Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Yamaha vs. Mercury 60-HP 4-stroke

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Yamaha vs. Mercury 60-HP 4-stroke
Whalerdan posted 12-10-2003 12:42 PM ET (US)   Profile for Whalerdan   Send Email to Whalerdan  
I'm going to buy a new 4-stroke outboard motor this winter for my Montauk when the manufacturers double up their warranty.

Does Yamaha make the Mercury 60-HP 4-stroke? I'd rather have a Yamaha, but I can't pass up the fuel injection on the Mercury.

Moe posted 12-10-2003 12:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
The other way around. Mercury makes the powerhead for the 60HP Yamaha. I have the Merc 60HP BigFoot EFI on the 150 Sport, and that is one SWEET motor! No choke, no fast idle. Regardless of temperature, just turn the key and it's idling perfectly. No stumbling on throttle advance even when cold. Fuel mileage is good also.


Bigshot posted 12-10-2003 01:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
If warranty is your motive then go with the Suzuki 70hp. They offer a 6 year warranty and will be about 4mph faster than the 60.
Moe posted 12-10-2003 03:41 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
The Suzuki is also a 1300cc motor vs 1000cc for the Merc, so torque should be better. However, you pay for that in weight, 335 lbs for the 70 vs 248 lbs for the non-BigFoot Merc, and 264 lbs for the BigFoot. Other question is whether there's Merc rigging already in place.
jimh posted 12-10-2003 08:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Going the Mercury route seems like a good choice here. You get the advanced Mercury engine control module (ECM555) which gives you the SmartCraft Integrated Marine technology as a standard. You can get the advance gauge package if you like. You get access to the Mercury line of propellers. You get nation wide dealer network and support. And of course you get fuel injection. And it probably costs less.
lhg posted 12-10-2003 08:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
It certainly would be very interesting to see a runoff, on the same boat, between these two popular engines. The light weight of the Merc could eliminate some of the HP advantage of the Suzuki/Johnson. Then I would also like to see them compared to the popular Mercury 60 2-stroke and Yamaha 70 2-stroke.

It's too bad information like this is not readily available to the consumer. I guess that's intentional!

For owners of the new 150 Sport, does Whaler offer comparison perfromance figures on the two Merc 60 offerings?

Moe posted 12-10-2003 08:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Unfortunately, they don't, Larry. No performance data at all on the 150 Sport or 60HP from Whaler or Mercury that I've found. From previous 150 owners posts, the 2-stroke is about 1 mph faster, but the EFI 4-stroke seems to get better fuel mileage.

I agree with Jim about the availability of parts and service. I'd bet there isn't anywhere in this country you couldn't find 'em for a Merc.

Bigshot posted 12-10-2003 11:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Boating or Trailerboat did a write up a while back on the new 60 EFI merc on a classic 17 hull. It did not seem propped right and only yielded like low 30's. Mine will do 38 on any given moment and has done over 39. That 70 Suzuki has a lot of snot for a 70 much less for a 4 stroke. My 90 Yamaha only did 41.5 at its best. I bet the 60 setup correctly would probably do 35+. Whatever it does on the new 150 is about what it would do max on a 17 being they weigh about the same.
Moe posted 12-11-2003 12:02 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
If you read Nick's (Bigshot's) post, when he says "Mine will do" it may appear that he's saying his 60 EFI Merc is faster than the tested motor because it had the wrong prop. OTOH, maybe you figured out from the following text in his message, and his previous plug for the 70 HP Suzuki, that when he says "mine" he means his Suzuki, and he doesn't have a 60 HP Merc. Just trying to clarify things.

The 150 Sports, which are overall as large (square footage), and as heavy, as the classic Montauks, are getting 35-36 mph, with the higher drag BigFoot versions of the 60 EFI, and the 15" prop. The 150s are wider (and obviously shorter) which might imply they have more drag than the classic Montauks. But they also have a flatter bottom at the stern, which may offset that. I'd expect the BigFoot Merc to do about as well on the classic Montauk as on the 150. Now whether the "small foot" version would be faster on the 4-stroke is open to debate. Whaler obviously prefers the BigFoot on 4-strokes it uses.


Bigshot posted 12-11-2003 01:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
I have a 70 Evinrude/suzuki on mine. I agree with Moe that the Bigsfoot would probably be the right way to go on a 17 being they weigh over 1200lbs with engine and fuel. If running a 15' classic I do not think the bigfoot would be ideal. The Montauk with the 60 should fetch 35+ and be a good runner. To get the best performance I would run a 5-6" manual jackplate which allows you to run about 3-4" aove the hull bottom, reducing the drag of the bigfoot. My 70 has the V4 foot so therefore is equiv. to a bigfoot gearcase.
Whalerdan posted 12-11-2003 01:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for Whalerdan  Send Email to Whalerdan     

Don't worry, everyone, including me know's what Biggie has.

I wonder if the Bigfoot version would be better or worse than the standard. From what I read I think the standard version would be better as the Bigfoot, has...well... a bigger foot and thus more drag. I also understand the Bigfoot has a higher gear ratio to push higher loads, but I figure you just have to prop the standard right to push the load you want.

Danny Shaw

Whalerdan posted 12-11-2003 01:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for Whalerdan  Send Email to Whalerdan     

Also, Really don't want to deal with a jackplate.


