outboards

[mastreb]

Evinrude's ad copy claims 80% lower CO emissions at idle than the next best outboard engine available (it's on their front page for Evinrude right now) and its the only outboard currently CARB compliant in california.

[bscott]

Has anyone ever seen a real comparison of the Evinrude XD-100 oil with the WM TC-W3 Direct Fuel Injection oil? I really wonder, considering that there are only so many oil manufacturers out there, if the XD-100 is sold as an off brand. Really, WM does not manufacture oil - who makes their TC-W3 Direct Fuel Injection oil?

It uses so little oil at the XD setting that the extra cost is minor compared to the performance benefits. Buying the best is always the cheapest.

Bob

[seahouse]

Hoo boy. A lot of misinformation in this thread. A lot of outdated information in this thread, in between the facts. So how's the hapless reader who has come here to seek our advice ever going to tell the difference?

(Oh no, I think I can hear the drum beats of that “other” thread (XD-100) getting louder in the background). Or maybe it's the “Fram” thread.

The E-tec is, and has been in several years in fact, as measured by the EPA, CARB, and European emission standards (and probably any other standards you might choose to apply), cleaner running than 4-strokes. There. I said it too. Add my name to that list. (Sorry- don't like hearing that again?) Get over it!

This has been mentioned in previous posts by me, and others, on this forum. It has stood head and shoulders above others in this regard (and some other regards, too). It's best to find that out while you're shopping, before you buy, than after, as this OP is wisely doing by asking the question.

For those who are familiar with the term, I think “paradigm shift” might be appropriate to describe the new and still-evolving (yup, they're gonna get even better) direct injection 2-stroke technologies (note that BRP Evinrude is not the only player in the game). The more you learn about it, and the more you learn about other technologies in comparison, the more impressive it becomes. If not paradigm shift, then at least“game changer”. The others need to rush to beat it.

My predictions – 2 strokes aren't going anywhere, they have way too many advantages. You very well might see them in cars and other vehicles in the future, they're just not there yet. (Well, 2-cycle diesels, maybe). The year before the Prius debuted you didn't see any hybrids on the road either, but it would have been quite incorrect had you said that because there are none on the road now, that there will be none in the future.

There's no shortage of supporting data for the above on the internet (EPA website for example), if anyone cares to confirm it for themselves*. I found lots of info years before I bought my Mac in 2011.

Brian.

*Ps. Filter out the nonsense, like where they tie two boats together in a tug of war. Meaningless. Hilarious and entertaining, though.

[seahouse]

OK- here's a couple of links to get you started, there's a ton of stuff out there.

From EPA's website, note this is several years ago; they've been improved since then...

Evinrude® E-TEC™ Clean Air Technology — Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.
In 2003, Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. (BRP) introduced Evinrude E-TEC, an outboard engine for marine recreational products, which is based on a two-stroke engine technology. Compared to a similar 2004 four-stroke engine, carbon monoxide emissions with Evinrude E-TEC are typically 30 to 50 percent lower; and at idle are lower by a factor of 50 to 100 times. In addition, Evinrude E-TEC emits 30 to 40 percent less total particulate matter on a weight basis than a similar “ultra-low emissions” four-stroke outboard. Furthermore, oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbon emissions for Evinrude E-TEC are similar, if not lower, than a four-stroke outboard. There are no oil changes with this engine, as well as no belts, and no valve or throttle linkage adjustments. This makes Evinrude E-TEC engines easier to own than comparable four-stroke engines. In addition, numerous advancements combine to create the Evinrude E-TEC quiet signature sound including an exclusive idle air bypass circuit.

Quote from...http://www.epa.gov/air/cleanairawards/winners-2004.html

Also...

http://www.chastheboat.co.uk/download/E ... docket.pdf

And...

http://members.iinet.net.au/~pauldawson ... -a-sml.pdf

Enjoy - B.

[kadet]

Etec's will run without oil and/or coolant for 5 hrs at reduced RPM.

Just another feature to consider.

They have coolant?

Yep it's called the ocean, lake, river or whatever body of water you run them on or in the case of ski-doo a proper coolant like glycol

But S.A.F.E. mode refers to oil not coolant.

[kadet]

When I get my motor serviced, I'll have it switched to the XD-100 setting, and then run fully synthetic TC-W3 (since that's all XD-100 actually is) or XD-100 depending on what's cheapest and available.

