Constant Themes: No. 3: Mercury Horsepower is More Powerful

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Constant Themes: No. 3: Mercury Horsepower is More Powerful

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Constant Themes: No. 3: Mercury Horsepower is More Powerful

swist posted 05-20-2013 10:33 AM ET (US)
I have seen this topic come up in other threads. I thought it ought to have its own.
Please use this thread for the topic of how all outboard engine horsepower ratings published by the manufacturers are approximately correct, except for the ones published by Mercury. It seems that a given number of Mercury horsepower contains more power than the same number for the other vendors.
sosmerc posted 05-20-2013 10:53 AM ET (US)
Not all horses are created equal. We have Chinese horses, Japanese Horses, American Horses,.....well, you get my drift :) It all depends on what horse is being used for the measurement. (more DETAILED analysis is sure to come)
Binkster posted 05-20-2013 11:27 AM ET (US)
Back in the 1950's, Mercury outboards advertised hp ratings were always less than the actual hp. This was an advertising gimmick that Carl thought up and it worked. A Mercury 25 hp KG9 could outrun easily any OMC 30 or 35. Then OMC countered that "Mercurys were fast but didn't last". This was disproved when Kiekhaefer set up a 50,000 mile endurance test run for the newly produced Mark 75 60hp, on his Lake X in Florida in '57. Back in those days there was alot on animosity between Mercury and OMC, and rumors flew with regularity. In 1961 there was a photo ad of a Mercury Mark 100 towing 35 water skiers at Cypress Gardens, which was a true photo, and another one of a Mercury mark 100 towing the Queen Mary, which was a doctored photo.
Boaters were on one fence or the other, Mercury or OMC. Apparently this still exists today, although in reality the Japanese outboards may be better.
rich
jimh posted 05-20-2013 11:44 AM ET (US)
There are many anecdotes about the old days and Mercury horsepower ratings, but I think they're mostly nostalgia. In modern engines there are emission ratings to meet, and you can't rally cheat on the horsepower very effectively. The influence of EPA emission regulations has tended to stop the misleading power ratings. However, it has not stopped the Mercury fans from trying to continue the tradition. They seldom miss an opportunity to suggest or imply or hint or allude that Mercury horsepower is more powerful than other horsepower.
Mambo Minnow posted 05-20-2013 12:29 PM ET (US)
It would be interesting to run performance tests on the new 3.0L Mercury 150 HP Fourstroke against the new Yamaha 2.8L 200 HP Fourstroke.
Both are 4 cylinder fourstrokes. Would the higher diplacement of the Mercury outperform the extra HP and variable camshaft design of the Yamaha?
seahorse posted 05-20-2013 01:09 PM ET (US)
Since you do not want to compare apples to apples, why not just compare the new E-TEC 135 to the new Mercury 150 and see if the smaller motor can outperform the higher rated one?
Peter posted 05-20-2013 01:13 PM ET (US)
I think there should be a tug-of-war between Yamaha F150 and Mercury 150 FourStroke to see who comes in second place. I would be putting my wager money on Mercury on that one. ;)
L H G posted 05-20-2013 02:24 PM ET (US)
I know for a fact the old fashioned 1.7 liter 115 Merc L-6 "Tower" I have on my Montauk will blow the doors off a Montauk powered with a heavy 2.0 liter 115 E-tec V-4. Been there, done that.
swist posted 05-20-2013 03:58 PM ET (US)
Well there you have it. Conclusive proof that one Mercury horsepower is more powerful than one non-Mercury horsepower.

