Emissions Mandated on Boats, HELP !!!!

[skiboater]

It is fairly well known that on January 2, 2008, new California engine emissions legislation is due to become law with new standards dramatically reducing the exhaust emissions of all boat engines lower than 500HP.
What is less known is that one year later, on January 2, 2009, California engine emissions legislation will become law that will limit the exhaust emissions of all “high-performance” boat engines of greater than 500HP. The new laws require that all “high-performance” marine engines will have to use catalytic converters in order to meet the emissions levels currently mandated. At this time no such engines exist and the cost of development of the new engines would seriously impact the high-performance boating industry.
The EPA will mandate similar restrictions for “high-performance” boats in all 50 States within a few years.
Changes to the proposed legislation are possible if supported by facts and weighty evidence that the proposed rules would be too burdensome and unsuitable for the high-performance sector. For this purpose a survey has been created for high performance boaters with engines of greater than 500HP.
The survey data collected will be used exclusively in communication with the California Air Research Board (ARB) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The intent is to provide the ARB and EPA accurate operational and engine type data for high performance boating in the United States.

GO TO: www.hpboatsurvey.com

[Sinister]

EPA 2002 CO emissions

total of all sources: 112,049
total of highway vehicles: 62,161

vehicles account for 27% of greenhouse gas emissions
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420r06003summary.htm

Vehicle usage: A typical automobile on the road in 2002 had an average trip length of 4.0 miles, and, with slightly more than 7 trips per day, an average of about 29 vehicle miles traveled per day.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/aqfactbk/page15.htm

Boat usage: Average Days per Year Spent Boating = 38.2 Days - "Boating Life" magazine
http://www.boatinglife.com/pdf/BL_MediaKit07.pdf

Assumption: avg day boating emissions = avg day driving emissions

boats account for .0057% of all vehicle days

We are talking about legislation to try to reduce (not eliminate) less than .0015% of all green house gas emissions.

Asinine! I would get fired if I spent many of resources trying to produce .0015% of the product I work on.

http://fishing.about.com/library/weekly/news/blnews021218boat.htm
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=604805 <table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 735px; height: 170px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 187pt;" height="17" width="249">
</td><td class="xl24" style="width: 101pt;" width="134">
</td><td class="xl24" style="width: 103pt;" width="137">
</td><td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td><td style="width: 63pt;" width="84">
</td><td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td></tr><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td><td x:num="12900000" align="right">
</td><td x:num="" align="right">
</td><td>
</td><td x:num="" x:fmla="=B2+C2" align="right">
</td><td>
</td></tr><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td><td x:num="" align="right">
</td><td x:num="" align="right"> <table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 502pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="668"><col style="width: 187pt;" width="249"> <col style="width: 101pt;" width="134"> <col style="width: 103pt;" width="137"> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <col style="width: 63pt;" width="84"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 187pt;" height="17" width="249">
</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 101pt;" width="134">Boats in US</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 103pt;" width="137">Cars in US</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 63pt;" width="84">Totals</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">count</td> <td x:num="12900000" align="right">12900000</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="235331382" align="right">235,331,382</td> <td>
</td> <td x:num="" x:fmla="=B2+C2" align="right">248231382</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Avg. # of days used/year</td> <td x:num="" align="right">38.2</td> <td x:num="" align="right">365</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Vehicle days</td> <td x:num="492780000.00000006" x:fmla="=B3*B2" align="right">492780000</td> <td x:num="85895954430" x:fmla="=C3*C2" align="right">85895954430</td> <td>
</td> <td x:num="86388734430" x:fmla="=C4+B4" align="right">86388734430</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">percentage of boat usage of total usage</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td x:num="5.7042159866260711E-3" x:fmla="=B4/E4" align="right">0.005704216</td> </tr> </tbody></table></td><td>
</td><td>
</td><td>
</td></tr><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td><td x:num="492780000.00000006" x:fmla="=B3*B2" align="right">
</td><td x:num="74460000000" x:fmla="=C3*C2" align="right">
</td><td>
</td><td x:num="74952780000" x:fmla="=C4+B4" align="right">
</td><td>
</td></tr><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td><td>
</td><td>
</td><td>
</td><td>
</td><td>
</td></tr><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td><td>
</td><td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td x:num="6.5745393299621452E-3" x:fmla="=B4/E4" align="right">
</td> <td>

