Temptation 2200, OptiMax 225: 7-MPG Cruise - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Temptation 2200, OptiMax 225: 7-MPG Cruise

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Temptation 2200, OptiMax 225: 7-MPG Cruise

Miestrol posted 04-30-2009 08:44 AM ET (US)
[Separated from a discussion about the history of this boat--jimh]
[For a 1988 Boston Whaler TEMPTATION 2200 powered by a Mercury OptiMax 225-HP motor,] I estimate close to 7-MPG at 30-MPH plane.
TransAm posted 04-30-2009 08:10 AM ET (US)
What is the source of your data for the 7 MPG with the 225 Optimax? That is more than double what the expected mileage should be. At 30 MPH I would expect upper 2's to 3 MPG.
jimh posted 04-30-2009 09:01 AM ET (US)
Yes, that is a fantastic estimate, so fantastic, I cannot believe it, either. If we assume that a 225-HP can push this boat to a wide-open-throttle speed of about 42-MPH, then at 30-MPH we would expect the horsepower to be about
HP = 225 x (30/42)^0.5
HP = 115
At 30-MPH and getting 7-MPG, we'd have a fuel burn of 30/7 = 4.28-GPH
For an engine to be able to develop 115-HP and only burn 4.28-GPH would require a fantastic brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) rate:
4.28-gal/hour x 6.25-lbs/gal x 1/115-HP = 0.233 llbs/HP-hour
Frankly, I do not believe there is a two-cycle engine that ever existed that can produce anywhere near that sort of BSFC number. Most are more than double that figure.
My experience with a very similar boat produces results that are in precisely the same range as suggested by TransAm, that is, optimum fuel economy at cruise in the vicinity of 30-MPH is in the 2.5 to 3-MPG range for a modern two-cycle direct injection engine.
L H G posted 04-30-2009 11:17 AM ET (US)
Optimax 2-stroke DFI's get the best fuel mileage of any of the three major brands, very close to the best 4-strokes. There is lots of information on CW about the fuel economy of Evinrude E-tec, but practically none on the unpopular (to classic Whaler guys) Optimax, and therefore Optimax claims for economy automatically get compared to the higher fuel use E-tec database and experiences. I agree that this fellow's estimate is on the high side, but JimP here has reported fantastic 22 Revenge mileage with his 225 Opti (close to 5 MPG), so has BluewaterPirate on a Post Classic, and so has James (150 Opti on a ribside-over 6 MPG).
But JimH's test of a large displacement 3.44 liter Evinrude 250 HO is not representative either. A smaller displacement Merc 250 Optimax gets much better mileage, maybe a 1 MPG better, and so would a 225 Optimax. Bigger cube engines tend to eat gas if they don't put out more HP.
Peter posted 04-30-2009 11:27 AM ET (US)
Here is some performance data from MERCURY MARINE for a 225 Optimax on a Sea Boss 235. I picked this one because the top speed would be similar to the top speed one could expect from a Temptation 2200.
RPM Range Speed (MPH) Fuel (GPH) Fuel (MPG)
1000 2 0.74 2.7
2000 7.9 3.05 2.6
3000 12.1 6.3 1.9
4000 31 10.6 2.9
5000 39.3 19.01 2.1
5656 45.6 20.67 2.2
The best that this boat could do is 2.9 MPG at 31 MPH. Anyone that claims they are getting 5 MPG at cruise on a 22 foot classic Whaler needs to reexamine their input data.
Tohsgib posted 04-30-2009 11:34 AM ET (US)
I am going to "assume" the poster meant 7GPH, not 7MPG, even that is too conservative for a 225.
Peter posted 04-30-2009 01:08 PM ET (US)
"JimP here has reported fantastic 22 Revenge mileage with his 225 Opti (close to 5 MPG)" -- LHG,
Actually, this is what JimP reports ==> continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003605.html . Not remotely close to 5 MPG, not even close to 4 MPG at cruise. Should be over 5 MPG at 1000 RPM.
Here is some more Mercury Marine data for comparison -- a SeaPro 228DC which is a 48 MPH boat.
RPM Range Speed (MPH) Fuel (GPH) Fuel (MPG)
1000 5.4 0.78 6.9
2000 8.9 2.97 3.0
3000 13.8 5.89 2.3
4000 32.7 9.9 3.3
5000 41.2 16.49 2.5
5700 48.1 20.41 2.4
The best this boat can do is 3.3 MPG at 32.7 MPH turning 4000 RPM. JimP's reported results are similar.
Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Mercury Marine performance database for the Optimax 250 or 250 XS that we can use as a comparable to the performance of the E-TEC 250 HO mounted on the Whaler Drive of a 22 Revenge WT WD.
jimh posted 04-30-2009 01:25 PM ET (US)
If Mercury OptiMax motors really produced power with a BSFC of only 0.233-lbs/HP-Hour, you would see them strapped on the back of super-tankers and container ships. Even the world's largest and most efficient internal combustion engines cannot come close to the performance that is claimed here.
jimh posted 04-30-2009 01:39 PM ET (US)
Just for the record, the E-TEC 250 H.O. on a 22-foot Boston Whaler hull with Whaler Drive, very similar to this TEMPTATION 2200, can get an optimum fuel economy of 2.9 to 3.1-MPG with a three-blade propeller in the speed range of 20 to 30-MPH. This is actual measured data, not an estimate.
You will notice that there is perfect congruence between the measured fuel economy of the OptiMax and the E-TEC on similar boats.
The only values that are completely inconsistent are the 7-MPG figure tossed out as an estimate, and the 5-MPG figure incorrectly recalled.
THe data from Jim Potdevin's Alaskan tests with a smaller boat than mine are enhanced by the colder, denser seawater in which the propeller operates, and the colder, denser air that the motor uses for combustion.
In any case, I suspect there are only two readers who think that the OptiMax does get 7-MPG, and no amount of explanation is going to change their minds.
Buckda posted 04-30-2009 02:54 PM ET (US)
In L H G's defense, he stated in his post that he does not believe that the 7 MPG figure is accurate.
The other figures for a DFI 2-Stroke engine are precisely in line with my measured observation taken last spring on Lake Nipigon where I ran my 18' Outrage with twin DFI 2-stroke 90 HP motors and drained the belly tank over 240+ of mixed boating. When I refueled, I took on approximately 60 gallons, placing my fuel economy right in the 4 MPG mark. If 180 horses of DFI 2-stroke can deliver 4 MPG, it seems entirely reasonable that a 225 HP DFI 2-stroke could deliver 2.7-3.5 MPG over mixed running for a larger and heavier hull.
L H G posted 04-30-2009 04:41 PM ET (US)
Sorry for the mistake on JimP. Guess it's closer to 3.5 -4MPG when converted from the NMPG figures he uses. Still pretty good.
Here's [representation of data collected by a] a magazine, [reworked] by Mercury, showing a 225 Optimax getting 24% better fuel economy than an Evinrude 225 H.O.
Mercury Representation of Data 1
And another [representation of data collected by a] magazine showing a 200 Opti getting 32% better fuel economy than an E-TEC at cruise:
Mercury Representation of Data 2
Here's another [representation of data collected by a magazine] on a 250HP Optimax vs a 250 Evinrude, showing 13% better fuel economy for the Optimax at cruise.
Mercury Representation of Data 3
And finally, here's one that shows the 150 Optimax gets 25% better fuel economy at cruise than a 150 E-TEC.
Mercury Representation of Data 4
Mercury contiuously advertizes the better fuel economy of an Optimax over an Evinrude or Yamaha HPDI. Show me an Evinrude advertizing claim where they say the E-Tec gets better fuel economy than a same HP Optimax. I've never seen one. None of this means the Evinrude isn't a good engine. Just not the best in fuel economy. They need GenII E-tec I guess, to improve fuel economy, just like Verado did.
jamesmylesmcp posted 04-30-2009 05:04 PM ET (US)
Not a 250 but Smartcraft on my boat reads 3.8 GPH at 24 MPH leaving me with 6.2 MPG. 1971 Outrage 21, 2006 Optimax spinning a 19p Ventura.
L H G posted 04-30-2009 06:33 PM ET (US)
From past experience, when Dave and I had the same engines (150 2.0 liter Mercs) on our boats, his 18 Outrage and my 21 Ribside, the boats ran almost exactly the same top end, and used same amounts of fuel.
Now, it's very interesting to compare his twin 90 E-tec at 4 MPG vs Jim McP's Ribside with single 150 Optimax at 6.2 MPG, where Jim is getting *55%* better gas mileage. Even with a big single vs slightly more HP twins, that's an amazing saving, and I think Jim's ribside is quite a bit faster faster top end also.
