e-tec or 4 stroke.

[Husker100]

kicking around the idea of a yamaha or merc 115 4 stroke or a 90 hp e-tec.

Was just looking for different opinions from everyone.This boat is a 17ft tracker and used only for fishing.Thanks!!

 

[hitace]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

the e-tec is a 2 stroke so its going to be much lighter then most 4 stroke even tho its really heavy for a 2 stroke.and its going to be faster then most 4's

 

[JB]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

BRP make extravagant claims for the E-tec and as much as they annoy me, they are probably close to the truth. They are not always lighter, faster, cleaner and more fuel efficient than all EFI 4 strokes, but they are probably lighter, faster, cleaner and more economical than most of them most of the time. They are also probably more expensive than all except maybe Honda.

You didn't mention which Tracker 17 you are looking at, but the Tracker Tournament V17 I had back in the 80s would have been overpowered with 90hp, never mind 115. It was quite happy with a Johnny 70. If I still had that boat, which I hated, and was looking to repower it I would go with a Suzuki DF70.

 

[steelespike]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

If I was buying it would be an Etec.

 

[Husker100]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

Its the 17ft magna fish.Had a 90hp Johnson on it and is rated for a 120.

 

[Silvertip]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

I was going to save the data in the charts below and provide a very detailed analysis later but since it came up here, I'll share it. The reason I wanted to wait was because I wanted to add fuel flow and performance data for my Alumacraft Navigator 165CS which is idential to the boats in the charts below with the exception it's powered by 75 HP Merc carbed two-stroke. Very often discussions on iBoats forums turns to fuel "efficiency". It must be understood that fuel "efficiency" only applies when one compares various engines at the same RPM. Fuel "economy" measures how far one goes on a gallon of fuel. look at it this way -- a 2 Liter four cylinder engine should be more efficient than a 7 liter V8. However, depending on what vehicle those engines are installed in, efficiency is no longer a term that means anything. I happen to know a 7 liter Corvette V8 will get 28 MPG on a good day. I doubt that 2 liter engine will do that in the same car. It simply must exert most of its power just to move it while the 7 liter engine will be loafing. The three charts are from two sources. The Yamaha charts are from the Yamaha Performance Test Web site. The E-tec chart is from the Alumacraft Performance Test web site. The 70 HP Yamaha test used a PolarCraft Kodiak 165CS because they did not test that engine on the Alumacraft Navigator 165CS. I chose that boat because it is very similar in size and weight as the Navigator. Now then -- If one looks at the GPH (gallons/hr) column at the same RPM for each engine you will see that a four stroke is a fuel sipper in comparison which is where the 4-stroke advocates tout "fuel efficiency". For heavens sake it should be more fuel "efficient" because it makes power only on every other revolution. So what you say. Ignore the G/hr and go to the MPG column for virtually any SPEED (MPH). You will then see that even the carbed 70 Yamaha gets better "fuel economy" than the four-stroke and E-tec is likewise more "economical". How can this be. Look at the RPM vs SPEED for these engines. The E-Tec and 70 Yamaha engines turn significantly lower RPM to achieve the same speed as the four-stroke. Lower RPM results in better fuel economy -- just like it does on your car. Isn't it amazing that at wide open throttle all of these engines burn almost precisely 10% of their rated horsepower regardless of technology. I know this to be a fact as I have a Navman 2100 on my boat and my engine also burns exactly 7.5 G/hr at WOT. So the point here, is to understand the numbers that manufacturers and dealers thow them at you. I've contended for years that you might as well run wide open as the difference in the TOTAL amount of fuel burned over a given distance is nearly the same as if you cruised at say 1/2 or 2/3 throttle. The charts also show that. Why is this? Consider a 40 mile trip. If you run at 40 MPH it would take an hour. At 20 MPH it would take 2 hours so you are running twice as long. The difference in dollars and gallons is very small. Obviously if speed is not a factor on a trip, that argument is moot. Using any of the charts and say a 50 mile trip, at 26 MPH the Yammy 4S would take a tick under two hours at 4500 RPM/26 MPH and it would therefore require a little over 11 gallons of fuel. Do the same for all of the other two and you will see the fuel use will be nearly the same. Now run wide open. The E-tec would make the trip in 1 hr - 18 min. It would burn 9.76 gallons of fuel. The 70 Yammy two stroke would make the trip in the exact same time and burn the identical amount of fuel (about 1/10 gallon less). The 4-stroke would take almost an hour and a half to make the trip and it would burn 10.78 gallons of fuel (almost a gallon more than the E-tech and the Yamaha 2S). In August I will add data from my own fuel monitor and add it to these. Just a reminder -- these are Yamaha and Alumacraft numbers, and not just some charts I threw together. You can see them for any boat they have tested on the respective web sites.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

Another question worth considering, will BRP be around in 5-10-15 years?
Will they still be interested in OB motor development? Will it be an asset or a liability to BRP to continue with Evinrude?

With all the stout competition from huge corporations they surely aren't cuttin' a fat hog in the rear.
As fine as the e-tec is said to be, and then only equal to the others, it wouldn't be the motor to have when it goes the way of Johnson.

 

[dingbat]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

Another question worth considering, will BRP be around in 5-10-15 years?
Will they still be interested in OB motor development? Will it be an asset or a liability to BRP to continue with Evinrude?