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

[RedAllison]

THIS is what happens EVERYTIME you vote for Damocraps. And if you think, "Doesn't matter to me I live in XYZ state" then think again. CA by their own arrogance and "devine right" is the breeding ground for the pinkocommiefags. Once they get their foot in the door out there and get trash legislation like this passed, they know they can start the "eastward sweep" gradually.

So WHAT'S your choices? A dumbarsed Republican who will let you have fun and run your boat or a dumbarsed Damocrap who want's you to live by their desires and wishes???
RA

[Ron V]

It doesn't say if older boats would need to be retrofitted with cat converters, or if this only applies to new production? I would assume the latter...

[pyro]

The sky is falling again, I see??

Isn't this only for offshore boats with 500 hp and over?

[Mastercraft241]

It doesn't say if older boats would need to be retrofitted with cat converters, or if this only applies to new production? I would assume the latter...
I'm in new york but if that law came here, id ask them for the 18 grand for a newer engine. If not i guess ill have to run my gas hogg v8 300.:D

[skiboater]

"Isn't this only for offshore boats with 500 hp and over?"

Yes , first below 500(2008) and then over 500 (2009). One small step at a time . Who do you think will be their next target?

[DoktorC]

Wouldn't lower emissions be better? It's not like the demand for hp engines and boats are going to disappear so this should push technology...giving you a better product. The technology already exsists so it's not going to be like the SMOG cars of the 70's...look at any hp car now, more horsepower then ever before, cleaner, and more fuel efficient...where's the bad????..don't mention price because price IS NOT an issue for anything new and high performance. Ask anyone with a 300X.

These laws (at least in Canada) apply for NEW production therefore will not affect the used/pre-exsisting market.

[Action Dave]

THIS is what happens EVERYTIME you vote for Damocraps. And if you think, "Doesn't matter to me I live in XYZ state" then think again. CA by their own arrogance and "devine right" is the breeding ground for the pinkocommiefags. Once they get their foot in the door out there and get trash legislation like this passed, they know they can start the "eastward sweep" gradually.

So WHAT'S your choices? A dumbarsed Republican who will let you have fun and run your boat or a dumbarsed Damocrap who want's you to live by their desires and wishes???
RA


Isn't California's governator a republican? It's just another issue of bullying the boating community. The "greenies" pass this kind of crap to make it look like they're actually helping the environment. There are much bigger fish to fry but those fish have their hands and pockets in the government.

[1BadAction]

Isn't California's governator a republican?

that would be great if their state government was a dictatorship. :D

oh no, did i just mention an Austrian and dictatorship in the same statement? :eek: :D

[Action Dave]

DAMN! Another liberal commie called out by 1BadAction.:p Seriously though, it should not be a dem vs rep issue. It's the boating community versus the bullies. As long as states like California keep bending over and taking it, they're just gonna keep dishing it out. I don't think the terrible smog in Southern California was a result of boating alone. Or was it???:D

[hsbob]

epa has found that using a oxidizer in the fuel does more to reduce emision than anything else. based on the % boat contribute to the polution if we were to use fuel with 10% or more of ethenol the problem would go away. but thats too easy, lets do it the hard way. and dont forget about the testing we will need to go thru every year or two.

[1BadAction]

how bout everyone telling the government to kiss their ass. that would fix the problem.

[sosmerc]

I agree with DoktorC. We can have our cake and eat it too. And, most likely, we will still be able to run the old stuff for a long time in most areas.
The new DFI outboards run great and use less fuel AND are better for the environment and your pocketbook (although the cost to purchase this piece of progress is expensive, just like everything else new these days).

