Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Yamaha F115 Plagued With Problems: Yamaha Discontinues F115; Yamaha Four-Stroke Engines Made By Mercury
|Author||Topic: Yamaha F115 Plagued With Problems: Yamaha Discontinues F115; Yamaha Four-Stroke Engines Made By Mercury|
posted 11-07-2006 10:54 PM ET (US)
Hi Folks! As many of you have been before, I am at the crossroad of re-powering. My notched transom 1985 Outrage 22 has twin Yamaha 115-HP motors. Knowing now that the 115 Yamaha four-stroke motors are being discontinued, my only real choice (in staying with Yamaha) is to go with a pair of 90-HP motors. Is anyone currently running with [twin 90-HP motors on an Outrage 22]? Any additional thoughts? Note: Running on the Pacific Coast, converting to a single is not an option. Thank you for your comments.
posted 11-07-2006 11:15 PM ET (US)
I don't recall anyone on this site with twin 90's on a 22, but I don't think you will be happy with that setup.
Have you considered asking your dealer if there is a way he can "find" new old-stock 115's? They may be being discontinued, but they'll continue to sell them and warrant until they are all sold. Otherwise, you may choose to find an alternate brand.
If I were you, I'd first talk to your dealer. If he can't help you, then consider the 115-HP V4 E-TEC (DFI two-stroke) at 370 lbs. (saving you about 60 lbs from your current setup), the Suzuki DF115 in-line 4 (four-stroke) or the Mercury OptiMax 115 (DFI two-stroke) at 375 lbs.
Good luck with your decision.
posted 11-07-2006 11:37 PM ET (US)
Dave: Thank you for your input. In speaking with my Yamaha dealer, he said to steer clear of the 115's 4-strokes because of the [problems] that have plagued them. I have considered looking into the Suzuki's but having just replaced wiring harnesses, shifters, gauges, etc with new Yamaha upgrades, changing to another manufacturer will only increase my pain. I will certainly look into the two-stroke motors from Yamaha. Thank you for your thoughts. Miquel
posted 11-08-2006 12:00 AM ET (US)
Where did you hear of the Yamaha 115 four-stroke motor is being discontinued? The 115-HP motor is one of the most popular on the market, and with four-strokes closing in on 85% of the market share, it would be a bad business decision to discontinue their F115. You say your dealer steered you away from the Yamaha 115 four-stroke. What are the [problems] that have plagued them? I have heard they are good motors.
Do you have 115 Yamaha two-strokes on your boat now? How much do they weigh? Suzuki 115 four-strokes weigh 416 lbs each; that may be a little heavy. Twin 90's (especially Yamaha two-strokes) will probably not be enough power.
posted 11-08-2006 07:47 AM ET (US)
For reference purposes, the specifications for the 22 Guardian show a maximum engine weight of 720 lbs. I think this would also apply to the 22 Outrage. Thus, a pair of operational F115s will weigh close to 850 lbs, exceeded this maximum weight specification by at least 130 lbs.
I agree with Perry -- why would they be discontinuing the F115? I suspect that its the 2-stroke 115 that would being discontinued not the F115. I would go talk to a different dealer.
posted 11-08-2006 09:16 AM ET (US)
I am skeptical of two things:
--that Yamaha is discontinuing the F115. There has been no buzz about this anywhere I've been listening. Perhaps they are introducing a new model for this horsepower and are quietly easing out the existing stock. That is about the only explanation that would make sense. The 115-HP range is too popular to abandon.
--that the Yamaha F115 is "plagued with [problems]". The only real problems with the F115 that I can recall being mentioned are its weight and a tendency to make oil. The F115 is a bit heavy. The tendency to make oil is really a general problem of many four-stroke outboards, and the F115 is not more prone to it than others, from what I have been reading.
As for the weight, Mercury's new FourStroke (AKA Veradito) motor weighs 181-kg (399-lbs), The F115 weighs 183-kg (402-lbs). Mercury took about ten years to design and introduce their 115-HP, and they only shaved three pounds off the weight. Going by this as a benchmark, there probably is not a lot of room for more weight reduction in a four-cylinder four-stroke outboard.
I'd ask the dealer to elaborate on the problems that have "plagued" the F115. It would be interesting to hear what they might be.
These older Boston Whaler hulls were designed in an era when outboard motors were significantly lighter in weight, and hanging a pair of four-stroke motors on their notched transoms can lead to less freeboard. A good way to judge how the extra weight will affect the boat is to load the transom up with dead weight and do a sea trial.
posted 11-08-2006 09:39 AM ET (US)
The county sherriff where I often boat also has a 22' Outrage/Guardian hull with twin Yamaha F115's. It seems to do just fine with the weight and when I spoke with them early this year about the boat, the deputies seemed to love the setup.
I understand your concerns with the extra cost for rigging with a different brand - especially since you just replaced all of your current stuff.
posted 11-08-2006 10:55 AM ET (US)
Consider the Nissan Tohatsu 115. It is DFI two stroke similar to the Merc Optimax, and is very light compared to other 115s.
posted 11-08-2006 11:27 AM ET (US)
You should take a serious look at the 115 Merc Optimax. This is now a proven engine design. It uses the same DFI technology as Nissan/Tohatsu, but, in my opinion, is superior in that the Merc does not have a cylinder head and the engine is SmartCraft ready. The cylinder block is a very tight assembly with very few covers, gaskets and bolts. Merc's internal coatings and superior casting alloy makes for an extremely durable engine in salt water. If you purchase now, you get a 5 year warranty. The 115 Merc Optimax is very quiet, smooth and fuel efficient....what more could you ask for? :)
|BOB KEMMLER JR||
posted 11-08-2006 01:11 PM ET (US)
You can still get 115-125 Merc classic 2 strokes in 20 and 25 inch shafts.
posted 11-08-2006 08:34 PM ET (US)
Bob, I would have to assume that those engines would not be current models (though many dealers may still have some laying around in inventory).
My 2007 Program Year shows only the following conventional 2 strokes still in production:
posted 11-08-2006 08:36 PM ET (US)
P.S....I forgot to mention, the remaining conventional 2 strokes I listed above are not SmartCraft Ready, nor do they meet low emission requirements. Time to move on folks to products that are better for the planet.
posted 11-09-2006 09:05 AM ET (US)
Doesn't Tony (Elaelap) have a F115 on the transom of his 18' Outrage for several hundred hours of troublefree trolling and cruising. I think he's never had any problem and is very happy with this engine.