WRONG !!!!
Simple answer is don't, it is not TC-W3, XD-100 has a special blend of detergents and anti-carbon additives that were developed by Johnson when they were trying to solve the FITCH problems XD-50 is very similar to TC-W3 but XD-100 is very different. BRP did extensive testing when they acquired Evinrude/Johnson and only XD-100 was suitable to run at the leaner rates. Running anything other XD-100 on the XD-100 EMM settings also voids your warranty.

[mastreb]

I'm specifically talking about full synthetic TC-W3. In XD-100 mode, the EMM delivers about 1/3 the oil. If the motor can operate on non-synthetic oil at 100% just fine, then any full synthetic will work at 30%.

There may be some additional additives in XD-100 but they aren't engine killers if you don't have them.

And my warrantee will be well expired before I get my motor serviced for the first time anyway.

Full synthetic oils are vastly superior to natural oils across the board. They have far longer service life in all lubrication applications than mineral derived oils because they're pure long chain hydrocarbon, not the random blend you get from Mother Nature. They contain none of the sulfur and fly-ash components that cause carbon buildup in the first place, and the fuels all have anti-carbon detergents these days anyway.

The TC-W3 setting is worst-case scenario, and the XD-100 is reasonable case. I'm not recommending others do this, but for my risk tolerance, full synthetic oil will be just fine.

Ten years from now I'll report back.

[kadet]

Robert Huggins gives a good opposing view, with which I agree.

Mercury Marine sells three different types of TC3 oil. One of their
publications even rates these three oils on a 1-10 scale according to
a set of criteria. In some cases, say carbon buildup, they might rate
one oil as a 7, one as a 9, and one as a 10. All three passed the TC3
test, which might have had a cutoff of 5 for this criteria.

Some people buy a boat and use it only once or twice a year.
Some people buy a boat and use it an average of 50 times a year.
Some people buy a boat and use it every day for work.

Its a matter of how much carbon buildup, how much piston wear, etc.
you want or need. Lubrication is more critical for some horsepower
and design of engines than for others. It's too late when you have a
broken piston ring and/or a scored cylinder.

I'm tired of defending the OEM's TC3 oils to people that want to think
that all TC3 oil provides the same amount of engine protection.
If someone can provide some FACTS, I'll be the first one to point the
finger (you know which one) and raise hull with the OEMs.
Until then, the FACTS that I have seen indicate that all TC3 oils are
not the same. Certain additives, which are expensive, provide more
protection. The OEM's do not start the oil design process trying to
design the cheapest oil which will pass the test. They are looking
for oils which will protect their engines and also be affordable.

As they say, your mileage may vary.... and the quality of the oil you
use in your engine is one reason why!

Johnson and BRP tests showed there was a real risk of cylinder scoring with other oils in the old FITCH engines hence the development of XD-50 and XD-100. Wether this carries over to the ETEC I don't know

But!!

As stated your risk tolerance is different and yours to make as you know your usage, the oil you buy etc.. but it should be pointed out for others who may not understand that risk which is what I am trying to show.

Given the minimal saving for me in not using XD-100 compared to the outlay for fuel, servicing and beer my risk leans towards using it It took me nearly 4 years to use my first 3.75lt bottle of XD-100 that cost $55 the second bottle is half empty but did cost $75 I could get a very good TC-W3 for about $25 less a saving of only $6.25 a year, cheap insurance in my book.

[seahouse]

Matt --

I share Kadet's concerns as well. Is it possible that you might be confusing the qualities of XD-100 with XPSII, which is another full synthetic from BRP? I have a bulk container of that left over from a Sea-doo, waiting for some time to pass for BRP, or others who use it in the E-tec, report back. The XPSII is probably fine at the lower dilution, but at the higher dilution setting is the question. The additive package is different between even these two high-quality products, and the manual's warnings are more severe than that which you usually see in a situation where they are simply trying to scare you into not using someone else's product. As time passes competing similar products should become available on the market from other manufacturers, though, after the manual has been written.

I think you're aware that both of the above mentioned synthetic oils are actually known to be true synthetics. As mentioned in prior threads, due to a court ruling the word "synthetic" can be used to describe oils that are actually not synthetic. Though Castrol is not the only one to do it, they can legally put the word "synthetic" on the package, charge a higher price as if it were synthetic oil, but not actually have synthetic oil in the container.