[sho305]

Often I think that is the point, just regulate the price of the product way up and that way you get rid of most of them eventually. Of course, that way the government can get involved and make some money off the deal too.

I think DFI is great too, but I see it as a technology that can be integrated into the product with a reasonable cost considering its advatages for the average motor. Like cars with EFI, plus it can enable 2 strokes with lighter weight to compete and be much cleaner/more efficient. I am not so sure adding converters will give you much considering the amount of emissions we are talking about.

We have a government, no many governmental units counting state/local/fed, that are bent on avoiding the serious issues at hand that REALLY affect the people of the US. To that end they will manufacture any other non-issue into a supposed issue to cover up the fact that by not doing what they should be doing...otherwise leaves them nothing to do. Next they will want to regulate how many eggs a chicken can lay per day, same difference.

[Fish]

Gov't does not give a crap about what it really is as long as it sounds good. Sure there may be other ways to achieve the same result, but typically, the "representatives of the people :rolleyes: " Will pass anything that makes it sound like they are doing something good as long as it does not effect large portions of their voter base. How many high performance boaters are there that would scream about it... not a lot. How many not effected voters in their districts that won't care since it does not effect them directly... lots.

example- alcohol (directly or indirectly)kills more people every year than all the other illegal drugs combined. Ephedra gets banned because a couple spring breakers take too many and OD, but no one dares take a look at banning alcohol. Too many voters would care about it and it would be political suicide to suggest it. Now congress can say they did something by banning ephedra, and Ted Kennedy can still have his usual lunch just before driving down the Chapaquitic.

[sho305]

Huge problems here with meth, have a relative that got into making/doing it and landed in the can, the wife too, and they got two kids....making the crap in the house. They need to do something about it. IMO drugs are legal here anyway, you don't see anyone stopping them do you? And, people don't realize the cost, it is staggering. Drugs were said to be the largest export in the country, more than all grains combined, that is a lot of cash going away. Check out that Intervention show on the tube and watch the families cry over and over, watch the dopers trying to kill themselves while we pay for it. But hey, its cool according to the libs so it will continue. Of course the same libs will outlaw smoking, and not do a thing about all the obese people in the country who are costing us just like the druggies. Not that one is better than the other, but does that really make sense? Obesety costs more in healthcare than smoking now, what do you think will happen when all those 200lb diabetics get older than 14 years old? But again, I am sure the libs think its all good.

[Cleavor]

Even if you buy into the man made global warming hypothesis, which I do not, Sinister pointed out quite well that the contribution of green house gases by boats, especially outboard boats is a non issue. Outboards contribute so little that their emissions mean nothing.

As far as thinking it is all a grand idea to force companies to build products the government demands and we all benefit is just plain ridiculous. If Mercury, BRP and the Japanese weren't forced to stop development on the straight up 2 strokes to spend R&D dollars developing the 4 strokes and DFIs, where would the technology be now? As usual, when the government forces unfunded mandates on manufacturers, we all lose.

[Tony Montana]

Even if you buy into the man made global warming hypothesis, which I do not, Sinister pointed out quite well that the contribution of green house gases by boats, especially outboard boats is a non issue. Outboards contribute so little that their emissions mean nothing.



doesn't mean OB's won't be the sacrificial lamb tho:rolleyes:

[1BadAction]

Now congress can say they did something by banning ephedra, and Ted Kennedy can still have his usual lunch just before driving down the Chapaquitic.

awesome

[Cleavor]

Agreed Tony. I expect our beloved outboards will eventually be sacrificed at the alter of political correctness and environmetal extremism.

[sho305]

Even if you buy into the man made global warming hypothesis, which I do not, Sinister pointed out quite well that the contribution of green house gases by boats, especially outboard boats is a non issue. Outboards contribute so little that their emissions mean nothing.
True, they are just chasing farts in the wind so they don't have to fix the broken windows...soon to be a hurricane leveled house that we will pay to fix after they neglected it for decades. The hurricane will not be from energy use, it will be the results of their lack of leadership. Yesterday they said a problem with a refinery in Europe was affecting the price of our gas; 20 years plus with no new refineries here or energy policies to fix it. Now we are paying for it and still congress could care less. They can do no wrong when the fact is they can't do at all.