But he's probably too busy killing salmon or taking his friends out Abalone diving to respond here. Lucky guys...
posted 11-09-2006 09:16 AM ET (US)
I have seen a 22 outrage with a pair of Yamaha 115 4 strokes on it. Static trim was a little stern heavy, but really not appreciably different than my boat with a pair of Yamaha 2-stroke 130s on jack plates and a stern seat.
I will point out that the owner stated that he could NOT plane the boat on a single engine with that setup.
If you can't plane the boat on one engine, I don't see what the advantage is in having twins over a single main engine and a 15 hp kicker with a decent high-thrust prop (large blade, low pitch).
posted 11-09-2006 09:26 AM ET (US)
You're right, Alex. Seven hundred plus hours of salt water use and another sixty or so in fresh water without the slightest problem since I bought the motor new in early 2004 . I've found the motor to be a good match for my classic Outrage 18, and many experienced boaters--including several OR 18 owners with different motors--who have cruised and fished in my boat have agreed. I haven't heard anything about the motor being discontinued, nor have I heard about a "plague of problems"...please cite your sources, Mr. mcorelli.
posted 11-09-2006 03:02 PM ET (US)
Tony, you are without a doubt, Evinrude's/E-TEC's worst nightmare here on CW with that darn EFI 4-stroke of yours!
posted 11-09-2006 06:19 PM ET (US)
I have a 1992 22' Outrage with twin 90HP Yamahas. I have no problem getting on plane with one engine but I will consider moving up to 115's if I decide to keep her and repower.
posted 11-09-2006 06:36 PM ET (US)
Goose 9 -
That is good information. Do you have trim tabs installed to help you get the boat on plane with one engine...and what props are you running?
My 18' Outrage with twin 90's will hit about 38 MPH GPS with one motor and can climb (albeit slowly) onto plane with one motor (propped with 13.2 x 19 BRP aluminum props).
Larry - could you explain your last post? I don't have any nightmares about Tony's motor; but I'm glad that your other personality allowed this one to come out and play. For awhile there I thought you were completely against anything Yamaha, and was quite suprised to see you boating with friends who had Yamaha motors on the back of their boats.
posted 11-09-2006 08:16 PM ET (US)
I have a 22 Guardian. Did the research on twins vs single, and there is tons of discussion on this in this site. I have friends with 22 outrages. One with twin 90's two strokes, can plane on one enging and one with twin 115 four strokes. Cant plane on one engine. The boat with the twin 90's had very poor top speed and has to be run at WOT to make it over 30 mph and uses a lot of fuel. About 1.5 MPG at the most for cruising speed. Basically the guy has been in situations in the ocean where he literally could not power over big swells. The boat with twin 115 merc four strokes has good gas mileage, 3mpg, and will cruise at 30 mph with out a problem. But the boat is very stern heavy. Special splash wells had to be built across the back transom to keep the water out. Both of these boats are fished in the Ocean and Bay in the San Francisco Area. After reading all the info on twins and talking to others on this site, including the two above, it seemed that twins on a 22 is pushing it. That is if you want to get good MPG and not have the weight and or water issues in the stern of the boat. My first choice is twins if it would have worked more efficiently. But I just could not find a light enough motor that would fit the bill.
With that being said, I powered with a 225 Optimax and a 15 four stroke Kicker. My boat gets on average, for the last two years, and this is in the ocean running with swells and wind chop, (not in the bay) on any day 2.5 to 2.8MPG. I run at 22MPH at a minumum and usally cruise at 28MPH on most days. If it is really flat I can run over 30MPH plus. Top speed is over 45MPH. In the bay on most days I can run 38mph with the same above fuel mileage. Average RPM is 4,000 plus or minus. I have no water problems in the stern and weight is not an issue in the back of the boat.
I would definately reccomend going with this setup. If you have twin Yamaha controls, get a 225 Etech and a 15 Kicker. You will have a rocketship that gets good gas mileage and no water issues.
posted 11-09-2006 08:50 PM ET (US)
Re the Yamaha F115 being discontinued: while I haven't heard about this anywhere else, perhaps there is some truth to this rumor. This 115-HP four-stroke has been around for a while. Is it time for a face lift of this venerable model?
Yamaha got DOUBLE the production from this motor. They sold them like hot cakes as a Yamaha branded motor, and they sold thousands of them to Mercury. Mercury had no four-stroke product of their own in this horsepower range, and for years they had an insatiable demand for Yamaha F115 powerheads. Yamaha even tried to stop the flow of the F115 to Mercury, but they were dragged into court and forced to keep making this motor for Mercury until the contract expired.
Now Mercury has come out with their own 115-HP four-stroke. The time would be right for Yamaha to announce something more up to date. Will Yamaha have a new 115-HP four-stroke coming soon?
posted 11-09-2006 09:56 PM ET (US)
I do not have trim tabs but that is one of my upcoming projects. I think the ride will deffinately improve with them.
As far as the props they are 13" 17-K stainless steel.
posted 11-09-2006 10:00 PM ET (US)
I agree. Tabs should help. When I added tabs to mine, the holeshot on one engine was greatly improved.
posted 11-09-2006 10:21 PM ET (US)
Big secret - Yamaha already gets it's 40, 50 & 60 4-stroke short blocks from Mercury, and has since 2003 when Mercury first introduced them as 100% Merc designed and built EFI's, Yamaha versions with carbs they put on. These are not the carbed Joint Venture engines they both brought out in 1994-2002, which had a different bore and stroke in the 50 HP (only) class. I'll bet it is now going to buy Mercury's new plain super heavy duty Verado block 75-115 for it's new models! Actually it should be so lucky! Probably it is developing a new modular engine to cover the 40-115 hp ranges, but I still doubt the rumor.
A 4-stroke outboard block tends to have a longer market life than this. I doubt this engine 75-115, is going anywhere soon.
Unless they be developing a 3 cylinder version of the F-150 block? Do 3 cylinder 4-strokes work
posted 11-09-2006 10:27 PM ET (US)
I think I be gettin' careless on my keyboard!
posted 11-10-2006 12:23 AM ET (US)
Larry--I think you are off on your engine history.
Brief History of Mercury Outboards
Thirteen years ago (in 1993) both Mercury and Yamaha were without four-stroke outboards. Mercury saw the future of outboard technology as being divided along these lines: outboard motors in the lower horsepower ranges would use four-stroke technology, and, because of the need for higher performance, the larger horsepower motors would use two-stroke technology. Mercury's vision at that time was that four-stroke motors could not satisfy the performance demanded by customers of higher horsepower motors. They set out to develop two types of outboards. And both of these would have to be low-emission engines in order to meet the coming EPA regulations. For higher-horsepower motors Mercury chose the Orbital Combustion Process. Under license from the patent holder, they began to develop their low-emission two-stroke motor, which they called the OptiMax. I will leave that story for now. It merits its own treatment in a separate article.
