Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  190 NANTUCKET Engine Options

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   190 NANTUCKET Engine Options
sarnuk posted 11-17-2003 09:54 AM ET (US)   Profile for sarnuk  
I know I have been fishing over the last 3 days for info that seems elusive.

I love the 190 NANTUCKET, but I want a 4-stroke. The only one Whaler offers is 115-HP. Does anyone have any experience convincing a dealer (who is supposed to only equip with the Mercury's) to power it with another 4 stroke? Suzuki, Honda? I'd love to get a 130-HP 4 stroke. Do bribes work (tongue in cheek)? Any advice?

Thanks. I have been enjoying my first week as a member. I am learnin' lots.--sal

BOB KEMMLER JR posted 11-17-2003 10:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for BOB KEMMLER JR    
Hi,I have sent the performance graphs for all the outboards on the 190 NANTUCKET to JimH. [See below for link to chart] Both the 115 Opti and the 4-stroke top out at around 37 mph,the 150 tops out at around 45,but from the graph the 115,135,and 150 seem to pull through the rpms better than the 115 optI and 115 4 stk.
kglinz posted 11-17-2003 12:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for kglinz  Send Email to kglinz     
[Deleted hyperlink to low resolution and hard to read version of chart]
sarnuk posted 11-17-2003 01:04 PM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
Any thoughts on ways to get the dealer to power differently?

Thanks for taking the time guys.

sal

JohnJ80 posted 11-17-2003 02:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for JohnJ80  Send Email to JohnJ80     
I would think you would be able to work something out with the dealer or with another dealer on a swap - especially if it was a trade up. I would also think that that would work very well if you could get the deal done by year end - say after 12/15 when these sorts of things just shrivel up business wise.
j
alkar posted 11-17-2003 03:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for alkar  Send Email to alkar     
You don't want the Honda 115/130 - too much weight for the power. The Suzuki/Johnson 140 might be a good match. If you're patient you might be able to power it with the new Project-X 150 Merc. Maybe we'll see one of those in the spring.


Jarhead posted 11-17-2003 07:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jarhead  Send Email to Jarhead     
Good advice above...

I would contact all the dealers within driving distance by phone or e-mail and ask about the posibily and cost of a trade up.

You might be able to swap a 2004 115 for a leftover 135 or 150 pretty reasonable. Worth a try anyhow. :)

sarnuk posted 11-17-2003 07:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
Thanks for the advice guys. I love the 190 NANTUCKET. Had buyer's remorse for not getting her almost as soon as I bought my ventura.

If the dealer says 32k for example for the 190 NANTUCKET, what is your estimate of their cost?

TRAFFICLAWYER posted 11-17-2003 09:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for TRAFFICLAWYER    
Here you go, 03 @55 Conquest, 200 Yamaha HPDI's, not much convincing involved at all, just bring your pal Ben Franklin!

http://www.myfishingpictures.com/img/007915.JPG

jimh posted 11-18-2003 12:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Re buying the boat with a different motor: I don't think the dealer can get it from Whaler without some motor on it. The easiest switch is to another Mercury so the rigging does not have to be changed. You would have to negotiate that with the dealer. I don't recall anyone who has actually done this, particularly on a new model boat. The total deal price may also affect the dealer's willingness to negotiate.

If you are buying a $150,000 boat, he might be more motivated to rig it just as you want it. Not that the Nantucket is inexpensive, but being a new model and fresh on the showroom floor, my guess is that the dealer is not going to go too far afield in cooking up a deal for you.

sarnuk posted 11-18-2003 08:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
thanks guys. thanks jim. my move now: calling ocean beach marina, mccarthy's, and maybe island center marine. see what they have in inventory and ask them to price out the 135 opti as well as the 115hp.

i'll see if they give me a better-than-bost-show deal... hopefully they will give me within 10% of what i paid for my ventura this summer.

y'all are gentlemen.

i'll post as soon as i make the move. seems like others might be interested in the nantucket and its options and pricing.

sal

BOB KEMMLER JR posted 11-18-2003 01:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for BOB KEMMLER JR    
I was told if you order through the month of november you can save a $1000,on top of that my dealer was going to take an additional $400 off,but that was it.He claims,and i can see this to a extent,that there is'nt much "meat" to trim off in the "value priced" series of boats.all the legends basically.
Bigshot posted 11-18-2003 03:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
BS Bob....the 170 4 stroke model has about $5-6 of "meat" in it. I bet the Nantucket is closer to $10k. Whaler dealers make a good profit because people believe the salesmanager. Make him show you the pink sheet on it, if he does you will need an hour to get your jaw off the floor. Of course they won't show you but worth a shot.

