in my head, how am I ever going to sleep now Jim? I am so screwed.

jimh posted 11-07-2010 12:08 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
One "problem" with classic two-cycle motors is the ability of some of them to last a long time. Their longevity makes it hard for some to dismiss the classic two-cycle motor or replace classic two-cycle motors that are still running. However, not every classic two-cycle motor ever made is still running. Most of them have been recycled for the aluminum in their engine blocks, thrown into a landfill, or traded-in for a new motor.

If classic two-cycle motors were really as durable, as easy to repair, as smooth-running, as fast-starting, and as easy-running as claimed, we would see almost all boats being powered by them. What we actually see is that in a relatively short period of time classic-two cycle motors have been rapidly outnumbered by more modern motors.

Here is a completely unscientific survey, using the participants at the October 2010 Mullet Lake Rendezvous as a sample. The boats at that rendezvous had:

--two-cycle classic carburetor motor (Terry's Yamaha 150, Con's Evinrude 150)

--two-cycle direct injection motor (my E-TEC 225, Don's Ficht 115, Moose's OptiMax 225, Matt's E-TEC 115)

--four-cycle motor (Dave's Suzuki 175)

Out of seven boats, only two had classic two-cycle motors. Of the five boats with modern motors, four had been re-powered. That means four boaters had a chance to choose and selected a modern motor in preference to a classic two-cycle motor. And these were in situations where COST was a consideration--it cost more to re-power with a modern motor than with a classic two-cycle. Even with higher cost, people choose modern motors in favor of classic two-cycle motors.

I don't think the group at our rendezvous was unusual. If you look around at other boats you see on the water, modern engines have come on rather strong.


adlert posted 11-07-2010 09:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
I have not, and will not claim that my "classic" 2 stroke engine starts just as quickly, or with a similar lack of input on the captain's part as a modern fuel injected engine. I am also perfectly comfortable with the fact my crazy old grandmother or a poorly-behaved visiting 7 year old will not be able to start the boats with a simply twist of the key. I have not and will not claim my engines are as clean running or get as good fuel mileage. I have and will maintain that in essentially all OTHER respects, my old engines are essentially equal to or superior to most modern offerings.

Obviously as time marches forward there will be a relative abundance of newer items over older items. We don't need any sort of survey, scientific or not to realize this! I think we've all noticed older people getting replaced by younger ones, newer houses and cars replacing decaying or worn out older versions. Newer electronics and airplanes replacing the last renditions. The list obviously goes on to cover essentially everthing on our planet. The newer houses, cars, boats etc., are essentially all more efficient, sophisticated, and at least incrementally easier to operate due to advances in technology. I think these notions were all completely self-evident to all participants prior to this moderately enlightening thread.:)

Maybe I am misinterpreting your latest statements but it feels to me as though this thread has taken a turn away from your initial invitation to answer this question:

"In light of this, is there anyone who thinks that classic two-cycle motors are preferable to modern motors?"

It seems to me now this was not a completely genuine invitation for discussion, or maybe more appropriately, a parsing out of the two engine's qualities. Without discussing and defending individual engine qualities the proposed discussion is really over before it began IMO. Obviously, (1) fuel injection makes for easier starting and warm-up; particularly for those with little to no mechanical aptitude (2)obviously, you don't need to be devoid of mechanical aptitude to enjoy the running qualities associated with modern FI engines nor does it make you a wimp to do so, (3) obviously burning less fuel and polluting less is a very desirable thing.

I do think however it should be OK to continue to appreciate those specific outstanding qualities that are still offered from the older classic engines without having to defend or justify that appreciation or feel like a nut living under a rock, to cheap, hard headed, or scared to hang a newer engine on the transom. I absolutely embrass modern technology and am a quite experienced and knowledgeable mechanic. And yet, you'll find a huge number of really old tools in my shops along side my newer ones. That's because they're so often just as functional as the newer versions. In some respects, they're actual better.

Tohsgib posted 11-07-2010 09:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Jim on my latest rendezvous we had 8 boats of which 2 were classics. In Homosassa we had I think 17 boats and only 2 or 3 were classics. One member & friend was digusted at how noisy and stinky his 90 Yamaha was compared to everyone else that it was the last time it was driven...repowered with a new 4 stroke.
adlert posted 11-07-2010 11:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Well that settles it. People truly are highly prone to replacing their older things with newer, superior, more technologically advanced things. And I guess, as things get longer in the tooth they tend to be less likely to still be in service.

Who'd of thunk it? At least that explains the insane lines camping out for the latest Apple offering and the preponderance of post 2000 model year cars in the WalMart parking lot. Was that what this thread was really about? My apologies, I guess I really missed the boat. Time to rake leaves.

contender posted 11-07-2010 11:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for contender  Send Email to contender     
I think a lot of you are missing the point, or what I perceive to be the point of this conversation. You want to compare an old 2 stroke engine to a new modern 2 stroke.(what do you consider an old engine how many years is old to you?) 1st like I have stated you need two brand new engines to compare with, one of each year you want to test with (example say a 1990 Evinrude with a 2010 Evinrude both of the same power ratings) I think a lot of you are basing your statements on engines you have had or used and that are/have been worn out. Lets make the playing field level. Now, I still can not see how and engine of one year vs. the engine of another year on starting and reliability. I can give you a new engine being more quite and possibly better fuel mileage (everything being the same) and smoke wise about the same.
You see less and less of old engines out there because thats the problem they are old and they are less and less, parts become harder to find, and cost just as much as purchasing parts for newer models (the price of old parts increase all the time, purchasing parts for a 1990 engine does not give you 1990 prices). Also how many of you really do your own repairs and maintenance? and to what point or how involved do you get with your engine? Also it does come a time when the older engine (because of pricing and age) it does not make sense to put the amount of money into the repair (just like a used car/truck).
Surviving in a marine environment I think really depends on the owner, I have seen some 2 year old engines that look like they went through the war, and the owner has no clue just to put gas and go vs. an older engine that was taken care of with an owner that was responsible toward his boat. Another thing is use(how many hours and what for, you can idle up the inter-coastal or do a 50 mile run each time out, remember an hour meter does not measure rpm's/speed but just time running) and were, an engine in salt water takes a lot more abuse than one in fresh water, still I think about 85-90% care is the owner...take care off to the auto show Miami Beach...
Keeper posted 11-07-2010 12:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for Keeper  Send Email to Keeper     
I didn't really read all these replys in this topic. However, one thing I think will be missed with regards to the older technology 2 stroke being phased out is the ability to tinker with ones motor with hop-up parts.

Dwindling are the days of the young man trying to squeeze out a few more HPs or MPHs out of his 2-stroke motor by installing reed blocks, carb work, exhaust tuners etc etc. Even for the few who actually rebuilt their entire motors in their garage etc.

This was kinda 'America' to me when I was growing up, but it seems that I too, along with the old tech 2-stroke am an aging dinosaur!

Wish I had been born 20 years earlier.I feel jipped!!!

Anyways, I embrace all the new technology. I just hope there are still those who can maintain the old stuff so that those of us who appreciate it can still see it from time to time!

Peace

KEEPER

2manyboats posted 11-07-2010 09:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for 2manyboats  Send Email to 2manyboats     
Back in 2007 we replaced the 1992 70 Evinrude on the Montauk with 60 E-Tec. The only difference I have noticed the last three years is
I use less oil and gas, the motor is quieter, no smoke and starts easier.

We recently replaced our 2005 90 Johnson with a 90
E-Tec. This is on my wife's 24 ft tour boat and dang if we did't have the same results.

The performance on the Montauk did drop a tad, but the performance of the 3 cylinder 90 is equal to or exceeds the 4 cylinder 90.

Russ 13 posted 11-07-2010 10:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for Russ 13  Send Email to Russ 13     
Well I disagree with the everyone buying the new tech. four strokes because they are a better idea......
How many NEW 90HP & lower two strokes are available to purchase??
Mercury...only 60 HP & less, as the 90HP is a detuned larger engine that weighs too much.
Yamaha one of the lightest two strokes made 90 Hp & lower...NOT available...thanks to the feds.
E-tech..still available but slightly heavier than before.
I believe this is due to the larger gear cases now offered.
Honda, Suzuki, Yamaha only sell heavy four strokes!
When it comes to the power to weight ratio for the smaller HP engines, the two stroke is better!
IF Yamaha, Suzuki, Mercury offered new light two strokes..more boaters would own them.
But thanks to the government that knows what is best for everyone, they are no longer available.
pcrussell50 posted 11-08-2010 12:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
As succinctly as I can put it:

I like modern 2-strokes, like E-TEC's. I can afford modern 2-strokes, like E-TEC's. I can NOT justify paying for modern 2-strokes, like E-TEC's.

And by-the-by, I can justify modern 4-strokes even less... a LOT less, in fact, truth be told.

-Peter

Tohsgib posted 11-08-2010 10:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Russ 13...A LOT has changed in the last 2 years. Suzuki, Yamaha, and Honda make 60-70hp 4 strokes that are LIGHTER than the 2 strokes they are replacing. Yamaha and Mercury classic 2 stroke 90's are still available as well.
adlert posted 11-08-2010 11:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Such a pity those current Yamaha and Mercury classic 2 strokes don't run as smoothly or quietly as my 38 year old 100 hp classic. I'm sure they use less fuel of course and likely are just about as reliable. :)
Peter posted 11-08-2010 01:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
"Suzuki, Yamaha, and Honda make 60-70hp 4 strokes that are LIGHTER than the 2 strokes they are replacing."

2010 Suzuki 70 4-stroke -- 341 lbs
1996 Suzuki 75 2-stroke -- 271 lbs

2010 Suzuki 60 4-stroke -- 229 lbs
1998 Suzuki 60 4-stroke -- 335 lbs
1997 Suzuki 65 2-stroke -- 232 lbs

2010 Yamaha 70 4-stroke -- 257 lbs
2009 Yamaha 70 2-stroke -- 229 lbs

2010 Yamaha T60 4-stroke -- 267 lbs
2003 Yamaha 60 2-stroke --- 229 lbs

Honda never made a 2-stroke 70 nor does it make a 4-stroke 70.

I must have missed that day in third grade math class where they taught that 341 lbs is lighter than 271 lbs or 257 lbs or 267 lbs is lighter than 229 lbs. ;)

The only motor that has a similar weight to a 2-stroke is the 2nd generation Suzuki 60 4-stroke and I'll bet that with only 57 cubic inches of displacement it will not perform as robustly as the Suzuki 2-stroke or the first generation Suzukit 4-stroke that that it replaced. The way they got the weight down is by giving the consumer LESS performance than before.

The real "problem with classic 2-stroke motors" is that they just would not go away as the regulators had hoped. Despite alternative "modern" motors co-existing and all of the so called "bad" attributes, it took a recent second effort by the emissions regulators to regulate them out of existence. Why is that? Simple, classic 2-stroke motors carry out the job given to them extremely well. They are relatively inexpensive, light weight, durable, easy to understand/repair and reliable as they should be given their long 100 year history. And for that you can thank, posthumously, a visionary named Ole Evinrude.

Tohsgib posted 11-08-2010 03:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Peter you can clearly see where I said 60-70hp, that means 60 to 70hp. Honda does make a 60hp, Suzuki makes a 60 and so does Yamaha. Suzuki & Yamaha also make a 70, the Yamaha is much lighter at 257lbs. Many people have replaced their 250+lb 50-70hp 2 strokes with these engines which depending on model and HP, is lighter than the engine it is replacing. Nowhere did I say that if you replaced your 70 Yamaha 2 stroke that you were installing a 70 4 stroke. The 60hp Yamaha is I believe 238 w/o the bigfoot gearcase which you do not need for a 15 or 16' Whaler. If you want to split hairs(which you love to do) how much does the oil weigh that is under the cowl of a 60-70 Yamaha 2 stroke?
GRAND NUSSIE posted 11-09-2010 10:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for GRAND NUSSIE  Send Email to GRAND NUSSIE     
After following this thread for several days, I finally feel compelled to throw in my 2 cents, even though I usually try to keep my mouth shut so that people will only SUSPECT that I'm dumb! I'm siding with the classic folks although the ETECH 90 looks pretty good. Jim asked for opinions and anecdotes so here we go.

Noisy- How about the guy with the gorgeous 27 plus center console with twin 4-strokes that anchored 100 ft. from me? I watched with interest as I knew he was in very shallow water. Finally, they got it anchored to their satisfaction-one slim gal doing the work and 4 others "supervisng"- and the skipper lifted the engines. And both props continued to turn! And nobody did anything about it. For at least a minute. Could they not hear the engines or were they total rookies? What say you, quiet engine owners?

