What's new

Crazy me or crazy Evinrude?

C

c6rvette

Guest
So I just found two Evinrude E-Tec engine performance bulletins on www.evinrude.com of the 300HP and 250HP. Performance numbers are terrible and odd. See below links to their PDF's. Why are they using an 18" pitch on the 250HP and 17" on the 300HP. This causes the 300HP to look like a worse performing motor than the 250HP on the same boat. After seeing this I don't even want to look at buying the 235 with the E-Tec motors. Actually if the mileage really is only 1.9mpg, I don't see why I would even consider buying the Triumph 235. Is it just me or does this seem wrong to everyone?


Evinrude E-Tec 300HP:
http://www.evinrude.com/NR/rdonlyres/94DAF6CB-B5BF-4184-BBE1-FBECCCFED6AE/0/PE635.pdf

Evinrude E-Tec 250HP:
http://www.evinrude.com/NR/rdonlyres/40EA4208-9B62-417D-8488-3AE31F226CD7/0/PE551.pdf
 
Though 4 grand is the sweat spot on most engines both GPH and most times MPG, I am not sure they spent a lot of time getting it all dialed in. Also pitch is not the only thing to take into consideration when looking a prop. One still has...

  • Material
  • Diameter
  • Cupping
  • # 0f Blades
  • Was the tests ran in Salt or Freshwater?
As for the hull material, foot per foot these are usually the lightest ones around and I say that for several reasons such as.

  • Fiberglass rules of thumb do not apply well yet many think such when mounting up a prop. Notice how they do not state actual WOT RPM? I would like to know what it was actually reading?
  • Hull running angle of attack (for the most part) are also different due to less weight. I think you will find that the Triumph 235 is pretty light when compared to others of the same configuration (including the amount of fuel it can carry) so engine trim reacts different. This makes these hulls pretty fuel efficient as compared to other 23 foot single engine models made of glass, so I would not let some suspect fuel burn rates drive you away from the 235.
  • It is however a large boat and has a lot of wetted surface to create drag if not propped and trimmed correct, thus something to take into consideration that is for sure ;) I would also compare it to a Grady White 23 foot CC for example and see what it's burn rate is with a single Yamaha? Grady's are heavy boats so that should give you a "rough" idea to compare it with.
I would also send Evinrude a note and ask them how they feel about these number and I would ask them what does these engines burn GPH at 4000 RPM under a normal static test load? GPH burn rate for X amount of RPM should be pretty much constant and only ground amount traveled (MPG) is going to be different pending what hull and prop is mounted up.

Hope this helps?
 
Thanks PuterShark. I can't believe they wouldn't put their product's reputation into account when putting numbers like these up. I would think they would put more effort into each test and making the best selection possible for their individual engine tests to reflect a "better than the other outboards" image. Doesn't help them in sales to have worse numbers than their competitor - in this case the Yamaha F250.

I've heard the 235 is bow light stern heavy so I was looking into getting a higher output motor to compensate for the hard to plane issue with the 235 when there are people in the stern. Mileage is still important but if it's too difficult to plane then mileage really goes out the window also.
 
I was looking at a 235CC with the 250 E-tec. I spoke with the dealer about it because I wanted a Yamaha.I was told that I could get a Yamaha but he was very adamant that the 250 E-tec out performed the Yamaha because of the lighter engine and the higher torque the 2 stroke has. I did some checking into their numbers and found that the 250 performed better than the 300HP also.I would not get the E-tec only because of the distance I would have to drive to a service dealer. I've got 25-30 Yamaha dealers within 25 miles but the only reputable E-tec dealer is 40 miles away. Maybe Evinrude can't get their engines to get any "better" numbers for their tests when compared to their competitors.
John D.
 
That's the only reason why I think they would settle with posting those numbers on their website. Maybe they really don't make as much power as they say compared to the Yamaha 250? You would think however that they would not post the results if they came out short of other manufacturers to save their reputation. Oh well their loss right?
 
Considering the Yamaha VMax SHO engine is a short shaft model and still needs some (in my opinion) "Real World" beating put on it by John Q Public. That technology would come in handy right about now ;)

Be that as it may and short of some top end speed, if you are looking for for range and reliability, hard to beat a Honda. Here is a link for some 225 HP prop test that show some 23 footers you can make some rough comparison's with.

Honda Marine Outboard Motors - Performance Tests
 
Oh that's right. I totally forgot about Honda. I'll take a look at them. Thanks.
 
Considering you are out west and can get some larger sea states then many of us on the Gulf of Mexico area (short of a Hurricane naturally) This is what I had in mind for Triumph years ago. A single outboard Cat Hull that will draft around 10 inches and return good range and low fuel burn with a engine on a jack plate.

http://www.twinvee.com/Portals/0/22BC/22BCL250ETECPerf.pdf

I think you will be surprised how fuel efficient the E-Tech is on this Hull as compared to a mono hull. Then when one considers mounting up a 4 stroke like a Yamaha or Honda how those figures could be even better ;)

Can you see this being made out of Ropelene? What a killer combo of low maintenance, sea keeping abilities, shallow draft (from even less weight) that would return in the 19 to 23 foot range Cat hull that only needs a single outboard... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dave LeGear
Where / How to find it?
Replies
4
Views
2K
NCangler
NCangler
Back
Top