ContinuousWave
Whaler
Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Mercury VERADO 350 v. Evinrude E-TEC G2 300
search | FAQ |
profile | register | author help
|
|
ContinuousWave Whaler Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Mercury VERADO 350 v. Evinrude E-TEC G2 300
|
| Author | Topic: Mercury VERADO 350 v. Evinrude E-TEC G2 300 |
| jimh |
posted 04-29-2015 11:02 AM ET (US)  
Outboard engine manufacturers Brunswick and Bombardier Recreational Products have both posted test data about their latest outboard engine models that were obtained from testing on the same model of boat. We briefly review this data. The engines under test were the Mercury-brand VERADO 350 and the Evinrude-brand E-TEC G2 300. The test boat was a RANGER model 2510. Each manufacturer has published the test data on their website. Brunswick Mercury VERADO 350 on RANGER 2510, see: https://www.mercurymarine.com/en/us/performance-tests/bhb/4602/ ?units=imperial Bombardier Evinrude E-TEC G2 300 on RANGER 2510, see: http://www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/ 1131_G2_300HP_Ranger2510Bay_Bay.pdf According to the data in the reports, the tests were conducted only three days apart, and according to an observer familiar with the testing, the weather conditions during the tests were very similar. The test data both report the air temperature was the same during the tests (at 72-degree-F). Perhaps the most interesting data to compare in these tests is the top speed obtained, the rate of fuel flow, and the fuel economy in MPG. Here is a summary of that data: TOP SPEED FUEL FLOW at full throttle FUEL ECONOMY at full throttle A simple analysis of the above data shows that the E-TEC G2 300, while being rated for 50-HP less than the VERADO 350, nevertheless pushed the same boat to a higher speed, while consuming less fuel, and producing better fuel economy. It may also be worth mentioning that the E-TEC G2 300 is not a special model. Evinrude has announced that it will be introducing a more powerful version of this engine called the E-TEC G2 300 R.A.V.E. which will be intended to provide even better performance due to use of special tuning of the exhaust system. The Mercury 350 is sold through the Brunswick Mercury Racing operation, but is still considered to be a standard consumer model. It may also be worth mentioning that the Mercury VERADO engine had the benefit of using a Mercury ENERTIA ECO propeller. The Mercury ENERTIA ECO propeller has been hailed as a "miracle propeller" that produces improvements in top speed and in fuel economy compared to other propellers that can be greater than 40-percent, that is a 1.4:1 ratio, and has been specifically mentioned to have obtained these improvements in comparison to a MIRAGEplus Unfortunately, the Evinrude E-TEC G2 engine was tested with a BRP REBEL propeller. The REBEL has been described as "a tame, elephant round eared prop with little rake". It has also been claimed that the REBEL is nothing but "a copy of the MIRAGE PLUS Propeller." It has also been claimed that the MIRAGEplus propeller is "obsolete." (This is clearly false as the MIRAGEplus continues to be made, but the innuendo is that the design is obsolete.) In spite of the considerable handicap of the E-TEC G2 300 having been tested with the REBEL propeller while the VERADO was able to use a miracle propeller, and in spite of having a horsepower rating of only 300 compared to the 350 rating of the VERADO, the test results show the Bombardier Recreational Products E-TEC G2 engine to have better top speed, lower fuel consumption, and better fuel economy at full throttle than the Brunswick Mercury VERADO 350. In is also interesting to note that the E-TEC G2 300 runs on standard [87-Octane] fuel, but the VERADO 350 requires 91-Octane premium fuel to produce "premium performance." Details of the fuel used in the testing are not explicitly provided. |
| seahorse |
posted 04-29-2015 02:56 PM ET (US)
