Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
New Yamaha F150 specs.
|Author||Topic: New Yamaha F150 specs.|
posted 07-31-2003 07:55 PM ET (US)
Just in case any of you are interested, I just received the spec sheet for the new F150 four stroke from my Yamaha dealer today. There is a total of 13 pages (including charts, graphs and motor comparisons) but here's all the basic dope:
in-line 4 cyl
posted 07-31-2003 09:25 PM ET (US)
There is a short review in Trailer Boats Magazine...B
|Jamie 20 outrage||
posted 07-31-2003 09:57 PM ET (US)
Rjgorion, thanks for the specs, I know that you are buying one and hope you keep us informed as to its dependability and things to watch for. good luck!!!
posted 07-31-2003 10:59 PM ET (US)
Thanks Jamie, I will keep you posted as this project progresses. The motor should be here in August sometime and after it is installed, I'll give you the performance results the best that I can. I'm looking forward to getting it. Thanks again,
posted 07-31-2003 11:11 PM ET (US)
The block sounds like it has more potential than 150 HP out of those 163 cubes- probably will make 175 with some tweaking. Johnzuki gets 140 hp out of about 130 cubes.
posted 08-01-2003 12:47 AM ET (US)
That's right. Mercury is about to release a 4-stroke that gets 250 HP out of 163 cubes (about 2.6 liters), but uses 6 cylinders instead.
The weight on the new Yamaha 150 sounds quite attractive.
posted 08-01-2003 01:12 AM ET (US)
250 HP out of 163 cubes means they'll be subjecting that poor motor to a lot of pressure- probably in excess of 15 lbs of intake pressure. I'd be curious to see the longevity of a smaller blown motor in marine use. I saw a lot of cigarette boats with big block 502's set up with blowers puke at my marina.
posted 08-01-2003 02:46 PM ET (US)
How does this relate to the 750-1000lbs of pressure in the Yamaha HPDI system? Or are we talking different things here?
posted 08-01-2003 03:13 PM ET (US)
I believe that acseatsri was referring to the pressure in the inlet system. The Mercury is either turbocharged or supercharged. The pressure acseatsri talks about is above atmospheric and helps a smaller engine ingest air (and fuel) like a larger engine. This in turn allows it to produce more power than a normally aspirated (non pressurized) motor. 15 pounds is about average for many automotive applications. The longevity reduction that acseatsri speaks to (engines puking) is usually the result of excessive heat. Marine engines are notorious for their demands, WOT for very long extended runs, loading and unloading due to the props breaking clear of the water etc. With modern engine management systems, some of this can be managed, especially the heat issues. I wonder how tall the engine will be relative to the current V6 models? These are exciting times for boat motor fans.
posted 08-01-2003 03:17 PM ET (US)
The Yamaha pressure that lhg mentions is the pressure of the fuel in the fuel rails. As I remember HPDI is High-Pressure-Direct-Injection. The fuel is injected directly into or as close as practical to directly into the combustion chamber. And the HPDI I thought was only for the 2-cycle motors. Of course I could be wrong.
posted 08-01-2003 03:22 PM ET (US)
Well....kinda. I am not sure of the pressure but my VW Jetta is a direct injected turbo diesel that is very much like a ficht.
Cars max at say 13-17psi in high perf models. I could not see one running WOT and getting any kind of longevity out of it. Then again running ANY 4 stroke WOT will not last long.
posted 08-01-2003 03:42 PM ET (US)
Some of the turbo diesel VW's have fuel injection pressure in excess of 3,000 psi. That is not a typo. Unless my source is way off.
(Per my source, the VW Factory service manual for the ALH Turbo Diesel). This engine is used in the Turbo Beetle.
posted 08-01-2003 04:20 PM ET (US)
Suburbanboy is correct, the pressure I was referring to was in the air intake manifold, either supercharging (mechanically-generated air pressure which consumes horsepower as well as generates it) or turbo-charging (exhaust-gas generated pressure which needs higher rpm to generate) and not that pressure which is used to atomize the fuel so it can be burned efficiently. Either option laps out engines out pretty quickly through both heat and pressure. It's one of the reasons a high-performance diesel engine (usually both turbo and supercharged) needs to be rebuilt in as few as 1000 hours, whereas normally-aspirated diesels will sometimes go 30,000 hours between rebuilds. Keep in mind a diesel is really running on oil, versus a gas engine is really running on solvent, to compare how each would fare respectively. Caterpillar explained that the rebuild frequency was really a product of the amount of fuel consumed.
My guess would be that the 163 cubes/250-hp configuration engine is probably aimed at the racing market- I have serious doubts that they could make a lightweight engine like this withstand even moderate marine usage.
posted 08-05-2003 07:55 PM ET (US)
Anybody interested in knowing how an F150 might perform on an 18 Outrage or a 19 Outrage II should take a look at Yamana's performance report for the Edgewater Sentinal 18. See http://www.yamaha-motor.com/products/otb/perfbull/marinepdfs/edgewater/bulletin_otb_4StrokePerf_HPV6I4_150hp_03-16-EDG-C_F150.pdf . The Sentinal 18 is the commercial version of the Edgewater 185, a hull that resembles the 18 Outrage.
According to the data, the F150 will achieve over 5 mpg at a decent cruising speed of 26.5 mph providing a theoretical range of over 250 miles on its 54 gallon tank. Top speed is over 47 mph (seems to evidence a true 150 hp).
Assuming the F150 would give the same performance on an 18 Outrage, it's 63 gallon tank would yield a theoretical range of over 300 miles at cruise. That's pretty impressive in my book.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.