Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Orbital Engine (OE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John M Connolly who wrote (3619)	12/21/1998 4:31:00 PM
From: John M Connolly	Respond to of 4908

ALL: The link belowrelates tothe convertible - here three Canadian debenture companies are being sued by an American company for mis representation of the debenture deal. messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com I am not sure of the details but am trying to find out . I wonder if OE can claim that RGC mislead them - I know it is a long shot!!!! John

To: John M Connolly who wrote (3619)	12/21/1998 9:11:00 PM
From: Maverick	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4908

More disappointment, taxes, and a scam. Taxes goes without saying, but it wasn't supposed to happen this year... why not and why did it? Same answer to both. Mercedes. This time the wolf ate the boy who cried wolf (OE). The convertible had everyone nervous, but most didn't want to miss out on DCX. When that didn't materialize, it put OE right back where they been for years: broken promises, no 4S deal, and now loan shark financing to boot. Not only are people taking tax losses, not as many of them will buy back in as years past. The convertible changed everything. Three biggies. If all this isn't bad enough, now OCP's competitors are looking particularly strong. It appears Honda can meet emissions on high-S fuel, implying that others can too. Siemens is attempting to market their own HPDFI. Mitsubishi clearly has their GDI rolling, although we've seen no indication that they've resolved their high-S problems (it was their problems that suggested high-S wouldn't work with HPDFI, but now Honda's ULEV has that in question). biz.yahoo.com Honda beats Toyota to the punch, as the Prius is being launched in limited volume. For those that aren't familiar with the J-VX: auto-vision.com Continuing with the marine market, which initially appeared so promising for OE: Yamaha has built a light and powerful 4S outboard, and seems intent on launching outboards with cats and then large 2S motors with DFI (and maybe cats too). Yamaha is developing a 4S PWC (suggested by CARB and NMMA). Yamaha has also put a cat in a PWC, although DFI is a better solution. But with CARB's recent ruling, they'll soon need DFI, and eventually both. Bombardier is dragging their feet kicking and screaming into the DFI world, with Polaris and Tigershark launching in 1999. Please excuse my choppy presentation of these points. A host of things have gone badly for OE recently. Summarizing: convertible is just ridiculously scary. This is risk taking on Clinton's level. DCX was the ultimate cry wolf. Marine made no real progress in 1998 (Mercury added only one motor, OE lost all open accounts and Bombardier decided to skip 1999). Last but not least, the additions of Sundiro and Aprilia went right on by. BTW, I appreciated AAGPQ pointing out Roberta Salings mistake regarding that she claimed to be unsurprised when OE had just remarked they were very surprised (no credit for Aprilia or Sundiro). This shows you how much she alters what she'll say to me - she was so determined to give me the answer I didn't want she contradicted a company press release! I had hoped PH would help broker a truce, but it doesn't appear he's interested. That may or may not be related to my recent posts exposing the growing list of OE failures. Can you say "Betamax"? Ballard news in Barron's is picked up by others: fnews.yahoo.com Pierre says only unleaded gas has benzene in it? I don't think that's right. I'm not certain, but I think ALL gasoline has benzene in it. Surely someone here knows. Benzene is definately a carcinogen, that I can guarantee you. In fact, this has been known for some time. 10 years!?! Holy mackerel! We're supposed to wait ten more years? That will send them running for the exits! Yahoo could be trading for $10,000+ a share by then (without splits)! Siemens+Mercury+Bombardier+Tohatsu+Lotus+Sundiro+Aprilia+Texmaco-BHP-RGC-RS=$3

To: John M Connolly who wrote (3619)	12/22/1998 11:22:00 AM
From: PIERRE HANDL	Respond to of 4908

The following is an excerpt from Outboard Marine's 10 - Q report dated 8-14-98, sec.gov. OMC estimates they will spend an additional 40 million dollars it has already spent,$50 million, to meet EPA emission regulations. Expansion of FICHT Technology. All marine engine manufacturers are facing the challenge of meeting the EPA's emission standards which require manufacturers to reduce hydrocarbon emissions from outboard engines, on average, by 8.3% per year through model year 2006 beginning with the 1998 model year, and emissions from personal watercraft by 9.4% per year through model year 2006 beginning in model year 1999. Partly in response to these EPA emission standards, the Company introduced its new Johnson and Evinrude engines with FICHT fuel-injection technology, which offer an average hydrocarbon emission reduction of 80% and an approximate 35% increase in fuel economy depending on the application. The higher manufacturing costs of the FICHT fuel injected engines will result initially in a lower margin to the Company; however, the Company has implemented several initiatives to reduce the manufacturing costs of its new engines. Because of the higher retail costs of engines incorporating the FICHT technology, consumer acceptance of the new engines may be restrained as long as less expensive engine models, which do not meet the new EPA standards, continue to be available. To date, the Company estimates that it has spent approximately $50.0 million on low-emission technology, and by the Year 2006 the Company is expected to have expended an aggregate of approximately $90.0 million to meet the EPA's new emission standards. The Company expenses its research and development costs as they are incurred. Industry acceptance of the FICHT technology by manufacturers of two-stroke engines was reaffirmed in February when Polaris Industries, Inc. announced that it had become a licensee of FICHT fuel injection technology for use on its personal watercraft (PWC), snowmobiles and all terrain vehicles (ATV). In March, Arctic Cat, Inc. announced that OMC will license the FICHT technology and supply the FICHT fuel injection components, including hardware and electronic control unit software, on their two-stroke engines used in PWC's, ATV's and snowmobiles. Also in March, Kawasaki Heavy Industries of Kobe, Japan announced their intention to use FICHT technology on their personal watercraft engines.

To: John M Connolly who wrote (3619)	12/22/1998 1:10:00 PM
From: PIERRE HANDL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4908

EPA reported that in 1997 motorists traveled 2.7 trillion miles and the growth will be 2%. (see page 3 for the link below) epa.gov Let's assume the average vehicle gets 20 miles per gallon. At 21 miles to the gallon, the total gallons consumed is (2.7 x 10 ^12 miles)/20 miles per gallon = 135,000,000,000 gallons. At 5 cents to to the gallon to pay for refinery upgrades, the cost to the consumer will be approximately 6.75 billion dollars. At 2 cents the cost would be 2.7 billion dollars. The Mean equates to 4.7 billion dollars in the first year. This is no chum change. Let's look at what it will cost to employ OCP compared to using HPDI and up grading the refinery infrastructure in the US. Let's assume again that the average life of an automobile in the US is 7 years. Over these 7 years the total miles traveled for all vehicles will be 17 billion miles (2.7 x 10^12 miles each year with a 2% growth component) and at 5 cents per gallon, the total cost to the auto consumer will be $42.5 billion dollars or $375 per car(this assumes 150,000 miles per auto life cycle), excluding the cost of the HPDI system. If OCP was used, the cost to the consumer would be only 35 dollars for a royalty fee. This assumes OCP and HPDI equipment costs are equal which is known not to be the case, that HPDI is more costly than OCP under similar manufacturing conditions. OCP is far less costly to the consumer than the cost to upgrade refineries.