Based on history to date of the 1st generation E-TEC and over 8 years & 500+ hours of experience with one I bought in 2006, I would expect reliability to be excellent. They're still a basically simple motor with relatively few moving parts and no air pump or complex valve train. And 5 years between scheduled maintenance will provide less opportunity for "creative" maintenance by marginal dealers! I've followed the E-TEC Owners Forum for several years (where, unlike THT, you get the REAL story because no one is taken seriously unless they post Model and S/N of their motor!), and it appears that most of the relatively few problems they've had are due to improper rigging by incompetent dealers. All the modern low emission motors run fairly lean, so fuel starvation issues that lean out a cylinder can quickly fail a piston on any of the new motors, especially with the extra oxygen in E-10 gas. The new system that monitors fuel level in the Vapor Separator Tank should catch most of those problems. And unlike some of the new 4-stroke "throw away" motors that eliminated steel cylinder liners in a desperate attempt to save weight, I believe they still have steel sleeves that allow boring/honing and relatively cheap repair. The more streamlined Lightning gearcases used on the 20" HO Bass boat motors apparently had marginal durability and were discontinued/replaced by the beefier Magnum gearcases used on 25" motors. That fixed durability problem but cost some WOT speed, so the new gearcase should fix that issue.

The one complaint I have about mine is that none of the available hydraulic steering systems provide enough travel to turn the motor all the way to it's stops, and the new integral steering system will fix that.

However, as a mechanical engineer with 35 years in the aerospace industry that's seen a lot of production and "creative maintenance" problems, I'd still give 'em a year or so to get all the "Class I" changes incorporated! (Class I changes impact safety of flight and/or major durability issues!) No matter how good the engineers, production and quality control folks are, they're still human, so I wouldn't expect any all-new product to be perfect right out of the gate!

I'm with Denny on this, I'd give them at least one model year. I bought the first 140 Johnson "looper" sold by my local dealer in 1985. Pretty much bullet proof , however it would not idle and the VRO had serious filter issues which were both corrected after the first year. However that 250 HO G2 would look really bad ass on my SeaCraft if I had just a little more money growing on my money tree out back....been a bad crop this year!!

I would slap one of those on the back of my boat in a heart beat

Werent the Ficht motors the real 1st gen of the e tecs? I know they had problems till they were "pinned" but basically the same?

I'd say "Basically the same" only in the very broadest sense of the term, and even then it would only apply to the later Ficht motors built by BRP starting about 2002.

Although the Ficht blocks were basically the same and they were a DI motor, the E-TECs incorporate so many changes in the areas of noise reduction, the oiling system, pistons, heads, injectors, computer and cooling system, along with drastic changes made in company management, quality control and product support that it's a stretch to put the OMC Fichts in the same category as an E-TEC. Sort of an academic exercise and not very meaningful. The pin addition to the heads was only on the big block V-6's and did not apply to the 60 degree V-6 & V-4's or smaller motors. A colleague of mine from the aerospace industry became the Chief Engineer of the OMC Test Center in Stuart and was there during the transition to BRP. I talked to him when I was motor shopping and he was emphatic that BRP had a drastically different approach to nearly everything. He said BRP made very noticeable improvements to the motors.

They really seem to have pulled that company out of the crapper...thanks for the correction boss! :D

Me thinks they are sandbagging a tad. My thinking is they have 400 plus with this new
ground up design.

Look at the low end. Sweet. Thanks BRP!
They are releasing the young. Smart.
Cheers,
Me

They look cool. But a 4 stroke Yamaha 90 is lighter than the 90 HO, (but the regular 90 is lighter?) and the 4.2L Yamaha 300 weighs the same as the 300 G2? Ok, 4 lb more. Am I missing something more?

As already mentioned I think BRP has the infrastructure in the G2 built in for future HP increases. Today's hull configurations have conformed to the increase in weight of the ever popular big 4 strokers so it only makes sense to chase the demand for bigger HP engines that push bigger boats, needing sturdier drive components. If BRP could put together a solid, reliable 350hp+ OB with a duo prop drive option they could really shake the market up considerably. Weight is not nearly the concern it used to be. Hulls are lighter than ever and engine performance is king.

Back to Denny's post #11, when the Yamaha's "plasma" cylinders wear down to aluminum that's it.......no rebuilding is possible. That's one of the ways they got the weight down on the 4.2 V-6, no steel sleeves. I know the plasma cylinder is derived from F-1 technology @ 18,000 rpms, however they only have to last 300 miles. Seems like the 4.2 engines have been on the market long enough to have plenty of longevity data available. We'll see how this plays out.