Engine tests (RIVAs ballistics)

[RIVA]

sorry my point was how do you know its a missprint has suzuki said it is ???

if they have then fine but go on facts not what you think

i have seen the diffrance in manafactures gages , and i filled them up as i said afterwards .

[Jono]

Originally Posted by RIVA

? is it a miss print , i aint the article writer .

... that's as maybe, but you're the one who implied that those who questioned the tests/results/figures didn't know their "arse from their elbow", weren't you......?.. That fact that some of the people questioning it own/operate the Suzuki 250…some with a lot of hours…and some, like me, with not so many hours but a keen eye on my wallet…must be some Scots blood in my ancestry (sorry JW ) should have given you a clue… don’t be so quick to judge, next time and you might get an easier ride… we all make mistakes….and… I think Mr Manning is amply qualified to know his arse from his elbow… and has plenty of certificates to back it up….

[Jono]

Originally Posted by RIVA

sorry my point was how do you know its a missprint has suzuki said it is ???

.

???................hands up those who own/operate Suzi250's....... hands up who wants to take the 6,100 rev limiter off and try pushing it to 8,100 Rpm..... hands up who wants to see the result.....

[RIVA]

so if you are saying that people should not be so quick as to say somethings wrong, you think they would make sure of there facts first and perhaps ask questions before saying its wrong

i got a few tickets as well , it dont mean you know what happend on the day

[Jono]

Originally Posted by RIVA

so if you are saying that people should not be so quick as to say somethings wrong, you think they would make sure of there facts first and perhaps ask questions before saying its wrong

i got a few tickets as well , it dont mean you know what happend on the day

Oh, I'm quite sure I don't want my engine revved to 8,100Rpm... and I'm quite sure I know how much fuel I put in on a regular basis… Ok.. not so regular for me last year, but… Cheers Stuart ….. likely to be more this year..… as are Ian, Dave and I assume Rene (never having met him... but he is obviously a man of great taste)..... and humour loses a little if you have to translate..... but, believe me Dave is well qualified to know his arse from his elbow...and I'm not referring to bits of paper issued by the RYA......

[Lawrence]

If at 5000rpm the Suzuki powered boat is travelling at approx 40 knots, and is only burning 24lph, it means it's doing about 7 nautical mpg.

Not bad at all!

[Scary Des]

Originally Posted by RIVA

......by the way its a calibrated fuel scan , with test ticket ,
and used on all the boats so if its faulty they are all wrong ???

Still doesn’t make it a reliable test, just by fitting a meter and hooning around the Solent doesn’t mean you are testing like with like, there are so many variables to consider when doing fuel consumptions tests Most reputable tests are done in very controlled conditions, temp, RH, course and driver will all have an effect.I really wish the press was more responsible
Where is my stethoscope I think I’ll be a doctor today

Des

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Scary Des

...... I think I’ll be a doctor today

Des

If you need any help…. Yer “arse” is the bit at the top of yer legs that stops ‘em falling of yer body…. And yer “elbow” is the bit in the middle of yer arms that allows you to drink yer pint easily….. ask Dave… he’s got loads of books on the subject….

[RIVA]

ok here we go , it makes shite of diffrance to me who is best ,

but it was with the same driver , crew and course .
i have been involved in tests before. on lots of diffrent products .

and i take it quite personly when people say it was not fair.
now i would presume that theres not many of you driven all these engines , let alone on the same day ?? no matter how many tickets you got .

so if you look i gave you my opinion on each , i would buy the verado i love it , as soon as evindude sort the control box out theres will be brilliant .
suzuki i realy liked and if i was not a speed freak i would consider it .
yam is the best all rounder not the best but does each thing well .
and resale is number 1

[Jimbob]

I think it was a useful article and is getting the debate, which we all like.



It seems from the people who have these engines (Susi),

1) It does not rev to 8100, if the comment is true about the rev limiter, which i am sure it is. Jono does the manaul (what come with the engine )make the same mistake please?

2) It seems the Lph seem to have a wide variation with real life. Could this down to be boat setup or something else, there might be a root cause that will help Jono +co get more out of their wallet. The figures could be correct for that set-up

[DM]

Originally Posted by RIVA

i would presume that theres not many of you driven all these engines , let alone on the same day

So what does that prove. It's the Suzuki figures I'm taking issue with.

Tell me, regardless of what it says in the Rib International test, do you really believe that a stock 250hp four stroke does 24lph @5000 and revs out at 8100?

