posted 12-23-2008 03:07 AM ET (US)     

Eight engines competed, mixing all technologies (first time I have seen this), conventional carburetor two-cycle, DFI two-cycle, and EFI four-cycle. In each category, engines earned points 8-1 by their performance rank (first = 8 points, and so on), with 32 being a perfect score.(meaning four first-place rankings).

Ranks as follows:

Overall Best:

Mercury two-cycle = 27.3 points out of 32.
Mercury four-cycle EFI = 24.2
Suzuki four-cycle EFI = 23.7
Tohatsu DFI two-cycle = 23.5
Yamaha two-cycle = 23.3
Honda four-cycle EFI = 23.0
Evinrude E-TEC two-cycle DFI = 17.5
Yamaha four-cycle EFI = 17.5

In top speed, the Honda edged out the Mercury four-cycle by 0.1-MPH. Evinrude was slowest of all eight, 5-MPH slower.

In acceleration, the Mercury two-cycle was fastest, followed by Tohatsu. Honda was slowest, but only slightly slower than the E-TEC, a surprise.

In fuel economy, Mercury four-cycle was best (10.7-MPG), with Honda 0.1-MPG less. The Mercury two-cycle 50 was last, as would be expected (7.7 MPG).

In sound, Mercury four-cycle was quietest, followed by Yamaha four-cycle. Tohatsu was noisest.

One thing this test showed is that Evinrude's "2 is greater than 4" promotion is false advertizing. In every category, at least two 4-stroke engines outperformed the E-TEC. They should can that theme, it's not credible.

posted 12-23-2008 07:47 AM ET (US)            

As all boats were run the same day in the same water conditions, after factory personnel prepared each boat, the testing was as fair and balanced as possible. Each motor had the standard lower unit gearing (no "Bigfoots").
The factory reps chose SS props for all motors except both Yamaha's and the Tohatsu, which obviously got aluminum. I do wish they had published the rpm's achieved for each engine, but one must trust the factory reps to set them up for optimum performance.

If I had the time (someone will have the time) to apply Crouch's formula to the speed numbers, we should be able to estimate the horsepower difference between engines. The E-TEC came in at 30.8 mph. The Merc 4-stroke ran 35 and the 2-stroke ran 34.5 mph. The Yamaha 50 2-stroke ran 32.6 and the Yamaha 4-stroke ran 31.2.

posted 12-23-2008 08:41 AM ET (US)            

It also would have been beneficial to know how the optional gearcases faired. They only would have had to throw in 2 more motors. Then you could have compared how the Evinrude with a 2.67 gearcase would compare to a Mercury Bigfoot and Yamaha High Thrust 2.33 gearcase.

I know the Merc 2 strokes are still available but they aren't listed on their website. So they are comparing a technology that may not be available soon and isn't available already in some parts of the country.

posted 12-23-2008 11:24 AM ET (US)            

Actually there were no real surprises. We all know if you want to go fast you have to get a Mercury. #1 on the Water.

posted 12-23-2008 12:01 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Actually there were no real surprises. We all know if you want to go fast you have to get a Mercury. #1 on the Water.

---

Which motor was the fastest in the test?

posted 12-23-2008 12:50 PM ET (US)            

Though E-Tec is a rather new technology, Im confident its rock solid, he says. Evinrude is banking its reputation on it. All things considered, Id have to give the edge to Evinrude and call Suzuki a close second.

Just as we dont see eye to eye on everything boat related, we have agreed to disagree here, and have declared it a split decision between Evinrude and Suzuki for bragging rights as the bayous top bantamweight. BWB"

I did not see anything about Mercury being on top ;)

posted 12-23-2008 01:12 PM ET (US)            

The SUZUKI was strictly middle of the road. It did not excell at anything nor did it fail at anything.

posted 12-23-2008 01:29 PM ET (US)            

Considering that a two-cycle engine was top rated, I think the results reaffirm the concept that "2 > 4" can be true.

