posted 03-13-2013 12:08 PM ET (US)         

http://www.mercurymarine.com/engines/engine-tests/head-to-head/?ID=193& 51477.71915095667

Basically when it comes to advertizing, you can prove anything you want. The real truth is that when it comes to outboards, except for the bass, performance (dominated by Merecury) and low end segments, 2-strokes are basically gone.

posted 03-13-2013 01:50 PM ET (US)            

I belive its factual, as was the previous test of the E-tech vs the Yamaha. I think there is a good chance although we will never see it, that the Evinrude E-tec would probable pull the new Yamaha F200 4 cyclinder around the lake as well.

I think two stroke power for quicker torque and horsepower will always , always win the day over a equal horsepower 4 stroke.

Being fair, I think a Mercury Optimax 150 would also do the same to the new Mercury 150 4 stroke. We wont' see that test of course. Just the advantage of two stroke power.

Now a Mercury Opti vs an Etec in a tough of war? It would be interesting, but we won't see that from either company. It would be too close to call and the important fact is that nobody would be watching that would matter.

Our industry is fast evolving into a 4 stroke market because its simplier to be 3 star 4 stroke than 3 star two stroke.

If this was a thread about E-tec vs Optimax which this is not, that would be a real white vs black discussion.

posted 03-13-2013 02:32 PM ET (US)            

The Mercury comparison reminds me of another one they did comparing a pair of Verado 275s to a pair of Yamaha HPDI 300s. It was in one of their brochures, maybe the 2007 one. Can't remember the boat, but they boasted in the same graphical way that the Verado had a faster acceleration. But if you looked at the results with greater scrutiny, you would detect that to obtain the results they published, Mercury overprooped the Yamaha HPDI 300s so that they would only reach 4500 RPM at WOT. Technically they were still operating within the WOT operating range but anybody that knows a little about boating would know that when a boat is overpropped, it will accelerate slower that if it was correctly propped. Apparently, the marketing department doesn't think the boating public is very smart.

posted 03-13-2013 02:48 PM ET (US)         

Why doesn't Evinrude dispute that and promote their own fuel economy as best in class? Because they can't make the case. These are things buyers care about, not tug of war make believe.

posted 03-13-2013 03:06 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

You guys don't actually believe all that self promotion by the engine manufacturers, do you?

---

posted 03-13-2013 03:29 PM ET (US)            

1) Politics

2) Religion

3) Outboard manufacturers on Continuous Wave Discussion Forums.

Popcorn it is....

posted 03-13-2013 04:42 PM ET (US)         

"Mercury's & Evinrude's & Yamaha's test reports have a long history of carefully concocted misleading statements and badly drawn graphics that exaggerate their claims. Their claims are only for the Mercury & Evinrude & Yamaha fans to enjoy, which, as we see, they seem to really relish.

All advertising presents its promotional message in the best possible manner to enhance their product it is promoting. Why would anyone believe what Mercury or Evinrude or Yamaha says about E-TEC based on undisclosed, poorly documented tests?"

posted 03-13-2013 05:11 PM ET (US)            

Evinrude has really changed outboard marketing with their presentations. The first of the series was also stunningly photographed and set in the most attractive manner. It won "best in USA" awards for advertising promotion. It is really hard to argue that the presentation was not effective--people are still talking about it. It was judged "best in USA" by people in professional promotion. It seems a bit hard to decide that because one Mercury died-in-the-wool life-long devotee says it is "meaningless" that it was not a successful promotion.

I don't know exactly what is wrong at Mercury, but their promotions are terrible. Let me give you a good example: they have a really nice new product coming out, the Vessel View 7, and as far as I can tell, my article about it is the only place that shows a picture of the product! I am doing all I can to help Mercury promote their products, but sometimes I wonder what is going on there. I get the impression that at Mercury they're still not too sure about the internet being a useful channel for their product promotion.

posted 03-13-2013 09:36 PM ET (US)         

Check out the liks in this recent thread

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007830.html

posted 03-14-2013 06:48 AM ET (US)            

Apparently, Evinrude decided it would do a video challenging Mercury marketing's statement that the 150 FourStroke is the only 150 FourStroke to have a torque curve rivaling the strongest two-strokes". You have told us for more than a decade that Mercury makes the strongest 2-strokes and all others are inferior. If we take that to be true, how can it be that an inferior 2-stroke pulls the 150 FourStroke with a torque curve rivaling the strongest two-strokes backward?

