E-Tec fuel delivery systems

[BIGUMs]

hi all,
I am new to this forum. Although I grew up with small power boats and single seat sail boats, these days I am primarily a sailor. Anyway, I also snowmobile, and on my snowmobile forum we are wondering what the next fuel delivery system will likely be. In the course of the discussion Evinrude's E-Tec system came up. The poster has said that the Evinrude outboards with this technology are not doing so well, the poster called them a "fricken joke." (sic) I'm not saying that to be the case at all but that comment got me thinking what you folks thought of the E-Tec and how well it performed.

In the snowmobile world SkiDoo, owned by BRP who also owns Evinrude, have utilized the E-Tec system as stock on some 600cc class snowmobiles. We were all wondering just how well it will perform and I wanted some input from you about the outboard engine side of it.

Thanks in advance
Brad

 

[seahorse5]

Re: E-Tec fuel delivery systems

Can't help you much on the snowmobile side of E-TEC but can give you first hand information on how it works, it's history, and technical info.

Unlike another outboard manufacturer, you do not read about plant closings, large layoffs, or discontinued lines. E-TEC is selling well in Europe and Australia which keeps production lines producing.

On the info and techie side, here are some links that may help you understand how they work and why the E-TEC process is unique.


http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/060301.html

http://www.warnersdock.com/IAME44-1_e-tec.pdf

 

[steelespike]

Re: E-Tec fuel delivery systems

Your poster doesn't know what he is talking about.The Etec is an amazing success story.BRP took a failed outboard company and came up with an excellent motor system that created a 2 stroke that meets or exceeds all STAR requirements.It has been approved for use on Lake Tahoe that has strict STAR requirements.Not only did they create the Etec system but they got their dealers up to speed on the technology.The motors have no required breakin,no scheduled maintenance required for 3 years or 300 hours.5 year limited warranty.Perhaps your poster was thinking of the old Fitch(?) fuel delivery system which was part of the reason for Evinrude OMC failure.

 

[Chris1956]

Re: E-Tec fuel delivery systems

Brad, BRP has launched a large advertising campaign to promote the e-tec engines. I certainly have heard a lot of info from this source, but consider it to be what it is - Advertising. I have not heard too much from owners.

Most of the major OB manufacturers have the direct injection motors. Mercury uses high pressure air (from a compressor) to force gasoline into their Optimax powerheads. BRP uses high pressure fuel pumps to force the gasoline into the powerhead. Yamaha and the other manufacturers have variations on these. The significant (to me anyway) part of this technology is that only gasoline is injected into the combustion chamber, after all the ports are closed. The oil is injected into the intake air stream, which travels thru the crankcase. This is why the oil use is minimal.

Will this technology allow two-cycle engines to continue to be manufactured, is the question. The four-cycle motors are getting to be real good, and just might put the two-strokes out of business, as has happened in motorcycles.

 

[Silvertip]

Re: E-Tec fuel delivery systems

Four strokes putting two strokes out of business may happen but I would not bet on it. Catalytic converters are the next hot button issue and when one considers that the Supercharged Mercs are already in the 700+ pound range, adding additional weight may just make them a bunch less desireable. Two strokes are generally (note I said generally) a fair amount lighter than the big four strokes so they could absorb a little extra weight. One need also remember that Evinrude is not in the boat business like Yamaha and Brunswick so they don't have the "captive audience". I'm of course talking about the "packaging" of engines with boats. On the other hand, boat manufacturers are going down the tubes or curtailing production in massive amounts so we may see other fallout in the engine/boat business.

 

[BIGUMs]

Re: E-Tec fuel delivery systems

ok guys thanks for responding. I re-read my post and realized I didn't even ask what I meant to. I was looking more for real world info on the reliability of the engine and the fuel system as well as are Evenrude's claims on fuel milage and oil use confirmed? In short, is it as good as the hype would have you believe? My thinking being if the hype proved accurate with the outboard motor segment then it stands to reason that it will hold true with the snowmobile side of things. At least that's my reasoning, I know its not very scientific but it will work for a forum discussion. In any event thanks for the responses thus far.

Brad

 

[steelespike]

Re: E-Tec fuel delivery systems

It's pretty much fact the Etec is as clean or cleaner than the 4 strokes.
how much oil could it use and be as clean as a 4 stroke.Efficiency is comparable to the 4 stroke.In my opinion fuel use is a wash.There are any number of tests that go both ways.Each technology excells in certain areas.

