# Etec vs. 4 Stroke weight



## tjtfishon (Feb 9, 2016)

I have been considering an e-tec and looked into a lot of performance bulletins and specs. While Evinrude's website claims less weight than 4 strokes, I found that the models they are comparing to are not current models and the only one that is even close in weight is the 30 (and not that close) While I understand their somewhat deceptive tactics in marketing against competitors, I don't really understand how the 2 stroke/2 cylinder motor should be heavier than a 4 stroke/3 cylinder motor with a valve train, timing gear/belts, camshaft, etc. 

Without getting into a product bashing thread, is there an explanation or something I am missing.

30 tiller w/PTT
etec 187 Suzuki 163

40/50 tiller w/PTT
etec 250 Suzuki 225 Tohatsu 214


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

Most of the claims about E-Tecs being lighter in weight than comparable four strokes are quite true - but not for the smaller E-Tecs...

In short the E-tec system requires a much heavier fly wheel than a similar four stroke (an E-Tec runs at 48 volts internally...) and in the smaller engines that's a real handicap... Once you get to the 90 and above (particularly the sizes larger than 90....) four strokes are at a real disadvantage in terms of weight... The heavy weight of the smaller E-Tecs (the sizes that microskiffs need) makes them not very attractive in comparison to other brands (and as a guy who's run nothing but E-Tecs now since 2005 I wish it weren't so....). Weight, though, isn't the only characteristic needed in a motor and in other areas -acceleration, maintenance, pollution, cost, etc. E-Tecs run rings around anything else, period. Of course you also must have competent maintenance available and convenient -or owning one won't be a great idea.... These new motors are designed to be worked on while hooked up to a computer that has the correct software for that model and year motor. The technician also needs to have been to the BRP school to be able to do everything this design requires..... The lower unit (and just about everything associated with it... ) is no different than lower units from years ago (with the exception of the new generation of E-Tec - but so far only motors from 200hp on up have been brought to market...).

I'm a real fan of E-Tecs and have had great service from the three I've owned (my current one is around 1200 hours and will be sold shortly to make room for a fourth E-Tec 90...). I must admit that I'm somewhat prejudiced since I've never owned anything other than a Johnson or Evinrude since 1973....

Yes, I'm lucky enough to be on BRP's guide program (and was on OMC's before that until they went bust in 2001....) but other than a price break on the initial purchase I get no freebies and stand in line and pay for my maintenance just like anyone else....


----------



## tjtfishon (Feb 9, 2016)

lemaymiami said:


> Most of the claims about E-Tecs being lighter in weight than comparable four strokes are quite true - but not for the smaller E-Tecs...


Great explanation Capt Bob. I am becoming a fan the more I research the technology.


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

Forgot to mention... while other brands are so sensitive about fuel that owners go to great lengths to find "rec 90" and pay a bunch extra for it... an E-Tec is perfectly fine on plain old ethanol 87 day in and day out....


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

As you can tell by my avatar I'm a 2 stroke fan, although I've gone with the Tohatsu TLDI's not Etec (I have 2 of them). Another thing that adds weight to 2 strokes since the federal government decided to ruin them is an air compressor system.


----------



## el9surf (Dec 23, 2008)

I think most motors are ok on regular 87 day in and day out if you use your boat frequently. It's when it takes you a while to burn through a tank of gas that the non ethanol fuel is an advantage. It is less susceptible to phase seperation and water.

As for the etec I always seem to hear 50 / 50 on them. Some people hate them while others love them. In the lower hp range they are not the most attractive because of their weight. If draft isn't a concern at the lighter hp rating they are priced ok.


----------



## topnative2 (Feb 22, 2009)

1. 2str have guts
2. one can buy the computer program and do the work


----------



## Sublime (Oct 9, 2015)

The weight in the 40-50-60 is in the lower unit, period. It is big and beefy and the motor will swing a bigger prop than a 4 stroke more than likely. I loved my 50 etec.


----------



## Whiskey Angler (Mar 20, 2015)

Sublime said:


> The weight in the 40-50-60 is in the lower unit, period. It is big and beefy and the motor will swing a bigger prop than a 4 stroke more than likely. I loved my 50 etec.


Agreed.... I'm turning, with ease, a four blade 13.25" x 21" rogue prop on my etec 60.... very impressive for that horsepower class.


----------



## permitchaser (Aug 26, 2013)

Darn just get a Zuke and shut up


I am a little bias like Bob


----------



## Megalops (Oct 23, 2011)

permitchaser said:


> Darn just get a Zuke and shut up
> 
> 
> I am a little bias like Bob


Permitchaser, I can't believe you're recommending a Suzuki after the shit ton of problems you've experienced with your engine.

Other things to consider, most etecs come with 6 years of warranty, the 3 year maintenance schedule which is just crazy, and they can be pull started. But they're heavy and those big props sure ain't cheap.


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

Capt Bob, I too ran a lot of Johnsons and Evinrudes from the 70's northward. But switch to yami's before the Ficht days and glad I did. I always had a hard time trusting anything that came from them since, but I do have a couple of fishing buddies that run the etecs (from 250 to 60) and seems to be ok.

What I don't like about them is how hard they clunk in and out of gear. Same with Mercs. To me, that clunking is as bad as someone slamming a hatch when I'm along side of fish or easing up to an area.

It's hard to beat the reliability of a Yamaha and makes the added cost worth it. But the quietness & fuel efficiency of a 4stroke Zuke with the silky smoothness of operation and lower cost, make any added weight difference it might have well worth it. When I fish, I'm not trying to set any speed records, just trying to be quiet and stealthy.

My 2 & 1/2 cents worth.


----------



## tjtfishon (Feb 9, 2016)

These two performance bulletins make the Suzuki look more attractive.

http://www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE566.pdf

http://www.suzukimarine.com/Product...ay Boat Works Co/Hells Bay Professional DF60A


----------



## devrep (Feb 22, 2009)

13 in pitch prop vs 16. medium chop vs calm water.


----------



## Sublime (Oct 9, 2015)

I have no doubt the Zuke would get better mileage. I bet the etec would smoke it in time to get on plane, load carrying and ability to stay on plane at lower speeds.


----------



## tjtfishon (Feb 9, 2016)

All great points. Thank you all for the feedback.


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

So far there is nothing I do not like about the F60 tiller on the Pro, except that sometimes I dream that it weighs 150 lbs. I was also very surprised by the performance of the F60 on the Pro. I was concerned the hull would be slightly underpowered and almost went with the F70. I did not like the higher RPM range of the F70 and 15 lbs of extra weight. But, I have a Pro rigged with a Yeti 60, a small AGM battery, three life jackets, a small flare/safety equipment bag, a throwable cushion, two small Umqua fly boxes, and six fly rods. If I would of thought of it I would have had all the hatches made with carbon fiber. I am kind of an extreme guy.


----------

