posted 10-20-2012 09:49 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

October 19, 2012--Yamaha Motor announce the launch of a full new member of its highly-acclaimed outboard range; a lightweight F200 incorporating many new and innovative features in this class.

As part of its quest to satisfy the requirements of its customers and deliver continuous boating enjoyment through innovation and technology, Yamaha has created the new F200 outboard engine that offers the power of a 200, but in a package that is closer in size and weight to our F150A, giving an exceptional power-to-weight ratio.

Weighing 227kg, approximately 50kg less than the previous F200, the latest incarnation is 18 percent lighter while maintaining similar power output and reliability. Employing an in-line four-cylinder configuration, with Variable Camshaft Timing (VCT) and weight-saving technology throughout, the new engine produces 200HP while being the lightest engine in its class. The lighter weight, better suited to a wider range of boats, also helps improve fuel-efficiency, as well as performance.

Two versions of the new F200 will be available — the F200F, with a regular mechanical shift and throttle, and the F200G, with an electronically-controlled, drive-by-wire shift and throttle. The F200F/G also benefit from recent technological advances made by Yamaha, such as Yamaha’s Y-COP (Yamaha Customer Outboard Protection) anti-theft system, a newly-designed Reliance SDS (Shift Dampener System) as recommended propeller, a tilt-limiter, and LCD colour display (optional for the F200G only), one-touch start/stop (optional for the F200G only), and the ability to set variable trolling-speed revs. These features place the F200F/G firmly alongside Yamaha’s top-of-the-range V6 (4.2L) and V8 outboards.

The F200F/G are aimed primarily at customers who want the power of a 200 but the compact dimensions and weight like the Yamaha F150A or even a two-stroke 200HP. In fact, this engine would be ideal for re-powering from a two-stroke 200HP to a cleaner, more environmentally-friendly four-stroke engine. With both the mechanical and electronically-controlled version Yamaha offers customers the possibility to fit the new outboard engine to a wide range of boats.

---

I know some of you grumpy old men are not too familiar with weights given in metric units, but in the announcement Yamaha says the weight has been reduced by 50-kg, which means 110-lbs. A weight reduction of 110-lbs is nothing to poke fun at. Heck, a panel of judges at a boat show gave Mercury Marine an award for innovation when they reduced the weight by about 10-lbs. This Yamaha engine has a tenfold greater weight reduction. Those boat show panels of judges ought to be showering this engine with innovation awards for weight reduction.

posted 10-21-2012 07:37 AM ET (US)            

The news link is from Europe. I think we need to see whether this motor is announced as a 200 HP motor in the U.S. While they haven't stated the displacement yet, I suspect its still only 2.6L and I'm not sure that's enough displacement to squeeze 200 HP out of it and also get a competitive low and mid-range power curve (which is really more important than the WOT HP). Suzuki only rates their 2.9L block to 175 HP. Mercury went all the way to 3L for 150 HP.

Cowling decal HP doesn't tell the whole story about an outboard motor and in particular the power it can produce in the mid-range which is probably far more important for most folks. The Honda BF 150 is a prime example of that. Small displacement motors can be asked to produce lots of HP by spinning at high revs but that doesn't nothing to help keep the motor from bogging down when you are trying to push through waves at slow cruising speeds. Displacement or forced induction are really the only two ways to get that mid-range power/torque.

posted 10-21-2012 11:04 AM ET (US)         

One thing is for sure. This engine is yet another nail in the coffin of the 2 stroke DFI for the so-called "offshore" cruising and fishing market, mid-range and high end. Now, only the small bore Evinrude 200 is ighter, but is it also a strong 200, as Peter questions whether this Yamaha is? Not likely from what we have seen. So to run with one of these engines, you are going to need a heavier 200 big bore DFI 2-stroke. And I have no doubt that Mercury's new 4-stroke EFI will be offered in a 200HP verion at only 455#, even if it has to be bored or stroked a little. We have to thank the bass, performance sport boat, and low end markets such as Tracker for keeping the 2-stroke DFI alive. If Mercury and Evinrude are not there, they will be nowhere with 2-strokes.

posted 10-21-2012 11:15 AM ET (US)            

The F200G model can use a Yamaha color display for instrumentation. I have seen this display on the OFFSHORE F250, and it is a great accessory. I think Yamaha is out in front of everyone else in the outboard engine business with that display. They're smart to offer it on this 200-HP engine as an option.

posted 10-22-2012 07:19 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

One thing is for sure. This engine is yet another nail in the coffin of the 2 stroke DFI for the so-called "offshore" cruising and fishing market, mid-range and high end. Now, only the small bore Evinrude 200 is ighter, but is it also a strong 200, as Peter questions whether this Yamaha is? Not likely from what we have seen. So to run with one of these engines, you are going to need a heavier 200 big bore DFI 2-stroke.

---

To run with one of these engines you need a big bore DFI 2-stroke? That's too funny. Nothing new here, just the usual anti-Evinrude misguided nonsense.

posted 10-22-2012 08:25 AM ET (US)            

Now let's look at the hypothetical comparison between the E-TEC V6 200-HP and this new Yamaha L4 F200F/G engine. The E-TEC is a six-cylinder; the Yamaha is a four-cyclinder. The E-TEC displaces 2.6-liter; the Yamaha displacement is not known. The E-TEC is a two-cycle; the Yamaha is a four-cycle. The E-TEC weighs 419-lbs; the Yamaha 500-lbs.

The displacement can perhaps be estimated by comparison to the 4.2-liter V6 300-HP engine. If Yamaha follows the same horsepower-to-displacement design in this 200-HP, the displacement would be 4.2 x 200/300 = 2.8-liter.

posted 10-22-2012 01:42 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

500 lbs is far from being light weight when other makers offer 275 to 300 HP clean outboards that weigh about that much.

---

posted 10-22-2012 07:32 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Hasn't a head-to-head competition already been shown between the F150 and the E-TEC 150? I seem to recall seeing a video in which the two were pitted against each other. Why would we now think an F200 and E-TEC 200 would have different outcomes?