In the scoring system, points are awarded for rank in category, which has the effect of forcing a wide distribution in scoring. For example, the spread between first and last in one category may represent only 5-percentage spread from best to worst, but the points awarded vary by a factor of 800-percent. Take the category of fuel economy: Honda finished second, earning 7-points. Its fuel economy was less than one-percent different that the leader, but its score was de-rated by 12-percent. Because of this, I don't see much potential for interpretation of the outcome by comparison of the raw scores, that is, only the rankings are significant, not necessarily the raw scores. And in categories where the differences are very small, the ranking may not be significant as well.

A more intelligent scoring system would give an arbitrary number of points to the leader, say 100 points, then award the remaining places points in proportion to the difference in the measurement. For example, using the fuel economy metric, if the winner gets 100-points, then a second place finisher with 1-percent lower performance would get 99 points. This type of scoring would produce a sum that was more representative of the actual variation among the products, and you could use the total score as a comparison of the differences.

posted 12-23-2008 01:45 PM ET (US)            

"Even so, the CARB 3-star Suzukis acceleration times should lay to rest the notion that four-strokes are doggy out of the hole. By the same token, it is fair to point out its strong showing is due in part to Suzukis large displacement and that comes with a weight penalty."

posted 12-23-2008 01:53 PM ET (US)            

As always,

INCONCLUSIVE.

posted 12-23-2008 02:03 PM ET (US)            

The mystery here is why did the 2 Yamaha's fall so far short performance wise along with the E-TEC????

By the way I work for a Top 100 Dealer that sells both Yamaha and Suzuki. Mercury, who we do not sell, was the clear "winner" in this round of testing.

posted 12-23-2008 02:47 PM ET (US)         

THE MAGAZINE WAS PRACTICALLY VOID OF ADVERTIZEMENTS. No internal engine mfg ads at all- not Merc, not Yamaha, not Evinrude, not Honda, not Tohatsu.
Only Suzuki had the back cover ad, indicating they must still have some money to spend! It shows what bad shape the marine industry is in, and now cutting way back on the advertizing dollar. I wonder how much longer magazines like this can survive without the ad revenue.

Per this test, looking at each category, probably the highest ranking "clean" engine is the Merc 50HP 4-stroke EFI, followed by Honda and then Suzuki. In top end, the Mercury 4-stroke actually ran faster than the Merc 2-stroke 50. Unfortunately for Evinrude, the Etec was a middle to bottom comparative ranking in all four categories, and was out-performed by the Tohatsu 2-stroke DFI except in Sound.

posted 12-23-2008 03:09 PM ET (US)            

Looks like it will be a looong winter fighting over magazine test results.

Is there a category rated where cylinders used by various mfgrs will make a difference? The 2 cylinder E-TEC probably has some limitations in idle smoothness, etc. with only 2 cylinders. It clearly has a weakness in top speed. What about torque to move heavier loads? That's usually the problem for us in small aluminum boats - you put 4 guys in there, plus gear and it's hogged down quite a bit.

posted 12-23-2008 04:07 PM ET (US)            

I like John 21:3
Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to him, "We will also come with you." They went out and got into the boat; and that night they caught nothing.

posted 12-23-2008 04:39 PM ET (US)            

As I already pointed out, the numerical score totals are most likely not truly representative of the actual differences in performance in the categories, but were just an arbitrary system of scoring imposed.

Another curiosity is the choice of the four parameters measured and the equal weighting given to them. Top speed may not be as important to all users as fuel economy, for example, and perhaps loss of some speed is a trade off willingly given for better fuel economy. Acceleration may be last in many lists of important attributes.

posted 12-23-2008 09:50 PM ET (US)            

In an attempt to assign weights to the results, I awarded 100 points to the winner in each category. I then calculated the percentage difference from the best score for each other score and awarded points based on that difference. A perfect score would be 700 points. The weighted results were:

Points % of total
1. Mercury 2-stroke 645 92
2. Yamaha 2-stroke 629 90
3. Tohatsu 616 88
4. Suzuki 605 86
5. Mercury 4-stroke 599 86
6. Honda 593 85
7. Yamaha 4-stroke 579 83
8. E-TEC 571 82

Magazine results:
1. Mercury 2-stroke 27.3 85
2. Mercury 4-stroke 24.2 76
3. Suzuki 23.7 74
4. Tohatsu 23.5 73
5. Yamaha 2-stroke 23.3 73
6. Honda 23.0 72
7. E-TEC 17.5 55
7. Yamaha 4-stroke 17.5 55

What might this tell us? Probably whatever an individual wants to read into it. However, I feel that by weighting the results and looking at the percentage column, one can see that the results are reasonably close overall.