As far as thinking it is all a grand idea to force companies to build products the government demands and we all benefit is just plain ridiculous. If Mercury, BRP and the Japanese weren't forced to stop development on the straight up 2 strokes to spend R&D dollars developing the 4 strokes and DFIs, where would the technology be now? As usual, when the government forces unfunded mandates on manufacturers, we all lose.
I don't agree on that, but maybe I'm wrong. I see 2 stroke development at a standstill until DFI. How old is the 2.5 260/280/drag? 20 years old unchanged? How is that "development"? Unless you spill for ceramic pistons or the like, that is all you are going to get out of it with any amount of lifespan. You can make more power, builders do it all the time, but not for as long as the factory needs to sell. Four stroke development has to be the most prolific in the world: between F1 racing, superbike, indy, etc, etc we have tons of development in 4 strokes and they still can't keep up with a 20 year old 2 stroke HP to weight. The question really is, what if we develop the 2 stroke?

On the other hand, take a look at fuel consumption and starting ease/dependabilty of an old carb 200hp and a DFI 200hp, huge difference. I do think performance motors like the 2.5 race series should get a break due to the difficulty of using DFI in that application, and their very fractional number of sales that amount to nothing. But when you elect lawyers with God complexes for leaders, you don't get common sense. It should be no different than buying a performance <20" boat you can put a 300hp motor on. Merc has the price high enough on that ancient motor to limit sales anyway. We will see what happens when someone starts custom programming a DFI for performance, it might be surprising.

[Cleavor]

Sho, we can debate that, there is certainly enough room to speculate either way. I don't know one way or the other whether or not Mercury and the others could have done better with the standard 2 strokes if they weren't force to develop the 4 stroke and DFIs starting in the early(?) 1990s. They had to drop everything and rush to develop the other technologies in order to meet the drop dead date of 2006. Maybe they would be offering us 400+hp 2 strokes by now, maybe not. I do however, have a fundamental problem with government forcing these things down our and the manufacturers collective throats, especially when they are so meaningless to the supposed problem they are going to "fix".

[Cleavor]

I also agree that the products from Merc Racing should be exempt.

[sho305]

I agree about the throat ramming part, they really don't have plans for these things half the time....often looks like a knee-jerk reaction that takes little consideration for those involved directly. On the other hand there have been instances that really PO'ed me. How about in the 80s when we had junk cars with 50hp and others had efi that ran fine. Same thing with the flathead 1940s lawn engines until Asians came along with a ohv motor from this century for us to use that was way better. I like to support my own, but not at the expense of a grossly inferior product. Companies here just love to form an oligopoly and sit in the rocking chair. Meanwhile others make better stuff...then later our company is way behind and gets tanked just like the automakers now....and we have been fed old junk for years.

I could be wrong but just don't see much more power out of a 2 stroke with existing materials. Take something like motocross or snowmobiles and they have significant investment in technology. Then again, would Merc built a new V6 with exhaust valves? I doubt it, but maybe they would have....maybe they will with a DFI who knows. Sure cost is a factor until you get mass production, but just how long can you make the same old thing with no improvement? You know the perf Chevy Cobalt engine has DFI? BMW has been making engines with no throttle body for years now. We will see how long it takes to get to more normal cars....we can actually get a 5 speed auto trans now, that is a start. But Ford, they have a 3.5L V6 now and it is many years late, like a decade late. Confounding IMO.

Seems to me DFI is the next logical evolution for the 2 stroke. Is it for every 2 stroke, no. But it is so much better for normal use it is stupid not to have it. Too bad it had to be emissions that brought it, but I'm glad it is here. The more they make the better/cheaper they can make them. In reality it must have been hard for OB motor companies to bring this technology out compared to say an auto company with their much larger pockets. Hitting the race 2.5, that is stupid. Last I heard Merc would not even build a run of them until it had a large enough order because nobody bought them.

