Please click on...


http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marinesi-equipld/420f08013.htm

The part where it says "closed loop fuel injection" caught my attention. Does this mean the fuel tank venting? In other words, a sealed system like a car has?

If so that may take more developement as well to make it work in a marine environment.

Nope,
A closed loop system has a feedback from the exhaust (the O2 sensor) to the computer to tell the Fuel Injection system how much unburned fuel is left after combustion. The computer then adjusts how much fuel to send to the injectors for maximum efficiency.
In an open loop the computer just uses inputs from the intake side to estimate how much fuel to give at various RPMs.
Closed loop is better for power and efficiency, but requires the addition of the O2 sensor and probably other systems.

more expensive to build, and buy, and much more expensive to maintain. Thanks big brother.

+1

Sad to see this coming. So so insignificant in the world picture. Some tree hugger got their way at the expense of a more expensive product for such a small community of us boaters compared to the rest of the USA and world

Closed loop provides about a 5-15% increase in fuel efficiency.

I like the idea, D-Rod, but not the expense it's taking to get it. And 5-15% of 4mpg is not all that significant as a whole. (I used your logic on my dad when he spent $200 on an IAC for his 350MAG MPI and the economy only went from 2 to 2.2. I said" But Dad, it's 10%!" He felt better)

If you burn 1000 gallons per year currently, with a closed loop you might burn closer to 900 gallons.

1000* $4 = $4000 in fuel.
900*$4= $3600.

Can't ignore that.

Also cannot ignore the advantages of tremendously reduced CO dangers.

So............. I could go from 2mpg to 2.3mpg????

Great, wonderful!

An extra 2 miles from my 20-gal fuel tank!

Sign me up today!.





No D-rod, I really don't care.
More compleity = more components to fail = more components to have to diagnose - more components to replace = NONE of those components are inexpensive = FAR more hassle.
I'll keep my simple old boat, with no warning alarms, no computers, no O2 sensors, NO CAT'S, and it just keeps on running.

So what ARE the CO dangers on a MOVING boat? (and disregard the "teak surfing" hazzards, that's not a CO hazzard, that's stupid deepening the gene pool, and should not only be allowed, it should be actively promoted)

I personally would like it as an option.
This allows the aftermarket to come in with some performance enhancers to increase power and efficiency.
As an option it is then my choice, and I choose MORE POWER!
I used the money saving argument when deciding on a diesel truck then watched the price of diesel go through the roof. The money is insignificant... it's the power and pleasure that counts when using toys such as boats and motorcycles.

I remember when MPI/EFI were beginning to spread in the marine world. At the time, many thought it was a pure waste of money and unnecessarily complex.

What is now a popular?

Adding a exhaust O2 sensor adds about nothing to the complexity of the system. Reconfigure of the ECM's algorithm to adjust based on the comparison of two inputs verses mapping one input to table of pre-determined values once the O2 sensors begin transmitting input.

The cat itself isn't that "complex" . The most complex part of that system is the water heat barrier. It's not like you're going to be able to run your engine without the impeller pumping cooling water through the engine. I think the idea that cats will overheat is a load of bull. Cat or Catless, if an impeller starts to fail, you have problems regardless.

Explain to me where the "much more maintenance" comes into play???? I actually argue the opposite. I argue these engines require LESS maintenance.

The one X factor is how the new manifolds are constructed. If they're freshwater cooled, that will prevent the "extra replacement cost" argument. If they're raw water cooled but designed so that the catalysts can be removed and transfered to the new exhaust manifolds, the cost increases are minimized.

Less maintenance? If they're freshwater cooled, that's ONE less part to worry about for those in salt water.

Closed loop system burn hotter and more efficient. This prevents carbon build up.

The closed loop system also allows for the ECM to monitor combustion efficiency and can alert the user when somethings gets out of parameters via a check engine light or IEMA 2000. It could prevent a major failure by detecting it sooner.

One more thing: Maybe seabuddy or someone has statistics on this. On average, I bet about 30% of a boat's engine hours are at idle speed. CO reduction please. Safety is safety.

Lawnmowers and boats account for 1/4 of "mobile" air pollution? OMG, I need to stop laughing so I can get my work done and go boating...

Higher Hp engines get a break on all the new stuff for awhile. Change is coming. Buy now (or keep your boat forever?), if you do not want it.

So are you going to have to get your boat 'smog tests' like you do your cars? If not, how are they going to regulate it and make sure your engine is operating properly and not chugging out pollutants?

Sounds like a crock of carp to me...IMHO

I brought this up to Mark, our harbor owner tonight. He asked a good question:

"What about airplanes?"

That's exactly how I intend to deal with this.

I think boat builders have a stock pile of engines now or they will order engines with production dates before 12/31/08 for the california dealers, and build boats that way.
I heard it's a $4000.00 increase on the price to the consumer after 1/1/09 if engine is built past that date.
Inside info sort of.

That right there is the biggest crock of crap i have ever seen. Acording to a 2006 DOT study, there were an estimated 250,851,833 registered passenger vehicles in the United States. That's cars, trucks, and 6.6 million motorcycles.
250 million, 850 thousand.

