BOATING Magazine: Cost of Outboard Operation

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  BOATING Magazine: Cost of Outboard Operation

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   BOATING Magazine: Cost of Outboard Operation

jimh posted 09-26-2013 07:42 AM ET (US)
BOATING magazine recently published an article in their October 2013 issue, page 74, in which they estimated the cost of operating a number of modern 150-HP outboard engines for 300-hours. They included the cost of fuel, oil, and recommended maintenance procedures. Their study found the cost of operating the following 150-HP outboard engines was (rounded to the nearest dollar):
$6,088 Evinrude E-TEC 150
$6,325 Suzuki DF150
$6,363 Mercury 150 FOURSTROKE VERADO
$6,414 Yamaha F150
$6,427 Honda BF150
For the E-TEC, the study allotted about $600 for two-stroke-cycle lubricating oil, which they estimated at a 1:70 ratio.
The manufacturer's maintenance schedule was used to determine what maintenance was needed. For labor, a rate of $100/hour was used. For maintenance procedures, an oil change was calculated as one hour, a gear case lubricant change as a quarter hour, and a water pump change and related inspections as three hours. Valve inspections and adjustments were calculated as three hours of labor.
Fuel costs were calculated by using published reports of the engine's fuel consumption on similar boats, and then using those data to operate the engine for 300-hours following the ICOMIA operating schedule.
The study did not attempt to include any winterization procedures or their costs.
The outcome of the study suggests that the variation in operating cost among modern outboard engines is not great. The total variation of cost in the study is $339. The costs vary by only about plus or minus 2.5-percent from the average operating cost. So one can reasonably say that the cost of operating any modern outboard engine is probably about the same, with a variation of only two or three percent, according to this study.
I am sure there are some who will quibble about the methodology or about the two or three percent difference, but, for me, the study shows that a buyer of a modern outboard engine is unlikely to escape any significant cost of ownership, including fuel, by selecting a particular model of outboard.
OMCrobert posted 09-26-2013 09:06 AM ET (US)
[Deleted this article because it changed the topic and made confusing claims about what maintenance was needed. Please consult the manufacturer's literature of the individual engines to learn the recommended maintenance procedures for each engine--jimh]
Peter posted 09-26-2013 09:58 AM ET (US)
I have previously owned Evinrude Ficht DFI outboards and now Yamaha HPDI outboards. I can tell you from first hand experience that the maintenance required on the Yamaha requires greater effort and cost than the Evinrude Ficht DFI. The E-TEC requires less maintenance than the Ficht.
L H G posted 09-26-2013 01:13 PM ET (US)
[Redacted article to delete sidebar discussion--jimh]
I do trust the results. Anybody worried about $300 (5%) additional operating cost on a Honda 150 can't afford to own one, or the boat it goes on, anyway.
jimh posted 09-26-2013 04:33 PM ET (US)
In the methodology used here by BOATING I do not see too much room for fudging the results. The most subjective parameter is the fuel used. Since the fuel used rates are based on published tests in which the fuel flow rate at various throttle settings is used, there should be reasonable isolation of the fuel flow data from effects of boat and propeller. When an engine runs at a certain speed under normal loads, it burns a certain amount of fuel. That was the data used, not the boat speed or boat MPG which are influenced by the hull and propeller. On that basis it seems like the estimated fuel used would be reasonably accurate.
By the way, the engine that BOATING estimated would use the most fuel was the Mercury VERADO. The estimates for the fuel used to run 300-hours at the ICOMIA speeds is as follows
$5,156 Mercury FOURSTROKE VERADO
$4,835 Evinrude E-TEC
$4,826 Yamaha F150
$4,823 Honda BF150
$4,627 Suzuki DF150
As I mentioned, the E-TEC had an additional $604 tacked on for oil costs, a penalty inherent it its two-cycle nature.
In the test data the Mercury engine is only identified as a 150-HP FOURSTROKE, but in the illustration above the table containing the data, a VERADO four-cylinder engine is shown. It is on that basis--and only on that basis--that I presume the engine tested was the VERADO. With Mercury using their rather nondistinctive model identifier "FOURSTROKE" it does raise some doubt about which engine was used in the comparison.
With Mercury coming in as the least economical (on the cost of gasoline fuel) engine to run, I am sure this is going to cause a massive reality distortion field to be generated in suburban Chicago.