For low-horsepower four-strokes, Mercury turned to their partner Yamaha. Yes, at that time Mercury and Yamaha were partners. In 1993 Mercury and Yamaha entered into a co-development and co-manufacturing agreement. Mercury took this path because it wanted to save on costs. The result of this co-development and co-manufacturing agreement was a number of four-stroke outboards from 9.9-HP to 50-HP.
The two manufacturers agreed that they would split the manufacturing of key components of these engines. Under their arrangement, Mercury produced specific parts of the engines which were used in both the Mercury and the Yamaha versions. And Yamaha did the same. For example, Mercury made the engine blocks and Yamaha made the cylinder heads. By cooperating like this, the unit costs for each component could be reduced due to economies of scale in the manufacturing. So as recently as January of 2004, Mercury motors had parts which were made by Yamaha, and Yamaha motors had parts made by Mercury in these 50-HP and under motors. In fact, at that time, January 2004, the only four-stroke motor made by Mercury which was an all-Mercury manufactured motors was their 25-HP model. (The Verado motors had not yet been introduced.)
Mercury did make some improvements to the co-developed engines. For example, they began to add fuel-injection to them. These improvements were not shared with Yamaha, and thus Mercury began to differentiate their versions of these co-manufactured engines from the Yamaha versions. Again, these are the 50-HP and under four-strokes.
By 2004 Mercury stated that the co-manufacturing agreement continued on a subset of models in the 9.9-HP to 50-HP range, but that the 50-HP and 60-HP engines were now being produced in North America "of their own manufacture."
Unfortunately, in the same breadth that Mercury was making that somewhat ambiguous statement, Yamaha was very clearly saying that the only Mercury motor at that time which was an all-Mercury four-stroke was the Mercury 25-HP. This statement was presented by Yamaha before the USITC and was never refuted by Mercury.
But let's be perfectly clear, the 50-hP and 60-HP engines which Mercury is talking about is the 50-HP engine that was jointly developed with Yamaha. It just had some improvements on it. And "of our own manufacture" does not mean the same as "no parts from Japan."
But in any case, I think it is very misleading to cast this engine as being some Mercury engine. It is the co-developed engine from the earlier agreement. And Mercury upgraded it to have fuel-injection.
If Mercury and Yamaha continue their co-manufacturing agreement today, which is not precisely clear, it would be quite surprising to me in light of the millions of dollars that Mercury forced Yamaha and others to spend in defending themselves in the United States International Trade Commission investigation into outboard importation from Japan. Most sources cite the agreements between Mercury and Yamaha as expiring in 2006. That these two would continue to cooperate beyond that is very unlikely, given the increased animosity and competition between them.
There is not a single place on the planet where I can find any reference to Yamaha buying these engines as whole engines or even as power heads from Mercury, except in articles which are authored by LHG. There are many other articles on this topic by respected writers that cite contradictory situations.
For example, in the February 2006 issue of TRAILER BOATS magazine, Jim Baron wrote an article titled "Who Makes What For Whom?" He said:
It is actually not much of a secret that Yamaha and Mercury were co-manufacturing these engines. That has been openly acknowledged since January of 2004. If some elements of those co-manufacturing agreements are still in place, it would not be a huge shock. However, I think it is completely misleading to present this situation as a case of "Yamaha buys their engines from Mercury." That is not at all what has been happening.
The notion that the current 50- and 60-HP engines are not the co-developed engine is contradicted by a statement by Rick Davis, who at the time was vice-president of engine development and chief technology officer of Mercury Marine. Speaking before the USITC he said:
If Yamaha continues to use an engine block from Mercury for that model, I would be surprised, but it is not particularly shocking, They've apparently been doing it since 1993. The surprise is that these two companies are cooperating at all, given the public acrimony between them, as well as the millions of dollars in legal fees spent in the USITC fiasco initiated by Mercury.
To continue a bit with the story of the Mercury four-stroke engine, when George Buckley became president of Mercury, he instituted a huge change in philosophy. The dramatic increase in the market for higher-horsepower four-stroke engines made the initial plan of Mercury to satisfy that segment with the OptiMax seem risky, and particularly so given the many problems that Mercury was having in manufacturing the big OptiMax motors. Buckley ordered a change in plans. Mercury embarked on a very long and expensive development of a four-stroke motor which would bring two-stroke performance to the 150-HP and higher market segment. This ultimately resulted in the Verado motor, first seen in February of 2004. Over the next two years Mercury introduced Verado motors down to the 135-HP level, and then finally this fall brought new four-stroke motors to the 75, 90, and 115-HP range. While concentrating on this, Mercury continued to purchase thousands of power heads and thousands of complete four-stroke motors from Yamaha to fill the giant gap in their four-stroke line.
posted 11-10-2006 12:31 AM ET (US)
Just to be clear, the 90-HP and 115-HP four-stroke engines were designed and manufactured by Yamaha. Mercury bought the power heads from Yamaha as an assembled part, and bolted it onto their midsection and gear case. These engines were not in the co-development and co-manufacturing agreement.
posted 11-10-2006 02:42 AM ET (US)
Merc 2003 model year engines brought out Aug 2002, included Smartcraft enabled 3 and 4 cylider 30EFI 40EFI 50EFI & 60 EFI 4-strokes, 2.56 x 2.95 = 45.6 or 60.8 cu in. Smartcraft's the all-Merc clue. Smaller cube Joint venture block not used, even though made by Merc since 1994 and still being sent to Japan for their 2003 Yammie/Merc 50, old displacement. Yamaha also took the new Merc bigger cube blocks for 40 and 60's, and eventually switched the 50 to it at later date, after all JV components had been used up.
JV engines were only 9.9's and 50's. Last model year of the black 50 Yammie-Merc was 2002. Check specs and catalogs. Other HP's by Tohatsu.
Quoted testimony is a bunch of half truths, coverups of confidentiality agreements, false and intentionally misleading remarks if you ask me. Lawyers here would understand this.
posted 11-10-2006 09:12 AM ET (US)
In their pleadings before the USITC, Mercury does mention that they are bound by confidentiality agreements. But it is incongruous that such a confidentiality agreement would prevent disclosure of Mercury as the source of many Yamaha-branded engines while at the same time permitting disclosure of Yamaha as the source of many Mercury-branded engines.
The quoted testimony is from a Mercury engineering executive, Mr. Davis. I do not imagine he is a lawyer. The boating writer, Mr. Baron, is also likely not a lawyer.
