Right, here we go,
Have kept quiet up until now as I had not had a chance to read the article until this morning.
The article I found dissapointing because it looked like the testers had spent a lot of time and effort doing the testing but all of this was let down by the poor presentation of results.
The 24l/h for the Suzuki could be correct - we don't know what the boat speed was. If the propeller that was fitted had a short pitch, the boat speed would be low, the engine lightly loaded and it could well not be using much fuel.
Also, the engines have different WOT speed ranges - so, if correctly propped the boats would be doing different boat speeds at each RPM increment - 4000rpm for one engine could bear little relation to 4000rpm on another.
What would be really useful would be to know the mpg (or consumption l/h) at different boat speeds for the different engines.
How far I can go for a litre is what is important.
I'm sure the magazine has the boat speeds for the rpm increments and the corresponding l/h.
This could be plotted graphically, speed (instead of rpm) along the bottom, l/h up the side, superimpose the curves for each engine on top of each other then we could see what's going on.
It looks like Paul, Jan, Kieron and Jason have had all their hard work and time wasted because the Journalist didn't know how to present technical information.
Would be good if the magazine could re-print the article and present the results properly.
PS I think Rogue is great - have a Brownie point from me