---

posted 01-10-2013 03:59 PM ET (US)         

F200F Specifications
Engine Type 4-Stroke, 16 Valve DOHC VCT Direct Action In-Line 4
Displacement 2785 cc
Bore x Stroke 96 x 96.2 mm
Recommended Max RPM 5000-6000
Lubrication System Wet-sump
Fuel Management EFI
Ignition TCI
Starter System Electric
Alternator Output 50 Amp
Operation Method Remote Control
Trim & Tilt Method Power Trim & Tilt
Digital Gauges Optional
Digital Network Gauges with Fuel Management Optional
Gear Ratio 1.86 : 1
Dry Weight: F200FETX : 227 kg

F150A Specifications
EEngine Type 16-Valve DOHC Direct-Action In-line 4
Displacement 2670 cc
Bore x Stroke 94x96.2 mm
Recommended Max RPM 5000-6000
Lubrication System Wet Sump
Fuel Management EFI
Ignition TCI
Starter System Electric
Alternator Output 12V - 37A with Rectifier Regulator
Operation Method Remote Control
Trim & Tilt Method Power Trim & Tilt
Digital Gauges Optional
Digital Network Gauges with Fuel Management Optional
Gear Ratio 2.00 : 1
Dry Weight F150AETX : 228 kg

So from the above, we could guess that the block might be the same as the F150, with a 2mm overbore and a variable valve timing head, which looks like more of a Suzuki DF175 competitor than E-Tec 200 competitor.

I've read a few online tests of this engine, and testers like it. Two of these articles noted that Yamaha is working on a new mid-range engine to replace the current F150...we're supposed to know more about the new 150 before the 2014 model year.

I think it is good to see the manufacturers working at making their 4-strokes lighter, opening up more re-power options for our beloved classics.

posted 01-14-2013 09:16 PM ET (US)            

No real data except it is a 19ft Ranger, 3 people and it hits 51 mph. Looks like a slim, good looking motor.

Its a quick video and the only one I could find on the net of one of these new motors running at this time

The driver looks cold

http://crappienation.net/yamaha-new-f200-four-stroke/

posted 01-21-2013 11:32 AM ET (US)            

The torque curves between the two technologies are night and day. (We had to conduct a comparison test at the office that had to plot the curves, so it's no armchair opinion)

The new Yammer will be a great motor, no doubt, but Etec isn't going anywhere.

posted 01-23-2013 12:47 AM ET (US)            

Sterling
Onlyawhaler

posted 01-23-2013 11:45 AM ET (US)            

--reduction in weight

--availability of electronic shift and throttle controls

--use of cam phasing

Yamaha has reduced the weight of this model by 50-kg, or 110-lbs. This is a significant reduction in weight. We have seen that reductions in weight of as little as 20-lbs have been recognized as innovations in the products of other manufacturers. If we use 20-lbs as the benchmark for achieving the status of being innovative, then this Yamaha reduction in weight of 110-lbs must certainly qualify, at least five fold.

Yamaha is offering this 200-HP engine with the option of electronic throttle and shift controls. The move to electronic throttle and shift controls seems to be well underway in outboard engines in this power range. That there is an option to have either conventional controls or electronic controls is also worthy of mention. Use of electronic controls greatly facilitates rigging of dual control stations or of twin engines. If rigging twin engines and dual stations, electronic controls are enormously advantageous. For retro-fitting of an engine into a single engine, single station set-up with existing conventional controls, the option for conventional controls will be attractive. Yamaha is following the example of BRP and Evinrude with the ICON controls. They are optional, not mandatory, giving customers a choice.

posted 01-23-2013 12:45 PM ET (US)            

That is significant. Regardless of being a V6 or 4 cylinder, where the power curve is, it hits that number someone on the power curve.

It may be buried by an E-tec V6 200 in a hole shot, well no doubt it will, it still represents a major step foward in in the advancement of lighter 4 strokes which has always been an objection.

And as Jimh mentioned, its was smart by Yamaha to offer it both mechancial and fly by wire. Excellent repower choice.

Good for Yamaha, its a first.

posted 01-23-2013 03:15 PM ET (US)         

Than there is the possibility that Mercury will bring out the new naturally aspirated 455# 150 EFI 3.0 liter block in a 200 HP version, which will have more cubes than this Yamaha and should run the same. None will accelerate like a Verado, but the E-tec can't out accelerate the Verado either in spite of what "only" says.

Has anybody noticed that BRP has not done any video drag races against a same HP supercharged Verado? They would end up the loser. But I'm sure they will soon come out with one on this new Yamaha, showing it inferior to a 200 E-Tec (and by inference, inferior to a 200 Verado also).

posted 01-23-2013 04:40 PM ET (US)            

But the old F200 still exists so how did they reduce the weight of THIS model by 110 lbs?

"Has anybody noticed that BRP has not done any video drag races against a same HP supercharged Verado?"

posted 01-23-2013 05:19 PM ET (US)            

Please let us stay on topic. This is not the place to discus the E-TEC and its incredibly effective marking campaign in which it pulls competitors' engines under water in a tug-of-war, or beats them in a drag race, or otherwise makes them look inferior. If anyone wants to begin a discussion of E-TEC marketing, please just start a thread. Let us not muddy the water here with these persistent sidebars about the E-TEC marketing campaigns. That is not the topic here.

posted 01-23-2013 06:28 PM ET (US)         

You are saying that Evinrude sells more "sales gimmick" small bore 200's than Mercury sells 200 Verados? Good luck on that one.

Are you also going to say that sales of this new 515# Yamaha 200 will also not exceed those of the E-Tec small bore 200? Good luck on that one also. You need to do some traveling to other parts of the country once in a while where both yamaha and Mercury have strong sales.

As for 2-strokes, both the 200 Optimax and the Evinrude 200 HO weigh approximately the same as these newer 200 4-strokes. The "small bore" Evinrude 200 can't come close to competing in performance to either one of these 200 HP 2-stroke engines. That's why I call it a "sales gimmick", just like E-tec 90 is. Over-rated in HP using the 10% rule.

posted 01-23-2013 07:56 PM ET (US)            

But I do agree with you Larry, with the soon to be launched Yamaha F200F and with the E-TEC 200 small block already existing, Mercury will certainly need to come up with a 200 HP outboard that 1) can meet the 3-Star emissions requirements, 2) weigh less than 500 lbs, 3) be quiet at low engine speeds and have 4) the OPTION but not the REQUIREMENT to be controlled by fly-by-wire controls. That's clearly a hole in the Mercury line up right now and its not clear to me that the 150 FourStroke platform will be able to get them there with its simple single overhead cam, eight valve design.

posted 01-24-2013 09:39 AM ET (US)            

We have found the Etecs on these identical boats run slightly faster. Not a whole lot mind you, but the Evirudes do start pulling away from the Opti's. It could be the way each motors are propped, but theres no slaughter on either side (brands)

So your statement of Opti's "smoking" Etec's is more like you blowing smoke up everyone's skirt here....

posted 01-24-2013 09:48 AM ET (US)            

Yamaha market share in saltwater boats is now being reported to be 80-percent. This was the statement of a boat manufacturer who was explaining the choice of Yamaha engines to power their boats. That is a rather amazing claim, but it is not beyond belief. One marina I visited in saltwater, in the Gulf of Mexico, had 100-percent Yamaha engines on the dozens and dozens of outboard boats I saw there.

