posted 09-21-2009 04:29 PM ET (US)            

This is probably one of the most optimum classic hulls to repower with a Verado. Have fun!

posted 09-21-2009 05:11 PM ET (US)            

I think you would be the first person to repower this vessel with VERADO motors. They are certainly one of the first-class routes to a repower for this vessel.

The only concerns I'd have is that you're talking about the small-displacement versions (I suppose that is due to the weight of the big-block L6 VERADO). I think I would want the best power-to-weight ratio plus the bigger displacement motors (within reason) for the added torque and longevity (lower block stress).

posted 09-21-2009 09:10 PM ET (US)            

I own a boat with a Whaler Drive, so I think I have some reasonable basis to participate in this discussion, and I have had a brief opportunity to go on a test drive on a Boston Whaler boat rigged with twin 200-HP Verado motors. My impressions were gained only in a few minutes of bouncing about in some rather tall seas, but I noticed:

--the fuel consumption was quite high when the motors were pushed into the higher throttle settings.

--the noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) of the four-cylinder motors was noticeably greater than in the six-cylinder Verado.

posted 09-21-2009 09:56 PM ET (US)            

One important point to realize is that the Verado motor is rated at 200-HP at the propeller shaft. It is considered that there are losses in the drive train which consume a few percent of the useful power, so we can assume the power available at the crankshaft will be higher, around 210-HP or more. Further, in order to develop this horsepower, the engine must power its supercharger. At the high rate of boost needed to reach full power, a supercharger is considered to consume about 15-percent of the power output from the motor, This implies the motor is actually producing about 245-HP. Of this 245-HP, about 15-percent goes to running the supercharger. Another 10-HP are consumed in drive train loses, leaving 200-HP available at the propeller shaft. When you consider the motor is making 245-HP from only 1.7-liters, you can see it is really putting out a lot of power for its displacement. And it will also be burning more fuel to make this power.

A good source of information about the fuel consumption of the Mercury L4 200-HP Verado is from Boston Whaler. I have great faith in the test data collected by Boston Whaler. In testing a pair of 200-HP Verado motors on the 250 OUTRAGE, Boston Whaler showed fuel flow at wide open throttle to be 40-GPH. We take this figure and look for the brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of the engines.

40-gallons/1-hour x 6.25-lbs/1-gallon x 1/400-HP = 0.625-lbs/HP-Hour

A BSFC of 0.625 is a horribly high value for a modern four-cycle engine, and is actually higher than many older two-cycle engines can achieve (For example, an c.1992 Evirude V6 225-HP cross flow engine with carburetors, which has been described as "one of the worst gas hog 2-strokes ever built," was more fuel efficient than these Verado motors, getting a BSFC of 0.6-lbs/HP-Hour.) However, if we account for all the extra horsepower being used to run the supercharger and for the drive train loses, we find a BSFC of

40-gallons/1-hour x 6.25-lbs/1-gallon x 1/490-HP = 0.51-lbs/HP-Hour

This is somewhat high for a four-cycle engine with modern fuel induction, but much more like we would see in a naturally aspirated motor. This analysis confirms the general rule regarding the power consumed by the supercharger.

For a good source of information on the fuel consumption of the DF175 Suzuki I am afraid I do not have a handy reference. If there is a reliable boat test--as trustworthy as Boston Whaler's data--it would be good to have a pointer to it so that a closer look at the DF175 fuel consumption could be taken.

posted 09-22-2009 02:34 AM ET (US)         

http://www.mercurymarine.com/look_deeper/head_to_head.php?ID=57& SortBy=Title&Section=outboardChecks&fourCyl135200=3

The Verado kills the Suzuki on acceleration and fuel economy. Hooray for an American made product!

posted 09-22-2009 08:18 AM ET (US)            

40.4-gallons/1-hour x 6.25-lbs/1-gallon x 1/400-HP = 0.63-lbs/HP-Hour

That is even worse than Boston Whaler's data. Let's look at Mercury's own data to see if it correlates. In the article linked above about the 150-HP motor, Mercury says it burns 12.1-GPH at maximum throttle. This gives a BSFC of

12.1-gallons/1-hour x 6.25-lbs/1-gallons x 1/150-HP = 0.50-lbs-/HP-Hour

As best I can recall on the test drive I took, the twin 200-HP Verado fuel consumption at wide-open throttle was over 40-GPH. That would imply a BSFC of greater than 0.625. So let's add my first-hand real world observation to the list. We have four sets of data, one from Boston Whaler, one from a magazine, one from the manufacturer, and one from a real-world test drive. Let's compare the BSFC at wide-open throttle:

Boston Whaler measures = 0.625
BOATING magazine measures = 0.63
Mercury literature claims = 0.50
jimh observation on test drive = 0.625

posted 09-22-2009 08:55 AM ET (US)            

Where can you find a top speed graphic where the 2.8 MPH difference in top speed between the fastest outboard and the slowest outboard representing a 5 percent difference is graphically presented in a manner to make it look like the Honda is only going half (50 percent) as fast? Only in a Mercury outboard comparative adverstisement.

If Mercury used the same graphic representations for the 100 lb difference in weight between the E-TEC and the Verado (a 23 percent increase in weight) as it does for top speed, for example, the Mercury Verado would be off the comparative chart -- in a very bad way.

Where can you find favorable comparative test results but a conspicous absence of any mention of the testing procedures and conditions? Only in a Mercury outboard comparative advertisement.

Now back to comparative fuel consumption on an ICOMIA basis.

Here is the fuel consumption data for a Suzuki 175 on a Dusky 203 Open ( www.suzukimarine.com/boat_builders/boat_tests/dusky_marine_inc/ dusky_203_open/df175/ )

RPM GPH
IDLE 0.30
1000 0.50
1500 1.00
2000 1.65
2500 2.85
3000 4.00
3500 5.25
4000 6.55
4500 8.25
5000 10.60
5500 13.50
6200 17.15

I used this data to calculate the ICOMIA duty cycle hourly fuel consumption of 3.7 GPH with the assumption that the motor was correctly propped, not over propped which would shift the fuel consumption to lower RPM potentially causing the ICOMIA number to be higher or under propped which would cause the ICOMIA number calculated to be lower because the engine would hit the rev limiter before it was able to consume the proper amount of fuel to make the rated power.

Here is the data for a Verado 175 on a Crestliner 1900 taken from Mercury's Engine Test website:

RPM GPH
Idle 0.3*
1000 0.7
2000 1.9
3000 3.3
4000 5.6
5000 10.1
6270 17.6

*They didn't publish the idle consumption in this report but from other reports its about 0.3 GPH.

Based on the above data, again assuming that the motor is propped correctly (appears to be), the ICOMIA duty cycle hourly fuel consumption number for the Verado 175 is approximately 4.0 GPH.

Note: For ICOMIA duty cycle purposes, it does not matter what transom the motor is mounted to. The only difference the boat makes is the speed at which it will go for each of the ICOMIA test points.

So, if the motors were operated according to the ICOMIA duty cycle, one would expect that a pair of Verado 175s on a Revenge 25 W-T WD will consume approximately 0.6 GPH more. In my view, that isn't enough of a difference to sway a choice of one outboard over the other.

Transom weight, on the other hand, is a more significant consideration. The pair of L4 Verados will put nearly 1100 lbs on the transom of the Revenge. The pair of Suzukis would put about 1000 lbs on the transom. At the time the Revenge 22 WT WD was made, the heaviest V6 150 to 250 HP outboards were about 450 lbs each so I believe that the maximum transom weight expectation for the Revenge 25 W-T WD was about 900 lbs. The Suzukis would put the transom weight closer to the maximum weight expectation than the Verado L4s.

posted 09-22-2009 09:49 AM ET (US)            

If one assumes that the motor produces the maximum HP within the 10 percent limit -- 165 HP -- then the BSFC for this model is in the range of:

19.5 x 6.25 x 1/165 = 0.74 lbs/HP-hour. If 150 HP is used, the BSFC is 0.81 lbs/HP-hour.

Clearly, besides being one of the best bug foggers the world has ever seen, the Mercury EFI 2-stroke is the equivalent to the Nathan's hot dog eating contest winner when it comes to fuel consumption.

posted 09-22-2009 04:26 PM ET (US)            

"At best cruise, the Mercury Verado 150 hp delivered 26% better mpg than Evinrude E-TEC."
No indication of speeds of boat or RPMs, what is best cruise?

posted 09-23-2009 09:09 AM ET (US)            

http://www.suzukimarine.com/boat_builders/boat_tests/tracker_marine/ tahoe_215cc/df175/

