Yamaha 250 Ox66 v. 300 HPDI - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Yamaha 250 Ox66 v. 300 HPDI

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Yamaha 250 Ox66 v. 300 HPDI

Narragansett Outrage posted 10-27-2009 10:32 AM ET (US)
Let's say that you had the option to buy two 2000 Yamaha 250 OX66 (each with about 900 hours), or one 2007 Yamaha 300 HPDI with 400 hours. The 300 is only slightly more than the two OX66 motors together.
I've heard that the OX66 motors are "bullet-proof". They're getting on in years, but I'd have a second for parts. I've also heard that the 300 HPDI had huge issues in the early years... which may have been sorted out by 2007.
Which would you go for?
Peter posted 10-27-2009 10:44 AM ET (US)
250 Ox66.
TRAFFICLAWYER posted 10-27-2009 11:17 AM ET (US)
Neither, old news gas guzzlers, I have twin 200 HPDI's and would wait to see what Yam releases at the Miami show. Maybe able to pick up some F250's cheaper after migration to newer product.
Narragansett Outrage posted 10-27-2009 11:56 AM ET (US)
I doubt I'm going to pick up a new F250 for $5-$6k - that's why they weren't part of the choices given.
TransAm posted 10-27-2009 12:25 PM ET (US)
What type of vessel will the engine be installed on, and what type of use will it receive?
Narragansett Outrage posted 10-27-2009 12:33 PM ET (US)
1984 22' Outrage with Cuddy Cabin (extra weight). To be used on Narragansett Bay, out to Block Island occasionally. Don't do much trolling - usually drift when fishing.
Peter posted 10-27-2009 12:49 PM ET (US)
A 250 Ox66 would be a perfect fit match for the Outrage and your intended use. You'd never save enough money with through reduced fuel usage of an HPDI or F250 to justify the higher purchase price of those over the Ox66.
brisboats posted 10-27-2009 01:40 PM ET (US)
250 OX66, they are considered bulletproof. The 300 HPDI has had a sketchy history. Peter is right there isn't enough difference in fuel useage to take your chances with the 300 HPDI. The 200 HPDI's have have a very good track record especially when compared to the 300.
Brian
TransAm posted 10-27-2009 02:05 PM ET (US)
I would concur with the Yamaha OX66 recommendations. I acquired a pair of 1999 250 OX66's with 350-400 hours of fresh water use on them 2 seasons ago. They are not that bad on fuel while at cruise (I would expect 2.7 MPG or so with a single; I get 2.0 MPG with a pair, and 2.6 MPG while operating on a single). With the money you save over the 300 HPDI, you could install a nice kicker. It is not uncommon to get 3,000 hours of use if cared for properly.
Peter posted 10-27-2009 02:27 PM ET (US)
The Ox66 engines were pretty darn good on fuel at cruising speeds relative to 4-strokes and DFI 2-strokes. They are thirsty at WOT compared to a DFI 2-stroke or 4-stroke. At very low engine speeds close to idle, they use about 1.5 GPH more than a DFI 2-stroke and about 1 GPH more than a 4-stroke.
Narragansett Outrage posted 10-27-2009 02:50 PM ET (US)
2.7mpg? Damn - that's about triple what I'd been getting with the original 1983 Evinrude 235 ("too-thirsty five"). I'd be in heaven.
The newer Yamaha 300 is certainly pretty on the outside, but I have to say that reliability has to come first.
Blackduck posted 10-27-2009 03:28 PM ET (US)
The 250 seems like a great choice for your boat. Either keep it's brother, or sell it early next spring.
contender posted 10-27-2009 06:06 PM ET (US)
Depends on the condition of the engines, fresh or salt water. Two motors double the gas, oil, trouble (if one engine does not start at the dock/ramp do you still go out?). Two motors you always get home. One engine less fuel cheaper to maintain less weight. One engine you could get stuck. This is something you seriously need to think about. If you make a lot of long crossing/trips far off shore and often two is the way to go. Short trips do not use the boat a lot single engine will be fine....Just think about it, take care
Narragansett Outrage posted 10-27-2009 06:34 PM ET (US)
I would only put one of the 250 on there (!). The two 250 are slightly less than the single 2007 300. As someone said, with that extra $1k, I could throw on a decent kicker... and have a parts motor for the 250. Seems like the way to go.
jimh posted 10-27-2009 07:33 PM ET (US)
[Moved to PERFORMANCE.]
TransAm posted 10-27-2009 08:40 PM ET (US)
Woah, only .9 MPG on that Evinrude 235. I should note that the mileage figures quoted in my above post represent very light load conditions. You will loose a tenth or 2 as you introduce more weight into the boat. But still, from .9 MPG, your fuel expense will be reduced significantly.