The version of the story that I present is based on public documents and statements. In order to accept a contradictory version, it would be helpful if there could be some source cited. The similarity in bore and stroke dimension between Yamaha and Mercury motors is an indication of some co-manufacturing, but it does not, in itself, indicate who made what for whom.
posted 11-10-2006 10:45 PM ET (US)
There is no source available for the information I posted on the features of the 2003 30-60 Mmercury 4-strokes. Therefore, it must regarded as unsubstantiated and incorrect. My memory must be failing.
posted 11-11-2006 01:16 AM ET (US)
Because there is so much similarity between the Yamaha and Mercury 50- and 60-HP four-stroke motors, I am not ruling out that there is some co-manufacturing involved. Also, I was reading more of the filings with the USITC last night, and I came across another reference to the Mercury 50- and 60-HP four-strokes. Mercury describes them as "all-Mercury" engines, and that seems clear enough--no Yamaha content.
The real dispute is how much of the Yamaha engine is Mercury content. I have actually called Yamaha on the telephone and asked them about this, but they denied there was any Mercury content in their engines. However, the person I spoke with was such a low-level telephone answering sort of respondent, that I really did not expect them to know for sure or be in a position to be able to disclose it if there were any content. So I take that "no" with a big grain of salt.
I think that Yamaha is generally content to let the boating public in North American keep the general impression that a Yamaha motor is made entirely by Yamaha, even if it is not true. And it is certainly clear that it was not true, at least not at all true in the case of these co-development and co-manufactured engines up to c.2004. There is clear testimony that the Yamaha motors used parts made by Mercury and vice versa.
Now the difference of opinion at hand is whether or not there continues to be some sort of very quiet exchange of parts between Yamaha and Mercury to make some engines, particularly the 40/50/60-HP four-stroke series. And particularly if that exchange has become all one-way, and in the direction of Mercury supplying Yamaha--the exact opposite of the historical trend.
Looking at the situation from a business and competitive aspect, it really does not make any sense in the current market situation, where Mercury and Yamaha are very fierce competitors in the North American outboard market, for the two of them to help each other out. It was understandable perhaps 13 years ago when the situation was so very different. Thirteen years ago Mercury was a big dominant Number One seller in North America and Yamaha was a small player. Some mutual exchange of resources was seen as a good deal that would help both companies bring a new type of motor to the market. So they cooperated and developed and manufactured outboard motors together.
In the current market conditions, Mercury is still Number One, but Yamaha has become a very strong Number Two seller. And, in fact, in some segments, like offshore V6 engines, Yamaha has taken over as the market leader. Instead of being cooperating companies, Mercury and Yamaha are pitched rivals, or at least they appear to be.
Given that setting, it is hard to understand why Mercury would take a new product, something they developed on their own, which was superior to the existing Yamaha product, and just give it to Yamaha to sell back into the same market. It would be like Chevrolet selling a new Corvette engine to Ford so they could use it in their Mustang. From a business perspective it just does not make sense. Mercury spends a lot of time and money making a new, better four-stroke engine in this horsepower range, and they just sell it to Yamaha?
The only reason I can think of why Mercury would be doing this--if indeed they are doing it--is because they were forced to do it. Perhaps this is the back end payoff of an earlier deal. It does come to mind that Yamaha sold Mercury a heck of a lot of power heads in the 75/90/115-HP range, which Mercury then assembled into black engines and turned around and sold them against the almost identical Yamaha engine. Perhaps Yamaha has some contract which stipulates that Mercury MUST sell them these improved 40/50/60-HP as a quid pro quo for all those engines Yamaha sold Mercury.
Another reason why I tend to doubt that this sort of co-manufacturing is going on is the geography. In the case of Yamaha supplying Mercury, the geography was favorable. Yamaha made a power head in Japan, shipped it to Wisconsin, Mercury bolted it into their midsection and gear case, and shipped it to dealers in North America.
If Yamaha were buying power heads from Mercury, the geography would be substantially different. Mercury would be making the power head in Wisconsin. Then it would have to be shipped to Japan. There Yamaha would assemble it into a complete engine, which would then have to be shipped back to North America for sale. Making two trips across the Pacific Ocean seems like a long way to go for something as conventional as a outboard engine block, particularly when Yamaha already has manufacturing facilities in Japan that could make this engine block.
If Yamaha were just a "screwdriver" assembler of outboard motors, you could see them needing an arrangement like this, but they are a very well integrated manufacturer of all the engine components. And if they need a part made from an outside vendor, it is much more likely they would use a Japanese vendor than a Wisconsin vendor.
I think the only way I am going to be satisfied on this question is to go to a dealer who sells Yamaha and Mercury outboards, take the cowling off of some 50-HP four-stroke motors, look carefully at the power heads, and compare the two. If I see a little "Made in U.S.A" cast into the power head on a Yamaha four-stroke, then I will be convinced. Until then, I am very skeptical.
posted 11-11-2006 01:58 AM ET (US)
The 40, 50 & 60 short blocks will all say Made in China?
Now we are getting somewhere. The 40,50,& 60 black engines are all Merc of China, so Yammie's corp spies stole the identical Merc block design? There is no way Mercury would supply or license the design of this engine to Yamaha, not even in exchange for the black F225's, Yamaha's prize possession at the time? But maybe?
For 2003. Mercury had Yamaha scooped with 30,40& 60 horse brand new engines, and also a new 50, while Yammie only had the old, less powerful JV 50. But Yammie had Mercury scooped with the big 225 4-stroke, since Verado was not yet bug proof.
In the meantime, nobody's talking, but the identical engines have been on the market for 4 years now.
That quoted article by Baron is so wrong it's a joke. Anybody with a brain could figure that one out.
posted 11-11-2006 09:52 AM ET (US)
More quotations on the exchange of engines and components between Yamaha and Mercury. This is from a statement by Phil Dyskow, Group President of Yamaha's Marine Group, on August 9, 2004:
Again, the direction is all Yamaha selling to Mercury. No mention of Mercury selling to Yamaha.
OK, I will look for "Made in China" on the engine blocks. However, historically and culturally the Chinese and Japanese have not been trading partners. If Mercury does manufacture the engine block for the 50- and 60-HP four-stroke in China, that heritage would probably make it less likely that Yamaha would buy them.
In the above quoted passage, point number 1 seems to imply the new, improved versions of the power heads were introduced by Yamaha!