L H G posted 04-30-2009 06:38 PM ET (US)
PS: It's also interesting to see how efficient the "lean and mean" classic 21 Ribside is when compared to what a slug the 22 Tempation is. Jim McP almost makes on his Ribside the supposedly ridiculous 7 MPG claimed by the original poster.
Buckda posted 04-30-2009 06:55 PM ET (US)
Hmmm...I'm remembering running alongside with you pulling ahead slightly, but don't remember taking fuel consumption comparisons.
I believe that the Classic 21 Outrage is a more efficient hull.
Also, note that my 18' Outrage for the Nipigon trip was VERY heavily loaded with a spare 27 gallon deck tank, two men, full camping gear, canvas up, running with a 11' inflatable piggyback across the gunwales, with three coolers filled with ice, drinks and food, two coolers filled with gear, clothes, two 18 gallon rubber containers with insect repellent, cooking gear and dry goods, fishing gear including downrigger balls lures, knives, hooks, bait, 7 fishing rods and reels, etc; 2 gallons of camp fuel, a camp stove, a coleman lantern, a .20 ga. shotgun and ammunition, two 14 lb anchors and 20' of chain rode, extra teak decking and a radar arch.
I will forgive the motors for only eeking out 4 MPG after having to push all that crap around.
TransAm posted 04-30-2009 07:21 PM ET (US)
You forgot the kitchen sink
L H G posted 04-30-2009 07:22 PM ET (US)
Dave - According to Mercury, you have the one E-tec engine line that gets as good fuel economy as a Merc:
http://www.mercurymarine.com/look_deeper/head_to_head.php?ID=55& SortBy=Title&Section=outboardChecks&fourStroke75115=12
Not as fast accelerating, or in top end, however.
Buckda posted 04-30-2009 08:00 PM ET (US)
I do realize that companies, salesmen and individuals attempt to do this every single day, but were I trying to prove to a panel of experts that a drug marketed by Pfizer worked better than the competition, I would tend to avoid Pfizer-generated or -presented or -supplied information.
Further, I would provide footnotes/endnotes that provided full disclosure of methods of measurement and the conditions under which the measurements were made.
However, I do applaud Mercury R&D for developing an information resource such as the sites linked above. It is a good development to see companies presenting data to back up their claims.
Interesting to note that the data above references the differences between the 90 HP DFI 2-stroke E-TEC and the 90 HP 4-stroke Mercury. Is there a 90 HP OptiMax available? (I really don't know). Isn't the 90 HP Mercury 4-stroke a 4-cylinder motor - it is probably more "piggy" on fuel - even as a 4-stroke partly due to a larger displacement. The E-TEC is a inline 3 cylinder motor.
Interesting.
jimh posted 04-30-2009 08:09 PM ET (US)
I guess we have winnowed the difference from 400-percent down to the 10-percent range. A difference of 10-percent is entirely reasonable. It is about 1/40th the difference originally reported.
crabby posted 04-30-2009 08:35 PM ET (US)
Just for another data point, my new 250 hp E-Tec on the 22 Outrage Cuddy Whaler Drive was giving me (according to the I-Command gauge reading from the motor, no flow meter) about 10.5 gallons per hour at about 27 miles per hour, and about 11.4 gph at about 29 mph. This is with a 15.75x15 inch prop which I feel is way too underpitched for my rig.
TransAm posted 04-30-2009 08:43 PM ET (US)
That amounts to 2.63 MPG, From what I recall, my Yamaha ox66 250's, when operating individually, provide me 2.5 MPG on a boat that weigh 2,000 lbs more.
TransAm posted 04-30-2009 08:48 PM ET (US)
Hold that thought; that recollection seems too good to be true. I'll need to re-verify at what RPM and MPH my data was taken at.
jimh posted 05-01-2009 12:26 AM ET (US)
Almost everyone I have ever known with a boat and an outboard motor will tell you the boat goes faster than it really does and the motor uses less fuel than it really does. That is just human nature.
jimh posted 05-01-2009 12:45 AM ET (US)
Nick writes:
"I am going to 'assume' the poster meant 7GPH, not 7MPG, even that is too conservative for a 225."