Industry average is on a $30k boat the manufacturer builds it for $10k, sells it to dealer for $20k and they list it at $30k and have a $10k window. This is a ballpark but I know many people who work for dealers or manufacturers being where in FL I am, they nod their head in agreement when I ask. Whaler's window might be smaller but don't even think that boat is only generating a $2000 profit.

sarnuk posted 11-18-2003 03:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
guys. got pricing this afternoon from 2 jersey dealers. and in all likelihood taking a testride tomorrow on the nantucket with 115hp.

seeing @2000+ price diff so far on the exact same boat. and the cheaper of the dealer will also give me 2k more for my trade in than the other dealer. looks like in excess of 4500 difference when u figure in taxes.

i will report back. if its true, and i like the ride, im trading tomorrow.

owe you all and will repay it forward.

sal

TRAFFICLAWYER posted 11-18-2003 03:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for TRAFFICLAWYER    
It's a buyers market, although on a trade theres some give and take. See if the dealer will throw in an extended warranty.Usually around this time of year they are freebees from vendors as boat-show promos. So make you're best deal and say ok BUT! gimme this!Also have them install your electronics gratis!
sarnuk posted 11-18-2003 03:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
the lower priced offer:

2004 nantucket with: 115hp 4stroke, bow cushion, bimini top, cooler with cushion and backrest, coast guard package (cough) BUT SANS TRAILER:

31900
plus 225 registration

for my ventura they will pay me 18,300 (thats the bad news)

they will also refund the 600 i paid for them to store my ventura with them this winter.

so:

31900-18300-600= 13kish

plus about a grand for tax and registration

14k otd

j7 posted 11-18-2003 03:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for j7  Send Email to j7     
Hi Sal. Why no trailer? I thought that was part of the special package.
Do you have a breakdown of prices for the options?
What is the Coast Guard package?
Thanks, and congrats on your Whaler!
-Jack
BOB KEMMLER JR posted 11-18-2003 04:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for BOB KEMMLER JR    
Bigshot,i was just going off my car sales expierience.I am really a babe in the woods so to speak when it comes to boats.Thanks for the tip and heads up,i really did'nt think there was that much of a mark up in these no frills whalers.
sarnuk posted 11-18-2003 04:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
thanks on the congrats.

premature as of tonight :)

re trailer....i had them delete it from the package (about 900 bucks) i boat near my shore home only and keep it at a marina 1/4 mile from my home. if i got the trailer it would just sit in my driveway and i would encur the wrath of my smarter, stronger, and prettier half.

cough.

sarnuk posted 11-18-2003 05:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
oh. and coast guard package:

laughable. they will throw in 4 cheap life jackets, a mini fire extinguisher, and maybe 1 or 2 more trinkets.

SOP for the dealers.

thanks jack

TRAFFICLAWYER posted 11-18-2003 05:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for TRAFFICLAWYER    
And a useless cheap prone to rust, undersize anchor with the cheapest 3 strand hemp available,and don't forget the paddle, mandatory safety gear, you'll need it to paddle in if you don't have seatow.
Bigshot posted 11-19-2003 11:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
You'll need the paddle being a Merc is on the transom :)

Bob I did not mean to sound harsh. DON'T EVER believe the hype these dealers give. In cars it is easy to find out what invoice is, on boats not available. Ever see a leftover for a 28' like: MSRP $109k, blowout $79k....no meat huh.

BOB KEMMLER JR posted 11-19-2003 01:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for BOB KEMMLER JR    
no sweat man,i did'nt take it that way.besides my old man i'm one of the biggest smart a**'s i know of lol yea,i used to hate the people that would come in with thier consumer reports magazine and read off the invoice costs for the car they were looking at.They forget about dealer kickbacks and that varies from dealer to dealer,so even if they sell you a car at invoice they can still be making a boatload off you.not to mention financing,aftermarket,and ex warr.When it comes to boats though,i am totally lost,so i will take any info you throw my way.I ma getting serious about the move to Ft Myers,so maybe i'll catch you at one of the get togethers.I am going to make my mind up soon though as far as the boat is concerned.
Bigshot posted 11-20-2003 11:09 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Dealer in Sarasota has a 03 Nantucket with 115 or 125 on it, Marine max. Ft Myers is 1 hour away depending where in Ft Myers. My theory with boat dealers is let them brew or tell them you are buying from another dealer.

When I bought my Hydra-sports at the NY boat show I was seriously looking at Stratos. I asked the local dealer who I had talked with MANY times if he had some free passes and to make up his cheapest deal because we are buying a boat at the show. We went in and he told us like $26k or whatever. We asked about 5 times if that was his bottom line and he said yes. We then went and looked at Mako, Whaler, Wahoo, Robalo, Century and Hydra-sports. The Hydra-sports is basically the same hull as the stratos but in Kevlar. Well we worked him and got the boat with a T-top instead of a bimini, no swim ladder, but a salt water wash down, leaning post and a 225 instead of a 200 for about $600 more than the stratos. Well we went back and told him thanks anyway and he was pissed. I told him I asked if that was his bottom line 5 times, and he then realized he screwed up, anyway he came down about $3000 bucks but my word is bond and I still bought the Hydra. Dealers never tell the truth, keep working him man and don't feel the slightest bit bad about pitching dealers against each other, good strategy in my opinion.

sarnuk posted 11-20-2003 11:32 AM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
big i feel bad working my dealer anymore. new guy..swell and honest it seems like. besides he is a full 5k below one other writtien quote i got, and 2500 below another.

i want to . i have resigned myself to the fact that, while i could play games and wait and use the boats show as leverage, and play these 3 dealers off more against each other, i might say 1200 bucks or so. but id feel like crap and no matter what i do someone is going to be better at this than me and get a better deal. i hope to keep this pup a long time and as such over the long haul it wont make too much diff.

but then again i may wake up tomorrow with vinegar in my veins ;)

Bigshot posted 11-20-2003 02:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Sal you've been doing your work, sounds pretty good. You also have a trade to deal with and that gets a tad cofusing. Get the boat and enjoy, just be glad you did not listen to the guy $5k higher.
jimh posted 11-20-2003 08:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Here is a viewable image of the performance chart of the 190 NAUTUCKET with a variety of engines:

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/graphics/theChart.jpg

jimh posted 11-20-2003 09:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Careful review of the chart (hyperlink above) shows many interesting characteristics.