With all the stout competition from huge corporations they surely aren't cuttin' a fat hog in the rear.
As fine as the e-tec is said to be, and then only equal to the others, it wouldn't be the motor to have when it goes the way of Johnson.

Same could be said about GM, Ford, or Chrysler for that matter. Should we not by a big 3 product as well?

 

[Silvertip]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

I think another question to ask is will outboards as we know them today be around in 15 or 20 years. I think not. I have a hunch we will be seeing much different marine power down the road.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

Same could be said about GM, Ford, or Chrysler for that matter. Should we not by a big 3 product as well?

Difficult to say since the "big 3" isn't the "big 3" anymore and the BRP e-tec is a better core product then what the "big 3" puts out.

The point I was making is, and I don't know, does the e-tec have sufficient market share to sustain it's existence?
The BRP Evinrude if I understand correctly is barely 3 years old?

 

[kenmyfam]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

Well there are many, many 30 plus year old outboard motors out there still running sweet. My 1985 Johnson is considered the "new" one by some people I know. Remember when you could diagnose and fix the car at the side of the road !!! Can't do that anymore either.
Personally I would go with the 2 stroke but either way it's a crap shoot.

 

[seahorse5]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

The point I was making is, and I don't know, does the e-tec have sufficient market share to sustain it's existence?


The BRP Evinrude if I understand correctly is barely 3 years old?

Evinrude is #3 in sales behind Merc (#1) and Yamaha. In the former OMC days, they were #2 and Yamaha was #3.


Bombardier resurrected Evinrude and Johnson in March 2001 and produced the 2002 and later models so this is their 7th continuous year of outboard production.

E-TEC was introduced in Feb. 2003 as a 2004 model and now is in its 5th year of production as the 2008 models are being delivered now.

 

[Rancherlee]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

Go with the 115hp engine, I'm assuming you are asking about the 90hp Etec becuase its running about the same price as a 115 merc/yamaha. If they were all 90's or 115' I would probibly lean a bit twards the Etec or look at a suzuki for the best price vs. performance ratio.

 

[BillP]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

Why buy old technology called 4 strokes when you can buy superior technology called etec? Here in Florida we are seeing a steady parade of previous 4 stroke owners who bought etec as their next engine. How many etec owners do you see going to a 4 stroke?...zero to none.

bp

 

[Cricket Too]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

Silvertip.......Very good post, definitely made me think and cleared some things up, very informative.

Is there any way to find these test for any year and model engine? I'd like to see some infor on my '97 Johnson 115.

Thanks.

 

[Silvertip]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

The boat and engine tests are done by either the boat manufacturer or the engine manufacturer and they generally cover current year only. I can tell you that your 115 at wide open throttle will burn about 11.5 gallons/hour. At about 2/3 throttle it will be substantially less than that. Other than that, the type of boat, the load carried, and the engine setup (height, prop style and pitch, and a host of other factors) all play into how a particular combination performs. Your engine on a heavier boat would likely burn more fuel. On a lighter boat, less fuel. As the charts show, it isn't necessarily how much fuel is burned per hour that determines which is the most efficient engine. Speed and time are the key factors. A fast hull will achieve faster speeds at any rpm than a heavy boat so if both boats travel at the speed, the lighter boat will get better mileage. At wide open throttle, the slower boat will burn more fuel to get to a given destination for the simple reason that is working harder and it must run longer than the faster lighter boat, even though both have the same engine. Since two strokes tend to be quite close on fuel consumption regardless of manufacturer, go the Yamaha web site. Pick your boat (or one nearly like it) and pick a 115 Yamaha carbed 2stroke and view the charts. It won't be exact, but it will be fairly representative.

 

[Silvertip]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

BillP -- I tend to agree that E-tec (and Merc Optimax) althrough worlds apart in the delivery of their technology, are excellent motors. I spend a lot of time on the water (and these forums) and I continually hear horror stories about the high fees for routine service on four stroke engines. Oil changes, valve adjustment, timing belts, etc. I think they are excellent engines for pontoon service and even the serious fisherperson that is not in a hurry to get from point A to B. Two strokes clearly have the performance edge and as the charts show, four strokes are only more exonomical if one compares fuel consumption of two engines at a given RPM. Compare them at the same "speed" and the fuel efficiency arguement falls flat on its face.

 

[kenmyfam]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

Simple is efficient in my book I.E. the motor runs well and to he** with the fuel consumption. I got my boat to enjoy it not to worry too much about a few extra bucks in gas. 2 stroke for me every time till someone proves me wrong.
There is a merc 40hp 4 stroke at my marina that looks bigger than my 140hp looper !!!!

 

[Husker100]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

Thanks guys.I really appreciate all feedback.If I am to buy a new motor and make this investment I want to look at all the angles.Now I'm more confused on what to buy now..lol.

 

[bassboy1]

Re: e-tec or 4 stroke.

Well there are many, many 30 plus year old outboard motors out there still running sweet. My 1985 Johnson is considered the "new" one by some people I know. Remember when you could diagnose and fix the car at the side of the road !!! Can't do that anymore either.
Personally I would go with the 2 stroke but either way it's a crap shoot.

Yep, and your 85 Johnny will still be running when 2007 model year OBs are being parted out for scrap. Old technology is most definitely better.