Let's face it - offshore fishing usually requires burning a lot of gas or diesel. Larger boats often get no more than 1 - 2 miles per gallon, which means 100+ gallons of gas per trip. Ocean skiffs are better because of their smaller size, at 4 - 6 miles per gallon (with a 4-stroke or DFI motor), but still chew up quite a bit of gas. That translates into quite a bit of cash on every trip.

Also, while I'm not a rabid environmentalist, I think it's clear that burning fossil fuels contributes to a number of our environmental problems. Whether it's acid rain (NOX emissions), global warning (carbon dioxide), or groundwater contamination (MTBE fuel additive), burning gasoline contributes to pollution at some level. So better fuel economy means not only less cost, but also a cleaner environment.

In the 90 HP shootout article mentioned in "The E-TEC Buzz", the test boat with the best mileage got just around 9 MPG . The test boat was an extremely light, minimally loaded aluminum skiff. A little later, I saw an article in Boating magazine that talked about a boat that achieved over 100 MPG . That boat was essentially a high-tech rowing shell with a small motor running at 1-2 mph, but it got me thinking - could we reach double-digit fuel economy at cruising speeds in an ocean skiff?

Seems to me that in theory, a light power catamaran or trimaran around 18 - 20' LOA, with one or two small DFI 2-stroke or 4-stroke motors could achieve over 10 MPG with a cruise speed around 15 - 20 mph. What do you think?  I'd like to hear your opinion on the topic... . Could such a hull be made strong enough to survive regular offshore use?

Another, less obvious, way that boats contribute to air pollution is through the fumes from resins and solvents used in manufacturing fiberglass or composite boat hulls. In recent years, some of the larger boat manufacturers have have gotten emissions under control by using closed-system molds (like Genmar's VEC technology, or Sea Ray's RIMFIRE Technology ), or vacuum bagging techniques. The Triumph Boat Company's roto-molded ropelene hull is another low-impact construction technique. Interestingly enough, vacuum bagging of composites did not start out as an emissions control technique. Rather, vacuum bagging was used to get a more thorough saturation of resin in the hull material, resulting in a stronger hull. The emissions control was just a side benefit. All of these construction techniques are the most effective on smaller hulls, which makes them a good fit for the kinds of boats OSJ readers use.

Boating Magazine's February 2005 issue featured an article titled "Oil in the Gas" by Charles Plueddeman. This article has the best attempt I've seen at an apples-to-apples comparison of "New Age" 2-stroke and 4-stroke motors, including operating costs. The hull - an Edgewater 205 CC. The motors: Yamaha's 2-stroke Z150 HPDI, and Yamaha's 4-stroke F150. They did full performance tests, and looked at operating costs over a 5 year period (including buying/changing oil, recommended service, fuel consumption).

The conclusion? No significant difference in operating costs between the two motors, consumers should base their choice on their preferred performance profile - better holeshot implies 2-stroke, lower noise implies 4-stroke.

The cynic in me says "Well of course it would turn out this way. No competent Marketing Guy would ever let his company produce two competing products, and have one of them clearly appear better than the other."

It is interesting to note that the E-TECs only require service every 300 hours of operation. In this article, they assumed the average boater would run the motor around 50 hours/year, so the E-TEC would not need a service during the comparison period. If you inject this parameter into the comparison, even if the E-TECs consume the same amount of oil and gas as the HPDI (and there is evidence that it has better fuel economy and uses less oil than the HPDI), the E-TECs would / could come out about $1,600 cheaper to run over the 5 year period. Assuming better hole shot and comparable noise levels to a 4-stroke, it would seem like the E-TEC is clearly a better value. Of course, this all assumes that the E-TECs are a reliable as the Yamahas, which only time will tell.

A good set of eyes are critical when fishing offshore. The January 2005 issue of Marlin magazine has an article by Captain Mike Hurt on stabilized binoculars: "Through the Looking Glass",  that is worth reading. It covers basic construction and technology, pros and cons, some useful tricks for using them. Does not have any side-by-side comparisons, or quantitative reviews, but does list all of the major models available to consumers. Bottom Line on stabilized binoculars: Useful? Yes; Expensive? Yes; Heavy? Definitely; Worth It? For billfishing, definitely.