Smoky- On cold starts, yes. Does that annoy the guy on the other side of the dock? Does his gofast open exhaust annoy me? When running-not noticeable. My daughter said yesterday as she passed by while I was winterizing the Whaler in the driveway, that the exhaust really smelled good. Imagine. A woman saying that! The smell of a classic is a beautiful thing-one of the pleasures of life. :-)

Hard starting- Come on you guys-get serious! You have to push the throttle forward. My gracious! How do you ever get your boat on plane? You have to push the choke. Heavens-how horrible! How do you manage to turn the key? You have to wait a minute for it to warm up. Omygosh! Have another gulp of Pepsi while you are waiting. Hard starting is pull starting your 1956 30 hp manual start Big Twin with your left foot braced on the top of the transom and your right knee being torn to ribbons from the bolt heads on the top of the seat that you used to replace the rivets that sheared off when you flew off the top of that 4 footer. Thank goodness, cold starts ALWAYS took 3 pulls and warm starts ALWAYS took 1 pull if you didn't flood it too badly when you shut it down. (You pulled the choke to shut off the engine as their was no stop button.)

Rough idle- The sound is great-like a Harley. The vibration has been OK on all my engines except my Yamaha 90. That engine on my 16, will cause double vision at certain slow no wake speeds unless I have others in the boat or sit on a cushion or stand. Quite annoying.

Electronics- I hate electronics! Ford 150. Blown engine at 62,000 miles, just out of warranty. Old Omni. Would quit whenever. Half dozen trips to the garage and nobody could fix it. So they started guessing. At my expense. Escort GT. Would quit whenever. Under warranty. Took a year to fix and and several HUNDRED calls to the regional service department-usually 3 or 4 per day- with all 4 daughters and friends calling. They all new each other on a first name basis. Merc 85 hp. Sometimes it wouldn't start. But it would always start the dozen or so times I took it to the repair shop. I could go on--------

Emissions- I hope some knowledgeable soul will either start a new thread on this topic or direct me to an old one. I read somewhere that cars driving over bridges cause more water pollution from oil drips than outboards. True or false? Anyway, I can't get too worried about our outboards polluting the water when Grand Rapids dumps millions of gallons of raw sewage into the Grand River every time it rains.

If you have made it this far through all this ranting, just keep in mind my next engine may very well be an ETECH 90. D#^* I just winterized my Whaler yesterday :-(

Dick


Russ 13 posted 11-09-2010 01:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Russ 13  Send Email to Russ 13     
Well it seems I have been schooled in the new lighter four stroke weight department...
It has been a few years since I have been shopping....
Thats GREAT as more weight on a small boat usually adversly affects the boats performance.
Hopefully the light weight ones are still as durable.
Tohsgib, where can you still purchase a new 90HP Yamaha oil injected 2 stroke outboard????
Peter posted 11-09-2010 02:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Russ -- Call around to Yamaha dealers in your area. I'm sure a few still have them, but they aren't giving them away. The local dealer here that has a few leftovers has raised the prices on his inventory because there are no more new ones in the pipeline.
Tohsgib posted 11-09-2010 02:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
As far as I know still around form threads I read here. Being it has no interest to me I would not know where to look except your local phone book, Craigslist, and E-Bay.

Grand...we understand that advancing the throttle, pushing in the choke like a cult religion and priming the bulb is not a task that requires Union labor laws. HOWEVER it is VERY nice to hit the key and start untieing your lines because she is running like a sewing machine and not sneezing and hacking, then over reving or about to stall, etc...she is just sitting quietly at 750rpms waiting for it's next signal from the Cappy.

Tohsgib posted 11-09-2010 02:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
PS...yes those people were idiots who tilted their engines while running. All of my 4 strokes are dead quiet in the water at idle but out of the water are about as loud as a lawn mower at idle but deeper toned like a small tractor. Louder than a car but quieter than a diesel while on the muffs.
Peter posted 11-09-2010 04:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I don't know what kind of 2-strokes you've owned over the years, but mine don't sneeze and hack whether they bear the Johnson or Yamaha brand on the cowl. Other than the first cold start where the throttle is advanced and the enrichment deployed for a second, starting is just the same, turn the key and go. Couldn't be simpler.

And when you have a transom bending Man's outboard, like the Johnson 150, you don't worry yourself about how quiet it is at idle, although the "pee" stream hitting the water is louder than the motor noise at idle. Oh and when it spools up, the motor noise is delightfully in perfect sync, all the time. There ain't no 4-stroke lady like sewing machine white noise at 4500 RPM with 16 valves flapping around competing with 4 reciprocating pistons for attention. No problems here. ;)

Russ 13 posted 11-09-2010 04:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Russ 13  Send Email to Russ 13     
My "local" Yamaha dealers only have de 4 stroke 90's....
I will expand my search area, for a good one.
To the previously posted authors with the rough running Yamaha 90...I would suggest a tune up.
The one I own idles & runs VERY smoothly, I am so pleased with it, I am looking for another one (different boat).
I have not found any other 90HP engines available as light as the 2 stroke Yamaha.
L H G posted 11-11-2010 09:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Jim said:

"If classic two-cycle motors were really as durable, as easy to repair, as smooth-running, as fast-starting, and as easy-running as claimed, we would see almost all boats being powered by them."

We would, except Jim missed the major problem: GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Without it, the classics would still be in demand and competing very well with the 3 star engines, especially in this tough boating economy. And they would probably be be even better engines. As some say with Whaler engines, more choice would be better.

Even then, as Peter indicates, Mercury and Yamaha have manufactured and sold THOUSANDS of their best classic 2-strokes 50-150HP, between the 5 years of Jan 1 2006- Dec 31 2010. They both probably used up every credit they had. The few that are still laying around are getting increasingly expensive. MY delaer has a Merc 90 2-stroke for $6500. It's really too bad that BRP/Johnson missed out on this sales opportunity. There is probably a good chance that Mercury and Yamaha sold more classic 2-strokes during this period than Evinrude's entire E-tec production.

Yesterday, I had the misfortune of being docked for lunch next to a 40-something foot diesel Hatteras Sport Fisherman. The guy start up both engines and completely smoked and gassed us out. We had to move it was so bad, barely being able to breathe. Those beasts put out about 100 times the air pollution of my puny little 200 EFI's on start-up. How does he get away with it, but not OMC, Yamaha or Mercury? And as we know, OMC paid the ultimate price. The GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION really should have been applied to Marine Diesels, not outboards.

jimh posted 11-11-2010 10:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Modern diesel engines have come along wonderfully. I remember a few years ago being at a dock on a Sunday morning. In the adjacent slip there was a huge Sportfisherman 65-footer with diesel engines. We were enjoying a late morning at the dock. About 11 o'clock the captain of the big Sportfisherman fired up his engines. I thought, "Oh, no, we are going to get blasted with diesel exhaust and black smoke." But as it turned out this boat had modern diesel engines, and they started up easily. There was no smoke in their exhaust, and we were not drenched in smelly diesel fumes.

This is another example of modern engines versus old-style engines. Diesel engines are just like two-cycle outboard engines. There are old fashioned diesel engines--lots of black smoke and fumes--and there are modern diesel engines.

Tohsgib posted 11-11-2010 10:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
My Diesel is direct injected and has very little to no smoke. A 2 stroke diesel is what will paint the transom black...oh but they weigh less and are easier to maintain and fix. Where have I heard that before?
jimh posted 11-12-2010 04:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The EPA has not exempted or ignored too many engines. Even large railroad locomotive diesel engines are regulated, and there are new emission limits imposed on new diesel locomotive engines. If a 4,000-HP diesel locomotive has to meet emission limits, it cannot be too much to ask a 90-HP outboard to comply, too.
contender posted 11-12-2010 05:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for contender  Send Email to contender     
Jim: the problem is engines are only regulated in this country
runpasthefence posted 11-13-2010 10:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for runpasthefence  Send Email to runpasthefence     
I prefer "classic" carbureted 2-stroke engines for the following reasons:

- Power to weight ratio
- Durability
- Simplicity
- (Used) Parts availability

For instance, I recently re-powered my Whaler with a 2.6 liter V6 Yamaha of the 1989 vintage. In truth, I already had the midsection, lower unit, lower cowl, and controls from my V4 130hp model. I was lucky enough to come across this powerhead for free.

After doing some minor repairs I now have an engine that puts out approximately 220 horsepower and weighs under 400 pounds.

The E-Tec 200HO weighs 508lbs (likely a dry weight).

That is an approximately 120lb difference.


However, the biggest factor in this decision was, by far, price. I understand the comparison you intend to draw by eliminating this as a factor, but the difference can be enormous.

Total cost for my 220 horsepower / 390ish pound Yamaha - $300ish in parts.

Cost of E-Tec 200HO (per edsmarinesuperstore) - $14950

That's $14,700 that would pay for 8+ years of gas and oil.

Keep in mind my mechanical skills are better than most which also contributes to why I like older carbureted motors. I am very comfortable repairing them even under disastrous conditions.

This philosophy of mine translates to all of my vehicles. I own a 1969 Chevrolet truck and a Triumph Bonneville.
I don't doubt modern technology is more efficient, comfortable, unobtrusive, and perhaps reliable.

Simplicity = easily repaired = often light in weight = cheap

pcrussell50 posted 11-13-2010 11:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Runspast,

While I agree with your philosophy, 100% and love my smoky old carbureted 2-strokes, I have to clarify something you said about ETECs and weight

You used the ETEC 200HO as an example and it may well be a 500+ pounder, just like you said, if memory serves. BUT there is a non-HO ETEC 200 that weighs 418. It is a smaller displacement, and is run off a smaller "frame". Obviously, since the HO has more displacement, it's probably torqier. Outboards, because of what manufacturers do in the name of expediency, can vary like crazy in weight-for-power. Because of this, some motors will be in the "sweet" spot for power-to-weight ratio. The non-HO ETEC 200 is one of those.

-Peter

jimh posted 11-13-2010 11:22 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
L H G asserts that government regulation has killed sales of classic two-cycle motors, but I disagree. Like most of L H G's argument, my basis is completely speculative and has little supporting evidence. However, this never seems to hinder anyone from making or supporting claims, so I will continue, as follows:

Imagine you are about to purchase a new 90-HP outboard motor. Your choice is between a classic two-cycle motor or a modern two-cycle motor. L H G says that the Mercury 90-HP classic two-cycle carburetor motor is now selling for around $6,500. For an alternative choice as a modern 90-HP two-cycle motor, I will use the E-TEC 90-HP motor. The selling price of an E-TEC 90-HP is around $8,500, or perhaps less.

My speculation is that for many purchasers of a new 90-HP outboard motor, the price difference of $2,000 will not be a compelling factor, and most buyers will prefer the modern two-cycle outboard motor over the classic, 1970-technology, two-cycle motor.

I believe that my opinion is also supported by the actual buying history of a large number of participants in these discussions. To the best of my recollection, I cannot recall anyone who has purchased a new 90-HP Mercury classic two-cycle motor from a dealer at retail. Even L H G himself recently bought his own 90-HP Mercury motors second-hand. In contrast, there are dozens of reports of owners of classic Boston Whaler boats buying new 90-HP modern two-cycle motors such as the E-TEC 90--so many, that I cannot even begin to recall all of them.

The only reasonable conclusion I can make is that when given a choice, most buyers of new outboard motors have chosen to buy a modern two-cycle outboard motor in preference to a new but old-fashioned classic two-cycle outboard motor, and that these buying decisions were made in spite of a cost disadvantage for the modern two-cycle motor. I cannot see how government regulation has produced this outcome. Buyers are still free to buy certain classic two-cycle outboard motors, but in most cases they appear to not be interested in them.

As for L H G's speculation that sales of classic two-cycle outboard motors in the 90-HP category have exceeded sales of modern two-cycle outboard motors in that category, I can only offer the completely opposite speculation, which, as I mention above, is based on the many reports of new motors being purchased which are modern, low-emission motors. Reports of new purchases of classic two-cycle high-emission motors are relatively scarce, perhaps even rare, in the narratives of participants here.

Tohsgib posted 11-13-2010 11:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Ed's Marine superstore offers these prices which I would not find hard to match in your area of the country:

90hp Optimax-$6600
90hp Verdito-$6800
90hp E-Tec-$7350
90hp Honda-$7225
90hp Yamaha-$7400
90hp Suzuki-$6725

I think this makes it even more compelling over Larry's $6500 2 smoke. By the way, who is undercutting prices against the competition now?

L H G posted 11-13-2010 02:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Just found left-over Mecury 90 2-strokes selling for $5710., and no hidden $500 shipping fee like Ed's does. They will ship you one for $120. http://jacosmarine.com/ .

As Peter indicated, this is more than I paid for my 90 twins a couple of years ago, for my 18 Outrage, since these 2-strokes are getting hard to obtain and therefore, more expensive. Soon they'll all be gone thanks to Government Intervention in the marketplace. Many here will be happy about that, and many will not.

