Opti vs 4strokes - Page 2

thewavehumper · 24 October 2003, 00:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard B
Uh Oh! I've upset the Optimax evangelist...

You haven't upset me Richard, I just don't really think your advice was an objective opinion!

To be honest I don't really care what engines people buy or use as long as I am happy with the ones I use on my boats. Which I will be once I get rid of the 4 stroke.

The fact is that modern 2 strokes represent rather good value for money and the running costs are resonable.

Richard B · 24 October 2003, 07:03

Background on Opti technology... have a look here:
http://www.orbeng.com.au/orbital/cus...s/custApps.htm

Richard B · 24 October 2003, 08:19

Quote:

Originally posted by thewavehumper
...modern 2 strokes represent rather good value for money ...

That's the bit I don't (fully) agree with, Stu.

Look at Ribcraft's package pricing sheet...
Cheapest purchase price for 5.85 + 130-140hp motor is the Suzuki DF140 at £17, 041. You can pay an extra £954 for the Mariner 135opti if you choose, for the privilege of carrying around an extra 9kg on the transom and having to pop to the chandlers every weekend for a bottle of Optimax oil (or buy a bloody great barrel of the stuff

) and pouring the stuff into a little reservoir (or all over your hands like I do!)

OK there are advantages - yes, a super engine, great acceleration, service centres everywhere (that's one to think about - where will you use for service?) And proven reliability. But in terms of running costs, how are you going to get that £954 back, especially when you're forking out for 2-stroke oil? And I would always know that I'd paid for a 175hp engine with a restricted chip. Annoying or what!?!

Now have another look at the Ribcraft packages... and don't read this whilst you're eating Stuart, as you'll probably choke on your cornflakes, but their Honda 130 package is just £383 more than the Suzuki and includes a 5-year leisure warranty. Lets get the negatives out of the way - it's an Accord 2.2litre car engine on a Mercury leg(?), and referred to by many as the most boring outboard engine in the world. A bit heavy as well, and these engines had their reputation tarnished in the RIB world by being mounted on a 2-tonne mobile scaffolding rig commonly known as the Camel Trophy RIB. But a 5-year warranty is gold-dust in marine gear! And what's more boring than a RIB laid up with a blown engine waiting for a £££ rebuild - I think that the Honda owner would have more fun in that scenario. At least he'd get back out on the water without having to re-mortgage the wife!

When all said, it's a question of what you want. If excitement and adrenaline rush are your thing, then the Opti (or another good efi 2-stroke) would almost definitely be the choice, but then I don't reckon that the Ribcraft 5.85 would be the boat to match. Mind you, you'll get 40kts+ I guess... If you want low cost running and servicing then it's got to be the Honda, although I reckon that the Suzuki engine is probably the better piece of engineering out of those two.

Daniel · 24 October 2003, 08:26

Suppose i agree with most of that Richard. On a technical note

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard B
then the Opti (or another good efi 2-stroke)

Efi 2-strokes are not what you need. Dfi are (opti / hpdi / ficht). An Efi engine is a fuel injected replacment for a carb engine = large fuel bill.

I reckon the 2s v. 4s battle will be almost as eternal as the diesel vs. outboard one - and it will depend upon what sort of boating you want. For most of us we are doing it for fun, so speed, noise, acceleration are important. If you've chosen the outboard route then i'm still not convinced that thrill factor exsists so much with a 4s.

Richard B · 24 October 2003, 08:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Daniel
Dfi are (opti / hpdi / ficht).

Oops! Wrong terminology. Thx Daniel.

DM · 25 October 2003, 12:59

Quote:

Originally posted by thewavehumper
You haven't upset me Richard,

Glad to see you're not going to raise your blood pressure, Humper, but I'd have thought that an old sea dog like yourself would have more sense than to get into a technical debate with someone who seems to know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. (? Accountant)

In the immortal words of old Fuller 'You're a tw*t'. A one legged one at that.

DM

thewavehumper · 25 October 2003, 19:39

What's wrong with Richard's leg?

The Jackeens · 26 October 2003, 06:16

Hey!!!
No insulting one of the nicest people on Ribnet!!!

You men are just obsessed with the size of your engines....from a woman's perspective it doesn't matter what size they are so long as they work...

Guess you're all getting stir crazy now the winter's setting in.

The missus

thewavehumper · 26 October 2003, 07:36

Thank you for yopur Kindness Kayhleen, but I can take the odd insult. David Manning is from the North and they all talk like that.

They call a spade a spade where as we tend to call it an Earth moving Instrument. It's propably cos it's so cold up there as opposed to the Lovely sunny weather we have down here

Richard B · 27 October 2003, 00:28

Quote:

Originally posted by thewavehumper
What's wrong with Richard's leg?

No, your leg you silly Welsh Sod

Remember, that appendage that used to function just like the other one before you tried to join the Red Arrows, except you were using a blue Scorpion, not a red&white jet plane?

Anyway, as I sit here finishing off Whiteshoes' beer (What was that about not having to be posh to...?!?), I'm doing some quick maths. And I'm not an accountant DM. You wish I was - It would be like the Carlsberg advert... "You want how much to start a business...? - that's fine, have a bit more and pay it back when you can. And take my secretary home for a jolly good..."

