posted 02-07-2014 09:45 AM ET (US)            

hopefully the plastic bags are opaque. ;-)

At a glance on their web site I didn't see any talk about approvals by various agencies or confirmations that the landfill industry will knowingly collect and dispose of these bags.

posted 02-10-2014 09:46 PM ET (US)            

--new propellers,

--new outboard engines, and

--new control systems

posted 02-11-2014 10:06 AM ET (US)            

--improved, second-generation AIS Class A and Class B transponders

--PC software for navigation called NaviPro ECS

--Android and Apple iOS software called Camino APP

--a frequency modulated continuous wave RADAR

--an AIS man over board (MOB) device

posted 02-18-2014 12:51 PM ET (US)            

I don't think anyone has any market share information, and particularly market share information with enough detail to be able to determine the sales of a particular model. Also, no one has any information on Brunswick's expectations for sales of that model. Judgement of the success of the product should be left to Brunswick to decide. If they thought they could sell 500 engines and ended up selling 800, it might be a success. But it seems to me that the attachment of the terms "successful" and "highly successful" are somewhat unqualified.

posted 02-18-2014 12:59 PM ET (US)            

1.) Reliable and a good street record for reliability
2.) Lightweight, affordable, reliable, simple
3.) Very easy repower, bolt and go for most applications
4.) Offers easy starting, no smoke and good economy
5.) Small and compact
6.) Easy for DIY maintenance
7.) Revolutionary QR code ;)
8.) It does what is should without issue

posted 02-18-2014 03:57 PM ET (US)            

Also, I have to question the "street record" on reliability. As I recall, within about a month of the introduction there was a very interesting video posted on YouTube showing the connecting rod of the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE sticking out through the side of the engine block. Of course, that is just an anecdotal report. There is no data about reliability.

Your second point repeats "reliability." You already mentioned that once, and I explained you have no data.

Just about all other outboard motors possess the same "bolt and go" characteristics for re-power. By that measure, all of them are therefore successful. Since this measure does not offer any discrimination, we cannot really use it as a metric for success.

Re easy-starting, no smoke, and good economy, these characteristics are shared by all modern outboards. See my comment about about not using a feature that is shared all outboards as a measure of success for one of them.

As for the "easy maintenance," it would be much easier to maintain an engine that did not need the maintenance procedures at all, even if those procedures are said to be easy. "Easy" is always relative to the skill of the owner. Again, not much of a measure of success.

Yes, the QR code. Oh my, grasping at straws.

As for "without issue," I can safely say that no outboards I know have ever reproduced themselves, so they are all without issue.

posted 02-18-2014 05:00 PM ET (US)            

I also disagree that other engines are bolt and go. You can take a 1985 150hp Mercury/Mariner and bolt/plug this new engine in its place and go with this new engine using existing controls, key switch, gauges, wiring harness. It is plug and play, no splicing of wires or running cables for electronic controls and you can even use analog gauges even though the engine is digital. You can plug in an adapter in 10 seconds and use 30 year old equipment. Not many engines can do that.

posted 02-18-2014 05:37 PM ET (US)            

It might be better to look at some data given by Mercury to investors for some sort of evidence about the success of the engine. When Mercury makes public statements to its investors about its products, it will very likely be putting the most positive spin possible on the information, but they will have to stick to the facts (unless they are going to commit a fraud). If you want to declare the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE to be highly successful, it would be best to quote Dustin McCoy or some other Brunswick executive to make your point.

posted 02-18-2014 05:42 PM ET (US)            

Please give us metrics in which to judge if an outboard engine is successful given the fact that we will never know any numbers on sales/market share or warranty claims.

Having the company that builds it saying that it is successful is not enough in my humble opinion.

posted 02-18-2014 05:46 PM ET (US)            

(whaler content): I guess my one disappointment with the vehicle is that I cannot tow my Outrage with it. Oh well...

Back to Jim and Robert.

Dennis

posted 02-18-2014 09:55 PM ET (US)            

The Tesla is another one of those fire traps as well, although I'm not sure of the circumstances. In the case of the Volt, the fires occurred during National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) crash testing in 2011. GM has applied a fix, and the NHTSA has closed the investigation. The Volt received NHTSA 5-star rating in 10 of 12 categories, and 4-star in the remaining 2. Another rating agency, the IIHS, gave the Volt its highest mark in all but 1 of their 21 categories.

I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on this one (unless I can take you for a test drive :), and move back to a topic where we are more aligned: Whalers are great.

Peace.
Dennis

posted 02-18-2014 10:55 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

So according to Jimh's logic, no outboard engine can be or should be called successful or highly successful.

---

OMCrobert--you have an amazing ability to invent things and attribute them to other people, then apply your own logic, which you then attribute to others.

As I pointed out, you will have to ask the manufacturer if their outboard engine product was successful. They can tell you how many they sold, what market share they obtained, and how much profit they made. That was my recommendation. You seem to have ignored it completely.