Those are used almost daily, as we consume (to all sources, right at 300 million gallons of gasoline (plus nearly 200 million gallons diesel fuel).

Boats are an occasional use item, and as such, would have to be horrifically sloppy, and in huge numbers, to get anywhere near 1/4 of the emissions output of road vehicles.
Show me the study, because I so far have not found it on the web.

Not to mention that virtually all of this new emissions level B.S. is being driven by the ID-ten-T poeple (ID10T) who actually believe, contrary to all historical and scientific fact, that Man is causing Global Warming to occur with his carbon emissions (topic for a different thread, but you can see my opinion on THAT belief).

As far as parts failures go, I have had FAR MORE failures of sensors on every vehicle I have owned in the last 20 years, than failures of ANY type, on any of the simple old school vehicles I have.
Wife's Blazer has gone thru 2 O2 sensors, and a MAF sensor in the last year, Fan clutch too.
My F-150 has gone thru 1 O2 sensor, the switching on the brakes to the cruise controll (recall for repairs becasue it has set trucks on fire before), and a fuel pump (in the tank).
The '92 Chrysler 5th Ave went thru the O2 sensors once, and was scrapped when the fuel pump went (in tank).
My old Ninja is sidelined with a bad Ignition controll box (pack of cigarettes costing $500), after replacing the mag pickups a few years back, and the coils.

Go ahead. I'll wager few people here do LESS maintenance to their boats than I do, because I have virtually nothing to break or fail.

How many threads on here are started by someone with a "warning beeper" of some kind, indicating a failure or impending failure of some part that I do not even have on a running boat? 90% of them.

Lowrider, my 30-yr-old old relic jet boat lost one fuel pump, after 25 years, one ignition coil, after 26 years, and one set of points died before replacement (3rd set in 28 years).

My even older relic Honda CB750F runs perfectly after 33 years, on what just may be, the original points (I bought it 5 years ago).

I will virtually guarantee that the cat-manifolds will NOT be a user-maintainable item, fully sealed 9just like car ones are), and from what I have seen of them, raw water cooled, or at least, cooled however the engine is. When one corroded thru, expect $5,000 replacement manifold sets.
At least for $3,600 I expect performance headers.

I won't mention how little carbon build up was in my 454 when I took it apart winter of 2004/5.

Not a chance. MAYBE 10% max. 30% idle time is idle 10 minuites for every 25 you drive (thus totalling 35 minuites). If you cruise somewhere an hour, that means 27 minuites idle time (14 minuites at each end?).
Now, if you troll fishing, OK, I'll let ya have it in that case. Otherwise, no.

And last but not least,
This just smacks of "do it for the children".
Ok, lets just be safe, as safe as possible, no risks at all:

Internal engines are replace by electrics (No Co emissions).

No batteries (especially under sea-water leak, emit Chlorine gas, far deadlier than CO). 100% Solar power drive juice.

All drives either become jets (no external moving parts to cut anyone) or all propelers are to be made of NERFfoam.

There, no more CO deaths, gas poisoniongs, electrocutions, OR prop-maimings/killings.

Now, drownings:
Everyone wears, at all times, an environment suit (hypothermia), lined with chain-mail (shark bite), and a fully inflated Type 1 PFD (face up floatation).
There, no more drownings too.

Safety is safety.

Now, of to go Dove hunting, "safely". LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!

That's OK D-Rod, you buy the first new low-emissions cat-manifolded boat, and test it out for us all.

I'm lookin foreward to that 10% more fuel mileage.

Lets revisit this discussion in 8 years. If you're against technology, so be it. But not everyone is. So if you want old school, then just buy old school stuff. Don't complain that others care to move forward.

By the way, I just located, that there are estimated (as of 2001), 17 million pleasure boats in the US, used on a part time basis, compared to those 251 million vehicles.


Boats comprise 6.7% of the vehicles in this country.

Boats are used MAYBE 10% of the time the wheeled vehicles are.

6.7% running 10% as often, or 10% as long, emit 25% of the emissions.

As an army Colonel used to say "Horse Pucky!".

So you're implying the numbers are bogus correct?

He's not implying the EPA's numbers are bogus, he is SAYING the numbers are bogus. And with the numbers he provided, it's hard to argue.

25% does seem a vary hard too believe. The number of engine hours per year for the engines covered has to be very small percentage compared to automobile engine hours per year. The engines covered would need to be pumping out a whole lot more pollution per hour than an automobile to be 25%.

If 25% were accurate, we've been ignoring lot's of low hanging fruit for way too many years!

I didn't notice, does that 25% include atv, lawnmower, snowblower, weed wacker, etc? Not that I think that would make it to the 25% mark, but it would edge it up a bit.

Yes I think it does, CB. If you think about it, there are tons of small engines around. If you look at the marine world, the fuel burn rate is very high too.

You weren't the only one D-Rod, I simply stated "the engines covered" in my post. Also, FR mentions lawn mowers in his post.

I'd like to see how they came up with the 25% number.