Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Mercury 60 Bigfoot vs. Yamaha T60 High thrust

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

Author Topic:   Mercury 60 Bigfoot vs. Yamaha T60 High thrust
fishgutz posted 11-20-2006 10:37 PM ET (US)   Profile for fishgutz   Send Email to fishgutz  
I've been comparing the Mercury 60 4 stroke Big Foot with the Yamaha T60 High Thrust. These 2 engines spec out the same (displacement, max RPM, etc). The Mercury is 264 pounds and the Yamaha is 248. I thought these engines were pretty much identical.
Why is the Yamaha lighter?
Is the Yamaha different in some way?
Which is better? In your opinion.
If you have one of these engines, how does it work for you?(boat, engine, setup).
Check out my previous post. http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004090.html
You'll see where I'm coming from.
fishgutz posted 11-20-2006 10:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for fishgutz  Send Email to fishgutz     
Or this link:
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004667.html
TRAFFICLAWYER posted 11-21-2006 01:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for TRAFFICLAWYER    
I have a 05 60 Bigfoot and would prefer the Yamaha.
elaelap posted 11-21-2006 05:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for elaelap  Send Email to elaelap     
I had a carburetted Yamaha 50 hp High Thrust four stroke on my smirkless Katama 16 and loved it. No problems whatsoever during the 360 or so hours I put on that rig, mainly in salt water. I know the current owner of that boat/owner, and he's at least doubled those hours, I believe without any problems as well. I'd buy one again, or better yet a 60 HT, in a second.

Tuco

zotcha posted 11-21-2006 06:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for zotcha  Send Email to zotcha     
Not sure what this is worth but I'll try. When repowering my 1982 Classic 15, I was offered a 2004 leftover Yamaha (is it the High Thrust?) and was told the bigger foot was designed for larger displacement hulls, specifically the deckboat/pontoon hulls. I feel that I was correctly advised to go with the standard foot for my application, in that it would have been inappropriate. Further, I do not do holeshots, pull skiers, tubers, or anything other than the occasional stranded boater. My Yamaha F60 EFI now has over 100 flawless hours, never needs the fuel ball/bulb pumped, never requires use of the key activated enrichener, and never has to be run at home pre-launch. Priceless. Hope this helps. zot.
Dick posted 11-21-2006 07:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for Dick  Send Email to Dick     
I have the Merc 60 big foot on my 06 150 Montauk and don't have any complaints, it's a great combination.
Jorgen posted 12-01-2006 08:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jorgen  Send Email to Jorgen     
We have a 17 Guardian / Montauk from ยด88 and this summer repowered with a Yamaha F60 . Done 118 hours on it without any problem. The engine runs smooth, loves trolling and hardly use any fuel.

It has power enough to do wakeboarding, pulling a 220 pound Heavey Weight when having 3 in the boat, using a 12 pitch alu prop. Difference with the Merc is that it is making even less noise.

I would spent that little extra and go for the Yamaha if possible.

Speedo66 posted 12-03-2006 09:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for Speedo66  Send Email to Speedo66     
I have an '04 Merc 60HP Big Foot on an '04 150 Sport. To date its performance has been flawless. It mirrors the observations of Zotcha as to his Yamaha, i.e., no pumping of bulb is required, nor any choke type operation required, just turn the key like a FI car.

I'm not a top end guy, and find the performance of the Big Foot to be fine, the gas milage is nothing short of incredible. If the Big Foot is a little stronger to handle heavy weight boats, hopefuly that will add to the longevity of the lower end in my application.

Steve

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.