User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 99

Thread: OptiMax JP

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    367
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 150aintenuff
    because it is built for military and government agents it has to meat MILITARY SPEC.. and just because it is Spark ignited does not mean it cant use more compression but because it is built to be abused performance is not a prime concern.. JP5 , Diesel JP4, JP 8 and kerosine all have burn rates much slower than gasoline and also have MUCH higher resistance to knock and preignition.. thus it takes more compression PSI and staic compression ratio to efectivlly build it soly for HP..
    I'm suprised that during your extensive testing of your spark ignited, direct injected, two stroke diesel outboard that you didn't notice that there is a BMEP limit in which knock becomes uncontrolable. Knowing that you would realize that compression ratio is irrelevant.

    The JP was not built for the military on a contract. It was developed, built, and offered to government agencies as is. The military has gone away from expensive contracts in many areas and now likes to buy "off the shelf."


  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LEBANON OREGON
    Posts
    7,077
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Given)
    23
    Likes (Received)
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    still has to meet a certain specification though even if it is off the shelf..

    preignition can occure in any engine if not tuned properly regardless of compression ratio however with that said just because knock can occur doesnot meant that that engine is meeting its HP potential when it begins to over knock and ping... if that were the case then you wouldnt see any V6's over 135 hp.. they can knock and ping just as much as any 280 can.. my point was that there is ALOT of HP potential left that could be extracted out of that motor if it were designed strictly for that usage.. which it is not.. its a werk motor which is built to last through abuse... that was my point..

    4-16-2014. 25 years old today... the fishin boat doesnt look to bad for a classic does she


    things that were are no longer as they are today...

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    367
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 150aintenuff
    still has to meet a certain specification though even if it is off the shelf..
    What are those specifications????


  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    6,079
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    17
    Likes (Given)
    215
    Likes (Received)
    98
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stinky
    The JP was not built for the military on a contract. It was developed, built, and offered to government agencies as is. The military has gone away from expensive contracts in many areas and now likes to buy "off the shelf."
    From the weblink:

    Quote Originally Posted by mercurymarine
    The OptiMax JP is available on GSA contract, is in stock, ready for delivery. It was created in response to a recent directive by the Department of Defense to cease the transportation of gasoline on ships or aircraft by 2010 and the US Navy's single fuel forward initiative.
    22' Activator w/ 250xs Merc Opti, back home again

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    367
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by blkmtrfan
    From the weblink:
    GSA is a buying contract. It has nothing to do with the development of the motor.

    http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/cha...annelId=-13464


  6. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    6,079
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    17
    Likes (Given)
    215
    Likes (Received)
    98
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I do understand GSA, the company I used to work for was involved with thier program

    Sorry for the confustion Stinky, I was actually posting that to back-up your statement not oppose it
    22' Activator w/ 250xs Merc Opti, back home again

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    367
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by blkmtrfan
    I do understand GSA, the company I used to work for was involved with thier program

    Sorry for the confustion Stinky, I was actually posting that to back-up your statement not oppose it
    Thanks

    I understood you, but I wanted to clarify it for others not familiar with GSA. The link should help.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LEBANON OREGON
    Posts
    7,077
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Given)
    23
    Likes (Received)
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    also it backed up my statement as well.. the specs are no gasoline usage if to be transported.. they wouldnt buy it from merc UNLESS they had a plan for it down the line.. JUST because it is a mass marketed motor rather than military use only does not mean that the developement of this motor was not partly in resopnce to the GSA contracts and governmental plans to eliminate the trasnportation of gasoline in their vessels due to volitility and safety reasons..

    I present this question to you stinky would that motor still have been produced had it not been inpart for the GSA buying contracts that mercury currently holds.. souly selling it to consumers wouldnt be profitable i wouldnt think due to the fact that most people in ateast NORTH AMERICA have plentiful access to gasoline due to the usage of automobiles for transoprtation.. now over seas where gasoline prices are SKY HIGH it would be viable but not enough i wouldnt think to develope a dedicated JP fuel system to feed it efectivly as im sure things had to be changed in order for it to run properly and make effective torque and power to be marketable to its target usage..
    Last edited by 150aintenuff; 03-21-2006 at 03:53 PM.

    4-16-2014. 25 years old today... the fishin boat doesnt look to bad for a classic does she


    things that were are no longer as they are today...

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LEBANON OREGON
    Posts
    7,077
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Given)
    23
    Likes (Received)
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    check your notes again stinky

    Quote Originally Posted by Stinky
    GSA is a buying contract. It has nothing to do with the development of the motor.



    Quote Originally Posted by MERCURY MARINE
    It was created in response to a recent directive by the Department of Defense

    some how this statment from mercury marine disagrees with your statment shown above....

    4-16-2014. 25 years old today... the fishin boat doesnt look to bad for a classic does she


    things that were are no longer as they are today...

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    367
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The motor was developed because of the rumor of the mandate of no gasoline on navel ships.

    No contracts involved. Only a guess at a possible market.

    If you read the first line of the add from the first post, it states that it shares 95% of its componants with a stock opti. There were no changes to the fuel system.
    Kinda shows how good the Opti system is, no major changes to burn kerosine.
    Last edited by Stinky; 03-21-2006 at 11:17 PM.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    367
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 150aintenuff
    some how this statment from mercury marine disagrees with your statment shown above....
    Not at all. A response is not a contract. Its a good marketing decision. Develop something that you think they will be asking for in the near future.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LEBANON OREGON
    Posts
    7,077
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Given)
    23
    Likes (Received)
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    im done bickering all we are doin is splittin hairs.. and we have a difference of opinion regaurding the reason why it was developed.. its a cool motor but unfortunatly not for the performance people even though it is assembled by the racing division..
    Last edited by 150aintenuff; 03-21-2006 at 09:23 PM.

    4-16-2014. 25 years old today... the fishin boat doesnt look to bad for a classic does she


    things that were are no longer as they are today...

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Florida/New York
    Posts
    21,826
    Thanks (Given)
    965
    Thanks (Received)
    1568
    Likes (Given)
    2941
    Likes (Received)
    5546
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Relax Nick.


    Facebook | YouTube | Vintage Outboard Catalogs
    Photo prints available of your boat - click here


  14. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LEBANON OREGON
    Posts
    7,077
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Given)
    23
    Likes (Received)
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i did... thus my above post...

    4-16-2014. 25 years old today... the fishin boat doesnt look to bad for a classic does she


    things that were are no longer as they are today...

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    367
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 150aintenuff
    im done bickering all we are doin is splittin hairs.. and we have a difference of opinion regaurding the reason why it was developed.. its a cool motor but unfortunatly not for the performance people even though it is assembled by the racing division..
    I wouldn't call it bickering. I'd call it lively internet debate. Thats whats great about the internet, a wealth of information about a wide range of subjects being shared by interested people.

    You seemed to take a interest in the JP, and thats good. You made a few statements that weren't quite right, and I tried to set the record streight. All is good as long as the public gets the facts on new technology.

    The JP may not be a performance engine, and may not fit the mold for Scream and Fly, but lets face it, green is here to stay. The more we can inform the public on the new technologys, the better they will feel about performance boating in the future.

    If anyone has any more questions on the JP, I'll be more than willing to answer them.

    Last edited by Stinky; 03-21-2006 at 11:19 PM.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Frank Mole Transport