L H G posted 05-20-2013 04:46 PM ET (US)
No, it's not conclusive at all. My engine is an old, smokey, carbureted, fuel eating, polluting, harsh, noisy, No-Star 2-stroke, and therefore not relevant to this topic. The Evinrude aslo has a weight disadvantage of 75#. It could very well be the E-tec Montauk was water logged, loaded with heavy fuel tanks, coolers of beer, etc. It should have been able to completely walk away from me. Maybe he was running a CompProp against my Laser II.
Huey01 posted 05-20-2013 06:18 PM ET (US)
Hi, I have never seen a 2.0L 115HP V4 E-TEC so must be new?
pete r posted 05-20-2013 07:53 PM ET (US)
It could have been sales crap, but when I was looking for a price for the Honda 250HP I was told it had been tested as high as 270HP......
martyn1075 posted 05-23-2013 12:33 PM ET (US)
"tug of war" Ra Ra Ra! see muscles flex! Pfff please.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Constant Themes: No. 3: Mercury Horsepower is More Powerful
swist	posted 05-20-2013 10:33 AM ET (US) I have seen this topic come up in other threads. I thought it ought to have its own. Please use this thread for the topic of how all outboard engine horsepower ratings published by the manufacturers are approximately correct, except for the ones published by Mercury. It seems that a given number of Mercury horsepower contains more power than the same number for the other vendors.
sosmerc	posted 05-20-2013 10:53 AM ET (US) Not all horses are created equal. We have Chinese horses, Japanese Horses, American Horses,.....well, you get my drift :) It all depends on what horse is being used for the measurement. (more DETAILED analysis is sure to come)
Binkster	posted 05-20-2013 11:27 AM ET (US) Back in the 1950's, Mercury outboards advertised hp ratings were always less than the actual hp. This was an advertising gimmick that Carl thought up and it worked. A Mercury 25 hp KG9 could outrun easily any OMC 30 or 35. Then OMC countered that "Mercurys were fast but didn't last". This was disproved when Kiekhaefer set up a 50,000 mile endurance test run for the newly produced Mark 75 60hp, on his Lake X in Florida in '57. Back in those days there was alot on animosity between Mercury and OMC, and rumors flew with regularity. In 1961 there was a photo ad of a Mercury Mark 100 towing 35 water skiers at Cypress Gardens, which was a true photo, and another one of a Mercury mark 100 towing the Queen Mary, which was a doctored photo. Boaters were on one fence or the other, Mercury or OMC. Apparently this still exists today, although in reality the Japanese outboards may be better. rich
jimh	posted 05-20-2013 11:44 AM ET (US) There are many anecdotes about the old days and Mercury horsepower ratings, but I think they're mostly nostalgia. In modern engines there are emission ratings to meet, and you can't rally cheat on the horsepower very effectively. The influence of EPA emission regulations has tended to stop the misleading power ratings. However, it has not stopped the Mercury fans from trying to continue the tradition. They seldom miss an opportunity to suggest or imply or hint or allude that Mercury horsepower is more powerful than other horsepower.
Mambo Minnow	posted 05-20-2013 12:29 PM ET (US) It would be interesting to run performance tests on the new 3.0L Mercury 150 HP Fourstroke against the new Yamaha 2.8L 200 HP Fourstroke. Both are 4 cylinder fourstrokes. Would the higher diplacement of the Mercury outperform the extra HP and variable camshaft design of the Yamaha?
seahorse	posted 05-20-2013 01:09 PM ET (US) Since you do not want to compare apples to apples, why not just compare the new E-TEC 135 to the new Mercury 150 and see if the smaller motor can outperform the higher rated one?
Peter	posted 05-20-2013 01:13 PM ET (US) I think there should be a tug-of-war between Yamaha F150 and Mercury 150 FourStroke to see who comes in second place. I would be putting my wager money on Mercury on that one. ;)
L H G	posted 05-20-2013 02:24 PM ET (US) I know for a fact the old fashioned 1.7 liter 115 Merc L-6 "Tower" I have on my Montauk will blow the doors off a Montauk powered with a heavy 2.0 liter 115 E-tec V-4. Been there, done that.
swist	posted 05-20-2013 03:58 PM ET (US) Well there you have it. Conclusive proof that one Mercury horsepower is more powerful than one non-Mercury horsepower.
L H G	posted 05-20-2013 04:46 PM ET (US) No, it's not conclusive at all. My engine is an old, smokey, carbureted, fuel eating, polluting, harsh, noisy, No-Star 2-stroke, and therefore not relevant to this topic. The Evinrude aslo has a weight disadvantage of 75#. It could very well be the E-tec Montauk was water logged, loaded with heavy fuel tanks, coolers of beer, etc. It should have been able to completely walk away from me. Maybe he was running a CompProp against my Laser II.
Huey01	posted 05-20-2013 06:18 PM ET (US) Hi, I have never seen a 2.0L 115HP V4 E-TEC so must be new?
pete r	posted 05-20-2013 07:53 PM ET (US) It could have been sales crap, but when I was looking for a price for the Honda 250HP I was told it had been tested as high as 270HP......
martyn1075	posted 05-23-2013 12:33 PM ET (US) "tug of war" Ra Ra Ra! see muscles flex! Pfff please.