The 150-HP Optimax jumps the boat onto plane at the lowest RPM, however the engine next in line is a lowly 115-HP classic 2-stroke! For a difference in price of many thousands of dollars, the performance of the 115-HP classic 2-stroke is quite impressive. It only fails to match the performance at WOT because of the limit on the WOT speed of the 4-cylinder in-line engine; this model is limited to about 5250 maxiumum RPM.

In comparison, the 115-HP 4-stroke need about 1,000 RPM more speed to get the boat on plane. This is typical of the lackluster performance of the current 4-stroke engines in the recreational marine outboard market.

This source of this information appears to be from Boston Whaler, as far as is known.

jimh posted 11-20-2003 09:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
(Regarding the chart: this was generated from an Excel spreadsheet which graphed the data shown. This was emailed to me. I opened it in Excel, but saved it as an HTML file, Then I used Internet Explorer to open the HTML file, and I saved the chart graphic as a .BMP file. I did this at work. Then I emailed the .BMP file to myself at home. Using my Macintosh OS 10.3 dual G4 workstation, I opened the file in Photoshop, converted it to a standard format (JPEG), then I FTP'd the file to the website. I wrote the response above, providing the link to the file. I did all this to avoid making everyone go out and purchase Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Excel in order to see the results. I don't think we all need to spend $500 just to see a chart, nor does Bill Gates need the money. Keep the world wide web free from bulkanization by Microsoft and you will make the world a better place.)
Barney posted 11-20-2003 09:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barney  Send Email to Barney     
Curious chart. Am I reading the chart correctly when I see the 115 Optimax is lagging everything? No doubt the standard 115 2-stroke moves out.

We need one of these charts for the 170 Montauk. Jim

lhg posted 11-21-2003 12:37 AM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
The performance of the 115 Optimax is REALLY disappointing, especially when Mercury has been advertizing it to be such a hot performer. I'm shocked and wondering if the Optimax & 2-stroke figures got reversed. Looking at all three of these 115's from the same company, one wonders how there could be so much difference in performance top end, as we have been discussing elsewhere. The 2-stroke 115 appears to be putting out more like 125-130 HP. Maybe someone from Whaler will verify the accuracy of the information. Otherwise they're going to have a hard time selling these boats with anything other than the base 115 engine.

If correct, for the money, the only two engines to consider would be the 115 2-stroke or the 150 Optimax. The 115 seems to stand out, and would be the easiest to trade out of for more HP if wanted. I'd like to see figures for a simple 150
carbed or EFI, even though they're not offered. If I were buying, I'd slap a lighter weight 200 EFI on it and Fly right along at 55.

BMR posted 11-21-2003 06:10 AM ET (US)     Profile for BMR    
I have experiece with all 3 of these engines and the data appears to be correct. The 115 4 stroke and the 115 OPtiMax will perform very similarly. The older higher emmssions 2 stroke has more displacemnt than the Opti which could result in better acceleration.

sarnuk posted 11-21-2003 06:26 AM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
Jim

Thanks for the chart.

Sal

cape_rover posted 11-21-2003 06:56 AM ET (US)     Profile for cape_rover  Send Email to cape_rover     
I wonder why they didn't use the same prop pitch for all 115hp motors to give an equal comparison. It looks like the 115 Otimax was over proped unless it is suppose to top out at a little over 5K rpm. Even prop diameter varied which can make a significant difference according to some of the posts I've read.
daverdla posted 11-21-2003 07:58 AM ET (US)     Profile for daverdla  Send Email to daverdla     
I don't see any times so I'm wondering how you guys are reading accelleration from the chart. It's simply speed/rpm.

Am I missing something on the chart?

Thanks

Dave

jimh posted 11-21-2003 08:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
You could infer accelleration from the slope of the curves. That is not quite accurate, as one cannot say for certain how long it took for an engine to wind up to wide open throttle.

The differences in propeller pitch choice may be due to different lower unit gear ratio among the various engines.

Also, I changed the presentation of the chart from its initial form in order to show the tabular data from which the chart lines are drawn.

Following the trail of email that was contained in the message which sent the chart to me, it appears that the original source was from someone in the Brunswick corporation. On that basis I assume the information is accurate.

Barney posted 11-21-2003 08:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for Barney  Send Email to Barney     
Yep, time has to play in this to get the best picture. The 115 Optimax may be reving quicker that the 115 2-stroke. Jim
Moe posted 11-21-2003 10:11 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
I added two columns for each engine, used the formulas for calculated speed and slip from the Merc prop site, and emailed it to Bob. If anyone else wants it, send me an email.