Remember that this does not take into consideration your local dealer and your relationship with him. That relationship alone may be worth more points than any other category scored in this comparison test.

posted 12-23-2008 10:17 PM ET (US)            

These numbers make no sense as they fall far below the rated horsepower. Therefore I will recalculate them by adding 10% to each motor to try to get them all within the allowed 10% variance in rated horsepower.

1. Honda 55 hp
2. Mercury 4-stroke 54.7 hp
3. Mercury 2-stroke 53.1 hp
4. Tohatsu 49.5 hp
5. Suzuki 49.0 hp
6. Yamaha 2-stroke 47.4 hp
7. Yamaha 4-stroke 43.5 hp
8 E-TEC 42.4 hp

Conclusions: what could be the causes for the Yamaha 4-stroke and the E-TEC to fall outside of the 10% corridor in rated horsepower? At this time I only have questions, but would like to be able to find a rational explanation for this apparant phenomenon.

posted 12-24-2008 08:53 AM ET (US)            

I also find the reported 35 MPH from the Honda 50 interesting in light of Yamaha's report of 35 MPH with an F75 on the Alumacraft 165 CS and 38.8 MPH with an F90. See www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_4stroke_midthrustjetport_al_alm-navigator165cs-f75tlr.pdf and www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_4stroke_midthrustjetport_al_alm-navigator165cs-f90tlrd.pdf . Based on the information in those two reports, I calculate about 185 as a Crouch hull factor for the Navigator 165 CS. According to this calculator, www.wallaceracing.com/braking-hp.php a 90 HP motor at sea level will lose about 1.9 HP at 700 feet. So, if we make an altitude adjustment, the Crouch factor is about 189 (not much of a difference).

Now if we use 189 as the Crouch factor and 1900 lbs as the tested weight (just a guess here based on tested weight reported by Yamaha in the above referenced reports with the assumption of a similar loading), a 50 HP outboard should push the Navigator 165 CS to approximately 31 MPH, right where the E-TEC 50 and the F50 performed. Now lets assume for the moment that the E-TEC 50 and F50 produce the advertised 50 HP and all of the boats are IDENTICAL in construction, weight and loading and the weather and water conditions are IDENTICAL. That assumption means that the Honda 50 and the Mercury 50 4-stroke had to be producing 65 HP to push the boat to 35 MPH, way beyond the 10 percent limit.

posted 12-24-2008 09:25 AM ET (US)            

There could very well be variables in hull shape. Perhaps a hook in the hull. Or in some cases a negative hook. Does that make sense?

Alumacraft makes a very good stiff boat. In some aluminum boats oilcanning can occur. Not likely on an Alumacraft. I have seen some waviness in the hulls, though.

As for rigging the same boat 8 times in one day. That is unlikely to happen. Plus for all weather and water conditions to be the same all day are unlikely.

Hmm. So once again we are where we were in some previous threads. It is very unlikely that there could be a really fair test.

The only fair test I can see is on a dyno at the prop shaft and a graph of horsepower and torque at increasing RPM. Of course this still won't give you much indication of how a motor will perform on YOUR boat, but it could be a starting point.

posted 12-24-2008 09:51 AM ET (US)            

Your analysis using Crouch's formula to deduce the horsepower from the boat speed is also interesting. There seems to be a very wide range of deduced horsepower. Using the usual allowance of a ten-percent variation, we ought to see horsepower vary only between 45 to 55-HP. Instead we see a wider range.

posted 12-24-2008 10:10 AM ET (US)            

Every company has them...Where they seem to have hit a home run with the 90 HP E-TEC and some of the other larger motors, they seem to be lacking for this motor.

posted 12-24-2008 05:03 PM ET (US)         

The magazine did the best job they could, to their credit, and does not deserve being run down for it. They got eight of the same boat, and then asked EACH manufacturer to set it up with their OWN engine, and let theri own people run it. A completely reasonable assumption would be that no manufacturer is going to sabotage their results by doing a lousy job. So this is about as fair a test as is possible, with the only variable the skill of the mfg's set up work and MFG tolerance of the boats.