Correcting Jim's inaccurate remarks: I bought mine new in the box. For twin power on an 18 Outrage, tell me a lighter weight, more powerful set of twin 3-star engines that is available, for less than 10K combined. As mentioned by many others here, this is why they were the engine of choice for me. Yamaha 2-stroke 90's would work also, but noiser running and not as strong. And I was pre-rigged for Mercs.
I don't think I deserve being publically crapped on for this choice. If one looks at the photos in my Son's photobucket page, you can see this rig. It's a nice boat, and whether it has late model 2-strokes or 3-star engines makes absolutely no difference in the years of enjoyment I will have on the water with this boat in the future. 3-star's high prices and rigging costs could never justify the fuel savings. Cruising mileage appears to be over 3MPG, something I can live with. With an 18 Outrage there are not many choices for twin engines until you go down to 60HP.

The last paragraph of Jim's post accuses me of saying something I did not. Suffice it to say go back up and read what I said about Yamaha and Merc 2-stroke sales combined, 50-150HP, then you decide.
Both of these companies selected their best 2-stroke designs, and kept selling those models as long as they could. The marketplace determinded that decision to keep on manufacturing as many as the Government credits allowed. Also don't forget Bass and Walleye/Trailer boats did a report on all 50 HP engines 2 years ago, including the 3-stars. The Classic Merc 2-stroke 50 turned out to be the all around best performing engine, in spite of lower fuel economy. I had nothing to do with that magazine report or their methodolgy and decision making.

Peter posted 11-13-2010 04:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
The bottom line is that but for the EPA regulations tilting the balance against classic 2-strokes, the modern motors offered today would have never seen the light of day. And if the virtues of the modern motors are so good, then there would be no need to ban classic 2-strokes as the EPA has done because no one would buy enough of them to make it profitable for the manufacturer to continue making them. The real problem with classic 2-stroke motors is they offer a very, very good value proposition, so good in fact that the EPA had to further revise its regulations to make sure that its ban of them was full and complete.
jimh posted 11-14-2010 12:09 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
ASIDE TO Larry--I never said your motors were not in a box and unused. I said you did not buy them at retail from a dealer.

As for speculation about sales, I am entitled to my own speculation, even if I speculate on a slightly different segment of sales than L H G chooses to speculate. As far as I know, neither of us has any information whatsoever to back up our speculation. I base my on observation of accounts made here.

I don't know what basis L H G is using to make his speculations, but it hardly matters. He is just speculating about outboard sales volume, and it makes not the slightest difference if his speculation is based on nothing more than his opinion or preference. That is the definition of speculating.

I am doing the precisely same thing. I offer my speculation that is completely opposite of Larry's. Why on earth shouldn't I? We are just speculating. We are pulling numbers out of thin air. There is no basis to believe either of us, as neither of us has anything resembling facts, hard data, actual information, sales reports, and so on. The manufacturers keep all that data a big secret.


jimh posted 11-14-2010 12:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Regarding the EPA and its influence on buying habits, I will agree they certainly tilted the playing field. However I also believe that we are in the midst of a sea change with regard to high-emission motors. Let me explain:

Among responsible recreational boaters there is a growing movement toward environmental stewardship of our boating habitat. The typical boater now more than ever wants to have minimal impact on the water environment as a result of his boat use. People like the idea of low-emission motors. They feel good about low emission motors. People think low-emission motors make sense.

I think there is plenty of tolerance for older motors that are still operating. I don't think there is much support for a total ban on use of older, high-emission motors. But I do sense that there is much less enthusiasm about them than there used to be. These days the smoke-belching two-cycle outboard motor is something of an aberration from the new norm. You see them around, here and there. But you are not enamored with them.

I think it is fine to keep old motors running. Heck, I am a fan of nostalgia. I think it is interesting to see old motors still operating. But I don't think there is a great deal of enthusiasm for buying new motors using 40-year-old technology, motors that produce a lot of exhaust gas pollution, or a lot of smoke. And I think that these motors will slowly disappear in the U.S.A.

The older technology motors may continue to be popular and in great use in other places, but not in the U.S.A.

runpasthefence posted 11-14-2010 03:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for runpasthefence  Send Email to runpasthefence     
Peter

Thanks for pointing that out. For some reason I was under the impression the H.O. model was built using the smaller block V6 and tuned to produce approximately 225 horsepower in a lighter package.
Instead, it appears to be a larger block V6 that likely puts out more horsepower than it is labeled. I knew this once, slipped my mind.

My engine's output is likely near 225 horsepower. The E-Tec 225 horsepower model is 10lbs heavier than the H.O. model at 518lbs.

The "small block" 200 horsepower version at around 420lbs is very appealing.


I find myself in agreement with Jim's comments about the public's likely preference between modern vs. "classic" two strokes when purchased new.
Typically, I would agree that I would prefer a modern 2-stroke engine for $8500 to a "classic" 2-stroke engine for $6000.

However, I think my could vary depending on application. Especially if we're talking about Evinrude's 90 horsepower E-Tec. In this scenario, weight once again becomes a concern at 320lbs. I would expect this model to be revised soon in response to recent model releases in the four stroke world.

Tom W Clark posted 11-14-2010 11:39 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Oh brother. The EPA has no jihad against classic two stoke outboard motors, they are merely charged with reducing emissions, that is all, and thank God for that.

Nobody at the EPA has any animosity towards classic two strokes. Any outboard motor manufacturer is free to offer a classic two stoke...if it meets the emission requirements of EPA.

The argument against federal regulation of emissions seems rather absurd from the perspective of 2010. The american automobile was forced to have reduced emissions decades ago and all these same arguments were trotted out back then, yet today we all reap the benefits of modern technology in our personal cars and trucks.

Oh how consumers belly-ached about catalytic converters! Oh, how those new-fangled electronics in cars made it so hard to work on them! Oh, how much more money will new cars costs because of all this government meddling!

You guys need to wake up and smell the coffee. Would you rather still be driving a Ford Pinto?

pcrussell50 posted 11-14-2010 04:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Tom,

You forgot one more commone whine, "oh, how heavy those 4-strokes we will eventually have to use are!"

Oh, wait... that one is legitimate. Ooops.

-Peter

pcrussell50 posted 11-14-2010 06:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
quote:
Oh, how those new-fangled electronics in cars made it so hard to work on them!

They do. Hugely so. Not so much the engine management controls though. Those are pretty straightforward for those of us who have some schooling in how they work. I'm referring to the HUGELY unneccessary, EPA-mandated, integration of non-engine-related systems into the engine control computer. A fortune is waiting for you, if for example, you can decouple a 2003'ish and up BMW DME from the non-engine-related systems. BMW has taken to encrypting that data that runs withing the in-vehicle network, from module to module. I think it's 128-bit encryption, too. And I bet they are not the only ones who do this by now. This is making it MURDER on those of us who want to race-prep a modern BMW for offroad use only. For now, we have to remove the BMW DME (PCM), and run standalone PCM's. It SUCKS. And I guarantee you it's there by government mandate. The EPA does not like people to be able to "tune" modern engines, and to hell with you if you will be using it strictly off of public roads.

quote:
Oh, how much more money will new cars costs because of all this government meddling!

HUGE amounts of extra money. Ever priced out replacement catalytic converters on a BMW S62, 5.0 liter v8 engine? Have you ever looked into how much it costs to unclog the tiny SAI, (secondary air-injection) ports on the same motor? SAI is an EPA mandated sytem that only works for the first 30-120 seconds of a dead-cold startup. That means it can only work, AT MOST for 30-120seconds/day. It does not ever work any other time, and serves no other purpse. If you are lucky, you can get someone to do for $8000. If you are that lucky, get it in writing... because it can cost $15,000. I could go on and on.

There's nothing wrong with electronic engine control, as long as that's are far as it goes. The trouble is, the EPA mandates all kinds of HUGELY expensive, interrelated computing capability that has nothing at all to do with whatever it takes to run the motor.

Ok, one last example... did you know that if your car has PATS or some other kind of vehicle anti-theft system that ties to the PCM, and you disable it, you are in viloation of EPA regulations?

I promise you, there is ALL kinds of extra money we are on the hook for that has been mandated by the EPA and other regualtors.

-Peter

Tohsgib posted 11-14-2010 09:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
"This is making it MURDER on those of us who want to race-prep a modern BMW for offroad use only."

Exactly how many of our fellow Americans are wishing to do so? I personally do not know anyone with a BMW that uses it offraod only. Don't you think that maybe the EPA makes it that difficult so not every schmo can bypass their rules? If I could disconnect a wire and make my modern car bypass all the EPA stuff for better performance and worse emmissions, don't ya think we all would do so?

pcrussell50 posted 11-14-2010 10:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
I mentioned BMW because I know BMWs. Forget about racing then. Doesnt matter, all makes are headed that way too. If your hood latch sensor goes bad, your car goes into "limp mode" until you fix it. You will automatically fail your emissions test until you fix it. The part is $200 and some smackers, plus some not insignificant disassembly of the front fascia, so add in at least another $200 for labor. Why should you or I fail emissions testing due to a faulty hood latch sensor?

Someone was presenting new stuff and the EPA in an overly benevolent light. I am merely shedding some real light into some dark corners that eventually we will all have to look at.

-Peter

jimh posted 11-15-2010 12:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Tom's mention of the FORD PINTO brings to mind my old 1973 model. I bought the car new for about $2,000. It was the first new car I ever purchased. As it happens I recently bought another new FORD vehicle, a 2011 FUSION. They both have four-cylinder gasoline engines, but that is the end of the similarity.

It would be impossible for anyone to convince me that I would be better off driving a new-in-the-box 1973 PINTO instead of a 2011 FUSION. The engineering progress in the mechanical elements of the car are so great that they border on the fantastic. Throw in the electronics and computers, and the gap widens even more. It is not the existence of the EPA that stops manufacturers from offering cars like the 1973 FORD PINTO--it's the fact that no one would buy one these days.

pcrussell50 posted 11-15-2010 12:23 AM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
For the record, I'm not against technology at all. It's not technology in and of itself that's the problem, its technology pressed into doing the bidding of the crushing bludgeon of an unaccountable bureaucracy that is what costs us money and convenience.

And its not that individuals in the unaccountable bureaucracy are evil, its that once assembled into "the hive", it becomes the crushing bludgeon whose prime directive is it's own growth and perpetuation. No individual member of "the hive" can stop it.

That outboards have even been given the leeway they have today is probably due to the fact that about half as many outboards are sold these days than were sold I the late 50's. We are small fry. The number of $180,000+/year EPA jobs that can be supported by strangling us "outboardies", is probably not yet worth the trouble. In fact, I think that we are in the sweet spot of technology implementation in outboards, right now, today. Most of the tech'y systems on todays outboards are dedicated solely to making a better outboard. Cars have long since passed that evolutionary stage and now that technology is implemented _specifically_ to tattle on it's owner, with all manner of capabilities that are not required to make the engine run better. In my opinion, cars were in their "sweet spot" in the early-mid 90's when sequential multipoint fuel injection systems became perfected to the point where they ran engines flawlessly. That's not saying that cars aren't better now. The best handling car BMW EVER made came out in 2006 and ran through 2009... yet it will go into "limp mode" if the hood latch sensor fails.

-Peter

Fishmore posted 11-15-2010 01:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for Fishmore  Send Email to Fishmore     
I have to disagree about why people buy the newer technology motor over the older technology motor. In many cases I hear from people who are considering the purchase of a used boat or a used or new outboard motor and their question is always straight from the disinformation machine that has been running rampant since around the year 2000.

The disinformation being that if you buy a classic 2-stroke you will be stuck with it and not be able to use it because the USA is going to ban all classic two-stroke motors from all lakes and waterways. Maybe this old-wives tale is more prevelant in California where I live then anywhere else but, I have seen it repeated many times on many different Internet forums. I have even heard that falsehood spread by salesmen at the boating shows I attend.

Personally, I believe that most people buy new technology motors because they fear wasting their money if they do not purchase the newer technology motor. If they go ahead and buy the older technology motor they fear that they will be left with a motor that they can not use and while that may not be true the cat is out of the bag so to speak and there is no changing it. I also believe that there are some people who do their homework and want better fuel economy and a cleaner running motor so they are willing to drop the extra cash to get what they want. Finally, I believe that truly informed consumers are in the minority.

runpasthefence posted 11-15-2010 06:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for runpasthefence  Send Email to runpasthefence     
What is the difference in environmental impact between:

- buying and using a 15 year old, already produced, and significantly less emission friendly outboard

-the impact of the R&D, tooling, testing, marketing, production, replacement parts production, dealer setup, transportation, etc of buying and using a new modern 2-stroke outboard engine?

jimh posted 11-15-2010 08:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I am afraid we are getting off-topic. This discussion is not a referendum on the actions of the EPA regarding automobiles made after model year 2005, nor is it a referendum on misinformation contained on other websites.

The initial inquiry was framed simply: ignoring cost, would you prefer to own and operate a two-cycle outboard using classic c.1970 technology in place of a modern low-emission two-cycle outboard.

