Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
115 Optimax is here
|Author||Topic: 115 Optimax is here|
posted 03-07-2003 05:17 PM ET (US)
I am going to run the pants off my carb 115 this summer so I can rationalize the purchase of this new bad boy. I dont even want to wait for others to get the bugs out of this new engine. I will volunteer myself to be the consumer ginny-pig. This motor was made for the Montauk. http://www.mercurymarine.com/mercury_115_optimax
posted 03-07-2003 05:26 PM ET (US)
At 375 lbs. dry weight, no thanks, not on my Montauk.
posted 03-07-2003 05:38 PM ET (US)
Interesting. Its a inline 3 with the bore and stroke of a 3 Liter V6. It's not listed as a Saltwater model.
posted 03-07-2003 05:48 PM ET (US)
With 3 cylinders, and 1.5 liters, these engines would have to be half of the famous 3.0 liter block being used to power the 225-300 EFI's and 200-250 Opti's. Mercury has done this before, with the 75-90 2-strokes being half of the 2.5 liter V-6's.
I'll bet the new 170 Montauk will get an upgraded HP rating to handle this engine!
But I think that at 376 lbs, they're a bit heavy, not so much in 115 rating, but in the 75 & 90 ratings. My 1989 200 HP V-6's weighed 375 lbs!
I have a hunch that 2005 is going to be a HUGE year in conventional 2-strokes for Mercury, as people load up on these before production ceases. All this new 2 & 4 stroke technolgoy just doesn't seem to be able to beat the weight problem over 60/70 HP.
Regarding Mercury's new 2.6 liter in-line-6 4-stroke, at 250 HP, I just heard that the reason for the big mid-section is because that is where the bottom two cylinders are! They are not within the upper so-called powerhead portion of the cowling.
posted 03-08-2003 11:12 AM ET (US)
It is probably not a coincidence that the 3-cylinder block is the same bore and stroke as the 6-cylinder. Mercury is revising their engine designs to consolidate the parts used The goal is to have a very high percentage of common parts among their engines, perhaps as high as 95-percent in some cases.
posted 03-08-2003 07:42 PM ET (US)
I think that 375 pounds is pretty good for a 115 being that the 4 stroke 75 to 115 Merc weigh in at 386. The classic 115 that I have weighs roughly 350 pounds. I think a Saltwater version will be out soon enough once they get some production up on this new line of motors. Maybe I am jupping on the wagon too soon and it is not that big of a deal but I am a little excited about the 115's uses.
posted 03-10-2003 10:27 AM ET (US)
375 is OK. My 70hp with the jackplate and SS prop weighs in about that and she sits fine in the water. To give an idea, the splash well's little "wells" in front of each plug hole fill up with water at rest but just the "wells".
posted 03-15-2003 09:37 PM ET (US)
The 115 Opti also sounds like THE ENGINE for a performance Montauk. But I still have a couple of concerns. It is almost the same weight as the 115 4-stroke (8 lbs). So except for the low end torque what do you think would be the advantages since you would be dealing with external engine oil again with the 2-stroke technology. Another point is that even though the Opti is 3-star EPA rated, several lakes in Calif. only permit 4-strokes. What do all of you think?
posted 03-15-2003 10:08 PM ET (US)
It will be very interesting to see a comparison between the 115hp Opti with 3 cylinders at 93 cu in and 375 lb, the 115 4 stroke with 4 cylinders at 106 cu in and 386 lb and the 115 carb version with 4 cylinders at 113 cu in and 348 lb. They all seem to have the same lower unit with the 2.07 to 1 gear ratio. Perhaps Trailer Boats will run a 3 way test on the same boat.
posted 03-17-2003 05:31 PM ET (US)
My guess is that the new Optimax will blow them away. It is 3 of the 6 cylinders of the 3.0 liter 225-250-300HP EFI/Optimax engines, the fastest engine Mercury has ever made. Time will tell.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.