I think that Larry's impression of the popularity of the VERADO is due to his winter boating in the area surrounding Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where there is a very strong VERADO dealer and there are many new or recently made offshore boats sold by Brunswick brands or Brunswick partners. That is a nice micro-climate for Mercury VERADO, but I think market share evaporates into the mist once you get away from that concentrated area.

To cite the appearance of a VERADO on a new Brunswick boat is not particularly indicative of re-power sales of the VERADO. As we all know, there is a mandatory tie-in sale of a Mercury outboard on every Boston Whaler and on most all other Brunswick-brand new boats. To cite this is like saying that you saw a GM car that had a GM engine. It is not particularly dispositive of Mercury outboard popularity when there is actual choice in the selection.

posted 01-24-2013 07:47 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The "small bore" Evinrude 200 can't come close to competing in performance to either one of these 200 HP 2-stroke engines. That's why I call it a "sales gimmick", just like E-tec 90 is. Over-rated in HP using the 10% rule.

---

Since my motor was mentioned, I thought I'd chime in here. My Outrage 22 Cuddy is a little bit faster with it's small bore E-TEC 200 than it was with it's previous 200 h.p. motor. It accelerates better, runs cleaner and starts in less than a single revolution, just like it did when I bought it in 2007. My previous outboard was a Mercury Black Max of about the same displacement. It was the same motor that Larry used to run a pair of on Whale Lure until they were stolen. He replaced them with fuel injection versions of essentially the same motor. How's that for a gimmick?

Sorry for the off topic post, but I couldn't resist.

posted 01-24-2013 08:19 PM ET (US)            

Clearly the larger displacement E-TEC that uses essentially the same technology as the small displacement model would be expected to be a better performer. Could it be that the 3.3 liter E-TEC 200 puts out more than 200 h.p.?

posted 01-24-2013 10:18 PM ET (US)            

PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS

I am afraid I cannot offer any predictions or estimates on how the new Yamaha F200F/G will perform in comparison to other 200-HP engines, either two-cycle or four-cycle, other than to just generally rely on past experience. As we have seen demonstrated twice now, a two-cycle outboard engine seems quite capable of outperforming a four-cycle engine when the two engines have the same rated horsepower and the comparison is a tug-of-war contest of pulling power. However, in both of those comparisons the four-cycle engine was not using any sort of performance enhancement like variable valve timing or cam phasing. Because the Yamaha F200F/G models have variable valve timing, they might perform better in a tug-of-war competition. We have not seen such a test conducted. It will be interesting to see if there is an influence from the cam phasing.

I think that cam phasing seems to kick in for more performance at higher engine speeds. The enhanced performance band is usually at the upper RPM range. This makes me think that cam phasing might not have much influence in a tug-of-war comparison, but cam phasing might help in a test of maximum boat speed.

There is one certainty about engine comparisons: if the comparison test is conducted by an engine manufacturer, their engine always wins in the comparison test. This same consistency holds true in some hypothetical comparison tests. In some hypothetical comparison tests, the same brand always wins; it depends on who proposes the hypothetical comparison test.

There are two corollaries to the above:

--if any manufacturer tests his engine against another and loses in a comparison test, you will never hear about it;

posted 01-24-2013 10:28 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The F200F/G are aimed primarily at customers who want the power of a 200 but the compact dimensions and weight like the Yamaha F150A or even a two-stroke 200HP. In fact, this engine would be ideal for re-powering from a two-stroke 200HP to a cleaner, more environmentally-friendly four-stroke engine. With both the mechanical and electronically-controlled version Yamaha offers customers the possibility to fit the new outboard engine to a wide range of boats.

---

posted 01-25-2013 12:43 AM ET (US)            

There are alot of those HPDIs out there that will need a repower. It also applies to the previous OX66 generation which I have.

Both of these "generations" of Yamahas bolt up the same as this new Yamaha F200f, will adapt up mechanically to the 702 controls and digital or analog guages offered then.

Like most Whaler owners, Yamaha outboard owners tend to be very loyal to that brand so its a good new matchup.

posted 01-27-2013 11:09 PM ET (US)            

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-z_AHPL8lI

posted 01-28-2013 09:19 AM ET (US)            

The most interesting technical information in the interview was:

--the F200F is developed from the F150, with the cylinder bore increased and the addition of variable cam timing (VCT) to achieve the added horsepower;

posted 01-28-2013 09:38 AM ET (US)            

With the mention of the heritage of the F200F to the F150, I think it is reasonable to assume the F200F/G will also have the twin balance shafts of the F150 engine. Since this is a four-cylinder in-line engine, we know that balance shafts are necessary to cancel out the inherent vibration and roughness of the in-line four-cylinder design.

posted 01-28-2013 05:31 PM ET (US)            

According to the web, the specs on my 1998 Mercury 200 EFI are as follows:

2.5L
153 Cubic Inches
2507 CC's
416 Pounds

The info I can see on the F200

2.8L
2785 CC's
487 lbs

I also heard that engines HP are now measured at the prop. I wonder if they would perform similarly.

posted 01-28-2013 07:21 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I also heard that engines HP are now measured at the prop.

---

posted 01-28-2013 11:35 PM ET (US)            

I am quoting out of your last post

"If 500 lbs is considered a good achievement for 200 HP, then 433 lbs for a 3-Star 200 HP must be considered outstanding."

What I think you are saying is that 433 lbs is outstanding is very true. Its also a two stroke something, not a 4 stroke.