In review, respondents so far have endorsed the classic two-cycle motor for its reliability, ease of repair, and longevity, and even its appearance. Those in favor of the modern motors cite the many improvements in operation, reduction of maintenance, and enhancements in noise, vibration, and harshness.

jimh posted 11-15-2010 08:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The topic of the cost to the environment is being discussed in a concurrent discussion. If readers wish to make comments on the cost to the environment of operating an outboard motor, please use the discussion at

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007370.html

pcrussell50 posted 11-15-2010 12:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Since we have new players in this enduring thread, I'll play... again.

quote:
The initial inquiry was framed simply: ignoring cost, would you prefer to own and operate a two-cycle outboard using classic c.1970 technology in place of a modern low-emission two-cycle outboard.

Ignoring cost? Of course I would prefer a nice, new ETEC. Who wouldn't? Of course, the minute the warranty expired on the ETEC, my preference would undergo a 180 degree reversal.

And there is one other consideration:
As long as the power I wanted did not fall at the bottom of the range of powers for a particular block size, which would almost guarantee that the motor would be heavier than you would like it to be. Of course, this applies equally to carbureted motors. The non-HO ETEC 200 is a 2.5 liter block. AFAICT, the most powerful carbureted 2.5 liter OMC was 150hp or 175... I forget which. So if you are looking for a 2.5L, (400lb'ish), 200hp OMC, you MUST choose the non-HO 200 ETEC.


-Peter

dgoodhue posted 11-16-2010 09:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for dgoodhue  Send Email to dgoodhue     
quote:
Of course, the minute the warranty expired on the ETEC, my preference would undergo a 180 degree reversal.

That is what everyone use to say about the computer controlled Auto's. Lots of new cars run 100-200k miles with little electrical maintenance.

I realize that a salt water environment is tougher on electronics, but it's not like their haven't been any electronics on Outboards prior to 2000's either.

pcrussell50 posted 11-16-2010 04:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
dgoodhue,

The normally very effective, "but cars have used fuel injection for years", argument falls apart when you are referring to HPDI, (high pressure direct injection).

Unless I have my facts wrong, ETECs are HPDI.

HPDI is so new in cars, that most of them are still under warranty... and the warranty record has been dismal indeed. You have not heard the hue and cry too much yet, because the $3000 high pressure pump replacements (in the case of BMW), have been covered under warranty.

Don't forget... I'm a big fan of fuel injection. I build my own auto race motors and they are fuel injected, and I tune that fuel injection with my laptop.

HPDI may be one of those areas where OMC/BRP has actually LED the automotive industry in "the latest thing". I also have no idea what the reliability record of their high pressure pumps is, but until I start reading about how reliable and cheap to operate they are, ONCE OFF WARRANTY, I'm sticking with my position. Further, I've said before, I only take this position because I am comfortable rebuilding carbs. If I were not, then I would probably favor ETECs, even if off warranty. So that may make me a minority. That's fine.

-Peter

jharrell posted 11-16-2010 07:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
From my understanding the E-tec fuel rail only operates at 30psi, the voice coil injectors bring it up to 600psi. The injectors seem pretty reliable being mechanically simple.

So the expensive high pressure pump replacement should not be an issue, unlike a Yamaha HPDI.

4-strokes have less pronounced benefits from DI vs a 2-stroke because the valves prevent unburned fuel from escaping out the exhaust.

Nissan seems to be moving toward DI in their 4-stroke gasoline engines for automobiles. The new Nissan Patrol/Infiniti QX56 has an impressive DI version of the 5.7 liter V8 used in the Titan that has more horsepower and mileage than the standard injection version.

pcrussell50 posted 11-16-2010 08:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Yep HPDI is some awesome juju, from a combustion control standpoint. When a technology is THAT good, reliability issues WILL be worked out. I just don't want to be the early adopter at the point of such an expensive spear.

-Peter

Peter posted 11-16-2010 08:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
The E-TEC injector has been around commercially since 2003 or 2004. The predecessor FICHT injector was in the marketplace from late 1997 to about 2005 or 2006. At a high level, the Ficht and E-TEC fuel injection systems are conceptually similar. If you bought an E-TEC today, you would not be considered an early adopter.

Tohsgib posted 11-17-2010 11:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Direct injection has been around for decades on diesels, not new at all.
L H G posted 11-17-2010 06:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
In conclusion, I don't think there really is any problem with most of the really good 2-stroke outboards. I completely disagree with Jim's "problem" statements listed in the opening post, and think some of the "good" characteristics were omitted, like cost, weight, ease of rigging, and fast acceleration.

Yes, they make a little smoke on start up, but it's never been a problem for me over the last 40 years.

Yes, they have higher emissions than the 4-strokes, and the only thing I really don't like is some oil that gets in the water on idle, but other than that, higher exhaust emissions never been a problem for me either oveer the last 40 years. Compared to all the other ships, planes, trains, and trucks polluting our atmosphere, I don't get too guilt ridden that I am some kind of reckless polluter. Since I am not.

All of the other supposedly bad things listed don't apply to good, well kept 2-stroke engines, and have not given me any problem or taken away from my boating pleasure. So why spend a fortune, until you have to, for some additional fuel economy at idle speeds, and maybe 10% at best, at cruise.

jharrell posted 11-17-2010 09:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
The fuel economy on my 86 tower of power 90 is at best 3.5mpg at cruise.

Based on all reports an Etec 90 will get at least 6mpg, and a Suzuki 90 over 8mpg at cruise.

I would say it's a little more than 10% difference, unless something is wrong with my 90, but it seems to be running fine and in good working order.

This is not just an environmental issue, I only have about a 80 mile range with 2, 12 gallon tanks, this easily becomes an issue motoring around Tampa Bay.

The prospect of almost 200 miles range would increase my boating enjoyment considerably, not to mention paying for less gas.

Peter posted 11-18-2010 07:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I doubt that a Montauk only gets 3.5 MPG at cruise with a 90 HP 2-stroke, at least not with a 3 cylinder loop charged one. Here is a link to a performance report from Yamaha for their 90 2-stroke on 17 foot aluminum boat ==> www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_2stroke_hpmidport_bss_xpr-dvx165-90tlr.pdf9 . The numbers in this report are almost identical to what is seen with the Yamaha 90 on a Montauk. The report shows 5.23 MPG at 24.9 MPH with the Yamaha running at 3500 RPM.

Extended range is one of the benefits of the modern motor. However, a 50 dollar 6 gallon plastic gas can on a Montauk can fix that for the days when extended range is needed. Having said that, I'm not sure I would want to run 200 miles in a Montauk in one day so I don't think there is significant need to carry that much gas.


Tohsgib posted 11-18-2010 11:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Tower of Powers are 6cyl and they can suck down some fuel....I owned one. My 70hp Suzuki on my montauk got over 10mpg at cruise, my 88spl got about 4, and my 90 Yamaha got about 5+. I would not doubt an inline getting 3.5.
L H G posted 11-18-2010 02:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
I ran a 1973 Merc ported piston 150HP "Tower" on my 16 Nauset for 13 years. It consistently gave me 5 MPG at cruise. Something is wrong with that 90 only giving 3.5 MPG.
Tohsgib posted 11-18-2010 02:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Larry you were overpowered by 50%, I imagine at 2500rpms doing 25mph it would give you 5mpg, a 90 however would be more like 3500+ and sucking down about 6gph.
dg22 posted 11-18-2010 04:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for dg22  Send Email to dg22     
I think the sweet sound of that motor makes up for the fuel economy. Boy I miss our 1972 115hp Tower of Power. Getting back on topic, all you need to do is start up an older 2-stroke in a barrel of water and you'll want to join green peace LOL.
jharrell posted 11-18-2010 09:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for jharrell    
Definetley 3.5 mpg for my 90 tower. Runs great does about 39mph, new switch boxes, all cylinders firing good, love the way the motor sounds.

Just cruising from Safety Harbor to Ft. Desoto in Tampa Bay is 30 miles one way. So 60 miles round trip for that nice cruise and I'm worried about reserve fuel. Motor around a little down there and I'm running on fumes coming back to the ramp.

I would like to run up to Chassahowitzka River from where I am which is 40-50 miles. Having a 200 miles range is very useful on a Montauk even with out heading into deep water.

No surprise a newer Yamaha 2-stroke with much less displacement(1100cc vs 1600cc on the Tower) is getting better mileage, but I would think on a Montauk it would be somewhat less than those aluminum boats with flatter bottoms. Even so a Yamaha at 5mpg to a an Etec with over 6mpg is a %20 jump in mileage, double the suggested %10. 5mpg to 8mpg for a Suzuki is a %60 improvement, while beign over %100 improvement compared to my motor.

Perhaps the tower 90 is the worst 2-stroke to compare because of it large displacement, but it is what I have, and when considering a new motor, the fuel savings and extended range would be significant for my boat.

Yes I can carry more gas and take up space on the boat, but it still a big advantage to have the extra range without extra gas tanks and not paying for the gas, along with all the other nice things that come with a modern motor.

No a new motor will not pay for itself in gasoline savings, but being a recreational boat, it is a monetary loss overall anyway. I am spending my money for enjoyment, the motor is part of that enjoyment expense, it is not an profit making investment.

jimh posted 11-18-2010 10:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I get a laugh out of 30-year-old reports of 5-MPG from classic carburetor two-cycle motors with 150-HP. That is stuff from people's dreams.

Classic two-cycle motors have a BSFC of about 0.65-lbs/HP-Hour. If you have a 150-HP motor, that means you are burning about

150-HP x 0.65-lbs/HP-Hour x 1-gallon/6.25-lbs = 15.6-gallons/hour

In order to get 5-MPG, the boat speed would have to be 78-MPH. What kind of Boston Whaler can go 78-MPH with a 150-HP engine? Not any that I know of.

You can throw out some crazy numbers, but when you took at them with a bit of logic you can see they make absolutely no sense at all. These old two-cycle motors tend to get their best fuel economy at nearly maximum throttle. So any less than wide open and the MPG would probably be worse.

A classic two-cycle carburetor motor with 150-HP would be damn lucky to get 3-MPG at optimum cruise, and probably actually gets less.

Lets look at that proposition. At optimum cruise we can figure the motor is using about 0.66 of maximum horsepower--100-HP. We can figure the BSFC might optimize around 0.6. Now we are burning

100-HP x 0.6-lbs/HP-hour x 1-gallong/6.25-lbs = 9.6-gallons/Hour

So to get 5-MPG we need the boat to run 48-MPH. Again, what Boston Whaler runs 48-MPH at cruise with only 150-HP on the transom?

In the real world, a Boston Whaler with 150-HP can probably run at optimum throttle at about 27-MPH. This means it will be burning 9.6-galons per hour and getting about 2.8-MPG.

These old motors really drink fuel at idle or slow speeds. When you apply the typical boat operating speeds and time--the ICOMIA duty cycle--the fuel economy will be well below the 2.8-MPG optimum cruise range.

In the real world--not the dream world of 30-year-old memories--there is no two-cycle motor that ever got 5-MPG. That is just simple laws of Physics.

jimh posted 11-18-2010 10:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
We can look at this another way. Let us assume that a boat with a 150-HP motor can get 5-MPG at cruise, and the cruising speed occurs at about 0.66 of maximum horsepower output--which is quite typical. Accepting these parameters means we are going to get our cruise with 100-HP. Cruise speed for most Boston Whale hulls is under 30-MPH. But let's give this the best possible situation and assume 30-MPH. We can now work backwards and find what the engine BSFC must be.

If we go 30-MPH and get 5-MPG it means we are burning only 6-GPH. This means we get 100-HP at only 6-GPH. What would be the BSFC of such an engine?

BSFC = 6-gallon/1-hour x 6.25-lbs/gallon x 1/100-HP = 0.375-lbs/HP-hour

There is no gasoline engine in the world that has a BSFC of 0.375-lbs/HP-hour, and certainly not a classic carburetor two-cycle engine.

Tohsgib posted 11-18-2010 10:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Ok...look at it this way...my 1994 40hp Evinrude in great shape I sold for $1300. My 2004 40hp Johnson/Suzuki 40hp I bought for $$1725....2 years ago(4 years old w/89 hours). It cost me literally $500 to upgrade from a 1994 to a 2004 4 stroke. If you would get off your ass and shop around, you could do the same... search the guy in CA that bought a boat with a newer 2005 F150 Yamaha 4S in FL(My post) that made out like a bandit and we are talking 3000 miles away. There are many ways to skin a cat! I have posted about newer engines on boats that if you actually had a good running 90hp, you could easliy repower for less than $3k, etc. Look around...have some balls and the know how to repower which a monkey could do. Heck I think Larry could actually swap an engine :0)
Tohsgib posted 11-18-2010 10:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Jim...I have NO idea what the heck you are talking about. 100hp would be like 44mph, not 25-28 cruise.
L H G posted 11-19-2010 01:05 AM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
I'm sticking with what I said, since I the one with 13 years experience with that rig. Now Jim needs to brush up on his knowledge of Boston Whalers, hull configuration and classic Mercury outboards in general. Maybe the old OMC V-4's of the 70's as well. No more clues.
pcrussell50 posted 11-19-2010 01:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
The one time I went more than a handful of miles in my '75 Evinrude 135, (cross flow with bubbleback), I estimated I got about 3.5mpg. That was with lots of 4000rpm cruising at 40mph, (very light, gutted, 16' v-hull, sport boat), 22 pitch OMC Raker, stainless bow-lifting prop, 3 adults board.