If we ignore the differences in motor weight, and make the risky assumption that the boat, motor, and load weigh the same in each test, we can hypothesize that the planing speed for each will be the same. A boat hull is like an airplane wing and requires a certain speed for a certain load to achieve lift-off. That appears to be somewhere around 19 mph, or slightly below that, in all these tests. The rpm at which that planing speed is achieved is based upon the motor gearing, and the pitch and slippage of the prop. The important missing data point here is how much throttle position is required to achieve and maintain planing speed. Bigger, more powerful motors will require less of a percentage (relative to maximum power) of WOT.

This data gives you nothing to compare the torque curves of the various motors. The same boat, motor, and load weight will require the same amount of horsepower (torque X rpm/5252) to maintain a certain speed through the water, assuming prop slippage and trim angle are the same. At less than maximum WOT speed, that amount of horsepower is acheived by the throttle position. Smaller motors can achieve the same less than WOT performance as larger motors, with a greater throttle setting, and sometimes, even greater fuel consumption.

There are HUGE differences in the props here. About the only comparison between engines you can validly make is between the 135 and 150, the former with 2.00:1 (to make up for it's lower horsepower in WOT acceleration) and the later with 1.87:1. The 115s use 2.07:1. Everything else being equal, the 135 should be slightly slower at any given rpm because of the gearing, or be at a little higher rpm at any given speed, but that's not necessarily what we see, most likely because of variability in test conditions. Keep in mind that temperature, barometric pressure, and humidity affect the motor's output, and that winds and current affect the load on the boat.

From a practical point of view, that is how do the 115 2s, 135 Opti, and 150 Opti compare when equipped with the factory tested prop, the mph at a given rpm is remarkably similar, despite the differences in gearing (2.07:1, 2.00:1, and 1.87:1 respectively) and props. We can probably assume that at steady speeds over about 6 mph, the boat is plowing through the water, and that the 80 lb lighter 2s on the stern doesn't plow as badly in this speed range, resulting in the higher mph for a given rpm we see in the sub-planing range between 6 and 19 mph.

The bottomline is that even if you ignore the huge differences in the props, this data tells you absolutely nothing about how the differently equipped boats accelerate with the throttle wide open or how they accelerate at a certain same throttle position for a certain same load. It tells you nothing about how the boat performs with heavier than test loads, or whether acceptable acceleration is achievable with a heavier load, and the lower hp motor when it is with the higher hp one. But you can't realistically ignore the differences in the props. That 16" Vengeance appears to have a much greater amount of slip in the midrange for example.

Without the time to reach accurately measured speeds (time to plane is too subjective), i.e. 0-10, 0-20, 0-30 mph times, you can't really compare these engines using this data.

--
Moe

daverdla posted 11-21-2003 12:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for daverdla  Send Email to daverdla     
Good points Moe. It would be very useful to be able to compare the graph jim posted against the torque curves of the engines.

Knowing the required rpm's to achieve a speed under the test conditions is good but since there isn't any time/speed, prop pitch can be used to make a marginal motor look like it really performs. A better understanding of performance could be reached with a time to speed graph for each of the boat/engine combinations under the same test conditions.

Dave

bsmotril posted 11-21-2003 01:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for bsmotril  Send Email to bsmotril     
I think you can get a lot of information from these charts that is inferred, especially with respect to Torque and where it is delivered in the powerband. The Optis and Black max deliver it down low shown by the steeper slopes of the speed chart within a very narrow RPM range, and earlier initiation of that slope up (IE Planing). This directly will translate to hole shot and lower time to plane. Getting the boat out of the whole and up on top is what lengthens time to plane. Delivering the grunt to do that at a lower RPM range will get the motor rpms over the hill where the only key factor against acceleration is now drag.

If you ever done any drag racing, or ET bracket racing, you'll know that more HP might get you a higher top speed through the traps, but not necessarily lower your elapsed time. If you want to lower your ETs, you tune for torque, delivered as early as possible. To keep and prolong acceleration, you tune that torque curve to slope up and not start down until as high an RPM range as possible.

Without load, a two stroke will accelerate to RPM faster than a 4 stroke because of less rotating mass; no valves, cams, or heavy flywheel. But on a boat, under load, that advantage is nullified by the drag in displacement mode of the boat. Whoever planes at the lowest RPM, and has the torque down low, is going to win the drag race.

My vote would be for the Opti 135. You only give up 2.5 mph on the top end, about 1500 cheaper than the Opti 150, and you still have torque down low in the powerband.

What would certainly be an interesting addition to these charts would be fuel consumption at each RPM point. For that would give you an excellent indicator of the efficiency of these motors.
BillS

Moe posted 11-21-2003 03:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
I disagree. There is NO TIME involved here. Just because the line is steep between narrower rpm points doesn't mean the boat was quick through that range. Keep in mind that these are probably not MPH/RPM points on an acceleration run, but carefully measured MPH/RPM points determined at a steady speed.

It could actually take a longer time for it to span that narrower rpm range under acceleration. Yes, it COULD have been quicker through this range, but the point is, without TIME, we have no way of knowing. All of the motors start out with a shallow pitch on their line. Where that line starts to rise is where the boat went from displacement to the no-man's land of pushing water, and were it gets shallow again, the boat is up on plane. The rpms at which that happen are dependent on gearing, prop pitch, and slippage. You can tell what the range of rpms that spans is, but you have no way of judging how much time that took.