I agree that a V-6 two stroke in the mid 400lb range will always, always smoke a 4 cylinder 4 stroke like this Yamaha thats coming out that weighs close to 500lbs like this Yamaha

Thats one way of looking at it. Here is another way.

Whatever we buy we will usually sell. Usually.

If any of us are considering buying a new boat/Whaler its an considerable investment. Even just a repower in this 200hp class will cost us about 10K or more in rigging. Thats an investment as well.

What is interesting is that our boat company of choice, Whaler will NOT put on a Mercury two stroke Optimax on any Whaler now. Not a Optimax bash, not a Larry slap, its just fact. Its an increasing resistance to two stroke outboards from a new customer viewpoint. Whaler must precieve that putting a Whaler salesperson at a dealership on a sales floor selling two stroke concepts is no longer worth the uphill battle.

Its an increasing 4 stroke game. I like E-tec. I like the older Mercury EFI models. I like two stroke power especially up here at altitude where it is needed. But I would probably buy a 4 stroke when the time comes to pull out the check book.

Clean and quiet and no oil tank burning $30 dollar per gallon two stroke oil at a ratio of 50-1 is attractive. Somehow that little fact isn't brought up in most two stroke comparisons to 4 strokes in the cost of operation. I do a long high speed run for a about 3 hours at Lake Powell with family down the channel and its $30 bucks for for another gallon of oil. Plus gasoline. I can see why the market has largely gone that way that it has.

This Yamaha is the most dramatic shot over the bow of existing two stroke manfacturers, Evinrude and Mercury there is yet IMO.

Its the "lightest 4 stroke 200hp in the world" I am sure there are alot more to come.

Clean and quiet and no more two stroke oil are becoming as important to me as the stroke stroke power punch. Perhaps more.

Here in Utah we had a real suprise a couple of weeks ago when Lake Powell and Lake Mead, both Federal Lakes banned on Jan 1, all PWC two strokes that don't meet 2006 EPA requirements. Thats DFI or 4 strokes. Specifically in PWCs it really means its nothing but 4 stroke PWCs on Lake Powell. There are houseboat owners with now illegal to use jetskies on their upper decks that they will have to take off and get rid of in the spring. Alot of them don't even know it yet.

Outboards are next. My Yamaha OX66 (EFI) I am sure is next on the chopping block.

So I am looking for the next repower for hopefully the next 8-10 years. No question this Yamaha is high on the list. It looks like a great option

posted 01-29-2013 12:14 AM ET (US)            

"What is interesting is that our boat company of choice, Whaler will NOT put on a Mercury two stroke Optimax on any Whaler now. Not a Optimax bash, not a Larry slap, its just fact. Its an increasing resistance to two stroke outboards from a new customer viewpoint. Whaler must precieve that putting a Whaler salesperson at a dealership on a sales floor selling two stroke concepts is no longer worth the uphill battle."

The reason that Boston Whaler stopped offering the option of Mercury OptiMax engines on the transom of Boston Whaler boats does not have to anything to do with Boston Whaler's perception or with Boston Whaler's judgement of the OptiMax. It has only to do with the customers of Boston Whaler--the people who buy the boats. People who bought new Boston Whaler boats did not buy very many with the OptiMax engine when there were other options available.

In the last year that OptiMax was available, only an extremely small percentage of boats ordered were ordered with the OptiMax. It was such a small percentage--something less than five percent--that a simple business decision was made: drop the OptiMax option. This was made to streamline manufacturing and reduce the number of engine models needed on hand to build boats. It was not Boston Whaler that decided the customers might not like the OptiMax, the customers told Boston Whaler very clearly that only a small fraction of them would buy a Whaler with the OptiMax on the transom. My source on this is impeccable. (I prefer to keep the source anonymous. Feel free to ignore my comments if they do not meet the criterion for a credible source.)

Whether or not it is reasonable to make the inference that all buyers of outboard engines will shun a two-cycle engine because Boston Whaler buyers did not like the OptiMax is probably too great an assumption. It is clear from the reports made here by many people of engine choices for re-power, that many Boston Whaler owners are quite willing to put a modern two-cycle engine on the transom of their boats when their choice of a two-cycle enigne is not limited to just the Mercury OptiMax.

As a corollary to the drop-OptiMax decision, Boston Whaler began to offer the 225-HP Yamaha four-cycle engine as an option, although the engine was painted black and sold in Mercury livery. In regard to the decision of Mercury to get these 225-HP engines from Yamaha, it was said by some sources--and here I am only repeating second or third hand information--that this decision was primarily made to keep Boston Whaler in a position to sell boats with higher power four-cycle engines. At that time, there were no Mercury-made four-cycle engines in the 225-HP range. This was a way to fill in the gap in the Mercury product line that existed before Mercury could get its own four-cycle engine on the market. You can judge the believability of this for yourself.

In my mind, the scenario I describe above fits quite well with the decision to not offer OptiMax. It must have been a radical move for Mercury to have to buy whole engines from Yamaha, paint them black, and offer them for sale on the transoms of Brunswick boats. That marketing strategy is exactly opposite of the plan that called for boats to provide places for Mercury motors to go.

That Mercury had to take this step--totally out of their usual planned method--means there must have been some convincing evidence that use of the OptiMax on the transom of some brands of Brunswick boats, notably Boston Whaler, was seen as an impediment to selling the boats.

posted 01-29-2013 01:42 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

As an owner of [a] Mercury 200 EFI...there is no way this new Yamaha will be as powerful.

---

That is an interesting hypothesis. I have a variation on your hypothesis. Let's say that hypothetically we could buy a new Boston Whaler boat that needed a 200-HP engine to perform optimally. In my hypothetical situation, the buyer can choose between getting a 2013 Yamaha F200F four-cycle outboard that is compliant with EPA emission regulations, or the buyer can get a perfectly preserved and unused 1989 Mercury 200-HP EFI two-cycle (and for some reason we will ignore the EPA restrictions against this sale).