One thing to also consider is that the 350 Verado requires 91 octane fuel but it can run on 89 octane midgrade - not 87 octane regular - but with diminished power. Having to purchase the more expensive premium or mid-grade fuel adds significantly to the overall operating costs, not to mention fewer places to gas up while on the water. I can only assume that Mercury tested their 350 Verado with the 91 octane gasoline to guarantee maximum performance, as the Mercury Boathouse Bulletin is a sales tool and they want it to showcase the motor at its best. From the Verado 350 owners manual |
| dgoodhue |
posted 04-29-2015 03:05 PM ET (US)
The Evinrude was tested with a jack plate which throws a variable in the test. I have felt that the jack plate was worth 2-3mph on a 15' Whaler. I am not sure if that speed relation holds true for a Ranger. |
| jimh |
posted 04-29-2015 03:06 PM ET (US)
ASIDE: It might be heresy to say this on a forum dedicated to Boston Whaler boats, but the test boat in the above performance tests, the RANGER 2510, strikes me as a helluva nice boat. It reminds me of a classic Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 25. The comparisons are LENGTH: BEAM: DRY WEIGHT MAX HP The forward cockpit area of the RANGER could be made into a sheltered area with the addition of a canvas dodger, and under that shelter a large sleeping berth could be created. I don't know the details of the hull deadrise on the RANGER. It is characterized as a "Bay" model, so I suspect the hull may not have a V-hull shape with deadrise very much more than 14-degrees. The deadrise in a classic Boston Whaler 25-foot hull is about 17-degrees at the transom. Cf.; http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/018289.html The RANGER 2510 has a great deal of storage compartments, and they are all nicely sealed with gaskets and closing latches. I wonder what than boat will retail for compared with a Boston Whaler 250 OUTRAGE. |
| jimh |
posted 04-29-2015 03:09 PM ET (US)
Re the test differing by use of a jack plate: where in the Mercury report does it say there was no jack plate? |
| jimh |
posted 04-29-2015 03:13 PM ET (US)
Also, continuing my ASIDE: that RANGER 2510 has a really nice head compartment built into the center console, giving it a huge advantage over the classic Boston Whaler OUTRAGE 25 for convenience when onboard for a long day. Also, RANGER lists the 2510 as a "SALTWATER" boat in their BAY RANGER model line. To call it a "bay boat" is not quite correct. These days many people would not consider an OUTRAGE 25 a real offshore boat, either. |
| jimh |
posted 04-29-2015 03:27 PM ET (US)
Continuing my relentless SIDEBAR on the RANGER 2510: a reviewer cites the dead rise at the transom as 14-degrees. That is about the same dead rise angle as on a classic Boston Whaler 22-foot hull. A 25-foot has a bit more deadrise, around 17-degrees. So the RANGER 2510 might be a bit rougher ride in big seas than an OUTRAGE 25, but it might be similar to an OUTRAGE 22. For the RANGER 2510 dead rise see: http://proptalk.com/ranger-2510-bay-ranger/#.VUEu086j5W8 For Boston Whaler dead rise measurements by me, Tom Clark, and others see: |
| jimh |
posted 04-29-2015 03:55 PM ET (US)
[I fixed the octane numbers mentioned earlier. The E-TEC runs on 87-Octance. Sorry, but in that process I accidentally deleted a comment from SEAHORSE that confirmed the jack plate is listed as standard equipment on the RANGER boat at the RANGER website.] |
| Peter |
posted 04-30-2015 07:28 AM ET (US)
The same impressive fuel economy advantage of the G2 300 is also seen in comparison to the Yamaha F300XCA. This kind of performance is what product developers would consider a break-through development and really shows what DFI can do when its mated to an internal combustion engine designed to take advantage of it. I suspect that the 4-stroke makers would have to go to DFI (more cost for them) to match the efficiency. |
| seahorse |
posted 04-30-2015 08:09 AM ET (US)
300 hp Yamaha on a Ranger 2510 factory performance bulletin http://yamahaoutboards.com/sites/default/files/bulletins/ RNG_2510Bay_F300XCA_2014-12-04_BAY.pdf |
| jimh |
posted 04-30-2015 02:31 PM ET (US)
Data presented in a cartesian coordinate graph can sometimes better convey information than tabular data, and here is a plot of the fuel economy of the three engines mentioned that have been tested on the RANGER 2510.