Next, you add your view, expressed earlier, that you cannot trust any manufacturer to tell you the real information, and decide that the success can never be known. That is your theory, not mine.

I explained that I cannot say if the Mercury 150-HP FOURSTROKE was "highly successful" because I have to data about its sales. If I had the data, I could tell you if it was successful.

posted 02-18-2014 11:15 PM ET (US)            

Since this information is not public knowledge and no one here knows it, I think it is logical to determine that by your standards, we can never call an outboard engine successful. I think any reasonable person will come to the same conclusion based upon your statements.

Also the following statement makes me laugh.

"As I pointed out, you will have to ask the manufacturer if their outboard engine product was successful." - Jimh

posted 02-19-2014 01:59 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

suc·cess·ful adjective \-fəl\

: having the correct or desired result : ending in success

: having gotten or achieved wealth, respect, or fame

---

Since, achieving wealth, respect or fame as a product (and not human) is impossible, we have only the first offering to apply. This being the case, all outboard engines should be considered a success if they are sold and generate something to the bottom-line of the corporation: ...desired result: ending in success.

To state a product as highly successful, the success can ONLY be attributed to the corporation, designers or engineers as it surpassed their expectations, profits, reliability, etc. Any other use attributed to the product is simply benign marketing speak that truly has no significance whatsoever.

Madison Avenue has used terms like this forever - regardless of what it means: as long as it sounds good!

posted 02-19-2014 02:13 PM ET (US)            

* from memory, don't have time to look it up.

posted 02-20-2014 07:57 AM ET (US)            

First, Mercury's product launch hype was all about low output. Their hype was and still is that this motor has large displacement but only puts out 150 HP such that the motor isn't "working" hard so it should be very durable. In other words it's overbuilt. To come out with more HP on this block would be contrary to the central advertising theme.

Second, the motor only being out a year or so doesn't have much of a track record yet. I have seen them at boat shows but I have yet to actually see one running on a consumer's boat in my area. So to squeeze more out of it, if they can, might be risky to the durability theme they trying to support to get product acceptance in the marketplace.

They may do it some day, but I think it is too soon.

posted 02-20-2014 05:35 PM ET (US)         

There was a 39' Contender (I think) with three of them mounted on the stern.

posted 02-20-2014 09:37 PM ET (US)            

Expanding the engine block of the 150-HP model into lower power models is possible for perhaps an engine in the 115-HP to 125-HP range. The present model 115-HP has only 1.7-liter displacement. That means it is making 67.6-HP/liter. That is quite distinct from the other engines in the series. The 150-HP with 3-liters is only making 50-HP/liter. If they made a 3.0-liter 125 it would be making 42-HP/Liter. That is about the same ratio as the present Mercury 75-HP FOURSTROKE, a 1.7-liter engine, which makes 44-HP/Liter.

posted 02-21-2014 08:49 AM ET (US)            

This Wiki article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline-four_engine suggest that the practical limit for a 4-cylinder is 2.7L.

If that article is correct (it is a Wiki article after all and of course everything on the Internet is true and factually correct), I don't think there is any chance that the 3.0L 4-cylinder, 4-stroke Mercury 150 will be bored out or "stroked" to make a 3.3L 4-cylinder, 4-stroke 175 HP low output outboard.

posted 02-21-2014 09:27 AM ET (US)            

It is difficult to boost HP to any serious degree without increasing displacement if an engine is normally aspirated unless the original version was intentionally built in a derated configuration with the intention of increasing the HP output in later versions.

Compression increases are a tried and true method of obtaining inexpensive additional HP. Lightening of flywheels and reduction of parasitic loads such as alternators are other low cost HP enhancing methods. Improved ignition can be useful and easy though most if not all recent engines are probably built with very refined ignition systems. Crankcase windage improvements can add very modest improvements. Beyond that, HP increasing modification become more expensive. Enhanced fuel delivery and combustion air intake and exhaust modifications and reciprocating component lightening can add significantly to increased HP output but the cost is much higher. RPM can be increased but the practical limit of reciprocating race engine is probably less than 10,000 today.

posted 02-21-2014 10:31 AM ET (US)            

They standardized the product components and used the same systems.

V4 2.0 liter
V6 3.0 liter
V8 4.0 liter

Built upon the same platform but added or subtracted cylinders to expand the line up and horsepower range. This is a much better method in my opinion because it allows for standard parts and simplification of the systems. This can be traced back further to the concept of the 71 series with Detroit Diesel as well.

posted 02-21-2014 11:23 AM ET (US)            

Just add 2 more cylinders to the 3.0L 150 hp to make a 4.5L block. That would be a super easy and super economical 225 hp without any extra tweaking. Perhaps 250 hp or more with variable camshafts. Even more with some performance work or even a supercharger !