Second Gen 200-300 HP E-TEC!
 

This is what Doozle was referring to if you haven’t seen it. http://www.evinrude.com/en-us/engine...etec_300_hp_g2 BRP unveiled their next gen 200-300 hp E-TECs due out this fall at a big dealer meeting last weekend in Milwaukee. Two BRP engineers got a big award from SAE last year for a “significant advancement in the state-of-the art of 2-stroke engines”! A lot of folks were expecting something radical like a lot more HP or duo-prop drives, etc., but it looks like they're saving more HP for the future. (They've already demonstrated ~200 HP/L from production Ski-Do engines with E-TEC technology, equivalent to 680 HP from the 3.4L block, but those are small very high rpm engines!)

Highlights include an integral hydraulic steering system (no external hydraulic cylinder req’d) and a much cleaner rigging system with fly-by-wire shift and throttle. Fuel burn is reported to be 15% less than current E-TECs and oil usage is also reduced because block was designed from scratch for DI and oil injection. Oil tank is on the motor; think it holds about 2 gal. They’ve standardized on the same 3.4L displacement for all motors from 200 to 300 hp instead of the old 3.3L for 200-250 and 3.4L for the 250 HO and 300. Looks like weight may have gone up some, but hard to tell because you’d have to add in weight of hydraulic steering hardware and oil tank to old motors to get a fair comparison. Prices are anybody’s guess, but you can be sure they didn’t get cheaper! Eliminating the steering cylinder will save some $ though! They also have a fancy large all-in-one instrument display panel that would eliminate many separate gauges.

I wasn't that impressed by the new styling, but the new cowling apparently provides great access to the most of the engine via a couple of easily removed panels, and the technical details are quite impressive. BRP has made a serious capital investment with an ALL NEW CLEAN SHEET design, with the V-6 block changed from 90 to a narrower 74 degrees, with extensive use of CFD. Since computers now have enough power to solve the complex equations in a reasonable amount of time, CFD has become a very powerful tool for flow visualization and BRP has clearly put that to use in designing the ports and combustion chamber. The jet engine folks have been using it for about 20 years to come up increasingly complex 3-D bent/curved airfoils that are significantly more efficient (and harder to make!)

I’ve been studying their patent http://www.google.com/patents/US20140102400 for about a week trying to figure out the new porting and intake/exhaust manifold scheme! Both cylinder heads are IDENTICAL, and rather than exhausting into the center of the V as all outboards have done for over 50 years, they use complex external ductwork & manifolds to connect the crankcase to the intake ports and the exhaust ports to mid-section. Both heads have their exhaust on the port side, and intake on stbd side. The stbd. bank exhaust and port bank intake are located between the V and the port bank exhaust is on the port side of the engine, away from the block. Seems like that would add weight and pressure loss, but it also gives them the opportunity for some sonic tuning to improve mid-range torque and fuel economy, similar to what Chrysler did in the ‘60’s with their cross-ram intake manifolds and the tuned intake on the old slant 6. If you combine those ducts with variable area valves in the exhaust plumbing, it opens up a lot of tuning possibilities! The current V-4 motors have a 2-position valve in the exhaust duct to change tuning for better scavenging at both low and high rpm and the result is like a turbo kicking in at about 4000 rpm! The current I-2 motors use a variable water spray into the exhaust duct to do the same thing.

Although much of this 1+ hr video http://www.evinrudenation.com/ClubEv...6b0b-171350521 is a bunch of marketing & styling BS talking about "colors, shapes and textures", you can skip all that by viewing the part from 44:00 to about 1:00:00, which contains some pretty impressive engineering info, like 600 ft-lbs of mid-range torque from the 250 HO that will probably embarrass the V-8 outboards, not to mention the 250-300 hp 4-strokes! Also check out the Aussie version of the Seafari at 1:07:00!

One word of caution, the fuel economy chart is a bit technical, as it's comparing BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). BSFC is fuel flow divided by HP, so lower numbers are better, and it's the best way to compare engine efficiency.

For anyone looking for more info, there is a long discussion thread on the G2 motors on the E-Tec Owners web site with more info from dealers Seahorse and Huey at http://www.etecownersgroup.com/post/...665?&trail=135. The useful info starts on about page 10.

Love the aeration of your avatar.

Just give Gumby a haircut, round some painted surfaces out, and you have a winner.

yes its a new ball game!!,,

I can't get pass the styling:(

600 Ft lbs Torque !!!!
 

A 3208N Cat makes like 450 Ft. Lbs of torque at High Idle (2800 rpm) 600 Ft lbs is unbelievable. Anybody who ever rode a two stroke "Observed Trials" dirt bike (Ossa, Penton, JCB, Gas-Gas, Montessa) will tell you with the right port timing you can get a two stroke to pull like a John Deere tractor. The Chinese Husqvarna Chain Saws use a bunch of RPMs to make their HP, Stihl chain saws turn much slower and make Hp/torque at a much lower RPM because of different port timing. That's why you see them on the lawn service guy's trucks so much. Any reciprocating engine only has so many "Frams" in it, there is no sense in using them up at the rate of 6,000 a minute, if they got one that make buckets of torque at 3500 RPMs! Torque is what I think turns propellers well, not necessarily Horse Power if it is made at 6000 RPMs and then run through a reduction gear to get the shaft speed down to a manageable band width to turn a propeller efficiently. Gillie will tell you that there is a tugboat in the San Francisco Maritime Museum that is 100' long and pulled log rafts down the coast for Oregon to build California. These log rafts were 100' wide and 600' long and the Hercules dragged them down the Pacific coast for decades with a triple expansion Steam Engine that made 400 Hp. But it made it a 400 rpm's. That son, is what is known as TORQUE!

Bushwacker thanks for the tech breakdown in readable terms. What's your guestimate on the reliability of this design? Styling aside, reliability at a decent price will win the day.

Great read! thanks! The clunky design reminds me of the old Chryslers....but that will pass...everybody will get used to it...the far out Aussie Seafari is way cool!

Here's the REAL deal when it comes to torque @ a smooth 102 rpms.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/3263/

Look at image 3 of 8 and notice the design of the crank and lower engine frame, especially where the crank throws are. Thats alot of metal and alot of machining.

We trained on 2 stroke v8 diesels in the military...talk about a torque monster! Make a great inboard outdrive motor.

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.

The 90 HO is a V-4 and same weight as the 115. The regular 90 is an I-3, so yes, I think it's about 50 lbs lighter. Max HP may be about the same but due to 33% more displacement, I'm sure the V-4 has a BUNCH more mid range torque! The HO models seem to be BRP's way of allowing you to mount a bigger "hot rod" motor on smaller boats without exceeding the Max HP rating and triggering higher insurance rates! Detroit did similar sandbagging late in the muscle car era, just before smog rules killed the hot engines!