A fuel burn of 7-GPH at a speed of 30-MPH would be a fuel economy of
30-miles/1-hour X 1-hour/7-gallons = 4.3-MPG
This would be a BSFC of about
7-gal/hour x 6.25-lbs/gal x 1/115-HP = 0.38-lbs/HP-hour
A BSFC of 0.38 about the best possible efficiency you can get out of most carefully tuned four-cycle engines. It would be extraordinarily good from a direct-injection two-cycle. Since was are just estimating the horsepower being developed, the 7-GPH burn might be a reasonable figure.
When an engine runs at its peak torque operating point, its BSFC will usually be the best. If the OptiMax is running at that point, its BSFC could approach this value, although I suspect it would be higher still.
newt posted 05-01-2009 07:32 AM ET (US)
Well Jim, I'll be the exception. My Revenge is around 4 mph slower than others have reported, and my fuel economy is more than 1 MPG and less than 2.5 MPG. Really...no exaggeration.
TransAm posted 05-01-2009 07:59 AM ET (US)

quote:
Almost everyone I have ever known with a boat and an outboard motor will tell you the boat goes faster than it really does and the motor uses less fuel than it really does. That is just human nature.
I think that extends to many areas of life. I have a casual friend who I use to see more frequently. He always claimed to be a scratch golfer (0 handicap), yet every time we played I bet him straight up...and usually won. I'm a 5 handicap.
Peter posted 05-01-2009 08:17 AM ET (US)
The Yamaha 3.1L Ox66 225 and 250 HP EFI V6 2-stroke motors are pretty efficient cruisers if you keep them between 3500 and 4000 RPM. Below is comparative data between an Ox66 225 and an F225 on a Pursuit 2470 Walk Around that I reported here many years ago.

quote:
ccording to Pursuit, the 2470 WA (no bottom paint) with the 225 EFI has the following performance:
RPM MPH GPH MPG Range
1500 7.9 2.5 3.14 353
2000 9.1 4.9 1.85 208
3000 20.3 7.3 2.78 313
4000 31.5 10.3 3.05 344
5000 40.4 16.3 2.48 279
5500 45.1 24.2 1.86 210
Pursuit reports that the 2470 WA (no bottom paint) with the F225 has the following performance:
RPM MPH GPH MPG Range
600 3.0 0.8 3.75 422
1000 5.0 1.2 4.13 464
1500 6.6 1.9 3.45 388
2000 8.2 2.7 3.02 340
2500 9.4 3.8 2.46 277
3000 14.5 5.1 2.84 320
3500 21.1 6.5 3.24 364
4000 27.2 8.3 3.27 368
4500 31.5 10.4 3.02 340
5000 35.3 13.5 2.61 294
5500 39.3 17.6 2.23 251
5800 40.7 19.6 2.07 233

Now one could say that the 2470 WA with an F225 was underpowered and that the F225 results reflect that.
Where the Ox66 platform does not shine relative to either a DFI 2-stroke or a 4-stroke is at low engine speeds such as idling. So while its crusing MPG might be almost as good as DFI 2-stroke or a 4-stroke, its overall average GPH and MPG will be worse under an ICOMIA duty cycle measure because 40 percent of that cycle is spent idling.

TransAm posted 05-01-2009 08:36 AM ET (US)
I guess my recollection was correct. Incidently, why would the 2470 WA be considered underpowered with a F225 and not a 225 EFI?
Peter posted 05-01-2009 08:46 AM ET (US)
Back when I reported this information, no one really knew much about the F225 as it was a new product. Overtime, the F225 has developed a reputation of being weak. Some say it has an output of about 208 HP. 208 HP on a Pursuit 2470 WA is not enough.
The Ox66 motors, on the other hand, had a reputation of being strong. The one dyno curve that I saw for the 250 Ox66 showed it having a peak HP of 265. The 225 wasn't far behind that and would guess that it was well above 240 HP. 208 HP is about 2/3 of the maximum rating for the 2470 WA whereas 240 is close to 3/4 of the maximum rating for that boat. In my view, any boat that is not powered with 3/4 of the maximum is underpowered.
Also, I don't consider the number on the cowl to really be a good indicator of over/underpowered because it flatly fails to take into account the total power curve capability of a motor which is far more important than the indication of the WOT HP output capability +/- 10 percent.