Back on the subject, trip to Alderney and back was 180miles total, minus 25 miles to the fuel berth gives 155miles. I've just filled up and it was 177 litres. So 1.14 litres per nautical mile. And that's giving it some serious wellie. Well, as much as I dared anyway. Add the 2-stroke oil, which was roughly 6 litres (over the total 180 miles) so a litre of oil seems to do about 30 nautical miles. Yam 200hpdi of course, so completely irrelevant to Opti v 4-s debate, but a "starter of ten"

So come on down you 4-stroke boys, how does that compare?

Wave, how does your Honda compare to your Opti? (nice acceleration BTW - nearly lost my hat!)

DM · 27 October 2003, 12:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard B
And I'm not an accountant DM. ..."

Back on the subject, trip to Alderney and back was 180miles total, minus 25 miles to the fuel berth gives 155miles. I've just filled up and it was 177 litres. So 1.14 litres per nautical mile. And that's giving it some serious wellie. Well, as much as I dared anyway. Add the 2-stroke oil, which was roughly 6 litres (over the total 180 miles) so a litre of oil seems to do about 30 nautical miles. Yam 200hpdi of course, so completely irrelevant to Opti v 4-s debate, but a "starter of ten"

Richard B · 27 October 2003, 12:22

And your input, Mr Manning?

DM · 27 October 2003, 12:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard B
And your input, Mr Manning?

Richard B · 27 October 2003, 12:28

Ah, that was your input, then!

Alex Brown · 27 October 2003, 18:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard B

So come on down you 4-stroke boys, how does that compare?

Ok, my last trip to Ramsey, and back around the coast made me use 34 litres of petrol according to the petrol pump at Tesco - at least all this gives me clubcard points

That day, the GPS reckoned we had done 54.9 nm, which equates to 1.61 miles to the litre. Although we were trundling along doing 4 or 5 knots through the Bitches (while I had my lunch), a lot of that travelling was done in excess of 25 knots, sometimes cruising upto 35 knots to smoothen the ride out a bit.
This does not include 20mins of idle time whilst getting the boat ready in the marina, and cooling down after returning from higher rev use. I don't use oil, so can't show that I'm afraid

I think the worst I've had is around 1.2 miles to the litre when I had 8 people on board, towed another rib back to Dale, and then had 30 mins of pushing flat out all the way back up river after dropping the tow off..... it does seem to average better than 1.4 miles to the litre though depending on how much fun I have with the throttle.

Ideally, it'd be great to have one of those fuel flow meters - every time I fill the tank up is different - sometimes I can get it filled right to the top, other times, if the boat is leaning back a bit, I am unable to get the last litre or two into the tank.

During the summer, although I haven't done any really long trips like you have done Richard, I've found that anything over the 30knot mark seems to eat a lot more fuel - between 25 and 30 knots seems to be where the engine is most happy, and running at around 4500 revs.

I'd be interested to know what Martin Stacey gets on Bob now

-Alex

Rick · 28 October 2003, 17:02

Have done a number of trips this year of between 30 and 50 miles. On a reasonably flat day with 4 up on the boat and running at around 30Knots (4200rpm) I can average 1.7 miles per litre with my 75 four stroke. WOT only reduces this to 1.5 miles per litre.

I am now another person on the Opti v 4 stroke dilema. Had already decided to upgrade to the Mariner 115 four stroke over the winter to give me a bit more top end. But then Mariner announce the 115 Optimax. They have a claim on thier web site on the 135 as follows

"GOES FURTHER
An OptiMax 135 yields at least 20 percent more miles per gallon and an average of 26 percent greater cruising range than even a competitive 130 hp 4-Stroke–when cruising between 20 and 40 mph. Which translates into better overall fuel economy and fewer stops at the pump. "

So, better acceleration, lower fuel consumption (when cruising)......only got to factor in the cost of oil now.

chrisallse · 28 October 2003, 17:14

115 mariner 4S is a good engine...should go like the clappers on your boat.....and no oil to mess about with.

thewavehumper · 28 October 2003, 18:02

For the sake of an objective statement in this thread on behalf of modern 2 strokes, I will tomorrow, put myself through the inconvenience of a high speed run to Cowes and back to measure the mileage and consumption.

As this is a statistical test I will endevour not to enjoy myself!

I definitely believe that the Opti's come into their own re consumpytion when you push them hard. The last time I had a petrol car I seem to remember that it was ok at 50 mph but pretty juicy near the redline.

Richard if I read your maths right then you have a fuel/oil ratio of around 30:1 that seems a bit steep to me. 60:1 would be more like it 100:1 would be better. But if it is 30:1 I'd by a big drum if I was you

I'll answer the personal stuff later, you little rascal you

thewavehumper · 28 October 2003, 18:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard B
Oops! Wrong terminology. Thx Daniel.

Not the first mistake you have made during the course of this thread I fancy!

Richard B · 28 October 2003, 18:51

Quote:

Originally posted by thewavehumper
I will tomorrow, put myself through the inconvenience of a high speed run to Cowes and back to measure the mileage and consumption. As this is a statistical test I will endevour not to enjoy myself!

I should think not... I'll get my snipers out to shoot at any Welsh Scorpion pilots seen smiling.

Your maths looks good to me - I was a bit upset when I realised it was burning 30:1 Never mind, I know where a Southampton guy keeps a big barrel of oil. That should do the trick. Just a thought - as you use Optimax oil, do you use Optimax petrol as well?