My typical outing is no more than a handful of miles, and I like padded v-hull fastboats, so I remain an ideal candidate for old, inefficient motors that are light and powerful.

-Peter

adlert posted 11-19-2010 11:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
These statements are incorrect Jim:

"These old two-cycle motors tend to get their best fuel economy at nearly maximum throttle. So any less than wide open and the MPG would probably be worse."

Check OMC owners manuals (at least from the '70's) and you'll be advised that slowing down from full throttle to ~ 2/3 or 3/4 throttle will generally increase fuel efficiency by a significant amount (20 -30 % ?). This was regularly discussed in my OMC training schools as well. It only makes sense given drag increases so much faster than speed.

At about 2/3 throttle (by the operator's throttle arm) an older engine typically has reached full spark advance and the throttle butterflies are open maybe 1/2 way. Sometimes less. That final 1/3 of throw really opens the butterflies up and pulls the fuel in.

I'm certainly not living in a dream world of 30 year old memories as I am still running 30+ year old engines. I average a little over 5 mpg from my cross flow 90 hp on a Montauk in all around use. I have carefully measured and gotten just OVER 8 mpg in a 16 MFG trihull (~ 950 lb hull) powered by a 3 cyliinder 1972 OMC 65 hp looper. We kept the boat just barely on plane. It was fully loaded with camping gear, food, 3 people. We traveled about 75 miles each way. Do whatever math you want to, my experiences are factual, not dreamed up.

Stay out of the throttle and the old engines can do reasonably well. Particularly the loop scavenged and Mercury's "power ported" designs. Mercury even employed some very clever carb designs specifically engineered to slightly lean out mixtures at cruise speeds in some of their 6 cylinder towers.


BQUICK posted 11-19-2010 11:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for BQUICK  Send Email to BQUICK     
Same with my 1974 50 Merc, when the throttle lever is horizontal the distributor is maxed out (advanced) after that it os all throttle and the mpg goes down.
adlert posted 11-19-2010 11:36 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
I'll add another comment in that I believe Larry when he says he could get 5 MPG out of his 150's on a 16. At a minimum your assumption that while "cruising" he would be utilizing 100 HP and going only 30 mph makes no sense in terms of required cruising HP or resultant speed. Cruising speeds for a 16 footer with a 150 tower of power on the transom would likely translate into the use of more like 50 - 60 hp, maybe less if Larry chose to use less given their relatively light weight. At these throttle settings the spark would still likely be fully or very nearly fully advanced, the carb butterflies would be just barely open, the carb "economizer" circuit would be functioning, and the engine would be singing a low, smooth, happy tune.
Tohsgib posted 11-19-2010 11:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
I agree a cruise speed is more like 30-40-50hp depending on conditions and loads. As noted above you stated 5mpg, what does all around use mean, per tank? I am going by cruise speed. I never calculated MPG by tank but I can do GPH per tank which is usually less than 1/2 of what I burn at cruise and most of my hours are at cruise. My 115 burns 4.5-5.5 at cruise, per tank I am about 2.5.
69boo307 posted 11-19-2010 01:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for 69boo307  Send Email to 69boo307     
My 15' has a 1990 Johnson 60 that runs just about as good as it could possibly run. The only thing it might have done better when it was new would be start up a little easier.

But if money was no object I would be replacing it with a new ETec 60 today!

jimh posted 11-19-2010 02:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I already mentioned that "cruising" is about 2/3 to 3/4-throttle. This is what is meant by "near full throttle." Full-throttle is FULL-Throttle. Near full throttle is 3/4-FULL throttle. Many engines operate at their peak of efficiency when they run at 2/3-FULL to 3/4-FULL throttle. I used 0.66-FULL as my point of optimum engine efficiency in my calculations.

The BSFC of most gasoline engines generally does not peak at low throttle settings. Cruising along at 1/3-FULL throttle is often not the peak of economy for the engine. In the case of classic two-cycle carburetor engines, low throttle settings are often the worst fuel efficiency. What most have found when running boats with older, classic, carburetor outboards is that peak fuel efficiency of the engine occurs between 2/3-FULL and 3/4-FULL throttle.

If you have a 16-foot boat with 150-HP you are grossly over the maximum rating. Any hope for fuel economy in such a rig would come from the use of very high propeller pitch. With about twice as much horsepower as necessary, the boat could be rigged with a very high pitch propeller. This would help improve the fuel economy. The engines could run at relatively low throttle setting. Even though the engines are not being run at peak efficiency, the big propeller pitch can help improve the MPG. You can only run such high propeller pitch if you have a very high power engine.

On any boat where 150-HP were a reasonable power level, there is no way on earth you could ever get 5-MPG fuel economy. I believe I clearly demonstrated that above.

The price of an engine is proportional to its horsepower. If you want to buy twice as much horsepower you are going to pay twice as much for the engine. You might obtain some marginal improvement in boat MPG, but your investment cost is very much higher.

In any case, I am not convinced by 30-year-old recollections. Hell, I can hardly remember what fuel economy my boat got last year, and I depend on my rather thorough notes and articles I published from those notes to jog my memory. When numbers get tossed out for fuel economy there is always the question of the measurement techniques. Now 30-years-ago there were no fuel flow meters, and deduction of boat speed from navigation electronics was in its infancy. Thirty years ago there was no GPS system, and a LORAN receiver was probably too large and used too much power for a 16-foot boat. So recording the distance traveled and the fuel used were often left to estimates rather than precise measurements.

However, if there is anyone who thinks that a 30-year-old 150-HP two-cycle motor can give them 5-MPG, then I think those people should run right out and buy a 30-year-old two-cycle motor from Mercury--they are still trying to sell them today. Get one of these marvels from 30-years ago, bolt it on your transom, and take some real measurements. Record you fuel usage with a modern fuel flow measurement system and your distance traveled with a modern GPS instrument system, and give us the wonderful news.

Tohsgib posted 11-19-2010 03:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Never thought about that Jim. We knew how many GPH we burned back then but nothing accurate for speed. If you knew someone with a speedo you ran next to him to see how fast you were going, nothing says his speedo was accurate and most as we know were not.
Peter posted 11-19-2010 03:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Classic 150 HP 2-stroke - 4.94 MPG at 25 MPH. www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_otb_2StrokePerf_OX666_150hp_00170-BWB-Z.pdf
jimh posted 11-19-2010 03:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Many thanks to adlert for bringing up the topic of ignition timing advance. In older two-cycle engines the ignition timing was often retarded as a means to slow down the engine speed from what it would otherwise be running for a given throttle setting. This seems like a wasteful method of controlling engine speed. I base this more on intuition than science, but, it seems to me, if an engine wants to run at, say, 2,000-RPM with a particular throttle setting and spark timing, you ought to find some way of slowing it down other than retarding the timing. In modern two-cycle engines the speed is controlled by how much fuel is injected. I suspect the ignition timing is not retarded in an attempt to spoil the power produced just to get slower engine speed.

I had a four-cylinder in-line Mercury 500 outboard, along with the factory service manual. When I followed the recommended ignition timing and throttle cam set up, I was very surprised that the lower range of engine speed was controlled mainly by ignition timing, not throttle opening. The throttle plates did not start to open until the engine speed had already been increased by restoring the proper spark timing. I suspect that this approach accounts for some of the poor fuel economy seen from classic two-cycle engines at idle and lower speeds.

pcrussell50 posted 11-19-2010 03:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Yes, the thing nobody is talking about is the pumping losses associated with "throttled" engines. At idle, when the throttle butterfly is closed or almost closed, the engine struggles mightily trying to draw air through a tiny crack of an opening. I believe the curve of pumping loss versus throttle opening is non-linear, with a butterfly that rotates on a shaft, like most carbureted OMC's I know of, such that as has already been agreed upon, when the throttle is more than 2/3 open, the pumping losses drop off dramatically.

On a completely related note, of the side benefits of an EGR system is that it actually increases fuel economy. See, the way it works is, it routes already burned, [essentially inert, from a combustion perspective], combustion gases back into the induction charge. This cools the combustion temperatures, and thus reduces the production of oxides of nitrogen, a controlled pollutant. So now the EPA is happy. BUT consider this: by diluting the combustion charge with inert gas, one must use a greater throttle opening for a given speed. Greater throttle opening results in lower pumping losses, and therefore, better fuel economy for a given speed. Now, the boater/driver is happy, too. I found the system so elegant, I even took measures to use it on my racing car, by porting the hell out of a set of street legal heads that had EGR provisions. I subsequently went to full race heads, but it was neato while it lasted.

By, the by, EGR cuts out at wide open throttle, so it does not dilute your intake charge when you want/need max power.

I have no idea if this system exists on any of the DFI 2-strokes or EFI 4-strokes.

-Peter

jimh posted 11-19-2010 03:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Peter--Thanks for the link to the Yamaha test data. I will review the data and infer the BSFC of the engine. My initial reaction is the boat is quite light--1,100-lbs--and the propeller pitch rather tall, 21-inches.
Tohsgib posted 11-19-2010 04:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
I have never heard of an EGR being used on 2 strokes, might have a different name for that as well.
pcrussell50 posted 11-19-2010 04:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Re the timing thing for economy, my "first love", my first ever outboard, which I bought barely two and a half years ago, when I first got into boating, was a 1959 Johnson Super Seahorse, 35hp.

I managed to track down an operator's manual for it, and it too, even back in 1959, nearly 52 years ago, had what they called at the time, "Economizer Technology", or something like it. And it was exactly like some of you said... it was some kind of tweak in the linkage, that allowed more timing advance, at commonly used continuous cruise, throttle openings.

That motor was one of the things that made me fall in love with "old tech". It was 49 years old when I bought it off of a 21 year old kid who gave it no quarter, with all day outings in the ocean, pulling his friends on surfboards, and diving the kelp paddies. Being a fuel injection-oriented type like I am, I was amazed at how robust and easy to work on that thing was. I had never really given much thought to the old euphemism, "they don't build 'em like they used to". Now, I do. Big time. With 125psi on both cylinders, as of 6 months ago, it could as well go another 50 years, with the right premix, impeller changes, and an owner inclined towards basic maintenance.

-Peter

pcrussell50 posted 11-19-2010 04:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Oh, and regarding BSFC, in the automotive community, when planning an engine buildup one of the steps is to decide which size of fuel injectors to use, based on volumetric flow rate. When you are at the stage of planning your own buildups, you probably already know what horsepower range your will achieve, and with that, you start with the BSFC assumption of 0.5lb/hr/hp, and then pick an injector with a flow rate about 20% higher, so that it is not "static", or 100% duty cycle, at full throttle. A BSFC of 0.5lb/hr/hp is pretty standard in high performance street and amateur racing circles. I still have a lot to learn about boats but 0.65, at first blush, seems kind of high to me. I have not read (the other) Peter's links yet.

-Peter

jimh posted 11-19-2010 11:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The BSFC of classic carburetor two-cycle engines is typically near 0.6-lbs/HP-hour. A four-cycle EFI engine which is really tweaked for fuel economy can delivery a BSFC of 0.42, otherwise probably a bit higher.

If we look at the difference between those two numbers, we see that the four-cycle BSFC is about 0.18 less than the two-cycle, or a reduction in fuel consumption of 30-percent. This is one advantage the four-cycle EFI engine will have over the classic carburetor two-cycle engine. However, when you include the very much better fuel economy at idle, where the two-cycle becomes much more inefficient, the result is the overall improvement seen in a four-cycle engine compared to a two-cycle engine is much greater than 30-percent. The improvement is more like 50-percent or higher.

jimh posted 11-19-2010 11:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
A few comments on the Yamaha 150-HP carburetor motor performance report showing almost 5-MPG at optimum cruise:

The boat weight as tested is 2,154-lbs and the top speed is 54.6-MPH. With 150-HP this means a hull constant of 207, which is generally higher than the usual 180 for a Boston Whaler.

At maximum throttle the fuel burn is 17.8-Gallon/1-Hour. If we assume 150-HP this implies the BSFC must be

6.25-lbs/1-Gallon x 17.8-gallon/150-HP-Hour = 0.74-lbs/HP-hour

This is even higher than my estimate of 0.66-lbs/HP-hour for classic two-cycle motors.