Peter posted 10-28-2009 06:05 AM ET (US)
I'd be surprised if the Evinrude 235 (two-thirsty-five) only achieves 0.9 MPG on the Outrage. If that number is at cruising speed, then at 30 MPH, the motor would be consuming 33 GPH. There is no way that the 235 consumes 33 GPH at 30 MPH without leaving a thick trail of gasoline in the wake. If that number is an average for all speeds, then it is possible if considerable time is spent going slow. At cruise speeds of 25 to 30 MPH, the 235 should be able to achieve at least 1.7 MPG and if it doesn't, then I'd be checking for a leaking gas tank and fuel lines.
Narragansett Outrage posted 10-28-2009 07:44 AM ET (US)
Before I replaced the tank and fuel lines (among other things) this past summer, I had to run the 235 off of a Mueller 10 gallon tank. I'd also bring three 5-gallon jerry cans.
Needless to say, my range was rather limited. However, it did enable me to keep rather good track of how much gas I was using - and it worked out to about a gallon/mile. Incredible, but true.
Tohsgib posted 10-28-2009 10:18 AM ET (US)
I have not heard one good thing about the 300's. I have also found used F225's or Hondas in your price range. The thought of storing a 250 in my garage "just in case" would not appeal to me.
Narragansett Outrage posted 10-28-2009 10:36 AM ET (US)
No doubt that the 300 ended up with a well-deserved bad rap from their early versions. I wouldn't have even considered it if it wasn't a 2007; I'm wondering if by that date they were making a decent motor, but it's resale price still suffered from the poor image of its predecessors... but at this point, having researched the snot out of engines in my price point, I'm inclined to go with the OX66.
I could certainly do without storing the "extra" motor - might even raise a few dollars to offset the intial purchase if I were to just sell one. However, I did quite well by having a parts motor for the 235 - just the use of the starter motor paid for the cost of the entire motor.
Tohsgib posted 10-28-2009 02:15 PM ET (US)
Friend's friend bought a new leftover 300HPDI about 6 months ago. Been through too many parts to list under warranty and too many not covered due to crap in fuel system that destroyed a bunch of stuff but luckily not the pistons, etc. I personally would walk away.
Contender25 posted 10-29-2009 03:30 PM ET (US)
wait for a better deal
Neither choice seems overly attractive 900 hours no matter which way you slice are still a bunch of hours and as a follow up the engines are 10 years old and used in saltwater. I would rather buy a rebuildable 200, 225 or 250 for 1/2 the price and then rebuild it or have it rebuilt
As you know, because you saw it at our shop, I just did this with a Yami 225 During the rebuild you would not believe the items we addressed that you would never see or detect without a tear down and the motor only had 450 hours.
do not get me wrong, I would not hesitate to own a 900 hour outboard but I would have to be the one to of put the 900 hours on it and know exactly how it was maintained and used for the 900 hours for me to trust it in any fashion.

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: Yamaha 250 Ox66 v. 300 HPDI
Narragansett Outrage	posted 10-27-2009 10:32 AM ET (US) Let's say that you had the option to buy two 2000 Yamaha 250 OX66 (each with about 900 hours), or one 2007 Yamaha 300 HPDI with 400 hours. The 300 is only slightly more than the two OX66 motors together. I've heard that the OX66 motors are "bullet-proof". They're getting on in years, but I'd have a second for parts. I've also heard that the 300 HPDI had huge issues in the early years... which may have been sorted out by 2007. Which would you go for?
Peter	posted 10-27-2009 10:44 AM ET (US) 250 Ox66.
TRAFFICLAWYER	posted 10-27-2009 11:17 AM ET (US) Neither, old news gas guzzlers, I have twin 200 HPDI's and would wait to see what Yam releases at the Miami show. Maybe able to pick up some F250's cheaper after migration to newer product.
Narragansett Outrage	posted 10-27-2009 11:56 AM ET (US) I doubt I'm going to pick up a new F250 for $5-$6k - that's why they weren't part of the choices given.
TransAm	posted 10-27-2009 12:25 PM ET (US) What type of vessel will the engine be installed on, and what type of use will it receive?
Narragansett Outrage	posted 10-27-2009 12:33 PM ET (US) 1984 22' Outrage with Cuddy Cabin (extra weight). To be used on Narragansett Bay, out to Block Island occasionally. Don't do much trolling - usually drift when fishing.
Peter	posted 10-27-2009 12:49 PM ET (US) A 250 Ox66 would be a perfect fit match for the Outrage and your intended use. You'd never save enough money with through reduced fuel usage of an HPDI or F250 to justify the higher purchase price of those over the Ox66.
brisboats	posted 10-27-2009 01:40 PM ET (US) 250 OX66, they are considered bulletproof. The 300 HPDI has had a sketchy history. Peter is right there isn't enough difference in fuel useage to take your chances with the 300 HPDI. The 200 HPDI's have have a very good track record especially when compared to the 300. Brian
TransAm	posted 10-27-2009 02:05 PM ET (US) I would concur with the Yamaha OX66 recommendations. I acquired a pair of 1999 250 OX66's with 350-400 hours of fresh water use on them 2 seasons ago. They are not that bad on fuel while at cruise (I would expect 2.7 MPG or so with a single; I get 2.0 MPG with a pair, and 2.6 MPG while operating on a single). With the money you save over the 300 HPDI, you could install a nice kicker. It is not uncommon to get 3,000 hours of use if cared for properly.