 

[Cricket Too]

Re: E-Tec fuel delivery systems

As far as reliability, E-tec has been out for almost 7 years now, and getting more and more popular. BRP took the Ficht system, which once the bugs were worked out by OMC was not a bad system, and made it even better.

I had a 2000 150 Ficht that never had an issue and still runs perfect today. BRP didn't creat some crazy new direct injection system, they made the Ficht system better with the changes they made. As was mentioned Direct Injection is on almost all makes of engines in one for or another. Whoever posted on the snowmobile forum has no idea about engines or direct injection for that matter.

The E-tec system is very reliable, I know a few people with them and they couldn't be happier. They didn't have to be pressured into a Merc by a dealer and got an even better motor than any that Merc makes.

You will see E-tec's around for a long time, I have seen double on the water this past seaosn that I did the year before.

 

[jevery]

Re: E-Tec fuel delivery systems

.
The current Three-Star CARB requirement of about 16 g/kW-hr HC+NOx, (Hydrocarbons + Nitrous Oxides), is very close to the upcoming 2010 EPA limits for outboards and personal watercraft over 6 HP. In this ruling the EPA at least considered an HC + NOx level that would be difficult for many of the current 4-stroke outboards to achieve without catalytic converters and possibly unattainable for any 2-strokes. It appears possible that 2-strokes with DI technology may not survive the next round of EPA mandates around 2012.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 9, 60, 80 et al.
​

Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment; Final Rule

We are adopting exhaust emission standards of 5.0 g/kW-hr HC+NOX and 75 g/kW-hr CO for Stern Drive/Inboard engines, starting with the 2010 model year. On average, this represents about a 70 percent reduction in HC+NOX and a 50 percent reduction in CO from baseline engine configurations. We expect manufacturers to meet these standards with three-way catalysts and closed-loop fuel injection. To ensure proper functioning of these emission control systems in use, we will require engines to have a diagnostic system for detecting a failure in the emission control system.

We are requiring new HC+NOX standards for OB/PWC engines starting in model year 2010 that will achieve more than a 60 percent reduction from the 2006 standards. We are also establishing new CO emission standards. These standards will result in meaningful CO reductions from many engines and prevent CO from increasing for engines that already use technologies with lower CO emissions. The new emission standards are largely based on certification data from cleaner-burning four-stroke engines and two-stroke direct-injection engines that are certified under part 91.

OB/PWC EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS [g/kW-Hr]

HC + NOx P < 4.3 kW 30.0 g/kW-hr
HC + NOx P > 4.3 kW 2.1 + 0.09 x (151 + 557/P 0.9)
CO P < 40 kW 500 ? 5.0 x P
CO P > 40 kW 300
Note: P = maximum engine power in kilowatts (kW).

Regulatory Alternatives We considered a level of 10 g/kW-hr HC+NOX for OB/PWC engines above 40 kW with an equivalent percent reduction below the new standards for engines at or below 40 kW. This second tier of standards could apply in the 2012 or later time frame. Such a standard would be consistent with currently certified emission levels from a significant number of four-stroke outboard engines. We had three concerns with adopting this second tier of OB/PWC standards. First, while some four-stroke engines may be able to meet a 10 g/kW-hr standard with improved calibrations, it is not clear that all engines could meet this standard without applying catalyst technology. As described in Section IV.H.3, we believe it is not appropriate to base standards in this rule on the use of catalysts for OB/PWC engines. Second, certification data for personal watercraft engines show somewhat higher exhaust emission levels, so setting the standard at 10 g/kW-hr would likely require catalysts for many models. Third, it is not clear that two-stroke engines would be able to meet the more stringent standard, even with direct injection and catalysts. These engines operate with lean air-fuel ratios, so reducing NOX emissions with any kind of aftertreatment is especially challenging.
Therefore, unlike the new standards for sterndrive and inboard engines, we are not adopting OB/PWC standards that require the use of catalysts. Catalyst technology would be necessary for significant additional control of HC+NOX and CO emissions for these engines. While there is good potential for eventual application of catalyst technology to outboard and personal watercraft engines, we believe the technology is not adequately demonstrated at this point. Much laboratory and in-water work is needed.
Our Conclusions We believe the final emission standards can be achieved by phasing out conventional carbureted two-stroke engines in favor of four-stroke engines or two-stroke direct injection engines. The four-stroke engines or two-stroke direct injection engines are already widely available from marine engine manufacturers. One or both of these technologies are currently in place for the whole range of outboard and personal watercraft engines. The new exhaust emission standards represent the greatest degree of emission control achievable in the contemplated time frame. While manufacturers can meet the standards with their full product line in 2010, requiring full compliance with a nationwide program earlier, such as in the same year that California introduces new emission standards, will pose an unreasonable requirement. Allowing two years beyond California?s requirements is necessary to allow manufacturers to certify their full product line to the new standards, not only those products they will make available in California. Also, as described above, we believe the catalyst technology that will be required to meet emission standards substantially more stringent than we are adopting has not been adequately demonstrated for outboard or personal watercraft engines. As such, we believe the new standards for HC+NOX and CO emissions are the most stringent possible in this rulemaking. More time to gain experience with catalysts on sterndrive and inboard engines and a substantial engineering effort to apply that learning outboard and personal watercraft engines may allow us to pursue more stringent standards in a future rulemaking. As discussed in Section VII, we do not believe the final standards will have negative effects on energy, noise, or safety and may lead to some positive effects.
( http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marinesi-equipld/bondfrm.pdf )


