new engine

[pokerrick1]

What kadet said!!

Rick

[NiceAft]

David,

Thanks for the info.

I believe the E-TEC came out in 2003. Whether it did or not is of no consequence. When I purchased my Mac in 2004, the E-TEC did not pop up on my radar screen. All of my research, back then, said that because of pollution, it will only be a matter of time before two strokes will be phased out.

I just did a google search on comparisons to the E-TEC. I don't know how old this is, but Yamaha did a testing of four different technologies of 150 HP engines. Pollution never was tested, only fuel consumption. That in itself makes a statement. That testing may be of interest to those who are in the market for a new motor, and are interested in the best miles/kilometers per gallon/liter. click on this Yamaha Blast The E-TEC Myth

For those who disagree with Yamaha, and tend to take things far to personally, remember that I am only posting their testing. I did not conduct it. If you disagree with Yamaha, direct your disapproval at them, not me


Ray

[March]

Interesting but inconclusive; the test involves 150HP engines that will hardly apply to Macs. It is my understanding that the architecture of E-TEC engines changes above a certain number of HP (can't remember if it's 100HP?) So 50, 60, 90 are in one class, and 150 is definitely in another. As far as I am concerned, a 150HP E-TEC may use three times as much cas as a Yammy, but as long as the 50HP version is more economical than its counterpart, I'll still go E-TEC.

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

Clearly, as always, marketing departments are very selective in the numbers they present.

The first time I watched the ETEC DVD I had the impression that their marketing department was very selective in what they used to make their case. In many ways they are the perfect match for the Mac marketing department as Roger's claims for the boats are also very selective. I'm sure at one point, completely empty with the wind and current in it's favor, an X did go 25 mph with a 50 hp motor for at least 2 seconds after being towed to the ramp by a Taurus. Back in the real world however it takes a 90 hp to match the marketing claims.

[TonyHouk]

Hey Y'all,
I am in the Billy crowd. The big engine is the one to go for. I have the boat propped for 33.4 and I am happy with that. I will be going offshore this summer again to go diving. I am just trying to figure out how much gas to take. The big one sure will shorten up the ride to the deep water. Have fun, Tony

[TAW02]

Oh DUH!

Of course a four-stroker will use less gas than a two-stroker. This has been the way of the world. This has been the way of common sense.

If you burn a charge of fuel every stroke vs every other stroke, you are gonna use more fuel. So why the study?

Big T

[Obelix]

Oh DUH!

Of course a four-stroker will use less gas than a two-stroker. This has been the way of the world. This has been the way of common sense.

If you burn a charge of fuel every stroke vs every other stroke, you are gonna use more fuel. So why the study?

Big T

HMMMMM....

What if you take a small charge every stroke and a large charge every other one?

Obelix

[March]

All things being equal, that is. But are they? Do we have the same compression rate? the same size of the cylinders? The same number of cylinders? Fuel injection?

In the E-TEC case, for instance, the 150 HP is a 2,500 cc with 6 cylinders in V. The 50 HP is a two cylinder. Surely, saying that the 150 HP uses more gas than a 4 stroke tells us zilch about how a smaller, 50 HP compares to its equivalent.

[TAW02]

Confusing the issue with the proclivities of bore and stroke makes nothing to the bottom line figure of fuel effiency. No matter how small that figure is. Which it is.

Studies are studies, they just don't show the trade-offs.

What are you willing to accept and what are you willing to cast aside? You make your decision in horsepower and that is what you get.

The big important question is when do you get it and at what cost?

With the fuel efficient four-stroke you get your horspower delivered to you at higher RPM's.

With a less fuel efficient two-stroker, you get your horspower delivered to you at a lower RPM.

Mmmmm .... think gentleman think.

Big T

[bscott]

BIG T, how do you know the E-tec is less eficient? This I can tell you from my actual on the water experience that the E-tec 60 on my pulled the hole shot and out ran a Big Foot 60 on an and got the same fuel mileage. I also know from experience that BRPs 600 cc E-tec snowmobile beats up on Yamaha's 1200 cc 4 stroke snowmobile---same HP (130) but the E-tec has more bottom end torque, is over 100 lbs lighter and gets about the same gas mileage. Oh, same DBs.