The 135 (green) and 150 (red) Optis in this test have huge diameter torque props, as Mercury says, for putting big power to the water with big loads, and they specifically recommend it for houseboats. They are steepest in the "pushing water" mph range. Does that mean they're the quickest through it? Probably, but without TIME, we can't say for sure.

The "Black Max" as you refer to it, I assumes means the two stroke and not the four stroke w/15", which also has a Black Max. The two stroke has a very shallow line in this range, so I can't see how you can compare it to the 135 and 150 Optis. That shallow curve more likely means less bog in the pushing range from less weight on the stern, but without TIME, we can't even be sure of that.

I just now added a line on the chart for the 4-stroke with the 14" Vengeance prop. It perfectly overlays the line of the 115 Opti with 16" Vengeance (and both have 2.07:1 gearing), up to 20 mph and 4,000 rpm, where the expected higher speed of the 16" becomes increasingly evident. Both of these have the highest rpm per mph of all those tested. The new line of the 14" four-stroke is roughly parallel to but not as steep as the 15" and expectedly occurs at a higher rpm. This means nothing though, without time.

Your statement about whoever planes at the lowest rpm is going to win the drag race would have to assume the same gearing and prop. Lower gearing and pitch (like tire diameter) is generally going to result in quicker acceleration, but higher rpms per mph.

We'd ALL like a torque curve that jumps up high at low rpms (meaning high horsepower at low rpms) and maintains that high torque at high rpms (meaning high hp at high rpms). And that generally comes with larger displacement, or more boost at lower rpms.

Despite these differences, and without time, I come to the same conclusion about the 135 Opti with the 17" Mirage prop being the best bang for the buck on this boat. I also agree with the usefulness of GPH fuel flow info.

--
Moe

sarnuk posted 11-21-2003 04:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
This is incredible. Thanks for letting me absorb this.
It seems to me from the spreadsheet data that one can also get a tad more speed on the same 115hp 4 stroke by asking the dealer to take off the stainless steel prop and put on the aluminum black max, with the tradeoff being durability I guess? Am I understanding correctly? And thanks Moe.
Moe posted 11-21-2003 05:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
And at the cost of acceleration and/or load carrying capability. I'm seeing some interesting things here after adding the chart line for the 115 4 stroke with the 14" Vengeance. It appears that it, and the 115 Opti with the 16" Vengeance both roll on and off plane at about 4,000 rpm and 20 mph. That sure demonstrates Sal M's statement about small, lower powered engines working their heart out.

http://www.engr.udayton.edu/staff/lriggins/Whaler/190PerformanceCurves.jpg

FWIW, I had to replace idle and WOT with some numbers to make the calculated speeds and slip work, and chose 750 and 6,000 rpm. The latter may not have been the actual max rpm, depending on whether the motor could pull it.
--
Moe

jimh posted 11-21-2003 05:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Wow--when I posted this chart I had no idea how little information it contained. A day or two ago it was full of information, but now it is useless! Amazing how these things work out.
kglinz posted 11-21-2003 05:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for kglinz  Send Email to kglinz     
I guess what this chart shows me is that you can spend a lot of money and gain little performance. I got a chart from Boston Whaler comparing props on on my boat. They started shipping 295 Conquests, with 225 4 strokes, with Rev 4 props installed and I had Mirage Plus props. The chart from Boston Whaler showed as much difference in performance between props as this chart shows between these motors. I think the bottom line is try before you buy.
Moe posted 11-21-2003 06:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
I'm not convinced that we aren't mainly seeing prop differences here either. What would happen with a 16" Vengeance on the 115 4S? Would that curve be to the left of the 115 4S with 15" Black Max because it's 16", or would it move to the right where it is on the 115 Opti because it's a Vengeance?

--
Moe

Barney posted 11-21-2003 07:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barney  Send Email to Barney     
jimh, I appreciate the information and the chart Bob and you have provided. Being an engineer, mainly a dufus manager now, I still have to backup and look at things. I don't deal in boat hull design nor outboard design. But, outboard/boat performance information is real interesting.

I just wish the Whaler folks would send out everything we want in the way of performance information. That would probably be a long list though. Thanks again. Jim

jimh posted 11-21-2003 08:20 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Well, tip your hat to Boston Whaler for emailing these things (i.e. data/spreadsheets) to customers. I wish they'd put them on their website. Sometime there is too big of a bridge between the guys who have the numbers and the guys who run the website to get good information like this across that divide and onto the web pages.

I also want to mention that the data here is really the tabular data collected in the tests, that is, the boat speed versus engine speed numbers.

The chart is just a presentation of that data. The curves that are drawn are really just approximations between the data points. The program making the charts (Excel) may be adding a few curves of its own.

All the comments are interpretation or conjecture about the data, and perhaps influenced by the presentation. Maybe choosing the color red for a particular line affects how people see that data.