At wide open throttle, the DF175 consumes 14.1-GPH. This implies a BSFC of

14.1-gallon/1-hour x 6.25-lbs/1-gallon x 1/175-HP = 0.50-lbs/HP-Hour

Also data from

http://www.suzukimarine.com/boat_builders/boat_tests/ sea_fox_boat_company_inc/sea_fox_225bf/df175/

At wide open throttle the DF175 consumes 14.65-GPH, This implies a BSFC of

14.65-gallon/1-hour x 6.25-lbs/1-gallon x 1/175-HP = 0.52-lbs/HP-Hour

Also data from

http://www.suzukimarine.com/boat_builders/boat_tests/proline_boats/ proline_21_sport/df175/

At wide open throttle the DF175 consumes 14.75-GPH. This implies a BSFC of

14.75-gallon/1-hour x 6.25-lbs/1-gallon x 1/175-HP = 0.53-lbs/HP-Hour

To summarize, the BSFC of the DF175 at wide open throttle appears to be in the range of 0.50 to 0.53-lbs/HP-Hour. This value is significantly lower than the BSFC for the 200-HP Verado which in similar boat test data measures as high as 0.625. The variation in BSFC is consistent with the technique used to obtain the horsepower. By using a supercharger to boost the power output from the 1.7-liter displacement engine, the Verado will need to use some power to run the supercharger. Also, it is likely that at maximum power output the Verado fuel map is set to use a fuel-air mixture that is richer in fuel than would be used for optimum fuel economy in order to avoid problems with high combustion chamber temperatures. Both of these influences will increase the fuel consumption at maximum power.

I have limited my comparison between the Verado 200 L4 and the Suzuki DF175 to comparison of fuel consumption at wide open throttle because that is the only data I could find where we can reasonably assume that the two motors are producing a known power output. The comparison is somewhat unusual because most boaters to not accumulate many hours underway at maximum power output. The Verado is doomed to lose in this comparison because of its supercharger. In the history of internal combustion engines, a supercharger has never been seen to contribute to improved fuel economy.

Peter has offered a more interesting analysis of the fuel consumption of the engines by using the ICOMIA duty cycle as the basis for the comparison. The ICOMIA duty cycle--once described as "an arbitrary standard at best, clearly intended to be be biased against conventional 2-strokes"--was developed to reflect more typical patterns of use for outboard motors. In Peter's comparison, the DF175 also produces better fuel economy than the Verado 200 L4, but the difference is not as striking. If maximum fuel economy is the goal for an outboard motor, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that a naturally aspirated four-cycle engine will generally offer the best route to that goal. The better fuel economy of the DF175 is just another example of this observation.

posted 09-23-2009 01:13 PM ET (US)            

1 : (400 / 350)^0.5
1 : 1.07

Or, in other words, the boat with 400-HP will be about seven percent faster than the same boat with 350-HP.

If we knew the total weight of your boat, we could make a prediction of the speed it would reach with various horsepower by using the website's unique Crouch's Calculator

http://continuouswave.com/cgi-bin/crouchcalc.pl

and using a hull factor constant of 180. This would give us a reasonable approximation of speed potential. Many factors influence speed, but for a reasonable estimate of speed potential for a moderate planing hull, Crouch's Calculator has proved to be quite useful.

If I may suggest, I would caution that there are many consideration in selecting an engine for re-power beyond the fuel economy and top speed. So far I have limited my replies to only those engines and parameters in which you have indicated an interest, but I think there are other factors to be considered.

Also, again, do not be swayed too much by the fuel consumption at wide open throttle, as the amount of time spent at that throttle setting will normally be extremely small. For fuel consumption comparison, be guided more by the ICOMIA duty cycle analysis.

posted 09-24-2009 10:35 PM ET (US)            

We know that boat speed is proportional to the power ratio to the 0.5 exponent. If a boat is a slug with 350-HP, then a boat with 400-HP will go

(400/350)^0.5 times faster, or 6.9-percent faster.

posted 09-24-2009 11:49 PM ET (US)         

The 25 Revenge WD is one heavy boat, weighing 1000# more than my lightweight, minimally equipped, bracketed Outrage. Even pair of 225's on a Revenge 25 WD won't outrun the 200's on my boat. Not even close.

posted 09-25-2009 08:58 AM ET (US)            

Here http://www.suzukimarine.com/boat_builders/boat_tests/ sea_fox_boat_company_inc/sea_fox_256cc/df175/ , the twin DF175 powered, 25' Sea Ox is pushed 0-30 in 5.4 Seconds.