The 2 cylinder E-tecs, 40-60HP are the oldest block design being tested here, and it shows. This is basically the old OMC engine from the 80's, with an out of date "Bigfoot" gearcase design. The competition, even the Merc 3 cylinder 2-stroke, are all newer, more modern powerheads. Note that NONE of the other guys submitted their "Bigfoot" models, since in a non-pontoon boat application, they are slower performers. As Peter indicated, the Evinrude was handicapped by it's lack of a modern gearcase (smaller series prop) for this HP range.
Instead of dressing up the old OMC 50, BRP should have designed a whole new engine for this 40-60HP class.

I think LWL did a nice job of re-examining the data, which still gave the Merc 2-stroke 50 first place, truly amazing. It shows that in spite of all the hype for how great the new clean engines are, some of the carbed 2-strokes were really excellent at moving a boat, and not really all that bad on fuel either. Did anybody notice that the Merc 2-stroke 50 gave 7.7 MPG on this boat, and the Yamaha 2-stroke 8.1 MPG! Not bad, most could live with that. Now wonder they are still making them. If points would have been given for low weight and initial purchase cost, they would look even better. Further development of an EFI system, had it not been cut short by the EPA, would have made them even better still.

I just bought a pair of reasonably priced, lightweight brand new Merc carbed 2-strokes, while I could still get them, since weight-to-HP was my determining factor, and after seeing this article, and subsequent discussion here, I'm glad I did.

posted 12-24-2008 05:29 PM ET (US)            

This is too funny. Tell us, Larry, exactly how old is the E-TEC 40-60 HP block design? Exactly how did they dress up the old OMC 50?

posted 12-24-2008 05:34 PM ET (US)            

That statement, not necessarily so. Do you think a Yamaha T50 that pushes my 18 Outrage at close to 30 mph is a slow performer. The larger gear case, lower gear gear ratio, proper mounting height and correct pitch larger diameter prop is no slower performer and probably would out perform the normal F50.

posted 12-24-2008 06:29 PM ET (US)            

What is real OBVIOUS is that you have been promoting Mercury Verado for all these many years and YET you have NOT purchased a Verado. That speaks volumes about your real commitment to that engine. Before, it was ok with you if those engines were very heavy BUT! Now you finally are concerned about weight and didn't buy one. Instead buying an older engine. WHY?

The magazine is just that! A fishing magazine! Do you think this magazine deserves a Pulitzer prize? I guess if I run my car down the block and take a few measurements it would be a test and those results would be accepted for all cars like mine. I could use that run to say all kinds of credible things about those cars. Same as the tests they did with lots of points and opinions.

posted 12-24-2008 08:45 PM ET (US)            

We as consumers should be thankful that articles like this point out true differences in various aspects of engine performance. The net result of gathering information SHOULD BE product improvement by the under performers.

Several years ago, at a dealer meeting I had the opportunity to run a pre-production 90 E-TEC with Roch Lambert on the boat with me. I gave him my honest assessment comparing it to a 90 Mecury that I had recently run on the same model boat. It was not a good review at that time. Obviously BRP continued to develop that engine and today it is an outstanding engine. I would expect to see the same results with the E-TEC 50 when it becomes a priority at BRP. In the meantime, if you prefer the unique design features of the E-TEC 2 cylinder engines, by all means purchase one and enjoy it. It is a very good engine that somewhat under performs. (Same comment applies to the Yamaha F-50).

A Christmas wish for all boaters would be for the manufacturers (both boat and engine) to start paying attention to the details and initiate some product improvements.

posted 12-26-2008 02:58 PM ET (US)            

"rigged by each competing factory."