TransAm posted 05-01-2009 11:23 AM ET (US)
Actually, my notes were 2.6 MPG @ 3,700 RPM with a single motor; 1.9 (occasionally touching 2.0) if running both motors.

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: Temptation 2200, OptiMax 225: 7-MPG Cruise
Miestrol	posted 04-30-2009 08:44 AM ET (US) [Separated from a discussion about the history of this boat--jimh] [For a 1988 Boston Whaler TEMPTATION 2200 powered by a Mercury OptiMax 225-HP motor,] I estimate close to 7-MPG at 30-MPH plane.
TransAm	posted 04-30-2009 08:10 AM ET (US) What is the source of your data for the 7 MPG with the 225 Optimax? That is more than double what the expected mileage should be. At 30 MPH I would expect upper 2's to 3 MPG.
jimh	posted 04-30-2009 09:01 AM ET (US) Yes, that is a fantastic estimate, so fantastic, I cannot believe it, either. If we assume that a 225-HP can push this boat to a wide-open-throttle speed of about 42-MPH, then at 30-MPH we would expect the horsepower to be about HP = 225 x (30/42)^0.5 HP = 115 At 30-MPH and getting 7-MPG, we'd have a fuel burn of 30/7 = 4.28-GPH For an engine to be able to develop 115-HP and only burn 4.28-GPH would require a fantastic brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) rate: 4.28-gal/hour x 6.25-lbs/gal x 1/115-HP = 0.233 llbs/HP-hour Frankly, I do not believe there is a two-cycle engine that ever existed that can produce anywhere near that sort of BSFC number. Most are more than double that figure. My experience with a very similar boat produces results that are in precisely the same range as suggested by TransAm, that is, optimum fuel economy at cruise in the vicinity of 30-MPH is in the 2.5 to 3-MPG range for a modern two-cycle direct injection engine.
L H G	posted 04-30-2009 11:17 AM ET (US) Optimax 2-stroke DFI's get the best fuel mileage of any of the three major brands, very close to the best 4-strokes. There is lots of information on CW about the fuel economy of Evinrude E-tec, but practically none on the unpopular (to classic Whaler guys) Optimax, and therefore Optimax claims for economy automatically get compared to the higher fuel use E-tec database and experiences. I agree that this fellow's estimate is on the high side, but JimP here has reported fantastic 22 Revenge mileage with his 225 Opti (close to 5 MPG), so has BluewaterPirate on a Post Classic, and so has James (150 Opti on a ribside-over 6 MPG). But JimH's test of a large displacement 3.44 liter Evinrude 250 HO is not representative either. A smaller displacement Merc 250 Optimax gets much better mileage, maybe a 1 MPG better, and so would a 225 Optimax. Bigger cube engines tend to eat gas if they don't put out more HP.
Peter	posted 04-30-2009 11:27 AM ET (US) Here is some performance data from MERCURY MARINE for a 225 Optimax on a Sea Boss 235. I picked this one because the top speed would be similar to the top speed one could expect from a Temptation 2200. RPM Range Speed (MPH) Fuel (GPH) Fuel (MPG) 1000 2 0.74 2.7 2000 7.9 3.05 2.6 3000 12.1 6.3 1.9 4000 31 10.6 2.9 5000 39.3 19.01 2.1 5656 45.6 20.67 2.2 The best that this boat could do is 2.9 MPG at 31 MPH. Anyone that claims they are getting 5 MPG at cruise on a 22 foot classic Whaler needs to reexamine their input data.
Tohsgib	posted 04-30-2009 11:34 AM ET (US) I am going to "assume" the poster meant 7GPH, not 7MPG, even that is too conservative for a 225.
Peter	posted 04-30-2009 01:08 PM ET (US) "JimP here has reported fantastic 22 Revenge mileage with his 225 Opti (close to 5 MPG)" -- LHG, Actually, this is what JimP reports ==> continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003605.html . Not remotely close to 5 MPG, not even close to 4 MPG at cruise. Should be over 5 MPG at 1000 RPM. Here is some more Mercury Marine data for comparison -- a SeaPro 228DC which is a 48 MPH boat. RPM Range Speed (MPH) Fuel (GPH) Fuel (MPG) 1000 5.4 0.78 6.9 2000 8.9 2.97 3.0 3000 13.8 5.89 2.3 4000 32.7 9.9 3.3 5000 41.2 16.49 2.5 5700 48.1 20.41 2.4 The best this boat can do is 3.3 MPG at 32.7 MPH turning 4000 RPM. JimP's reported results are similar. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Mercury Marine performance database for the Optimax 250 or 250 XS that we can use as a comparable to the performance of the E-TEC 250 HO mounted on the Whaler Drive of a 22 Revenge WT WD.