I just want to make sure that you don't report back to us before the ten years has passed!

-B.

[Starscream]

I have been planning to upgrade to a 90 for some months now but haven't pulled the trigger...still waffling on which engine to go with. IMO the clear leaders are the Suzuki DF90 and the Etec 90. Here is where I am in my research:

Noise: The Suzi will be quieter than the Etec. This is clear when you read between the lines on the Etec website: nowhere in all their literature is it claimed that the engine is quieter. If you ignore the marketing spin, you can see quite clearly that they know it is louder. In fact, here is the claim from Evinrude: "Comparable to the quietest four-strokes, thanks to our acoustically tuned intake and exhaust and 3-dimensional foam lining. Makes for easier conversation and extra stealth when you’re tossing baits." That's it. "Comparable". Not quieter. Q.E.D.

Weight: Etec wins. 320 lbs for the 90. 380 for the Yamaha F90. 359 for the Honda BF90. 375 for the Mercury Optimax and 341 for the Suzuki DF90. While 21 pounds isn't much difference, one could argue that every pound counts back there.

Longevity: I think the Etec wins. I really like the long service intervals and the automatic winterizing.

Performance: Does anyone have an Etec 90 installed? What are the performance numbers? VKMaynard: what are the final max speed numbers on the DF90 with a loaded boat?

Size: While not posted I think everyone agrees the Etec is the most compact and therefore most convenient?

Color: Etec is white so it must be faster.

I find it odd that on the Suzuki website there is a "compare" function for all the other engines EXCEPT the Etec. Does that mean that Suzuki thinks their comparison isn't too favorable against the Evinrude? Reading my own post I can see that I am quite clearly leaning towards the Etec. BTW if anyone is looking for a used 2002 Honda BF50A, watch the classifieds in the spring!

Hey forum moderators: why not have a VOTE thread where you can pick between the Etec / Suzuki / Yamaha / Honda / Mercury?

[vkmaynard]

Evinrude's ad copy claims 80% lower CO emissions at idle than the next best outboard engine available (it's on their front page for Evinrude right now) and its the only outboard currently CARB compliant in california.

This is why I love marketing spin. I just called Kevin at the ARB in CA to ask about the Etec CARB claim. As I suspected marketing at play.

Manufactures have to pass the ARB compliance (CARB) to sell in CA. BRP Etec is not the only motor allowed for sell in CA. They may be one of the only two strokes that are CARB compiant but not the only motor. He said most motors are CARB 3 Star compliant, especially 4 strokes. That includes Suzuki, Yamaha, Honda, etc.

Interstging to note that the CO levels (carbon monoxide) have increased in the Etec between the last two "Executive Orders" allowing them to sell their motors. They put out 50% more CO than Suzuki 4S. Looks like Etec has slightly less emissons level by 11% not 20%, if I read the documents correctly.

Here are the ARB Executive Orders showing CARB 3 Star for both engine families allowing the manufactures to sell in CA. Suzuki http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/ce ... 2-0122.pdf and Etec http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/ce ... 0196-1.pdf

Victor

[mastreb]

The big problem with XD-100 is its lack of availability. You can't pull up to a fuel dock and buy it--in fact, I've not found it anywhere at a retail outlet ever. But I can by fully synthetic TC-W3 just about everywhere. I'm not going to carry a 55 gallon drum of the stuff just so I can go up the coast.

Now, if manufacturers are allowed to lie about being "fully synthetic", well then I guess I won't make the settings switch. It makes no sense to be locked into a specific oil and then stranded without it while cruising.

[kadet]

The big problem with XD-100 is its lack of availability. You can't pull up to a fuel dock and buy it--in fact, I've not found it anywhere at a retail outlet ever. But I can by fully synthetic TC-W3 just about everywhere. I'm not going to carry a 55 gallon drum of the stuff just so I can go up the coast.

Now, if manufacturers are allowed to lie about being "fully synthetic", well then I guess I won't make the settings switch. It makes no sense to be locked into a specific oil and then stranded without it while cruising.

Man you must do some motoring at WOT as 55 Gallons = about 8000 nautical miles from my calculations

Seriously though you are right availability can be a problem luckily here we did not loose all our dealers with the restructure of BRP and it is freely available on ebay.