I really like this presentation because it plots MPG as a function of boat speed, not a function of engine crankshaft rotation speed. Plotting MPG versus MPH is a much better indicator of the real situation with engine fuel economy. The plot does a nice job showing the advantage of the Evinrude E-TEC G2 300 over the other two engines, and particularly the huge improvement in fuel economy at low speeds, which as we have come to learn, is where boats spend a lot of their operating time. |
| Peter |
posted 04-30-2015 04:08 PM ET (US)
What is quite impressive about the G2 is the breadth of the on-plane speed range where the fuel economy is above 3 MPG. Based on the data it ranges from about 18 MPH to nearly 44 MPH. The Yamaha range, on the other hand, is much narrower -- from about 24 to 34 MPH. As a practical matter, the G2 boat should be able to find a ride comfort zone that does not sacrifice much fuel economy. The hull seems to have an optimal fuel efficient speed around 30 MPH give or take a MPH or two. |
| msirof2001 |
posted 04-30-2015 06:52 PM ET (US)
Out of curiosity, does saltwater vs. freshwater have much of an impact? I think things are more bouyant in salt water. I would presume the same boat would get better fuel economy on saltwater than freshwater. But I don't know to what extent there is a difference. I noticed the Verado and E-Tec were run on saltwater and the Yamaha was on fresh water. So it isn't exactly apples to apples but what I see is something I have seen for a long time. That is where the "pack" consisting of Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki and ETec getting relatively similar and good performance results both in mileage and speed, and the Verado way behind in speed and mileage. In fact, if I were to buy a boat today, I would probably look at the Edgewater/Everglades/Grady before Whaler or alternatively, get a Whaler and immediately repower it. Not sure the latter is justifiable given the quality of the other choices. This whole thread doesn't surprise me. Look at every Whaler performance test on their website and then their competitors. There is clearly something with the design, engine, or both that makes them slower and less fuel efficient than the competition. Or is it the horses? Not all horses are the same. There are Shetland Ponies and Clydesdales. I didn't read the fine print as to which horses make up the horsepower ratings. |
| jimh |
posted 04-30-2015 08:38 PM ET (US)
In this discussion the assumption is the test data was collected in the same environment in all tests. Did you see anything in any of the test data that suggests there was a different environment used for that test compared to the others? |
| Teak Oil |
posted 04-30-2015 08:47 PM ET (US)
Honda is routinely one of the worst performers in top speed, with Verado usually in the top third of performers. I have yet to see a Honda come anywhere near the top of the pack in a speed test. The deep gearing that Honda and Suzuki use improves the fuel economy at the expense of top speed. The Verado has never been a great performer in fuel economy compared to the competition. To answer your first question, fresh water does slow a boat down by a couple mph vs salt water, so I am sure the Yamaha would also be around 52mph like the others in salt. Jimh the Outrage 22 has a 16 degree deadrise if my memory serves. I am surprised the Ranger only has a 14 degree deadrise, it must be intended for use as a bay boat rather than a big water boat |
| msirof2001 |
posted 04-30-2015 10:47 PM ET (US)
JimH- Regarding different environments, the Yamaha test report showed an elevation of approximately 600' above sea level so that would suggest fresh water. |
| jimh |
posted 04-30-2015 11:47 PM ET (US)
MSIR'--that is a good inference. I don't think there is too much saltwater at an elevation of 635-feet above sea level, other than, perhaps, some salt lake out West. The Mercury report explicitly mentions "saltwater." That would be an advantage. The Evinrude report does not mention saltwater. We'll have to dig deeper to see if we can find out more about the environmental conditions. Engine performance will be affected by air temperature and humidity (with dry cold air the best), and boat speed will be enhanced by temperature and salinity (with cold saltwater the best). |
| outragesteve |
posted 05-05-2015 11:40 PM ET (US)
Although the model Ranger was the same with the Evinrude and the Merc, was is actually the same boat? Same driver? Same condtions/time of day? Same "weight as tested"? We often read tests of boats, cars, etc and we are comparing apples to oranges! Rigging is also another consideration. Too many non-parallel metrics. |
| jimh |
posted 05-06-2015 01:06 AM ET (US)
I see no basis at all to make an assumption that the three engines were tested on the same hull. They were tested on the same model. The E-TEC 300-HP and the VERADO 350 were tested in similar weather conditions. We can assume that the E-TEC was run in saltwater. If not, it was handicapped by freshwater. Perhaps it might be worth mentioning that the VERADO is supposed to have 50-HP more than the E-TEC. I don't know if there is any objection to pointing that out, or perhaps this must also be ignored. As for differences in rigging, I already mentioned that the VERADO has the advantage of a miracle propeller, while the E-TEC had to use "a tame, elephant round eared prop with little rake" that is just "a copy" of an "obsolete" propeller. I am willing to ignore the disadvantages in environment (possibly freshwater testing), rated power (50-HP differences), and propeller choice (fighting against a miracle propeller) that the E-TEC faced, and I see it still pushed the boat faster, used less fuel, and got better fuel economy. Can someone explain why I shouldn't believe those results? Exactly what in the test worked in the E-TEC engine's favor? |