Peter posted 09-27-2013 10:54 AM ET (US)
Isn't there already a massive reality distortion field covering Chicago and its suburbs. ;)
pcrussell50 posted 09-27-2013 11:54 AM ET (US)
With such a small differential in operating costs it could take the remainder of an adult's lifetime to recoup the 50% difference in purchase price between say an Optimax 150 Pro XS (not tested here), and an E-TEC 150 HO. And even that presupposes both heavy use and a willingness to own it for the long haul... The latter of which is something many people who can afford expensive gear generally aren't inclined towards.
-Peter
Marko888 posted 09-27-2013 12:37 PM ET (US)
I'm disappointed Boating was not more clear on which Mercury 150 was tested. The non-Verado 150 Fourstroke requires no valve adjustments, ever, which suggests the non-Verado 150 Fourstroke may be the most economical 150 to own and operate (as per the parameters used for this comparison)
tjxtreme posted 09-27-2013 01:05 PM ET (US)
What about repair (i.e. non-maintenance) costs?
Certainly reliability is a driving factor in why people buy certain brands (perceived or not)
Does this study address reliability (unforeseen expenses) or just standard maintenance, as if parts never break?
jcdawg83 posted 09-27-2013 04:12 PM ET (US)
I would think it would have to assume no parts ever break or any repairs needed. That variable would be almost impossible to accurately calculate.
jimh posted 09-28-2013 10:20 AM ET (US)
Marko888 suggests the test results indicate that the

quote:
...non-Verado 150 Fourstroke may be the most economical 150 to own and operate....
The test may very well have been testing the 150-HP FOURSTROKE not VERADO, as it is really not clear, other than the illustration used, which engine was tested. However, even assuming the tested engine was the VERADO, I do not quite see how the test then demonstrates something about an engine that was not tested. At best, that is just an inference, and perhaps not a very solid inference.
As I said before, the test used a wide variety of 150-HP modern outboard engines and it seems to show that among those modern outboard engines, there will not be a significant difference in the cost to operate them for 300-hours.
This outcome seems to refute a great deal of the promotion or advertising used by some of the brands. Some of the brands employ advertising or promotion which makes claims that their engine provides better fuel economy than competitors' engine.
The BOATING tests seem to refute these claims. In fact, the BOATING tests show results that are just about completely opposite of the manufacturer's claims. In general, Mercury seems to be the manufacturer that is most often making claims of improved fuel economy compared to competitors' engines, and in the BOATING test we see the Mercury engine has the highest cost for fuel, when the total range of operating speeds used by the ICOMIA model is employed as the basis for calculating fuel costs.
This really does not come as a surprise to me. I have seen myself, first-hand, how at certain speeds when making a comparison between my boat and another boat, there is a slight advantage in MPG for the other boat. But, when compared over a long term, when the boats operate at a range of speeds, it was found that my boat used less fuel than the other boat. This tells me if you cherry pick a few data points, you can make claims of an advantage in fuel economy, but when you consider the overall range of operating speeds for the typical use of a boat, the differences in fuel economy become less, and the results sometimes, as we see in the BOATING data, become completely different.
boatdryver posted 09-28-2013 05:48 PM ET (US)
Jim, thanks for posting this information. I think its very helpful to anyone considering re-powering with a 150 HP outboard motor.
I agree with your statement that the cost differences are not significant for 300 hours unless you are someone who puts 300 hours a month on your motor.
It suggests that one can make a choice based on other attributes, such as perceived quality of dealer support, perceived reliability, weight, appearance, exhaust smell, noise, transition to plane, etc
JimL
jimh posted 09-29-2013 09:34 AM ET (US)
Regarding the tested engines and their frequency of repair or mean time before failure, I do not see any possible method of drawing an inference from this BOATING article about repairs. I do not believe that BOATING actually conducted any sort of testing of these outboard engines. The author just, quite cleverly, used the required maintenance schedules of the manufacturers to develop a cost of maintenance and used published test reports to develop a rate of fuel consumption according to the ICOMIA model. The author of the article did not, as far as I can tell, actually run or test or operate any of the outboard engines.
It is difficult to make any sort of inference about rate of repair or frequency of failure of outboard engine by reading random and anecdotal reports of problems by individual owners, unless there is some sort of repeated, widespread, and chronic problem reported. If many independent reports of a problem are reported by owners, there is probably a good chance there is some sort of inherent problem or defect. Also, sometimes, say when a manufacturer introduces a replacement component with upgraded specifications, one can draw an inference that the original component must have been failing in the field at an usually high rate. But interpretation of anecdotal reports is usually subject to a considerable bias, depending on who is doing the interpretation.

