BRP Evinrude calls for industry unity for a cleaner environment

[bennyboy]

Dumping of engine oil?
In a workshop the oil is collected by the recycellers for reuse into different products. They do not even charge to come around and pick up the waste oil so they must certainly turn it onto somthing profitable

[Gary Fooks]

so then Scott, you are saying that the 2 strokes have "oil mixed with the fuel" that is true, but what exactly do you reckon happens to your 4 stroke oil after an oil change? it does not magicaly dissappear, it will not be recycled,most don't, they just dump it, and it will end up in landfil, and pollute years down the track, it is your choice and so be it, but the option, burn a little bit at a time and pollute as you go, or change it and pollute the same amount in one go, either way you try to sell it, the outcome is the same.

The “Used 4 stroke oil” argument is another specious argument – it seems to make sense until you do the numbers.

First – it is compulsory to recycle all engine oil. Its law. And the only numbers I could find was a 2002 Federal Govt report that showed we recycled over 90%. I’ll look this all up if you need, but let’s assume someone is an idiot and dumps the oil.

In fact let’s go a step further and let’s not worry about it seeping into the water. Let’s just assume that the same idiot just dumps it into the water. So she doesn’t get caught, she puts it into an oil container. Hangs it over the side of the boat on atrip and punches a hole in the bottom, so it drips out along the way.

Let’s look at a 50hp just as an example. Now a 4 stroke would have an oil change at 10 hours and then at 100hrs, then every 100 hours. (typically)

So again lest take the worst case scenario - the first year, with two oil changes of 4 to 5 litres. Oil weighs about .8 kg/ litre. But lest be conservative and say 5 litres x 2 changes x 0.9 = 9kg of used engine oil being purred into the water by our 4 stroke owning “idiot”

Now let’s add the total emissions from the 4 stroke - HC+ NOx, Using the database published each month in F&B (takes from the numbers submitted by manufacturers to the USA EPA, based on est procedures developed by the outboard industry - the ICOMIA test cycle, inlcuding set minutes at full power .. 80% ... 60 % 40% and idle ) (clarification added)

The 4 strokes range from 12.6 to 15.1 g/kW/hr (HC+NOx) (The E-TEC is 13.4, with the lowest CO across the range). So let’s take the very worst 4 stroke at 15.1.

50 hp = 37.29 kW x 15.1 x 100hrs = 56.3 kg per annum (per 100hrs)
Add to they foolishly dumped engine oil and we get an annual (100hr) total of

56.3+9 = 65.3 kg


Now lets compare that to a 50hp 2 stroke. They range from 140.1 to 167.8. So let’s be generous and assume you buy the very best 2 stroke. The total HC+ NOx emissions into the water are

50 hp = 37.29 kW x 140.1 x 100hrs = 522.4 kg per annum (per 100hrs)


CONCLUSION

- The very best 2 stroke will put 522kg of emissions into the water in 100hrs.

- The very worst 4 stroke plus the engine oil illegally dumped into the water would add to no more than 65.3 kg.

In this worst case scenario the 2 stroke adds and extra 457kg or eight times the pollution.

The argument about 4 strokes and their used engine oil sounds right, until you do the numbers and then it turns out to be BS.


I hope you found this of interest.


Gary

[Gary Fooks]

PS

I trust NoelM and others and others will find the above post , as Noel puts it, a "truely (sic) educated answer ". I know reading the numbers is dull - but as I keep saying, unless you get the facts ... you're talking trash.


BTW, just to be fair to E_TEC , on the same calculation basis, the E-TEC 50hp puts our 49.96 kg, (with no used engine oil) And as mentioned it has the lowest CO in the range.

Gary

[Gary Fooks]

Paddles Writes:
gary, as an addition to noel's comments regarding emmisions, has anyone studied the emmisions made by different types outboard engines that includes their manufacture, operation, servicing/maintenance and final disposal/recycling? I'd be very interested to see some results.



Thanks for the question.

Such a study would be interesting but in the end these “whole of life“studies worry the heck out of me. They are so flakey. EG when I use a power drill to make an outboard – did the electricity for the drill come from a coal or a hydro power station?

Then how do you compare a kg of HC to NOx or CO2? I mean, what’s worse for the environment and how much worse? What’s worse – acid rain? An oil spill or global warming?

Its like asking what’s worse for your health? Too much fat, too much salt or too much sugar? And how do you compare them?

All such comparisons and composite studies are so flakey - that I refuse to do them if at all possible.



As to the Honda 2 stroke vs 4 stroke question Yes that did make plenty of 2 stroke bikes, none or very few now I hear.

But please read again the quote from Mr S Honda “ for the sake of … water and fish” we will only make only 4 stroke outboards” . It seems clear to me that he was concerned about water pollution.

