B&WB 200hp DFI Shootout

[blkmtrfan]

Just got my B&WB in the mail and enclosed was the new 200hp DFI shootout. :cool:

All things considered a really close comparo, in fact no winner was picked.

What I found most supprising was the fuel comsumption of the ETEC was quite a bit higher than the Opti or the HPDI :confused:


Also, kind of curious why the 200xs wasn't tested instead of the plain vanilla Opti when Bomb sent the HO and Yammi sent the Vmax :confused:

[Lockjaw]

I haven't seen a test yet where the E-tec beat the Opti in mileage. Maybe they throw a little extra gas at it to get the lower oil consumption?

So what kind of boat were they run on, etc. :D

[blkmtrfan]

19' Bass Cat

Top Speed:
Evinrude: 74.5 MPH
Mercury: 73.9 MPH
Yamaha: 73.9 MPH

Fuel Economy:
Mercury: 5.8 MPG
Yamaha: 5.5 MPG
Evinrude: 4.4 MPG

Hole Shot: (0-30 mph)
Yamaha: 6.7 sec
Mercury: 7.6 sec
Evinrude: 8.2 sec

Midrange: (40-60 mph)
Mercury: 6.8 sec
Yamaha: 7.4 sec
Evinrude: 7.6 sec

[150aintenuff]

humm.....better check my mail...... haven got mine resently........ better check on that............


BUT the ETECH was faster......... but Slower out of the hole.... HUMMMMM this should spark some MAJOR discussion......

[1BadAction]

I haven't seen a test yet where the E-tec beat the Opti in mileage. Maybe they throw a little extra gas at it to get the lower oil consumption?

the etec injection design cant atomize fuel as good as the merc/orbital. (think old school squirt gun VS super soaker) therefore using more fuel to do the same job... although, that all goes out the window when you have the motors WFO.

LOL comparing the regular merc to the HO rude... gotta give the rude a chance somehow :D I see the top speed was no where near the gap of the 225s though. I think that .6mph loss could be because of that meatball sub JWT ate at lunch. :D great test over all, IMO.

- Your boating Rag critic, JR.

[1BadAction]

another interesting thing, is even with the lower "gear ratio" the merc still came out on top of fuel economy pile. Whereas in the 225 test it could have been argued that the mercs fuel economy was due only to the 1.62 gears. there is a very noticeable difference in range for someone who is interested in fuel economy. 40 gallons would get you 232 miles with the merc, and only 176 miles with the rude. :eek:

[David]

They tested the Rude with a 28 Raker and a 27 Trophy. The Rude was apparently only 1/10 behind the Yamaha in fuel economy with the Trophy. No numbers were given, but the Evinrude also accelerated better with the Trophy than with the Raker. Bombardier was given the option and chose to have the Raker numbers published.

If allowed to rev to the rev limiter, the Yamaha was the fastest. Yamaha has changed their max rpm rating for 2006 to allow this.

I sure would have liked to see the 200XS tested.

If Etec doesn't atomize fuel as well, how come the Etec is the only 3 star engine of the bunch?

B&W continues to be the best place for comparison tests.

[1BadAction]

emissions and fuel economy are 2 different things. Way to put that spin on it though...

[150aintenuff]

emissions and fuel economy are 2 different things. Way to put that spin on it though...


TRUE BUT if yer burnin more fuel you have more air cummin in, more exhaust goin out AND more CHANCE fer higher hydrocarbon emmissions... kinda like ayin a 4 banger gettin 10 mpg and a BBC gettin 10 mpg.... at the same speed.. they are usin the same xact ammount of fuel but since the BBC is large in displaceent it is a bigger air pump using MORE AIR and thus for the same fuel is burnin leaner which SHOULD show better harmfull emmissions IF there isnt anything to AFTERCLEAN the exhaust streem.. Also WHAT criteria do they rate the enines at, smoke emmissions, hydrocarbon output, carbon dioxide (which contrary to popular belief isnt harmfull plants use it to photosyntheize) NOx ect...... HOWEVER due to catalitic convertes and other AFTERCLEANING of the exhaust emmissions modern vehicles are using a stop gap approach to meet the requirements... Build an engine that gets 60 MPG on the hiway, and meets emmissions WITHOUT all the exterior airpumps, catalitic converters and emmissions controlls... it can be done..

ALSO in terms of effency which engine is SCIENTIFICALLY closer to IDEAL STOICOMETERIC A/F ratio.... Leaner fuel mixtures AT same speeds USE less fuel, Thus better milege, AND SHOULD have a lower HARMFULL emmissions output... at 14.7:1 in a Complete combustion oxidation the only output of emmissions in gasoline SHOULD be water, carbon dioxide and Enert Nitrogen oxides. and Thus creat ZERO readable emmissions... BUT that isnt the real world functions. Personally I believe that the EPA doesnt do an accurate testing prosedure of real world usage of an outboard engine... and if they did NONE of the current engines both 2 and 4 stroke would pass....

[Stinky]

... although, that all goes out the window when you have the motors WFO.


Not true. DI, atomization, and combustion chamber shape make a huge difference in emmisions and fuel economy at WOT, compared to an EFI.

:)

[Stinky]

emissions and fuel economy are 2 different things. Way to put that spin on it though...

Amen. ;)

[1BadAction]

Not true. DI, atomization, and combustion chamber shape make a huge difference in emmisions and fuel economy at WOT, compared to an EFI.

:)

what I was relating it to was the merc DI VS other DI systems. The difference between the 3 manufacturers are very small. if there was a way to tune DFI end-user style like the PCU does for EFI, I would definately be all over it. untill then I'll settle for the regular efi.