Yet here http://www.mercurymarine.com/look_deeper/third_party.php?ID=104& SortBy=Title&Section=outboardChecks&fourCyl135200=3 , the twin L4, 200 HP Verado powered 24' Outrage takes 8.5 seconds to reach 30 MPH. Both have a top speed of about 54 MPH.

This data surprised me a bit. The higher HP supercharged engines take more than 50% longer to arrive at 30 MPH than naturally aspirated engines with 50 less HP.

posted 09-25-2009 09:35 AM ET (US)            

If we are to believe the assertion implied by Larry, that a Verado could pull other four-stroke motors underwater as was shown by Evinrude for their E-TEC, or that the Verado could pull an E-TEC underwater, it would be necessary for me to see a motion picture recording of that happening. If a Verado could actually do that, it would have been the absolute perfect response to the E-TEC promotional films. However, since I have never seen this done, I am afraid I cannot accept the mere assertion that it could be done as a proof that the Verado is more powerful than the Suzuki.

Boston Whaler has given their opinion on the minimum power for a Boston Whaler REVENGE 25 W-T WD: 115-HP. This figure is significantly different than Larry's suggestion that 400-HP is the minimum. In any case, 350-HP is far in excess of the minimum horsepower suggested by Boston Whaler, even if it fails to meet the 400-HP minimum suggested by Larry.

The notion of the maximum possible speed obtainable seems to have been introduced here as an important factor in selecting an engine. I don't see where twinout has given us guidance that maximum speed is an important criterion. So far he has mentioned fuel economy as a concern, but has not mentioned top speed. The ability to accelerate very rapidly onto plane has also not been mentioned. There is no doubt that using 400-HP will produce performance that includes higher maximum speed (about 7-percent faster) and also likely quicker acceleration, but it remains to be seen if these are of overriding importance.

posted 09-25-2009 02:38 PM ET (US)         

I would love to hear of a 25 Revenge WD powered with the ridiculous suggestion of a single 115. Must have been a typo at Whaler. More like a single 225 would make more sense. The boat is rated for 450HP, and can handle even more. Always power near the rated max.

posted 09-25-2009 05:02 PM ET (US)            

/sarcasm

Sheesh.

Consider in your calculations that most of your time, unless you're making long offshore runs of several hours on plane, will be at or near idle speed.

If you had told me that I did approximately half my boating time at idle speed before I bought my E-TEC motors, I would have laughed in your face. But the EMM records every second of engine operation...it offers a naked look at how you treat your motor. What did it say to me? See for yourself:
http://www.continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ETEC_EngineHistoryReport. html

I was suprised, for sure.

Good luck in your decision.

Regards,

posted 09-25-2009 07:21 PM ET (US)         

No one who has responded, myself included, has any experience with Verado or Suzuki ownership, only Evinrude ownership. I only responded because I have a 25' hull like yours, but with a pair of Merc 200 Hp EFI's, and have spent some time in a boat exactly like yours. There are precious few Verado owners around here at all, since most are tired of hearing what overstressed, fuel eating dogs they are from the E-tec owners. Most have left, or found them not suitable for classic Whalers.

posted 09-25-2009 08:16 PM ET (US)            

My observations about the relative fuel economy of the Verado and Suzuki motors are based on published data of others who have measured the fuel flow of the engines. I simply took published data and used it to extract the brake specific fuel consumption. If the outcome of the comparison that resulted is not favorable to the Verado, please do not blame that on me. You can blame the high fuel consumption rate of the Verado at high throttle settings on the people who designed the Verado. Among all marine outboard four-cycle engines, the Verado is the only engine to use a relatively small displacement engine and augment the power output using supercharging. This approach has guaranteed that the fuel consumption rate of the Verado at high throttle settings will be greater than naturally aspirated engines.

In addition, we can be guided by the decades of experience of the automobile industry with four-cycle engines. So far, no auto maker has introduced a supercharged engine with the intention of improving the fuel economy. Supercharging is always associated with an attempt to boost the acceleration. It is inherent with supercharging that you will give up fuel economy. But because I simply point this out, one should not construe this as being dispositive of bias.

posted 09-25-2009 09:30 PM ET (US)         

Why don't you live up to ContinuousWave's stated objective of fairness and disclosure, and tell the poor suckers here swallowing this Verado baloney the REST of the story regarding that test drive. And don't forget the idiot at the controls. Only disclosing the conditions and circumstances of the test ride validates a criticism of the Verado L4 like you are making. Otherwise, your comments are worthless and intentionally misleading.