Also, the Mercury plant in China just came on-line this year. If those Yamaha 50- and 60-HP motors were really just Mercury motors painted blue-gray since 2004, they would have been made in Wisconsin.
posted 11-17-2006 11:34 AM ET (US)
I wonder what happened to new member mcorelli who started this topic. Why hasn't he supported his assertions about problems with the Yamaha 115 4/s with facts and sources? He claims to be a yacht broker, so one would think he'd be more careful than most about spreading these sorts of unsubstantiated rumors. Oh well...
posted 11-17-2006 06:36 PM ET (US)
Had to call and verify about the Yamaha F115 being dis-continued comment. This is simply not true. The F115 is the second best selling engine for Yamaha behind the F150 and there are no plans to stop offering it.
Up coming F115 changes are for the newer style tiller handle with the adjustable trolling speed(no benefit to Whaler owners). Other then that it is already Command Link compatible.
The love affair between Yamaha and Mercury is over. Nothing is shared anymore which is the reason the Yamaha F25 and F30 are gone. Yamaha came out with the all new F15-F20 and all new F25-F30 is far out on the horizon.
posted 11-17-2006 07:11 PM ET (US)
Andy, is Yamaha making their own engines in the 15-20 range or have they also gone to Tohatsu like other mfgs?
Are they carbed engines?
posted 11-18-2006 10:08 AM ET (US)
The F15-20 is all Yamaha. Brand new engine design for them. Have yet to see one and when I placed my stocking order in July they were not shipping until Decemeber.
I wish they would fill that 4-stroke 20hp-40hp gap quicker then "out on the horizon" .
posted 11-19-2006 09:24 PM ET (US)
So the Topic now is: Yamaha F115 not Plagued With Problems: Yamaha does not Discontinue F115; Mercury Four-Stroke Engines Made By Yamaha; Yamaha and Mercury develop seperate Four-Strokes; Buyers of Mercury Outboards fund China's Economy, Buyers of Yamaha Outboards fund Japan's Economy....
posted 11-19-2006 09:57 PM ET (US)
If Brunswick makes a profit, doesn't that money come back to the US?
When Yamaha makes a profit, I assume that money returns to Japan. I assume the same with Toyota and Honda, even though they have plants here and pay Americans to work in their factories, the profits return to Japan. But also, I make a few bucks because I am able to purchase stock in both Toyota and Honda. (and believe me, I have made alot more money on their stock than Brunswick)
I don't like the fact that American workers are losing jobs to foreign workers, but I think we now live in a "world economy" and we have to learn to deal with it. It is extremely complicated and I sure don't have the answers....it was nice when a Ford was a Ford, and a Chevy was a Chevy.......but not anymore.
posted 11-20-2006 12:23 AM ET (US)
Yamaha Dealer "SIM" is confirming what I already know, and helping prove the revised thread title to be correct.
So far we have, from above post: the 25 Merc 4-stroke is all Merc. I think that has been stipulated here. Yamaha used this powerhead also for the F25 if we are to believe SIM.
BlackMax has said the short blocks from the '94-2002 Yamaha 50's were made by Merc (a widely known fact), just like the 2003 30,40, 50 & 60 Yammies (not widely known?), and called an author of fiction, even though specs are identical, which would never happen with competing brands. The 2003-2005 Merc and Yamaha 30's were 45.6 CI, three of the 4 cylinders of the 60.8 CI Merc EFI 40,50 60's. They were pretty heavy for 30's. These are Mercury's "improved" versions of the original JV 50HP engine, also stipulated here above.
Now we have SIM saying "The love affair between Yamaha and Mercury is over. Nothing is shared anymore which is the reason the Yamaha F25 and F30 are gone. New F25-F30 is far out on the horizon."
So Mercury is no longer supplying Yamaha with the full F25 or the F-30 short block, BECAUSE MERCURY IS NOT MAKING THEM ANY LONGER.
Mercury has brought out brand new lightweight 2006 25 EFI and 30 EFI 4-strokes, smaller displacement, from the Joint Venture Plant with Tohatsu. These slick little EFI Merc/Tohatsu's are not being given to Yamaha, so now they have this F25 and F30 void until they can get THEIR OWN engines out in this size range.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 11-20-2006 01:10 AM ET (US)
Ha! I wish. Somehow Larry, I suspect you will be back to repeat your diatribe again...and again...and again...
posted 11-20-2006 01:26 PM ET (US)
Black Max......was not trying to flame anything up here...I think you are also correct about those mid range HP 4's too. I was told once when you are not sure.....look at the CDI's....If they are Motorola....its a Merc...if its a Mitsubishi.....its a Yamaha. Not sure if if that is even true. And with all that said........ I don't even really care. :^)
One more thing since the "love affair" :^) is over, it has been much much easier to get Yamaha engines delivered in a respectable amount of time then it has in the past. Not sure if its a sign of the slowing boating economy or that Yamaha can now keep up with the supply not having to make Merc engines anymore.
Someone else asked if the F15-20 new Yamaha was EFI....it is not. Carbed.
posted 11-20-2006 02:34 PM ET (US)
"...it has been much much easier to get Yamaha engines delivered in a respectable amount of time then it has in the past. Not sure if its a sign of the slowing boating economy or that Yamaha can now keep up with the supply not having to make Merc engines anymore."
....or the competition (Suzuki, Honda, Mercury and BRP) taking some market share away from Yamaha...... ;)
posted 11-20-2006 04:49 PM ET (US)
Ouch!!! That hurts man........:^) jk
posted 11-20-2006 07:33 PM ET (US)
Andy- We are definitly in a bad time period for the Marine Industry. It has affected all aspects. Just look at big layoffs at a Wisconson outboard plant. I talked to a dealer the other day who has plenty of inventory.
BTW--I'm sure you are aware that the guy named Larry who came by to visit you this summer is most likely the poster named Blackmax here! Like a bad penny, keeps turning up!
|BOB KEMMLER JR||
posted 11-20-2006 09:35 PM ET (US)
yea just like Peter,Fourdfish and Barney seem to follow each other through threads backing each other up..................Pot meet kettle
posted 11-20-2006 09:41 PM ET (US)
Hey Bob. Don't forget Tom. :0}
|BOB KEMMLER JR||
posted 11-20-2006 09:52 PM ET (US)
He doesn't count,he's kinda like Shemp,around but never fully part of the group.I'm talkin more about Moe,Larry and Curly,which one are you again? ;o)
posted 11-20-2006 10:07 PM ET (US)
Sorry Bob, It's not that I am pro for any outboard, I'm actually anti-ralley around the outboard manufacturer, any manufacturer. The sad thing is I send a lot of money overseas with cars and outboards and machine tools and computers and..., and the next outboard I'll purchase probably will be a Honda. That doesn't mean Honda is perfect I've had personal experience to the contrary. So you've got the truth from me, I don't fit in any slot on BRP or Mercury or Yamaha or Honda for that matter. I could slam any of those four based on this website and personal experience. I just don't drag all that junk out. Some of the stuff I've encountered with them is flat bull ... stuff. Maybe I should consider Suzuki... Jim
posted 11-20-2006 10:29 PM ET (US)
I dropped in on Saturday morning at my local Mercury and Yamaha dealer, hoping to find a pair of 50-HP four-strokes on the show room floor, one of each brand. Unfortunately, there were none to be seen.
