40-HP Outboard Motor Tests - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  40-HP Outboard Motor Tests

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   40-HP Outboard Motor Tests

jimh posted 01-03-2009 09:00 AM ET (US)
In early 2008 the Finnish boating magazine VENE published an article containing results of testing 40-HP outboard motors on a small aluminum boat. The usual Evinrude, Mercury, Honda, Suzuki, Tohatsu, and Yamaha low-emission motors were tested, along with several motors from Selva, a manufacturer whose motor are not generally available in North America.
I have extracted the information below from some tables in the articles, omitting the Selva motors. I don't speak Finnish, but thanks to an on-line translator I was able to figure out most of the notations in the table and substitute the corresponding English term:
Finnish Boating Magazine Comparison
40-HP Outboard Motors
VENE Magazine, March 2008
Boat Data
Model: LINDER 460 Arkip
Length: 4.6-meter (15-foot)
Beam: 1.85-meter (6-foot)
Material: aluminum
Weight: 286-kg (630-lbs)
Power: 25 to 50-HP
CE Rating: C (littoral waters)
Price: 9,345 Euro
Engine Data
E-TEC HONDA MERCURY SUZUKI TOHATSU YAMAHA
Model E40 BF40 F40EFI DF40 40TLDI F40
Type 2-cyc 4-cyc 4-cyc 4-cyc 2-cyc 4-cyc
PropPitch 15 13 14 16 12 14
MtgHt mm 18 0 18 18 18 18
WOT RPM 5800 6000 5600 5700 5800 5600
Performance Data
Boat Speed versus Engine Speed
Boat speed in nautical miles per hour
Engine speed in reference to maximum engine speed at wide open throttle
E-TEC HONDA MERCURY SUZUKI TOHATSU YAMAHA
WOT RPM 27.5 28.1 27.8 29 27.8 29
-500 RPM 25.3 25.5 25.0 25.8 25.2 26.2
-1,000 RPM 22.1 22.4 21.5 22.6 23.0 23.1
-1,500 RPM 19.6 20.0 18.0 19.2 20.4 20.0
-2,000 RPM 16.0 16.2 14.4 15.1 16.2 16.3

Fuel Consumption versus Engine Speed
Fuel flow in liters per hour
Engine speed in reference to maximum engine speed at wide open throttle
E-TEC HONDA MERCURY SUZUKI TOHATSU YAMAHA
WOT RPM 15.2 13.8 13.0 14.2 16.4 14.6
-500 RPM 13.2 11.2 10.2 11.6 12.2 11.4
-1,000 RPM 10.8 8.6 8.6 8.8 9.8 9.2
-1,500 RPM 8.0 7.2 6.8 7.0 7.4 7.0
-2,000 RPM 6.4 5.6 5.3 5.4 5.8 5.6
Fuel Mileage versus Engine Speed
Fuel mileage in liters per nautical mile
Engine speed in reference to maximum engine speed at wide open throttle
E-TEC HONDA MERCURY SUZUKI TOHATSU YAMAHA
WOT RPM 0.55 0.49 0.47 0.49 0.59 0.50
-500 RPM 0.52 0.44 0.41 0.45 0.48 0.44
-1,000 RPM 0.49 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.40
-1,500 RPM 0.41 0.36 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.35
-2,000 RPM 0.40 0.35 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.34
Noise Level versus Engine Speed
Engine speed in reference to maximum engine speed at wide open throttle
Sound pressure level decibels, A-weighting
E-TEC HONDA MERCURY SUZUKI TOHATSU YAMAHA
WOT RPM 91 89 86 86 91 86
-500 RPM 87 86 84 84 88 84
-1,000 RPM 86 85 83 83 87 83
-1,500 RPM 85 84 81 82 86 81
-2,000 RPM 84 81 80 81 85 80

Many thanks to Sebastian H. for sending me the article.
jimh posted 01-03-2009 09:15 AM ET (US)
I thought the tests were interesting, both in the results and in the data presentation, in the following areas:
--the E-TEC was again the slowest engine tested, but the differences were much less than reported in other testing. For example, in these results the E-TEC was 0.3-NMPH slower than the Mercury motor.
--the fuel consumption figures are given in terms of liters per nautical mile, whereas we would normally use (statute) miles per gallon. With the inverted presentation, a lower number is better.
--engine speed comparisons are made in reference to the maximum engine speed, not to specific values.
(Cf.: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006458.html ).
fishgutz posted 01-03-2009 09:21 AM ET (US)
Boy, was I confused. The mileage listing is in litres per mile. We usually use miles per gallon or litre. In other words the article calculated volume per distance. The generally accepted measurement that we are all accustomed to is distance per volume.
The chart just goes to show you (in my opinion) these tests vary widely and to me are inconclusive. Hmm.
Althought the E-tec is the slowest again.
fishgutz posted 01-03-2009 09:22 AM ET (US)
Wow, we were typing at the same time and thinking the same thing. Only you're faster.
jimh posted 01-03-2009 12:15 PM ET (US)
To convert the fuel economy results, you have to invert them and then correct to gallons and statute miles. For example, the E-TEC produced a fuel economy of 0.55-liters/nautical mile. This corresponds to
1-nautical mile/0.55-liters x 1.14-statute mile/1-nautical mile x 3.78-liters/1-gallon = 7.8 miles/gallon