Nick yet again, makes a post that is a page long and doesnt say anything that hasnt been posted before. :rolleyes: Jump back on howstuffworks.com and google to find something different to post.

[David]

For further interest, I wish they'd tested both the 3.3L Etec and the 2.6L Etec. Why does Evinrude go to all the trouble of making a 2.6L 200 for lighter boats, but then doesn't offer it with the hi performance gearcase and firmer engine mounts?

[jimmyb]

here's some more fuel for the fire:

Retail Price (as published): Evinrude E-TEC HO $17,900 200 OptiMax $14,465 Yamaha 200 $16,100

Quotes: "Mercury took top honors in mid-range acceleration, fuel economy and price and shared the NO 1 spot with Evinrude for warranty and sound... in the end it had no areas of weakness at all." --- page 39


"After all the emissions and mileage hype from Evinrude, we expected the E-TEC HO to really put a hurtin' on the other two when it came to the fuel fillup. Yet that was not the case at all." -- page 36

"...is it worth it[higher price for the E-TEC]? I'd say only if you are a die-hard Evinrude fan." -- page 38

[Lockjaw]

I liked the BassCat Cougar I rode in that had a 225 Opti on it. To say it would fly was an understatement, it was quiet, and got good mileage.

In other words, I would buy an opti based upon that ride.


Oh and thanks for the specs, I need to go see if the mag is available yet.

[Stinky]

what I was relating it to was the merc DI VS other DI systems. The difference between the 3 manufacturers (WOT fuel flow)are very small.


Fuel (gph)

WOT

Evinrude 20.1

Yamaha 18.1 (5500)

Mercury 17.5

I don't call that small. :cool:

:)

[Stinky]

Stinky, I didnt see that. that is a good bit of difference. Assuming all motors have the same prop HP, the merc and yammi should make more HP at the crank, due to driving the external pumps. Other than the injection, what do you think the reason could be for the for the better fuel economy? Maybe displacement :D?

DI system (what the ECU can do for you), atomization, and combustion chamber shape. :cool:

And don't forget, BRP is driving those high volt injectors with the alternator. Nothings free.

EDIT oops I forgot, BRP has that new technology, they put a stator under the flywheel with magnets. :rolleyes:
:)

[stan merck]

Back to the 3 star rating thing, I think that 3 star rating is mainly based at idle speeds. The E-tec idles super lean. An opti can do the same thing. Yamaha never runs in a stoichometic state so it cant do it. What an eng puts out at idle who cares. Majority of eng run time is 1500 rpm and up anyway. I think the hpdi injection system has the greatest potential to build high rpm hp compared to an opti or E-tec. So back to the article is what its saying is if the Yamaha was propped correctly it would have been the fastest? Hhhmm... best accel and top speed? Looks like as I always thought E-tec is alot of hype. It runs alright, but nothing like their dvd where it just runs off and leaves everything.

[jimmyb]

Looks like as I always thought E-tec is alot of hype. It runs alright, but nothing like their dvd where it just runs off and leaves everything.

what, an infomercial that was baised and untruthful??? say it aint so...

as for the 3-star, mercury optis can be 3-star as well. Anything that has come out recently (1.5L optis and 225 proXS) has been 3 star...

[Stinky]

Back to the 3 star rating thing, I think that 3 star rating is mainly based at idle speeds. The E-tec idles super lean. An opti can do the same thing. Yamaha never runs in a stoichometic state so it cant do it. What an eng puts out at idle who cares. Majority of eng run time is 1500 rpm and up anyway. I think the hpdi injection system has the greatest potential to build high rpm hp compared to an opti or E-tec. So back to the article is what its saying is if the Yamaha was propped correctly it would have been the fastest? Hhhmm... best accel and top speed? Looks like as I always thought E-tec is alot of hype. It runs alright, but nothing like their dvd where it just runs off and leaves everything.

Star ratings are determined by sampling five mode points. Idle, WOT, and three midrange points calculated off the mid point of the recommended operating RPM range.

:)

[David]

back to the article

Using the 2006 rev limit, the Yamaha was the fastest and had the best acceleration 0-30.

[stan merck]

[QUOTE=Stinky]Star ratings are determined by sampling five mode points. Idle, WOT, and three midrange points calculated off the mid point of the recommended operating RPM range.

Is it split equal time between the rpm ranges? Or is midrange the main thing they are worried about?

[Scream And Fly]

We'll be testing more OptiMax engines in the coming months - especially since we're extremely pleased with their performance.

100+ MPH with four people aboard and a 40% reduction in fuel consumption compared to a 2.5EFI. A win-win situation for sure.

http://www.screamandfly.com/home/evaluations/mercury_2.5xs/images/014.jpg

[sosmerc]

Yes indeed....long live the Optimax!! Merc needs to introduce even more Optimax models....both up and down the horsepower range!!

[1BadAction]

there, I put a mans color on it for ya :D

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/3104/0140ep.jpg

[Stinky]

[QUOTE=Stinky]Star ratings are determined by sampling five mode points. Idle, WOT, and three midrange points calculated off the mid point of the recommended operating RPM range.

Is it split equal time between the rpm ranges? Or is midrange the main thing they are worried about?

The five points are sampled the same and are weighted the same in the finial FEL calculation.

The amount of HC and NOx will be highest at WOT, lowest at idle, and somewhere in between for the other three points, depending on the cal and weather stratified or homogeneous.

The HC and NOx are added for each point, then the five points are added for FEL.

Example:

Mode --- HC+NO

1 --- 6.2
2 --- 3.2
3 --- 2.1
4 --- 2.5
5 --- 1.3
____

15.3 FEL = 3 star

:)

[FrenchPhil]

A test with the 200 XS Opti would be nice. It's a popular race engine here in Europe in the 2L categories.