This poor twinout guy has no idea what's going on here.

It really is a "black" hole of accurate information.

Tates - your problem is not the engines, but because all of the 25' Whaler Drive boats weren't set up properly at the factory. The lower splash well was filled with foam, now soggy, smelly and filthy and flooded with water, then covered over with a plastic sheeting. Get rid of all of that weight, exposing the original gelcoat interior, and install a bilge pump in this area, and your problems will be over. My full transom model came that way from the factory - I was lucky. When water comes in the transom drains, it gets immediately pumped out.

posted 09-25-2009 09:59 PM ET (US)         

Here is my boat. You can see the exhaust flapper covered transom drains.

posted 09-25-2009 10:22 PM ET (US)            

Sounds like Tate believes that the Verado 200 L4s would be too heavy, even if they are the lightest 200 HP 4-stroke. At the time of its design, I don't believe Whaler was really contemplating that there would be over 1,050 lbs riding on the transom of a Revenge 25 W-T WD.

posted 09-25-2009 10:53 PM ET (US)            

By the way, the fellow driving the boat on the test drive with the twin L4 Verado motors was a very experienced boater, with many years in power boat racing, and employed by a top Boston Whaler dealer, so I would not characterize him as an "idiot."

When I observed the fuel flow exceed 40-GPH for twin L4 200-HP Verado motors, the sea conditions were very small waves, as we were in the lee of a very substantial peninsula. The boat was carrying a load of people, and I do not have any recollection of its speed. I just recall the fuel flow rate, over 40-GPH for the twin engines. My recollection is completely congruent with the measurements of Boston Whaler in their performance report for the same or similar boat, and also with the measurement of BOATING magazine. So I don't think there is anything that is misleading in my observation. When you pour the coal to a Verado, it likes to burn some fuel.

My observation of the noise, vibration, harshness of an installation of twin L4 Verado motors was made while we were underway at slow speed after leaving the dock. Since I have several hours of underway time aboard various boats with twin L6 Verado motors, I am very familiar with their noise, vibration, and harshness, which I have repeatedly described as being the best I have ever seen--no motor comes close. My remarks about the L4 Verado are simply an honest reporting of what I saw. The NVH of the L4 is not in the same category as the L6. I don't think this is particularly surprising, and I am on the only person to say this. I think if you asked Glen if the L4 Verado was as smooth and quiet as the L6 Verado, he would tell you the same story I have told. The L4 Verado is not as quiet, not as smooth, and not as vibration free as the L6. This is not a manifestation of negativity. It is a simple observation of something I have seen myself.

I think the reason the L4 Verado does not exhibit the fantastic NVH performance of its larger L6 cousin is related to at least two major factors:

--the cowling design has not been undertaken with as much attention to suppression noise;

--the in-line four-cylinder arrangement is not inherently balanced while the in-line six-cylinder arrangement is inherently balanced. Further, the Verado eschews using any sort of balancing shafts to compensate in the L4 for the lack of balance.

posted 09-25-2009 11:21 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

"Jim - You've completely forgetten I was on that test ride with you."

---

Larry--I have not forgotten that you were on a test ride with me, in fact we have been on several test rides together with various boats and motors. I have also been on a few test rides with various Whalers and Verado motors when not in your company. I was responding to your comment that no one in the thread has experience with the Verado or Suzuki.

posted 09-25-2009 11:52 PM ET (US)         

The boat never really planed off. It couldn't - too much weight and drag, and way too high pitch props. We were never over 15 MPH even though running full throttle at 40 GPH!! He was more concerned about heading the boat into the 4' waves, to show us how seaworthy the 240 was. I was not impressed, and was shocked to see the the abuse this inexperienced driver was giving those engines. I commented to someone I felt sorry for the sucker that actually ended up buying that abused test boat. Even my super smooth, super quiet 200 EFI's would have looked like dogs under those conditions. After that test ride, zero people were even interested in that boat. Nobody would have been. The Verados just had the bad luck of being there.