jimh	posted 04-30-2009 01:25 PM ET (US) If Mercury OptiMax motors really produced power with a BSFC of only 0.233-lbs/HP-Hour, you would see them strapped on the back of super-tankers and container ships. Even the world's largest and most efficient internal combustion engines cannot come close to the performance that is claimed here.
jimh	posted 04-30-2009 01:39 PM ET (US) Just for the record, the E-TEC 250 H.O. on a 22-foot Boston Whaler hull with Whaler Drive, very similar to this TEMPTATION 2200, can get an optimum fuel economy of 2.9 to 3.1-MPG with a three-blade propeller in the speed range of 20 to 30-MPH. This is actual measured data, not an estimate. You will notice that there is perfect congruence between the measured fuel economy of the OptiMax and the E-TEC on similar boats. The only values that are completely inconsistent are the 7-MPG figure tossed out as an estimate, and the 5-MPG figure incorrectly recalled. THe data from Jim Potdevin's Alaskan tests with a smaller boat than mine are enhanced by the colder, denser seawater in which the propeller operates, and the colder, denser air that the motor uses for combustion. In any case, I suspect there are only two readers who think that the OptiMax does get 7-MPG, and no amount of explanation is going to change their minds.
Buckda	posted 04-30-2009 02:54 PM ET (US) In L H G's defense, he stated in his post that he does not believe that the 7 MPG figure is accurate. The other figures for a DFI 2-Stroke engine are precisely in line with my measured observation taken last spring on Lake Nipigon where I ran my 18' Outrage with twin DFI 2-stroke 90 HP motors and drained the belly tank over 240+ of mixed boating. When I refueled, I took on approximately 60 gallons, placing my fuel economy right in the 4 MPG mark. If 180 horses of DFI 2-stroke can deliver 4 MPG, it seems entirely reasonable that a 225 HP DFI 2-stroke could deliver 2.7-3.5 MPG over mixed running for a larger and heavier hull.
L H G	posted 04-30-2009 04:41 PM ET (US) Sorry for the mistake on JimP. Guess it's closer to 3.5 -4MPG when converted from the NMPG figures he uses. Still pretty good. Here's [representation of data collected by a] a magazine, [reworked] by Mercury, showing a 225 Optimax getting 24% better fuel economy than an Evinrude 225 H.O. Mercury Representation of Data 1 And another [representation of data collected by a] magazine showing a 200 Opti getting 32% better fuel economy than an E-TEC at cruise: Mercury Representation of Data 2 Here's another [representation of data collected by a magazine] on a 250HP Optimax vs a 250 Evinrude, showing 13% better fuel economy for the Optimax at cruise. Mercury Representation of Data 3 And finally, here's one that shows the 150 Optimax gets 25% better fuel economy at cruise than a 150 E-TEC. Mercury Representation of Data 4 Mercury contiuously advertizes the better fuel economy of an Optimax over an Evinrude or Yamaha HPDI. Show me an Evinrude advertizing claim where they say the E-Tec gets better fuel economy than a same HP Optimax. I've never seen one. None of this means the Evinrude isn't a good engine. Just not the best in fuel economy. They need GenII E-tec I guess, to improve fuel economy, just like Verado did.
jamesmylesmcp	posted 04-30-2009 05:04 PM ET (US) Not a 250 but Smartcraft on my boat reads 3.8 GPH at 24 MPH leaving me with 6.2 MPG. 1971 Outrage 21, 2006 Optimax spinning a 19p Ventura.
L H G	posted 04-30-2009 06:33 PM ET (US) From past experience, when Dave and I had the same engines (150 2.0 liter Mercs) on our boats, his 18 Outrage and my 21 Ribside, the boats ran almost exactly the same top end, and used same amounts of fuel. Now, it's very interesting to compare his twin 90 E-tec at 4 MPG vs Jim McP's Ribside with single 150 Optimax at 6.2 MPG, where Jim is getting 55% better gas mileage. Even with a big single vs slightly more HP twins, that's an amazing saving, and I think Jim's ribside is quite a bit faster faster top end also.