[seahouse]

I tend to discount the sound claims of any product when the data are close to each other. DI engines in autos are known to be louder at idle.

The trouble with claiming that one engine is "quieter" than another is that it's a subjective quality. A "louder" noise that is considered "pleasant" (I personally LOVE the sound of a Ferrari V12; the intake manifold resonance on a modern V8 at WOT; and the sweet scream of a Honda CBX motorcycle inline 6 for examples) can be more tolerable than the "quieter" sound of, say, a Toyota 4-cylinder "sewing machine" engine running at idle. What RPM and load conditions are, the temperature, distance of carry (one engine can be louder than another from 3 feet way, and the opposite would be the case at 20 feet), any of a lot of other variables come into play.

Quietness in running can be a good measure of the level of sophistication of an engine. One particular brand of motorcycles noted for low power output relative to others is also well known for more open exhaust pipes that use sound to compensate for the lack of output - it "sounds" faster, even though the real gain might be small, or actually a loss. There are also autos on the market that reduce noise, vibration,and harshness (known as NVH in the industry) using a speaker in the cockpit to cancel the sound waves, and others have a duct that funnels the manifold resonance sound into the cabin when the gas pedal is hit.

Ten years ago BRP made some extreme and unlikely pre-launch claims about the engine sound on their soon to be released Sea-doos. The press changed their tune abruptly when the models were released- as it turned out the claims were not exaggerated. The only sound that could be heard when the machine is moving toward you is the sound of the water on the hull (which itself was quite quiet). I bought one.

It's well known that sound pressure levels as measured in decibels don't translate well into what the human ear hears as loudness. It's a waveform, so how can you quantify that? Calculus, with the area under? The RMS? Peak to peak? The ear uses none of these methods! It befuddles sound engineers to this day. But if you are marketing and your engine performs well using that particular SPL metric, then you will make it known.

Marketing hype is dismissible if only one player were using that technique, and the others weren't, which I doubt is the case here. So if they all do it within reason, the field is level. If you dismiss one's claims, you must dismiss all claims.

Just like the Sea-doo sound output press-releases, it's hard to accept unlikely claims. But if the BRP hype was not true, and the E-tec were not as claimed, by now the other manufacturers would be pointing that out and making their own outrageous (but false) claims as well. That hasn't happened after so many years.

To my eyes, the real magnitude of any technical advancement is greatly amplified when the claims made are considered so far out there as to be unbelieveble, and yet they turn out to be true.

Sci-fi just keeps on coming to life.

-B.

[mastreb]

The big problem with XD-100 is its lack of availability. You can't pull up to a fuel dock and buy it--in fact, I've not found it anywhere at a retail outlet ever. But I can by fully synthetic TC-W3 just about everywhere. I'm not going to carry a 55 gallon drum of the stuff just so I can go up the coast.

Now, if manufacturers are allowed to lie about being "fully synthetic", well then I guess I won't make the settings switch. It makes no sense to be locked into a specific oil and then stranded without it while cruising.

Man you must do some motoring at WOT as 55 Gallons = about 8000 nautical miles from my calculations

Seriously though you are right availability can be a problem luckily here we did not loose all our dealers with the restructure of BRP and it is freely available on ebay.

I get about 24 gallons of fuel per quart of TC-W3 which is very consistent with the 100:1 ratio claimed by BRP. It's very convenient because I can just add a quart every time I top off. I guess XD-100 gets you 150:1 or better depending on how you run your engine. What I have determined is that the ratio depends on a lot on speed: If you're trolling around at 4 knots, the engine doesn't seem to use oil much at all--I went through at least 50 gallons before putting a quart in when I didn't plane. But at WOT, its firm about a quart every fill-up.

I run with one new quart and one remaining bottle aboard, and then pick up more at fuel docks. Also one nifty trick for not spilling: Cut the bottom off of a quart bottle when you're done with it. It fits precisely in the oil nozzle, and you can pour into it as a perfect funnel, and when you're done with it you can cap the funnel off so it doesn't drip on anything when you're done.

I used to keep oil in the fuel locker atop the tank, but after a minor (few drops) spill delaminated one of my tanks, I now keep my spare quart in the engine well.

And Yeah, When you run from Catalina to San Diego (via Oceanside fuel dock) in five hours, you go through some oil and gas.