Maybe this "V-Max" model is one of those sleeper motors with extra horsepower beyond the cowling decal. If we recalculate based on 165-HP, we get new values of

Hull constant = 197
BSFC = 0.67

--Hey, I like that last result :-)

Now we turn to the best fuel economy. It occurs at 3,000-RPM. Full throttle was 5,975. Thus peak economy was at 50-percent [of peak RPM]. I am surprised this peak occurs so low. My experience in concert with many others has told me that best fuel economy usually comes in the 0.66 to 0.75 range of peak RPM. I think this anomaly is due to the high propeller pitch and high power-to-weight ratio.

L H G posted 11-20-2010 02:22 AM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
I'm still sticking with what I said. Now it's beginning to look a little more reasonable, less laughable, less of a dream, isn't it. Isn't a Yamaha 150 a monster 2.7 liter V-6 engine, prop rated?

Lets see. I had a 750# Nauset 16, running on a more efficient bottom than a heavier Montauk, with a 99.8 cube powerhead rated Merc 150 (probably about 125 prop HP) that weighed about 275#, running a 2 bladed Merc bronze 23" cupped prop (remember those?) through 2.0 gears. The boat would do 55MPH (which was radar clocked by a Lake George Park Commission ranger for me). If I remember correctly, it seemed the engine's back drag carbs got their best fuel economy around 3800RPM, with the boat loafing along at 38 MPH.

Peter posted 11-20-2010 07:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
We've had many reports of classic Montauks reaching 44 MPH with 100 HP on the transom. If those reports are accurate, then with 150 HP the classic Montauk should have little problem reaching 54 MPH ((150/100)^0.5 x 44). That's in the ball park of the top speed in the Yamaha performance report for the carbureted 150.

A 180 hull factor to characterize the classic Montauk hull form is too low. Unlike the Outrage hull form with a V at the stern where a hull factor of 180-185 seems to work well, the classic Montauk hull has a rounded bottom at the stern, not a V, and the use of 180 to 185 is too low. The Montauk is similar to a boat having a padded stern like the boat in the performance report.

The point with the performance report link is that it is possible to obtain 5 MPG with a carbureted 150 HP 2-stroke outboard. Of course it depends on the hull form and weight the motor is pushing. If that motor was mounted to a racing tunnel hull, it would do far better than 5 MPG at a similar 1/2 throttle setting.

While 5 MPG on a Montauk with a prop rated 150 HP carbureted 2-stroke is possible, I do have my doubts of 55 MPH on a Nauset with a 125 prop shaft HP motor. There must have been a very strong favorable current and wind that day.

jimh posted 11-20-2010 09:30 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I will concede that it might be possible to get 5-MPG from a 150-HP carburetor two-cycle engine at its optimal cruise, but the circumstances are very unusual. You need:

--rather light boat with a hull form that is easy to plane
--excessive engine power so you can loaf along at small throttle setting
--very tall propeller pitch

But if you maintained this unusual configuration and changed the motor to a modern two-cycle or a four-cycle, the fuel economy should improve further, another 20-percent perhaps, and then you'd be cruising along at 6-MPG.

If the optimal cruise speed was 38-MPH, that is far too fast to expect a 16-foot hull to run in most conditions except very small or calm seas.

My position on classic two-cycle motors is really rather clear in my opening article. I don't say that they never worked, never started, never ran. I just describe them as I know them. They have good characteristics and some bad characteristics. In terms of fuel economy, there was never a classic two-cycle carburetor motor that got better fuel economy than a modern two-cycle or four-cycle motor, and even at their best, classic two-cycle motors are not likely to even equal the least fuel efficient of modern motors.

Tom W Clark posted 11-20-2010 11:05 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
quote:
excessive engine power so you can loaf along at small throttle setting...

...is NOT how you achieve good fuel economy with a classic two stroke outboard. To achieve good fuel economy you typically must push the motor at about 3/4 throttle (engine speed at 3/4 of WOT RPM).

"Loafing along" can cause the fuel economy to drop by half.

jimh posted 11-20-2010 11:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Tom--Perhaps "loaf along" needs replacement with a better term. The term "throttle" or "throttle setting" is also troublesome. As already noted, it is possible that the actual position of the throttle plate bears little correlation to the engine speed in the lower speed ranges. The throttle plate often remains completely closed while the spark timing is advanced from its intentionally spoiled and retarded setting, and even at speeds of 1,500 to 2,000-RPM the throttle plate may still be closed on larger engines. The engine may be running at 50-percent of its maximum RPM with the throttle plate just beginning to open a small amount. Thus "loaf along at small throttle setting" is an imprecise term. Perhaps we should always refer to a percentage of maximum RPM as an alternative to "throttle." Thus I might have better said, "loaf along at a moderate percentage of maximum RPM."

I already have said and repeated several times that in my opinion the typical optimum engine speed for best fuel efficiency was in the range of 0.66 to 0.75 of maximum RPM. L H G also confirms this when he revealed his optimum economy came at 38-MPH, not exactly a comfortable cruising speed for a 16-foot boat, and probably running the engine at its peak of BSFC in its mid to mid-upper range of speed. But 30-years-ago there was no method for measuring fuel economy in real time, so his recollections of what speeds were best are based on intuition more than data. This is not really too farfetched, as often the sound of the motor running will convey to an experienced listener when the motor is most efficient. The exhaust note is often quite pleasant and the motor noise also joyful.

Today it is simple to install a flow sensor in the fuel line and get real-time data on fuel economy. However, we still get plenty of seat-of-the-pants reports on fuel economy based on little actual data of actual volume or distance. I note that we have some contradictory observations being submitted for review, and, as one might expect, if the data is not in agreement with the previously stated views of the reviewer, the data is criticized for its accuracy. The resolution of this is not trivial, as we would need to examine the methodology used to take the measurement. However, when the methodology is simple recollection of impression from decades ago, in which no means of real-time data collection was possible and MPG was often calculated based on best guesses at distance and volumes used to refill fuel tanks, I don't know that this can convert too many from the contrary opinion.

adlert posted 11-20-2010 12:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Gentlemen,

I stand by statements earlier. They are based on real-world results. I "loafed along" (barely on plane) in that that 16 ft MFG with my old 65 HP looper and got over 8 mpg. The mileage came from the channel mileage on the charts (Tennesse River). I followed the marked channel and measured the amount of fuel used. I could be off a tiny bit, but not very much given I was using see-through 6 gallon tanks and presumably accurate charts. I do tend to prop my engines a little on the high side.

There is no doubt that modern engines are generally more efficient.

Jim, I don't think you are viewing the spark advance/carb opening relationship properly. I don't know for sure, but I suspect if you were to shine a timing light on your ETec engine and record advance readings over varying engine rpms, you would see rather similar results to the old school engines.

adlert posted 11-20-2010 01:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Re-reading my last post I can see that not having engine rpm data compromises my argument. Alas, I don't have it. Maybe I was at 3/4 max rpm? 2/3 max? Who knows. I do know I seem to get my best fuel efficiency results in all my boats when just barely on a clean plane and nothing more. I shoot to have the spark at maximum advance and as little throttle beyond that as possible. Seems to work well for me.
Tom W Clark posted 11-20-2010 04:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
quote:
I do know I seem to get my best fuel efficiency results in all my boats when just barely on a clean plane and nothing more.

That is not true. It is also the point Jim seemed to making with his "loafing" comment. It is a commonly held belief I personally held for years and years. Outboard owners manuals used to say as much.

The trouble is the numbers provided by fuel flow meters and GPSs prove it is not true. A classic two stroke outboard will get it best fuel mileage around the 3/4 throttle range.

This is also why it is a bad idea to overpower a classic Whaler if fuel economy is of any concern, regardless of what speed you choose to use the boat at.

My own, classic-two-stroke-powered boat (which redlines at 5500 RPM) planes easily at 3200 RPM, just loafing along. Fuel economy at that engine speed is only 1.86 MPG, yet at 4150 RPM the the fuel economy increases to 2.32 MPG, a 25 percent improvement.

adlert posted 11-20-2010 05:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Tom I have heard repeatedly, and in general accept the premise that "classic" 2 strokes get their best efficiency at around 3/4 throttle. I am however hesitant to believe that that presumed axiom applies universally to ALL classic engine designs, displacements, and applications. Especially when I've personally gotten differing results at (presumably) lower throttle settings. I think it far fetched that I could best 8 mpg in this rig by going faster. Obviously even 8 mpg is hardly believable.

Maybe I managed to cut a shorter course down the river than the chart measurements indicated? I did not use a GPS. I guess I have always assumed the chart numbers represented the shortest route down the channel and if anything, I was adding distance via my casual piloting. Guess I need a fuel flow meter to really find the answer... I think I'm going to pass on that though; I'm a slave to too much already. I know exactly how that would negatively affect my boating enjoyment!

Tom W Clark posted 11-20-2010 06:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Next time, turn your motor off and float down the river. You'll get even better fuel mileage ;-)
Waterwonderland posted 11-20-2010 10:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Waterwonderland  Send Email to Waterwonderland     
Forgive me if I overlooked someone else mentioning (in the bazillion pages of this post) the classic two stroke advantage of matching boat and motor.

Since car analogies seem to come into play here let us try this one. Which would be of more value to a classic car collector, a clean circa 1967 car with a 2010 engine or the one that originally came installed? I am not saying that this applies to everyone but is of value to some. I saw a photo of an older but perfect classic BW Newport with an age appropriate Evinrude V4 and that tandem looked beautiful. Nostalgia has value as well.

For me, I'll take a new motor any day.

adlert posted 11-21-2010 08:39 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
So right you are Tom! It's amazing to me how much my boating activities have evolved over the years. I now spend much more time with the engines off than on on any given day out with the kids and/or dogs. And yet, everyone seems to be having as much fun or more fun than ever.
adlert posted 11-21-2010 08:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
As applied to the actual thread topic at hand, Tom makes me think. I propose that the performance of my old classic 2 stroke engines during periods of relaxing on an island, or floating down a river with friends and family are without question absolutely equal to any modern engine being sold today. You've got to give us stubborn cheap skates something to hang on to. :)
Peter posted 11-21-2010 08:59 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
There are approximately 8,760 hours in a year. The average boater uses his outboard motor less than 50 hours per year. So for 8,710 hours of the year, a classic 2-stroke motor is at least the equal of a modern motor if not superior to a modern motor during that time.
adlert posted 11-21-2010 10:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Thank you Peter. I apparently needed that.
jimh posted 11-21-2010 11:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I detect a new thrust of enthusiasm for the classic two-cycle outboard motor, which I will characterize as being based on support for re-cycling. Yes, I will agree, re-cycling an old classic two-cycle motor by keeping it running and out of a landfill is a positive move.
Tohsgib posted 11-21-2010 11:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Me and a bud were at a waterfront oasis yesterday and 3 young men got into their circa 1994 boat and 115hp Johnson crossflow. He hit the key and she fired with a ball of smoke as usual. They untied and the engine sneezed and quit. The kid primed the bulb, advanced the throttle and hit the key. It turned over about 8-10 seconds and fired again, a few revs and he idled her down. He then went to go in gear and it sneezed again and quit. Same procedure as last and it fired again. He let her run for about 10-15 seconds at say 2k then idled it down and put in gear and drove away. My bud looked to me and said "I sure as hell don't miss those rituals." The next guy had a 200 E-Tec HO, hit the key, untied his lines and idled away, no noise, no smoke, no reving, etc....smooth as it should be.
Peter posted 11-21-2010 01:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
The story about this poorly maintained Johnson 115 reminds me of the few vintage 4-stroke Honda 130s kept on my dock that do exactly the same thing. Takes about 15 seconds of starter motor cranking to get them to light up and then as soon as they light up, they stall out and the whole procedure is repeated. On the second pass, they might light up in 7 seconds instead of 15. They even belch out some smoke in the process.

My well maintained classic Johnson 150 2-stroke or our classic Yamaha 200 2-stroke, can sit for weeks between starting and start up much easier than these Hondas. Everytime I see these motors I think to myself how thankful to have an easy starting, 375 lb 150 HP 2-stroke outboard and not a hard starting 500 lb 130 HP 4-stroke outboard on the transom of my Outrage. ;)

pcrussell50 posted 11-21-2010 02:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Aaah yes, the joys of choking, (or priming), a cold, old 115 crossflow! Made ever so much more joyous by the need to fast idle for 30 seconds or so before you can drive off without stalling. It's almost enough to make you wish you had spent 10-20 times more for one that would do the the choking and fast-idling for you. Um...