posted 03-14-2013 08:41 AM ET (US)            

If you don't think video presentations are convincing, you would have to wonder what exactly happened when an early customer for the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE--proclaimed to be the most reliable outboard engine ever made--posted a motion picture presentation on youTube showing a large hole in the side of the Mercury engine block that occurred after about ten hours of operation when a connecting rod came flying out. That video disappeared a few days after it was posted. I bet that customer heard from Mercury with an attractive offer. His motion picture presentation was quite effective, I suspect.

I don't participate in "social media" so I have no idea what goes on there vis-a-vis outboard engine marketing. Considering the price of boats and motors, I don't think social media is likely to be filled with potential buyers. Most of the people that participate in social media probably spend a large percentage of their disposable income paying their monthly wireless provider bill.

If Mercury has any motion picture presentations about their engines I haven't seen them. Perhaps they have a entire gallery of motion picture presentations, and they only tell about them on social media.

I have noticed that Mercury does a lot of promotion on television programs related to angling for certain species of freshwater fish. I saw one of these shows recently and about 50-percent of the show content was presented under a banner declaring MERCURY. The show is rather funny because it follows two guys. One guy uses an OptiMax and the second uses a VERADO. In the "program" portion of the show they feature a segment where they go back and forth describing the best attributes of their OptiMax and VERADO motors. Then they go to a commercial break where more Mercury commercials are inserted. If you edited out the Mercury promotional material from the show, the show run-time would be down to about eight minutes.

The show does highlight a promotional problem for Mercury, which Peter has also brought up in the discussion. They are working both sides of the street: four-stroke and two-stroke. And even more difficult, on the four-stroke side they have two completely different approaches. The VERADO is a small displacement engine with supercharging and their new FOURSTROKE (not VERADO) is a line of large displacement engines without supercharging. The problem for Mercury is how to promote three distinctly different engineering approaches to the outboard engine in a way that does not cause the promotion of one to undercut the other two products.

posted 03-15-2013 12:02 AM ET (US)            

Usually, people are looking for the best they can have for their money, which meant reliability, great power and service availability, in whatever order.

Around here, the commercials vessels (reliability first) were mostly rigged with Honda and Yamaha but among recreationnal boaters, Mercury win hands down (service availability).

posted 03-15-2013 08:04 AM ET (US)            

An engine sale for re-power is usually a cash sale, no financing, and the price is a very important consideration. Susuzik has been accused of "buying marketshare" with its aggressive low pricing for years.

I have commented before and will say again, Mercury's VERADO has been selling for such a small increment in price compared to other Mercury products that it has been an excellent value. Positioned as the premium product in the market by Mercury's own promotion, the VERADO sells for just a small up-charge compared to Mercury's less-premium products. It has amazed me for long time that Mercury has been unable to increase the price of the VERADO. They're giving away a BMW at cheap Chevrolet prices with that engine. Apparently they're taking that strategy with the new 150-HP FOURSTROKE (not VERADO) engine.

posted 03-15-2013 12:32 PM ET (US)         

I have heard that Mercury is so impressed with Jim's shameless promotion of Evinrude's supposedly excellent "tug of war" advertizing, that they have decided to make a "tug of war" ad showing a supercharged Verado 150 dragging an E-tec 150 backward all over the lake. But we won't really know if its an identical platform Verado 200 will we, nor what they have done to disable the power of the Evinrude? We will have to take that on faith, won't we.

After all Mercury shows test results (which Jim tells us are worthless garbage) of a 150 Verado out accelerating, out running and getting better fuel economy than a 150 E-tec.

Actually, in retrospect, I think the video, rigged or not, if nothing else helps Mercury in comparison to Yamaha. For a person wanting to buy a 4-stroke 150, it clearly shows the Merc to have much more power than the Yamaha F150.

This new Mercury was specifically brought out to out perform and compete with the top selling Yamaha F-150 (and to a lesser exten the Honda and Suzuki). Alreading having the Optimax 150 ProXS and Verado 150, they don't need another engine to compete with the 150 E-tec.

posted 03-16-2013 07:26 AM ET (US)            

LOL. Are we watching the same video?