Tohsgib posted 01-05-2009 11:56 AM ET (US)
12mpg with the Suzuki at cruise...better than my Bronco.
Is the 630lbs including the engine?
jimh posted 01-05-2009 08:48 PM ET (US)
The weight listed for the boat is the boat's weight; I don't think it includes the weight of the outboard motor.
GSH posted 01-06-2009 01:16 PM ET (US)
After checking at www.linder.se, 630 lbs is just the boat.
-Seb
Tohsgib posted 01-06-2009 02:06 PM ET (US)
Interesting then. My boat is roughly 300lbs lighter with the same engine and a 1" larger SS prop but yet I can only fetch low 5's on the tach. I will work on some height settings and maybe try it w/o the doel-fin.
GSH posted 01-07-2009 07:46 AM ET (US)
Yes, well, the boating magazine test was done with 'standard' aluminium propellers, not better preforming stainless ones.
-Seb
Tohsgib posted 01-07-2009 11:58 AM ET (US)
I have the standard 13" alum which I know is too small. I really think I need to repitch mine to a 15 or so but she runs and handles so well as is even though with 2 people I only get like 5100+ which is too low.
fourdfish posted 01-08-2009 10:43 AM ET (US)
Just to point out to all here how much actual difference
the data shows in this test, I figured the % Error or % difference in a few of these measurements.
The overall difference between all the engines in speed
at WOT is 5%. The difference between the E-TEC and the Mercury
is 1%. These differences are within normal Error range.
Change any of the factors(ex: Pro pitch or engine height) and the results could easily swing one way or another.All the rest
of this data has similar % errors.
The range difference in rpms at WOT is 400rpms.
I would say that in itself is a large significant factor.
We have seen here in the past two tests completely contradict each other.
So read and interpret them as you want!