I run 2 and 4 stroke quads, whenever you modify the intake capabilities, you need to get rid of the exhaust appropriately. The results seem to prove the quiet clean engines are a little disadvantaged in this regards.

posted 12-26-2008 03:24 PM ET (US)            

This is a BOSTON WHALER website, guys. Whalers aren't speedboats or racing boats; they're work boats. I laugh and laugh and laugh when I see these endless, heated threads concerning outboard motor "shootouts." What really amuses me--and I know it shouldn't--is that often the most enthusiastic (and sometimes the angriest) proponents of one or another brand of motor over all the rest are guys (rarely if ever women) who only use their boats maybe forty or fifty hours per year. This topic, concerning a bass and walleye magazine's test of 50 horsepower motors, is just perfect to make my point.

Following the advice of a local dealer, who is himself an enthusiastic ocean fisherman, I rigged my first BW, a Katama 16, with a High Thrust Yamaha 50 hp outboard. I promptly (within a year and a half) put almost 400 hours on that motor, without a single problem, in the lumpy Pacific north of San Francisco. Nope, I didn't get into any racing "shootouts" with other small boat ocean fishermen, since we are only occasionally able to get our boats--however they are powered--going much faster than 25 or 26 mph due to the conditions out here. That little carbureted Yami T50 just kept puttin' right along, delivering instant starts, smokeless, quiet operation, plenty of power when I needed it, and great fuel economy. And it always got me home, occasionally from as far offshore as fifteen lumpy miles. The next owner of my old Katama, CW member Steve/17 Bodega, has since put twice that number of hours on the same motor, without a single problem, in the same location and same conditions.

Do I wish that my old four stroke Yamaha outboard motor, mounted on some other boat, could outrun an illegal-in-California Mercury two stroke on a flat muddy bass lake? Oh yeah...that would be very, very important to me. In fact, I'd rush right out and buy a couple of them Merc two-cycle 50s right now, if I had any money left over from Christmas, that is. ;-)

Just my opinion, guys, for whatever worth it may have. One little suggestion for some of you--try to get your boats on the water more often and spend less time agonizing over which outboard can win a "shootout." You might find that whichever motor you have, as long as it keeps chuggin' along, is not nearly as important as the fine Boston Whaler transom to which it is bolted.

posted 12-26-2008 03:53 PM ET (US)            

After saying clean/quiet engines are disadvantaged, which is true in a performance aspect,
I deleted...

"although, a lot can be said for clean quiet outboards on pristine waterways" from first post.

As for boating, sorry to hijack the topic, this is the first 5 consecutive days I have not been on the water in some type of boat in over 20 years.

A 5th of Silver Patron patiently waits for 09.

mk

posted 12-26-2008 05:38 PM ET (US)            

The E-TEC engine is run with a higher ratio of oil to fuel during its initial 10 to 20 hours or so, and this is controlled by the EMM. The oil ratio might affect the ultimate engine speed that can be obtained during that time, but it seems more reasonable to speculate that the engine was out of that initial double-oil period. At least you'd think that if there were a disadvantage, if anyone would know about it would be the factory representatives participating in the test. They'd have every incentive to make sure the engine being tested was performing at its optimum.

Measurement of the top speed is fairly straightforward, and it seem unlikely that there could be any significant measurement error. You push the throttle to the wall, let the boat come up to speed, trim it out for maximum, and note the GPS receiver measurement.

posted 12-26-2008 05:54 PM ET (US)            

I think the biggest influence in performance here is total weight and hull shape. I don't know much about aluminum hulls as we don't see many around here. How consistent is hull shape on aluminum hulls from hull to hull? How easy is it to deform the hull shape? The few aluminum hulls I've seen over the years seemed have had their share of dents here and there.

posted 12-27-2008 02:24 AM ET (US)            

QUIET/CLEAN engines have exhaust (expansion chamber) restrictions that rob power compared to engines that dont have exhaust and clean air restrictions. Have you ever been to a quiet drag race? Well, isnt getting to the fishing hole faster than the other guy basically, a drag race? Whatever the EMM does with the fuel/air is only as good as the ability to get rid of the exhaust. Double burning and mufflers rob power. Again, there is a lot to be said for clean/quiet engines. In another test, maybe clean and quiet should earn a higher rating and Etec would win easily?