As you know all outboard exhausts make their way through the water first. Divers tell me they can taste a difference in the water when there is a 2 stroke boat above.

cheers
Gary

[PinHead]

Gary..we all need to be aware of pollution however..comparisons are always flaky. Using 100 hours..were they all running at the same revs? Was an adjustment made for the 2 stroke getting on the plane quicker thereby backing on the revs sooner than a 4?

PLUS...the capital expenditure will turn a lot away from 4 strokes..perhaps the manufacturers ought to do something about that.

[Gary Fooks]

Gary..we all need to be aware of pollution however..comparisons are always flaky. Using 100 hours..were they all running at the same revs? Was an adjustment made for the 2 stroke getting on the plane quicker thereby backing on the revs sooner than a 4?

PLUS...the capital expenditure will turn a lot away from 4 strokes..perhaps the manufacturers ought to do something about that.

Good question but the emissions numbers are solid.

They are tested using a precise testing methodology. To answer your question about ‘same revs” YES

They are tested using the ICOMIA international standard test cycle. From memory it’s a 5 mode test - set minutes at full power, 80% 60% 40% and idle. (I can email you the 80 page document of you want to read more.)

I guess a two stoke may get on the plane 2 or 3 seconds sooner - over an hour I doubt that will make much difference ... usually. Certainly not enough to shake of the enormous difference betwen 2 and 4 stroek emisisons.

The number of minutes at each speed were decided after extensive research of actual hours. I have seen the study replicated on Australian boats and the results were near identical.

All the emissions testing is done by the manufacturers. So if they had a lemon they would do over.

The results are then submitted to the USA EPA, who then conduct audits as they see fit.

I don’t believe the numbers could be more rock solid.


I’m note sure I get your point about the cost of four strokes. There is lots of competition out there – so if they could sell then cheaper they would.

Carby 2 strokes have fewer parts, so they are faster / cheaper to make. As they are going out around the world there is no R&D and the manufacturing equipment capital is written off. So they are cheaper to make…

DFI 2 stokes have a more parts and a heap more technology than a traditional 2 stroke, so their price wont be easy to cut either.

cheers

Gary

[PinHead]

the cost of 4 strokes? a purchaser is looking at buying a new boat. the 4 stroke will be more expensive than buying a 2 stroke..I know which way I would og..the 2 stroke.

If they are keen on reducing emissions then why don;t the manufacturers a) reduce the price of 4 strokes or b) increase the price of 2 strokes?

[Gary Fooks]

the cost of 4 strokes? a purchaser is looking at buying a new boat. the 4 stroke will be more expensive than buying a 2 stroke..I know which way I would og..the 2 stroke.

If they are keen on reducing emissions then why don;t the manufacturers a) reduce the price of 4 strokes or b) increase the price of 2 strokes?

Why?

well first, half the market agree with you and buy 2 strokes and half don't. So don't presume you are correct - its really 50:50.

but why not change prices as you suggest ?

It’s called competition. Prices are already as low as possible while maintaining a profit. So are you talking about subsidising 4 stroke losses with higher 2 stroke profits?

First – if they were the same price who would still buy a 2 stroke? Fewer people at least so there goes your subsidy.

If brand Y decreased the price of 2 stroke by 15% and increased 2 strokes by 15 % ( but the competitors didn’t) then they would sell no 2 strokes and lots of 4 strokes. And soon go broke because they would be selling the 4 strokes below cost, and not be selling any two strokes at higher margins to make up for the losses on 4 strokes.

If you suggest all manufacturers agree to do the same - then that’s collusion / price fixing and illegal under the Trade Practices Act.


And what would Honda and Evinrude do? They only sell clean engines - so how can they cut the selling price without some subsidy from higher priced 2 strokes? if they could cut the price they would already do so.


Do the mathematics ….

[PinHead]

Why?

well first, half the market agree with you and buy 2 strokes and half don't. So don't presume you are correct - its really 50:50.

but why not change prices as you suggest ?

It’s called competition. Prices are already as low as possible while maintaining a profit. So are you talking about subsidising 4 stroke losses with higher 2 stroke profits?

First – if they were the same price who would still buy a 2 stroke? Fewer people at least so there goes your subsidy. I know I would still buy 2 stroke

If brand Y decreased the price of 2 stroke by 15% and increased 2 strokes by 15 % ( but the competitors didn’t) then they would sell no 2 strokes and lots of 4 strokes. And soon go broke because they would be selling the 4 strokes below cost, and not be selling any two strokes at higher margins to make up for the losses on 4 strokes.

If you suggest all manufacturers agree to do the same - then that’s collusion / price fixing and illegal under the Trade Practices Act.


And what would Honda and Evinrude do? They only sell clean engines - so how can they cut the selling price without some subsidy from higher priced 2 strokes? if they could cut the price they would already do so.


Do the mathematics ….

Govt subsidies..if the Govt is so keen on the so called environmental issues they carry on about then subsidies..they subsidise that many other items it is almost beyond a joke.

