1995 Mercury 100 hp, good motor? - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  1995 Mercury 100 hp, good motor?

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   1995 Mercury 100 hp, good motor?

JMARTIN posted 12-31-2007 07:10 PM ET (US)
Found a 1995 Montauk 17 with a Mercury 100. I am assuming that the motor is a 1995 also. The problem is, I know nothing good or bad about this motor. The boat looks nice. John
JMARTIN posted 12-31-2007 10:38 PM ET (US)
OK, it is a 1995 2+2 Mercury 100 hp on a 1995 Montauk. Everything is original right out of the dealer. It does have a "removable stern seat" which I have never heard of.
Sooo, is it a desirable motor if maintained well? John
JMARTIN posted 01-01-2008 02:48 PM ET (US)
Some more information on the motor I know nothing about. Boat and motor bought new at Hawleys in Bellingham in 1995. The motor has about 100 hours on it, seems low.
Good, bad, just OK, rare, or indifferent, anybody got a comment on this motor? If the boat checks out, we are going to have a mechanic look at it. Other than a compression check, is there something to look for? John
Buckda posted 01-01-2008 05:23 PM ET (US)
John -
If it's maintained properly, it should be fine.
There are a few mentions of this motor on the site that I can recall.
The associated memory I have of those mentions is "a rough transition" at a certain RPM when going from 2 cylinder operation to 4 cylinder operation.
Take it for a test drive to make sure you can deal with this rough transition.
Buckda posted 01-01-2008 05:29 PM ET (US)
John –
I take that back.
Here’s what I found doing a search:
This stern warning came from two astute MERCURY FANS!
CF: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004113.html

quote:
sosmerc posted 01-11-2006 08:45 PM ET (US)

I'll be putting on my "flame suit" shortly after typing this......
I don't think you will like the 125 Merc. I like everything about these motors...EXCEPT THE WAY THEY RUN!!
They have been VERY troublesome for some. They are very touchy...some idle well, and others are very inconsistant.
They do not always accelerate cleanly...and around 1800-2200 RPM they can't make up their mind whether to run on 2, 3, or 4 cylinders. Once on plane and cruising, they are ok. Top end power is ok. When everything is PERFECT, they can even idle and troll OK. But RARELY is everything ok. I would not sell a 100, 115, or 125hp with the 2+4 system to anyone, except maybe my worst enemy! (on the positive side, they have brought me alot of work with all their problems). LHG posted 01-11-2006 09:10 PM ET (US)

Sos - that's interesting to hear you say that. I have never thought this 4 cylinder replacement for the in-line 6 was as good of an engine. I often wondered why Merc didn't re-design the in-line 6 for loop charging and oil injection instead. And now with the Verados, here we are back to an in-line 6 block! jimh posted 01-11-2006 09:19 PM ET (US)

Unless the price is overwhelmingly attractive, I would avoid this motor.
The 2+2 design of this classic two-stroke makes its running characteristics somewhat famously poor. In short, the motor has all the attributes of a classic two-stroke:
The Good Characteristics
--powerful
--good performance at wide open throttle
--tough
--survives in marine environment
And the Bad Characteristics
--noisy
--smoky
--rough idle
--rough running
--bad fuel economy
--hard starting
--high emissions
The fact that this approach to design (using cylinders which cut in and out depending on engine speed) has never been used in another Mercury motor ought to tell you all you need about this engine.
Also, it is a fairly large displacement four-cylinder engine without any balancing shafts. It will have inherent vibration problems. Most four cylinder engines of this displacement built currently have elaborate dual balancing shafts to smooth out the engine vibration. (Cf. the new Suzuki and Yamaha four cylinder engines.)
Very few in-line four cylinder outboard have been built. This alone says something about them.
If Mercury supporters are this wary of the engine design, I'd be especially wary and certainly would test run the engine before making any promises to the seller.
Tohsgib posted 01-02-2008 11:14 AM ET (US)
13 years and only 10 hours...boat better be mint. I would not stray from the deal if it is a good deal. With a 13 year old engine it may be time for a repower soon anyway...or it may last another 13 years.
JMARTIN posted 01-02-2008 11:46 AM ET (US)
Jeepers, 2+4, I searched 2+2. Oh well, deal is done, my buddy bought it. He can back out if the mechanic has bad news.
http://seattle.craigslist.org/kit/boa/524441391.html
He said the boat was in great shape. They took it out for a run. It does stumble during the transistion, but you just power through and back off.
Boat was kept under a tarp and not used much. I think he will be pleased. It gets to come up to my barn so we can play with it for electronics, fuel tank set up and other stuff. What fun, it has not and will not cost me a dime but I get to use it.
He will be listing his 13 for sale soon. I will post it when I get the OK. Thanks for the replies, John
DeeVee posted 01-02-2008 09:44 PM ET (US)
John,
My brother in law had a 115 2+2 that he repowered his 1986 Montauk with. He liked it once he got use to the 2+2 idioscyncrasy.
Doug
L H G posted 01-02-2008 11:20 PM ET (US)
The 100 is a good 2 + 2 engine, but Mercury finally discontinued it because as a detuned 115/125, it had no more power than the 3 cylinder 90, which is also about a 100 HP. Merc's prop charts clearly showed this overlap.
JMARTIN posted 01-03-2008 06:18 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the information. The motor checked out fine and my buddy has taken possession. This will be my first Mercury experience. I expect it to go very fast and I will get bugs in my teeth from grinning too much. John
Tom W Clark posted 01-03-2008 06:25 PM ET (US)
Taylor has a Mercury 100 on his Montauk he keeps on Whidbey Island. It is a perfectly fine motor for a Montauk, cruising or trolling.