The January/February issue of Big Game Fishing Journal had an interesting article by Tred Barta ("Barta vs. Tuna") describing his views how to properly fight tuna. He uses the boat to agressively manage the fight, which is nothing new, but his technique does not depend on backing down on the fish. This means it will be a useful technique for skiffs. The bottom line: use the boat to circle away from the direction the fish is circling. Since tuna tend to circle to the side that the hook is on, this manuver will place the line across the top of the fish, pulling him over to one side. This will increase the amount of work the tuna has to do to maintain balance, and ultimately tire out the fish much more quickly.

Peter Pakula is a well known small-boat / big game fisherman from Australia. He has released a multimedia DVD titled "Between the Lines" which covers "Trolling Skirted Lures, Gamefishing and Sportfishing Techniques". We've got a copy, look for an in-depth review sometime in the near future.

Bombardier Recreational Product's (BRP) Evinrude division has finally started taking the offensive regarding their E-TEC technology. There have been a couple of attention-getting (read "odd") commercials on the tube lately (including one with a fat guy in a G-string), as well as a 30 minute infomercial comparing the 2-stroke E-TEC to the 4-stroke Yamaha F-series and the Mercury Verado.

In general, they make a strong case for the E-TEC, although I found one of their side-by-side challenges a bit misleading. In the challenge I am refering to, they put a 225 E-TEC and an F-225 Yamaha 4-stroke side-by-side on a large center console, then ran the boat flat-out with only one engine. With the Yamaha, the boat never got on plane, and they recorded a maximum speed of 13 mph. With the E-TEC, the boat managed to break onto plane, and once on plane, accelerated up to 30 mph. They made a point of emphasizing the speed difference, which is a bit misleading - if the boat could have gotten on plane with the F-225, it is likely that the Yamaha could have produced speeds not that different from thre E-TEC. The real point is that the Yamaha did not have the torque necessary to bring the boat on to plane, but the E-TEC did.

Think that the Yamaha was mispropped? There was a discussion thread on www.thehulltruth.com about the informercial, and two of the people posting comments were involved in the tests. Those people are both Yamaha and Evinrude dealers, and they stated that Bombardier encouraged them to prop the F-225 any way they wanted. They had the F-225 turning 5900 RPM at Wide-Open-Throttle (WOT), but just could not get the big center console on plane with the Yamaha. One of them did comment that the F-225 is known to be a little weak on torque, so it's clear to us why Evinrude picked this particular size motor. But the fact remains that the E-TEC clearly had a better hole shot than the F-225. Interestingly enough, Evinrude also had them leave the Yamaha down in the water (but not running), and the E-TEC was still able to get the boat on plane.

Along a similar note, Powerboat Reports' March 2005 Issue did a comparison of the Verado 250, the Yamaha 4-stroke F-250, and an E-TEC 250, running three identical hulls, and letting each manufacturer fine tune the boat. In their tests, they ultimately picked the Verado, but if you looked closely at the results, you would see the motors were not all that much different in performance, fuel economy, and noise levels. The E-TEC, as you might imagine, was faster, had better acceleration and average noise levels. The Mercury was the quietest and had the best fuel economy. But the differences were not that big. They did not measure emissions, and did not take into account cost of operation.

Finally, Trailer Boats magazine's September 2004 issue had a 90 HP outboard motor shootout titled: "Bantamweight Brawl". Now in general, these articles are useful, but the thing that really annoys me is that they always seems to leave out one or more of the major players. In this case, the missing player is Yamaha. They tested the Evinrude E-TEC 90, the Mercury Optimax 90, the Honda BF90, the Tohatsu (Nissan) 90DI, and the Suzuki DF90. But no Yammie. Oh well...still, some very interesting stuff: Evinrude's E-TEC came out the the fastest, had the best acceleration, had fuel mileage only slightly less than the Honda, and was only 4 dB louder than the Honda.

So...I'd say all signs are that BRP will have a winner in the E-TECs, especially if their claims about reliability and maintenance costs prove true. Only time will tell!