I'll hold out until the winter boat show. Then I'll be sure to compare these black and blue four-stroke motors.
Two things are clear:
--Yamaha and Mercury used to trade engine components back and forth to help each other make certain engines;
--They're not likely doing it any more.
As for the topic, I think it is most accurate as:
--Yamaha's F115 is NOT plagued with problems
--Yamaha is NOT discontinuing the F115
Now, as for who makes what and where, it's completely transparent that Mercury has purchased a lot of motors from Yamaha. Has Yamaha bought some from Mercury? Maybe, but they're sure keeping it a quiet as possible.
posted 11-21-2006 09:00 AM ET (US)
Fourd.....being in the type of business that I am, I have a real hard time remembering who is who by there user names. I thought Larry was "LHG". My brain hurts...
But I do remember you...you have that real nice Yamaha F150 on the back of a 22 Outrage! :^) jk
posted 11-21-2006 10:38 AM ET (US)
Andy-- Right!! You have a real good memory!!!!!! I think it must be getting cold and quiet up there!
The wife and I thank you again for your generosity. Look to see you again next summer.
posted 11-21-2006 05:45 PM ET (US)
I know for a fact that the Yamaha F115's are notoriously prone to injector trouble should even a small amount of water be sucked into the injectors. I know of several such motors experiencing this problem here in the San Diego area, despite the fact that they had Raycor water separators installed. Yamaha is very hush-hush about this problem, yet they are willing to warranty some of the work (normally about half of the labor and parts) when injector problems arise. Now before someone accuses me of bashing Yamaha, I recently purchased a F150 (2006) on which I have about 150 hours of trouble-free use. I am glad, however, that I am not the owner of a F115.
I've spoken to several dealers/mechanics in the San Diego area who have also been quite critical of this engine.
Conversely, I also know of quite a number of Suzuki 115 owners (commercially operated engines and privately owned engines) who have experienced very little or no trouble. Like I said before, I just bought a Yammie, but if I were in the market for a pair of f115's, I'd seriously do some research and consider Suzuki.
posted 11-21-2006 07:21 PM ET (US)
I have seen some very minor issues with the injectors getting restricted from the medium pressure fuel pump wear and other debris (VST). Which actually can happen on any 4-stroke Yamaha.
But the F115 being to prone to water at the injectors as claimed........with that comment are you saying that the Yamaha F115's now makes water whereas none of the other engines in the line up do?
That water has to be getting in the fuel system some how and I highly doubt the F115 engine just "produces" it.
Yes.... I have also seen Yamaha on several occasions step up to the plate and [provide free repairs] that quite frankly are not a "warranty" item like [low quality] fuel. I think that can be said about all engine companies.
As mentioned previously the Yamaha F115 has been in production since 1999 and is probably one of the [highest production] engines for Yamaha. As there are so many in service, that alone is going to make them prone to more things happening to them. Not sure how Suzuki 115 numbers compare.
I for one have sold and serviced several F115's and I would personally buy one if the need arises(still banging around installing one on a 18 Classic) in a heartbeat and with out question. I can not say that about all of the Yamaha line-up, but definitely I would not shy away from a properly setup F115.
Note that last sentence......"properly"
posted 11-22-2006 08:00 AM ET (US)
As a general observation I have found:
--if you hang around a repair shop you will see a lot of outboard motors that need repair;
--if you hang around offshore fishing grounds you will see a lot of outboard motors that don't need repair.
Thus a dealer will likely "see" a lot of motors with problems. This may not be the best place to judge the overall frequency of repair for a particular motor. As SIM mentions, if there are 100,000 units in the field, it may not be particularly unusual to see a few problems with them.
As for the Yamaha 115-HP four-stroke, I don't recall a single mention of them, prior to this discussion, as being prone to an unusually high rate of repair.
As for this particular discussion, the person making the allegation of high rate of repair has apparently left the discussion. It is unfortunate that he has declined to participate further. Usually following such bombastic speech a more vigorous defense is mounted.
posted 11-22-2006 11:10 AM ET (US)
mcorelli? Probably another E-tec informercial plant, in anticipation of the next one where they will show a Yamaha F115 as a twin won't plane off another boat, like they showed in the F225 and F150 vids? Yamaha's are their favorite prey.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 11-22-2006 11:42 AM ET (US)
Bombastic? That's inaccurate and rather uncalled for.
Miquel Corelli has been a CW member for three and a half years and is a Yacht Broker in southern California. We have discussed his Outrage 22 many times. The poor guy wants to hear recommendations for a repower. It would appear he has repeated some inaccurate information about the F115s future but I do not seem him bashing any motor.
Meanwhile, this thread has bee dragged south, north, east and west by Larry/lhg/LHG/BlackMax/Whalerguy/Makoman/whatever he is now.
Why don;t you guys just offer Miquel a recommendation for new motors and your reasoning instead?
posted 11-22-2006 11:58 AM ET (US)
Tom......since the F115 is not being dis-continued as mentioned and a large single is not in the picture, the the F115's are his most cost effective choice.
The only rigging items that may need to be upgraded are his tachs. The older Yamaha tachs are not capable of showing the 4-stroke warnings and may only be setup to work with 3 wire trim senders. The F115's have two wires.
Or he could go the Yamaha Command Link gauge route. Nice stuff.
But the thread topic contains two inaccuracies in my view. "Yamaha F115 plagued with problems: Yamaha discontinues F115". If someone is going to start a thread with that header, they had should be able to back it up.
posted 11-22-2006 12:29 PM ET (US)
Tom-Just wondering why mcorelli never returned to the discussion. Maybe because it got derailed by the trolls here?
I agree Larry trys to sabotage, derail or disrupt!!!
I also agree with Andy on the F115 as he has a better
|Tom W Clark||
posted 11-22-2006 12:43 PM ET (US)
Miquel did not write the thread topic. What he wrote originally was deleted by jimh and replaced with jimh's editorialized version.