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.

Author	Topic: 1995 Mercury 100 hp, good motor?
JMARTIN	posted 12-31-2007 07:10 PM ET (US) Found a 1995 Montauk 17 with a Mercury 100. I am assuming that the motor is a 1995 also. The problem is, I know nothing good or bad about this motor. The boat looks nice. John
JMARTIN	posted 12-31-2007 10:38 PM ET (US) OK, it is a 1995 2+2 Mercury 100 hp on a 1995 Montauk. Everything is original right out of the dealer. It does have a "removable stern seat" which I have never heard of. Sooo, is it a desirable motor if maintained well? John
JMARTIN	posted 01-01-2008 02:48 PM ET (US) Some more information on the motor I know nothing about. Boat and motor bought new at Hawleys in Bellingham in 1995. The motor has about 100 hours on it, seems low. Good, bad, just OK, rare, or indifferent, anybody got a comment on this motor? If the boat checks out, we are going to have a mechanic look at it. Other than a compression check, is there something to look for? John
Buckda	posted 01-01-2008 05:23 PM ET (US) John - If it's maintained properly, it should be fine. There are a few mentions of this motor on the site that I can recall. The associated memory I have of those mentions is "a rough transition" at a certain RPM when going from 2 cylinder operation to 4 cylinder operation. Take it for a test drive to make sure you can deal with this rough transition.
Buckda	posted 01-01-2008 05:29 PM ET (US) John – I take that back. Here’s what I found doing a search: This stern warning came from two astute MERCURY FANS! CF: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004113.html quote: sosmerc posted 01-11-2006 08:45 PM ET (US) I'll be putting on my "flame suit" shortly after typing this...... I don't think you will like the 125 Merc. I like everything about these motors...EXCEPT THE WAY THEY RUN!! They have been VERY troublesome for some. They are very touchy...some idle well, and others are very inconsistant. They do not always accelerate cleanly...and around 1800-2200 RPM they can't make up their mind whether to run on 2, 3, or 4 cylinders. Once on plane and cruising, they are ok. Top end power is ok. When everything is PERFECT, they can even idle and troll OK. But RARELY is everything ok. I would not sell a 100, 115, or 125hp with the 2+4 system to anyone, except maybe my worst enemy! (on the positive side, they have brought me alot of work with all their problems). LHG posted 01-11-2006 09:10 PM ET (US) Sos - that's interesting to hear you say that. I have never thought this 4 cylinder replacement for the in-line 6 was as good of an engine. I often wondered why Merc didn't re-design the in-line 6 for loop charging and oil injection instead. And now with the Verados, here we are back to an in-line 6 block! jimh posted 01-11-2006 09:19 PM ET (US) Unless the price is overwhelmingly attractive, I would avoid this motor. The 2+2 design of this classic two-stroke makes its running characteristics somewhat famously poor. In short, the motor has all the attributes of a classic two-stroke: The Good Characteristics --powerful --good performance at wide open throttle --tough --survives in marine environment And the Bad Characteristics --noisy --smoky --rough idle --rough running --bad fuel economy --hard starting --high emissions The fact that this approach to design (using cylinders which cut in and out depending on engine speed) has never been used in another Mercury motor ought to tell you all you need about this engine. Also, it is a fairly large displacement four-cylinder engine without any balancing shafts. It will have inherent vibration problems. Most four cylinder engines of this displacement built currently have elaborate dual balancing shafts to smooth out the engine vibration. (Cf. the new Suzuki and Yamaha four cylinder engines.) Very few in-line four cylinder outboard have been built. This alone says something about them. If Mercury supporters are this wary of the engine design, I'd be especially wary and certainly would test run the engine before making any promises to the seller.
Tohsgib	posted 01-02-2008 11:14 AM ET (US) 13 years and only 10 hours...boat better be mint. I would not stray from the deal if it is a good deal. With a 13 year old engine it may be time for a repower soon anyway...or it may last another 13 years.
JMARTIN	posted 01-02-2008 11:46 AM ET (US) Jeepers, 2+4, I searched 2+2. Oh well, deal is done, my buddy bought it. He can back out if the mechanic has bad news. http://seattle.craigslist.org/kit/boa/524441391.html He said the boat was in great shape. They took it out for a run. It does stumble during the transistion, but you just power through and back off. Boat was kept under a tarp and not used much. I think he will be pleased. It gets to come up to my barn so we can play with it for electronics, fuel tank set up and other stuff. What fun, it has not and will not cost me a dime but I get to use it. He will be listing his 13 for sale soon. I will post it when I get the OK. Thanks for the replies, John
DeeVee	posted 01-02-2008 09:44 PM ET (US) John, My brother in law had a 115 2+2 that he repowered his 1986 Montauk with. He liked it once he got use to the 2+2 idioscyncrasy. Doug
L H G	posted 01-02-2008 11:20 PM ET (US) The 100 is a good 2 + 2 engine, but Mercury finally discontinued it because as a detuned 115/125, it had no more power than the 3 cylinder 90, which is also about a 100 HP. Merc's prop charts clearly showed this overlap.
JMARTIN	posted 01-03-2008 06:18 PM ET (US) Thanks for the information. The motor checked out fine and my buddy has taken possession. This will be my first Mercury experience. I expect it to go very fast and I will get bugs in my teeth from grinning too much. John
Tom W Clark	posted 01-03-2008 06:25 PM ET (US) Taylor has a Mercury 100 on his Montauk he keeps on Whidbey Island. It is a perfectly fine motor for a Montauk, cruising or trolling.