View From the Helm

While George's 28 ft. Mako center console is a bit longer than our self-imposed limit of 24 feet, it seems like most of the comments still have value. Here are some highlights:

• He fishes a dense spread for a small boat - 8 lines
  
  
• He runs his lures in a staggered diamond formation , to set each lure visibly apart from the others
  
  
• He runs a center stinger lure at least 100 yards behind the boat
  
  
• He runs two lines off each outrigger. To accomplish this, his outriggers have external eyes (rather than running the rigging through the center of the rigger like our Precision Marine outriggers), and he has two halyards per outrigger . He does not combine two clips on one line.
  
  
• His favorite teasers include the Moldcraft fenders, a daisy chain of bowling pin lures, and the Strip Teaser , which is a six-arm dredge of mylar strips with fish images imprinted on them
  

Some small reels have been adapted mechanically to handle the heavier drags, and there are more than a few (such as one of our test reels, the Accurate Boss 870 ) that are more than capable of handling the superbraids. However, these small reels are not well matched to rods that are strong enough to survive using these heavy test lines. On the other hand, rods that balance well with these reels are usually too light to handle 50 - 80 test line.

To get around this problem, some innovative Bay Area fishermen have developed a new form of fighting fish that removes the rods from the picture almost entirely. They use a heavy drag, point the rod directly at the fish, and pull straight back (the "Draw"). To gain line, they simple thrust the rod straight towards the fish, while cranking the reel (the "Shoot").

While you don't gain a lot of line with each cycle, it is claimed to be a very efficient way of fighting fish. Even more than a regular "short stroke" pump. No word on where a rod belt or harness fits in, but it looks like the technique is not well suited for it.

A good example occurred when Powerboat Reports' ran an article in their July 2005 issue that announced that one of their long-term Evinrude E-TEC test engines had the powerhead replaced. The engine had just over 100 hours on it. Within a few days, the buzz on some of the Internet forums was that "One of the E-TECs developed a loud rattle and failed, forcing Evinrude to replace the powerhead. Evinrude blamed the failure on the use of non-Evinrude oil". A number of people trumpeted this as confirmation that E-TECs were untested, unreliable, and too complicated for the average person to use.

To recap the FACTS: At just over 100 hours, one of PBR's E-TECs developed a rattling noise at idle (600 rpm). There was never any loss of power or poor performance. When they reported it to Evinrude, Evinrude replaced the powerhead under warranty, even though there was no sign of a problem other than the rattle.

Unfortunately, the powerhead swap took two weeks to complete. It took some time to ship the new powerhead, and then the mechanic did not have the right tool to pull the fuel injectors. As of PBR's press time, no one knew what caused the rattle. PBR's contact at Evinrude conjectured that the rattle MIGHT have been to due to the use of non-Evinrude oil, but she didn't know for sure.

Is this a disappointment? Sure. Is it an indictment of E-TECs? Hardly. It is interesting to note that all  of PBR's other long-term test motors (which include 3 Evinrude Fichts, a Mercury Optimax, a carbureted Evinrude, a Honda and 2 Suzukis ), in PBR's words, "performed almost flawlessly".

However, a review of their past issues found that all but one engine had had at least one minor problem during their tests ( the only trouble-free motor? The Honda, of course). None of the other problems had precipitated a powerhead swap, but it's not clear if the swap was really necessary. Hopefully, Evinrude will get back to PBR with some sort of diagnosis which will clear things up.