[Ron V]

Same thing with the flathead 1940s lawn engines until Asians came along with a ohv motor from this century for us to use that was way better.

????

Let's see, we've got a 1974 Briggs & Stratton flathead 3 hp that has the original spark plug in it, first or second pull every time. It's on the shelf as a spare. Never once let us down. Got another mower we dug out of the garbage, same motor, first or second pull every time including in the spring, with no Stabil in the gas. Had a 1965 Hahn Eclipse riding mower with a 5 hp flathead Briggs, again a great runner. 1991 Murray garden tractor with a 12 hp Briggs I/C flathead, original spark plug, never had a problem and has had a LOT of use and abuse. My 3.5 hp Tecumseh flathead starts on the first pull nearly every time (though I had to put a carburetor from a 1960s Tecumseh on it with a genuine choke to get it to start that good) If you think you need a fancy OHV engine on a lawnmower that's fine, but I don't see where a flathead is so horrible or why you would need anything more complicated to cut the lawn. My mower with the Tecumseh cost $70 on sale and runs fine, why pay $300+ for a Honda. I just don't see where you get off saying a simple, reliable flathead is so bad. Only way they could get more simple and reliable is if they brought back suction feed carburetors.

As for the outboards, there ain't a thing been done for the everyday guy on a limited budget in the last 10 years. And that's largely the fault of the EPA always chasing the trivial stuff that means nothing. If you read the flowmeter result for the DFI tests, those motors ain't enough better on gas at wide open throttle to justify the cost and complexity for the everyday person. If the motor has the simplest problem out of warranty, you're screwed with a huge repair bill for something that a monkey could have fixed on the old motors. Same thing with the four strokes. Then you add the weight. Did the carbureted Merc V-6 evolve from 1977 to 2005? Not in its essential design. Are the DFI's cleaner? Yep. Do they do anything for the average guy who saves for years to buy one and only uses it 30-50 hours per year? Hell no.

[1BadAction]

????

Let's see, we've got a 1974 Briggs & Stratton flathead 3 hp that has the original spark plug in it, first or second pull every time. It's on the shelf as a spare. Never once let us down. Got another mower we dug out of the garbage, same motor, first or second pull every time including in the spring, with no Stabil in the gas. Had a 1965 Hahn Eclipse riding mower with a 5 hp flathead Briggs, again a great runner. 1991 Murray garden tractor with a 12 hp Briggs I/C flathead, original spark plug, never had a problem and has had a LOT of use and abuse. My 3.5 hp Tecumseh flathead starts on the first pull nearly every time (though I had to put a carburetor from a 1960s Tecumseh on it with a genuine choke to get it to start that good) If you think you need a fancy OHV engine on a lawnmower that's fine, but I don't see where a flathead is so horrible or why you would need anything more complicated to cut the lawn. My mower with the Tecumseh cost $70 on sale and runs fine, why pay $300+ for a Honda. I just don't see where you get off saying a simple, reliable flathead is so bad. Only way they could get more simple and reliable is if they brought back suction feed carburetors.
did ronV just say that? :confused: :eek: :D

[Tom Foley]

????

Let's see, we've got a 1974 Briggs & Stratton flathead 3 hp that has the original spark plug in it, first or second pull every time. It's on the shelf as a spare. Never once let us down. Got another mower we dug out of the garbage, same motor, first or second pull every time including in the spring, with no Stabil in the gas. Had a 1965 Hahn Eclipse riding mower with a 5 hp flathead Briggs, again a great runner. 1991 Murray garden tractor with a 12 hp Briggs I/C flathead, original spark plug, never had a problem and has had a LOT of use and abuse. My 3.5 hp Tecumseh flathead starts on the first pull nearly every time (though I had to put a carburetor from a 1960s Tecumseh on it with a genuine choke to get it to start that good) If you think you need a fancy OHV engine on a lawnmower that's fine, but I don't see where a flathead is so horrible or why you would need anything more complicated to cut the lawn. My mower with the Tecumseh cost $70 on sale and runs fine, why pay $300+ for a Honda. I just don't see where you get off saying a simple, reliable flathead is so bad. Only way they could get more simple and reliable is if they brought back suction feed carburetors.