[Gary Fooks]

If you saw me pouring a pack of used engine oil into the water - what would you say or do?

I'm interested to hear how you justify the extra tonnes of pollution that your decision to buy a 2 stroke would put into the water? I mean at the same time say we have a right to go fishing because we are responsible?

I can understand people saying “I didn’t know the 2 stroke has so much more emissions" I can understand people who say” I could only afford the 2 stroke"

I can’t understand why, if 2/4 strokes were the same price why buy a 2? Slightly faster acceleration vs. 4.6 tonnes of pollution? Hardly responsible angling and the type of attitude that greenies use to justify closing down fishing.

I get the feeling that you just like to argue for the heck of it, and hang the facts ... so I'll call it quits here.

Gary

[PinHead]

deleted the post..when thought about it is not representative of the marine industry anyway

[PADDLES]

fair call on the relevance of the numbers gary, actual measurable figures are cold hard facts and as long as comparison tests are done equally, they don't lie.

one of my good mates (since grade 8) used to co-own a decent sized boat shop that sold jet skis as well, he was telling me years ago that if it ever got out (in the public arena) how much pollution a 2 stroke jetski pushed out they would be banned instantly, he reckoned that the 2s outboards were the same. your figures are alarming gary.

by the sounds of it pinhead, pretty soon there will not be a choice to make, it'll be 4s or di 2s and that's it if you want a new motor.

[Gary Fooks]

Cheers Paddles,

Yes – PWC’s cop a lot of flack. They look “naughty” just standing still.

Noosa residents want them banned – for no logical reasons. Probably the same in many parts of the world.

My theory is that PWC manufacturers have all changed over to the cleanest engines well ahead of legislation … to be proactive and avoid handing their opposition a stick to hit them with. (If that makes sense?)

That’s sort of my attitude too. Why hand the greenies something to complain about?

(Aside: the winner of the Healthy Waterways Award 2008, a vegetarian who works for the Qld Conservation Council, and assisted AMCS in their Moreton Bay anti fishing campaign, had a photo taken in a tinnie for the awards publicity. The tinnie had a very high emission two stoke on the back. LOL)

Yes PWC and Outboard 2 stroke are identical in emissions. Some of the engines are/ were identical.

If you ever see the emissions numbers for lawn mowers etc they will seem much cleaner. They aren’t. It’s just that the test cycle (methodology) is different.

I have to say that many outboard dealers don’t know these 2 stroke emissions numbers. At one conference when I presented the data, one wanted to punch me in the nose.

So if you look at these numbers and feel you need to defend the two stroke you have now. I say: don’t worry about it. I mean I didn’t know how high the emissions were 3 years ago. Most dealers still don’t know. So how the heck were most of us supposed to find out?

I put the numbers up 2 years ago in a post on Ausfish , and a friend of mine, a state manager for an outboard company (who sells only clean technology) called me up to say the numbers must be wrong and I should remove the post. I got him to call his tech manager to check my numbers … I didn’t hear any more. In other words even outboard company managers weren’t fully aware of the numbers.

So, again, how the heck were we to know?

All I ask is that you think twice about your next purchase.

For me, the fuel savings/ longer range and lack of noise and especially smell was enough to make the extra price of a 3 star worth it. Actually it wasn’t that much - I bought a 50hp clean instead of a 60hp dirty and now I arrive at the fish 2 minutes later … so what?

Gary

[FNQCairns]

If you saw me pouring a pack of used engine oil into the water - what would you say or do?

I'm interested to hear how you justify the extra tonnes of pollution that your decision to buy a 2 stroke would put into the water? I mean at the same time say we have a right to go fishing because we are responsible?

I can understand people saying “I didn’t know the 2 stroke has so much more emissions" I can understand people who say” I could only afford the 2 stroke"

I can’t understand why, if 2/4 strokes were the same price why buy a 2? Slightly faster acceleration vs. 4.6 tonnes of pollution? Hardly responsible angling and the type of attitude that greenies use to justify closing down fishing.

I get the feeling that you just like to argue for the heck of it, and hang the facts ... so I'll call it quits here.

Gary

Seriously no one can discredit the numbers because they are are what they are, although using word pollution is entirely incredible, it seriously paints a ideological slant.

Who would also consider Australian milk a poison? if not why not?? Some within ideology using numbers will argue it is.

It's easy to see through the rhetoric all the way to the driver behind.

i was taught just as in milk that pollution needs to be used in context and within definition, using it out of context labels the user and the personal aim.

I understand that the word emission used in context doesn't have the zealot-ish appeal needed.

As I recounted above even the authors of that report couldn't come at outboards and water pollution here in fantasy land...too far out for even them, why does anyone consider it OK?

Please choose words that are within their respective context/definition as doing anything other is patronising in the extreme and far from responsible accounting.

cheers fnq

[Gary Fooks]

Yes - I should have used "emissions" fair point