Wait'll RF sees this!!

Probably haven't figured out how to overcome the lower gear ratio, big prop setup on the Suzuki. Sounds like you have all the bases covered on the engine choices.

Maybe the E-TEC should be marketed to the water-ski/wake-board crowd. Think of all the skiers you could pull with that power. :thup Might pull your arms out of socket, though... :embarrased
 
Lets try that with a 90hp suzuki against a 90 e-tec I don't think the outcome would be the same .The Suzi would sink the Evinrude I.Luv my Suzi just my 2cents
 
At the risk of sounding crazy (crazy and proudofitbubs :) ) I saw this topic on the "Googlegod" and decided I better investigate the "RF" in the topic... :|

I'd like to play along and say "now that's funny" but to tell ya how I really feel... that add really pisses me off! :x :x

To bypass all the the BS and get right to the heart of the matter, take a look at engines (two and fourstroke) going head-to-head in flat-out battles for supremacy and dominance. You will find that evidence in the motocross and snowmobile world ... racing! :hug :hug

Take for instance the 500 class; peeps everywhere are finally glad to get a 500cc snowmachine (naturally a Yamaha fourstroke) that actually has some torque. The magazine editors are writing about the new Yamaha Phazer snowgo "finally bringing torque to an otherwise torqueless class" (the 500s; the latest greatest 2 strokes made) todays "thumpers" are winning-over even the most prejudiced twostroke heads everywhere because, not only are they quieter, but also the quality-of-power... there is no comparison at all. Blow them engines all the way out, race them to death, and the fourstroke is ultimately the hands-down winner, especially in dependability and longevity. Racers love them because they can "ride them hard and put them away wet". :D

Sumpin aside: An engine firing every stoke and having no recovery between the pulses should automatically tell you that they are by design, a shorter lived engine. The only way a two stoke would outlast a 4, is if the motor oil was neglected.

(How about some specks... I don't remember the displacement difference between the two? I thought the etech philosophy was "more out of less displacment".)

Lastly (and I'm out of here after this) The "weight issue" (oh brother here we go again huh) I'll state for the sake of the newbies here; You NEED that weight on your transom!! it helps counteract the loss of balance you get when your fuel tanks run low and your boat goes bow-heavy (!!) Perhaps if you were ever in some really serious trailing-seas you would finally be convinced of the danger, especially in our flat bottom craft.

BTW, happy new year! ----- weeeeeeeeeee :xnaughty :o LOL

(and no, I ain't lonely!) :shock: :moon
 
Bless your heart :love Marty, I had a blast writing that BTW :wink :beer A feller was askin me on my private site about this stuff, I just foundsumptin' innerestin:

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=316676

catapillar.jpg

Goodlord it worked :xtongue
 
Sumpin aside: An engine firing every stoke and having no recovery between the pulses should automatically tell you that they are by design, a shorter lived engine. The only way a two stoke would outlast a 4, is if the motor oil was neglected.
Click to expand...

I guess I missed this thread before. But the above statement doesn't fly with me. The longevity of a motor has nothing to do with being a 2 stroke or a 4 stroke. It has to do with controlling engine temperature, and lubrication. On a 2 stroke water cooled engine the problem is getting sufficient lubrication to the cylinders and bearings. Run it too lean on the oil mixture and you shorten the life of the engine. Period. With a 4 stroke you typically have a wet sump system that always provides positive oil pressure (unless you run it low on oil).

As for your 2 strokes and 4 strokes going head to head in Motorcross... The 2 strokes are 250CC and the 4 strokes are 450CC. Hmmm... Seems the 2 strokes are lighter smaller engines. But because they are limited to 250CC the engines are also limited in torque. Any time you have an extra 200CC's to pull torque out of you will have a more powerful motor. Sorry. The biggest difference in why most racers are switching from the 2 stroke to the 4 stroke is the engines are becoming lighter so they can finally get a bike to handle as well as the lighter 2 strokes.
 
gljjr. No I'm sorry, what you just posted may have rung true just a few years ago my friend :wink

latter! :teeth :xnaughty
 
The new four strokes are lighter, do handle better than ever before and offer compression braking over the 2-smoke. With enough torque most 4 stroke race bikes only run with three gears and only shift between second and third. On a tight course they seldom need to shift gears at all. Just roll on the power.

The reason racers are moving to four strokes is the law. A few years back California was the first state to ban all two-stroke operation of off-road bikes on anything but a closed course. This is what started the sudden development of a competitive four stroke race bike. If you want to race in the future it will be on a thumper. It's only a matter of time before two strokes will be banned in other states as well. Then the 2-cycle weed eater, chain saw, leaf blower and such will be next.

The EPA is trying to put the squeeze on small engine manufactures such as Briggs and Stratton to catalyze and lean the small four stroke engines. They are resisting stating the change as much too costly. I am sure the little engines pollute but when you consider the minimum fuel burn per year I think they can find much bigger pollution offenders to clean house with.
 
Back
Top