"Alreading having the Optimax 150 ProXS and Verado 150, they don't need another engine to compete with the 150 E-tec."

Or you can look at it this way, it takes three Mercury outboards to try to provide what the single E-TEC 150 provides and they still come up short.

Fly-by-wire add-on option -- N/A
Out of the box NMEA 2000 compatability -- N/A
Auto storage -- N/A
Battery independent fuel injection -- N/A
Under 420 lbs (20 inch) - N/A
EMM software for laptop -- N/A

"I'm sure Mercury is now saying "thank you" to Evinrude for this unintended promotion of the new Mercury 150 EFI 4-stroke. "

A Mercury 150 FourStroke getting dragged backwards and on the verge of being submerged is quite a promotion for Mercury. I can think of some other phrases Mercury might be saying that involve the word "you". LOL.

posted 03-16-2013 10:51 AM ET (US)         

But let's look at Peter's six reasons why an E-tec 150 is superior to all three types of Mercury 150's. Whatever he is talking about on that list, like the tug of war, nobody cares. I think Jeff has it right about real world thinking and application taking precedent over some fairy tale.

We are now seeing the major engine manufacturers, Mercury and Yamaha, with somewhere over 80% market share combined, not much worrying about 2-strokes for the general market in the 150 HP class (or the 225 class). Mercury Optimax ProXS controls Bass and Performance, so with the discontinuance of the regular Optimax 150, like Yamaha did with the 150 HPDI, their money is on the 4-stroke power as to where the business actually will be. They are now saying to Evinrude "we don't care much about your 2-strokes. Sell what you can, it's all right with us." That is why there is real concern to Evinrude, being intentionally neglected by your competition, and hence the panic of these "tugs" against Yamaha's and Mercury's brand new 4-stroke engine platforms. And they don't dare do a "tug" aginst a Verado or Optimax ProXS. It is not a good position to be in. It kind of reminds me about how other typewriter companies must have felt when the leader, IBM, brilliantly sold off their Selectric typewriter division before the market for them crashed, as the PC and printer took over.

We know that Boston Whaler, Grady, etc. etc. etc. sales are not hurting because they only offer 4-stroke engines. I recently talked to a guy in Ft Lauderdale who absolutely loves the new Mercury 150 EFI on his 210 Montauk. He didn't seem too concerned about a tug of war or a bass boat drag race.

As Jim says, BRP/Evinrude needs to develop a line of 4-stroke engines. But being owned and controlled by Venture Capital and Pensions Funds, there are few resources for the $100,000,000 or more in R & D it would take. With the Mercury and Yamaha major market share, plus well capaitalized 4-stroke giants Honda and Suzuki also competing, any profitable return on such a huge investment would be extremly risky. So it hasn't happened, and will not happen. As we learned in the last election, Venture Capital only wants to take their initial purchase money back out of a business (by declaring HUGE dividends to themselves), load it up with debt to pay for the dividends, and then take it public at a huge profit as sales pick up. They have done the first two to BRP, but the last step still hasn't happened because the profits aren't there. Before we will see an Evinrude 4-stroke line, the last step has to happen, and they are already way behind schedule on that one. Venture Capital doesn't like owning a company as long as Bain has owned BRP, but in this maketplace, they can't get out.

posted 03-16-2013 11:07 AM ET (US)            

--they were carefully concocted misleading statements

--they contained badly drawn graphics that exaggerate their claims

--they were intended for Mercury fans to enjoy, and

--Mercury fans seem to really relish the reports

I don't think I have ever brought up an Evinrude motion picture presentation for discussion except in the context to talk about the beautiful presentation itself, the skillful editing, the beautiful lighting, the excellent photography, and the effectiveness of the presentation. I have never made any particular reference to the test results as being dispositive of anything in particular. The notion that the E-TEC 150-HP drags the Mercury 150-HP engine around the lake until the boat practically submerges has never been mentioned by me as being indicative of anything. I do appreciate the effectiveness of seeing a motion picture of this demonstration, and I have mentioned how much more effective such a presentation is compared to printed sheets of paper sitting on a rack at a booth at a boat show waiting for someone to read all the fine print. But I have never made any special claims about the E-TEC engine as a result of these demonstrations.