DM

[Jono]

Originally Posted by RIVA

ok here we go , it makes shite of diffrance to me who is best ,

but it was with the same driver , crew and course .
i have been involved in tests before. on lots of diffrent products .

and i take it quite personly when people say it was not fair.
now i would presume that theres not many of you driven all these engines , let alone on the same day ?? no matter how many tickets you got .

so if you look i gave you my opinion on each , i would buy the verado i love it , as soon as evindude sort the control box out theres will be brilliant .
suzuki i realy liked and if i was not a speed freak i would consider it .
yam is the best all rounder not the best but does each thing well .
and resale is number 1

.......If one engine of "round about" the same power output and configuration on the same boat, in the same conditions, showed such a huge difference under test, surely those testing, should have questioned the results?......Now, some people have driven those Suzi engines "commercially" for some time and so could be reasonable expected to know what they’re talking about. .......... The point about Dave’s qualifications was a joke about the fact that he is a highly qualified Paramedic who probably does know his “arse from his elbow”….
<Edit> Heavily edited... after I'd calmed down....

[Scary Des]

Originally Posted by RIVA

......and i take it quite personly when people say it was not fair.
......

Don’t take it personal I was just pointing out there are a lot of reasons why you can get vastly differing results.
On and off, for the last 20 years I’ve been involved with product testing and I know some (but not all) of the pitfalls and two of the worst are relying too heavily on your test equipment and not testing enough.
When we did fuel consumption tests we would fuel meter the car and also do tank brim to brim tests over 1000 miles and even then we’d get it wrong Des

[RIVA]

no i dont agree . it shows the facts on the day .

thats all it was ment to do. if you choose to not belive them thats up to you .
the 8100 i would say may be a missprint .

but you have had long enough to call suzi and correct me ? why have you not ?

[Lawrence]

For a small specialist magazine like Rib International it must be very difficult to put together a test of this nature; getting four identical boats together at (almost) the same time rigged with four different 250 hp engines is quite an achievement and I found the article very interesting.

Though it may not be perfect, as it was done with the same driver, crew and course I think that it does give us some insight into how they performed at a given time/place/conditions with the same helm.

The fuel consumption figure for the Suzuki does look too good to be true though, and, unfortunately casts doubt on the other figures as well. Unless it is a simple typo (as the 8100 rpm figure no doubt is - in the original Suzuki document) 24 lph seems to be at least half what actual owners/users of the engine are getting.

What about the other figures? Can any owners say if their results are close to the findings?

[Jono]

Originally Posted by RIVA

but you have had long enough to call suzi and correct me ? why have you not ?

..well, for one reason, I have a Suzuki 250 about 100 yards from where I'm typing this and it redlines at 6,100 revs...... I don't really need to ask Richard.. and you as a boat dealer, shouldn't really need to start these sort of discussions...however, if you wish, I'll e-mail Richard and ask him to clarify.

<edit>.. he's at the boat show.... Doh! Sorry it may be a while....

[DM]

Originally Posted by RIVA

but you have had long enough to call suzi and correct me ? why have you not ?

The manual and the Suzuki website state operating range of 5500-6100. My rev limiter kicks in at 6000. The Suzuki I use does about 60lph at 5000rpm. The fuel usage of other users supports these figures, not RI's.

These are 'facts' I was certain of before I queried the RI figures for the Suzuki.

Originally Posted by Lawrence

The fuel consumption figure for the Suzuki does look too good to be true though, and, unfortunately casts doubt on the other figures as well.

Quite right!

DM

[GED]

Im with dave on this one! if suzi,s are that good on fuel, ill cancell my order on my EVINRUDE 225 ETEC, ill be intrested to hear Evinrudes opinion and more so Suzuki dealers who no doubt will be flooded with calls "WHY IS MY SUZUKI NOT PEFORMING LIKE IT SAYS IN R.I.B"

[Poly]

RIVA you might not care what the other people people on this forum think - but let me say that whilst I presumably fall within Rib International's target audience I have never previously bought the magazine. Based on the discussion here I doubt I ever will. I have no practical knowledge of the engines you evaluated, but to dismiss the opinions of your readership in this way is just crazy. I have never understood why magazines didn't get some scientific input into their evaluations (RI is not unique in this regard - but it sounds like they have fallen foul of it), not only would they more than likely have questioned any variation between such similar engines they would also no doubt have been keen to get some statistically valid data.

To be honest unless the variations are as significant as RI apparently suggested then there is probably little point in reporting them - the real variation between these engines is probably <10 L/hr when used under real conditions - its insignificant compared to the cost of fuel that even the most efficient engine will burn.

NEIL

[donutsina911]

dont think RIVA deserves all this - all he did was set up the testing, reported back on the "facts" (misprints and dodgy flo guages maybe) and gave his two penny worth on each engine.