E-TEC Performance Reports better explained

[Walt T]

Re: E-TEC Performance Reports better explained

I would like to point out that the information John from Illinois quoted may in fact be the information he had on hand at the time. Since the current information we now have is different from Johns, It's easy to point fingers and berate John. <br />To be honest we have no way of knowing what in fact was in front of John when he posted his numbers. We also have no way of knowing that what is posted here is absolute truth. We have seen a post supposedly from Bombardier, and we have no reason to think it isnt, that quotes an industry standard and states that it is not accurate. This brings into question Bombardiers entire summary. After all it is based on a vague industry standard.<br />We know that they supposedly use accurate instruments to record rpms, so if they are in fact accurate then we can assume that John had different results than what Bombardier is presenting at this time. Since Forktail expects all of us to regard his posts as truth, then it would behoove all of us to extend the same courtesy to John. <br />Johns original purpose was to extol the remarkable performance of the E-Tech, which has been alluded to by Forktail. <br />I think we all can agree both Forktail and John know their stuff. I for one, appreciate Johns help on this site and others.

 

[Forktail]

Re: E-TEC Performance Reports better explained

Hold on DieselWalt....<br /><br />

I would like to point out that the information John from Illinois quoted may in fact be the information he had on hand at the time.

Information on hand at the time? <br /><br />You don't start boasting about how great a performance report is without having the accurate performance report. And you certainly don't do it with a brash attitude and total disrespect toward someone who points out a legitimate problem with the data. You would never tell them they have "mutant genes" or that they're "unteachable"....That is, not unless you're an E-TEC dealer trying to convince the world that E-TEC is the best, so you can sell more outboards. <br /><br />I doesn't matter. Whether he manipulated the data or not, it was bad data. Just like I suggested it was all along. Bombardier sent me the actual performance reports (PE281 and PE282) with the correct RPM, and an explanation of their propping.<br /><br />

Since the current information we now have is different from Johns, It's easy to point fingers and berate John.

There was no reason for John's performance reports to be different than Bombardier's actual performance reports. They were one in the same, with the exception that John had access to these reports (at the time dealer only information) and we did not. When we did see the real data, it did not jive with dealer John's. Go figure. <br /><br />John was given ample opportunity to correct or change his data, which he did once. He was given opportunity to suggest that maybe his data was goofy, but he didn't. Instead, he argued and belittled those who questioned it. John pointed the finger. And he got caught.<br /><br />

To be honest we have no way of knowing what in fact was in front of John when he posted his numbers.

Well sure we do. According to John it was remarkable performance data....corrected, double-checked, accurate, and for real. But now we all know better. If John had posted the truth, we wouldn't have had such a nasty discussion...or this discussion.<br /><br />

We also have no way of knowing that what is posted here is absolute truth.

Sure we do. Bulletin # PE281 and PE282 and a letter from Bombardier's Boats and Outboard Division. These are their own published reports and comments, which I will take with truth over John's.<br /><br />

so if they are in fact accurate then we can assume that John had different results than what Bombardier is presenting at this time.

Why would the performance reports show difference results for John? <br /><br />Again, John's data was not possible, but it did make the E-TEC look fantastic for someone selling them.<br /><br />

Since Forktail expects all of us to regard his posts as truth, then it would behoove all of us to extend the same courtesy to John.

It has been shown that John does not post the truth. He is a dealer who has posted much misinformation about propping, gearing, and of course the E-TEC data, etc. And he does so with an attitude. Personally, I take everything he says with a huge grain of salt. <br /><br />I have contacted Bombardier directly. I have posted the bulletin numbers containing the actual data. I have referenced comments from their Application and Propeller Engineers. I found the mistakes. Most of my technical information comes directly from published material. I am seldom proven wrong. I have never misrepresented performance data to make an outboard look good. BTW, I don't expect you to take my posts any particular way.<br /><br />

Johns original purpose was to extol the remarkable performance of the E-Tech, which has been alluded to by Forktail.

I have alluded nothing. The performance of the E-TEC has never been at question, only the way in which John claimed it was obtained.<br /><br />John's purpose was to show that the E-TEC is superior, and to argue with anyone who questioned his bold commitment from a new outboard.<br /><br />My point throughout this topic has been that the performance data that John presented didn't jive. And that Bombardier's propeller pitch is not representative of the actual pitch. I was right in both cases. <br /><br />The performance of the E-TEC appears to be impressive. Yet I remain apprehensive to its reliability and durability in a commercial salt water environment, where my life depends on a proven outboard. I believe there is way too much hype out there by dealers like John.<br /><br />

I think we all can agree both Forktail and John know their stuff. I for one, appreciate Johns help on this site and others.

 

[moderator1]

Re: E-TEC Performance Reports better explained

Flaming another poster is not allowed.<br /><br />Thread locked and edited.