(Also, as an aside. I was astonished how awful my chart JPEG looked in Internet Explorer 6.0; I hope it does not look that bad for you. Something weird is going on with the JPEG rendering. The typefaces are all gerked up and impossible to read on IE. Moe's JPEG looks much better in IE.)

The data that Moe added to the chart about the about the other propeller/motor combination came from some of the raw data on the spreadsheet that was not originally charted. (However, Moe, I don't understand your comments about changing some values, etc. Perhaps you could explain about that.)

I think the data presented here is valuable, and, of course, subject to interpretation (as we have seen in the many comments).

The data, boat speed versus engine speed, is the same thing that has been collected and reported for years in the boating press. It is very rare that any sort of time information is available to help judge accelleration.

As for things like engine torque curves, they seem to be a deep secret. Even in a recent web broadcast, Mercury presented torque curves to the in-person attendees but omitted them from the web broadcast. I guess they prefer to keep that data a little closer to the vest.

Glad you are reading this thread. It is the kind of information and discussion that is (what I consider) the real purpose of the forum to provie.

Moe posted 11-21-2003 08:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Jim, I modified the original spreadsheet by adding two rows below, with the prop pitch number in one and the motor gear ratio in the other. I then added two columns behind the speed of each motor, and used the formulas from Chapter 4 of Mercs prop info to calculate expected speed and slip for each rpm, for each motor. The words Idle and WOT wouldn't work with the formula, so I substituted 750 and 6000 rpm for them. I found the mph/rpm numbers to be strange, especially for the 16" Vengeance, so I wanted to see the slip numbers. I've emailed you a copy of the modified spreadsheet.

Your comments about Excel's curving of the lines is right on. I'm not sure if that's the cause, but it appears that the 150 Opti rolls onto plane at a higher speed... maybe 23 mph, and the 135 does it at near 30 mph. I know that's not right. I think there are just too large of gaps in the speed range where planing occurs.

Your image didn't look too hot on either IE 5.5 or 6.0 on the PC. Not sure why. I used the zoom in Excel to get the chart the size I wanted it on the screen, did a screen capture (to the clipboard) using Alt-PrintScreen, and pasted it into a blank 24-bit document in Microsoft Photo Editor (part of MS Office). Cropped it, then saved it as a jpeg.

--
Moe

sarnuk posted 11-21-2003 09:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
This thread started out as a request for advice on a boat, and evolved into strangers collaberating,sharing, and generating ideas. spontaneous combustion. spontaneous thought. This stuff belongs in an MIT case study. Bravo. I am very impressed, and I'm soaking it all in. a round of new whalers for everyone on me.
Perry posted 11-21-2003 10:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
Ditto on the quality of the image on IE. On Netscape it looks great. I think jimh did a good job with what info he had to work with. I find it interesting that both the 135 and 150 Optimax motors had 15 1/2" diameter props. Also, with a 13 1/8 X 16 prop the 115 Optimax didn't perform better.
sarnuk posted 11-22-2003 07:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
I bought the 190 nantucket this morning from ocean beach marina, in lanoka harbor (formerly Pelican Marina).

FYI I paid 32,500, which includes 190 nantucket with mercury 115hp 4 stroke, bow cushion, coolerseat with backrest, swim platform, bimini top, boat name lettering of my choice, all taxes, all registration fees. and they will deliver it right to my marina/slip at my say so.

The gentlemen were a pleasure to deal with (Jim Bickell and his manager Mark). They were fair. It may be that one may get a better deal than that, but my experience was great; I didn't feel like I had to take a shower whenever I spoke or met them.

I test drove the boat with 115 2 and 4 stroke on my journey. The 2 stroke accelerated much more briskly, yet the 4 stroke was respectable. The 115 2 stroke boat with an average (2 big men plus 1/2tank fuel) load planed at 3700 rpm's. The 4 stroke boat took a second or two longer to accelerate to plane, and did so at 4000 rpm's. Top speed on the 2 stroke was about 36mph, and 33mph for the 4 stroke.

I bought the 4 stroke as it was soooo much more quiet, and i can live with that tradeoff. y'all have educated me and i appreciate it. I'll pay it forward.

Moe posted 11-22-2003 08:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Congratulations, Sal. Is this with the 14" stainless prop?

It's turning about 5700 rpm at 33 mph WOT ?

--
Moe

Jarhead posted 11-23-2003 06:44 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jarhead  Send Email to Jarhead     
Allow me to add my congratulations...

From my limited knowledge of the Nantucket I beleive $32,500 is a good deal even without a trailer.

Couple of questions please. First- Do you know the price of the optional fish package? And, of course, when do you expect delivery? :)

Looking foreward to reading your maiden voyage report...

sarnuk posted 11-23-2003 07:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
Moe, Jarhead,...actually this is to any and all of you.
Once I take delivery, if any of you want to test it out, email me. I will be honored to oblige with a Jersey shore sea trial. God's country. cough.

The WOT was about 5500-5700...maybe closer to 5500 on the 115hp 4stroke, and maybe 33 to 35 mph sounds about right. i was surprised. but it may have been the very dry, 50 degree gorgeous fall weather when i went out for that trial. i bet a july northeast day sees different results. and I'm ok with that.