Now in this hypothetical situation, everyone agrees that the 1989 Mercury 200-HP two-cycle EFI might have a slight edge in performance--let's say it gets the boat on-plane two seconds faster and the top speed is 2-MPH faster.

posted 01-29-2013 09:17 AM ET (US)            

As previously mentioned, I think this new motor is a replacement for the Yamaha 200 HPDI which is likely to be retired from the U.S. market in the near future because it doesn't meet U.S. EPA emissions regulations by itself. I think this new motor was made with minimal R&D effort -- slight bore out (probably a thinner sleeve), bigger pistons, new head with VCT, new cowl. If they really wanted to get better power to weight ratio performance into the 2-stroke realm, they would significantly increase displacement of the F150 block using the 4.2L plasma fused sleeveless cylinder technology and use composite cowling material. They didn't. Why? I suspect the cost would have made their motor's price too high.

All of the 4-stroke makers are driving towards lighter outboard motor designs -- they have to. I've always wondered why they didn't they just do that in the first place. It's no secret that transom weight and the weight of the powerhead set above the transom matters. The Yamaha rep just told us that again. Did they make an original mistake thinking that the regulations would cause the 2-stroke outboard, no matter what configuration ,to just disappear and once it did, there would be no pressure to reduce weight and improve performance?

Below is a link to a photo I took at the recent local boat show that gives a comparison of the size of a 4.2L Yamaha 200 VMAX SHO 4-stroke and a 2.6L Yamaha 150 HPDI VMAX (which is not nearly as compact as other DFI 2-strokes).

i177.photobucket.com/albums/w231/Whaler-Fleet/CW%20Posts/ IMG-20130126-00069.jpg

The SHO motor in person was nothing short of enormous. In my opinion, that powehead in the Offshore trim would look out of place on a classic 22 foot Whaler. So how does Yamaha, or the others, get to a 2-stroke gold standard like power density (high power to weight, high power to size)?

Why would a DFI 2-stroke maker like Evinrude need to do anything to "keep pace", whatever that means? Yamaha is just following the lead. Evinrude did what Yamaha has just done now -- offer a lighter small block 200 along side the heavier large block 200-- but years ago.

posted 01-29-2013 11:54 AM ET (US)            

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y277/Triton_38/250e6bf4.jpg

posted 01-29-2013 03:56 PM ET (US)         

http://www.mercurymarine.com/engines/outboards/about/optimax/

So that probably puts Evinrude's entire engine sales 2nd to Mercury's relatively minor Optimax operation, but hopefully ahead of the declining Yamaha HPDI sales situation.

Now with the new Merc 150 4-stroke (with more HP versions to follow), and this Yamaha 200 4-stroke, indicating 4-stroke sales will continue to dominate, it will be up to Evinrude to bring out some new lightweight 4-stroke engine platform, to indeed show they are not asleep at the wheel. We need more than just one American outboard company (Mercury) to compete against the Japanese onslaught of 4-stroke outboards.

E-tec is never going to outsell Optimax (in spite of the negativity JimH peddles about it here), so 4-strokes would be the logical market to enter to gain marketshare.

Incidentally, for high altitude outboarding, Verado should be the engine of choice, as they lose less HP at altitude because of supercharging.

posted 01-29-2013 06:03 PM ET (US)            

1. NMEA 2000 capability w/o proprietary gateway add ons -- NO
2. Optional fly-by-wire control capability -- NO
3. Quiet exhaust -- NO
4. A self-storage oiling system mode -- NO
5. A selectable reduced oiling rate -- NO
6. A battery independent fuel injection system -- NO
7. EMM access by users without use of expensive dealer proprietary software -- NO

to name a few.

At least the Yamaha F200F hits 1, 2 and 3 even if it misses on weight and compact size.

posted 01-29-2013 06:29 PM ET (US)            

8. White paint -- NO

While I'm not going to argue the subjective claim that the Optimax is either modern or not, I will suggest that listing what the E-TEC possesses and the Optimax doesn't exposes a rather transparent, even Hebertian bias.

posted 01-29-2013 07:26 PM ET (US)            

Optimax has done it longer, many feel E-tec does it better, the battle rages on.

I hope the market continues for them, but most of what I see is challenging for most outboard manfacturers.

Public opinion is really swinging 4 stroke.
I think it is easier for manfacturers to make 3 and upcoming 4 Star outboard outboards with 4 strokes vs two strokes. The process of using oil on a 50-1 up to 100-1 still requires complex DFI injectors, pumps, etc that the 4 stroke can still get away doing with simple EFI technology.

I hope I am correct in that point, most or all of 4 strokes are EFI . Just simplier to hit those EPA numbers.

I have always had 2 stroke in every major brand on 4 Whalers over the last 18 years. Loved them all in all major colors.

We bought into a houseboat at Lake Powell 3 years ago with twin Yamaha 90 4 strokes EFI and can't say enough good about them.

I am caught between the two technologies with alliances to both.

Exciting time to be outboard owner. Lots of good options coming on deck.

posted 01-29-2013 08:54 PM ET (US)            

Where the strict U.S. EPA and CARB regulations do not apply, the Yamaha HPDI 2-stroke technology is still alive and well. Even the old carb'd large block V6 2-stroke technology that we haven't seen in the U.S. in probably a dozen years survives. What hasn't survived is the Ox66 EFI technology because it doesn't provide much advantage over carburators for its increased complexity and cost. See www.yamaha-motor.co.jp/global/consumer/outboards/product/2st/ 250-150spec/

So if you live in the U.S. and you limit your purchase decision to only Japanese products, yes your choice will at some point be limited to 4-strokes.

Attempting to create the usual FUD, Larry says "[t]here are no new 2-stroke DFI platforms" Why does there need to be new 2-stroke DFI platforms? The comparable DFI 2-stroke to this new Yamaha F200F, even with two extra cylinders, is 15 percent lighter than the F200F and 21 percent lighter than the Verado 200. Seems that the one in need of a new slimmer platform at the mid-size 200 HP level is Mercury.

posted 01-30-2013 12:45 AM ET (US)            

We have mentioned the fact that this is the lightest 200 4 stroke in the world (Yamahas quote)

We have compared it to the Verado, Yamahas previous F200 V6, HPDI and E-tec in various ways.

I am not sure this specific item has come up. From Yamahas site and I quote:

"At 487 pounds, the new F200 is up to 119 pounds lighter than Yamaha's V6 F200, and just 14 pounds heavier than Yamaha's two-stroke Z200 HPDI outboard. In fact, the F200 has the most favorable power-to-weight ratio of any four-stroke 200-hp outboard.

Note the 14 lbs heavier than the Yamaha 200 HPDI.