On the other hand, you, Larry, have repeatedly made reference to usually unspecified Mercury tests in which Mercury informs that their products exceed the E-TEC in all manner of tests of performance. It is the constant, unrelenting, and unstoppable reference to these tests by you that has caused me to conclude that Mercury's tests are really intended for their own customers, as a way to make Mercury customers feel better about their decisions to own a Mercury.

The notion that anyone with a rational, scientific mind would be open to accept the outcome of unknown tests conducted by a very biased participant in the tests is just foreign to me.

Let me close with this quote, from Richard Feynman:

quote:

---

The only way to have real success in Science--the field I'm familiar with--is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a a theory you must try to explain what's good and what bad about it equally. In Science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty.

In other fields, such as business, it's different. For example, almost every advertisement you see is obviously designed in some way or another to fool the customer. The print that they don't want you to see is small. The statements are written in an obscure way. It is obvious to anybody that the product is not being presented in a scientific and balanced way. Therefore in the selling business there's a lack of integrity.

---

posted 03-16-2013 11:24 AM ET (US)            

"..there is real concern to Evinrude, being intentionally neglected by your competition..."

This makes no sense in the context of all of that Mercury literature you keep talking about in which Mercury compares its engines to the E-TEC. If Mercury were "neglecting" the E-TEC, they would not be publishing test data comparing their engine to the E-TEC.

posted 03-16-2013 03:41 PM ET (US)         

"Also, perhaps Evinrude wanted to break away from Suzuki *because Evinrude is secretly developing their own four-stroke-cycle outboard engine.*"

Did I misunderstand your words?

posted 03-16-2013 05:34 PM ET (US)            

The basis for my speculation came from the relationship of Mercury and Yamaha. For years, Mercury depended on Yamaha to design, build, and manufacture four-stroke-cycle outboard engines that Mercury would re-paint, put some decals on, and sell as Mercury. When Mercury was nearly ready to bring their own four-stroke-cycle outboard engine to the market, they began to break off their relationship with Yamaha. Mercury even went so far as to demand that the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) take punitive action against Yamaha. That seemed like a rather odd way to treat a business partner. It was probably a good sign that Mercury and Yamaha were about to not be partners for much longer. In fact, that was exactly how Yamaha saw that action, and told Mercury to take a hike. Then Mercury had to go through the embarrassment of forcing Yamaha to sell Mercury more four-stroke-cycle outboard engines by taking legal action to compel Yamaha to make engines for Mercury. You could understand how Yamaha would not be very inclined to do that. You wonder what Mercury was thinking when they started that USITC business. The whole thing was really embarrassing, as Mercury's own dealers testified against Mercury in the proceeding. Then, when it was over, Mercury had to sue Yamaha to force them to keep making four-stroke-cycle outboard engines for Mercury. What a way to do business as partners! Shortly after that, Mercury introduced their own four-stroke-cycle outboard engines, the VERADO line.

It just seems to me that the same situation exists with Evinrude and Suzuki. Maybe they are no longer partners in selling four-stroke-cycle engines because perhaps in the future they are going to be competitors selling four-stroke-cycle engines.

posted 03-17-2013 10:34 AM ET (US)            

I just watched the 17 March installment of John Greviskis' "Ship Shape" tv show.
They took a 19 foot center console and repowered two identical models with both motors for a direct comparison.

In this test, they made a harness and tied the boat off to a mooring cleat with a gauge to measure torque and hole shot. Next they used the onboard monitoring systems (Mercnet/ICON) to measure fuel consumption rates at 1100 rpms to simulate trolling fuel economy.

posted 03-17-2013 09:37 PM ET (US)            

When I retire the old Black Max on my 18' Outrage, I'll almost definately go that route..

posted 03-19-2013 07:21 AM ET (US)            

Granted, you do have to buy more oil for the etec, but if you're like 2 stroke performance, you're still using less oil with the newer (etec) motor.

Really, can anybody say here in this forum that the four stroke has a significant savings in fuel consumption over the Etec?

It seems the only thing this tug of war between outboards did was ruffle the feathers of four stroke fans because thier engine lost. But I will agree with you that albeit novel, it really isn't the best way to advertise.

posted 03-19-2013 09:32 AM ET (US)            

I'd be interested in seeing the plotted torque curves. To win the mythically popular outboard tug of war, all one engine would need to do is get into the torquey band more quickly.

posted 03-19-2013 10:40 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Really, can anybody say here in this forum that the four stroke has a significant savings in fuel consumption over the Etec?