The pitch on the 115hp 4 stroke was i believe 14".
the salesmen at OBM explained to me about the pitch :that BW and Mercury test all the props for pitching with how the boat will be used "on average" and with "an average load". For example if a guy insists on a 17" pitch because he wants to be able to plane quickly when he and 3 200 lbs buddies are fishing, with tackle, gear, and a full tank.... while in reality on average most of the time the boat has just he and his son, and 1/2 tank....the engine will rev at lower rpm....and feel like it is starting in second gear. IF you or your dealer are knowledgeable.... the average use should be considered when you choose your prop.

Perry posted 11-23-2003 12:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
What is redline on the 115 Mercury 4 stroke? 6000 rpm? If so wouldn't a smaller pitch prop give you more revs and better performance?
bsmotril posted 11-23-2003 09:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for bsmotril  Send Email to bsmotril     
Moe,
You do not need a time component to understand what is going on with respect to power delivery here. If you can agree that the resistance to planing is identical enough to be insignificant amongst the rigs, here is why. If the above is true, then a 100 rpm increase in any motor will result in an increase of speed. But the motor with the gretest horsepower will give you the biggest bump in speed. Since RPMs are constant here and the basis for measurement, and HP is torque time RPM, what you are seeing is the Torque curve exhibited in the slope of the line where the boat starts to climb out of the hole. IT is like taking the derivative by integrating the area under the curve. You can eliminate the speed of an unloaded 2 stroke vs 4 stroke motor to accelerate max rpm as a factor because the planing resistance is such a larger overwhelming factor. I'd bet those motors are all within a second across the entire range in the time it takes to accelerate the boat to max displacement hull speed where Hp delivery now becomes a factor to climb out of the hole. The motor with the most torque at a low rpm is going to climb out faster. Once over that hump, the planing resistance is pretty constant and all the boats will accelerate fairly closely. The overwhelming variable that makes the difference is where that torque peak starts to climb, and you can tell that bey looking at the delta of each incremental rpm increase and the resulting increase in speed.
Props will certainly make a difference, but again, it is inconsequential to anything but top speed unless one was ventilating drastically. We're not talking about 4 blades, versus cleavers, versus high fives here, but plain old simple 3 blade props. It looks as if each prop here is choosen to maximize WOT rpm just as it should be to let the motor perform at its' peak design capability.

If you look at how a boat really accelerates and climbs on plane, the phases it goes through, and where a weaker motor shows that in a boat's acceleration curve, you can get a lot of information from these charts, and you don't need a time component to do it.
BillS

kglinz posted 11-23-2003 09:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for kglinz  Send Email to kglinz     
sarnuk
Congratulations. I think you made a good choice, powerwise. Even though you may not be turning max RPM now, I would put a few hours on the boat before I would even think of making any change of props. After you learn the trim and start using the boat with a normal load, and have the engine broken, in you can start to think about any changes if you need to. Enjoy the boat.
Kemp Lindsey
Moe posted 11-23-2003 11:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
> If you can agree that the resistance to planing is identical enough to be insignificant amongst the rigs, here is why. If the above is true, then a 100 rpm increase in any motor will result in an increase of speed.

You're good up to this point.

> But the motor with the gretest horsepower will give you the biggest bump in speed.

This is where you are incorrect. The increase in speed relative to a certain increase in engine rpm has nothing to do with horsepower. It is directly and mechanically determined by the gear ratio and prop pitch (effectively the same as tire diameter on a motorcycle or car). This is altered by slip, which is determined in part by the prop characteristic. A car or motorcycle also experiences considerable slip racing at the Salt Flats, and that is determined in part by the tire.

The outboard or vehicle with the highest combination of gearing, and prop pitch or tire diameter, will see the largest increase in mph for a given increase in rpm, setting slip aside.

I can't tell you how many times newbies come on the motorcycle performance lists after getting an engine upgrade and claim their speed at a certain rpm is now higher, when they're still using the same gearing and tires. It's a common mistake.
--
Moe

sarnuk posted 11-24-2003 05:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
Again thanks to all.
As soon as she is in the water I will report back. And again my door is open if anyone wants a trial and is in my area.

Sal

Jarhead posted 11-24-2003 06:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jarhead  Send Email to Jarhead     
Hey Sal...

Semperwhaler was asking about a NJ get together last month [10-24] on the trips forum. Perhaps you and he, with some of the others who posted to that thread, could plan a late season one day float?

Just a thought...

jimh posted 11-24-2003 08:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
I am glad to hear sarnuk bought a new 190 NANTUCKET. I'd like to go for a test ride with him, but I am going to defer until summer of 2004, thank you.

In the meantime, I will vicariously ride along with all six engine/propeller combinations for the rest of the Michigan winter.

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/190Nantucket.html

Barney posted 11-24-2003 08:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barney  Send Email to Barney     
sarnuk, I could set up some winter testing here on the Gulf. Just email the date you'll be down with the boat.

