From 2x60 2st to 1x100 4st

[9D280]

Originally Posted by gotchiguy

You know very well that on the whole a 2/ rated to 100 will produce more power that a 4/ rated to the same power output, not only in terms of torque but horsepower too.

Errr the horsepower rating is a defined legal measurable number. That's a bit like like saying three foot is longer if you are standing on the platform at Euston! A horsepower is a horsepower, regardless how you generate it!

2-strokes, however, generally weigh less per horsepower produced.

Torque is related to compression, crank offset, gearing........



And how much of it is perception? You plant the throttle lever and a 2- stroke will roar into life with the noise & smell we are all accustomed to. The 4- stroke being an eco friendly machine will do the same thing a lot more quietly, so does it just seem like it's not working so hard?

[Downhilldai]

Originally Posted by 9D280

Errr the horsepower rating is a defined legal measurable number. That's a bit like like saying three foot is longer if you are standing on the platform at Euston! A horsepower is a horsepower, regardless how you generate it!

Now you're spoiling the fun, too

[gotchiguy]

Originally Posted by 9D280

Errr the horsepower rating is a defined legal measurable number. That's a bit like like saying three foot is longer if you are standing on the platform at Euston! A horsepower is a horsepower, regardless how you generate it!

The point is in "on the whole" I understand that often this is incorrect. For instance the Etec 300 is actually only rated to 296hp; the Suz DF140 is widely regarded as a 128hp; and others too.

What about the Pro-XS optis, or even the HO Evinrudes; the 200HO of which on the dyno comes in at 217hp. A 200HO would blow pretty much any other 4/ out of the water.

My point is that a basic 2/ of the same cubic capacity as a basic 2/ will have more torque, and often other characteristics that make it inherently more powerful.

[Downhilldai]

Originally Posted by gotchiguy

My point is that a basic 2/ of the same cubic capacity as a basic 2/ will have more torque, and often other caracteristics that make it inherently more powerful.

You didn't say that though, did you?

I'll ignore the opportunity to take the pi$$ from your typo.

[Mollers]

The tech for a DF140 states 103kw max output. Put through a converter, this equates to 138.06970509419hp.

[Downhilldai]

Originally Posted by Mollers

The tech for a DF140 states 103kw max output. Put through a converter, this equates to 138.06970509419hp.

Soozook must be harking back to their days of unconventional horsepower motors. Remember the 9hp, 16hp and 28hp motors of the late 70s/early 80s?

[gotchiguy]

Originally Posted by Downhilldai

You didn't say that though, did you?

No I didn't, unfortunately I did not proof-read my answer or else I would have immediately noticed and corrected this flaw. For this I offer to you my most sincere and humbling apologies.

BTW I don't actually understand why horsepower is used as a measure of power. Barring the sake of tradition, anyone care to shed light on why KW/0.746 is used? Obviously KW is a metric measure, but why was HP adopted in the first place?

[Downhilldai]

Originally Posted by gotchiguy

No I didn't, and for that I offer my most sincere and humbling apology to you.

No need to apologise, I was only having a larf.

[Mollers]

Originally Posted by Downhilldai

Soozook must be harking back to their days of unconventional horsepower motors. Remember the 9hp, 16hp and 28hp motors of the late 70s/early 80s?

Wrapping 138.06970509419 around the cowl would be a squeeze.

[Downhilldai]

Originally Posted by Mollers

Wrapping 138.06970509419 around the cowl would be a squeeze.

....and they'd never believe you, anyway

[Downhilldai]

Originally Posted by gotchiguy

BTW I don't actually understand why horsepower is used as a measure of power. Barring the sake of tradition, anyone care to shed light on why KW/0.746 is used? Obviously KW is a metric measure, but why was HP adopted in the first place?

Because before e-tecs were invented, we all used to go around in 'orse drorn botes.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by gotchiguy

Normally I would argue back, but unfortunately I'm too busy. Controlled Assessment and all that

Onwards Blackpig!!

Oi! Don't drag me into your squabbles, I've enough on baiting the cousins on Etecowners group

[willk]

Originally Posted by gotchiguy

For this I offer to you my most sincere and humbling apologies.

It doesn't appear to be working on them...

[willk]

Originally Posted by gotchiguy

BTW I don't actually understand why horsepower is used as a measure of power.

Odd you should mention that, but in 1893, Count Otto von Dangremause did attempt to secure widespread acceptance of the Mousepower unit, but it was found to be a tad fiddly.

And as Mollers points out, it had to be wrapped right around the cowl

[Mollers]

Originally Posted by gotchiguy

For this I offer to you my most sincere and humblin' apologies.

Well he just stood there mumblin' and humblin'.
Then a voice from above said.........

..."It doesn't appear to be working on them."

[Pikey Dave]

Just to muddy the water a tad more, the ICOMIA standards for engine rating allow for a +/-10% variation on stated rating, so a 100hp engine could be anything from 90-110hp. Obviously the bigger the engine the wider the absolute variation could be, e.g a 200hp could be 180-220hp. This explains why we get "weak" & "strong" engines.

[gotchiguy]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

Just to muddy the water a tad more, the ICOMIA standards for engine rating allow for a +/-10% variation on stated rating, so a 100hp engine could be anything from 90-110hp. Obviously the bigger the engine the wider the absolute variation could be, e.g a 200hp could be 180-220hp. This explains why we get "weak" & "strong" engines.

Yeah, I know that! Hence why most reckon that the Pro-XS and HOs put out 10% more. I remember reading the 200ho having been read on dyno as being 217hp for instance, and many would regard the 250ho as being easily 270+. A 250HO will always go faster on the same hull than a 250, otherwise the HO brand would be redundant. How else can this be explained but more power

All these high output engines are designed for the US bass boat market. The Lightning gearbox on ours was not designed for the application. The M2 gearbox (which is now sold on the 250ho) is much more suitable for an "offshore" application.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by 9D280

And how much of it is perception? You plant the throttle lever and a 2- stroke will roar into life with the noise & smell we are all accustomed to. The 4- stroke being an eco friendly machine will do the same thing a lot more quietly, so does it just seem like it's not working so hard?

Hmm, you've obviously never been on an Etec powered boat.

[BogMonster]

Originally Posted by gotchiguy

BTW I don't actually understand why horsepower is used as a measure of power. Barring the sake of tradition, anyone care to shed light on why KW/0.746 is used? Obviously KW is a metric measure, but why was HP adopted in the first place?

'Cos it's ow much work a hoss can do....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

Plus the fact kilowobbles are a nasty foreign measurement that nobody understands. Big light bulbs are measured in kilowatts, it has no place on an outboard

While I have never been on either, Campbell's Vipermax down under with a DF140 on it gives about 35kt flat out and that was about Osprey's estimated top speed for the Etec 130 so they are probably similar output?

Which was why I got the Etec 150

[Downhilldai]

Originally Posted by BogMonster

.. Campbell's Vipermax down under with a DF140 on it gives about 35kt flat out and that was about Osprey's estimated top speed for the Etec 130 so they are probably similar output?

That's more like it - someone stirring the mix, rather than spoiling the fun.

I wonder whether O****y's estimated top speed for the e-tec 130 was based on how Campbell's performed with a DF140.