So my recollection of the event is completely different from yours. We'll just have to let the readers decide who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.

posted 09-26-2009 12:31 AM ET (US)            

Since Larry has questioned my ability to recall the details of our mutual test ride, I tracked down another article I wrote about this same test drive. These comments were made in October of 2008, when the details of the test drive were clearer in my memory. I will append them here to elaborate on my observations and confirm my recollections. Please note that the rate of fuel flow was again noted as 40-GPH or higher:

-------begin earlier remarks-----

This summer I had a chance to take a test ride on a new boat with twin Mercury 200-HP Verado motors. I have been out before on quite a few boats with Verado motor, both the four- and the six-cylinder models, but this was the first twin engine four-cylinder set-up I'd experienced. The test drive was by no means extensive, but I did notice several things which, frankly, surprised me:

--the noise level of the twin four-cylinder Verado motors was much higher than I expected it. They were not anywhere near as quiet as the larger six-cylinder motors.

--the smoothness of the motors at idle was not particularly good. The two motors produced a lot of vibration at idle. This is somewhat anticipated as the in-line four-cylinder configuration is not inherently a balanced design like the in-line six-cylinder, and often balancing shafts are used to compensate, particularly in larger displacement engines. I believe Mercury has foregone the use of balancing shafts in the four-cylinder Verado feeling that the small displacement wouldn't need it.

--the fuel consumption surprised me. The offshore conditions were too rough that day to get up on a cruising speed plane, but on the way back to the harbor in the lee of the waves we did get the boat up to wide-open-throttle. The twin 200-HP Verado motors showed a combined fuel flow on the SmartCraft Vessel View gauge of over 40-gallons-per-hour.

The boat was a 2008 Boston Whaler 240 OUTRAGE. It was set-up with the standard factory propellers and rigging. Since this model has been dropped from the 2009 line, I can't find the factory test data about its speed and fuel consumption on-line, which might have been useful to make a comparison.

--end of initial comments from earlier---

Following these remarks, an objection was raised that the boat was rigged by Boston Whaler, and Boston Whaler was known to be incompetent in rigging and propeller selection, and these influences were at fault for the vibrations. My reply was:

---more earlier comments----

My assumption is that propellers on the Boston Whaler OURAGE 240 on which I had the test ride were the ENERTIA propellers mentioned in the test report linked above. The test report does not specify the crew weight. On my test ride there was a full boat load, and the top speed was significantly less than the test report figure, a variance I attribute to the higher weight, the warm freshwater, and the warm air temperatures, all of which tend to hold down performance.

I frequently read that Boston Whaler rigged boats need a total overhaul of propeller choice and engine mounting, but I take those suggestions with a grain of salt. Boston Whaler has a very strong engineering group, they have access to any propeller they'd need from Mercury, and they'd have no reason to intentionally rig their boat for less than optimum performance.

In regard to the data in a Boston Whaler report on performance, my impression is the data is generally quite accurate, and I don't recall many cases, if any, where a customer changed things and got significant improvement in performance.

In any case, the propeller likely has no influence at all in two of the items I mention, noise level, and wide-open-throttle fuel flow, so I don't think these problems would disappear with a change of propeller.

The propeller choice might affect the vibrations I and others on the test ride noticed, but there is no guarantee that changing to a four-blade would make a difference. I have tested a few propellers myself, and I notice that four-blade propellers often increase vibration. In a four-blade propeller the blades fall into the shadow of the gear case in pairs, whereas in a three-blade each blade passes through the gear case shadow by itself. The resulting vibration frequency is different, and there's no certainty that a four-blade will be smoother. Since the four-blade fundamental frequency is lower, you might even think it would tend to be rougher--and that has been my experience. It really depends on the boat and its resonances.

----end of earlier comments------

Later some readers expressed skepticism about my observations on the engine noise levels. I replied:

----more comments from earlier------

There is little disagreement among anyone who has heard a six-cylinder VERADO engine that its noise signature at idle speed is remarkably low, and it is generally considered to be the quietest of all outboard motors. Indeed, one magazine test report data showed that the six-cylinder VERADO was so quiet that it would take a fleet of 64 VERADO motors at idle to produce as much noise as a single OptiMax motor at idle.

Engineering for noise reduction is a very difficult art, and the human ear's sensitivity to sound in a logarithmic manner makes the achievement of a quiet outboard even harder to obtain. The four-cylinder VERADO might be considered quiet compared to a 20-year-old two-cycle motor, but compared to the six-cylinder it is not. How can this be? If you look at the cowling, the midsection, and the motor mount, you will see significant differences between the four-cylinder VERADO and the six-cylinder VERADO. It should not be surprising that there are differences in the noise and vibration of the two.