I agree with your recommendation of the F115 if only because it has consistently received such jigh praise here from boat owners I personally know and trust. Until now I have not heard one complaint or suggestion there was any inherent problem with any F115. Just ask Tony Wilde if he likes his F115 or has any problems with it.
posted 11-22-2006 01:03 PM ET (US)
I did not realize that the thread title had been changed. I apologize for my harsher then normal comments. :^)
Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!
posted 11-22-2006 01:27 PM ET (US)
Jim, your command of the english language is clearly better than the average person's, but your lack of tack is just as evident. You've made a number of rude and uncalled for (in my opinion) comments on various threads from time to time, and 'till now I've just sat on it. One I recall in particular was your refering to my, and I quote, "nebulous reference" to some photos of my boat that were posted on another site. Not very mannerly. Not even very nice. Period.
I don't know how most other F115's are run in this country---I suspect that the vast majority of them, especially those on Whalers, are pushing boats on flat, fresh water for maybe a hundred hours or so a year. That is not the case with the local folks I know that run their boats offshore in far more rigorous conditions. I can honestly say that I know of more F115 owners who would seriously reconsider the purchase of their engine had they had the option to do such, than I know owners who are happy with their F115 (and I know some of them, too)....That simply was my point.
And, as for the engine's having to be "properly" set up, well, all of these engines were dealer installed. Not that this fact makes that much of a difference in my book...To that end, I installed my own F150, saved about 2K off of a "dealer" installation, and it works flawlessly.
posted 11-22-2006 01:33 PM ET (US)
Mcorelli, I recently had the opportuntiy to speak with a guy here in San Diego who had a classical 22' Outrage that was powered with twin 115 Yamahas and he was very happy with his power level. The boat was reported to have a top speed of about 35 MPH which, as I'm sure you already know, if far faster than one can normally run on the open ocean on any given day.
I also know that the local lifeguards run classical Whalers here at Mission Bay----they are powered by a single Yamaha 225 and they can haul.....In speaking with one of the guards recently I inquired as to this fuel economy----he said that he's getting just under 3 statute/gallon with the single 225. That is also what the gentlemen with the twin yamaha 115's was reporting.
I run my 20' outrage with a single F150 pretty far offshore (60 miles or so) and don't worry....of course i have Vessel Assist as well as plenty of friends on the water. It's a matter of preference. Good luck with your decision-----it's a good problem to have :)...
posted 11-22-2006 01:35 PM ET (US)
I'll separate the original inquiry about legitimate Boston Whaler performance into its own thread. The content ratio turned about 5:1 in favor of debating the merits of the Yamaha 115 four-stroke, hence the title change.
A good title gets you to read the book. TOPIC listings are changed routinely, especially when very vague or misleading topics are submitted. An example of some classic TOPICS that get changed:
--"Question about Whaler"
--"I need help"
--"[Someone's name] please read"
The TOPIC is rewritten to reflect the actual content and to conform to a simple style, usually mentioning the model and length of the boat involved.
In the case of this discussion it has had at least three TOPIC listings, one of which was probably re-written by me to be something like:
OUTRAGE 22: Re-power with Twin 115-HP Four-strokes
When that discussion became overwhelmed by the twice-told tales of Yamaha and how Mercury really makes their engines, I changed it to its current form.
Re the word bombastic. The dictionary says:
Thus I have said that the original claim that the Yamaha F115 is plagued with problems is an example of overblown speech. I don't think that this is an entirely inappropriate use of the word.
posted 11-22-2006 02:28 PM ET (US)
For you to post and to quote you directly "I know for a fact that the Yamaha F115's are notoriously prone to injector trouble should even a small amount of water be sucked into the injectors." is just an inaccurate and misleading statement in itself. Even a ETEC, Honda, Mercury or Suzuki engine will not run on water. (Well then again the ETEC might :^))jk Your F150 will not run on fuel and water. Why would you think that a fuel contamination issue is a design problem with the engine? There is no such thing as a small water problem.
"Proper engine installation"........Do you think because a dealer installed it makes it right? You have to be kidding me. That could be a new thread topic in itself. I will say that I feel that Yamaha has made a real strong effort in the last few years to get their authorized dealers up to date on proper engine rigging and Pre Delivery Inspections prior to delivery to the customer. Many issue's can be traced back to improper inital rigging and in-correct propeller selection.
But then again.... I have seen some DIYers like yourself engine installs and rigging that are much better then some boat companies send out their door.
posted 11-22-2006 04:01 PM ET (US)
Since Larry once again uses the E-TEC as cover to covertly suggest that a "Yamaha F115 as a twin won't plane off another boat" (;>) does anybody know if this is true on a 22 Outrage? If a single F115 cannot plane off the Outrage by itself, then there is really no practical point in having twin F115s on a 22 Outrage.
Frankly, if I were going to set up a 22 Outrage for someone and they insisted on going over the transom weight limit with twin 4-strokes, then for nearly the same weight on the transom I would steer them towards the Suzukis for the simple reason that they have more displacement or have less weight per liter of displacement (213 lbs per liter of displacement for the DF115 versus 231 lbs per liter for the F115). As almost all know, there is no replacement for displacement.
posted 11-22-2006 07:33 PM ET (US)
Is the Yamaha F115 really being discontinued?
|Tom W Clark||
posted 11-22-2006 09:24 PM ET (US)
From the dictionary on my desk:
What Miquel wrote was:
"Knowing now that the 115 Yamaha four-stroke motors are being discontinued, my only real choice (in staying with Yamaha) is to go with a pair of 90-HP motors."
That may be erroneous, but is certainly is not pompous or grandiloquent, though I can see a few comments here that are. Hmmm...maybe mine? ;-)
posted 11-23-2006 09:57 PM ET (US)
Perhaps bombastic in content more than style.
I found the supposition that the engine was plagued with problems to be overblown (if you prefer). We went from hardly having heard of a single problem to the engine being plagued with them.
What was being said: the Yamaha F115 was infested with problems, that it was naturally evil--I don't agree with that, and I find little evidence presented to support it.
posted 11-24-2006 11:27 AM ET (US)
From what I can tell, there are now four topics under discussion:
--how to re-power an OUTRAGE 22
--the termination of production of the Yamaha F115
--the degree of problems in the F115
--the moderator's abuse of his power
Let me respond to all of them in turn:
OUTRAGE 22 re-power: due to the open transom and narrow splash well, I would be concerned about using engines with excessive weight. The trim that results may cause problems with water shipping over the transom in some sea states.
Termination of Yamaha F115 Production: I do not have any direct knowledge of this, and, as I expressed above, I am somewhat skeptical about accepting this as a known fact. However, as I have already expressed, it would not be unreasonable for a new model to replace the current engine, given its long production history. I am very interested in finding out the actual status of this engine's production. And if anyone has good information on this, it would be great to hear from them.