I believe Suzuki is currently the only manufacturer with all Three-Star engines in their lineup. The Yamaha 4-strokes are all Three-Star with the exceptions of the 4 and 2.5 HP. E-TEC can no longer claim an exclusive Three-Star lineup this year with the new 300 and the 65 HP Commercial failing to achieve the minimum for a Three-Star rating. Indmar is the first to achieve the a Four-Star designation for gasoline marine engines with their 5.7 liter ETX/CAT V8 using a converter.

​

 

[BIGUMs]

Re: E-Tec fuel delivery systems

As far as reliability, E-tec has been out for almost 7 years now, and getting more and more popular. BRP took the Ficht system, which once the bugs were worked out by OMC was not a bad system, and made it even better.

I had a 2000 150 Ficht that never had an issue and still runs perfect today. BRP didn't creat some crazy new direct injection system, they made the Ficht system better with the changes they made. As was mentioned Direct Injection is on almost all makes of engines in one for or another. Whoever posted on the snowmobile forum has no idea about engines or direct injection for that matter.

The E-tec system is very reliable, I know a few people with them and they couldn't be happier. They didn't have to be pressured into a Merc by a dealer and got an even better motor than any that Merc makes.

You will see E-tec's around for a long time, I have seen double on the water this past seaosn that I did the year before.

ON THE BOLD......wait!? people post things on the internet they know nothing about? Say it aint so!! LOL

All technology has a down side and E-Tec is no different. What are the known issues? Are they serious issues?

BRP has done well with DI fuel delivery systems. Last year they did a limited build E-Tec sled but the previous 3 years they have had Semi Direct Injection models out and have good success with them. The Big 4 have toyed with DI in snowmobiles for a while now but SkiDoo has been the only one to achieve wide range success. At least so far.

Anyway thanks for the input.

 

[Cricket Too]

Re: E-Tec fuel delivery systems

The known issues of E-tec are:

1. Great fuel efficiency

2. Extremely low oil consumption

3. Great reliability

4. Great power to weight ratio

5. Great warranty, from a company that stands behind their product

6. Only 2 stroke to meet strict CARB standards, I think.

6. High price, but you get what you pay for


It's a machine, so there will inevitably be some problems, nothing is perfect so...

All I can say about E-tec is you are probably not gonna find anything "better" out there in a 2 stroke DI, and if you are a 2 stroke guy, then you AREN'T finding anything better.

I don't know Shat about snowmobiles, I don't even know if they are air or watercooled, but if anybody can make DI work on them it's Bombardier.

It's actually kind of interesting, I never really thought about 2 stroke DI being put into other applications.

Take it easy.

 

[Seon]

Re: E-Tec fuel delivery systems

Does the E-Tec smoke like the conventional 2 stroke motors? Reason I ask is that I've being doing alot of trolling..2-5mph and the smoke fumes from the oil/gas mix is a little nauseating for the wife. Although my 110 VRO runs well, I'm looking to re-power with a 4 stroke but am open to an E-Tec depending on the smoke

 

[seahorse5]

Re: E-Tec fuel delivery systems

E-TECs are like the 4-strokes, quiet, smooth, and NO SMOKE

 

[Palomino]

Re: E-Tec fuel delivery systems

The only time Ive seen my Etec smoke is during the auto Winterization routine. And even then it's minimal.