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: BOATING Magazine: Cost of Outboard Operation
jimh	posted 09-26-2013 07:42 AM ET (US) BOATING magazine recently published an article in their October 2013 issue, page 74, in which they estimated the cost of operating a number of modern 150-HP outboard engines for 300-hours. They included the cost of fuel, oil, and recommended maintenance procedures. Their study found the cost of operating the following 150-HP outboard engines was (rounded to the nearest dollar): $6,088 Evinrude E-TEC 150 $6,325 Suzuki DF150 $6,363 Mercury 150 FOURSTROKE VERADO $6,414 Yamaha F150 $6,427 Honda BF150 For the E-TEC, the study allotted about $600 for two-stroke-cycle lubricating oil, which they estimated at a 1:70 ratio. The manufacturer's maintenance schedule was used to determine what maintenance was needed. For labor, a rate of $100/hour was used. For maintenance procedures, an oil change was calculated as one hour, a gear case lubricant change as a quarter hour, and a water pump change and related inspections as three hours. Valve inspections and adjustments were calculated as three hours of labor. Fuel costs were calculated by using published reports of the engine's fuel consumption on similar boats, and then using those data to operate the engine for 300-hours following the ICOMIA operating schedule. The study did not attempt to include any winterization procedures or their costs. The outcome of the study suggests that the variation in operating cost among modern outboard engines is not great. The total variation of cost in the study is $339. The costs vary by only about plus or minus 2.5-percent from the average operating cost. So one can reasonably say that the cost of operating any modern outboard engine is probably about the same, with a variation of only two or three percent, according to this study. I am sure there are some who will quibble about the methodology or about the two or three percent difference, but, for me, the study shows that a buyer of a modern outboard engine is unlikely to escape any significant cost of ownership, including fuel, by selecting a particular model of outboard.
OMCrobert	posted 09-26-2013 09:06 AM ET (US) [Deleted this article because it changed the topic and made confusing claims about what maintenance was needed. Please consult the manufacturer's literature of the individual engines to learn the recommended maintenance procedures for each engine--jimh]
Peter	posted 09-26-2013 09:58 AM ET (US) I have previously owned Evinrude Ficht DFI outboards and now Yamaha HPDI outboards. I can tell you from first hand experience that the maintenance required on the Yamaha requires greater effort and cost than the Evinrude Ficht DFI. The E-TEC requires less maintenance than the Ficht.
L H G	posted 09-26-2013 01:13 PM ET (US) [Redacted article to delete sidebar discussion--jimh] I do trust the results. Anybody worried about $300 (5%) additional operating cost on a Honda 150 can't afford to own one, or the boat it goes on, anyway.
jimh	posted 09-26-2013 04:33 PM ET (US) In the methodology used here by BOATING I do not see too much room for fudging the results. The most subjective parameter is the fuel used. Since the fuel used rates are based on published tests in which the fuel flow rate at various throttle settings is used, there should be reasonable isolation of the fuel flow data from effects of boat and propeller. When an engine runs at a certain speed under normal loads, it burns a certain amount of fuel. That was the data used, not the boat speed or boat MPG which are influenced by the hull and propeller. On that basis it seems like the estimated fuel used would be reasonably accurate. By the way, the engine that BOATING estimated would use the most fuel was the Mercury VERADO. The estimates for the fuel used to run 300-hours at the ICOMIA speeds is as follows $5,156 Mercury FOURSTROKE VERADO $4,835 Evinrude E-TEC $4,826 Yamaha F150 $4,823 Honda BF150 $4,627 Suzuki DF150 As I mentioned, the E-TEC had an additional $604 tacked on for oil costs, a penalty inherent it its two-cycle nature. In the test data the Mercury engine is only identified as a 150-HP FOURSTROKE, but in the illustration above the table containing the data, a VERADO four-cylinder engine is shown. It is on that basis--and only on that basis--that I presume the engine tested was the VERADO. With Mercury using their rather nondistinctive model identifier "FOURSTROKE" it does raise some doubt about which engine was used in the comparison. With Mercury coming in as the least economical (on the cost of gasoline fuel) engine to run, I am sure this is going to cause a massive reality distortion field to be generated in suburban Chicago.