Problems of the Yamaha F115: Again, I don't have any direct knowledge and I am guided only by what I have read, which is about nil on this topic. As I expressed above, I am very skeptical that the F115 has been "plagued" with problems, and this is based on an almost total lack on any problems having been mentioned previously by participants in the discussion here.
Abuse of moderator's power: My general goal as the moderator is to keep the content of the discussion area interesting and factual. In the case of assigning a degree of rudeness of behavior, there seems to be some bias or tilt in the amount of civility required. I don't find it particularly polite for people to use the discussion area as a forum for remarks or statements which defame or criticize particular products or manufacturers without providing some first-hand knowledge or basis. When such remarks are made I find that in the role of moderator it is entirely appropriate for me to question or challenge those remarks. I am also surprised at the extent to which offense has been taken by my use of the words bombast and nebulous. These characterizations apparently carry more connotation than I had otherwise thought. In the future I shall avoid them like the plague, if you get my drift. :-)
posted 11-25-2006 12:32 AM ET (US)
Gentlemen, we are using a relatively new medium herein which incorporates a mixture of diction akin to speech, though the forum is prose. Many participants contribute in the manner of speech though this forum is not speech. Therein is the cause of misunderstandings. In this new medium, we must generously forgive exaggerated diction as if listening to a friendly speaker. There is a lag time between posting and response which allows sharpening of the pencil. If the same comment were made in speech, a mild protest or assent would be sufficient. I should remind the readers that Jim says his written comments were speech. I suppose we should treat is as speech unless he says otherwise and not be too picky about words.
Let me quote from my little book of English Lessons for English People by Abbott and Seeley, Paragraph 63. “the differences between Speech and Prose spring very naturally from the different circumstances of either. The speaker must make his meaning immediately intelligible, and must arrest attention at once: otherwise the effect is lost altogether. The reader can review a written sentence at his leisure. Hence the sentences may fairly be a little longer and more complicated in writing than in speech: and hence also, for the sake of arresting attention, a little sacrifice of literal truth to vividness – in other words, a little exaggeration – is not uncommon in speech. While speaking, the speaker can explain himself if he perceives that he is not understood; this cannot be done in writing, Hence speech is more irregular and less exact than writing. In speaking there are certain aids to help the speaker, action and gesticulation, the modulation of the voice, and the changing expression of the countenance : objects or persons mentioned can often be indicated by hand : the auditor or audience can be questioned, and the expression of their faces can be interpreted as assent of dissent, and answered accordingly. The result of all these differences in circumstances is that speech, as compared with writing, is (a) less exact in the choice of words, (b) more brief, and (c) more varied in construction.”
posted 11-25-2006 05:22 PM ET (US)
I have decided not to separate this discussion into its five topics, When enumerating them earlier I left out another sidebar that came in:
--history of Mercury four-stroke motors and joint production with Yamaha
It is not worth the effort to distill this five ways.
The original problem I saw in this discussion, the introduction by author mcorelli of two bombshell announcements
--Yamaha was discontinuing their highly successful F115 motor
was the focus of my initial response. I quote myself:
Then I indicated to author mcorelli my clear preference that he should elaborate on this. Again, quoting myself:
"I'd ask the dealer to elaborate on the problems that have "plagued" the F115. It would be interesting to hear what they might be."
Since then there has been no follow posting by author mcorelli.
Apparently a third-hand repetition of a dealer's comment (second-hand) about some Yamaha engine owner (first-hand) dissatisfaction with the F115 or about Yamaha's plans (first-hand) to discontinue the engine was all that was going to be offered.
These second-hand, third-hand, and fourth-hand sources of information are exactly the sort of thing that CONTINUOUSWAVE tries to avoid like the plague.
Then, after many days had gone by, I expressed my disappointment that author mcorelli had not returned to follow-up with any additional information about his quite startling new. Let me quote myself again:
"As for this particular discussion, the person making the allegation of high rate of repair has apparently left the discussion. It is unfortunate that he has declined to participate further. Usually following such bombastic speech a more vigorous defense is mounted."
I consider it the absolute height of rudeness to begin a discussion, make some particularly unusual claims, then disappear and never return to respond to the questions raised by such claims.
If author mcorelli left the discussion because it became too cluttered with sidebars about these questions, he has only himself to blame. In his initial article he was the one who introduced these topics along with his original inquiry about re-powering his Whaler. From the beginning there were always three topics under discussion.
The sidebar about the history of the 50-HP joint venture engine production was introduced somewhat later in the discussion. This really had nothing much to do with the original three. However, as the moderator I again felt it was my obligation to raise the questions I did regarding this topic, as I expressed earlier:
"When [remarks or statements which defame or criticize particular products or manufacturers without providing some first-hand knowledge or basis] are made I find that in the role of moderator it is entirely appropriate for me to question or challenge those remarks."
So when a entirely new line of discussion was introduced with what I though was again second-hand, third-hand, or non-substantiated information, I raised a question about it.
FInally, a new topic, the abuse of the moderator's power, was introduced to the discussion. I responded to this already, but I will add this:
If readers want a discussion area where people are able to make the most amazing statements about marine products and any challenge to them is to be considered an example of rude behavior, they should look elsewhere. One of the reasons I believe that CONTINUOUSWAVE is widely read and well regarded is that people can't drop in here, toss in a few bombshell announcements, and automatically be entitled to a warm and fuzzy reception.
If you want to announce that a major engine manufacturer is terminating production of a popular engine, you'll need at least to be willing to reply to a follow-up question or two on the topic. If you want to announce that a particular engine which has been in long production is suddenly viewed as being "plagued" with problems, you will need to at least be willing to reply to a follow-up question or two on the topic. If you make such announcements and then disappear from the discussion that results, do not expect to be seen in a sympathetic light when your absence of participation in noted.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 11-26-2006 01:38 PM ET (US)
And here folks, finally, something truly overblown.
I suspect we will not be hearing back from Miquel on this topic. If the situation were reversed and it was you who had been so savagely raked over the coals for merely repeating a error of fact, would you bother to respond?
posted 11-26-2006 06:57 PM ET (US)
Tom, do you think the F115 is being discontinued or has terrible problems?
posted 11-26-2006 08:58 PM ET (US)
Also, for Tom--If I were easily offended by things people have said about me in the course of publishing this website for the past 12 years, I would have given up on the project about ten years ago.
|Tom W Clark||
posted 11-26-2006 09:44 PM ET (US)
To the former: I do not.
The the latter: I hear ya and admire you for it! Likewise, if I had thin skin I would not have participated here after about post #50 which was about five years and 6500 posts ago. But that does not mean that I am blind to the more normal sensitivities of average folk and think it is OK to be abusive.
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.
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000