Moe posted 12-11-2003 05:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
By the numbers, a 1.83:1 ratio turning a 12" pitch is close to the same as a 2.33:1 ratio turning a 15" pitch. But is it in the real world? I don't know why Whaler chooses the BigFoot for the small 4 strokes and not the 2 strokes, but I guess I have to have faith that there's a good reason for it... hopefully that they actually tested both.

Florida15 posted 12-12-2003 11:33 AM ET (US)     Profile for Florida15  Send Email to Florida15     
In reading these posts and others about putting the Suzuki 70 on a classic Montauk it got me to wondering. Wasn't the Montauk rated for 100 hp ? It just seems like a 60 or 70 would be underpowered. What's up with the trend of putting the smaller engines on the Montauk ?
Whalerdan posted 12-12-2003 12:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for Whalerdan  Send Email to Whalerdan     
My reason is I want fuel injection on a 4 stroke. Going that way costs a little more, and weighs a little more. A 90hp 4s is a pretty big animal on an old (1985) Montauk.....weighs a ton, and costs a ton.

The small engine will be fast enough and I want the darn thing to start everytime I turn the key! That's worth a lot in loss of performance.

Bigshot posted 12-12-2003 01:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot I stated numerous times, I was weary of only 70hp as well. I was actually going to buy a 115 Yamaha to replace my 90 Yamaha but it was a 25" shaft. The 70 is a GREAT match for the mOntauk and probably so would the 60 but I personally would do the 70. The 60 would be the ultimate on a 15' classic in my opinion. The 70 I have is roughly 2mph slower than my 90 Yamaha at WOT. It is about 3-4 mph slower than my 88 & 90 OMC's. Kicker is I NEVER drive WOT so 39 vs 42 is not an issue plus I burn 1/3 the gas of the oMC's at cruise and about 60% better than the 3cyl Yamaha. Unless you run mashed to the console, the 70 is all anyone really needs. If you do run mashed to the console, you don't want a 4 stroke anyway and you probably need a faster boat.
Moe posted 12-12-2003 02:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
I believe the Montauk was rated for 100HP back when motor ratings were taken at the crankshaft, rather than prop shaft. Weren't most of the 4 cylinder 100HP two-stroke motors derated to 90HP in recent years? What's probably more important is what motor weight the lower freeboard classic boats were handling with two-strokes, compared to the higher weight of today's four-strokes.

If we look at the 261 lbs of the Yamaha traditional two-stroke 90, the 264 lb 60HP Merc BigFoot EFI is a pretty good weight match. The 335 lb 70HP Suzuki is closer to what those who overpowered with 115HP/20" two-strokes were carrying on the Montauk transom. As Nick says, he was considering the latter anyway, so the Suzuki is if anything, about 25 lbs less than a 115.

Bigshot posted 12-12-2003 02:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Good point Moe. In 1961 I don't think they even made a 100hp yet but take a 1964 100hp Johnson "Goldenxxxx" or whatever it was called and compare it to a modern 70hp Tohatsu even and I think you will see the 100hp eat wake.
lhg posted 12-12-2003 02:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Moe - the 1973 Mercury 150HP in-line six that I ran on my 16 Nauset for ten years only weighed 290#. Those were the days!
Moe posted 12-12-2003 05:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Hey Larry... that's under the 303 lb max motor weight limit of my 150 Sport! :-) But 2.5 times the HP limit. 8-D


cyclops posted 12-12-2003 07:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for cyclops  Send Email to cyclops     
This thread is already drifting so I am going to contribute to it also.

I have an old blue Sakonnet which I am going to repower. The new motor is going to be mounted on a 5 1/2" CMC manual jackplate. All the threads and discussions I have found on the 4 strokes (60hp and 70hp) do not touch on their performance for skiing. I have kids so this is a factor in my new power decision. I would like a 4 stroke but still think I need to stay with a 90hp 2 stroke for performance sake. Any thoughts?

Bigshot posted 12-13-2003 12:20 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
wrong! ALthough they do not have the holeshot of a 2 stroke, when under load they plane just as fast as with a light load. Point being with 1 or 5 people I get the same holeshot. With a 2 stroke and 5 people you barely get on plane. Although I have not waterskied behind mine I KNOW it will pull more than my 90 yamaha could.
Moe posted 12-13-2003 01:02 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
That was one thing that surprised me. Our 150 doesn't seem any less quick to plane or significantly slower when loaded up with all our gear, even with most of that in the stern, than it is with just the two of us. It just doesn't seem to make a difference to the motor.

However, when considering pulling up two skiers, or one slalom, in the less bouyant fresh water lakes of KY, and when considering how quickly those kids can outgrow adults, I would also tend to lean toward the 90HP. But having had that boat powered both ways, Nick is much more qualified to give advice on it.

One of my concerns when investing that money would be when (not if) the carbed two-stroke would become unusable on those lakes for environmental reasons. I suspect KY would be one of the last places that would happen, but I would consider it as a factor. Those on the coast and Great Lakes probably wouldn't have to worry about it as soon.

cyclops posted 12-13-2003 09:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for cyclops  Send Email to cyclops     
Thanks for the info guys.

The Suzuki is looking better to me. My boat weighs less than a Montauk, by how much I don't know and the jackplate will help also. I was not considering the Yamaha 90 due to it's smaller size than the Mercury or Johnson. I was leaning toward the Mercury due to weight and oil tank is mounted under the cowling.

Moe - I haven't heard much discussion here about the environmental issues with carbed 2-strokes. Since all lakes in Kentucky are man made and "owned" by the Corp of Engineers or TVA I'm sure that issue will come up.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.