posted 12-11-2005 10:44 AM ET (US)        

"Next spring I'll introduce three new naturally-aspirated four-stroke outboards to complement our line-up of supercharged Verado engines."

The inference to be drawn from Mr. Mackey's remark is the replacement of the four-stroke 75-, 90-, and 115-HP engines currently being sold. Those current model engines are assembled by Mercury using powerheads purchased from rival engine maker Yamaha. The contract for that supply ends in 2006, and this makes for further evidence these newly announced Mercury engines will be their replacements.

No further details were given. Some observers have speculated that these new four-stroke engines would use components from the Verado powerhead, and might perhaps actually use the same powerhead without the supercharger. However, during these same remarks to investors, concern over reduced margins on low-emission engines was a common theme. On that basis, I would offer speculation that the highly-engineered Verado powerhead may not be used. That powerhead was designed for supercharged air induction, and all of its components were designed for the stress of that operation. The supercharged Verado has already demonstrated power output of 100-HP per liter of displacement. It is anticipated that a naturally aspirated four-stroke would not approach that level. Therefore, why use a more expensive component when it is not required? Perhaps we will see a new four-stroke power head built specifically for this application.

There was also no guidance given on the new (presumably 75-, 90-and 115-HP) engines on the question of another Verado feature, digital throttle and shift (DTS). On outboards where DTS has been offered as an option, it has added about $1,000 to the price. This may be too much to be competitive in this horsepower range. It is also anticipated that these new engines will have the same conventional engine mounting bracket and steering as used in the four-cylinder Verado engines. Indeed, it will be interesting to see if the Verado name badge is applied to these engines at all.

The spring announcement to which Mr. Mackey refers is most likely the Miami International Boat Show, traditionally the major boating exhibition in North American and held in February. It would be the most likely place for a new product introduction like this.

During the presentation to investors, significant emphasis was made of Brunswick's international operations. Investors were told that outboard engine production is now distributed globally as follows:

--DOMESTIC: outboards greater than 75-HP are produced in the U.S.A.;

--JAPAN: all four-stroke outboards 30-HP and below are produced in a new plant which is a joint-venture with Tohatsu;

--CHINA: a new, wholly-owned Mercury plant builds 40-, 50-, and 60-HP four-stroke outboards.

(Based on that information, it is unclear where the 75-HP engine are currently made, but perhaps in the future they will be domestically produced following the introduction of the new engines discussed above.)

Investors were told plant utilization in China was at 50-percent of capacity. Currently some sub-components of engines are being manufactured at Fond du Lac and shipped overseas for final assembly in China, but this inefficiency will be reduced as more overseas suppliers can be brought on-line and qualified.

posted 12-11-2005 12:17 PM ET (US)            

But it's very understandable, I worked in the technology sector for years, and it was usually suicide to spend a huge amount of engineering dollars on something destined to be a low volume product (much as we think there are a lot of us boaters, outboards are still a low volume product compared to consumer electronics, cars, etc).

And many manufacturers have also had a double whammy, introducing TWO alternative technologies (4-stroke and DFI) both with their own engineering cost - there is very little in common between the two new types of powerhead to share any engineering overhead at all.

This report also confirms the suspicion that many have had for a while - both DFI and 4-strokes cannot continue to incur large R&D expenses within the same company indefinitely, and they may have to drop one or the other. Or hope that they can at least declare R&D on one of the technologies as essentially finished, and try to cash-cow that product line. But it remains to be seen if competitive pressures will allow this.

posted 12-11-2005 03:19 PM ET (US)         

So perhaps the smaller Verado based blocks, either 3 or 4 cylinders, will only be single overhead cam designs also?
My Mercury mechanic swears that these new engines are based on the Verado block. I think he has seen them.

Am I correct that a dual overhead cam design engine puts out more HP? Maybe that is how they are going to do it in 3 cylinders?

posted 12-11-2005 05:25 PM ET (US)            

The OptiMax engine is somewhat modular in the sense they cut the V6 block in half to make the I3 version. I really don't know if the Verado is similarly intended to be cut into smaller pieces.

posted 12-11-2005 07:42 PM ET (US)         

The Verado block is modular, with already both L6 and L4 versions on the market qualifying it as such. Whether they will bring out 3 and 2 cylinder versions is not known by me. Somewhere I read that the Verado block was definitely developed as a "modular" engine. I believe this is a huge cost savings for the manufacturers.

Mercury is also using a modular powerhead for their 40 EFI (3 cylinders) and the 50 & 60 EFI's (4 cylinders). Yamaha uses these powerheads also.

In the early 80's, the famous Mercury in-line 6 was a modular powerhead, in 4 cylinder 75/80 Hp versions, in 3 cylinder 65/70 versions and in 2 cylinder 35/40 versions.
Neither the 3 cylinder or 2 cylinder versions were great engines.

Omc also did this with the 4 cylinder 2.0 liter V4, the 6 cylinder 3.0 liter V6 and 8 cylinder 4.0 V8 powerheads. From what I can tell, this engine performed the best in the 6 cylinder version, although none of them, as you know, were known for great fuel economy. Only the 6 cylinder version, now increased to 3.3 liters, remains in production.

posted 12-11-2005 09:44 PM ET (US)         

http://www.trailerboats.com/output.cfm?id=973963

Peter appears to be correct on the 90 and 115's, but the 75 still seems to be mystery.

posted 12-11-2005 10:14 PM ET (US)         

They also say an old V6 2-stroke could take as long as 120 hours from start to shipping box.

http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/find-articles.pl?&ME05ART19&ME&20050410& PUBME-66.249.64.58&SME&

posted 12-11-2005 10:58 PM ET (US)            

I interpret "modular engine" to mean that the design of the engine was conceived with the notion of making many parts of it in modules that could be inter-mixed. It goes further than using the same bore and stroke for the cylinders. For example, Ford has a modular engine in the 4.6-liter V8. You can bolt on different cylinder heads, different intake manifolds, different exhaust manifold, and create a number of different engine configurations. I have the plain-Jane 210-HP version in my Crown Vic, with SOHC and single throttle body fuel-injection. You can get the same 4.6-liter engine in a Mustang with DOHC heads and some rather exotic intake manifold with multiple fuel injection. You get a lot more horsepower. It just depends what you bolt together.

