Manic Moore Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 Just to keep the Etec debate "fueled" When Adam and I went out last weekend to the needles I decided to set the trip. Approx 14 to 16 knots out, 20 to 24 on the way back, a total of 19 nautical miles and used only 12 to 13 litres. Not bad me thinks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul D Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 Was that with or against the tide ? The other day was did the trip out against the tide and Back in against the tide. I had to change over tanks half way back ...... That is my 11 litre tank ( containing around 9 litres ) which I wanted to use up Overall consumption is similar to yours I suspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Moore Posted February 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 (edited) Against the wind but with (accross) the tide there, with the wind and a the tide back on a reasonably flat sea Edited February 10, 2007 by Manic Moore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britboard Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 Paul, i did the same trip, on the same day and used about 16 liters going at about 35mph average, my engines got carbs as well. just to stir things up. Simon L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coddy Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 If you like a comparison here are my records for my Marina 60hp 4-stroke (carb model) Poole (RNLI college) to Freshwater bay and back both trips Trip 1 Total miles 51.5 Fuel used 29.6 ltrs Engine ran for 4hrs in total Ave 0.57 ltrs/mile Trip 2 Total miles 49.6 Fuel used 28.9 ltrs Engine ran for 5.1 hrs in total (did leave ign on in error for a while) Ave 0.81 ltrs/mile Can't recall if it was with or against tide but was travelling about 20+kts each time. Sea state must have been fairly good. Coddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Moore Posted February 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 Continuing on the economy theme. Etecs claim for one of the most economical engines comes from the amount of fuel it uses at tick over and low revs. So when you are drifting and trolling this adds to the efficiency. When I recently got my engine back from its software update and fuel filter change, they gave me a read out and nearly 50% of the total run time of 58 hours was less than 1000 rpm. It would appear that the long runs like most modern engines are much similar although I think that power to wieght ratio has a huge bearing on this. I think Adam would be the first to admit that the 60 four stroke was slightly underpowered on the 165 and so the additional rpm required to keep up a steady 20 knots would then reduce the fuel efficiency. All interesting stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam F Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 Etecs claim for one of the most economical engines Dont they all?!?!.... The 60hp Mariner EFI 4 Stk is a little underpowered on th 165, however the 60hp Suzi is a different beast (according to reports)... 4 stokes do use most of their fuel in the last 1/4 of the rev range, so yes running larger will be better. The figures quoted above are very similar to what BW used to run at though, its all see saws and swings. Will be interesting to see what the big BF115 runs at! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alun j. Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 3000 Posts !!!!! Congrats. to the club's most active correspondent. Well done Adam ........ on all the useful postings and PMs. Alun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul D Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 When I recently got my engine back from its software update and fuel filter change, they gave me a read out and nearly 50% of the total run time of 58 hours was less than 1000 rpm. That would probably be the time spent "precison anchoring" maybe ? Seriously, running below 2000 RPM and the E-Tec is extremely frugal. Reason is they run on an incredibly weak fuel/air mixture ( can do this as no valves to destroy ). Hence the huge amount of cooling water they have running through them. I hope they have done their calculations correctly though and we dont end up burning a hole in the pistons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam F Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 3000 posts! Wow, Assuming it takes me a minute to write a post on average (more like 2/3 I'd have thought) that is 50 hours or just over 2 full days! ...Blimey, I must get out more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alun j. Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 Now you can go fishing again!! ......when the weather allows........ ......and the season ......and work .....and your nearest/dearest .....and the tides ......and bait..........and....and.....and......!!! Alun. [who didn't get out this week!] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.