| jimh |
posted 05-06-2015 01:18 AM ET (US)
Re the suggestion that not having the same driver somehow invalidates the outcome: that is not clear to me. I feel just the opposite. If the same driver were used, there is a suspicion that he might have favored one brand over the other. I am sure the manufacturers were involved in these tests, and they are wiling to publish the outcomes. If a manufacturer thought there was something about the test boat driver that was used that caused their engine to produce slower speeds, consume more fuel, and get worse MPG, I am certain they would have insisted on a repeat test or a change in drivers. Let me relate an old story: An Indian Chief had a beautiful daughter. Two braves asked to marry the girl. The Chief had a dream that told him how to determine who would have his daughter's hand: the brave with the slower horse. When the Chief proposed this test, the tribal council was confused. They could not see how it could work. The Chief went to the Medicine Man for advise. The Medicine man thought for a moment, then found the solution. Chief (to Medicine Man): how can we run a race in which the slower horse is the winner? Medicine Man: Each brave will ride the other's horse. This is a roundabout way of saying that if the boats had different drivers, it is MORE likely they got the best performance from each boat. |
| seahorse |
posted 05-07-2015 12:28 AM ET (US)
JIMH wrote:
|
| jimh |
posted 05-08-2015 10:48 PM ET (US)
Are there any more straws left to grasp to explain why the report (that a 300-HP E-TEC is faster, burns less fuel, and delivers better MPG than a 350-HP VERADO on the same boat) isn't valid? |
| OMCguru |
posted 05-09-2015 10:15 AM ET (US)
Impressive results but one single test is not something to hang your hat on. Comparing the Scarab 35 with twin 350hps vs triple 300s does not really blow my hair back as much and is pretty lack luster performance for the G2 compared to all the other reports. http://www.evinrude.com/en-US/tools/performance-reports-library?boatBrandId=wellcraft http://features.boats.com/boat-content/2014/03/wellcraft-35-scarab-fast-fishing-fun/ |
| martyn1075 |
posted 05-09-2015 10:30 AM ET (US)
"Are there any more straws left to grasp to explain why the report (that a 300-HP E-TEC is faster, burns less fuel, and delivers better MPG than a 350-HP VERADO on the same boat) isn't valid?" There is always a critic. I seem to remember this well a few years back when I posted a performance test on my 1990 25 Whaler Wlakaround. I even went to a detailed video analysis report which did prove the accuracy in the test was correct, The engines also happened to be the DFI Mercury Optimax 225's engines DA, DA DA DA--the [E-TEC] competitors. It dumbfounded a few individuals which left them grasping for straws as you said. BUT you believe what you want to believe and even an honest video someone is going to try to de-bunk the evidence. It is human nature it seems. Personally the test results look favorable to me, so far I have learned that a G2 E-TEC is far better engine then the Mercury Verado of an increased HP. It is more powerful, it can gain better MPG, and it can use regular gas instead of the top grade which may or may not be available in some locations in this world. It is probably cheaper, and we have not beaten the service maintenance to death as of yet. |
| Peter |
posted 05-10-2015 07:25 AM ET (US)
"Comparing the Scarab 35 with twin 350hps vs triple 300s does not really blow my hair back as much and is pretty lack luster performance for the G2 compared to all the other reports" The comment is puzzling in light of the two reports cited. According to the two reports: Top speed for the twin F350 powered Scarab was 55.2 MPH Top speed achieved by the G2 is in line with the HP increase 55.2 x (900/700)^0.5 = 62.6 MPH. But look at the fuel economy. The reported best fuel economy of the F350 powered boat was 1.2 MPG at 34.7 MPH. The E-TEG 300 G2 best was reported at over 1.6 MPG at 31.9 MPH and it was still achieving 1.57 MPG at 39 MPH. That's lack luster performance? Yes, but for the F350s. |
| jimh |
posted 05-10-2015 08:36 AM ET (US)
Peter--Thanks for the analysis. You data was much clearer than the vague representation of "lackluster" that was being tossed out. OMCguru says:
quote: In the absence of other reports that conflict the data from a single test, I don't see the basis to dismiss the test data as having no meaning or validity. The test results were apparently considered by each of the three manufacturers to be valid enough for them to publish. |
| Peter |
posted 05-10-2015 01:55 PM ET (US)
A few other interesting observations. The two F350s have more combined displacement than the three E-TEC G2 300s (10.6L vs 10.2L) yet there is a 200 HP difference in maximum output. The combined weight on the transom is also close. Basically, if you are going load 1600 lbs of outboards on the transom, why not put 900 HP back there instead of 700. But this Yamaha test report of triple F350s on the Scarab 35 hull might be an even better comparison. yamahaoutboards.com/sites/default/files/bulletins/ bulletin_4stroke_hpv6_swsxl_wlc-scarab35tourn-tri-f350.pdf . I've plotted the fuel economy performance which can be seen here ==> i177.photobucket.com/albums/w231/Whaler-Fleet/CW%20Posts/ E-TEC%20300s%20v%20Yamaha%20F350s_zpsg0uqmsh5.jpg . Perhaps Jim can grab the image and post it. Again, the results for the G2 look quite good. Give up a few MPH, gain quite a bit in fuel economy and save about 800 lbs on the transom. |
| |
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.