---

Hilinercc...The only engine I can think of that has hands down better gas savings is the new Honda BF250 and perhaps its other models as well. It was stated right here from a member that he was receiving close to 4MPG on an Outrage 22 with Whaler Drive. I don't think those numbers can be matched by any two stroke that I know of including the Etec. This however is not a 150 four stroke as we are talking about, but it may answer your question.

Funny how once again the polite silent Honda company who stays away from all this Im better that you stuff with border line slandering at times, is the one engine that gets overlooked. Its a sowing machine on the back of boat its reliable beyond belief it gets above average in gas savings yet it gets little recognition. However we sit with popcorn anxiously waiting the next attack between these to companies, in result they end out selling more engines then the Honda. Funny world we live in.

posted 03-20-2013 07:32 AM ET (US)            

I had to do an outboard marketing survey at work in order to determine the best TOC (total cost ownership for 7 years). This included fuel consumption. The Honda was the clear leader in that catagory.

Personally, it still would'nt be my choice. In my line of work, I've had the chance to run many twin V6 powered boats, both 2 and 4 stroke, and although the Honda is silky smooth and sips fuel, at speed/acceleration, it just doesn't seem as impressive as a Yammer 4 stroke, Merc or Etec. Like any Honda product, its well built and runs well.

posted 03-20-2013 09:21 AM ET (US)            

I think the biggest influence on my recent engine purchase was the dealer. If that dealer had sold Honda engines, I would probably have a Honda on my boat.

Getting back to the test results, I don't find much surprise in the outcome. As soon as Evinrude came out with a video of the test, you could know the outcome. They would not be showing you the test if the Evinrude did not win. (Hint: maybe that is why we don't see these tests from other makers.)

I don't think it is necessary to resort to deception in the test to get the E-TEC to win. The Mercury is not up to the task. The Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE (not VERADO) is not a remarkable engine in any sense of the word. There is nothing about its design that would make you think it would have remarkable performance. When the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE (not VERADO) came out, it was already below average in technology for outboard engines in its class. Let's review the other four-stroke-cycle outboards that it competes against. First, we start with Mercury's own product, the VERADO 150.

The Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE (not VERADO) lacks many technical features compare to the Mercury VERADO 150. It does not have:

--supercharging
--electronic throttle and shift
--optional power steering

Now we move to other brands of 150-HP. All the other brands of four-stroke -cycle use dual overhead cams with some sort of cam phasing or variable valve timing to enhance the engine torque band. The Mercury does not have cam phasing, and I am not even sure it has dual overhead cams. It might be a single overhead cam engine. Mercury is rather quiet on this topic.

Some of the competitors' engines use tuned intake and tuned exhaust manifolds with valve that operate to alter the tuning to enhance power output. Mercury makes no mention of this.

Because the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE (not VERADO) lacks all of these performance enhancements found on competitors' engines, I don't find the results of the E-TEC comparison test to be unusual, and I do not suspect that the results were obtained by deception, trickery, or cheating. I think the results are reasonable in consideration of the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE (not VERADO) being a rather plain and unsophisticated four-stroke-cycle engine. It is my understanding that a plain and unsophisticated four-stroke-cycle engine cannot produce the same performance as a two-stroke-cycle engine.

I learned about this from Mercury when they were developing the VERADO. Mercury told me that the VERADO would deliver the performance of a two-stroke-cycle engine, and in order to get that performance the VERADO needed a supercharger. That was why Mercury used that approach, they said, in order to give me a four-stroke-cycle engine that would deliver the same performance as a two-stroke-cycle.

As a result of precisely what I learned from Mercury, I am not at all surprised by the outcome of the demonstration. If the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE (not VERADO) delivered the same performance as a two-stroke-cycle, I would have to wonder why in the world was Mercury spending (whatever number of hundreds of millions of dollars that L H G likes to say it cost) to develop the VERADO with supercharging when they could have had the same performance with an engine that is completely lacking in any sort of performance enhancement.

posted 03-20-2013 11:59 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

"For $4000-$5000 less than an E-Tec 150, I would happily put a Mercury 150 fourstroke [on] one of my boats."