As for the outboards, there ain't a thing been done for the everyday guy on a limited budget in the last 10 years. And that's largely the fault of the EPA always chasing the trivial stuff that means nothing. If you read the flowmeter result for the DFI tests, those motors ain't enough better on gas at wide open throttle to justify the cost and complexity for the everyday person. If the motor has the simplest problem out of warranty, you're screwed with a huge repair bill for something that a monkey could have fixed on the old motors. Same thing with the four strokes. Then you add the weight. Did the carbureted Merc V-6 evolve from 1977 to 2005? Not in its essential design. Are the DFI's cleaner? Yep. Do they do anything for the average guy who saves for years to buy one and only uses it 30-50 hours per year? Hell no.

I agree 100 % , add up all this trivial BS and it doesnt amount to anything in terms of industrial emmissions and pollution . Diane Fienstien needs to have a bad Orca experience while out on a kelp forest inspection . That hypocritical bitch needs a book of matches and a military meal and to be dropped off in the middle of the Mojave to embrace the desert mouse and tortise for a week ! She'll be screaming for Starbucks ,Tofu and Mercedes Benz customer service in an hour ! What a friggin jackass she is !! Die already !!

[sho305]

There is little difference in the price of B&S and Honda: http://www.smallenginewarehouse.com/ProductList.asp?Category=Engine&Supplier=Briggs
B&S vanguard are all Asian design engines because we can't do it it seems, in fact I don't even know if B&S is US company anymore. Fact is those flatheads are what killed them. Maybe some good points but I was involved in commercial small equipment for over 10yr and you could not find a motor that could do the job that was not Asian until the vanguard came out. US engines were way behind after sitting in the rocking chair for decades. When you have to mow 10 acres a day you need a lawnmower not a washing machine. Harley Davidson had to be bailed out for the same reasons. America the great and still making a pos, that is what happened. Happens in other places too, the 3.0 duratec Ford has built for so long now in the taurus/jag/mazda and other cars was a Porsche developed engine they bought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mondeo_V6_engine Now ford has a new 3.5 V6 for their cars a decade too late, still low on HP, and can't figure out why car sales are low.

I will agree that it adds cost to the OB. But you can't complain about using the same fuel WOT as any engine will take X fuel to make the same power. There is only so much energy in gas and most engines are fairly efficient at full tilt. The carb 2 stroke just takes a lot more to run less than WOT than a DFI or 4 stroke does because it is inefficient at part throttle. You mean nobody runs less than WOT in a boat? It is too bad we had to get rid of all the carbs as that leaves no low cost option that many would use, we only have a 3 month season here anyway. I still think DFI is great, just wish it would have gotten into production on its own instead.

And right again, the emissions on those few hours of use amount to nothing in the world of pollution, just another pointless government policy on the people so they didn't have to fix a larger issue. Nice how around the same time they took the CAFE off of big trucks and suvs so they could get any mpg they wanted with no manufacturer fees! Then no longer did you know what the mpg rating were on those vehicles when you bought either, talk about bending over the people...

If you ask me the pricing of OBs and lawn engines are grossly overinflated anyway by the manufacturers. I can buy a $1500 24hp B&S, or buy a whole garden tractor with that engine in it for something like $400 more...tell me who is ripping who. You can buy a pretty nice car for what an ancient old 2.5 was selling for, $18K was it? You can say mass production, but I don't see that accounting for such a huge spread in price in particular when you pump out the same old product for two decades. If you can't do it for very low cost by then you are an idiot and deserve to go down. Obviously B&S sells an engine for maybe 25% of my cost to a lawnmower maker and still makes profit. The Asians are happy to tag along making a killing too, just wait until they all make full size trucks, another cash cow.