------end of earlier comments------

The discussion became somewhat more argumentative, the language used turned vulgar, and, much as happened here, I was accused of conducting some sort of intentional misrepresentation in order to mislead readers. My reply was:

---more earlier comments-----

This discussion began with a request to contribute people's experience with twin-engine Verado four-cylinder set-ups. All I am doing is passing along my experience with a twin-engine four-cylinder Verado boat. I don't make these things up. I just go out on a lot of boats and I tell you what I notice.

On the sound level comparison, I just offer my first-hand observations. The four-cylinder VERADO motors are not as quiet as the six-cylinder VERADO. It's a fairly simple comparison: you can't tell the six-cylinder is even running; the four-cylinder is easily heard at idle.

In the twin set-up there was noticeable vibration, too. As we were heading out from the dock I was thinking to myself, "Man, these four-cylinder VERADO motors have a lot of vibration." Another fellow along for the test ride then spoke up and said aloud the exact same thing. A third guy then asked the test-driver about it. The test-driver nodded his head and said the four-cylinder isn't as smooth as the six-cylinder. The vibration might have been related to the twin engines. I hadn't noticed it before when running a single-engine Verado four-cylinder. But since the topic being discussed here is twin-engine Verado four-cylinder installations, it seemed appropriate to mention it.

---end of earlier comments-------

As best as I can remember, this discussion and the other one I mentioned are the only two instances in which I have offered any comments or observations about this particular test ride. In both cases I presented my personal, first-hand observations is direct response to an inquiry in which people asked for comments about rigging a boat with twin 200-HP L4 Verado motors.

In both cases I have only offered my observations in two areas: fuel flow at wide open throttle, and general impression of the noise, vibration, and harshness of the engines.

In both cases the results have been astonishingly similar, as I was ultimately called out for providing misleading or inappropriate data. I am not sure why these observations evoke such a hostile response when I present them. I think they are reasonable observations. Again, the comments on the fuel flow rate are completely in line with at least two other reputable published boat tests. As for the noise levels, I have not undertaken an extensive study of published data to seek confirmation, but I don't feel it is necessary. The noise level of a L6 Verado at idle is so low you cannot really tell if the motor is running. The noise level of the L4 Verado is loud enough at idle that it is easy to detect the motor is running. That is a simple test and backs up my simple observation.

posted 09-27-2009 11:26 PM ET (US)            

"So my recollection of the event is completely different from yours. We'll just have to let the readers decide who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't."

I agree that my recollections are different. For one thing, the boat was an 240 OUTRAGE with 400-HP and rated for a capacity of 12 people. I think there were ten people aboard, but two of them were rather petite children that probably did not weight more than 50-lbs each, and two more were their parents, adults of rather light weight. I have seen a few fisherman who probably weighed more than all four of these people combined. The boat was not overloaded, it was under its rated capacity of people and probably far under its capacity in weight.

In my recollection the boat could get on plane and did so easily. In L H G's recollection the boat could not get on plane. If L H G is correct that means that a stock Boston Whaler boat with optional 400-HP engines cannot get on plane with even less than its rated capacity of people aboard.

In my recollection the Verado 200-HP L4 motors provided impressive power, pushing the boat to over 40-MPH. In L H G's recollection the boat could not go above 15-MPH. What does that say about the power of the Verado?

Further, L H G implies that the Verado engines are so fragile that a few moments of operating the boat at a slow plane of 15-MPH into some head seas may have damaged the engines, and he suggests the ultimate buyer of the boat will be defrauded by delivery of damaged goods. I am stunned to think the Verado could be so fragile, but, apparently a few moments of mid-throttle operation with a heavy load has, according the L HG, done in this pair of new engines.

By the way, the employee of the Whaler dealer conducting the test drive was about 55-years old, had extensive background in boating, including power boat racing, and was very familiar with the boat he was demonstrating.

All in all, the test ride was a good demonstration of the boat. It handled the head seas very nicely, and the twin Verado motors put the boat on plane without any complaints. I distinctly remember my own surprise when the boat hit 40-MPH with the big load on board.

Let me say again, about the third time, that the only comments I have offered about the Verado 200-HP L4 are in two areas: its high fuel consumption at high throttle settings, and its noise and vibration. The fuel flow I observed is precisely the fuel flow measured by Boston Whaler for the boat in their testing, and also the same as the fuel flow measured in a magazine test. As far as I am concerned, my observation is corroborated by these two other reports.