L H G	posted 04-30-2009 06:38 PM ET (US) PS: It's also interesting to see how efficient the "lean and mean" classic 21 Ribside is when compared to what a slug the 22 Tempation is. Jim McP almost makes on his Ribside the supposedly ridiculous 7 MPG claimed by the original poster.
Buckda	posted 04-30-2009 06:55 PM ET (US) Hmmm...I'm remembering running alongside with you pulling ahead slightly, but don't remember taking fuel consumption comparisons. I believe that the Classic 21 Outrage is a more efficient hull. Also, note that my 18' Outrage for the Nipigon trip was VERY heavily loaded with a spare 27 gallon deck tank, two men, full camping gear, canvas up, running with a 11' inflatable piggyback across the gunwales, with three coolers filled with ice, drinks and food, two coolers filled with gear, clothes, two 18 gallon rubber containers with insect repellent, cooking gear and dry goods, fishing gear including downrigger balls lures, knives, hooks, bait, 7 fishing rods and reels, etc; 2 gallons of camp fuel, a camp stove, a coleman lantern, a .20 ga. shotgun and ammunition, two 14 lb anchors and 20' of chain rode, extra teak decking and a radar arch. I will forgive the motors for only eeking out 4 MPG after having to push all that crap around.
TransAm	posted 04-30-2009 07:21 PM ET (US) You forgot the kitchen sink
L H G	posted 04-30-2009 07:22 PM ET (US) Dave - According to Mercury, you have the one E-tec engine line that gets as good fuel economy as a Merc: http://www.mercurymarine.com/look_deeper/head_to_head.php?ID=55& SortBy=Title&Section=outboardChecks&fourStroke75115=12 Not as fast accelerating, or in top end, however.
Buckda	posted 04-30-2009 08:00 PM ET (US) I do realize that companies, salesmen and individuals attempt to do this every single day, but were I trying to prove to a panel of experts that a drug marketed by Pfizer worked better than the competition, I would tend to avoid Pfizer-generated or -presented or -supplied information. Further, I would provide footnotes/endnotes that provided full disclosure of methods of measurement and the conditions under which the measurements were made. However, I do applaud Mercury R&D for developing an information resource such as the sites linked above. It is a good development to see companies presenting data to back up their claims. Interesting to note that the data above references the differences between the 90 HP DFI 2-stroke E-TEC and the 90 HP 4-stroke Mercury. Is there a 90 HP OptiMax available? (I really don't know). Isn't the 90 HP Mercury 4-stroke a 4-cylinder motor - it is probably more "piggy" on fuel - even as a 4-stroke partly due to a larger displacement. The E-TEC is a inline 3 cylinder motor. Interesting.
jimh	posted 04-30-2009 08:09 PM ET (US) I guess we have winnowed the difference from 400-percent down to the 10-percent range. A difference of 10-percent is entirely reasonable. It is about 1/40th the difference originally reported.
crabby	posted 04-30-2009 08:35 PM ET (US) Just for another data point, my new 250 hp E-Tec on the 22 Outrage Cuddy Whaler Drive was giving me (according to the I-Command gauge reading from the motor, no flow meter) about 10.5 gallons per hour at about 27 miles per hour, and about 11.4 gph at about 29 mph. This is with a 15.75x15 inch prop which I feel is way too underpitched for my rig.
TransAm	posted 04-30-2009 08:43 PM ET (US) That amounts to 2.63 MPG, From what I recall, my Yamaha ox66 250's, when operating individually, provide me 2.5 MPG on a boat that weigh 2,000 lbs more.
TransAm	posted 04-30-2009 08:48 PM ET (US) Hold that thought; that recollection seems too good to be true. I'll need to re-verify at what RPM and MPH my data was taken at.
jimh	posted 05-01-2009 12:26 AM ET (US) Almost everyone I have ever known with a boat and an outboard motor will tell you the boat goes faster than it really does and the motor uses less fuel than it really does. That is just human nature.