---

And/or,

quote:

---

"The E-TEC will cost you 20% more to buy, and burn at least 20% more gas."

---

I paid $10,800.00 all-in, for a 150hp ETEC Saltwater Edition engine in August 2012, with controls, prop, gauges and extended warranty (6 years, instead of 3 years).

Am I to understand I could have purchased a 150hp Mercury for $5,800.00 - $6,800.00?

Additionally, when I boat with my 4 stroke friends (both Mercury and Yamaha), my fuel consumption is equal to or better every time we go out in quite a few differing conditions and run rates.

To these statements, I have to call Bull! Someone's making up some real doosies to make a case for their preferred motor. That's too bad, because I believe most modern motors are fine examples compared to motors past!

posted 03-20-2013 12:14 PM ET (US)         

Ed's Marine

$10,400.00 Optimax
$10,400.00 4 Stroke

Marine Max

$11,100.00 Optimax XS(?)
$12,500.00 Verado

These prices are for engine only (no gauges, props, install, etc.) and are quite the norm for a motor of this size: regardless of manufacturer.

Toro!

posted 03-20-2013 02:48 PM ET (US)            

Let me suppose that the differential at 150-HP of $5,000 were maintained on a per-horsepower basis for my 225-HP engine. This would suggest that the cost of my E-TEC might have been $5000/150 x 225 = $7,500 more than a Mercury. I find this is be extraordinarily hard to believe, on several basis:

--I don't believe there is enough KoolAid to get anyone to pay $5,000 to $7,500 more for a particular outboard motor just to get their favorite brand, as that is a big percentage of the price. I'd pay a few bucks more for some irrational reasons like the appeal of a brand, but I would not pay $7,500 more for those irrational reasons;

--I don't believe that there is enough difference in dealer cost that a dealer could undersell another dealer by $5,000 to $7,500 on an engine and actually make money, and, if that were true,

--I don't believe Mercury could stay in business very long underselling the market price by $5,000 to $7,000 per engine

I am willing to stipulate that Mercury is running their outboard engine margins as lean as they can. I learned that when Mercury told the states of Wisconsin and Oklahoma and all their employees that if they did not get big wage and tax concessions that Mercury would have to move out and make their engines somewhere else. This tells me that they are running with very little margin. If they are selling their engines for $5,000 to $7,500 less, this makes sense, as they would be way under the fair market price. Now there is no reason for Mercury to sell at those low margins. Everything we know says the natural tendency is for Mercury to do everything possible to increase their margins.

posted 03-20-2013 02:54 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Additionally, when I boat with my 4 stroke friends (both Mercury and Yamaha), my fuel consumption is equal to or better every time we go out in quite a few differing conditions and run rates.

---

posted 03-20-2013 10:44 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I paid $10,800.00 all-in, for a 150hp ETEC Saltwater Edition engine in August 2012, with controls, prop, gauges and extended warranty (6 years, instead of 3 years).

---

quote:

---

My claims had nothing to do with your ETec. They had to with the one in the title of the thread. The 150. Which sells for 20% more than the 150 Merc.

---

The title of the thread:

150 HP E-TEC - MERCURY Comparison video

What part of 150 HP E-TEC 150 am I missing?

posted 03-21-2013 06:44 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

While there are plenty of opportunities to question Mercury's credibility in marketing, equating "rivaling" with "bettering" isn't one of them.

---

No one, including Mercury, equated "bettering" with "rivaling". "Rival" means "to be the equal or near equal of". The Evinrude video simply showed that the Mercury 150 FourStroke does not have "a torque curve rivaling the strongest two-strokes."

Eric says

quote:

---

Folks, there is really no question about it, the new Merc is more than 20% more efficient at every throttle setting over the E-Tec.

---

Are you absolutely sure the new Mercury 150 FourStroke is 20 percent more efficient at every throttle setting assuming we could figure out what equal throttle settings were for each motor? For example, are you telling us that the Mercury 150 Fourstroke burns 0.15 GPH (20 percent less than the the E-TEC 150's 0.18 GPH) at the idle throttle setting?

Assuming the same hulls in the performance reports linked below even though the model names are different, the Evinrude E-TEC 150 is getting better fuel economy than the Mercury 150 FourStroke and that is with a BRP aluminum propeller versus one of Larry's favorites the Laser II.