Peter	posted 09-27-2013 10:54 AM ET (US) Isn't there already a massive reality distortion field covering Chicago and its suburbs. ;)
pcrussell50	posted 09-27-2013 11:54 AM ET (US) With such a small differential in operating costs it could take the remainder of an adult's lifetime to recoup the 50% difference in purchase price between say an Optimax 150 Pro XS (not tested here), and an E-TEC 150 HO. And even that presupposes both heavy use and a willingness to own it for the long haul... The latter of which is something many people who can afford expensive gear generally aren't inclined towards. -Peter
Marko888	posted 09-27-2013 12:37 PM ET (US) I'm disappointed Boating was not more clear on which Mercury 150 was tested. The non-Verado 150 Fourstroke requires no valve adjustments, ever, which suggests the non-Verado 150 Fourstroke may be the most economical 150 to own and operate (as per the parameters used for this comparison)
tjxtreme	posted 09-27-2013 01:05 PM ET (US) What about repair (i.e. non-maintenance) costs? Certainly reliability is a driving factor in why people buy certain brands (perceived or not) Does this study address reliability (unforeseen expenses) or just standard maintenance, as if parts never break?
jcdawg83	posted 09-27-2013 04:12 PM ET (US) I would think it would have to assume no parts ever break or any repairs needed. That variable would be almost impossible to accurately calculate.
jimh	posted 09-28-2013 10:20 AM ET (US) Marko888 suggests the test results indicate that the quote: ...non-Verado 150 Fourstroke may be the most economical 150 to own and operate.... The test may very well have been testing the 150-HP FOURSTROKE not VERADO, as it is really not clear, other than the illustration used, which engine was tested. However, even assuming the tested engine was the VERADO, I do not quite see how the test then demonstrates something about an engine that was not tested. At best, that is just an inference, and perhaps not a very solid inference. As I said before, the test used a wide variety of 150-HP modern outboard engines and it seems to show that among those modern outboard engines, there will not be a significant difference in the cost to operate them for 300-hours. This outcome seems to refute a great deal of the promotion or advertising used by some of the brands. Some of the brands employ advertising or promotion which makes claims that their engine provides better fuel economy than competitors' engine. The BOATING tests seem to refute these claims. In fact, the BOATING tests show results that are just about completely opposite of the manufacturer's claims. In general, Mercury seems to be the manufacturer that is most often making claims of improved fuel economy compared to competitors' engines, and in the BOATING test we see the Mercury engine has the highest cost for fuel, when the total range of operating speeds used by the ICOMIA model is employed as the basis for calculating fuel costs. This really does not come as a surprise to me. I have seen myself, first-hand, how at certain speeds when making a comparison between my boat and another boat, there is a slight advantage in MPG for the other boat. But, when compared over a long term, when the boats operate at a range of speeds, it was found that my boat used less fuel than the other boat. This tells me if you cherry pick a few data points, you can make claims of an advantage in fuel economy, but when you consider the overall range of operating speeds for the typical use of a boat, the differences in fuel economy become less, and the results sometimes, as we see in the BOATING data, become completely different.
boatdryver	posted 09-28-2013 05:48 PM ET (US) Jim, thanks for posting this information. I think its very helpful to anyone considering re-powering with a 150 HP outboard motor. I agree with your statement that the cost differences are not significant for 300 hours unless you are someone who puts 300 hours a month on your motor. It suggests that one can make a choice based on other attributes, such as perceived quality of dealer support, perceived reliability, weight, appearance, exhaust smell, noise, transition to plane, etc JimL
jimh	posted 09-29-2013 09:34 AM ET (US) Regarding the tested engines and their frequency of repair or mean time before failure, I do not see any possible method of drawing an inference from this BOATING article about repairs. I do not believe that BOATING actually conducted any sort of testing of these outboard engines. The author just, quite cleverly, used the required maintenance schedules of the manufacturers to develop a cost of maintenance and used published test reports to develop a rate of fuel consumption according to the ICOMIA model. The author of the article did not, as far as I can tell, actually run or test or operate any of the outboard engines. It is difficult to make any sort of inference about rate of repair or frequency of failure of outboard engine by reading random and anecdotal reports of problems by individual owners, unless there is some sort of repeated, widespread, and chronic problem reported. If many independent reports of a problem are reported by owners, there is probably a good chance there is some sort of inherent problem or defect. Also, sometimes, say when a manufacturer introduces a replacement component with upgraded specifications, one can draw an inference that the original component must have been failing in the field at an usually high rate. But interpretation of anecdotal reports is usually subject to a considerable bias, depending on who is doing the interpretation.