...NOT

-Peter

jimh posted 11-21-2010 07:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Getting back to my 1973 FORD PINTO, it used to start quite nicely, once I removed all the "pollution control" devices. I also removed the automatic choke--which never worked--and replaced it with a manual choke. I ran the mechanical choke control cable through the firewall and into the passenger compartment. I also reset the spark gap dwell and ignition timing to new values that I derived by experimenting. After that the engine started and ran well. You just had to remember to push the choke button back in once it warmed up. It was rather fun to fiddle around with the engine. The breaker points only lasted about three months, but I got so good at changing them that I could do it in about five minutes, including resetting the dwell and spark timing. When I was 22-years-old it was fun. Now I much rather prefer to jump in, turn the key, and drive to work. A microprocessor, some sensors, and some electric actuators take care of all the adjustments to the engine to start, run, and warm up.

If someone offered me the chance to return to the manual choke and the constant breaker point (and spark plug) replacement rituals of 38 years ago, I would politely decline.

The feelings I have about modern motors have come in the same way: by actually owning and operating one. Once you try a modern motor your fondness for 30-year-old technology tends to wane. The worst possible experience is to use a modern motor and then go back to a 30-year-old technology motor. This will be a real awakening.

pcrussell50 posted 11-21-2010 07:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
And you will get no argument from over a single opinion you put forth in your tome above. I only say that the "automotive analogy" fails a little when used the way you used it. See, I'm pretty sure its nigh on impossible to find cheap old carbureted cars that are still in perfectly good working order. There are plenty of old carbureted classic and muscle cars in perfectly good working order, but they tend to be not cheap at all. In fact, they tend to cost as much or more than the new stuff, if they are in top working condition. However, an old outboard in great shape tends to be both plentiful, and around 1/10th the price of its newer counterpart in the same horsepower class... in my observation, anyway.

-Peter

L H G posted 11-22-2010 04:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Peter is correct. Forget the ridiculous Pinto. But what I would give to still have my 1962 Chevy 409 Super Sport Convertible, that I bought new my Junior year in College. Four Speed, twin 4 barrel carbs, high lift cam and solid lifters. Now that was a machine. The last one I saw was on display in a bank lobby in Birmingham, MI, with a value listed as $104,000. The Beach Boys even did a song about this car. Didn't they do a song about the Pinto also?
macfam posted 11-22-2010 07:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for macfam  Send Email to macfam     
Nick,
You've said it all.
Old smokers vs new technology E-TEC.
I don't miss the old rituals either.
But the real bonus for is my kids and wife.
They can use the boat anytime with NO HASSLES.

My new son-in-law and daughter love using the 13 Super Sport with the E-TEC. Off they go for an afternoon of swimming and walking the sands and exploring Washburn Island on beautiful Waquoit Bay, and they never even think twice about starting the engine...........nice!

adlert posted 11-22-2010 08:40 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Sure it is nice. As an avid sailor I suppose my perspective regarding the hassles associated with starting the boat up may have additional balance. "Starting" my Harpoon 4.6 takes MUCH more effort than even my old carbed engines. And yet, like all the other sailors in the world I go through the motions anyway. I actually enjoy every bit of the routine - I'm reminded I'm going boating as I go through the motions - I'm not running late for work! And now I see that all 3 daughters have not only learned the routines (rituals?) associated with all of our boats, but they seem to enjoy them too.

I'm not meaning to imply in anyway that the ability to simply turn a key and cast off isn't a wonderful thing or that I wouldn't appeciate and enjoy it either. But for at least some of us, it appears obvious that additional efforts required prior to casting off are of absolutely no consequence.

Peter posted 11-22-2010 09:02 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing regarding the "starting effort" for sailing. It's no wonder that sailing seems to be a dying activity in today's world -- the instant gratification factor is low and the need to learn the nuances of the machinery factor is high.
jimh posted 11-22-2010 09:56 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I suspect a 1973 PINTO in really good condition would sell for more than a typical Mercury in-line six-cylinder outboard of similar age. Both engines have about the same level of technology and sophistication. Actually, I think the PINTO had overhead cams, which for a four-cycle engine at that time was innovative. By the way, it ran 100,000 miles and got excellent gas mileage, above 30-MPG as I recall. It was a good car to drive in the gas crisis of that era. I lived in Connecticut at the time, and you had to make an appointment to get a few gallons of gasoline, or else sit in a line for a hour or two.
Tohsgib posted 11-22-2010 12:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Funny...there is a post right now about the starting procedure of an OMC 225hp with 54 replies. What are the odds of finding one about a modern engine except early DFI's with a weak battery?

Peter from the day I bought all of my BRAND NEW carbed 2 strokes(mainly OMC) they ALL sneezed and stalled from time to time when cold. Tell me about one that did not and I'll probably call you a liar or DAMN lucky. As far as the Hondas go, cursed by carbs. When they repower with EFI engines, let me know how that goes.

Jim...my parents had a Pinto. I think this is the frst time I EVER admitted that in public. It was dark green and when cold would barely run and the radio was the tachometer until it warmed up....freaky.

Peter posted 11-22-2010 01:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Guess I must be damn lucky because I've owned a bunch of Yamaha and OMC carb'd 2-stroke outboards from a 1 cylinder 3.5 HP all the way to 225 HP V6 that never sneezed. If you had a lot of sneezing you probably air leaks in your fuel system.

Tohsgib posted 11-22-2010 01:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Better go buy some lottery tickets!
pcrussell50 posted 11-22-2010 02:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
Peter! Peter here again. :)

I meant to say something like you did about the "sneezing" thing, although to the folks who who don't like pressing their own choke switch or raising and lowering their own fast idle lever, it's probably a distinction without a difference, but: My healthy old crossflows suffer all the starting issues Nick described in his writeup, except one. They do not sneeze. True, if you try to put one of them in gear and drive off before it's warmed up, it will die. But the subtle difference is, they just die... without a sneeze. As with Peter and LHG, I would suspect that a "sneeze" is indicative of a malfunction that has not been addressed. Perhaps Adlert the former marine tech, might have some insights.

-Peter

BQUICK posted 11-22-2010 03:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for BQUICK  Send Email to BQUICK     
A perfectly tuned carburetorin a car can run as well (and faster in most cases) than fuel injection especially with a hot multi spark ignition. The key word is perfectly because most are not and were not.

Now anybody can have a great running car or boat.

And it is a good point about anybody being able to start a modern injected engine. I'm sure most of my kids and my wife couldn't start my old 2 strokes and most of my old cars......and I like it that way!

pcrussell50 posted 11-22-2010 03:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for pcrussell50  Send Email to pcrussell50     
The carbureted 2-stroke's startup "ritual" is not rocket science. Anybody can learn it. Heck, my mother learned to drive a 10 year old, carbureted, column-shifted-maunal transmission, pickup truck as a 12 year old girl... in the late 1940's. I learned to drive myself, in a carbureted, manual transmission, Chevy Chevette in the mid-80's. It had a manual choke too. And I didn't know ANYTHING about engines back then. We never thought it was a big deal. I still don't.

Periodically, I like to toss back out that I am far from a luddite. I actually like perusing mass airflow transfer functions and cold-startup timing and fueling tables on my laptop that I use to tune the EFI motors I build. And I run linux on a Mac computer, and have hacked my my iphone to make it do all manner of things uncle Stevie doesn't want us to be able to do with them.

-Peter

Tohsgib posted 11-22-2010 03:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
You are correct but the point of this thread was which do you "prefer"? I don't think your Mom would want to trade her Caddy for that truck, nor would you trade for a Chevette.

Yes sneezing is a lean condition, most stock carburated Harleys have that problem as well. The problem is there is a fine line when cold between lean, rich and normal. With the primer setup on an OMC you are either choked/primed or not, there is no way to partially choke an outboard unless an older one with a butterfly cable or pull like my 15hp. Sure you can start it and let rev at 1500-2000 for a few minutes but that in Jim & I's opinion is a "bad characteristic" not a good one....anyone disagree?

adlert posted 11-22-2010 04:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
If by "sneeze" we are actually refering to what I would call a "lean kick", then sure, it is possible Nick's engines could do this without any real mechanical problems when stone cold. So many factors are at play here though and definitely, many different malfunctions could also cause this symptom in a classic or modern FI engine.

Some example contributing factors:

Engine design: I think the loopers are more prone to this than the cross flows.

Engine model year: The "newer" engines (late 70's and forward for OMC) did away with a wonderful feature that allowed for incorporation of the engine's block temperature into the choking system. When the block is anything less than warm, a half choke (applied via the choke solenoid) was set as soon as the key was turned regardless of whether or not the captain was manually applying the choke. Properly adjusted (of course), this worked very well during initial start up and for starting after sitting for a cool-down period. The result was rarely any fading, kicking, or need to re-apply choke manually. With the advent of "primers" this very nice functionality for the old carbed classics was lost.

Exhaust backpressure: The depth the motor sits in the water at rest greatly affects the "sneezing" tendency. Similarly, having the motor tilted partially up during intitial startup will encourge lean kicking. I find it best to get the engine level or even tucked in a tad during a cold start up.

Initial throttle advance: Advancing the throttle too much i.e., racing the engine too high will exacerbate an already lean running environment.

I think those of us (like me) that never really deal with this problem largely avoid it via proper starting technique as Peter suggested.

So it's really quite simple. Untie the winch strap at water's edge and have driver back boat off trailer in one smooth motion so that he/she can immediately leave the ramp and park while you float a few feet away from others wanting to launch their faster starting FI engines. Trim the engine level or slightly under just like they do but raise the throttle just slightly while you're doing it to save time. Spin around three times; throw salt over left shoulder; spit on right foot. With one hand twist ignition key and push while looking hopefully up at the heavens (reaching upwards with remaining hand is optional). She'll start right up every time. Push key in again after 5, 10, and then maybe a third time at 15 seconds to avoid all embarassing fading, stalling, and sneezing. At this point I usually kill another 15-20 seconds raising my Bimini or readying lines and then put her in gear to idle over to pick up my vehicle driver (if they've had time to make it back to the dock yet).

Tohsgib posted 11-23-2010 12:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Yeah...then there is the time when you left on the maplight and now you are drifting out in the open with a dead battery. I prefer to start on the trailer unless I did a dry-run at home first.
Peter posted 11-23-2010 12:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
"....now you are drifting out in the open with a dead battery."

Ahhh, and therein lies one of the great, unappreciated beauties of the classic 2-stroke -- wrap the emergency starter rope around the flywheel and give a pull. Unlike a 4-stroke, your shoulder won't come out of its socket when you do and because the classic 2-stroke motor places no reliance on an electric fuel pump for its operation, it will light up with a dead battery no problem. Been there, done that on a dead cold V4 140 and V6 150 2-strokes. Just like the "hard starting", no dead battery was going to get in my way of going boating that day.

adlert posted 11-23-2010 01:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
I suppose that could happen to some Nick. Not me though. I tilt my motor down when I get home to allow for maximum parking space and as such, need to tilt it up a bit prior to heading out the next time. This latter activity is all I need to let me know I've got a good battery. I only start on the trailer if launching alone or maybe, if there's nobody waiting in line and the water level is less than ideal.
Tohsgib posted 11-23-2010 02:50 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
I was just joking...seen it happen a bunch of times though. I don't have a compass much less a maplight....nor a map to read it under, hence no compass. ;)
jimh posted 11-23-2010 08:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
A good point about the need for a strong battery to start some but not all modern engines. There are modern two-cycle engines which can be rope started. They will typically start and run much more easily than a classic two-cycle. Then there are some modern engines which cannot under any circumstance be successfully started without a very strong attached battery. As examples of this, I offer two. The Mercury OptiMax cannot be started without a strong battery. The Evinrude E-TEC can be started without a battery.
adlert posted 11-23-2010 09:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Jim your statement regarding the ease of rope starting an E-TEC intrigues me. I think it is on topic for this thread as the E-TEC has been designed with this important feature in mind and if it were to really work well, it certainly would be another check in the "pro" column. I know quite well what it is like to start various engine sizes using magneto CD ignition systems on the older engines. It is not too bad but I know what I'm doing. I've rope started V6's before without too much trouble. Bobbing around far from shore gives one amazing strength and determination.

With the sophistication of the E-TEC system rope starting might be down right fool proof which would be fantastic! Have any of you E-TEC owners given this a go? Will an E-TEC fire off on a single, solid rope pull with no more effort than the pull itself and the key in the on position? If so, this would wonderful indeed. If anyone has tested this capacity please share your results. If no one has yet, I think it would be great if you did and shared. The old classics can definitely be started this way without too much fuss but doing so reliably with no more than a key twist and a single pull would be outstanding.

contender posted 11-23-2010 10:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for contender  Send Email to contender     
I have rope started my old Evinrude 140 2 stroke v-4, but never a v-6
Tohsgib posted 11-24-2010 01:06 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
I have rope started a V6 outboard but that does not mean I EVER want to do it again.....Boat US baby! Or 2 batteries.
Nauti Tauk posted 11-24-2010 07:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for Nauti Tauk  Send Email to Nauti Tauk     
Jim, among the many advantages you keep posting regarding Etecs I'm curious.....have YOU started your new Etec when cold with a rope? If not, how come? From your past posts it appears that you've pretty well wrung every other technical detail from your engine, from fuel economy to voltages and charging abilities. How 'bout rope starting. If my Mercury would just do something to justify it's replacement I'd buy a new Etec but only if it will start with a rope!
Peter posted 11-24-2010 07:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Unfortunately, E-TEC rope starting ends at 90 HP.
adlert posted 11-24-2010 08:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Is that right Peter? I'm just asking for confirmation because I certainly have no idea. It is the first time I think I've heard that tidbit on this forum though.