jimh	posted 05-01-2009 12:45 AM ET (US) Nick writes: "I am going to 'assume' the poster meant 7GPH, not 7MPG, even that is too conservative for a 225." A fuel burn of 7-GPH at a speed of 30-MPH would be a fuel economy of 30-miles/1-hour X 1-hour/7-gallons = 4.3-MPG This would be a BSFC of about 7-gal/hour x 6.25-lbs/gal x 1/115-HP = 0.38-lbs/HP-hour A BSFC of 0.38 about the best possible efficiency you can get out of most carefully tuned four-cycle engines. It would be extraordinarily good from a direct-injection two-cycle. Since was are just estimating the horsepower being developed, the 7-GPH burn might be a reasonable figure. When an engine runs at its peak torque operating point, its BSFC will usually be the best. If the OptiMax is running at that point, its BSFC could approach this value, although I suspect it would be higher still.
newt	posted 05-01-2009 07:32 AM ET (US) Well Jim, I'll be the exception. My Revenge is around 4 mph slower than others have reported, and my fuel economy is more than 1 MPG and less than 2.5 MPG. Really...no exaggeration.
TransAm	posted 05-01-2009 07:59 AM ET (US) quote: Almost everyone I have ever known with a boat and an outboard motor will tell you the boat goes faster than it really does and the motor uses less fuel than it really does. That is just human nature. I think that extends to many areas of life. I have a casual friend who I use to see more frequently. He always claimed to be a scratch golfer (0 handicap), yet every time we played I bet him straight up...and usually won. I'm a 5 handicap.
Peter	posted 05-01-2009 08:17 AM ET (US) The Yamaha 3.1L Ox66 225 and 250 HP EFI V6 2-stroke motors are pretty efficient cruisers if you keep them between 3500 and 4000 RPM. Below is comparative data between an Ox66 225 and an F225 on a Pursuit 2470 Walk Around that I reported here many years ago. quote: ccording to Pursuit, the 2470 WA (no bottom paint) with the 225 EFI has the following performance: RPM MPH GPH MPG Range 1500 7.9 2.5 3.14 353 2000 9.1 4.9 1.85 208 3000 20.3 7.3 2.78 313 4000 31.5 10.3 3.05 344 5000 40.4 16.3 2.48 279 5500 45.1 24.2 1.86 210 Pursuit reports that the 2470 WA (no bottom paint) with the F225 has the following performance: RPM MPH GPH MPG Range 600 3.0 0.8 3.75 422 1000 5.0 1.2 4.13 464 1500 6.6 1.9 3.45 388 2000 8.2 2.7 3.02 340 2500 9.4 3.8 2.46 277 3000 14.5 5.1 2.84 320 3500 21.1 6.5 3.24 364 4000 27.2 8.3 3.27 368 4500 31.5 10.4 3.02 340 5000 35.3 13.5 2.61 294 5500 39.3 17.6 2.23 251 5800 40.7 19.6 2.07 233 Now one could say that the 2470 WA with an F225 was underpowered and that the F225 results reflect that. Where the Ox66 platform does not shine relative to either a DFI 2-stroke or a 4-stroke is at low engine speeds such as idling. So while its crusing MPG might be almost as good as DFI 2-stroke or a 4-stroke, its overall average GPH and MPG will be worse under an ICOMIA duty cycle measure because 40 percent of that cycle is spent idling.
TransAm	posted 05-01-2009 08:36 AM ET (US) I guess my recollection was correct. Incidently, why would the 2470 WA be considered underpowered with a F225 and not a 225 EFI?
Peter	posted 05-01-2009 08:46 AM ET (US) Back when I reported this information, no one really knew much about the F225 as it was a new product. Overtime, the F225 has developed a reputation of being weak. Some say it has an output of about 208 HP. 208 HP on a Pursuit 2470 WA is not enough. The Ox66 motors, on the other hand, had a reputation of being strong. The one dyno curve that I saw for the 250 Ox66 showed it having a peak HP of 265. The 225 wasn't far behind that and would guess that it was well above 240 HP. 208 HP is about 2/3 of the maximum rating for the 2470 WA whereas 240 is close to 3/4 of the maximum rating for that boat. In my view, any boat that is not powered with 3/4 of the maximum is underpowered. Also, I don't consider the number on the cowl to really be a good indicator of over/underpowered because it flatly fails to take into account the total power curve capability of a motor which is far more important than the indication of the WOT HP output capability +/- 10 percent.
TransAm	posted 05-01-2009 11:23 AM ET (US) Actually, my notes were 2.6 MPG @ 3,700 RPM with a single motor; 1.9 (occasionally touching 2.0) if running both motors.