Compared to EFI engines,
A stock 2 stroke carbed motor is pretty simple to dial in or pump up (high octane gas would allow you to open up the jet & use hotter plugs to grab a few more ponies without needing to enlarge the fairly unrestricted exhaust). These are simple things all small engine tech understand (ie, MFG rigging).
If you think I am implying 2 stroke MFG has a "rigging advantage", you are correct.

posted 12-27-2008 12:00 PM ET (US)            

I am not familiar with the aluminum boat that was used in the tests. I imagine the boat is built from parts cut to a pattern and then assembled on some sort of standard frame or jig. This should give some degree of uniformity to the hull form, but I suspect not as much as you would get from laminated boats that were all built in the same female contact mold, such as a Boston Whaler. There could be some differences among the aluminum hulls.

In a prior test conducted by the same BASS & WALLEYE BOAT magazine, they revealed that very small improvements to the hull form of a test boat produced substantial speed improvements. In fact, of all the upgrades that were performed to this boat, including power head modification, propeller modifications, fuel system modifications, and so on, the single most significant improvement in the top speed of the boat came from simple changes to the hull form. Adding stiffness to the hull, fairing the hull surface, and careful adjustment of the engine mounting height allowed the top speed to increase significantly. After reading this I was forever sensitized to the potential for minor differences in a hull to have an influence in testing when so-called identical boats were used.

posted 12-27-2008 12:38 PM ET (US)         

1. The engines were specially manufactured by hand, under the direct supervision of the design engineer, then sent over to Mercury racing for extensive testing and refinement, along with the installation of other special, undetectable high performance components. The 4-stroke engine, initially manufactured in China, once arrived in Fond du lac, was completely torn down and rebuilt by American specialists. Both engines were putting out over 90 HP by the time Merc got done upgrading them. This was relatively easy to do, since both of these Merc blocks were offered in 60 HP versions anyway. Then they re-boxed them up, looking like they were randomly pulled off the line and sent to BWB for testing.

2. Alumacraft was contacted, and subsequently bribed, to make sure Merc got specially manufactured boats, each with 200# less weight and straight and true bottoms. And just to be sure the Mercs would win, Mercury requested that the Yamaha and E-tec boats get 200# of hidden lead installed, with untrue bottoms make by their lowest paid employees.

posted 12-29-2008 04:25 AM ET (US)            

There has been comparison testes of 40, 50 and 60 hp outboards fairly recently in the boating magazines of Sweden and Finland (often done as a joint project between magazines from different countries).

The tests have included outboards that we currently have on the market here, which means no carburetor two-strokes. As for brands, it has been Honda, Evinrude, Mercury, Selva, Suzuki, Tohatsu and Yamaha.

Ill not get into any exact results here, feel free to ask for details if you like, but generally I must say the Mercury outboards have scored well on both performance and economy, whereas Evinrude E-TEC outboards have been among the least economical and slow on top speed.

Based on the results Ive seen, I would not recommend the 40 to 60 HP Evinrudes to anyone looking for the best fuel economy or best top speed.

Despite of this, I do have the 50 HP E-TEC as an option on my personal short list for a new-to-me outboard for my current boat project. (I like the technology, the compact size/look and the low amount of service needed. Top speed is not that important to me and with the hours of boating I currently get to do per year, the difference in fuel economy is academic.)

Also, Id very much like to know if the results Ive seen for 40 to 60 HP E-TEC Evinrudes is due to a propeller choice compromise, needed to get an almost on par fuel economy, but also leading to lower speed at WOT. If propped differently for higher top speed, how much would fuel economy suffer? (As I said, not that I'm personally that interested in top speed.)

posted 12-29-2008 07:58 AM ET (US)            

As for how choosing a propeller affects both top speed and fuel economy, that is such a broad topic it should become its own discussion.