Hopefully we'll soon have several owners representing several different E-TEC engine sizes chiming in here with their experiences utilizing this feature. I imagine few have really had the need. I know that when I become an E-TEC owner I'll be testing this claimed feature out a few times (cold engine, warm engine, etc.) before I have to do it for real.

jimh posted 11-24-2010 09:38 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Nauti Tauk begins with this exaggeration:
quote:
"Jim, among the many advantages you keep posting regarding [E-TEC engines]..."

Actually I have only mentioned the E-TEC once in this thread with regard to any advantage, and only to correct a statement by someone else (that modern engines require a battery to start). My initial article made no mention of the E-TEC or any other particular model of outboard. The E-TEC was first introduced into this discussion by Peter, pcrussell, and by Larry, L H G. Not by me.

quote:
"...have YOU started your new [E-TEC] when cold with a rope?"

No, I have not started my E-TEC with a pull rope. I have a very competent electrical system and two storage batteries that perform that function for me.

Tohsgib posted 11-24-2010 12:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Amen brother! I am not going to rope start my Jeep either.
Tom W Clark posted 11-24-2010 12:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
I owned an OMC 150 HP V-6 outboard for over ten years and had many opportunities to rope start it. It was very simple to do with the emergency starter cord OMC provided. Never a need for a jump start.

Freezing temerature, totaly dead batteries? No problem. I could get it going with two or three pulls.

I heard many times here how hard it must be to rope start a big two stroke, and I have to conclude these statements are made by those who have never tried it.

I've started my Mercury 150s as well but it is slightly harder to do so; you have to remove the plastic shroud over the flywheel first.

Tohsgib posted 11-24-2010 01:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Early Merc inline 6's came with a recoil start, it is not hard but if you maintain your stuff you should never have to do it. I have had to rope start once in the last 25 years as my starter went bad(I knew it was going south and procrastinated). I would not base that as a purchasing decision. If you do, maintain your stuff better.
adlert posted 11-24-2010 02:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
I'm just hoping someone will give it a go on an E-TEC as a test and report back. Can you start an E-TEC V6 cold with a single pull? That would be fantastic if true and nice to know. Surely you don't need someone like me, with the drive and muscles I maintain from constantly raising my throttle and pushing my choke to perform this test for the common good. :)
adlert posted 11-24-2010 02:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Nick, to me the ability to start without the use of an electric starter and/or a hot battery is a HUGE deal on a boat. Stuff happens. As you know, starters die, starter solenoids and relays crap out, depth finders get left on, lights get left on, batteries can just crap out on you with no notice or good reason at all, ignition switches fail, wiring harnessess degrade unnoticed, fuses blow, contacts corrode...

I maintain to the hilt and carry jumper cables and a tool kit always but they, or even an extra battery won't solve all potential problems that can arise. My Whalers are rigged for two batteries on the floor within the console when I want to go that way but knowing I can easily rope start my engines if necessary affords me the luxury of using one battery box for additional storage when I want to and great peace of mind. As I started, this feature of the E-TEC (and many older engines)is a really big deal IMO.

Tohsgib posted 11-24-2010 03:08 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Again I NEVER have these problems with any of my boats. Sure I might leave a switch on and come down to the dock and find a dead battery once every 5-8 years but that is not an issue. I walk back up the garage and get a battery charger. The main reason to pull start an engine is if it leaves you stranded....how many times has that happened? If you can count them, you need a better maintenance schedule or it really is time to repower.
Tohsgib posted 11-24-2010 03:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
PS...I bet the times many had a problem is when they got to the dock/ramp and hit the key th eengine had "just" enough juice to start it. They then cast off thinking the engine will charge it like their car. Outboards until recently have very weak charging systems and the next time you shut it off she pukes.
dg22 posted 11-24-2010 04:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for dg22  Send Email to dg22     
The back-up/emergency pull rope has come in handy for many of my 2-stroke outboards and snowmobiles over the years -- it's something that is not used often but it's nice to be able to get home when you are a distance away or it's minus 10 out.
adlert posted 11-24-2010 05:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
That's good for you NIck. But others have different usage patterns. I for one, fairly frequently take a boat out to a remote Georgia island for a week or more of vacation. There is only one little store, very limited electricity, and I'm over 500 miles from my garage. I usually have no immediate access to electricity to charge a dead battery. I drink, I relax, stuff might happen. Honestly, despite my age and the age of my engines reliable performance is the norm due to good maintenance (of me and the engines). It only takes one equimpment failure event however with weather against you and innocent family members involved to absolutely ruin a vacation or bring tragedy.

A manufacturer's engineering approaches, and your choices, can make a huge difference in your life when out on the water. Personally, I will absolutely never own an boat engine that can't be started manually with a rope and a dead battery. I applaud Bombardier's recognition of the importance of this feature.

Peter posted 11-24-2010 09:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
It's my understanding that the flywheel of the E-TEC motors above 90 HP does not have any means to accept an emergency starting rope.
Tom W Clark posted 11-25-2010 10:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
That's too bad.
contender posted 11-25-2010 02:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for contender  Send Email to contender     
After reading all of the post I find that seems to be no problems with 2 strokes its more of a personnel preference
jimh posted 11-26-2010 09:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Yes, entirely personal. You are exactly right. If you don't mind a classic two-cycle motor that is

--noisy
--smoky
--rough idle
--rough running
--bad fuel economy
--hard starting
--high emissions

then there is absolutely no problem with them at all. Apparently that's why everyone is fighting to get their hands on the one or two models that temporarily are still being sold in the United States.

adlert posted 11-26-2010 09:46 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Wow. After 165 posts I thought we'd at least established that many owners have had, and still have, favorable experiences with their old 2 strokes regarding: 1) relative starting ease, 2) idle quality, 3)smooth running, and 4) comparable noise levels (maybe I'm the only one pushing this last point with my VERY old engines). Looks like your view Jim undermines all that discussion and takes us back to ground zero; the premise of this thread. To each their own of course. My view all along has been that this discussion was destined to end exactly where it started, essentially over for many before it began.

Who knows, maybe it isn't over yet. I'm still hoping one of you turn-key E-TEC users will work up the energy to give rope starting a try. At the very least, will someone with an over-90 HP E-TEC engine PLEASE commit the time and effort needed to pull their cowling and let us know if their flywheel even accepts a rope? If the answer turns out to be no, it would sure be a shame as Tom said and I think it fair to give the old magneto-driven (CD or otherwise) classics that point in this particular game.

I hope everyone has had a great holiday so far and remembers to give thanks. And I'm of course I'm just ribbing you FI owners when I imply laziness. Gobble gobble.

Peter posted 11-26-2010 09:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Like all of boating design, everything is a compromise. Some don't mind,depending on the application, the list of general negative relative attributes that really cannot be generally placed on all classic 2-strokes. Here is just one example: the classic 2-cylinder Evinrude/Johnson 4HP 2-stroke which was made for approximately 35 or so years. There is no modern motor made today that can match the combination of its smooth idle, quietness, power, light weight, portability and most likely its durability. The amount of fuel savings and smoke reduction a modern motor could provide over this design is miniscule and the additional weight would negatively impact portability.
adlert posted 11-26-2010 10:04 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Your statements Peter point a flaw in mine. I should have started off by saying "...favorable experieces with certain old 2 strokes regarding..." Absolutely, some of the classic engines idled poorly, ran somewhat rough, were loud, etc.
Tohsgib posted 11-26-2010 01:13 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Peter that is incorrect. The OMC 4hp deluxe weighed 50lbs. My 4hp 1972 Mercury weighed 53. The 4hp Suzuki, Tohatsu, Nissan, Mercury weighs 55. If you are talking about the other OMC 4hp which weighed about 36lbs it had no gears or twist throttle and is not in the same league nor would it plane a boat. The Merc/Tohatsu 3.5hp which has more amenities, twist throttle weighs 42lbs which includes the integral tank so you don't have to carry a tank...I think that adds to the portability, don't you?
Blackduck posted 11-26-2010 01:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for Blackduck  Send Email to Blackduck     
Classic two- stroke motors were, and still are, excellent. They start fine, run fine, smell fine, and sound better than fine.
Peter posted 11-26-2010 04:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Nick -- Nothing I said was incorrect. The classic Evinrude 4 HP (5.28 cubic inch cross flow, 2 cylinder, 2-stroke,) had at least a 40 year run. During that run it came in a variety of configurations (3 to 4 HP) including the Yachtwin and Lightwin gearcases, a folding leg, with full FNR gears, twist grip throttle control and an integral fuel tank or no shiftable gears and no twist grip throttle.

The version I had, a 1971 Yachtwin 4, weighed 34 lbs and had no problem planing the 8 foot fiberglass dingy it was attached to. They still made a version of that motor in the 1990s (with a twist grip throttle and F/N shifting) and it still weighed under 35 lbs with those "ammenities". I'm not sure why you are comparing a Tohatsu 3.5 other than to avoid comparing the Tohatsu 4 HP which weighs 57 lbs. The Evinrude/Johnson 2-cylinder 2-stroke 4 would not only run circles around either of those motors but its far smoother and quieter.

Integral fuel tanks do not increase portability. They don't hold enough fuel so an auxiliary gerry can is still needed to make the motor useful. That's essentially no different than using the remote tank that the classic 2-stroke 4 HP used. Furthermore, its a pain in the rear end to fill the integral tank on the motor when the dingy is in the water, particularly with today's lousy "no spill" gerry cans. I'd much rather have the portable draw fuel from a remote tank.

As I said, there is no modern (to the extent that a 1 cylinder 4-stroke motor can be considered modern) portable outboard motor currently made that will match the smoothness, quietness, power or power to weight ratio of this 2-stroke motor and generalizing about 2-strokes just doesn't cut it.

WT posted 11-26-2010 07:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for WT  Send Email to WT     
Read this shoot out's conclusion....

http://www.bwbmag.com/images/elements/1956565_50hpShootout_.pdf

Warren

Tohsgib posted 11-26-2010 10:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
Peter....you petered out on that one! Again it was the same engine with FNR and weighed 50lb. The 34? lb model had NO FNR or a twist grip throttle. Again the 4hp 4 stokes weigh 55lbs, not 57, I have the brochure. The fact that a 9' Tender will not plane without at least 8-10hp means you are talking something else. ANYONE here who can plane a 9' tender or squall with a 4hp....PLEASE chime in. Anyone with an alum boat that can plane on 4hp without a 8year old driver, please chime in. Stop blowing smoke please. Show me a video of a 1971 4hp planing a boat please. My 1972 Merc(according to LHG) did not even come close to planing a boat. My 1992 4hp would not either but the 6hp would.
Tom Hemphill posted 11-27-2010 08:30 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom Hemphill    
I've been eager to try rope starting my 90-HP Evinrude E-TEC motor since I got it a few weeks ago. Yesterday, following instructions given in the operator's guide, I tried but gave up. I found it impossible to remove the flywheel guard enough to gain access. It is captured by a couple of wire bundles which have very little slack.
Peter posted 11-27-2010 09:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
Nick -- You keep trying to change the rules of the game. But even with the attempted rules changes, including reference to the Deluxe version which had a full aluminum lower engine pan and a sturdy fiberglass cowl, none of the 1-cylinder 4-stroke 4 HP portable outboards made by the foreign outboard manufacturers that weigh anywhere between 55 and 60 lbs are match the smoothness, quietness, power to weight ratio or the virtually unrestricted portability (no worries about hydrolocking if you carry it or lay it down the wrong way) of this line of classic 2-cylinder 2-stroke motors.

Sorry I don't have any videos from nearly 40 years ago to show you how well a 2 cylinder 2-stroke 4 HP would plane an 8 foot fiberglass dingy with two aboard. But you can go on youtube and find many such videos.

The 1998 model (end of the era) of the Evinrude/Johnson 4 HP 2-stroke line had it all, FN shifting, high maneuverability with 360 degree swivel, twist grip throttle, integral fuel tank AS WELL AS a connector for hook up to a remote fuel tank all in a package weighing 35 lbs. I've run the much heavier Tohatsu 5HP 1 cylinder 4-stroke and its not even close to being in the same league. Sorry, but there is no modern motor equivalent to this classic 2-stroke motor.

adlert posted 11-27-2010 09:22 AM ET (US)     Profile for adlert  Send Email to adlert     
Thanks very much Tom for your efforts and for reporting in. Good information.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:


Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.