That is close friends. I am sure these are dry weights. Transom weight is what matters most so when oils are added and the 3 gallon HPDI oil tank is factored in at about 24lbs isn't the real, honest hang on the back of the boat weight of the upcoming new F200 the same as the Yamaha 200 HPDI, everything counted?

If so, Yamaha has effectly eclipsed its previous F200 by over a hundred lbs and has rolled on stage a new 200 4 stroke that equals its 2 stroke 200 stable mate in real life weight? So close its a draw?

I know its 4 cylinders vs 6 cylinders and all that, but its still rated at 200hp somewhere on the power curve

If this is right, its a significant first.
Am I seeing it correctly?

posted 01-30-2013 02:40 PM ET (US)            

Interesting point you made regarding Suzuki

Just checked Suzuki's site (which I never have) and you are correct. They also share that platform with the 150 as well. The go to the V-6 for the 200 and up.

Seems like if Suzuki wanted to play the 4 cylinder, 200hp class game they could do it with what they have.

posted 01-30-2013 03:15 PM ET (US)         

In the 2-stroke DFI world, Evinrude has chosen small displacement for the conventional 200, while Mercury Optimax has chosen large displacement for conventional 200 HP. It's basically weight vs power - take your pick. Then they use their performance branding (H.O. or ProXS) to counter the other's engine. Mercury 175 ProXS = Evinrude 200 and the Evinrude 200 H.O. = Conventional Mercury Optimax 200.

Same thing in the 4-stroke world now. Yamaha with this engine, and Mercury 200 Verado have chosen small displacement/lighter weight for 200 HP, and Suzuki and Honda have chosen large displacement for their 200's, limiting small displacement to 175HP. Once again, it's probably a weight vs power marketing gamble. My guess is that Mercury and Yamaha are winning big time with this strategy. Yamaha and Mercury both had big block 200's, but they now have been abandoned in favor of the smaller models.

If Mercury can squeeze 200 HP out of the new 3.0 liter EFI platform, then the 200 HP weight threshold will come down even more.

posted 01-30-2013 04:18 PM ET (US)            

Huh? All indications are thst the "big block" V6 F200 will still be offered for sale along side the new 4-cylinder F200F -- just like Evinrude does with its two 200 HP 3-Star rated motors.

I can seeno other reason than Mercury abandoned its CARB 2-Star rated heavy weight 650 lb 200 HP Verado probably because no one in their right mind would buy one given the ultra low power to weight ratio.

Eric -- What magic has Yamaha up its sleeve that Suzuki does not?

posted 01-30-2013 06:07 PM ET (US)            

Would not the Yamaha F200 outperform the Suzuki D175 simply because the injectors, mapping have been chosen to hit by choice that 200hp peak somewhere on the curve and its rated for it where the Suzuki has chosen to hit 175hp?

Yes they are very similar in weight and displacement, but seems, but the Yamaha has been "programmed" deliberately with more?

Not to say the Suzuki could simply do it as well by injectors and reprogramming

posted 01-31-2013 04:30 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Why does there need to be new 2-stroke DFI platforms?

---

To recapture some of their lost marketshare?

posted 02-01-2013 07:07 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

In addition to advancements in technology, the consumer likes to see new platforms launched.

---

posted 02-01-2013 09:44 AM ET (US)            

As it turned out, "OptiMax the Next Generation" for many models was nothing more than new cowling graphics. Mercury must have realized that, and they have completely abandoned the term "OptiMax the Next Generation," probably because it was not really anything other than a term coined for a press release, and not indicative of any real engineering breakthrough, other than perhaps giving the engine a bit of reliability. In that regard, using the term "generation" was perhaps ironic, as the earlier "generation" had in many cases been short-lived and gone to an early death.

Mercury must have been aware that the brand name "OptiMax" had become a bit sullied, so they have more or less abandoned it. There are very few models of Optimax engine left. Instead, Mercury has embarked on a completely new model designator, the OptiMax Pro XS, which now is the main branding of their two-cycle direct-injection engine line. I have always found the "Pro XS" branding to be very confusing. The "Pro" is not really a shorthand for professional because these engines are just for the everyday buyer, not the professional. The marketing of the "Pro" models seems to be strongest in the dedicated inland fishing boats, like bass boats or walleye boats, where there is a professional class of competitive fishermen. Many of these professional fishermen are sponsored by Mercury and use these "Pro XS" models. I think the wannabe fishermen think they must use the same equipment as the professionals, and hence they flock to the "OptiMax Pro XS" as a way emulating the professional fishermen. The "XS" is meaningless. It seems to tie-in to the Mercury racing engine, the "XS" model, which I assume was from "extra-short", a description of the very specialized gear case used on racing boats where the shaft length is very short. The "Pro XS" models have conventional gear cases and normal shaft lengths.

In presentations aimed at the wannabe professional fishermen, Mercury has even taken the further step of re-branding the VERADO to become the VERADO Pro model. I have never seen any explanation of what engineering differences are provided in the "Pro" model of the VERADO. I suspect it is another case of the cowling graphics being flashier and thus more appealing to the aesthetic of the bass boat owner.

posted 02-01-2013 03:48 PM ET (US)            

If it's not a significant selling point, why do Mercury, Yamaha and Suzuki spend significant effort reducing the weight of their motors to improve the power to weight ratio? Why does the Yamaha rep in the video talk about the lighter weight of the F200F powerhead on handling? Why does Mercury use distorted bar graphs of the weight of their 150 FourStroke against the competition in their marketing materials? If power to weight isn't much of a selling point, why are these 4-stroke makers talking so much about weight?

posted 02-01-2013 09:14 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

As part of its quest to satisfy the requirements of its customers and deliver continuous boating enjoyment through innovation and technology, Yamaha has created the new F200 outboard engine that offers the power of a 200, but in a package that is closer in size and weight to our F150A, giving an exceptional power-to-weight ratio

Weighing 227kg, approximately 50kg less than the previous F200, the latest incarnation is 18 percent lighter while maintaining similar power output and reliability. Employing an in-line four-cylinder configuration, with Variable Camshaft Timing (VCT) and weight-saving technology throughout, the new engine produces 200HP while being the lightest engine in its class. The lighter weight, better suited to a wider range of boats, also helps improve fuel-efficiency, as well as performance.