I also firmly believe some of you 2-smoke guys need some 4-stroke experience, so you guys are invited also. Jim

bsmotril posted 11-24-2003 11:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for bsmotril  Send Email to bsmotril     
Moe,
Your argument would be valid on a salt flat with tires where speed and rpm are linear and you don't have to power out of displacement hull speed and up onto plane. It takes an equal amount of power on any of these rigs to climb out of that hole. In that transition range, the biggest incremental increase in speed per RPM bump is all coming from power. Because I don't see a very flat curve anywhere in that transition range, you can also deduce the slippage is minimal. Think water, think what a boat does coming onto plane and how power is delivered in that transition. Motorcycles, and tires are not relevant to this argument, though they both have a lot of salt in common.
BillS
sarnuk posted 11-25-2003 05:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
I reiterate my thanks to all for the education. Moe i'll get you that dimension information. Cheers. Sal
Moe posted 11-25-2003 08:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
Bill, if you don't understand that the mph per rpm is a mechanical relationship and not related to horsepower, I guess you can see whatever you want in that data.

There's no difference in an outboard with a slipping prop and a motorcycle or car with slipping tires on the salt. They both slip the most at the lowest speeds and that decreases as speed increases.

I'd also suggest that rather than eyeball it that you calculate predicted speed and slip. It isn't minimal in this case, and in the case of the 115 Opti, it makes it look pretty bad.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
--
Moe

kingfishn posted 11-27-2003 09:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for kingfishn  Send Email to kingfishn     
Traded up from 150 Sport/60 2/stroke to a 190 Nantucket/150 Opti/2 Stroke...All I can say is I love the 190 (and miss
my 150)...getting rid of a Whaler is a saaaad experience..*sniff*...

Don't know ratios...all I know is my Nantucket is wonderful
and does the job I ask of it...take me fishing and cruising
in the Gulf of Mexico (off Florida Panhandle) and in the
shallow waters of the bays and inlets...and gets me home.
I also know the 190 Nantucket is heavy and I wouldn't put
anything less than 150 on it ... especially going offshore ...

BTW..I was in rough seas the other day and (SmartGauge) RPM side flashed "CHECK PITOT"...Finding a calm inlet to read the manual (RTFM)...could not find it...I finally came up with
Power In Trim Out Trim...(concluded that the RPM fluctuations
caused by the waves set of some 'alarm')...

Kingfishn

bsmotril posted 11-29-2003 12:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for bsmotril  Send Email to bsmotril     
The "PITOT" is the tiny hole on the front leading edge of the lower unit. It is the water pressure pickup for the speedometer. Because of the small size, they clog easily. A paperclip or small piece of wire usually does the trick to unblock it.

BillS

jimh posted 11-29-2003 12:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The alert "CHECK PITOT" could refer to the pitot tube pick up for the speedometer.

See:

http://www.efunda.com/designstandards/sensors/pitot_tubes/pitot_tubes_theory.cfm

kingfishn posted 11-30-2003 02:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for kingfishn  Send Email to kingfishn     
bsmotril, jimh,

Thanks..makes sense..it seemed to 'cure' itself...
(and, btw, i do carry chopsticks for the 'p' hole
unclogging tool)...

Thanks again,
NK

kingfishn posted 11-30-2003 02:31 AM ET (US)     Profile for kingfishn  Send Email to kingfishn     
posted 11-29-2003 12:03 PM ET (US) Click Here to See the Profile for jimh Click Here to Email jimh The alert "CHECK PITOT" could refer to the pitot tube pick up for the speedometer.

See:

http://www.efunda.com/designstandards/sensors/pitot_tubes/pitot_tubes_theory.cfm

OHHHH, i see now...very simple...i wasn't going Mach 1..

Thanks again..

merc125 posted 12-02-2003 08:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for merc125  Send Email to merc125     
Keep those big 4 cylinder merc 2 strokes under 5250 rpm, harmonics break cranks at higher rpms. My 125 twists a 21p stainless to that rpm on a 19'6, 2400 gross weight, 18 degree v hull. 115 2 stroke in test should have had more pitch. MartyD
salmonkiller posted 12-02-2003 11:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for salmonkiller  Send Email to salmonkiller     
Boston Whaler is owned by Brunswick. They purchased Boston Whaler to guaranty transoms as many other motor manufacturers have done. The 190 Nantucket is rated for 150Hp and Mercury's 4-Stroke line has a gap from 115Hp to 225Hp. My local dealer said he can change a motor out, but it is very expensive to do so, especially if changing brands. All dash equipment will need to be replaced, labor and the fact that the dealer has to now inventory the motor. Boston Whaler will not sell any boat anymore without a mercury motor.
Perry posted 12-03-2003 12:34 AM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
It's a shame that Mercury doesn't have a 4 stroke motor in the 135/150 HP range. I know there are buyers out there that would go for that option. When do the new "project X" motors debut? I wonder if they will have motors between 115 and 225 hp.
sarnuk posted 12-03-2003 04:53 AM ET (US)     Profile for sarnuk    
The dealer would not change the engine on the back aside from ordering my nantucket with one of the stated choices (115 2, 115 4, 135 opti, 150 opti). I would have loved to have the suzuki 140 4stroke, as i think that would be an ideal marriage of power to the boat.

The project x 4 stroke is supposed to be mid 2004. we'll see. I'm hoping for the next few years the 115hp 4 stroke will be enough for me.

Again thanks to the many forum members for their contributions in this thread. I didnt go with most of your recommendations, but I was informed when i chose the 4 stroke at least, and knew what I would be trading off.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.