i doin't ever plan to go there and would not . as for the epa all they have done is f!~@#$%^up this world. you like them pleasee go get a job with them . then you can fuss about all us that can't stande there ass . and enjoy our toys :drink:

Us "smaller" builders aren't going anywhere bro. Already working on it.:evilb: :D

A well tuned marine engine should be able to pass the "Sniff" test - if they keep the regulations within reason. I sure don't need a "Check Engine" light in my boat - I've had enough trouble with them in cars...

This sounds bogus. I don't believe that today's fuel injected marine engines is running so rich that that it's wasting 38% of the fuel. The plugs would foul up in minutes, and the the air/fuel ratio would be near single digits. Nonsense.

Those people expecting fuel efficiency to double just from having automotive style emission controls will be sorely disappointed. There is no raw fuel pouring out the tailpipes on today's marine engines. Automobile engines are more efficient than 35 years ago, but many of those improvements, such as roller cam followers, fuel injection, micro polished crank journals, and deck plane honing are used with today's marine engines. Much of the fuel economy gain in cars over the last 35 years was due to improved aerodynamics, low rolling resistance tires, use of lightweight materials, low viscosity lubricants, much higher final drive ratios (lower engine speed), many more gears in the transmissions, and even improvements to the A/C systems. These don't translate well or at all to the marine market.

What gains that may be achieved in operating economy, won't pay for the additional $1000 or more additional cost of those engines. You don't just slap on a couple of $200 catalytic converters on a marine engine, and call it done. You'll have a new ODB-M computer, oxygen sensors, new manifolds, new risers, new cam, special converters able to withstand at least a few water reversions, exhaust gas recirculation, wiring harnesses, possibly air mass flow meters (if not now, certainly later as standards tighten), and more.

These engines will be "hands off". There will be no slapping on of cool looking CMI headers.

Michael

It is always fascinating to watch government in action.
I just heard that the big shipping freighters pollute more that 3rd world industry. Which means by comparison, the pollution from the performance boating market is not even measurable in scale to that. But don't you dare interrupt your campaign supporting buddies business and regulate them.

If you read some of the marine trade magazines, this topic has been presented some time ago. The larger marine companies, such as Mercury, have been testing and developing cat's for inboards.
Jr.

http://www.boatingmag.com/article.as...article_id=858

"This all sounded good, but we at Boating had to see for ourselves. We set up a test comparing an Indmar 5.7 ETX/CAT to the same engine without the catalysts.

Our test boat was a V-drive Master-Craft MariStar 200. After testing with the catalysts in place, the ETX/CAT manifolds were swapped for a standard set. In addition, the engine’s computer was also adjusted for non-cat specs. Both engines are rated at 350 hp.

There was little difference in performance. Acceleration from 0 to 30 mph averaged 5.6 seconds with the cats and 5.3 seconds without. Top speed was 41.0 mph with the cats and 40.9 mph without. Fuel economy, however, was significantly improved by the ETX/CAT system. We measured an 8 percent gain at 30 mph, a 12 percent gain at 20 mph, and a 28 percent gain at idle. The boost in economy occurs because this closed-loop system uses an oxygen sensor to control fuel delivery with more precision than on a standard EFI system"

I was speaking from memory... I should have said 28% at idle. Still very significant.

All that stuff is exactly what I want. I don't care if there's a catalytic converter or not. I'll pay for the cat to get the closed-loop control and OBD system, then hollow the ****er out and reprogram the computer. All I want is a modern fuel injection system. Closed loop, with on board diagnostics.

Current marine fuel injection is not much better than carburetion, it is open loop and the computer just guesses at how much fuel to dump in based on preset parameters. If you change something (like cool looking CMI headers) it has no feedback system to correct itself. It can shift rich or lean and cause problems either way. I just read another thread where a guy said he replaced his whole wiring harness at a very high cost trying to diagnose a problem on a fuel injected motor. A quick scan of an OBD-M system would give you a good idea where to start.

Honestly, i'd much rather have an OBD system, check engine lights, oxygen sensors, a mass air flow meter, and EGR on my boat than a carburetor. At $3.50 a gallon, the extra $1000 on a $100,000 boat will easily be saved in gas.

As for the catalytic converter, the only real benefit I see from that is the reduction in CO. Breathing a lot less nasty stuff when idling around the dock.

pretty soon you won't be able to fart in california!

CARB keeps beating the dead "Goose" -forget the "Golden EGG!
 

Michael:

I hear ya Bro. As a high performance marine engine and aftermarket marine high performance parts builder who is actually based in California, this state as got way to many "Green" crazy both enviromental and monetary gain bureaucrats and activists who use constant distortions of so called data to inact legislation and ridiculous standards that are not based on scientific fact or measured readings and results. The total pollution contribution of marine spark ignition engines to the states air resources in one year on a real measured basis is less than just the flagalant omissions of farm animals in the state in one month!!
As you said , every boater in Califonia must be out in their boat about 12 hours a day 7 days a week to supply this level of emissions. But alas, these requirements will generate a lot of money for the states bureaucrats to wastfully spend from all the licenses, fees and testing required. Most of this type of legislation in the USA today seems to be aimed at generating "Power & Money for those on the "GraveyTrain"

Thank God for us as well as many marine engine & parts companies California represents less than 10% of our annual sales volume.

The other side of this "Sword of Failure" is that the warranty and durability requirements of these new standards are so unreasonable at 10 years that my limited knowledge of marine emissions equipments required such as O2's and Catalytic converters tells me that even large engine manufacturers like Mercury are going to have huge financial and customer service problems making these marine emissions systems operate 10 years let alone in salt water enviroments!

As the California economy tightens and the over zealous enviromentalists and bureaucrats economically distroy whats left of it, I hope they have enough flagalent left that they can burn it and keep warm in winter!!!!

Best Regards,

Ray @ Raylar

Ray,

I've got some bad news for you. The EPA has a proposal to adobt the California standards nationwide. I would highly recommend that you and other engine builders get your comments into CARB and the EPA BEFORE the standards take effect. There use to be a waiver for engines with over 500 hp. There isn't anymore, after Mercury Marine got through with them. I would lobby to bring that cap back, and recommend it include engines under 500 hp, that exceed 500 hp after modifications are made, so your kits are also exempt. The number of engines over 500 hp is miniscule, and is not a burden to the overall marine emissions inventory.

Michael