---

posted 02-01-2013 10:45 PM ET (US)            

They outsold DFI 2 strokes when they were very heavy and are eating up more marketshare now they are getting lighter.

posted 02-02-2013 12:06 AM ET (US)            

--starts easily without excessive cranking

--runs very quietly at idle, almost so quiet you cannot tell it is running

--never breaks down

--never need repair

--runs very smoothly

--gets much, much, much better fuel economy than anything previously experienced

For these benefits, the average boater--the slightly misinformed average boater--has decided to ignore several qualities of four-cycle outboard engines never seen before in the outboard engine: These include:

--incredibly huge engine size with massive, out of all proportion, gigantic cowlings

--extraordinarily heavy weight

--sluggish performance, slow acceleration, and marginal power

--a constant, ineluctable, unavoidable drudgery of changing the crankcase oil

posted 02-02-2013 12:33 AM ET (US)            

A good example of an awful four-cycle outboard engine is the older HONDA 135-HP model. Those engines were huge, weighed a ton, and could only make 135-HP, even those they were bigger than the largest two-cycle engines ever seen. Now in 2013 we begin to see some initial reduction in size and weight of four-cycle engines, but they remain significantly larger and heavier, and so much so that boats have required redesign in order to make them acceptable.

In 2013 we are beginning to see some progress with the four-cycle engines in their size and weight. This Yamaha F200F model is a good example. But I still do not want to do oil changes on my outboard engine every 50-hours. I want to spend more time on the water.

posted 02-02-2013 12:48 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

In 2013 we are beginning to see some progress with the four-cycle engines in their size and weight. This Yamaha F200F model is a good example. But I still do not want to do oil changes on my outboard engine every 50-hours. I want to spend more time on the water.

---

Why would you perform oil changes every 50 hours on a modern four stroke outboard?

posted 02-02-2013 12:51 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Perry--Market share is not a reflection of the best technical solution. Just look at the misery of the PC and WIndows compared to Apple hardware and the MacOS. Or the Honda Accord compared to the AUDI A6.
I bet that USA Today outsells The Atlantic Monthly, but which one is a better example of good journalism?

---

Am i reading this correctly that you sare saying that just because Yamaha outsells Evinrude about 10:1 in almost every part of of the US, that the Evinrude is actually a better engine?

posted 02-02-2013 01:07 AM ET (US)            

This does not mean that there are not a lot of misinformed boaters who think that a four-cycle outboard possesses some unique qualities. Many of the qualities of the modern four-cycle engine are not unique to the four-cycle engine. Many modern outboard engines have those qualities. The misinformed aspect is that many boaters think only four-cycle engines can have the qualities they admire.

Joe--You are reading incorrectly. You invent things I never said. Please read what I write. When you make up stuff and try to attribute it to me, you are just making up stuff. Please do not do that. You make conclusions that are completely unlike my conclusions. I simply said that the notion that a lot of people hold some belief does not insure that the belief is true or based on the facts or is a rational conclusion. A lot of people thought the world was flat, but that turned out to be a widely held misconception.

I said, and I believe, that the popularity of four-cycle engines is a result of many boaters being misinformed about what is available and what is actually on the market.

posted 02-02-2013 01:29 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

[Using words like] "incredibly huge", "massive", "extraordinarily heavy", "sluggish", "ineluctable", "unavoidable"--wow, what propoganda. Those are some cool adjectives there. too. Keep believing that rhetoric and the ETEC will be #1 in outboard sales very soon.

---

OK, Perry, I guess you mean I should have written about the early four-cycle engines differently. Let me try to change things to suit you

"incredibly huge" --> really tiny

"massive" --> petite

"extraordinarily heavily" --> feather weight

"sluggish" --> rapid

"ineluctable" --> avoidable

"unavoidable" --> optional

I don't know why you think my comments mean that E-TEC will be number one in sales. I never mentioned E-TEC in my comments, I made no forecast about sales of any brand, and I don't agree with your prediction. I have no notion that E-TEC will be number one in sales. My information is that they outsell Honda, Suzuki, and Tohatsu. They do not outsell Mercury. Mercury outboard sales are boosted by their policy of a mandatory tie-in sale with the Brunswick house brands of boats, like Boston Whaler. It is difficult to say where Mercury outboard sales might be if they stood on their own and were not sold onto so many captive transoms. And E-TEC does not outsell Yamaha, which I believe is probably the biggest seller, at least certainly the biggest seller if you ignore the captive transoms. I think Yamaha has maybe an 80-percent market share in saltwater outboards. So it is unlikely that Evinrude will ever overcome the big lead of Yamaha or even approach the captive share of transoms of Mercury. But it is very likely they are now outselling Honda, outsell Suzuki, and certainly outsell Tohatsu-branded outboards.

posted 02-02-2013 01:33 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

If the ETEC is the best technical solution, why don't they sell more of them?
A misinformed consumer?

---

Yes. That is what I was saying. Let me try this on you, Perry:

If the Honda is the best technical solution, whey don't they sell more of them? A misinformed consumer?

posted 02-02-2013 01:53 AM ET (US)            

As a general rule in business, there is more profit to be made in manufacturing when the consumer is not very well informed about the products available.

posted 02-02-2013 02:03 AM ET (US)            

Please quote where I said Honda is the #1 solution.

If someone questions Evinrude's market share compared to other 4 strokes you don't have to take it personally.

If you want to have some credibility, do some research before you post information. The Honda BF135 was intoduced in 2008 and was inovative in design and reduced weight.

The Honda BF130 on the other hand was introduced over 11 years ago and was very heavy.

I'll throw the rope back to you, you need it.

posted 02-02-2013 02:26 AM ET (US)            

That your local area seems to have a different market share among the brands is not unusual, in my experience. I see a lot of variation from the suggested rankings of manufacturers in my area. In SE Michigan there has been for a long time a significant anti-Japanese manufacturing attitude, no doubt born from the competition of the automotive business, and Japanese brands were slow to become established around here. Even now, finding a Honda outboard dealer is about impossible. In the past ten to 15 years that tread has evaporated, and now there are many Japanese car dealerships, and they sell well here--but not like they sell in California. The further West you go, the greater the love of all things made in Japan, or so it seems. In California it is quite amazing (to me) to see 90-percent of the cars on the road are imports and mostly Japanese. (My son who lives in the Bay Area told me he had to tell his Pontiac after he found there were no mechanics that would even work on it out there. He is now driving a Toyota.)

