Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Fuel Consumption 90-HP Four-strokes: Mercury vs Suzuki
|Author||Topic: Fuel Consumption 90-HP Four-strokes: Mercury vs Suzuki|
posted 07-31-2004 02:28 PM ET (US)
Boat 1: Montauk 170 with Mercury 90 4-stroke 2003
Prop: Trophy Plus 13,75 x 19
Crusing at 3500-4000 rpm (1 person)
Fuel consumption: 37 litres or 10.3 gallon
Boat 2: Montauk 170 with Suzuki 90 4-stroke 2001
The Suzuki has a better hole shot and the same top speed. Also it's a much smoother engine and has more torque compared to the Mercury.
The new Mercury 90 4-stroke (2005) has fuel injection (same as the 90 Suzuki). Is this new engine the same displacement (1600cc engine) or is it a 115 (1740cc) engine?
Is the fuel comsumption dropping with this new engine?
posted 07-31-2004 07:19 PM ET (US)
posted 07-31-2004 08:45 PM ET (US)
How reliable are those fuel consumption measurements?
It is hard to believe that two four-stroke engines of identical horsepower operating identical boats at identical speeds could exhibit such a range of fuel consumption. The one running at 15-percent more throttle (4000 vs 3500) produces fuel consumption that is 38-percent lower! And it has twice as many passengers!
This is an amazing outcome. Even compared to conventional high-emission two-strokes, outboard manufacturers only claim a 40-percent improvement. Here is a 40-percent difference just between brands of modern four-stroke engines. If these astonishing figures are true, the Suzuki marketing people must be idiots not to publish these numbers in all of their advertisements.
I can say this, if Mercury had this miracle motor, you'd have heard about it already!
posted 08-01-2004 03:50 AM ET (US)
I'm assuming that you are comparing the fuel consumption of the 2 boats under the same circumstances. Meaning running the same distance on the same waters at the same time. No?
When I am boating in the "Oude Maas" or "Het Spui" in Holland I use about 40% more fuel running against the strong current compared to running with the current. I therefore always check the tide tables and calculate the best time to run these waters.
I can imagine that there is a slight difference between the 90-hp 4-stroke (carb) Mercury and the fuel injected 90-hp 4-stroke Suzuki but your results are, to say the least, surprising.
I'm just curious here, but what happened to the Mercury motor on the second 170 Montauk? Is it a Dutch boat? Was the Mercury exchanged for the Suzuki and if so where was is done? I haven't heard of any Dutch 170's that have been "dealer delivered" with any other motor than a Mercury.
I also saw that the Suzuki motor was a 2001 model. Is the 170 Montauk with this motor also a 2001 model because this would mean that it is the older Montauk model?
posted 08-01-2004 06:53 AM ET (US)
Sorry Erik, youre right: Boat 2 is a 17 Montauk and has
less weight comparing the Montauk 170.
But the difference in fuel comsumption is a lot! Boat 2 is
a boat from Germany. The circumstances are the same on this trip. (namelijk de waddenzee,Erik)
I try another prop this week (laser II 13,25 x 20)
The Trophy plus prop. is a four-blade and the laser II is a tree blade prop. The Trophy plus is (i think)to heavy prop.for this engine.
My cousin has a Wahoo 1750 offshore with also a 90 Suzuki
4-stroke. His fuel consumption is also about 30% less than the Mercury 90 4-stroke.
I hope the new four-stroke 90 EFI from mercury is the same as the 115 with the same weight and a better fuel and consumption!!
Next week i compare the fuel consumption with this new prop.
posted 08-14-2004 01:28 PM ET (US)
New results with the Laser II prop.
The fuel comsumption dropped a little comparing the 4 bladed Trophy plus and the laser II (13,25 x 20)
Boat 1: Montauk 170 with Laser II,1 person and 1 tank (6 gallon) of fuel.
Boat 2: Wahoo offshore 1750 90 suzuki 4-stroke (weight boat ± 450 kg)) with
Boat 1: max rpm 5700, top speed 44,1 mph. Fuel comsumption
Boat 2: max rpm 5500 with alum.prop 14 x 23, top speed 42,2 mph. Fuel consumption this trip 10,6 ltr.
I think that the trophy prop. is to heavy for this engine,
posted 08-14-2004 01:40 PM ET (US)
It looks like the fuel consumption dropped a lot with the laser II prop. I think that both engines will give about the same fuel consumption if used on the same boat. Don't forget that the Wahoo is still a much lighter boat than the 170 Montauk even with the extra fuel it carried.
Thanks for the information. I think many people here with the 90-hp 4-stroke Mercury will appreciate it.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.