Bombardier/OMC uses many of the same components across their engines, but I don't recall anyone calling them "modular". They use the same piston rods in a bunch of engines. They have the same bore and stroke in a bunch of engines. But that is not a modular engine.

Modular would imply they could take the same block and bolt on different heads and different intake manifolds, etc., to produce different engines. I have not seen this explicitly mentioned by Brunswick or Mercury.

From what I have read, the addition of a supercharger increases the stress on the engine's pistons, crankshaft, connecting rods, etc., to the point where they have to be made stronger to survive those stresses. In these new 2006 naturally-aspirated engine there won't be a need for such high-strength components in all those places. The supercharged Verado is putting out as much as 45-HP per cylinder (roughly), and if they make a 90-HP version out of the four cylinder block, it will only be putting out half as much horsepower per cylinder. It might be nice to use all of those more expensive parts in the engine and really overbuild it, but that is going to make the cost higher. And we know that costs are already a concern, something that there is a constant drive to reduce.

Initially the VERADO engine had this set of features:

--four-stroke
--in-line block
--DOHC
--SmartCraft
--digital throttle and shift
--supercharged
--intercooled
--electro hydraulic power steering
--distinctive engine mount and tilt system

The smaller engines, still VERADO branded. but only had:

--four-stroke
--in-line block
--DOHC
--SmartCraft
--digital throttle and shift
--supercharged
--intercooled

Now it sounds like these newest engines will have only:

--four-stroke
--in-line block
--DOHC
--SmartCraft

and maybe optionally

--digital throttle and shift

Of the original nine distinctive features of the Verado, we are down to about four or five in the new engines. That's why I wonder if they will even get the Verado name badge. The Verado name badge has always been promoted as a "propulsion system," but if a lot of the features are missing, is it still a Verado? Is it still a propulsion system?

posted 12-12-2005 09:11 AM ET (US)            

With respect to the 75, I doubt that Mercury will go through the trouble to create a 3 cylinder Verado based block just to provide a 75 HP model with a reasonable HP to weight ratio. I don't think the market for 75 HP outboards is big enough to support the kind of investment in additional RD&E and tooling otherwise the manufacturers would have offered a 3 cylinder 75 that isn't a detuned 90.

Thus, because these upcoming all Mercury 75 to 115 4-stroke models are essentially mechanically indistinguisable from the competition, and from the prior Mercury offerings, I don't see how they will be distinguishable from the competition performance wise. I think this could be a reason we haven't seen much pre-launch hype. Without the supercharger, I'm betting that the Mercury marketing department does not apply the VERADO brand to these new 4-strokes. I think to do otherwise would dilute the VERADO brand for its "propulsion system". The only thing that might set them apart from the competition is DTS but its not clear to me that they will have DTS or that consumers in this part of the market are willing to spend the extra money on that feature.

posted 12-12-2005 02:40 PM ET (US)            

You say that the upcoming mid-size Mercury four stroke motors are virtually indistinguishable from the competition. Does that mean that they have solved the lower unit grinding problem, or do they still consider it to be "normal"? The lack of that worrisome problem sure distinguishes my Yamaha 115 four stroke EFI from the almost identical Mercury 115.

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003121.html

Larry/LHG, comments?

posted 12-12-2005 04:48 PM ET (US)            

Since Mercury has apparently (according to several Mercury owners in the thread linked to my comment above) declared that grinding noise to be "normal," and your Mercury 115 doesn't have the noise, does that mean something's wrong with your motor, or that it's abnormal? ;-)

posted 12-12-2005 08:42 PM ET (US)            

Outboard Comparison: Longevity
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003491.html

posted 12-13-2005 08:51 PM ET (US)         

If Peter is correct, these engines are going to be "tanks", and should offer an extremely long life expectancy, being subjected to nowhere near their original design stresses. That alone should make them an excellent engine for one to consider.

At 1.7 liters, the 90's ought to be strong, and in answer to Tony's question, like all of the Verados, should have a brand new lower unit design. Mercury's current 4-1/4" gearcase was introduced in 1989, pretty much as a 2-stroke component. I'm betting it's time for a new design to handle these new four-strokes. These should make nice engines for the 170 Montauks.

I would agree that the Verado name probably won't be applied to these engines, but I'll bet they advertize that they are Verado block based, and come off the same high tech assembly line.

posted 12-13-2005 09:29 PM ET (US)            

I am taking a cue from Mr. Mackey's own words. He said the new engines will "complement" the Verado. Two things that are complements are not necessarily the same. You could say that LHG and Peter are complements of each other.

ASIDE: When I first heard the name "Verado" while standing in the crowd at the convention center in Miami in 2004, my initial reaction to it was very lukewarm, and perhaps a bit negative. However, since then the name has grown on me, and I have come to like it. I think it is a good brand name, and it works very well to separate those engines from the rest of the Mercury outboard line.

While it looks like these new engines will be missing most of the features which distinguish the Verado engine from other four-stroke outboards, there is one feature that can be included that might be very important: Noise.