To return for a moment to the BASS & WALLEYE BOAT magazine test results, I have to note that in LHG's representation of the result there was an error in his first sentence. Larry wrote:

"Bass and Walleye Boat magazine (January 2009) just did another of their famous "Shootouts", running all makes of 50 HP engines on the same boat, rigged by each competing factory."

As we know now, this is wrong. The motors were not tested on the same boat. The eight motors were tested on eight different boats, although the eight boats were all of the same model.

Larry's use of hyperbole and sarcasm is a good tactic for making a point, but it cannot overcome the real problem faced in making these tests. The motors were tested on eight different boats, so in a very real way the boats became a part of the test, too. If you want to test eight motors on the same boat, you can only have one boat.

It the case of the top speed results, the differences in performance among the test motors is very significant, and the variation is so large that I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that there could be that much variation among the boat hulls. If the manufacturer of the boat hull used a production process that allowed for so much variation in performance, they themselves would have a big problem on their hands. However, it is reasonable to allow that there is some variation between hulls, and this variation could influence the outcome by some amount.

Even allowing for the hulls to be precisely identical and having no variation which could affect the results, one has to consider that this is a test of the eight motors on just one type of boat, and it is entirely reasonable to conclude that there are characteristics of the boat which might favor one motor more than another. If you were to analyze the results--and perhaps someone will do this for us--I suspect that you will find there is a strong correlation between gear ratio and top speed.

posted 12-29-2008 05:14 PM ET (US)            

Brand      MPH      Gear Ratio     Propeller
Honda      35.1     2.08           11 1/8 x 14
Merc 4 st  35.0     1.83           10 1/2 x 13
Merc 2 st  34.5     1.83           10 3/8 x 14
Tohatsu    33.3     1.85           11 2/5 x 12
Suzuki     33.1     2.27           11 3/4 x 13
Yam 2 st   32.6     1.85           11 1/2 x 13
Yam 4 st   31.2     1.85           10 5/8 x 12
E-TEC      30.8     2.67           13 7/8 x 17

There does not appear to be a correlation between gear ratio and top speed.

posted 12-30-2008 01:16 AM ET (US)            

"Mercury convinced Tohatsu to paint their engines black also, reducing costs, and thereby making it look like Mercury controls Tohatsu." -- LHG

posted 12-30-2008 09:14 AM ET (US)            

In a prior discussion there was a theory put forward that having a higher gear ratio was intrinsically better.

Effect of Gear Ratio On Selection of Outboard Motor
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/005853.html

The basis of the theory was that a higher gear ratio permitted a propeller of higher pitch to be used. A corollary theory was that a propeller of higher pitch would be more efficient because the ratio of its pitch to diameter would be more favorable. The results obtained in this test seem to blast a huge hole in that theory. If you ignore the Honda motor, the fastest results came from the lowest gear ratio.

posted 12-30-2008 12:38 PM ET (US)            

Mercury Verado engines look huge even with the slimming paint job. They must closely resemble their real gut-busting size if colored white or any other color.

Not sure when Mercury took "ownership" of black - it certainly is not connected in my mind.

You can get a black Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, Kia, Hundai, Volkswagen, Lamborghini, Audi, Mercedes-Benz, BMW and any number of others (including Tata and probably even Dacha).

How that has anything to do with the Mercury 50 HP 2-Stroke Classic being the better overall performance engine for this particular boat is beyond me.

What is amazing, as posted earlier, is that the classic, carburated, 2-stroke technology beat all other engines in this particular example.

Now I realize that Larry must be in his "other" personality here whereby he promotes 2-strokes instead of supercharged 4-strokes, but my overall suprise is to watch him argue with himself on this site over whether 2-strokes are better than 4-strokes or not.

Clearly his 2-stroke personality is in charge of the checkbook, as that is what he continues to purchase for his personal boats. I don't argue with that personality - I happen to agree that 2-stroke technology seems to be a good fit for the outboard boat application....it's just nice to see it come out on this board every now and again. :)!!

posted 12-31-2008 01:07 PM ET (US)            

BRP was spun off the parent Aerospace and Transportation company a while back for economic reasons. It appears though they must still have good backing and engineering.

posted 01-06-2009 09:14 AM ET (US)            

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006467.html