macd
Well-Known Member
Why should a 4 stroke be more reliable than a 2 stroke ? What engineering basis is there for that hypothesis
It's largely a long-term (high mileage) phenomenon, and as such would have less bearing on 95% of small outboards than the quality of care they received. Conventional four-stroke bottom ends fare better with their positive lubrication; two stroke crank seals eventually wear out; two-stroke piston rings suffer higher wear through whizzing across holes in the cylinder (which is more a power than reliability effect). If you wanted a 200,000mile car engine, you probably wouldn't want it to be a two-stroke. And high-performance two-strokes (which does not include small outboards) are definitely more prone to holing pistons. (If you're lucky: if you're not, you just take off the exhaust and shake out corn-flake-sized chunks of piston
And yet, Ford, Mercedes and several others quite recently spent $billions trying to develop direct-injection 2-stroke engines for cars. Mind you, they would have had bottom-ends more like four-strokes.
That said, stinkwheels' reliability reputation arose as much from plug fouling as anything else, a factor very much reduced by better ignitions, spark plugs and two-stroke oils.