Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
2 vs 3 cyl 40hp Merc
|Author||Topic: 2 vs 3 cyl 40hp Merc|
posted 02-26-2003 09:47 PM ET (US)
Will soon take delivery of a new 2002 13' Sport with a 2 cylinder merc. The engine specs show both engines use the same bore and stroke, and have the same 40hp rating. The dealer says the only noticeable difference is in the idle. Anyone have experience with this boat and motor? I would rather have the 3 cyl engine, but it's a package deal, boat/motor/trailer.
posted 02-26-2003 11:11 PM ET (US)
They may use the same size pistons, but one engine has three of them and the other only two. Thus one engine has 50-percent larger displacement than the other.
It seems like an oddity that they'd make two 40-HP engines with such a large difference in displacement. I never noticed that before!
posted 02-27-2003 08:35 AM ET (US)
I have owned several of each engine and for the 13 hull would opt for the 2 cyl version because of its lighter weight and simplicity (one carb vs. 3 etc). The 3 cyl version is a killer 40hp being same engine as the 60hp and would be a bit much for the 13 with its 59 cubic inches! Both engines use lost foam casting technique for power head and have no separate heads or exhaust baffles... no head bolts... very rigid and rugged machine. I currently have a 3 cyl 40, 50 and 60hp and can state that this is a very reliable and ultra quiet engine as is the 2cyl 30/40hp... The 3 cyl 40 idles more smoothy than the 2 cyl version as stated above.. Clark.. Spruce Creek Navy
posted 02-27-2003 08:37 AM ET (US)
PS> for hole shot and load carrying (& skiing) I would opt for the 3 cyl!
posted 02-27-2003 11:41 AM ET (US)
In what sense would the 3 cyl. be a bit much (serious, not sarcastic)? I have been pondering this very issue while waiting for the snow to melt up here in the Rockies.
Does it have a lot more torque, or is so heavy it messes up the trim?
This is a serious issue for me up at this altitude. From you hole shot comment, it seems like the 3 cyl. would be a better choice for me than the 2 cyl. given the rigors of the environment at 1.5 miles above sea level.
Thoughts? and thanks for your guidance.
posted 02-27-2003 02:06 PM ET (US)
Makes me feel more secure in this purchase. I had read the same things in the merc spec's, but didn't understand it, especially the lost foam method. Having experienced a blown head gasket on a 115 Jornson, I can appreciate this one piece casting.
posted 02-27-2003 06:31 PM ET (US)
DrT, just my opinion since the 40 3cyl has 59 cubes (the 70hp Yamaha has only 51 cubic inches) so it's one torquey motor for a 40 hp... If the 2 cyl will do the job....etc etcetc.... then get 2 cyl... 3 cyl certainly would pull skiiers...etc.... Clark
posted 02-28-2003 11:25 AM ET (US)
Wow! That made my day! After reading so much of the "2 cyl. 40 Mercury isn't up to snuff,a dog " etc here on the forum ( I have one that came on a 13) I naturally had mixed feelings on throwing money away on it.But I did it and it runs great.And to hear Clark Roberts ,the master Mercury man, say they're "ok",well, it's like a ray of sunshine! Thanks...lm
posted 03-02-2003 07:04 PM ET (US)
There may be some confusion between the old 2 cylinder Mercury 35/40's and the new 2 cylinder model. The "old" one was made between (about) 1968 and 1985. I believe it truly was a dog (but so was the same OMC 2 cylinder engine of the period)! To avoid it, in 1970, I put a 4 cylinder 50 on my 13 instead. I think Clark is talking about the new 30/40.
posted 03-02-2003 07:48 PM ET (US)
Right, Larry, discussion was re: the newer engines... Clark... SCN
posted 03-04-2003 12:17 AM ET (US)
Well, thanks for the clarification anyway guys.Whether it's a fugitive from the law of averages or typical of its breed, I'll find out soon....lm
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.