Peter	posted 10-27-2009 02:27 PM ET (US) The Ox66 engines were pretty darn good on fuel at cruising speeds relative to 4-strokes and DFI 2-strokes. They are thirsty at WOT compared to a DFI 2-stroke or 4-stroke. At very low engine speeds close to idle, they use about 1.5 GPH more than a DFI 2-stroke and about 1 GPH more than a 4-stroke.
Narragansett Outrage	posted 10-27-2009 02:50 PM ET (US) 2.7mpg? Damn - that's about triple what I'd been getting with the original 1983 Evinrude 235 ("too-thirsty five"). I'd be in heaven. The newer Yamaha 300 is certainly pretty on the outside, but I have to say that reliability has to come first.
Blackduck	posted 10-27-2009 03:28 PM ET (US) The 250 seems like a great choice for your boat. Either keep it's brother, or sell it early next spring.
contender	posted 10-27-2009 06:06 PM ET (US) Depends on the condition of the engines, fresh or salt water. Two motors double the gas, oil, trouble (if one engine does not start at the dock/ramp do you still go out?). Two motors you always get home. One engine less fuel cheaper to maintain less weight. One engine you could get stuck. This is something you seriously need to think about. If you make a lot of long crossing/trips far off shore and often two is the way to go. Short trips do not use the boat a lot single engine will be fine....Just think about it, take care
Narragansett Outrage	posted 10-27-2009 06:34 PM ET (US) I would only put one of the 250 on there (!). The two 250 are slightly less than the single 2007 300. As someone said, with that extra $1k, I could throw on a decent kicker... and have a parts motor for the 250. Seems like the way to go.
jimh	posted 10-27-2009 07:33 PM ET (US) [Moved to PERFORMANCE.]
TransAm	posted 10-27-2009 08:40 PM ET (US) Woah, only .9 MPG on that Evinrude 235. I should note that the mileage figures quoted in my above post represent very light load conditions. You will loose a tenth or 2 as you introduce more weight into the boat. But still, from .9 MPG, your fuel expense will be reduced significantly.
Peter	posted 10-28-2009 06:05 AM ET (US) I'd be surprised if the Evinrude 235 (two-thirsty-five) only achieves 0.9 MPG on the Outrage. If that number is at cruising speed, then at 30 MPH, the motor would be consuming 33 GPH. There is no way that the 235 consumes 33 GPH at 30 MPH without leaving a thick trail of gasoline in the wake. If that number is an average for all speeds, then it is possible if considerable time is spent going slow. At cruise speeds of 25 to 30 MPH, the 235 should be able to achieve at least 1.7 MPG and if it doesn't, then I'd be checking for a leaking gas tank and fuel lines.
Narragansett Outrage	posted 10-28-2009 07:44 AM ET (US) Before I replaced the tank and fuel lines (among other things) this past summer, I had to run the 235 off of a Mueller 10 gallon tank. I'd also bring three 5-gallon jerry cans. Needless to say, my range was rather limited. However, it did enable me to keep rather good track of how much gas I was using - and it worked out to about a gallon/mile. Incredible, but true.
Tohsgib	posted 10-28-2009 10:18 AM ET (US) I have not heard one good thing about the 300's. I have also found used F225's or Hondas in your price range. The thought of storing a 250 in my garage "just in case" would not appeal to me.
Narragansett Outrage	posted 10-28-2009 10:36 AM ET (US) No doubt that the 300 ended up with a well-deserved bad rap from their early versions. I wouldn't have even considered it if it wasn't a 2007; I'm wondering if by that date they were making a decent motor, but it's resale price still suffered from the poor image of its predecessors... but at this point, having researched the snot out of engines in my price point, I'm inclined to go with the OX66. I could certainly do without storing the "extra" motor - might even raise a few dollars to offset the intial purchase if I were to just sell one. However, I did quite well by having a parts motor for the 235 - just the use of the starter motor paid for the cost of the entire motor.
Tohsgib	posted 10-28-2009 02:15 PM ET (US) Friend's friend bought a new leftover 300HPDI about 6 months ago. Been through too many parts to list under warranty and too many not covered due to crap in fuel system that destroyed a bunch of stuff but luckily not the pistons, etc. I personally would walk away.
Contender25	posted 10-29-2009 03:30 PM ET (US) wait for a better deal Neither choice seems overly attractive 900 hours no matter which way you slice are still a bunch of hours and as a follow up the engines are 10 years old and used in saltwater. I would rather buy a rebuildable 200, 225 or 250 for 1/2 the price and then rebuild it or have it rebuilt As you know, because you saw it at our shop, I just did this with a Yami 225 During the rebuild you would not believe the items we addressed that you would never see or detect without a tear down and the motor only had 450 hours. do not get me wrong, I would not hesitate to own a 900 hour outboard but I would have to be the one to of put the 900 hours on it and know exactly how it was maintained and used for the 900 hours for me to trust it in any fashion.