I also do a lot of boating in Canada; guess what: there are E-TEC engines there in droves. I think Canadians have a bit of loyalty to Bombardier, I suppose.

I know people are aware I have an E-TEC. One of the biggest factors in my having an E-TEC is not the E-TEC so much as the E-TEC dealer. I have one of the best E-TEC dealers in the world a few miles from me. I get fantastic support. My own engine choice is a result of many factors, but a very big factor is the dealer.

When I was in North Carolina I saw Suzuki outboard engines everywhere in the area. In a small town, Southport, near where we were staying, there were two Suzuki dealers. Those dealers were very successful. They had Suzuki outboards on practically every local boat's transom.

It is not surprising that you see a lot of Honda outboards. You are in Hawaii. You are two-thirds of the way to Japan compared to where I am located. But you must recognize that in overall USA sales, Honda is still running about fourth or fifth. So my comments about how market share cannot be a guarantee that the consumer has made the most informed choice are still true, if I use your choice as an example.

posted 02-02-2013 02:34 AM ET (US)            

Did you read the article I wrote about the Honda BF250? I think I wrote more about the Honda BF250 than I have about E-TEC in the last year. Did you read the article I wrote about new Mercury 150-HP? I think I have written more about that engine than I have about the E-TEC in the last year.

Perry--you should note that I do not go around jumping into threads telling people to buy an E-TEC. If someone asks a question about an E-TEC, I might try to answer it. But I do not joint threads and proselytize for the E-TEC, recommend the E-TEC for everyone's application, or otherwise try to promote it.

posted 02-05-2013 12:28 AM ET (US)            

I have NEVER seen such a fun, upbeat outboard video from any outboard company. Worth the watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1U6GZOoESc

Note they only covered the small kicker motors with this
"Whole lotta fun" recording. Not bad at all

It will interesting to see what they do with the larger displacement motors in the media over there. Will post when I find it

posted 02-17-2013 10:15 PM ET (US)            

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_h_QHjnTu4

posted 02-17-2013 11:18 PM ET (US)            

The mention of the Shift Dampening System (SDS) was also informative. When using large, heavy stainless steel propellers, there is often a big CLUNK when shifting into gear on certain brands of outboard engines. This loud CLUNK is such a trademark of certain brands that it has been described as soundling like a 1950's truck shifting. Modern outboard engines can no longer be sold if they make loud mechanical noises suggesting gears clashing or interfering. The Yamaha engineers are quite smart to pay attention to the problem of the propeller clunk when shifting. Refining the noises that a modern engine produces is important in making an impression on the consumer about the degree of sophistication and engineering in the product.

As for the presentation's production values, I also found them to be good. The outdoor on-the-water photography is good. The lighting is a bit bland and not particularly outstanding, but the overall presentation is quite good. I thought the overall production and theme was better in the presentation about the smaller horsepower engines mentioned earlier in the discussion.

I simply love detailed animation of see-through views of the engine in operation showing components moving. I wish I could see very high resolution versions of the snippets used in the production. I find it fascinating to watch these computer generated animations of the engine in operation.

With Yamaha huge market share in saltwater outboard engines, this new model will likely be a strong seller. With its Three-Star rating is should be available in all of the environmentally restricted markets without any need for concern about sales mix. I bet Yamaha will be selling these as fast as they can produce them. It looks like a great engine.

posted 02-18-2013 12:44 PM ET (US)            

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/yamaha-weighs-in-lightweight-f200

If my conversions are correct with their stated performance numbers, the engine seems to be quite impressive.

"Yamaha fuel and speed data testing revealed that the F200 used an average of 15.60 litres per hour at 3000rpm/18.6 knots in the Cruise Craft 595 Explorer. At 6000rpm, the engine used 75.35lph travelling at almost 45 knots. At troll speed of about seven knots, the engine used 9.35lph at 2000rpm.
"

@3000 RPM = 21.4mph (4.12gph/5.19mpg)

@6000 RPM = 51.78mph (19.90gph/2.6mpg)

From what I could find online about the "Cruise Craft 595 Explorer", it is a 19.5' boat weighing 4,960 lbs (I assume loaded).

posted 03-17-2013 10:40 AM ET (US)            

I would strongly consider retrofitting to electronic throttle and gauges. I prefer the older Command link analog gauges with the digital readout for redundancy and ease of quick glance while underway. The newer single Command Link Plus LCD display is very nice, but if it fails it is a single point of failure and very expensive to replace.

Yamaha is running a new sales promotion with the 5 year extended warranty or $2000 cash back. I am worried about the additional cost of the new controls plus installation. If they would throw in the rigging like Evinrude's current promotion that expires March 31, I would consider it.

I would rather get the extended warranty protection rather than use the $2000 credit for the rigging.

posted 03-17-2013 10:43 AM ET (US)            

Sorry, one other question. I have read that the electronic controls really come in handy with a dual power installation, primarily for the automatic synchronization at power.

posted 03-17-2013 10:59 AM ET (US)            

--shifts are always made with precisely the right throw and occur with precisely the right speed, completely eliminating any gear grinding or clunk;

--shifts are inhibited until engine speed is appropriate;

--control of engine speed is extremely precise and can be adjusted in fine increments;

posted 03-17-2013 11:02 AM ET (US)            

--rigging is simplified significantly; only one small flexible electrical cable runs from the engine to the helm. I removed literally a cockpit full of mechanical and electrical cables from the old rigging and replaced them with a single electrical cable;

posted 03-21-2013 07:56 PM ET (US)            

1600 RPM 8 MPH 5.4 MPG
3500 RPM 23 MPH 3.6 MPG
4000 RPM 30 MPH 3.6 MPG
4400 RPM 32-33 MPH 3.7 MPG
5700 RPM 43.6 MPH 2.2 MPG

Boat gained 6.5 MPH top speed and went from a 2.2 mpg cruise with a OX66 carb 150HP at 32 mph to 3.7 MPG with the F200. In addition the weight of the motor is absolutely negligible with old motor. The boat sits at the EXACT same level as it did before.

posted 03-22-2013 06:02 AM ET (US)            

We see similar numbers, except for fuel economy. Not hard to beat carb'd V6 2-stroke fuel economy.