The E-tec is not you father's Oldsmobile

bscott

[delevi]

Things have changed. When I was deciding on the engine for Rusalka back in Nov 04, My impression of 2-stroke engines was similar to NiceAft's. There is no way I would even consider it. I was quickly educated by the guys at Arena Yachts about what Evinrude has doen with the new 2-stroke technology. I was impressed. So the decision came down to one of two engines. 50 HP Etec weighing in at 220 lbs in a tidy little package, or a 60 hp Johnson/Suzuki which was about 60-80 lbs heavier and looked massive compared to the Etec. They use both engines on the and get the same performance, even though the Johnson has 10 hp more. Price was the same. "Oh, by the way.... with the Johnson, you'll need to flush it every time you use it. The Etec does not require flushing. You can do it once or twice/season if you want." It wasn't much of a decision at that point. I should also mention 3 years with zero maintenance and no oil changes, ever, except the oil you burn which is of little significance.

I had nearly 4 1/2 years of trouble free use, racking up approximately 500 hours. Much of the time I run WOT. I figure if I'm going to go slow, I should have the sails up
For the first time, I am having a problem with the engine. Mid throttle and higher tends to want to make the engine "suffocate" and shut down if I don't back off the throttle. This problem goes away after I run it at mid throttle for a while, but will reoccur next time out. The boat's at the shop now awaiting diagnosis.

I'm sure many things have changed with four-stroke technology as well. I wouldn't be caught up in all this 2vs4 BS. As was already said.. decide on the HP you want and pick an engine which you feel is the best fit for you and your boat. The number of strokes will be a byproduct of that choice.

One final personal note. I want more power than the 50 I currently have, despite the fact that my prefered mode of operation is under sail. Perhaps even more so, since if I don't have decent wind to sail in or short on time, I want to take full advantage of my PowerSailer and haul A$$ under power. When my pocketbook allows, I will repower with an Etec 90 or 115. Take that for what it's worth from an owner of an Etec 50 currently in the shop.

Cheers,
LD TRIPPLE REEFED

[TAW02]

BIG T, how do you know the E-tec is less eficient?
bscott

Why? Because I read the comparison sheet that was linked in Ray's post. You outa try reading that.

Then again, you'd laugh and say 'big deal' It's only a matter of .07/10ths of a mile at WOT on a gallon of gas. And over glassy water no doubt.

Conduct the same test over tidal current moving @ 10mh with 3ft chop. Not only will test results tip the other way, but my bet is the 4 stroker will lag way behind.

Same applies with hauling a load or towing another boat or skier. The 2 stroker is the better mule because like BSCOTT pointed out it reaches full rated horsepower on the bottom curve which means less RPM for the same load when comparing the two engine technologies.

The 2 stroke engine is most efficient (and only efficient) UNDER A LOAD. Idling at the dock or in neutral or over glassy water conditions is wasted 'effort' for a 2 stroke.

For the first time, I am having a problem with the engine. Mid throttle and higher tends to want to make the engine "suffocate" and shut down if I don't back off the throttle. This problem goes away after I run it at mid throttle for a while, but will reoccur next time out. The boat's at the shop now awaiting diagnosis.

delevi;
A 2 stroker is a very robust engine and can literally suck-down and collapse it's own fuel tank! And so, tanks must be vented. On the other hand, she will not tolerate the slightest bit of air in the fuel supply line. Your problem sounds like the latter. If your fuel syphon bulb and lines are over 2 years old, it is quite possible there are areas in the line particularly the syphon bulb where air can 'slip-stream' into the gas, or the internal bulb valve is 'hanging' up. Look for cracks in the rubber bulb. Flex the bulb and inspect it carefully.

If that ain't it, then I'd like to hear what they find. Thanks.

Big T

[JonBill]

You don't mention the direct competitor to the eTec, the Tohatsu TLDI. The only other low emission, direct injected, two stroke on the market. I re-powered my 26X with a TLDI 90 last year.

Duane,

Great recommendation!

I knew there was something about you I liked. It's you're outboard (lol)!

BTW, Where did you get the parts and know how to retool between 70 and 90?

Kind Regards,
JonBill

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

Changing between the 70 and a 90 requires no know how. Only two parts are different. The computer module which is held on by a few screws and has a simple wiring harness plug. And the air intake. This is also super simple to change. Both are the same cast aluminum tube but the 70 one has an insert inside that reduces the size of the opening limiting the volume of air that can pass through.

Now the source of the parts I can't say, but you might guess. By the external main serial number my motor is a 90, and the two key internal parts also bear the 90 serial numbers. The cowl on the motor carries a 70 hp sticker which I'm considering removing just to make it more fun. The 70 hp parts are in a box and if I ever sell the motor I will install them as I have been asked to do.

[kmclemore]

Is there a way to repower a Tohatsu 50 to something bigger??