See www.mercurymarine.com/engines/engine-tests/boat-house-bulletin/?ID=554&

and

www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE923.pdf

posted 03-21-2013 08:06 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The part where the topic became a 225hp E-Tec.

---

In the course of the discussion it was suggested that the price of the E-TEC 150-HP was $5,000 more than a Mercury. I applied the same proportions for price as function of horsepower--I think you will agree that outboard engine price is a function of horsepower without having to have a debate--and used that proportionality to find that I must, if the suggestion is true, have paid $7,500 more for my 225-HP E-TEC than I could have for a comparable Mercury. I then speculated that this was extraordinarily unlikely, as even the most irrational outboard engine buyer would never pay that much premium to just satisfy an irrational desire for a particular brand.

I now observe that an additional proof of this is offered by L H G himself. I would characterize L H G as having a strong brand preference for Mercury. Because Mercury is always the least expensive, by perhaps $5,000 for a 150-HP engine and perhaps as much as $7,500 (by proportionality) for a 225-HP engine, we can see that L H G's buying preferences offer a sort of proof by negation of my theory that no one would ever pay $7,500 more for an engine just because they liked the brand. We see in L H G's case that he loves the brand, but since--by theory--Mercury is always the absolutely least expensive--a notion that is frequently put forth by L H G himself when he enteres into many discussions about engines and offers specific recommendations about Mercury engines, the least expensive by what amounts to a 50-percent discount, we cannot use L H G's buying history as any sort of proof that irrational brand preference leads to people paying more for their engines. L H G is a perfect example of my statement that no one would ever be so irrational about their brand preference that they would pay $5,000 to $7,500 more for the brand. Actually, L H G's buying history is hard to interpret, because, if we accept the notion that Mercury engines are always thousands of dollars less, it could be that L H G has been buying them all these years just because they were the least expensive, and the fondness for the brand is all about its price.

However, again, I remind readers that it is not me that puts forth this notion that the Mercury is $5,000 less expensive. I do not believe that for a minute. In fact, that is why I made a proportional comparison to a 225-HP, so that I could add my comment that there is no way on earth I would have ever paid $7,500 more for an E-TEC if I could have gotten a competitor's engine of similar power and suitability for $7,500 less. This was my way of contributing a real world data point and my personal experience. But that same preference would by extension apply to a 150-HP engine. I would not pay $5,000 more for a 150-HP engine just because I had some irrational notion that I loved the brand.

posted 03-21-2013 09:35 AM ET (US)         

Today's price for an E-TEC 150 is $13,215.

There is only a $235 difference from a last year's Mercury to new E-TEC 150.

A Verado 150 last year was $13,900 plus needed an additional $1,326 for DTS controls.

posted 03-21-2013 11:18 AM ET (US)            

I'm not trying get into a my motor is better than your motor discussion. I'm simply trying to provide anyone who may be consider a repower more information to look at.

These video promotions would lead potential repower candidates to think the Merc and Yami motors are gutless and wold not meet their needs. I'm just trying to provide information to the contrary. I spend a lot of time each year on Yami and Merc powered Outrage 18s and neither one is hurting for power. If you firewall the throttle on either one, you and your passengers will be laying in the water. I personally feel if one was to buy any of the major brands 150, there would be no complaints in the power category.

posted 03-21-2013 11:34 AM ET (US)            

If I found that a different engine could reduce my fuel consumption by 20-percent, it would suggest I could save about $192 annually. In terms of the total cost to me to go boating each year, $192 is not particularly significant. It is not something that is going to be a tipping point decision.

It could very well be--and in my experience this is true--the engine that might cost me $192 in more fuel could save me at least that much or more in reduced costs for other requirements for operating the engine. Let me give you an example: at the end of the season I prepare my engine for winter by pushing a button. I do not have to perform an oil change. This often seems to me like it might be worth $192 in terms of both the convenience and the savings in paying some one to perform the oil change.

posted 03-23-2013 07:58 AM ET (US)            

Right now I think the market is so competitive that if there really were an engine that used 20-percent less fuel than all the others, cost 20-percent less to buy, and also cost 20-percent less to operate, it would have about 90-percent market share.

In the real world people buy five major brands of outboard:

--Yamaha
--Mercury
--Evinrude
--Honda
--Suzuki