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: 40-HP Outboard Motor Tests
jimh	posted 01-03-2009 09:00 AM ET (US) In early 2008 the Finnish boating magazine VENE published an article containing results of testing 40-HP outboard motors on a small aluminum boat. The usual Evinrude, Mercury, Honda, Suzuki, Tohatsu, and Yamaha low-emission motors were tested, along with several motors from Selva, a manufacturer whose motor are not generally available in North America. I have extracted the information below from some tables in the articles, omitting the Selva motors. I don't speak Finnish, but thanks to an on-line translator I was able to figure out most of the notations in the table and substitute the corresponding English term: Finnish Boating Magazine Comparison 40-HP Outboard Motors VENE Magazine, March 2008 Boat Data Model: LINDER 460 Arkip Length: 4.6-meter (15-foot) Beam: 1.85-meter (6-foot) Material: aluminum Weight: 286-kg (630-lbs) Power: 25 to 50-HP CE Rating: C (littoral waters) Price: 9,345 Euro Engine Data E-TEC HONDA MERCURY SUZUKI TOHATSU YAMAHA Model E40 BF40 F40EFI DF40 40TLDI F40 Type 2-cyc 4-cyc 4-cyc 4-cyc 2-cyc 4-cyc PropPitch 15 13 14 16 12 14 MtgHt mm 18 0 18 18 18 18 WOT RPM 5800 6000 5600 5700 5800 5600 Performance Data Boat Speed versus Engine Speed Boat speed in nautical miles per hour Engine speed in reference to maximum engine speed at wide open throttle E-TEC HONDA MERCURY SUZUKI TOHATSU YAMAHA WOT RPM 27.5 28.1 27.8 29 27.8 29 -500 RPM 25.3 25.5 25.0 25.8 25.2 26.2 -1,000 RPM 22.1 22.4 21.5 22.6 23.0 23.1 -1,500 RPM 19.6 20.0 18.0 19.2 20.4 20.0 -2,000 RPM 16.0 16.2 14.4 15.1 16.2 16.3 Fuel Consumption versus Engine Speed Fuel flow in liters per hour Engine speed in reference to maximum engine speed at wide open throttle E-TEC HONDA MERCURY SUZUKI TOHATSU YAMAHA WOT RPM 15.2 13.8 13.0 14.2 16.4 14.6 -500 RPM 13.2 11.2 10.2 11.6 12.2 11.4 -1,000 RPM 10.8 8.6 8.6 8.8 9.8 9.2 -1,500 RPM 8.0 7.2 6.8 7.0 7.4 7.0 -2,000 RPM 6.4 5.6 5.3 5.4 5.8 5.6 Fuel Mileage versus Engine Speed Fuel mileage in liters per nautical mile Engine speed in reference to maximum engine speed at wide open throttle E-TEC HONDA MERCURY SUZUKI TOHATSU YAMAHA WOT RPM 0.55 0.49 0.47 0.49 0.59 0.50 -500 RPM 0.52 0.44 0.41 0.45 0.48 0.44 -1,000 RPM 0.49 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.40 -1,500 RPM 0.41 0.36 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.35 -2,000 RPM 0.40 0.35 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.34 Noise Level versus Engine Speed Engine speed in reference to maximum engine speed at wide open throttle Sound pressure level decibels, A-weighting E-TEC HONDA MERCURY SUZUKI TOHATSU YAMAHA WOT RPM 91 89 86 86 91 86 -500 RPM 87 86 84 84 88 84 -1,000 RPM 86 85 83 83 87 83 -1,500 RPM 85 84 81 82 86 81 -2,000 RPM 84 81 80 81 85 80 Many thanks to Sebastian H. for sending me the article.
jimh	posted 01-03-2009 09:15 AM ET (US) I thought the tests were interesting, both in the results and in the data presentation, in the following areas: --the E-TEC was again the slowest engine tested, but the differences were much less than reported in other testing. For example, in these results the E-TEC was 0.3-NMPH slower than the Mercury motor. --the fuel consumption figures are given in terms of liters per nautical mile, whereas we would normally use (statute) miles per gallon. With the inverted presentation, a lower number is better. --engine speed comparisons are made in reference to the maximum engine speed, not to specific values. (Cf.: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006458.html ).
fishgutz	posted 01-03-2009 09:21 AM ET (US) Boy, was I confused. The mileage listing is in litres per mile. We usually use miles per gallon or litre. In other words the article calculated volume per distance. The generally accepted measurement that we are all accustomed to is distance per volume. The chart just goes to show you (in my opinion) these tests vary widely and to me are inconclusive. Hmm. Althought the E-tec is the slowest again.
fishgutz	posted 01-03-2009 09:22 AM ET (US) Wow, we were typing at the same time and thinking the same thing. Only you're faster.
jimh	posted 01-03-2009 12:15 PM ET (US) To convert the fuel economy results, you have to invert them and then correct to gallons and statute miles. For example, the E-TEC produced a fuel economy of 0.55-liters/nautical mile. This corresponds to 1-nautical mile/0.55-liters x 1.14-statute mile/1-nautical mile x 3.78-liters/1-gallon = 7.8 miles/gallon
Tohsgib	posted 01-05-2009 11:56 AM ET (US) 12mpg with the Suzuki at cruise...better than my Bronco. Is the 630lbs including the engine?
jimh	posted 01-05-2009 08:48 PM ET (US) The weight listed for the boat is the boat's weight; I don't think it includes the weight of the outboard motor.
GSH	posted 01-06-2009 01:16 PM ET (US) After checking at www.linder.se, 630 lbs is just the boat. -Seb
Tohsgib	posted 01-06-2009 02:06 PM ET (US) Interesting then. My boat is roughly 300lbs lighter with the same engine and a 1" larger SS prop but yet I can only fetch low 5's on the tach. I will work on some height settings and maybe try it w/o the doel-fin.
GSH	posted 01-07-2009 07:46 AM ET (US) Yes, well, the boating magazine test was done with 'standard' aluminium propellers, not better preforming stainless ones. -Seb
Tohsgib	posted 01-07-2009 11:58 AM ET (US) I have the standard 13" alum which I know is too small. I really think I need to repitch mine to a 15 or so but she runs and handles so well as is even though with 2 people I only get like 5100+ which is too low.
fourdfish	posted 01-08-2009 10:43 AM ET (US) Just to point out to all here how much actual difference the data shows in this test, I figured the % Error or % difference in a few of these measurements. The overall difference between all the engines in speed at WOT is 5%. The difference between the E-TEC and the Mercury is 1%. These differences are within normal Error range. Change any of the factors(ex: Pro pitch or engine height) and the results could easily swing one way or another.All the rest of this data has similar % errors. The range difference in rpms at WOT is 400rpms. I would say that in itself is a large significant factor. We have seen here in the past two tests completely contradict each other. So read and interpret them as you want!